ML17326B593

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-58 & DPR-74,revising Tech Specs Re Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes,Per Generic Ltr 85-19

ML17326B593
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	04/07/1989
From:	ALEXICH M P INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	MURLEY T E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17326B594	List: ML17326B593 ML17326B595
References
AEP:NRC:0979, AEP:NRC:979, GL-85-19, NUDOCS 8904210210
Download: ML17326B593 (9)

Text

gcCELZRATED D1SIRIBU'EON DEMONSTRATIO'.i SYSTEMREGULRTCINFORMATION DISTRIBUTION+STEM (RIDE)ACCESSION NBR:8904210210

,DOC.DATE:

89/04/07NOTARIZED:

NODOCKETFACIL:50-31$

DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit1,Indiana60500031550-316DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant,Unit2,Indiana&05000316AUTH.NAMEAUTHORAFFILIATION ALEXICH,M.P.

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

OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation, Director(Post870411

SUBJECT:

Application foramendstoLicensesDPR-58&DPR-74,revising TechSpecs.DISTRIBUTION CODE:A001DCOPIESRECEIVED:LTR JENCLJSIZE:+"gTITLE:ORSubmittal:

GeneralDistribution NOTES:RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-1LASTANGFJINTERNAL:

NRR/DEST/ADS 7ENRR/DEST/ESB 8DNRR/DEST/MTB 9HNRR/DOEA/TSB 11OCEGFILE01EXTERNAL:

LPDRNSICCOPIESLTTRENCL11551111111110111111RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAME PD3-1PDNRR/DEST/CEB 8HNRR/DEST/ICSB NRR/DEST/RSB 8ENUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS1RES/DSIR/EIB NRCPDRCOPIESLTTRENCL11111111~11101111NOXK'IOALL'RZDS>>RECIPIENTS g~8PIZASEHELPUS'Z0REDUCEgASTE!(EHIACT'IHEDOCXMWZCONI'ROLDESKRXNPl-37(EXT.20079)mELXMZHKTB YOURNAMEPBCHDIPI%UBlOTIGN LISTSFORDOCUMEHIS KXJDGNFTNEZD!TOTALNUMBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:

LTTR22ENCL20 IndianaMichiganPowerCompanyP.O.Box16631Columbus, OH432168AEP:NRC:0979 DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2DocketNos.DPR-58andDPR-74.LicenseNos.50-315and50-316TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGEREQUEST:REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ONPRIMARYCOOLANTIODINESPIKES(GENERICLETTER85-19)Attn:T.E.MurleyApril7,1989

DearDr.Murley:

Thisletterconstitutes anapplication foramendment totheTechnical Specifications (T/Ss)fortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2.Specifically, weareproposing changestotheT/Srequirements associated withspecificactivityoftheprimarycoolant.Thechangesbeingproposedareinaccordance withchangesendorsedbytheNRCstaffinGenericLetter85-19.Adetaileddescription ofthechangesandouranalysesconcerning significant hazardsarecontained inAttachment 1.Attachment 2containstheproposedrevisedT/Spages.Webelievethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultin(1)asignificant changeinthetypesofeffluents orasignificant increaseintheamountsofanyeffluentthatmaybereleasedoffsite,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.GeorgeBruchmann oftheMichiganDepartment ofPublicHealth.89<<2~0a>O 89OO07PDRADQCK05000315flPN~U Dr.T.E.Murley-2-AEP:NRC:0979 Thisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowing Corporate procedures thatincorporate areasonable setofcontrolstoensureitsaccuracyandcompleteness priortosignature bytheundersigned.,

Sincerely, M..Alexch.VicePresident ldpAttachments cc:D.H.Williams, Jr.W.G.Smith,Jr.-BridgmanG.Bruchmann R.C.CallenG.CharnoffA.B.Davis-RegionIIINRCResidentInspector

-Bridgman 1It)if ATTACHMENT 1TOAEP:NRC:0979 DESCRIPTION AND10CFR50.92SIGNIFICANT HAZARDSEVALUATION FORCHANGESTOTHETECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FORTHEDONALDC.COOKNUCLEARPLANTUNITS1AND2 Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0979 Page1DescritionofChaneAspartofacontinuing programtodeleteunnecessary reporting requirements, theNRCstaffreviewedthereporting requirements relatedtoprimarycoolantspecificactivitylevelsanddetermined thatthesereporting requirements couldbemodifiedtorequirereporting intheAnnualOperating Reportratherthaninashortertermreport(SpecialReportorLicenseeEventReport).Thestaffendorsement ofthisapproachwasprovidedinGenericLetter85-19.GenericLetter85-19alsoendorsedelimination oftheplantshutdownrequirements forthecaseinwhichtheiodineactivitylimitsareexceededfor800hoursina12-monthperiod.Thislaterendorsement wasinresponsetotheNRCstaff'seffortstoeliminate unnecessary T/Srequirements.

WebelievethechangesendorsedbyGenericLetter85-19wouldbebeneficial totheCookNuclearPlant,andwearetherefore proposing changestoourT/Sswhichfollowtheguidanceprovidedinthegenericletter.Wehavenotdeviatedfromthegenericletterguidanceinanyway;ourproposedchangesexactlyfollowthemodelspecification forWestinghouse plantsprovidedinthegenericletter.Wehavealsomadeappropriate changestotheBasesforthespecificactivitylimits.InmakingourT/Ssconsistent withthe'odelT/Ss,thefollowing changeswerenecessary.

1)"3/4.4.8" wasaddedtothe'titleof,.thespecification.

2)Thephrase"primarycoolant"waschangedto"reactorcoolant."

3)Thelessthanorequaltosymbols(<),thegreaterthanorequaltosymbols(>),thegreaterthansymbols(>),andthelessthansymbols(<),wereconverted towords.4)The"1.0"waschangedto"1"inSpecification 3.4.8.a.5)Thephrase"uCi/gram" waschangedto"microCuries/gram."

6)ActionaunderModes1,2and3*wasdeletedandActionbwaschangedtoActionaandActioncwaschangedtoActionb.7)TheportionofActionaunderModes1,2,3,4and5involving thereporting requirements wasdeleted.8)Thephrase"ofgrossradioactivity" wasaddedtoSpecification 3.4.8.b.9)Anadditional requirement hasbeenaddedtoSection6.9.1.5torequirethatinformation regarding anyinstances whentheI-131specificactivitylimitwasexceededbesubmitted intheannualreport.

Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0979 Page2Justification forChaneAsstatedinGenericLetter85-19,NRChasreviewedthereporting requirements relatedtoprimarycoolantspecificactivitylevelsanddetermined thatrequiring ashore-term reportisunnecessary andendorsedincluding therequiredinformation intheAnnualOperating Report.TheNRCalsoendorseddeletionoftherequirement toshutdownaplantifthecoolantiodineactivitylimitsexceededaspecified annuallimit.Asstatedinthegenericletter,thislimitisnolongernecessary onthebasisthatproper'uel management bylicensees andexistingreporting requirements shouldprecludeeverapproaching thislimit.AllotherchangesproposedtomakeourT/Ssconsistent withthemodelT/Ssareeditorial innature.AnalsisofSinificantHazardsPer10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment willnotinvolvesignificant hazardsconsideration iftheproposedamendment doesnot:(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously evaluated

accident, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanypreviously evaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Criterion 1Theproposedchangesareconsistent withthoseendorsedbytheNRCinGenericLetter85-19.ForthereasonsstatedinGenericLetter85-19,webelievethedeletedrequirements areunnecessary restrictions.

Theproposedchangeswouldnotaffecttheaccidentanalysisandthelimitsforthereactorcoolantremainthesame.TheT/Srequirement toshu'tdowntheplantifthecoolantiodineactivitylimitsareexceededformorethan10%oftheunit'sannualoperating timeisanoperating restriction "thatisnolongernecessary basedonademonstration ofsuccessful operating experience asindicated inGenericLetter85-19.Basedontheaboveinformation, webelievethatdeletionoftheserequirements wouldnotsignificantly increasetheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccident.

Criterion 2Theproposedchangesareconsistent withthechangesendorsedbyGenericLetter85-19andwillnotrequirephysicalalteration oftheplantorchangesinparameters governing normalplant Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:0979 Page3operation.

Wetherefore believethesechangeswouldnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated.

Criterion 3Theproposedchangesareconsistent withthechangesendorsedbyGenericLetter85-19andwouldnotmodifythepresentgrossactivitylimitordoseequivalent I-131limits.Wetherefore believetheproposedchangewouldnotsignificantly reduceamarginofsafety.Lastly,wenotethattheCommission hasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermination ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14870)ofamendments considered notlikelytoinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

Thesixthoftheseexamplesreferstochangeswhichmayre'suitinsomeincreasetotheprobability ofoccurrence orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccident, buttheresultsofwhicharewithinlimitsestablished asacceptable.

Sincetheproposedchangesareconsistent withtheguidanceprovidedinGenericLetter85-13,we-believethesechangesfallwithinthescopeofthisexample.Thefourthoftheseexamplesreferstoreliefgrantedupondemonstration ofacceptable operation fromanoperating restriction thatwasimposedbecauseacceptable operation wasnotyetdemonstrated.

Theproposeddeletionoftheshutdownrequirement iftheiodinelimitsareexceededformorethan10%oftheunit'sannualoperating timefallswithinthescopeofthisexample.Therefore webelievethesechangesdonotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedin10CFR50.92.

ATTACHMENT 2TOAEP:NRC:0979 PROPOSEDTECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PAGES