[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10527]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 3, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-316]

 

Indiana Michigan Power Co., D.C. Cook, Unit No. 2, Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix J, III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3., related to Type B and C 
local leak rate testing of containment isolation valves, to the Indiana 
Michigan Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the D.C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, located in Berrien County, Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant a one-time schedular exemption from 
the requirements of Appendix J, paragraphs III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3 of 
10 CFR part 50 and approve an extension of the 2-year period between 
the performance of Type B and C leak rate test by 150 days. Appendix J 
to 10 CFR part 50, paragraph III.D.2.(a), states, in part, ``Type B 
tests, except tests for air locks, shall be performed during reactor 
shutdown for refueling, or other convenient intervals, but in no case 
at intervals greater than 2 years.'' Paragraph III.D.3., states, ``Type 
C tests shall be performed during each reactor shutdown for refueling 
but in no case at intervals greater than 2 years.'' Taken together, 
these sections require Type B and C containment leakage tests to be 
performed at an interval not to exceed 2 years.
    In a letter dated March 9, 1994, as supplemental April 13, 1994, 
the licensee requested an exemption to 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, to 
allow the time between the performance of the required Type B and C 
tests to exceed the 2-year maximum by up to 150 days.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption is needed because compliance with paragraphs 
III.D.2(a) and III.D.3 of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, would result in a 
unit shutdown and additional personnel radiation exposure in order to 
comply with the required Type B and C test frequency. The licensee last 
conducted the required Type B and C leak rate tests during a refueling 
outage in the spring of 1992. These previous leak rate tests will reach 
the 2-year maximum test interval imposed by Appendix J starting on May 
29, 1994. The licensee's next refueling outage is scheduled to begin in 
August 1994. The extended interval between refueling outages is a 
result of an equipment problem and scheduling to avoid coincident 
refueling outages on both units. The exemption is requested to support 
the current outage schedule and to avoid the potential for an earlier 
reactor shutdown. If a forced outage is imposed to perform testing it 
would present undue hardship and cost in the form of increased 
radiological exposure. Furthermore, if a forced outage is imposed to 
perform the required testing, an additional plant shutdown and startup 
will be required. This action is similar to that approved for several 
other facilities.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action includes exemptions from performing Type B and 
C tests for a maximum period of 150 days beyond the required Appendix J 
test intervals. As stated in 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, the purpose of 
the primary containment leak rate testing requirements is to ensure 
that leakage rates are maintained within the Technical Specification 
requirements and to assure that proper maintenance and repair is 
performed throughout the service life of the containment boundary 
components. The requested exemption is consistent with the intent of 10 
CFR 50.12(a), in that it represents a one-time only schedular extension 
of short duration. The required leak tests will still be performed to 
assess compliance with Technical Specification requirements, albeit 
later, and to asure that any required maintenance or repair is 
performed. As noted in paragraphs III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3 of Appendix 
J, it was intended that the testing be performed during refueling 
outages or other convenient intervals. Extending the Appendix J 
intervals by a small amount to reach the next refueling outage will not 
significantly impact the integrity of the containment boundary and, 
therefore, will not significantly impact the consequences of an 
accident or transient in the unlikely event of such an occurance during 
the 150-day extended period.
    Past Unit 2 local leak rate test data have demonstrated improving 
leak rate test results. Although the As Found results for the 1989 and 
1990 outages were 3.0 La and 0.74 La, respectively, which 
exceeded the maximum limit of 0.6 La, the 1992 As Found was 0.18 
La. The improved 1992 As Found result, which was a minor increase 
from the 1990 As Left of 0.17 La, followed several corrective 
actions by the licensee. The improving trend for the Type B and C 
testing, well below the allowable limit, provides reasonable assurance 
that the probability of exceeding the offsite dose rates established in 
10 part 100 will not be increased by extending the current Type B and C 
testing for a maximum of 150 days.
    Thus, radiological releases will not differ from those determined 
previously and the proposed exemption does not otherwise affect 
facility radiological effluent or occupational exposures. The proposed 
exemption will not increase the probability or consequences of any 
reactor accidents. The proposed exemption does not affect plant 
nonradiological effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no measurable 
radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant 
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be 
evaluated.
    The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption 
and amendment and to require rigid compliance with the requirements of 
paragraphs III.D.2.(a) and III.D.3 of appendix J to 10 CFR part 50. 
Such action would not enhance the protection of the environment and 
would result in unjustified burdens and costs for the licensee and 
greater occupational exposure to plant personnel.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of resources not previously 
considered in connection with the Commission's Final Environmental 
Statement for D.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2, dated August 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The staff consulted with the State of Michigan regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed exemption.
    Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the staff 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment.
    For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the 
licensee's application and request for exemption dated March 9 and 
April 13, 1994. This document is available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 
20555, and at the local public document room located at the Maud 
Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, 
Michigan 49085.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of April 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John B. Hickman,
Acting Director, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-10527 Filed 5-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M