ML20141N657

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 83 to License DPR-6

ML20141N657
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	03/10/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20141N653	List: ML20141N652 ML20141N656 ML20141N657
References
NUDOCS 8603170459
Download: ML20141N657 (4)

Text

.

/ UNITE] STATES 8 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20086 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION -

SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155 1.0 Introduction On November 1, 1984, Consumers Power Company (the licensee) submitted a proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant (BRPP). The proposed changes included a clarification to the calibration frequency of dose-rate measuring instruments, renumbering of a motor-operated valve now a manual operated valve, the inclusion of reload H4 fuel, and the correction of several typographical errors. On May 16, 1985, the licensee submitted additional information supporting the dose-rate instrument calibration frequency change. On October 9, 1985, the licensee submitted a withdrawal request for the dose-rate instrument calibration frequency portion of the initial submittal and requested that the review of the remaining changes of the initial proposal be completed.

On August 5, 1985, the licensee also submitted a proposed TS amendment concerning a reorganizational change. This safety evaluation is a review of both of the above requests.

Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Froposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action were published in the Federal Register on July 3, 1985 (50 FR 27504), and October 9, 1985 (50 FR 41246). No public comments or requests for hearing were received.

2.0 Evaluation 2.1 TS Section 6.5.3(g) Portable Gama and Neutron Dose-rate Measuring Instruments, Section 6, page 6-12.

By submittals dated November 1, 1984 and May 16, 1985, the licensee proposed to add a sentence to TS 6.4.3(f) which would require the calibration of the high ranges of the portable high range gama measuring instruments every six-months and the low ranges of these instruments would remain on a three month calibration schedule as presently required in TS 6.4.3(f) for all other portable gama and neutron dose-rate instruments. Several TS Amendments have been processed since these submittals and the paragraph number has been changed to 6.4.3(g). As explained in the May 16, 1985 submittal, the proposed.a.ddition was requested because the high range calibrations have to be made by an offsite contractor, resulting in 8603170459 860310 LA ADOCK O g5

n~ - - . - - . - - - . . . - - - . - . . - . - - - -

7~

y ,

~

e n. -

i

.V an, instrument being out of service from two to six' weeks. Since at  !

the time of the submittal 'the licensee possessed only two of these instruments, this left the facility with only one usable instrument 15 to 50 percent of the time.

E" ,Before this proposed change was. acted upon, the licensee submitted a.

L ,

. request, dated October 9, 1985, withdrawing the calibration frequency-change because experience had shown.the high range reading tended  !

-to drift and the instrument technical manual recommended quarterly  ;

calibrations. Also the licensee had acquired an additienal i instrument.

{

~

The staff has reviewed'the'above submittals and agrees that i TS 6.4.3(g) should remain unchanged, requiring that all portable

. gassa and neutron dose-rate instruments be calibrated at least every ,

'three months; therefore, there is no change to page 6-12 from that-

issued with BRPP TS Amendment 80,. dated October 29,'1985.' r

! 2.2 Valve M0-7069 Replacement and Nomenclature Change, Section 11, page 11-1. .

L .

1 The licensee's November 1, 1984 application priposes to change the' l l name for Valve MO-7069 to Valve VPI-19. This change was requested  :

because the motor operated valve, in the locked or sealed open I L

position, had been changed to a manually operated valve in the  !

! locked open' position. A change in valve type required a name change  !

I for consistency and since the change was made under Specification t L Field Change, SFC-82-049, and Design Change No. 15-84, with required  :

l licensee safety reviews, the staff finds this nomenclature change to i the BRPP TS to be acceptable. j l

2.3 Add Fuel Reload H-4 to TS Section 5.0 Tables 1 and 2, Section 5 >

l. pages 5-9a and 5-9 b. l i

l The Itcensee requested adding fuel reload H4 to Tables 1 and 2 of Section 5.0, Pages 5-9a and 5-9b. This addition has.already been  !

l accomplished in BRPP TS Amendment 81, dated November 1,1985. i

-2.4 Organization Change, Section 10, pages 10-2, 10-5 and 10-7. f By application dated August 5, 1985, the licensee submitted a TS .)

u reorganizational change-to improve the performance of the BRPP. 'j

The reorganization established a new Engineering and Maintenance  !

l position that reports to the Plant Superintendenti realigns  !

responsibilities of maintenance and engineering functions to this  :

position and established a new position, Planning and Administrative  !

Services Superintendent also reporsing to the Plant Superf ettendent. I The position of Operations and Maintenance Superintendent has been  !

changed to Production and Performance Superintendent (PPS) with the o maintenance function being reassigned to the new position. l

. Engineering and Maintenance Superintendent (EMS). The PPS continues  ;

to have responsibility for plant operations without change and with '

l i

l. i l \

l h _

i

r e

3 the additional responsibilities of reactor engineering, which has been transferred from the former Technical Superintendent position, and a new plant performance group to provide additional staff in

. this area. The reactor engineering function is considered to be an activity more closely related to operations than to either plant maintenance or design thus, the reorganization should also improve communications in this area.

The other. engineering functions formerly assigned to the Technical Superintendent have been transferred to the new EMS position, along with all maintenance activities formerly assigned to the Operations and Maintenance Superintendent. The rew EMS position now will have the responsibility of all engineering functions other than that of reactor engineering and all maintenanca activities. This realignment was made to improve communications and coordination between the functions of maintenance and engineering and to enhance preventive and corrective maintenance activities. The EMS is at the same management level as the PPS; therefore the engineering functions remain at the same management level.

A new position of Planning and Administrative Services Superintendent (PASS) has been established which will have responsibility for planning, ,

outage coordination, the Big Rock Point Living Schedule, property '

protection, materials procurement and management, and all other administrative functions. Those major functions reassigned to this position remain at the same level of management as in the former organization since the PASS reports directly to the Plant 1 Superintendent. I The size and makeup of the Plant Review Committee remains the same, being composed of key plant staff members, and only the new position titles have been changed in TS Section 6.5.1.2. TS Section 6.2.2.g i has also been revised to include new position titles as alternates to the Plant Superintendent in approving deviations from plant  ;

overtime guidelines. Typographical errors were also corrected in '

this section.

The staff has reviewed the organizational changes and responsibility i realignments described above and finds that they reduce management levels under the Plant Superintendent and more effectively aligns i responsibilities in the organization. The new arrangement does not change the independence of the Quality Assurance or Radiation Safety Groups, the designation of positions requiring a NRC Operator License, nor the assignment of responsibilities of activities important to safety. Therefore, the staff finds these changes acceptable. l 2.5 Miscellaneous Changes and Typographical Corrections; Section 6, page  !

6-5; Section 10, pages 10-2, 10-22, and 10-24. l 1

. _ ~ -. . .

4 Also, by application dated November 1, 1984, the licensee proposes to add a footnote to TS Sections 6.10.2.1 and m, Section 10, page 10-22, retention of records for the life of the plant, explaining that records of staff training and qualification (1) and reactor tests and experiments (m) were changed from a five year. retention period by Amendment 63, dated January 4, 1984, and records of these types created prior to the previous five year retention period, January 1,1979, may not be available.

In~ addition to the above, the licensee corrected several typographical errors some of which had been corrected in prior license amendments.

The staff has reviewed the above changes and find them acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, changes to the surveillance requirements, and changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures and requirements- The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued proposed findings that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such findings. Accordingly, this amendment meets the elioibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22( 'c)(9) and (10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(bl no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment. '

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this emendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor: K. R. Ridgway and T. S. Rotella.

Dated: March 10,1986 1