ML20150D690

Proposed Tech Specs,Amending Sections 6.3.1 & 6.4.1 to Reflect Rev to 10CFR55 & to Indicate New Position within Facility Manager Station Training

ML20150D690
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	07/01/1988
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20150D687	List: ML20150D684 ML20150D690
References
NUDOCS 8807140106
Download: ML20150D690 (5)

Text

l Attachment 1 Proposed Technical Specification Changes i

1 l

l 8807140106 880701 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P PDC .

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS l 6.2.3 CATAWBA SAFETY REVIEW GROUP FUNCTION 6.2.3.1 The Catawba 3afety Review Group (CSRG) shall function to examine plant operating characteristics, NRC issuances, industry advisories, REPORTABLE EVENTS, and other sources which may indicate areas fer improving plant safety. The CSRG shall make detailed recommendations for revised pro- na e fety cedures, equipment modifications, or other means of improving to the Director, Nuclear Safety Review Board.

COMPOSITION 6.2.3.2 The CSRG shall be composed of a chairman and at least four dedicated, full-time qualified individuals located onsite.

RESPONSIBILITIES 6.2.3.3 The CSRG shall be responsible for maintaining surveillance of plant activities to provide independent verification

• that these activities are performed correctly and that human errors are reduced as much as practical. ,

RECORDS 6.2.3.4 Records of activities performed by the CSRG shall be prepared, main-tained, and forwarded each calendar month to the Director, Nuclear Safety Review Board.

6.2.4 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR 6.2.4.1 The Shift Technical tdvisor shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Shift Supervisor.

u.3 UNIT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS 6.3.1 Each member of the unit staff shall meet or exceed the minimum qualifi-cations of ANSI N18.1-1971 for comparable positions, except for the Radiation Protection Manager, who shall meet or exceed the qualifications of Regulatory Guide 1.8, September 1975. Th; li:ca :d Op;r;ter and S;nier Operator :h:!'

ci:: ::;t er ex:::d th: minimu:; quelicati:n: Of th: ;uppi:::nt:' requir -

nt: :p::i'i:d '- 5::ti:n * :nd C Of En:1;;ur 1 Of th: M:rch 20, 1980 "90

'ette- t :!' '! cent:: e 6.4 TRAINING 3 NO" N 3

6.4.1 A retraining and replacement training program for the unit staff shall be maintained under the direction of the Stati;n Manager and shall meet or exceed the requirements and rec;;;;ndation of Section 5.5 of ANSI N10.1-1071 and App;ndix A of 10 CFR Part 55,and the :uppic::ntal requir:::nt :p;;ified

'- 5::ti:n: ^ nd C Of Encl::ur: 1 of th: Mar:b 28, 1990 "9C letter t: 011'

'ic;n::::, and :h:1' include familiari;; tion with r:1: vent indu try operational exp;rien ; identifi;d by the CSRO.

• Not responsible for sign-off function.

• • S:::pt th:t th: ::;:rien : :nd :th r :: :id:r:ti:n: de: Crib:d '- Duk: 6:u:r c-' ,

^^-aray's ':tt:-e dated A.ugust 29, 1995, :nd July 9, 1999, 2 e ecceptib'e 'e - 5 l

th: ci" :nd tu: :ppli::nt f:r SRO lic:n::: id:nti'i:d th:r i , r::p::ti :!y. 7__

CATAWBA - UNITS 1 & 2 6-6 AmendmentNo.kunit1)

Amendment No. /(Unit 2)  :

l l

i I 1

l l ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS l

=d App = dix A of 10 CR Part 55 and the =pplement:1 requirennt: :p=ified I in Section: A and C of E=le:ur 1 of th: March 20, 1980 'RC !cttcr to cil lic = ; =:, =d :h:11 includ f=iliari=ti r with relev=t indu;try ;;;rati=ci

=p;ri== id=ti' icd 'y t'^ CSRC.

6.5 REVIEW AND AUDIT 6.5.1 TECHNICAL REVIEW AND CONTROL ACTIVITIES S.5.1.1 Each procedure and program required by Specification 6.8 and other procedures which affect nuclear safety, and changes thereto, shall be prepared by a que ?ied individ 31/ organization. Each such procedure, and changes thereto, shall be reviewed by an individual / group other than the individual /

group which prepared the procedure, or changes thereto, but who may be from the same organization as the individual / group which prepared the procedure, or changes thereto.

6.5.1.2 Proposed changes to the Appendix A Technical Specifications shall be prepared by a qualified individual / organization. The preparation of each proposed Technical Specification change shall be reviewed by an individual /

group other than the individual / group which prepared the proposed change, but who may be from the same organization as the individual / group which prepared the proposed change. Proposed changes to the Technical Specifications shall be approved by the Station Manager. -

6.5.1.3 Proposed modifications to unit nuclear safety-related structures, systems, and components shall be designed by a qualified individual / organization.

Each such modification shall be reviewed by an individual / group other than the individual / group which designed the modification, but who may be from the same organization as the individual / group which designed the modification. Froposed modifications to nuclear safety-related structures, systems, and components shall be approved prior to implementation by the Station Manager; or by the Operating Superintendent, the Technical Services Superintendent, the Maintenance y Superintendent, or the Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling, as previously 5 designated by the Station Manager. 4 6.5.1.4 Individuals responsible for reviews performed in accordance with Specifications 6.5.1.1, 6.5.1.2, and 6.5.1.3 shall be members of the station supervisory staff, previously designated by the Station Manager to perform such reviews. Review of environmental radiological analysis procedures shall be performed by the Corporate System Health Physicist or his designee. Each such review shall include a determination of whether or not additional, cross-disciplinary, review is necessary. If deemed necessary, such review shall be performed by the appropriate designated station review personnel.

6. 5.1. 5 Proposed tests and experiments which affect station nuclear safety i and are not addressed in the FSAR or Technical Specifications shall be reviewed '

l by the Station Manager; or by the Operating Superintendent, the Technical j l l Services Superintendent, the Maintenance Superintendent, or tne Superintendent j of Integrated Scheduling, as previously designated by the Station Manager. <$, !

P i i

o CATAWBA - UNITS 1 & 2 67 Amendment No. JI (Unit 1) I tvn~wsuw M2 xwww

r

[

I Attachment 2  !

Discussi a and No Significant Hazards Analysis f

(

r f

r h

f

?

1 t

I i

i I

l I

f i

l.

8 i

e i

i

-ws- ew-e e v -, g -.w,v- y--c-+-=-me-*+w. *-, -.=rw-,,,-a-e-w-,--,ym-ww,,w.e,, y v e. m, wwe w,- w,-g>-sy-,ye---e_ . . . --e, m,w wr

DISCUSSION AND NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS The proposed changes to Sections 6.3 and 6.4 are intended to eliminate redundancy between the Technical Specifications and the Regulations. The revision to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 55, issued March 25, 1987 and effective May 26, 1987, rendered the sections of the Technical Specifications redundant to the regulations. Eliminating redundancy between the Technical Specifications and the Regulations is one area that has been identified as an area for improvement in the Technical Specifications.

Additional changes to 6.4.1 reflect the new position of Manager, Station Training Services, and the deletion of reference to the CSRG. The Manager, Station Training Services is a new position, and this person has responsibility for the unit staff training program conducted at the site. The removal of reference to the CSRG is due to the fact that identification of relevant operating experience information for use in training programs is explicitly a part of the Operating Experience Program and appropriate responsibilities have been clearly assigned to a separate group. These additional changes were previously proposed in my letter dated October 28, 1987.

l As these proposed changes to the Technical Specifications simply remove redundancy and clarify responsibilities, these are purely administrative changes and have no adverse safety consequences. ,

10 CFR 50.92 states that a proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations if operation in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safetys l

The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The changes are administrative in nature and will not effect the design or allowed modes of operation of the plant.

1 The proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. This proposed amendment is administrative and would not allow the plant to be operated in any condition which is not currently allowed. The design of the facility will be unaffected by this change.

I The proposed amendment will not result in a significant reduction in a margin of I safety. Since the amendment is administrative in nature, no safety margins are  !

effected. I The NRC published several examples of amendments which would not irivolve ,

Significant Hazards Considerations (48 FR 14870). This proposal is similar to j example (1), a purely administrative change to Technical Specifications. '

Based on the preceding discussion, Duke Power concludes that this amendment does not involve any Significant Hazards Considerations.