ML17328A361

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-58 & DPR-74,deleting Redundant Valve Cycling Requirements & Increasing Surveillance Interval for Pump Testing,Per ASME Code,Section Xi

ML17328A361
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	08/07/1990
From:	ALEXICH M P INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	MURLEY T E NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML17328A362	List: ML17328A361 ML17328A363
References
AEP:NRC:0433N, AEP:NRC:433N, NUDOCS 9008140005
Download: ML17328A361 (25)

Text

~.;ACCELERATED DISTIBUTIONDEMONST>IONSYSTEM!REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM(RIDS)ACCESSION NBR:9008140005 DOC.DATE:

90/08/07NOTARIZED:

NODOCKETFACIL:50-315 DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit1,Indiana60500031550-316DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit2,IndianaS05000316AUTH.NAMEAUTHORAFFILIATION ALEXICH,M.P.

IndianaMichiganPowerCo.(formerly Indiana6MichiganEleRECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MURLEY,T.E.

DocumentControlBranch(Document ControlDesk)

SUBJECT:

Application foramendstoLicensesDPR-586DPR-74,making TechSpecsmoreconsistent w/ASMECoderequirements.

DISTRIBUTION CODE:AOOIDCOPIESRECEIVED:jLTR

$ENCLgSIZE:/~+TITLE:ORSubmittal:

GeneralDistribution NOTESRECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-1LACOLBURN,T.

INTERNAL:

NRR/DET/ECMB 9HNRR/DST8E2NRR/DST/SICB 7ENUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS1RES/DSIR/EIB EXTERNAL:

LPDRNSICCOPIESLTTRENCL11551111111110111111lRECIPIENT ZDCODE/NAME PD3,-1PD(NRR/DOEA/OTS Bl1NRR/DST/SELB 8DNRR/DST/SRXB 8EOC/sLFJIB~

~EG~~O.l.'RCPDRCOPIESLTTRENCL11111111101111NOTETOALL"RIDS"RECIPIENTS:

PLEASEHELPUSTOREDUCEWASTE!CONTACTTHEDOCUMENTCONTROLDESK,ROOMP1-37(EXT.20079)TOELIMINATE YOURNAMEFROMDISTRIBUTION LISTSFORDOCUMENTS YOUDON'TNEED!TOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:

LTTR21ENCL19 f

IndianaIHichigan PowerCompanyP.O.Box16631Columbus, OH43216AEP:NRC:0433N DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DPR-58andDPR-74CHANGESTOMAKETECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MORECONSISTENT WITHASMECODEREQUIREMENTS U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Attn:DocumentControlDeskWashington, D.C.20555Attn:T.E.MurleyAugust7,1990

DearDr.Murley:

Thisletterconstitutes anapplication foramendment totheTechnical Specifications (T/Ss)fortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2.InAEP:NRC:0433L datedJuly3,1986,wesubmitted aT/SchangerequestintendedtomakeourUnit1surveillance requirements moreconsistent withourUnit2requirements andourISTProgram.Duringsubsequent discussions withyourstaffinOctober1987,adecisionwasmadetowithdrawAEP:NRC:0433L andsubmitarevisedletterwhichwouldbettersuitourcurrentneeds.Thisletterisintendedtosatisfythatcommitment.

Wehaveexpandedoursubmittal toincludeadditional requirements whichareredundant totherequrrements ofour1STProgramandincreasing thesurveillance intervalforpumptestingttoteconsistent, withtherecommendations ofSectionXIoftheACMEBoilerandPressureVesselCode.Adetaileddescription oftheproposedchangesandouranalysesconcerning significant hazardsconsiderations areincludedinAttachment 1tothisletter.Attachment 2containstheproposedrevisedT/Spages.Webelievethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultin(1)asignificant changeinthetypesofeffluents orasignificant increaseintheamountofanyeffluents thatmaybereleasedoffsite,or(2)asignificant increaseinindividual orcumulative occupational radiation exposure.

TheseproposedchangeshavebeenreviewedbythePlantNuclearSafetyReviewCommittee andbytheNuclearSafetyandDesignReviewCommittee.

P900814000~

900807PAOOIQQ0+0008IrocliOI Dr.T.E.Murley-2-AEP:NRC:0433N Incompliance withtherequirements of10CFR50.91(b)(l),

copiesofthisletteranditsattachments havebeentransmitted toJ.R.PadgettoftheMichiganPublicServiceCommission andtotheMichiganDepartment ofPublicHealth.Thisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowing Corporate procedures whichincorporate areasonable setofcontrolstoensureitsaccuracyandcompleteness priortosignature bytheundersigned.

Sincerely, M.P.AlexichVicePresident ldpAttachments cc:D.H.William's, Jr.A.A.Blind-BridgmanJ.R.PadgettG.CharnoffA.B.Davis-RegionIIINRCResidentInspector

-BridgmanNFEMSectionChief Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Reasonsand10CFR50.92Significant HazardsEvaluation forChangestotheTechnical Specifications forDonaldC.CookUnits1and2

\4=~

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page1Theproposedchangesinthisletterareintendedtoachievegreaterconsistency betweenourUnit1T/Ss,ourUnit2T/Ss,andourISTProgram.Adescription ofeachchangeisprovidedbelow.1.ChanestoMakePumTestinSurveillance Intervals Consistent WithASMECodeReuirements Presentregulatory policyrequiresthatsafety-related pumpsinstalled inwater-cooled nuclearpowerplantsbetestedinaccordance withSectionXIoftheASMEBoilerandPressureVesselCode(ASMECode).Inaccordance withthispolicy,theDonaldC.CookNuclearPlanthasinstituted anISTProgrambasedonthe1983editionoftheASMECode(including thesummer1983addendum).

TheASMECodeendorsesquarterly testingofsafety-related pumpstoassesstheoperational readiness ofthepumpsduringtheirservicelife;however,manyofourexistingTechnical Specifications (T/Ss)requirepumptestingonamonthlyorweeklybasis.Webelievethatpumpreliability andoperational readiness canbesatisfactorily demonstrated byconducting pumptestingonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Wearetherefore requesting thattheT/Ssbechangedtoallowquarterly testing.Thepumpsforwhichwearerequesting thischangearetheresidualheatremoval(RHR)pumps,thesafetyinjection (SI)pumps,thecontainment spray(CTS)pumps,thecentrifugal chargingpumps(CCPs),thecomponent coolingwater(CCW)pumps,theessential servicewater(ESW)pumps,theboricacidtransfer(BAT)pumps,andtheauxiliary feedwater (AFW)pumps.InAEP:NRC:0433 datedMay10,1983,werequested changessimilartothosewearecurrently requesting, butwithdrewtherequestwhilewecompleted apumpreliability studytosupportourrequest.Thisreliability studywasperformed byreviewing thetestresultsanddataforeachsubjectpumpbetween1980andAugust1989.Ageneraloverviewof,theresultsofoursurveyshowthatmostcasesinwhichapumpwasinitially declaredinoperable, asuccessful retestwasperformed indicating instrumentation anddatatakingproblems.

Inthefewremaining cases,thetestvalueswereanalyzedandnewreference valuesestablished orpumpshadtoberepaired/replaced duetodegradation orfailure.Acarefulreviewshowedthatintheselattercases,quarterly testingwouldnothavehadanegativeimpactsTherequested T/Schangeandasummaryofourreviewforthesubjectpumpsareprovidedbelow.

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page2R~HRPumsWeareproposing todeletethephrase"atleastonceper31daysonaSTAGGERED TESTBASIS"fromT/S4.5.2.ftoallowtestingoftheRHRpumpsonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Theresultsofourreliability studyfortheRHRpumpsareasfollows:ReviewofthetestdatafortheeastandwestRHRpumpsshowedinstances ofhighdifferential pressureandlowflow;however,inallcases,thepumpwasretestedandfoundtobeacceptable.

Therefore, innocasedidwefindapumpwhichwasactuallydegraded.

~STPumsWeareproposing todeletethephrase"atleastonceper31daysonaSTAGGERED TESTBASIS"fromUnit1T/S4.5.2.ftoallowtestingoftheSIpumpsonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Theresultsofourreliability studyfortheSIpumpsareasfollows:Reviewofthetestdatafor'thenorthandsouthSIpumpsfoundnocasesinwhichapumpwasactuallydegraded.

CCPsWeareproposing todeletethephrase"atleastonceper31days"fromT/S4.1.2.3.1 andthephrase"atleastonceper31daysonaSTAGGERED TESTBASIS"fromT/S4.1.2.4and4.5.2.ftoallowtestingoftheCCPsonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Theresultsofourreliability studyfortheCCPsareasfollows:ReviewofthetestdatafortheeastandwestCCPsfoundnocasesinwhichapumpwasactuallydegraded.

~CTSPumsWeareproposing todeletethephrase"atleastonceper31daysonaSTAGGERED TESTBASIS"fromT/S4.6.2.l.b toallowtestingoftheCTSpumpsonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Theresultsofourreliability studyfortheCTSpumpsareasfollows:ReviewofthetestdatafortheeastandwestCTSpumpsfoundnocasesinwhichapumpwasactuallydegraded.

l,h Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page3~BBWPumsWeareproposing tochangeT/S4.7.4.1.C tostate"Byverifying pumpperformance pursuanttoSpecification 4.0.5"toallowtestingoftheESWpumpsonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Theresultsofourreliability studyfortheESWpumpsareasfollows:TheeastandwestESWpumpshadinstances ofhighdifferential pressurebutweresuccessfully retested.

Inaddition, oneinstanceofnotmeetingtheminimumoperability limit(pressure) wasrecorded.

Inthiscase,itwasdetermined thatthebasisforcomputing theminimumoperability limitwasincorrect andthepumpwassuccessfully retested.

Thissamepumpwastakenoutofservice,uponfurtherdegradation ofpressure, andreplacedwithinthe72-hourlimit.Approximately oneyearlatertheeastESWpumpfailedduetoabrokenshaftandwasreplacedwithinthe72-hourlimit.Intheselattertwoinstances, frequency oftestingwasnotafactor.Pumpdegradation wouldhavebeentrackedonaquarterly basisaswellasmonthlyandthemechanical failurecouldnothavebeentrended.Thewestpumpwasalsoreplacedin1987whenitapproached theminimumoperability limitonpressure.

Thisinstancewouldalsohavebeenadequately trackedonaquarterly basis.~CCWPumsWeareproposing tochangeT/S4.7.3.1.C tostate"Byverifying pumpperformance pursuanttoSpecification 4.0.5"toallowtestingoftheCCWpumpsonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Theresultsofourreliability studyfortheCCWpumpsareasfollows:Revie~ofthetestdatafortheeastandwestCCWpumpsfoundnoinstances inwhichapumpwasactuallydegraded.

~BATPumsWeareproposing toreplacetheexistingprovisions ofT/S4.1.2.5and4.1.2s6withaprovision referencing Specification 4.0.5.ThiswillallowtestingoftheBATpumpsonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Exceptforthechangeintestingfrequency, thischangeisconsistent withthosechangesapprovedfortheCCPs,RHRpumps,SIpumps,andCTSpumpsinAmendment 98totheUnit1T/Ss.Theresultsofourreliability studyfortheBATpumpsareasfollows:ReviewofthetestdatafortheBATpumpsfoundnocasesinwhichapumpwasactuallydegraded.

lIIIA4~H Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page4A~FRPumsWeareproposing todeletethephrases,"Atleastonceper31daysby:"and"Atleastonceper18monthsduringshutdownby:"andaddthephrase"whentestedpursuanttoSpecification 4.0.5by:"toT/S4.7.1.2toallowtestingoftheAFWpumpsonaquarterly basisasendorsedbytheASMECode.Theresultsofourreliability studyfortheAFWpumpsareasfollows:ReviewofthetestdatafortheAFWpumpsfoundnocasesinwhichapumpwasactuallydegraded.

Tofurthersupporttheproposedquarterly testfrequency ontheBAT,CCP,CCWandESWpumps,itshouldbenotedthatonepumpfromeachofthesesetsofpumpsiscontinuously operating duringmostmodesofunitoperation.

Eachpumpisoperated, onastaggered basis,untiltheidlepumpisscheduled tobetestedatwhichtimetheoperating pumpissecuredandthepreviously idlepumpremainsin'ervice afteritstestrun.Operations personnel performgeneralchecksontheoperating pumpseveryshift.Thesechecksmayconsistofobserving forunusualnoise,smells,orleakage,checkingforproperoillevelsonpumpsandmotors,andcheckingpumpparameters.

Theextentofthecheckingdependsonavailable instrumentation, typeofpump,accessibility, etc.Wefeelthattheaboveinformation supportsourcontention thatquarterly testingwillproperlydemonstrate thereliability andoperational readiness ofthepumpsoutlinedabove.Inaddition, thefollowing factslendsupporttoquarterly testing:1.Thereduction infrequency willactuallyimprovereliability byeliminating unnecessary pumpcycling.2.Spareparts,pumprotorsandbowlassemblies areadequately stockedtoproviderapidpumprepairshouldfailureoccur.3.PlantProcedure 12THP5070PER.001,"ReviewofInservice TestingofPumps,"requirestrendingoftestdatatoobserveforpumpperformance degradation.

Reviewofdegrading trendsassistsinscheduling maintenance byextrapolating whenperformance parameters willnotmeetthemoreconservative valueofeitherminimumoperability limitsorISTalert/action limits.Maintenance cantherefore bescheduled andperformed priortothepumpreachingsuchlimits.

~,IL,IP~'v Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page5Historical pumpperformance dataindicates thatwhendegradation trendsareobserved, thedevelopment ofsuchtrendsevolveoverperiodsgreaterthanthreemonths.Thechangeoftestfrequency frommonthlytoquarterly willtherefore notaffectourabilitytodetectdegrading tends.Per10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment willnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration iftheproposedamendment doesnot:(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously

analyzed, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Ourevaluation oftheproposedchangewithrespecttothesecriteriaisprovidedbelow.Criterion 1Quarterly testingofthesubjectUnit1pumpsisendorsedbytheASMECodeandhasbeenapprovedforUnit2andtheWestinghouse StandardT/Ss(NUREG-0452, Rev.4).Inaddition, webelievethattheresultsofourreliability studyhaveshownthatquarterly testingwouldnothavehadanegativeimpactontrendingpastdegradation andinensuringpumpreliability.

Quarterly testingshouldbesufficient toadequately assesstheoperational readiness ofthesepumpsduringtheirservicelifeandwillactuallyimprovetheirreliability byeliminating unnecessary cycling.Wetherefore believethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultinasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanyaccidentpreviously analyzed.

Criterion 2Extending thesurveillance intervals willnotresultinachangeinplantconfiguration oroperation, andwetherefore believethattheproposedchangeswillnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated.

ll' Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page6Criterion 3Quarterly testingofthesubjectUnit1pumpsisendorsedbytheASMECodeandhasbeenapprovedforUnit2andtheWestinghouse StandardT/Ss(NUREG-0452, Rev.4).Inaddition, webelievethattheresultsofourreliability studyhaveshownthatquarterly testingwouldnothavehadanegativeimpactontrendingpastdegradation andinensuringpumpreliability.

Quarterly testingshouldbesufficient toadequately assesstheoperational readiness ofthesepumpsduringtheirservicelifeandwillactuallyimprovetheirreliability byeliminating unnecessary cycling.Therefore, webelievethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultinasignificant reduction inthemarginofsafety.Lastly,wenotethattheCommission hasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermining ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14870)ofamendments considered notlikelytoinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

Thischangeissimilartothesixthexample,whichreferstochangesthatmightresultinsomeincreaseintheprobability ofoccurrence orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccident, buttheresultsofwhichareclearlywithinlimitsestablished asacceptable.

Webelievethesechangesareclearlywithinacceptable limitssincetheyareendorsedbySectionXIoftheASMECode,andbasedonpasthistory,thereisnoreasontobelievethatquarterly testingwouldhaveanegativeimpactonpumpreliability.

Inaddition, quarterly testinghasbeenapprovedforUnit2andtheWestinghouse StandardTechnical Specifications (NUREG-0452, Rev.4)(STS).Basedontheabove,webelievethischangedoesnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedin10CFR50'2.2.ValveCclinReuirements ChanesThechangesproposedinthissectionaresimilartothechangesapprovedforT/Ss4.5.2,4.6.2.1,4.7.3.1,and4.7.4.1inAmendment 98totheUnit1T/Ss.Theexistingprovisions ofSpecifications 4.1.2.1.a.l, 4.1.2.2.a.l, and4.6.2.2.a.l requirethateachtestablepoweroperatedorautomatic valveinthesubjectflowpathbecycledthroughatleastonecompletecycleoffulltravelatleastonceper7oronceper31.days.Thisrequirement isredundant toourValveISTProgramandtheASMECodeexceptthatourISTProgramandtheASMECodeonlyrequiretestingonaquarterly, ratherthanweeklyormonthly,basis.Thesechangesaresimilartothoseapprovedforothersystems Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page7inAmendment 98totheUnit1T/Ss.TheSERforAmendment 98statedthattheCommission haslongadvocated thefrequency andtestrequirements oftheSectionXICodeandthattestingvalvesmorefrequently hasnotimprovedsafetybutdoescreatemoreopportunity forthetestedvalvestobeinadvertently leftinthewrongposition.

Thesechangesarealsoconsistent withourUnit2T/SsandtheSTS.Wearetherefore proposing todeletethesespecificrequirements andallowthevalvecyclingforthesevalvestobedonequarterly inaccordance withourISTProgram,theASMECode,andSpecification 4.0.5.Theexistingprovisions ofSpecifications 4.1~2.2.cand4.6.2.2.c.l requirethateachpower-operated valveintheflowpaththatisnottestableduringplantoperation becycledthroughatleastonecompletecycleoffulltravelatleastonceper18monthsduringshutdown.

Thisrequirement isredundant toprovisions inourValveISTProgram,theASMECode,andSpecification 4.0'.Wearetherefore proposing todeletethespecificrequirements fromtheT/Ss.Thischangeisconsistent withbothourUnit2T/SsandtheSTS.TheUnit2provisions fortheboroninjection flowpathsincludearequirement toverifythateachautomatic valveintheflowpathactuatestoitscorrectpositiononanRWSTsequencing signalevery18months.Wehaveincludedthisrequirement inUnit1asSpecification 4.1.2.2.c.

Theexistingprovisions ofSpecification 4.7.1.5requirepart-stroke exercising ofthesteamgenerator stopvalvesonaquarterly basisandverifying fullclosurewithin5secondswhileinhotstandbywithTgreaterthanorequalto0ave541Fduringeachreactorsnu6downexceptthatverification neednotbedonemoreoftenthanonceper92days.Alltherequirements ofthisspecification exceptforthe541Frequirement areincludedinourValveISTProgram.The0temperature requirement of541Fisaddressed insurveillance test1-0HP.4030.STP.019F duringvalvetestinginMode,3.Wearetherefore deletingthespecificrequirement toallowtestinginaccordance withSpecification 4.0.5.Thischangeisconsistent withboththeUnit2T/SsandtheSTS.Per10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment willnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration iftheproposedamendment doesnot:

lI~'hA Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page8(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously

analyzed, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Ourevaluation oftheproposedchangewithrespecttothesecriteriaisprovidedbelow.Criterion 1ThepurposeoftheproposedchangesinthissectionistomakeourUnit1T/Ssmoreconsistent withourUnit2T/Ss,theSTS,andASMECoderequirements.

Therequirements oftheASMECode,theUnit2T/Ss,andtheSTShavepreviously beenfoundacceptable andnorelevantUnit1specificparameters differsignificantly fromUnit2.Xnaddition, webelievethattestingthesevalvesmorefrequently thanquarterly doesnotimprovesafetybutdoescreatemoreopportunity forthetestedvalvestobeinadvertently leftinthewrongposition.

Wetherefore believethesechangeswillnotinvolveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated.

Criterion 2Theproposedchangesofthissectionintroduce nonewplantconfigurations oroperating conditions anddonotcreateacondition thathasnotbeenpreviously analyzed; therefore, webelievethechangeswillnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated.

Criterion 3Sincetestingthevalvesmorefrequently thanquarterly willnotimprovesafetyandonlycreatemoreopportunity forleavingthevalvesinthewrongpositionandsincethelevelofsafetypreviously approvedforUnit2willbemaintained, webelievethatthesechangeswillnotinvolveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.'astly, wenotethattheCommission hasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermining ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14870)ofamendments considered notlikely 1IIt Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page9toinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

Thischangeissimilartothesixthexample,whichreferstochangesthatmightresultinsomeincreaseintheprobability ofoccurrence orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccident, buttheresultsofwhichareclearlywithinlimitsestablished asacceptable.

Webelievethischangeisclearlywithinacceptable limitssinceitwasapprovedfortheSTSandtheUnit2T/SsandnorelevantUnit1parameters differsignificantly fromUnit2.Basedontheabove,webelievethischangedoesnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedin10CFR50.92.3.ChanestoUdatefrom1974Codeto1983CodeAsrequiredby10CFR50.55a,weareupdatingoursurveillance programtothestandards setoutinthe1983editionoftheASMECode.Specification

4.0. 5requiresthatwetestinaccordance

with10CFR50.55a;however,someofourT/Ssstillreference the1974editionoftheASMECoderatherthanSpecification 4.0.5.Wearetherefore correcting ourT/Ssbymakingthefollowing changes.Theexistingprovisions ofSpecification 4.4.3requirethateachpressurizer codesafetyvalvebedemonstrated operableinaccordance withthe1974editionoftheASMECode.Weareproposing toupdateourT/Stothe1983editionofthecodebydeletingthecurrentwordingandreferencing Specification 4.0.5.TheBasesforSpecification 4.4'alsoreference the1974editionofthecodeandthusasimilarchangeisbeingincorporated intothe,Bases.Thesechangesareconsistent withboththeUnit2T/SsandtheSTS.Theprovisions ofSpecification 4.4.9.3.3 requirethateachPORVandtheRHRsafetyvalvebedemonstrated operablebytestinginaccordance withthe1974editionoftheASMECode.Weareproposing toupdateourT/Sstothe1983editionofthecodebyreferencing Specification 4.0.5.Wehavealsoclarified thisT/Sbyseparating therequirements forthePORVsandtheRHRsafetyvalve.Thesechangesareconsistent withtheUnit2T/SsandtheSTSsexceptthattheSTSsdonotaddresstheRHRsafetyvalve.Theprovisions ofSpecification 4.7.1.1requirethateachmainsteamlinecodesafetyvalvebedemonstrated operableinaccordance withthe1974editionoftheASMECode.Weareproposing toupdateourT/Sstothe1983editionofthecodebydeletingthecurrentwordingandreferencing Specification 4.0.5.TheliftsettingsandorificesizesgiveninTable lkk Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page104.7-1arenotincludedaspartoftheASMECodeandwehavetherefore retainedthistableandmoveditsreference totheLCO.Thesechangesareconsistent withboththeUnit2T/SsandtheSTSs.Per10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment*will notinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration iftheproposedamendment doesnot:(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously

analyzed, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Ourevaluation oftheproposedchangewithrespecttothesecriteriaisprovidedbelow.Criterion 1TheproposedchangesinthissectionareintendedtoupdatecertainUnit1T/Sstoreference Specification 4.0.5ratherthanthe1974editionoftheASMECode.Thesechangestherebyallowtestingofthesubjectcomponents tobedoneinaccordance withthe1983editionoftheASMECodeasrequiredby10CFR50.55a.ThesubjectUnit2T/Ssalreadyreference Specification

4.0. 5andthischangetherefore

makestheUnit1T/Ssmoreconsistent withtheUnit2T/Ss.The1983editionoftheASMECodeanditsapplication tothesubjectUnit2T/Sshaspreviously beenfoundacceptable.

NorelevantUnit1specificparameters differsignificantly fromUnit2.Wetherefore believetheproposedchangesofthissectionwillnotinvolveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated.

ICriterion 2Theproposedchangesinthissectionintroduce nonewplantconfigurations oroperating conditions anddonotcreateacondition thathasnotbeenpreviously analyzed; therefore, webelievethechangeswillnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated.

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0433N Page11Criterion 3ThesechangesupdatetheUnit1T/SstotheeditionoftheASMECoderequiredbythefederalregulations andwillmaintainthelevelofsafetypreviously approvedforUnit2.Therefore, webelievethatthesechangeswillnotinvolveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Lastly,wenotethattheCommission hasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermining ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14870)ofamendments considered notlikelytoinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

Thischangeissimilartothesixthexample,whichreferstochangesthatmightresultinsomeincreaseintheprobability ofoccurrence orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccident, buttheresultsofwhichareclearlywithinlimitsestablished asacceptable.

Webelievethischangeisclearlywithinacceptable limitssincethe1983editionoftheASMECodeanditsapplication tothesubjectUnit2T/Sshasbeenpreviously approvedandnorelevantUnit1parameters differsignificantly fromUnit2.Basedontheabove,webelievethischangedoesnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedin10CFR50.92.4.Editorial ChaneThetopthreelinesonpage3/46-15repeatwhatisatthebottomofpage3/46-14.Wearetherefore proposing todeletetheredundant linesonpage3/46-15.Weareproposing towriteoutmathematical symbolswheretheyappearontheT/Spagesthatarebeingsubmitted inthispacket,e.g.,greaterthanorequaltoinsteadof>.Theseareeditorial changesandtherefore webelievetheywillnotinvolveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccident, createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccident, orinvolveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Inaddition, wenotethattheCommission hasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermining ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14870)ofamendments notconsidered likelytoinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

Thischangeissimilartothefirstexample,whichreferstoachangewhichispurelyanadministrative changetothetechnical specifications:

forexample,achangetoachieveconsistency throughout theT/Ss,correction ofanerror,orachangeinnomenclature.

Thischangeislikethisexamplesinceitisaneditorial changeintendedtocorrectanerror.Basedontheabove,webelievethischangedoesnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedin10CFR50.92.

Attachment 2toAEP:NRC:0433N ProposedRevisedTechnical Specification Pages