ML20055E095
| ML20055E095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1990 |
| From: | Frizzle C Maine Yankee |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055E097 | List: |
| References | |
| CDF-90-61, MN-90-65, NUDOCS 9007110016 | |
| Download: ML20055E095 (4) | |
Text
.- f _
.t' 5c m iMaineYankee nttett t.tibiUcifUon und%h q -
EDISON DRIVE
- AUGUSTA, MAINE 04336 + (207) 622 4868 -
n, 1
'l I;_
41 July 5,- 1990 MN-90-651
-CDF-90-61 Proposed Change No.-154 y
- 'c UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Attention: Document Control' Desk Washington, DC 20055
References:
(a) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)
(b)- USNRC Letter to Carolina Power and-Light Company; dated
)
i
_ March 2,;1989 - Shearon Harris Amendment Regarding Qualification Requirements for Manager Operations
Subject:
-Maine Yankee Operations Manager Qualifications -
Proposed Change _No..154 Gentlemen:-
s With this letter, Maine-Yankee-proposes to modify our Technical Specifications associated with the facility qualification requirements for-the Operations Department
- Manager. This. proposed change would modify the Technical Specifications such that
'the Manager, Operations must:
(1) hold a Senior _0perator's License, termed Senior-Reactor 0perator (SRO license at Maine Yankee, or (2) have at _one time held a SR0 jlicense at Maine Yank)e.
e
[
_ Currently - at Maine _- Yankee, while above the cold - shutdown condition,a two l positions having-SR011 censes exist betweenLthe Manager,- Operations anduthe shift m v operating: crews; the Shift' Operating Supervisor (SOS) and the Plant ' Shift
- Superintendent.
- This coverage is required by Maine- - Yankee's _ Technical l
. Specifications.- - The L Manager, ' Operations-does not directly supervise' reactor-operators; therefore, we do not believe it is necessary that he hold an active SRO flicense.
Maine Yankee-has reviewed this proposed change and nas~ concluded that no T
- significant hazards consideration exists
_ A summary of this evaluation is provided.
=as Attachment A.
Revised Technical Specification pages 5.2-2 and 5.3-1 Tre provided y
as Attachment B.
cA C0F9061.LTR 9007110016 900705 I
o ADOCKOSOOgg9 PDR y
h g
g C7*
MaineYankee W Ni.h u, 4 -
s. ; ;-
.j n
ibuiTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPNISSION MN-90-65 Attention: -Document Control Desk -
.Page Two m
i
-. Thisl proposed change has been reviewed and approved by the Plant 0peration Review Committee. The Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee has also reviewed this submittal.
A representative of the State of Maiae is being informed of this a"
request by copy of-this letter.
We request
- that this proposed change be made effective within 30 days after issuance.
-Very, ru y y s,-
J' Charles D. Frizz e-President CDF:WSD c:-
Mr. Thomas T.. Martin Mr.-Eric J. Leeds
'.Mr. Richard Freudenberger.
Mr. Clough Toppan' STATE OF' MAINE
[
-Then. personally. appeared before me, Charles D. Frizzle, who being duly sworn did 4
R state 'that he is President of Maine Yankee ' Atomic Power Company, that he is duly k
authorized to execute and file the foregoing request in the name and-on behalf of L
Maine-Yankee Atomic Power Company,~and that the; statements therein are true to the
?
best of his knowledge and belief, blA $
,/Hotary Public BARBARA J. PADAVANA NOTARY PUBUC,MEE
(
MYCOW!SSIONEXPLRES JUhc M1908 iig :
oi'
.CDF9061.LTR
} -
ATTACHMtNT A Sumary of Pronosed Chance L This proposed change modifies the qualification requirements for the Manager, Operations Department. With this change, the Manager, Operations will no longer be_-
required to maintain an active Senior Operators License.
He will, however, be-required to have held at one time (or be holding) a senior operators license at the Maine Yankee station.
Conforming changes-are being made-to the Facility Staff Qualification requirement, Specification 5.3.1.d.
The Manager, Operations does not directly supervise reactor operators at Maine Yankee.
A normal shift complement provides two Senior Operator Licenses (SOLs) between the manager and the reactor operators; Technical Specifications require two-SOLs_to be on site while above the cold shutdown condition, and one SQL otherwise.
We believe this provides sufficient reactor operator oversite and satisfies the intent of staff guidance in this area. We believe that it is unnecessary to require the Manager,- Operations to maintain an active SOL in addition to those already on shift,_ and..further we believe it unnecessarily burdens the manager with requalification training one week out of six.
This proposed change is consistent-with others approved by NRC for Davis-Besse (December 27,-1989) and Shearon Harris (March 2, 1989).
Sianificant Hazards' Evaluation 1
The proposed changes to Technical Specifications 5.2 and S.3 have been evaluated against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92, and have been determined not to involve a significant hazards consideration. Therefore, implementation of the changes would:
1.
Not. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident-previously evaluated in the FSAR because the accident conditions and assumptions are not affected by the proposed Technical Specification changes.
The proposed changes do not involve a test, experiment, or a modification to a system.
The proposed changes are administrative in_ nature and do not increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated.
23 Not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR b~ecause the accident conditions and assumptions are not affected by the proposed Technical Specification changes.
Licensed operators will continue to operate the plant under the supervision of the Shift Operating Supervisor and/or the Plant Shift Superintendent who are required to' hold current SR0 licenses.
The proposed changes to not involve.a test, experiment, or a modification to a system.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
+
CDF9061.LTR
y
- n. 5%
.~ ~
~;
^
~--
- ^ ^ '-
fi*
, la gg c
i l
l Mj ii, 6' A<
i ' 1
)
4 o %
ATTACHMENT.A-(continued)-
]
a w,
lifWM 3.
NotLincrease the' probability:of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment
(
- important to safety previously. evaluated in the FSAR because the proposed J
changes:do not involve a test or experiment, and no station equipment-is being modified. The proposed changes are administrative'in' nature and do
'g not increase the probability of occurrence of.a malfunction of equipment' 9
important.to safety.
]
a
. Not increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to-
=.
b
' safety previously evaluated in the FSAR because the proposed changes do not involve a test or experiment, and no station.ecluipment is being e
modified. Licensed operators will continue to operate the plant under the-a o'
- supervision of the PSS/ SOS who are required to hold current-SRO licenses.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not; increase the
-consequences of'a malfunction of equipment important to safety, v
y 5.
Not create the possibility for an accident of a different type than any evaluated. previously in 'the FSAR because the ' accident conditions. and-
}
j assumptions are not.affected by the Proposed Technical Specification E
changes. -The proposed changes do not involve-a test or experiment.. or'a-1 L
modification,to a system and do not affect ' any plant equipment-orL i
operation: procedures which could create the possibility of a different accident. Licensed operators will continue to operate the plant under the' 1
supervision of the PSS/ SOS who are required to hold current SRO licenses.-
1 The proposed changes are administrative in nature and involve no accident 1
. scenario. On matters related to nuclear safety, all accidents'are bounded l
/
by previous analyses and no new accidents are involved.
J.
i
[
6.
Not create the possibility for a malfunction of a different type than any R
evaluated previously^ in' the FSAR because no station equipment is _ being-l modified by the Proposed Technical Specification changes. 'The proposed i
k changes do not involve a test or experiment, or a modification to a system V
which could create a different malfunctionLscenario.
4 4
7.
Not~ reduce the margin-of safety as defined in the basis of any. Technical 9
Specification because the proposed Technical Specification changes _ do not'
- affect any operating practices or limits. nor any equipment or; system.
?
important to safety.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and will.not reduce the margin of safety.
j
~ Based:on the above, it is concluded that the proposed Technical Specification changes do not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
i 1
-i i
s CDF9061.LTR w- ---. -
n