ML20151D735

Application for Amend to License NPF-36,consisting of License Change Application 13,clarifying Method of Demonstrating Operability of Source Range Monitor Channels

ML20151D735
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/11/1988
From:	Leonard J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20151D734	List: ML20151D735 ML20151D742 SNRC-1451, Forwards Application for Amend to License NPF-36,consisting of License Change Application 13 Re Operability of Source Range Monitor Channel Operability.Fee Paid
References
NUDOCS 8807250220
Download: ML20151D735 (3)

Text

'

c. .,

1.. -7

.c  :.. .

.LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Operating License NPF-36

-Docket 50-322 License Change Application 13 This License Change Application requests modification to Oper-ating License NPF-36 for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to clarify the method for demonstrating the operability of the source range monitor (SRM) channels with respect to the SRM count

rate which must be verified within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of control rod with-drawal and'during refueling operations.

The request and supporting documentation is contained in Attachments 1 and 2 to this License Change Application.

Long Island. Lighting Company n

B _ b(P Joh D. Leonard, Jr.

Vic President - Nu ea Operations Subscribed and sworn to before me this //** day of July 1988.

LINDA A.CRMTY .

- . B 9 h0fARY PUBUC, State of New Yun Nofarp-Public of New York' No.4816267 Qudhed in Suffolk County Commrsvon Expres March 30,191p My Commission Expires: IUn ect 70.1970 8807250220 DR 88o711 ADOCK 05000322 PDC

s .

SNRC-1451 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 1 To License Change Application 13

1.0 DESCRIPTION

OF CHANGE This change,-which is editorial in. nature, is a rewording of the criteria required to demonstrate the operability of the Source Range Monitor (SRM) channels by verifying the SRM count rate. The specific changes are described as follows and shown in Attachment 2.

For Surveillance Requirement 4.3.7.6.c.1, the SRM count rate of "0.7 cps" is changed to "3.0 cps".

Surveillance Requirement 4.3.7.6.c.2 which states, "The signal-to-noise ratio is greater than or equal to 2.0, unless verified within the previous 31 days", is deleted.

The footnote designated by "f" which corresponds to the SRM count' rate.of 3.0 cps in Surveillance Requirement 4.3.7.6.c.1 is revised to read "The count rate may be as low as 0.7 cps if_the signal-to-noise ratio is 22.0.

Similar changes are also proposed for Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.9.2.c.

2.0 REASON FOR CHANGE This change is requested to clarify the count rate required to demonstrate operability of the SRM channels and to delete the redundancy of Surveillance Requirements 4.3.7.6.c.2, 4.9.2.c, and their associated footnotes designated by "f".

There has been no change to the content of these Surveillance Requirements, therefore the criteria for demonstrating SRM channel operability are unchanged.

3.0 BASIS FOR NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS FINDING The proposed license change does not involve a significant hazards consideration because operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, in accordance with this change, would not:

(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated as the proposed change is a clarification but does not alter the content or criteria of the surveillance requirements.

7- .

. G*

'.O SNRC-1451 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated as the surveillance requirement criteria have not been revised.

(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety as

-the surveillance requirement criteria have'not been revised.

'The Commission has provided guidance concerning the applicability of standards for determining whether a

? significant hazard. consideration exists by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration. Example (i) relates to a purely administrative change to the technical specifications.

While the examples given by the Commission do not specifically correlate to this requested classification, LILCO submits that they are essentially the same.

Therefore, based upon the above considerations, and analyses, LILCO has determined that this proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

4.0 TIMING OF CHANGE Since this change is editorial in nature and does not alter technical content or criteria, LILCO requests that it become effective upon issuance.