ML17328A569

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-58 & DPR-74,deleting Extension Limit,Per Generic Ltr 89-14, Line Item Improvement in Tech Specs-Removal of 3.25 Limit on Extending Surveillance Intervals.

ML17328A569
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	02/07/1990
From:	ALEXICH M E INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	MURLEY T E NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML17328A570	List: ML17328A569 ML17328A571
References
AEP:NRC:1021, GL-89-14, NUDOCS 9002220473
Download: ML17328A569 (13)

Text

.A.CCELKRATED DIBUTfONDEMONSONSYSTEMREGULATOINFORMATION DISTRIBUTION TEM(RIDS)ACCESSION NBR:9002220473 DOC.DATE:

90/02/07NOTARIZED:

NODOCKETIFACIL:50-315 DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit1,Indiana&0500031550-316DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit2,Indianaa05000316AUTH.NAMEAUTHORAFFILIATION ALEXICH,M.E.

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

DocumentControlBranch(Document ControlDesk)

SUBJECT:

Application foramendstoLicensesDPR-58&DPR-74.Amends modTechSpecs4.0.2.DISTRIBUTION CODE:A001DCOPIESRECEIVED:LTR ENCLTITLE:ORSubmittal:

GeneralDistribution NOTES:SIZE:RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-1LAGIITTERrJ.

INTERNAL:

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

LPDRNSICCOPIESLTTRENCL11551111111110111111RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-1PDNRR/DOEA/OTSB11 NRR/DST/SELB 8DNRR/DST/SRXB 8EO~CJEMBEGFILENRCPDRCOPIESLTTRENCL11111111101111hNCTEIOALLrrRZDS>>MKIPIENIS PIZASEHELPUSIOREDUCE%ASTElCGHI'ACI'IHE DOQ3MERI'XÃIBDL DESKRDCNPl-37(EXT.20079)IOEIiQGÃAK%3 RXHtMrrMEPKHDIBTRIBUTI(W LISTSFORDOCQMEHZS RXJDCHITNEEDIDDTOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:

LTTR21ENCL19

~IElIW IndianaMichiganPowerCompanyP.O.Box16631Columbus, OH43216AEP:NRC:1021 GL89-14DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DPR-58andDPR-74GENERICLETTER89-14TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGESU.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Attn:DocumentControlDeskWashington, D.C.20555Attn:T.E.MurleyFebruary7,1990

DearDr.Murley:

Thisletteranditsattachments constitute anapplication foramendment totheTechnical Specifications (T/Ss)fortheDonaldCDCookNuclearPlantUnits1and2.Specifically, weproposetomodifyTechnical Specification

4.0. 2anditsassociated

Bases.Technical Specification

4.0. 2permitssurveillance

intervals tobeextendedupto25percentofthespecified interval.

Italsolimitsextending surveillances sothatthecombinedtimeintervals for'nythreeconsecutive surveillances intervals donotexceed3.25timesthespecified surveillance interval.

Thisapplication foramendment proposestodeletethe3.25extension limitinaccordance withtheguidanceinGenericLetter89-14,"LineItemImprovement inTechnical Specifications-Removal ofthe3.25LimitonExtending Surveillance Intervals."

Ourreasonsfortheproposedchanges,aswellasouranalysesconcerning significant hazardsconsiderations, arecontained inAttachment 1tothisletter.Attachment 2ofthissubmittal containsproposedrevisedT/Spagesthatreflecttheproposedchanges.Inaddition, werequestthattheamendment beissuedbySeptember 1,1990andbeeffective immediately topreventanunnecessary shutdownofCookNuclearPlantUnit1.0olPDRADOCK05000315 Dr.T.E.Murley-2-AEP:NRC'1021 Webelievethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultin(1)significant changeinthetypesofeffluents orasignificant increaseintheamountsofanyeffluents thatmaybereleasedoffsite,or(2)asignificant increaseinindividual orcumulative occupational radiation exposure.

ThesechangeshavebeenreviewedbythePlantNuclearSafetyReviewCommittee andbytheNuclearSafetyandDesignReviewCommi.ttee.

Incompliance withtherequirements of10CFR50.91(b)(l),

copiesofthisletteranditsattachments havebeentransmitted toMr.R.C.CallenoftheMichiganPublicServiceCommission andMr.G.Bruchmann oftheMichiganDepartment ofPublicHealth.Thisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowing Corporate procedures thatincorporates areasonable setofcontrolstoensureitsaccuracyandcompleteness priortosignature bytheundersigned.

Sincerely, MP.AlexichVicePresident ehAttachments cc:D.H.Williams, Jr.A.A.Blind-BridgmanR.C.CallenG.CharnoffA.B.DavisNRCResidentInspector

-BridgmanNFEMSectionChief

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1021 Reasonsand10CFR50.92AnalysesforChangestotheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2Technical Specifications Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1021 Page1DescritionofChaneAssuggested inGenericLetter89-14,thisapplication foramendment proposestoreviseTechnical Specification (T/S)4.0.2byremovingtherequirement thatthecombinedtimeintervalforanythreeconsecutive surveillance intervals shallnotexceed3.25timesthespecified surveillance interval.

Additionally, weareproposing tomodifytheassociated TSBases.BackroundTechnical Specification

4.0. 2permitssurveillance

intervals tobeextendedupto25percentofthespecified interval.

Thisexten-sionfacilitates scheduling activities andallowssurveillances tobepostponed whenplantconditions arenotsuitableforconducting asurveillance.

Specification

4.0. 2alsolimitsextending

surveillances sothatthecombinedtimeintervalforanythreeconsecutive time.intervals shallnotexceed3.25timesthespecified surveillance interval.

OnAugust21,1989,theNRCissuedGenericLetter89-14,"Line-Item Improvements inTechnical Specifications

-Removalofthe3.25LimitonExtending Surveillance Intervals."

TheGenericLetterconcluded thatremovalofthe3.25limitfromSpecification 4.0.2resultsina"greaterbenefittosafetythanlimitingtheuseofthe25percentallowance toextendsurveillance intervals-.

ImactonPlant0erationsApprovalofthisrequestwillprovidethefollowing benefits:

1.Facilitates scheduling ofsurveillance activities andallowssurveillances tobepostponed whenplantconditions arenotconducive tothesafeconductofasurveillance.

2.Reducesthepotential forunnecessary forcedshutdowns toperformsurveillance activities.

3.Eliminates theadministrative andlogistical burdenassociated withtrackingtheuseofthe25percentallowance toensurecompliance withthe3.25limit.4.Minimizes theneedforsurveillance intervalextension amendments.

SafetEvaluation Manysurveillances haveaspecified surveillance intervalof18months.Generally, an18-monthsurveillance intervalisintended

~

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1021 Page2toallowthesurveillance tobeperformed whentheunit'sshutdownduringarefueling outage.Therefore, theactualtimeintervalfortheperformance ofthesesurveillances isdependent onthelengthofafuelcycle,butitcannotexceed18monthsplusthe25percentallowance.

Thesafetybenefitofperforming thesesurveillances duringaplantshutdownisthatsystemsdonothavetobezemovedfromserviceatatimethattheyarerequiredtobeoperable.

,Thisminimizes theamountoftimewhichsystemsareunavailable duringpoweroperation duetosurveillance requirements, therebyminimizing theimpactonsafety,Inafewinstances, theTSspecifically requiresomesurveillances tobeperformed duringaplantshutdown, Whenalimitisreachedonextending an18-monthinterval, aforcedplantshutdowntoperformthesesurveillances isgenerally theonlyalternative shortofalicenseamendment thatdeferstheperformance ofthesesurveillances untiltheendofafuelcycle.Usually,thelengthofafuelcyclewouldnotexceed18monthsbymorethanthe25percentallowance, i.e.,4-1/2months,Amorecommonsituation hasbeentoencounter the3,25limitonthecombinedtimeintervalforthreeconsecutive surveillance intervals.

TheNRCstaffhasnormallyapprovedone-timeamendment requeststowaivetheperformance of18-monthsurveillances untiltheendofthefuelcyclewhentheywouldexceedthe3.25limitation onconsecutive surveillances yetwouldnotexceedthe25percentallowance forextending the18-monthsurveillance interval.

Aforcedshutdowntoperformthesesurveillances isnot)ustified fromariskstandpoint toavoidexceeding the3.25limitwhenextending thesesurveillances iswithinthe25percentallowance.

The18-monthsurveillances arenormallyperformed duringarefueling outagewhentheplantisinadesirable condition forconducting, thesesurveillances.

AsstatedintheNRC'sSafetyEvaluation forCommonwealth Edison'sLaSalleStation,theriskofperforming someofthesesurveillances duringplantoperation hasbeendetermined tobegreaterthantheimpactonsafetyofexceeding the3'5limit.Inadditiontoitsapplication torefueling outagesurveillances, theuseofthe25percentallowance forextending surveillance intervals canprovideasafetybenefitwhenitisusedduringplantoperation, Whenplantconditions arenotsuitablefortheconductofsuzveillances duetosafetysystemsout-of-service for"maintenance ozduetootherongoingactivities, safetyisenhancedbytheuse'ftheallowance thatpermitsasurveillance intervaltobeextended, Insuchcases,thesafetybenefitofextending asurveillance intervalupto25percentwouldexceedtheriskreduction derivedbyconforming tothe3.25limitation.

,I4I Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1021 Page3Znsummary,basedontheaboveconsiderations, theremovalofthe3.25limitwillhaveanoverallpositiveimpactonsafety.Consequently, webelievethereisreasonable assurance thattheproposed, changewillnotadversely affectthehealthandsafetyofthepublic,SinificantHazardsConsiderations Per10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment willnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration iftheproposedamendment doesnot:(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously evaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Criterion 1Deletionofthe3.25extension limitation willnotsignificantly affectequipment reliability anddoesnotaffecttheprobability orconsequences ofaccidents previously evaluated intheFSARUpdate.Thesurveillance intervalwillstillbeconstrained bythe25percentintervalextension criteriaofT/S4.0.2.Theriskinvolvedwiththealternative toperform18-monthsurveillances duringplantoperation isgreaterthantheriskinvolvedwithexceeding the3.25limit.Whenplantconditions arenotconducive forthesafeconductofsurveillances duetosafetysystemsbeingout-of-service formaintenance orduetootherongoingsurveillance activities, safetyisenhancedbytheuseoftheallowance thatpermitsasurveillance intervaltobeextended.

Therefore, theproposedchangedoesnotinvolveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated.

Criterion 2TheproposedrevisiontotheT/Swillnotresultinanyphysicalalteration toanyplantsystem,norwouldtherebeachangeinthemethodbywhichanysafety-related systemperformsitsfunction.

Therefore, theproposedchangedoesnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously evaluated.

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1021 Page4Criterion 3Deletionoftherequirement thatanythreeconsecutive surveillance intervals shallnotexceed3.25timestheintervalwillnotsignificantly affectequipment reliability, ratheritwillreducethepotential tointerrupt normalplantoperations duetosurveillance scheduling, Thisproposedexemption willallowallsurveillance intervals tobeconstrained bythemaximumallowable extension of25percentofthespecified surveillance

interval, whichmayenhancesafetywhenusedduringplantoperation, Therefore, theproposedchangedoesnotinvolveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Lastly,wenotethattheCommission hasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermination ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14870) ofamendments considered notlikelytoinvolvesignificant hazardsconsiderations.

Thesixthoftheseexamplesreferstochangeswhichmayresultinsomeincreaseintheprobability ofoccurrence orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccidentormayreduceinsomewayasafetymargin,buttheresultsofwhichareclearlywithinlimitsestablished asacceptable.

TheeffectoftheproposedT/Schangeswillbetoprovidedeletionofthe3.25extension limitation foundinT/S4.0.2.Thechanges,however,aresupported, byGenericLetter89-14.Therefore, weconcludethattheexamplecitedisrelevantandthatthechangesshouldnotinvolvesignificant hazardsconsiderations.

Attachment 2toAEP:NRC:1021-ProposedRevisedTechnical Specification Changes