ML17333A916
| ML17333A916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1997 |
| From: | Fitzpatrick E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| AEP:NRC:1223C, NUDOCS 9706170229 | |
| Download: ML17333A916 (11) | |
Text
CATEGORY 5'
REGULATOR NFORMATION DISTRIBUTION l'EM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9706170229 DOC.DATE: 97/06/10 NOTARIZED: YES FACIL:50-,316 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana M
AUTH'PNAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION FITZPATRICK,E.
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
DOCKET I 05000316
SUBJECT:
Submits response to NRC 970501 'request for addi info re 960711 submittal requesting 5% thermal power uprate on Unit 2.RAI involved impact of uprating on component cooling water
& radwas=e sys.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
A001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:
TITLE: OR Submittal: General Distribution NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODEI/NAME PD3-3 LA,/
HICKMAN,J INTERN
- FILE CENTE 01 E7EMCB NRR/DSSA/SPLB NUDOCS-ABSTRACT EXTERNAL: NOAC COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD3-3 PD NRR/DE/ECGB/A NRR/DRCH/HICB NRR/DSSA/SRXB OGC/HDS2 NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1,
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE!
CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM OWFN SD"5(EXT ~ 415-2083)
TO ELIMINATE YOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION I/ STS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR
, 13 ENCL 12
v'
~
Indiana Michigan Power Company 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Ml 491071395 N'NQIANA NlCNl6AN PQWM June 10, 1997 AEP:NRC:1223C Docket Nos.:
50-316 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.
C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2
RESPONSE
TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING POWER UPRATE AND RELATED CHANGES This letter and its attachments constitute a
response to the May 1,
- 1997, NRC request for additional information concerning our July 11,
- 1996, submittal (AEP:NRC:1223) requesting a
5% thermal power uprate on unit 2.
The request for additional information involved the impact of the uprating on component cooling water and radioactive waste systems.
Attachment 1 is a
June 6,
- 1997, letter from Westinghouse to Dr. Vance Vanderburg, which serves as our response to question number 1.
Attachment 2 is our response to question number 2.
This letter is submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.30(b)
- and, as such, includes an oath statement.
Sincerely, E.
E. Fitzpatrick Vice President SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME TH S ~/
DAY OF 1997 Notary Public My Commission Expires
/
~Q/
vlb Attachments JNilCESLBICKERS Hotory PulAi, Berrien County, MI M)i(rommfssion Ex/res Feb. 16, 2001 A. A. Blind A. B. Beach MDEQ -
DW & RPD NRC Resident Inspector J.
R. Padgett PDR ADQCK 05000$
P PDR II!Ilf!IIII!Ilfflllfllfllllllllf ffif!fI
pl P,
P
ATTACHMENT 1 TO AEP:NRC: 1223C
RESPONSE
TO QUESTION NO.
1
~ REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING POWER UPRATE AND RELATED CHANGES
Attachment 1 to AEP:NRC:1223C Page 1
uestion No.
1 "It is stated in Attachment 7 of the July 11, 1996, submittal that Westinghouse's uprating evaluation has shown that the component cooling water system (CCW) flows provided by AEP are acceptable with Unit 2 operating at the uprated conditions.
Therefore, no changes to the CCW system are'equiied due to uprating.
We have reviewed Westinghouse topical Report, WCAP-14489, "Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 3600 MWt Uprating Program Licensing Report,"
but have not been able to locate Westinghouse's evaluation of the impact of plant operations at the proposed power level on CCW.
Please provide information to clarify, or provide evaluation to demonstrate, that Unit 2 operations at the proposed uprated power level will have an insignificant or no impact on the CCW system."
Res onse to uestion No.
1 Please see response contained in the-following letter dated June 6,
1997, from Westinghouse to Dr. Vance Vanderburg, confirming that the CCW flows are acceptable with unit 2 operating at the uprated conditions.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Energy Systems AEP-97-095, Rev. 2 kuclear Services Oivisirrn Box 3SS pirisbury 1'ennsytvanle 15230 0355 Dr. Vance VanderBurg American Electric Power 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Michigan 49107 NSD-NT-ESI-97-317, Rev. 2 June 06, 1997 AMEMCANELECTRIC POWER DONALD C. COOK NUCLEARPLANT UNIT2 W AP-1 ad C. CookNuciearPlant ni 2 U rati Pro ram Li in e
o "RAX
Dear Dr. VanderBurg:
As part of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Upxating Program, Westinghouse used AEP supplied Containment Cooling Water (CCW) Systems data to perform LOCA Long Term Mass and Energy Release and Containment Integrity Analyses as well as Residual Heat Removal cool down calculations.
These analyses are documented in WCAP-14489, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 3600MWt Uprating Program Licensing Report."
In order to complete the LOCA Long Term Mass and Energy Release and Containment Integrity Analyses to support the power upratc, detailed system description information was modeled with respect to the Essential Service Water (BS%) and Component Cooling Water (CCW) systems.
The system input information was supplied by ABP. The ESW and CCW system model assumptions included, but were not limited to such items as an BSW temperature of 87.5 'F, fiowrates and UAs respective of the uprating power conditions. With respect to the usc of this information, the calculated containment peak pressure was 11.66 psig.
The containment design pressure is 12.0 psig.
Thus, based on the modeling assumptions for the ESW, and CCW related systems, the containment response rats were acceptable for containment integrity pressure and temperature response.
As a supplement to the containment pressure and temperature response results completed for the power upratc program to assist ABP with CCW cooldown analysis, Westinghouse calculated and provided temperatures and heat loads for the containment spray and residual heat removal cxchangers forvarious time intervals in the containment response transient.
This effort was provided to AEP.
The CCW fiowrates were also used as input to the RHR cool down calculations performed as part ofthe uprating pro~+. The results ofthe RHR cool down calculation demonstrate that the RHR system is capable ofcooling the plant withinthe licensing requirement of36 hours ofa reactor shutdown.
NSD-NT-BI-97-317, Rev. 2 AEPH7<95, Rcv. 2 June 06, 1997 Based on the above analyses and calculation, it was determined that the CClVQows used in the uprattng program are acceptable withthe Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 operating at the uprated conditions.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Don Ped; (412-374-5683) ox me, V
Truly Yours, Joe Waleko Account Manager North American Pield Sales DEP/bbp cc:
Andre Pciiciano - ABP
ATTACHMENT 2 TO AEP:NRC:1223C
RESPONSE
TO QUESTION NO.
2 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING POWER UPRATE AND RELATED CHANGES
Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:1223C Page 1
uestion No.
2 "It is stated in attachment 7 of the July 11, 1996, submittal that the design of the waste disposal
- system, as described in the
- UFSAR, is not affected by the uprating of unit 2.
However, it is not clear that the existing design of the radwaste (liquid, solid, and gaseous) systems is based on a core power level which bounds the proposed core power level of 3588 MWt.
Please provide information to clarify, or provide evaluation to demonstrate, that plant operations at the proposed uprated power level will have an insignificant or no impact on the radwaste systems."
Res onse to estion No.
2 The impact on the radioactive waste systems will be minimal.
There will be a small impact on the water processing
- wastes, resins, and filters.
The impact on the other waste
- systems, such as the dry active waste and gaseous and liquid effluents, will be negligible because the effluents are far below the regulatory limits, and the dry active waste contains little radioactivity.
Each of the impacts on the waste streams is explained more fully below.
An increased power level of 5% will lead to a proportional increase in the activation of the impurities in the reactor coolant.
The reactor coolant cleanup system uses resins and filters to remove the impurities from the coolant.
These resins and filters are changed out either on radiation levels or prior to major plant evolutions so as not to impact the plant at an inconvenient time (e.g.,
the resins were changed out in January
- 1997, so as not to impact the schedule or resources during the unit 1 outage at the end of February 1997).
It could be expected that the volume of waste may be as much as 5% greater if'he resins and filters are changed out on radioactivity.
Prior to improvements in the fuel design and chemistry control, the curie content in the reactor coolant system was higher than 105% of today's nominal values.
The systems used to clean up the reactor coolant will be unchanged.
The equipment and procedures used to handle the change-out and preparation of the waste will remain the same, so the impact will be negligible.
The liquid and gaseous effluents from the plant will continue to be processed and monitored in the same manner after the uprate.
The sources for the effluents are varied, but because of the systems already in place to process the radioactivity, there will be less than a
5% increase in the amount of radioactivity released in the plant effluents.
In addition,.the amount of radioactivity released from the plant is already a small fraction of the limits allowed in 10 CFR 20.
. In 1996, the liquid and gaseous effluents from the plant were less than 1%
and 0.1%,
respectively, of the limits established in 10 CFR 20.
Even if the radioactivity released in effluents is increased by 5%,
the doses are expected to still be less than 1%.and 0.1%,
respectively, for liquid and gaseous
, effluents.
- The additional radioactivity will not impact the systems or alter the plant effluents in a significant manner..
Dry active waste is created when materials come in contact with the contamination that originates in the core.
The radioactivity could increase as much as 5%, but the sources of the contamination would be unchanged because of the uprate, and the number of articles that become contaminated will remain the same.
The amount of
Attachment 2 to AEP:NRC:1223C Page 2
radioactivity on these articles is already very small and their overall effect is,expected to be negligible.
No additional dry active waste volume is expected because of the uprate.