ML17334B300

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-58 & DPR-74,allowing Posting of Designated Individuals to Substitute for Locked Doors for High Radiation Areas Required by Tech Spec 6.12.2. Justification & Analysis Encl

ML17334B300
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	03/14/1989
From:	ALEXICH M P INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	MURLEY T E NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML17334B301	List: ML17334B300 ML17334B302
References
AEP:NRC:1039, NUDOCS 8903220176
Download: ML17334B300 (9)

Text

1~ACCELERATEDII+RIBUTI0%DEMONSTTIDYSYSTEM4REGULATORYINFORMATIONDISTRIBUTIONSYSTEM(RIDS)ACCESSIONNBR:8903220176DOC.DATE:89/03/14NOTARIZED:NODOCKETPTFACIL:50-315DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit1,Xndiana&0500031550-316DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit2,Indiana&05000316AUTH.NAMEAUTHORAFFILIATIONALEXICH,M.P..IndianaMichiganPowerCo.(formerlyIndiana&MichiganEleRECXP.NAMERECIPIENTAFFILIATIONDocumentControlBranch(DocumentControlDesk)

SUBJECT:

ApplicationforamendstoLicensesDPR-58&DPR-74,allowingpostingofindividualstosubstituteforlockeddoors.DISTRIBUTIONCODE:A001DCOPXESRECEIVED:LTRENCLSIZE:TITLE:ORSubmittal:GeneralDistributionNOTES:RECIPXENTIDCODE/NAMEPD3-1LASTANG,JINTERNAL:ARM/DAF/LFMBNRR/DEST/CEB8HNRR/DEST/MTB9HNRR/DEST/SICBNU~GSABSCTLE01EXTERNALLPDRNSXCCOPIESLTTRENCL10111011111111111111RECIPIENTIDCODE/NAMEPD3-1PDNRR/DEST/ADS7ENRR/DEST/ESB8DNRR/DEST/RSB8ENRR/DOEA/TSB11OGC/HDS1RES/DSIR/EXBNRCPDRCOPIESLTTRENCL2211111111101111DNOTE'IOAXZ-"RZDS"RZCZPIENIS.PIZASEHELPUS1OREDUCEWASTE.'GNI'ACT'IHEDOCUMEMI'GNIROLDESK,ROOMPl-37(EXT.20079)KOEIZMZNATEYOURNAMEFRYDISTIKBVTIGNLISTSFORDOCUMENISYOUDON'TNEED!DSDDSTOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:LTTR19ENCL16 IndianaMichigan~PowerCompany~P.O.Box16631Columbus,OH43216AEP:NRC:1039DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DPR-58andDPR-74T/SCHANGEREQUESTONLOCKINGOFHIGHRADIATIONAREASU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionAttn:DocumentControlDeskWashington,D.C.20555Attn:T.E.MurleyMarch14,1989

DearDr.Murley:

ThisletterconstitutesanapplicationforamendmenttotheTechnicalSpecifications(T/Ss)fortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2.Specifically,weareproposingtoallowthepostingofdesignatedindividualstosubstituteforthelockeddoorsforhighradiationareasrequiredbyT/S6.12.2~AdetaileddescriptionoftheproposedchangeandouranalysisconcerningsignificanthazardsconsiderationsarecontainedinAttachment1.TheproposedrevisedT/SpagesarecontainedinAttachment2.Webelievethattheproposedchangewillnotresultin(1)asignificantchangeinthetypesofeffluentsorasignificantincreaseintheamountofanyeffluentthatmaybereleasedoffsite,or(2)asignificantincreaseinindividualorcumulativeoccupationalradiationexposure.TheseproposedchangeshavebeenreviewedbythePlantNuclearSafetyReviewCommitteeandwillbereviewedbytheNuclearSafetyandDesignReviewCommitteeattheirnextregularlyscheduledmeeting.Incompliancewiththerequirementsof10CFR50.91(b)(1),copiesofthisletteranditsattachmentshavebeentransmittedtoMr.R.C.CallenoftheMichiganPublicServiceCommissionandMr.G.BruchmannoftheMichiganDepartmentofPublicHealth.489'0322017685'0314PDRADOCK05'000325PDCgoo Dr.T.E.Murley-2-AEP:NRC:1039ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowingCorporateproceduresthatincorporateareasonablesetofcontrolstoensureitsaccuracyandcompletenesspriortosignaturebytheundersigned.Sincerely,MP.AlxichVicePresidentCEM/ehAttachmentscc:D.H.Williams,Jr.W.G.Smith,Jr.-BridgmanR.C.CallenG.BruchmannG.CharnoffNRCResidentInspector-BridgmanA.B.Davis-RegionIII

ATTACHMENT1TOAEP:NRC:1039REASONSAND10CFR50.92ANALYSISFORCHANGESTOTHEDONALDC.COOKNUCLEARPLANTUNITNO.1ANDUNITNO.2TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS 1

Attachment1toAEP:NRC:1039Page1DESCRIPTIONOFCHANGETechnicalSpecification(T/S)6.12.2requiresthatlockeddoorsbeprovidedtopreventunauthorizedentryintohighradiationareasinwhichtheintensityofradiationisgreaterthan1000mrem/hr.Weareproposingtoallowthepostingofadesignatedindividualtoserveasasubstituteforalockeddoorinthoseinstancesinwhichprovidingalockeddoorisnotpossibleornotpracticalduetoareasizeorconfiguration.WehavenotedtheconcernsraisedinNRCInformationNotice88-79,"MisuseofFlashingLightsForHighRadiationAreaControls."Themajorityoftheexamplesofmisusecitedinthisinformationnoticeinvolvedusingtheflashinglights(1)whenconstructingalockableenclosurewasareasonablealternativeor(2)whenlockinganexistingenclosurewaspossible.Asnotedabove,weintendtousetheproposedalternativeofpostingadesignatedindividualonlywhenitisnotpossibleornotpracticaltoprovidelockeddoors.AsexplainedintheT/Ss,theintentofthelockeddoorsistopreventunauthorizedentryintothesubjectarea.Webelievethat'postingadesignatedindividualprovidesalevelofprotectionforpreventingunauthorizedentrythatisequivalenttoorbetterthantheprotectionprovidedbytheflashinglightsallowedbythecurrentWestinghousestandardT/SsandtheT/Ssofsomeothernuclearplants.Per10CFR50.92,aproposedamendmentwillnotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsiderationiftheproposedamendmentdoesnot:(1)involveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyevaluated,(2)createthepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentEromanyaccidentpreviouslyanalyzedorevaluated,or(3)involveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.Criterion1Changingtheaccesscontrolrequirementsforhighradiationareasdoesnotimpactanyofthepreviouslyanalyzedaccidents.Therefore,webeli<":echatthischangewillnotinvolveasignificantincreas'ntheprobabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyvaluated.

Attachment1toAEP:NRC:1039Page2Criterion2Theproposedchangedoesnotinvolveachangeinplant'configurationoroperationandwillnotplacetheplantinanunanalyzedcondition;therefore,webelievethechangewillnot.createthepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanypreviouslyanalyzedorevaluated.Criterion3Webelievethatpostingadesignatedindividualisequivalenttoorbetterthanthealternative(flashinglights)allowedbytheWestinghousestandardT/SsandtheT/Ssofsomeothernuclearplants.Basedonthisandsincewebelievethatthedesignatedindividualswillprovideadequateprotectionagainstunauthorizedentry,webelievethechangewillnotinvolveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.TheCommissionhasprovidedguidanceconcerningthedeterminationofsignificanthazardsbyprovidingcertainexamples(48FR14780)ofamendmentsconsiderednot,likelytoinvolvesignificanthazardsconsiderations.Webelievetheproposedchangeislesslikelythanthesixthexampleintheaboveguidancetoinvolveasignificanthazardsconsideration.Specifically,webelievetheproposedchangewillnotresultinanincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofapreviouslyanalyzedaccidentorreduceamarginofsafety,sincewebelievethatpostingadesignatedindividualwillprovideadequateprotectionagainstunauthorizedentryforthoseinstancesforwhichprovidingalockedenclosureisnotpossibleornotpractical.Therefore,webelievethischangedoesnotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsiderationasdefinedin10CFR50.92.