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~ACCELERATED II+RIBUTI 0%DEMONSTTIDYSYSTEM4REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM(RIDS)ACCESSION NBR:8903220176 DOC.DATE:

89/03/14NOTARIZED:

NODOCKETPTFACIL:50-315 DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit1,Xndiana&0500031550-316DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit2,Indiana&05000316AUTH.NAMEAUTHORAFFILIATION ALEXICH,M.P.

.IndianaMichiganPowerCo.(formerly Indiana&MichiganEleRECXP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DocumentControlBranch(Document ControlDesk)

SUBJECT:

Application foramendstoLicensesDPR-58&DPR-74,allowing postingofindividuals tosubstitute forlockeddoors.DISTRIBUTION CODE:A001DCOPXESRECEIVED:LTR ENCLSIZE:TITLE:ORSubmittal:

GeneralDistribution NOTES:RECIPXENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-1LASTANG,JINTERNAL:

ARM/DAF/LFMB NRR/DEST/CEB 8HNRR/DEST/MTB 9HNRR/DEST/SICB NU~GSABSCTLE01EXTERNALLPDRNSXCCOPIESLTTRENCL10111011111111111111RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-1PDNRR/DEST/ADS 7ENRR/DEST/ESB 8DNRR/DEST/RSB 8ENRR/DOEA/TSB 11OGC/HDS1RES/DSIR/EXB NRCPDRCOPIESLTTRENCL2211111111101111DNOTE'IOAXZ-"RZDS"RZCZPIENIS.

PIZASEHELPUS1OREDUCEWASTE.'GNI'ACT

'IHEDOCUMEMI'GNIROL DESK,ROOMPl-37(EXT.20079)KOEIZMZNATE YOURNAMEFRYDISTIKBVTIGN LISTSFORDOCUMENIS YOUDON'TNEED!DSDDSTOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:

LTTR19ENCL16 IndianaMichigan~PowerCompany~P.O.Box16631Columbus, OH43216AEP:NRC:1039 DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DPR-58andDPR-74T/SCHANGEREQUESTONLOCKINGOFHIGHRADIATION AREASU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Attn:DocumentControlDeskWashington, D.C.20555Attn:T.E.MurleyMarch14,1989

DearDr.Murley:

Thisletterconstitutes anapplication foramendment totheTechnical Specifications (T/Ss)fortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2.Specifically, weareproposing toallowthepostingofdesignated individuals tosubstitute forthelockeddoorsforhighradiation areasrequiredbyT/S6.12.2~Adetaileddescription oftheproposedchangeandouranalysisconcerning significant hazardsconsiderations arecontained inAttachment 1.TheproposedrevisedT/Spagesarecontained inAttachment 2.Webelievethattheproposedchangewillnotresultin(1)asignificant changeinthetypesofeffluents orasignificant increaseintheamountofanyeffluentthatmaybereleasedoffsite,or(2)asignificant increaseinindividual orcumulative occupational radiation exposure.

TheseproposedchangeshavebeenreviewedbythePlantNuclearSafetyReviewCommittee andwillbereviewedbytheNuclearSafetyandDesignReviewCommittee attheirnextregularly scheduled meeting.Incompliance withtherequirements of10CFR50.91(b)(1),

copiesofthisletteranditsattachments havebeentransmitted toMr.R.C.CallenoftheMichiganPublicServiceCommission andMr.G.Bruchmann oftheMichiganDepartment ofPublicHealth.489'03220176 85'0314PDRADOCK05'000325 PDCgoo Dr.T.E.Murley-2-AEP:NRC:1039 Thisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowing Corporate procedures thatincorporate areasonable setofcontrolstoensureitsaccuracyandcompleteness priortosignature bytheundersigned.

Sincerely, MP.AlxichVicePresident CEM/ehAttachments cc:D.H.Williams, Jr.W.G.Smith,Jr.-BridgmanR.C.CallenG.Bruchmann G.CharnoffNRCResidentInspector

-BridgmanA.B.Davis-RegionIII

ATTACHMENT 1TOAEP:NRC:1039 REASONSAND10CFR50.92ANALYSISFORCHANGESTOTHEDONALDC.COOKNUCLEARPLANTUNITNO.1ANDUNITNO.2TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1039 Page1DESCRIPTION OFCHANGETechnical Specification (T/S)6.12.2requiresthatlockeddoorsbeprovidedtopreventunauthorized entryintohighradiation areasinwhichtheintensity ofradiation isgreaterthan1000mrem/hr.Weareproposing toallowthepostingofadesignated individual toserveasasubstitute foralockeddoorinthoseinstances inwhichproviding alockeddoorisnotpossibleornotpractical duetoareasizeorconfiguration.

WehavenotedtheconcernsraisedinNRCInformation Notice88-79,"MisuseofFlashingLightsForHighRadiation AreaControls."

Themajorityoftheexamplesofmisusecitedinthisinformation noticeinvolvedusingtheflashinglights(1)whenconstructing alockableenclosure wasareasonable alternative or(2)whenlockinganexistingenclosure waspossible.

Asnotedabove,weintendtousetheproposedalternative ofpostingadesignated individual onlywhenitisnotpossibleornotpractical toprovidelockeddoors.Asexplained intheT/Ss,theintentofthelockeddoorsistopreventunauthorized entryintothesubjectarea.Webelievethat'postingadesignated individual providesalevelofprotection forpreventing unauthorized entrythatisequivalent toorbetterthantheprotection providedbytheflashinglightsallowedbythecurrentWestinghouse standardT/SsandtheT/Ssofsomeothernuclearplants.Per10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment willnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration iftheproposedamendment doesnot:(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentEromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Criterion 1Changingtheaccesscontrolrequirements forhighradiation areasdoesnotimpactanyofthepreviously analyzedaccidents.

Therefore, webeli<":echatthischangewillnotinvolveasignificant increas'n theprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously valuated.

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1039 Page2Criterion 2Theproposedchangedoesnotinvolveachangeinplant'configuration oroperation andwillnotplacetheplantinanunanalyzed condition; therefore, webelievethechangewillnot.create thepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanypreviously analyzedorevaluated.

Criterion 3Webelievethatpostingadesignated individual isequivalent toorbetterthanthealternative (flashing lights)allowedbytheWestinghouse standardT/SsandtheT/Ssofsomeothernuclearplants.Basedonthisandsincewebelievethatthedesignated individuals willprovideadequateprotection againstunauthorized entry,webelievethechangewillnotinvolveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.TheCommission hasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermination ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14780)ofamendments considered not,likelytoinvolvesignificant hazardsconsiderations.

Webelievetheproposedchangeislesslikelythanthesixthexampleintheaboveguidancetoinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

Specifically, webelievetheproposedchangewillnotresultinanincreaseintheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccidentorreduceamarginofsafety,sincewebelievethatpostingadesignated individual willprovideadequateprotection againstunauthorized entryforthoseinstances forwhichproviding alockedenclosure isnotpossibleornotpractical.

Therefore, webelievethischangedoesnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedin10CFR50.92.