ML17334B122

From kanterella
Revision as of 07:30, 29 June 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-58 & DPR-74, Reflecting Replacement of Liquid Radwaste Effluent Line Monitor.Addl Info in Response to NRC 870106 Ltr Also Discussed.Proposed Tech Specs Encl.Fee Paid
ML17334B122
Person / Time
Site: Cook  American Electric Power icon.png
Issue date: 08/07/1987
From: ALEXICH M P
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To: MURLEY T E
NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML17334B123 List:
References
AEP:NRC:0956D, AEP:NRC:956D, NUDOCS 8708130281
Download: ML17334B122 (7)


Text

FV/V~0QGC./CT~REGULATOYINFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM(RIDS)ACCESSION NBR:8708130281 DOC.DATE:87/08/07NOTARIZED:

NODOCKETFAGIL:50-,315DonaldC.CookNuclealPomerP)antiUnitiiIndiana00500031550-316DonaldC.CookNuclearPoeerPlant'nit2zIndiana&05000316AUTH.NAMEAUTHORAFFILIATION ALEXICHIM.P.Indiana5MichiganElectricCo.RECIP.NAMERECIPIENT AFFILIATION MURLEYiT.E.DocumentControlBranch(Document ControlDesk)

SUBJECT:

Application foramendstoLicensesDPR-585DPR74'eflecting replacement ofliquidradmasteeffluentlinemonitor.ProposedrevisedTechSpecpagesencl.Feepaid.DISTRIBUTION CODE:AOO'9DCOPIESRECEIVED:

LTRIENCLJSIZE:TITLE:OR!LicensingSubmitta1:AppendixINOTES:RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-3LAWIGGINGTONr DCOPIESLTTRENCL1011RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-3PDCOPIESLTTRENCL55INTERNAL:

ARM/DAF/LFMB NRR/DREP/RPB OGC/HDS1RES/DE/EIB EXTERNAL:

LPDRNSIC10111011111NRR/DREPDIRNRR/PMAS/PMSB REGFILE01NRCPDR11111111R~~PI50%OR.-OIft'OTAL"NUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:

LTTR17ENCL14 INQI4N48MICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANYPoO.BOX16631COLUMBUS, OHIO43216August7,1987AEP'NRC:0956D DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DPR-58andDPR-74REVISEDRADIOACTIVE LIQUIDEFFLUENTMONITORING INSTRUMENTATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGEREQUESTU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Attn:DocumentControlDeskWashington, D.C.20555Attn:T.E.Murley

DearDr.Murley:

Thisletteranditsattachments constitute anapplication foramendment totheTechnical Specifications (T/Ss)fortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2.Specifically, weareproposing changestoT/S3.3.3.9,Table3.3-12,andT/S4.3.3.9.2, Table4.3.8toreflectthereplacement oftheliquidradwasteeffluentlinemonitor.Thereasonsfortheproposedchangesandouranalysisconcerning significant hazardsconsiderations arecontained inAttachment 1tothisletter.TheproposedrevisedTechnical Specification pagesarecontained inAttachment 2.InAEP:NRC:0956C, datedDecember8,1986,wesubmitted aT/Schangerequesttoreflectthereplacement ofthesubjectmonitor.Inthatletter,thesignificant hazardsconsiderations analysiswasmadeonthebasisthatthechangewaspurelyadministrative.

InaletterfromMr.B.J.Youngblood toMr.JohnDolan,datedJanuary6,1987,theNRCnotifiedusthat'etails werenotprovidedonwhythemonitorwasbeingchanged,whatenhancements wereexpectedwiththenewmonitor,orhowthenewmonitorwouldmeettherequirements atitslocation.

Thisletterprovidestheadditional information alongwitharevisedsignificant hazardsconsiderations analysis.

Weareassessing potential difficulties withsetpoints forthenewmonitorduetoitsincreased sensitivity.,

Untilthesepotential difficulties areresolved, wewillcontinuetousetheexisting(R-18)instrumentation asspecified intheproposedT/Schanges.EPOBf&~s~g00pgf 5PDRADDCKD,pDRg)~4).](50(plqg0$

Dr.'.E.Murley-2-~."AEP:NRC:0956D NWebelievethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultin(1)asignificant changeinthetypesofeffluents orasignificant increaseintheamountsofanyeffluentthatmaybereleasedoffsite,or(2)asignificant increaseinindividual orcumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Theseproposedchangeshavebeenreviewedbyth'ePlantNuclearSafetyReviewCommittee (PNSRC)andwillbereviewedbytheNuclearSafetyandDesignReviewCommittee (NSDRC)attheirnextregularly scheduled meeting.Incompliance withtherequirements of10CFR50.91(b)(1),

copiesofthisletteranditsattachments havebeentransmitted toMr.R.C.Callenof.theMichiganPublicServiceCommission andMr.G.Bruchmann oftheMichiganDepartment ofPublicHealth.Pursuantto10CFR170.12(c),

wehaveenclosedanapplication feeof$150.00fortheproposedamendments.

Thisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowing Corporate procedures whichincorporate areasonable setofcontrolstoinsureitsaccuracyandcompleteness priortosignature bytheundersigned.

Verytrulyyours,M.;Alich=VicePresident cmAttachments II;c'c'.";John.E.Dolan'..,;'-"

W.G..-Smith,Jr.-'ridgman R.C.CallenG.Bruchmann G.CharnoffNRCResidentInspector

-BridgmanA.B.Davis-RegionIII ATTACHHENT 1TOAEP:NRC:0956D REASONSAND10CFR50.92ANALYSISFORCHANCESTOTHEDONALDC.COOKNUCLEARPLANTUNITNOS.1AND2TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Attachment toAEP:NRC:0956D Page1ThefirstproposedchangeistoT/STable3.3-12,Iteml.a.Thecurrentmonitor,referredtoas1-R-18intheUnit1T/Sand2-R-18intheUnit2T/S,isbeingreplacedbyanewmonitor,12-RRS-1001.

TheR-18monitorhashadahistoryofdifficulty withbackground radiation maskingthelowerportionofitsrange.Actionstakentoaddressthisdifficulty havebeenonlypartially successful.

Thefirstactiontakeninvolvedmovingthemonitorfromitsoriginallocation, theBoricAcidStorageTankRoom,tooutsidetheroom'sshieldwall.Thisreducedtheambientbackground radiation; however,background interference continued tobeaproblem.Subsequent investigation showedthat,despitethecustomary flushingofthedischarge lineandthein-linemonitor,themajorsourceofbackground radiation wascrudbuild-upontheinteriorsurfacesofR-18'sdetection volume.Periodicdisassembly andcleaningwerefoundonlytemporarily effective

'inreducingthebackground; afterafewbatchreleases, background wouldagainincrease.

Duetothenatureofwasteliquid,build-upofbackground producing residueisunavoidable.

Thisiscompounded bythemechanical arrangement ofR-18'sdetectorassemblywhichcausesittobeanaturalcrudtrap.Inaddition, itsconnection andmountingdetailmakeitdifficult toremoveforcleaning.

Severalenhancements areexpectedwithRRS-1001, whichwebelievewilladdressproblemsencountered withR-18.RRS-1001's detectorassemblyusesareplaceable bowl-shaped linerprovidedwithalowpointdrain.Thisshapediscourages crudbuild-upandfacilitates moreeffective flushing.

Ifflushinginaparticular, instanceisunsuccessful, thesamplelineriseasilyreplaced.

Thenewmonitorismoresensitive togammaemittersthanR-18.Thisislargelyattributed todifferences ingeometrybetweenthemonitors'easurement chambers.

Thegreatersensitivity ofthenewmonitorenhancesourabilitytomonitorbatchreleases.

R-18'sdetector-assembly isin-lineandallthedischarge flowsthroughit.RRS-1001requiresareducedflow,andtherefore, itisconnected suchthatabout10%ofthemainflowisdivertedthroughi,tsshieldedsampleliner.Thesamplelinecontainsaflowmeterwithancillary flowswitches.

Alossofsampleflowwillautomatically terminate discharge.

Thenewmonitorusesamicroprocessor-based DataAcquisition Module(DAM),whichperformstheinterpretation ofdetectoroutputandelectronically recordstheresult.Sampleflowanddischarge flowsignalsarealsoinputintotheDAMforelectronic recording initscomputermemory.TheDAMisintegrated intoourEberlinesystem;consequently, theHasteDisposalSystem(WDS)discharge information alongwiththenewmonitor's statusisreadilyavailable forpresentation.

Attachment toAEP:NRC:0956D Page2Uponswitching toRRS-1001anditsrequiredsupportequipment,

.controlroomannunciation andindication willbeviatheEberlineSystemControlTerminals.

TheR-18readoutdrawerinpanelRMSanditsassociated Electrolarm andpanelboardannunciator willnolongerbeused.ThesecondproposedchangeistoTable4.3-8,Instrument l.aanditsassociated TableNotation.

Specifically, weareproposing theadditionofperiodicChannelFuncti.onal Testsasasurveillance requirement.

Thisadditional surveillance requirement woulddemonstrate theoperability ofthesamplelinewithregardtoensuringautomatic isolation ofthereleasepathwayandensuringcontrolroomannunciation, uponlossofsampleflow.ThethirdproposedchangeisalsotoTable3.3-12.Whilethephysicalinstallation ofthenewmonitorisessentially

complete, themonitorwillnotbecapableofmeetingT/Srequirements until(1)thetripfunctionistransferred fromR-18,and(2)post-installation calibration andtestingiscomplete.

Therefore, werequestthatafootnotebeaddedtoallowtheexistingmonitor(1-R-18/2-R-18) tofulfilltheT/Srequirements untilthenewmonitorisdeclaredoperable.

ThefourthproposedchangeisalsotoTable3.3-12.Wehaveaddedafootnotetothetabletoindicatethatoperability offlowswitchRFS-1010isrequiredforoperability of12-RRS-1001.

AnalysisofSinificantHazardsPer10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment willinvolvenosignificant hazardsconsiderations iftheproposedamendment doesnot:(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously

analyzed, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Ourevaluation oftheproposedchangewithrespecttothesecriteriaisprovidedbelow.Criterion 1:ThenewmonitorwillbeabletosupportcurrentT/Srequirements andincludesseveralenhancements overtheoldmonitor.Designofthenewmonitorprovidessolutions todifficulties encountered withtheoldmonitor.Anadditional T/Ssurveillance isproposedandiscommensurate withthedesignofthenewmonitor.Thus,weareproposing abettermonitorwithappropriate surveillance requirements.

Therefore, webelievetheproposedchangewillnotinvolveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously analyzed.

IAttachment toAEP:NRC:0956D Page3Criterion 2:Theproposedchangewillnotplacetheplantinaneworunanalyzed condition; therefore, itwillnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated.

Criterion 3:Vebelievethattheproposedchangewillnotinvolveasignificant reduction inamarginforsafetyforthereasonsgiveninCriterion 1above.TheCommission hasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermination ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14780)"ofamendments considered notlikelytoinvolvesignificant hazardsconsiderations.

Vebelievetheproposedchangeislesslikelythanthesixthexampleintheaboveguidancetoinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

Specifically, webelievetheproposedchangewillnotresultinanincreaseintheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccidentorreduceasafetymargin,andiswithinallacceptable criteriawithrespecttothesystemdesign.Therefore, webelievethischangedoesnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedin10CFR50.92.