ML20206A735

Advises That Util 880722 Submittal of 1987 Rept of Facility Changes,Tests & Experiments Meet Criteria in 10CFR50.59 & Acceptable.Comments Listed

ML20206A735
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	11/08/1988
From:	Tam P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-63184, TAC-65593, TAC-65718, TAC-67421, TAC-67922, TAC-69045, NUDOCS 8811150239
Download: ML20206A735 (7)

Text

- _____

November 8,1938 Docket No. 50-334 MEMORANCUM FOR: John F, Stolz, Director Projec'. Directorate 1-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II FROM: Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Division of Reactor Projects I/II

SUBJECT:

CCFFLETION OF REVIEW 0F TFE 1987 BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 1, 10 CFR 50.59 REpCRT AND 1h5PECT10N OF 10 CFR 50.59 PROCEDURES AT THE 511E (TAC h0. 69045)

Cy letter dated July ??,1988, the licensee subraitted the 1987 Report of facility Changes, tests and Experir.ents, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. I revitwed that report following the guidance of Section 3.4.4. of final draft Fevisico 1 of the Project Manager's Hardbcok (rcrorarduri, S. Varga to F.

Miraglia, et al., dated July 11,1988). In addition, in order to gain an understandirg cf the licensee's procedure for 10 CFR 50.59 modifications, I oltained additicnal information at the site on October 26, 1968. Enclosure 3 lists the persons I held discussions with during ry visit.

The licensee's Site Adninistrative Procedyres (SAP) assure that each facility modification, test or experirent has teen reviestd against the requirerents of 10 CFR 50.59 by the Cosite Safety Cceriittee. Enclosure 7, consisting of thrte pages extracttd frce the SAP. during a previcus visit at Unit 2 for the sane purpose (TAC 679??), provides details and is self-explanatory. All licensee personrel that ray have anything to do with plant redifications are being given a three-hour training course by the licensee on this rtgulation and its application.

Based on my review of the licensee's report, and the additional clarification cbtained ersite, I conclude that there is reascrable assurance that the changes, tests and experirents reet criteria ir. IC CFR 50.59. FurtherTore, a nuntier of these changes have been or are still being addressed by licensirg actions; details may be obtained by accessing the TAC files listed in Enclosure 1. To row licensirs acticos need be optred as a result of the licenste's report.

While en site, I made the follcwing corr lents:

(1) Faintain the current level of detail, citarly stating stat syster/cceponent each change tertains to.

$ ,$ @'g A. h 0

SS11150239 881103 d T rF k

ADOCK 05000334 PDC

. I' hpf I

t(

2 (2) The licensee should encourage its personnel to consult with the NPC staff through the project tr.anager, whenever there is the slightest doubt regarding the classification of a change, The licensee should docurent such consultation, by a letter following the consultation, and in the 10 CFR 50.59 report, giving nanes of individuals and dates.

(3) When reviewing a proposed change against conenittrents r:ade in the FSAR or UFSAR, the licensee should be careful as to which docunent contains the current licer, sing basis. Licensing of a plant is a living and crgoing process and therefore, both the original FSAR and UFSAR should be consulted to detemine if there is a charge in ccerni ttrent.

(4) The report is niostly succinct in describing the reasons for changes.

On itens that were not clear, the licensee provided clarification while I was on site.

This ccepletes T/C 65045, "1987 Annual Report of 10 CFR 50.59 Changes for Beaser Valley l' nit 1." A ccpy of this rictorardum will be placed in the PCR and local PCP, and a copy will be provided to the resident inspectors for incorporation of appropr f ate raterial into future instection reports.

{ c i % f % e 4( b Peter . Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 Divisico of Reactor Projects I/II

Enclosures:

As stated DISTRIBllTION Isid_et File Gray File Piam Sfiorris POR and local PDR LA:PDI-4 FF:PDI-Sth ?t [ / PTarn:cb -( J5tol:$

11/1/06 11/f/06 0:PDI-4,b[

11/f/68

6

, 9 Enclosure 1 Beaver Valley Unit 2 1987 10 CFR 50.59 Report

" " t'r'o's'sTe f~e;rFn~c e' 't'o].)lcle n's];ndc,tj,og,

,C,ba,ng,e, ,N,o,,, a nd Des c ri p t io n NRC TAC N0. STATUS 611, Rev. 2. Control 63184 complete Room energer.cy air system 711, Rev. O. Control 65593 corplete Roon ventilation radiation ronttors 7(6, Rev. 2. Remove wall 63184 corplete separating Unit 1 & F control rooms 814. Rev. 1, Control 65718 complete Fccei chlorine detectors Top 1-87-01, Control 631P4 conplete Room emerger.cy air tanks Tcp 1-87-05, 06, 07, 03, 09, 63184 complete Control Poom energency air bottles Page 80, 000 M 67421 ongoing Page 80, Control Room 65593 complete area nonttors Page 81. Liquid waste 67421 ongoing dose factor calculations

i

. l ,

• . I

~

Enclosure 2 ,

i e .

Nucipar Group . Site Administrative Procedures Chapter 10 l

. I FIGURE 3 1 l RIVI.EV PROCESS

=

.. .i.... ..s.i..... t.s.s.s.t.s. ...... i

t. ...,,,....

"TJi s.= i. in s .e 3. o r.ti.a rew a

• rea.*.e.

. .. . .r.,o i..t,.,c, ..

a. "t.

.. i. v.s. u.u. m aue. s i.aiet i ii o-

. u .nt.i . vsis L. nei . teini cm ...

o t ..e, cm.....

(f.t.(.0.3) 1 .

n ,w. ,

.. ," IffMt a,l. .e p,,, ,, e avsamet.

10 CFR 'd,$9 444fietfl

. tsaat il q[

Olt CORRITitt 88TitWS (;

9 4 i '.t.

' h.

l

' t .: e.n,.r. n nat et. e-- -

- EM88 M 8 .C Chanen Pn .astattae 4 te i Aw Perg !ast noat ,

g _ _

(5tt) 4 g

o I Ap.

In (c.seve ) g hs ne All I W Fleet ham.g r

.f ,,a x l _

A .. .. -

w.t, ws, -

I / .c -

\ l A.pc. val /

/  ! D164p m tel I

\ 1.1. Ch.g.

- C I S* **

l ,, g f, ,

, e .. o 8'

l 6 g4 t

i  !! Pt .M P.'

l1 l1 meme ll ans.1 ei.i l 80- -

i.

8 SIC e sai- ':S 1P S ,

\

Page* 17 of 21 Revision 8

Chapter 10 '

~ . Nucirr Cr:up - Site Administrctiva Proc:dur s

- (EZAMF1,I)

' DATE*: OSC CEANCE PRESENTATION FORM Attachment

• Subject or Procedure No.s . Issue -

. Revision TITLE: *

(

Reason and/or Description of Change (Include references, if applicable) -

WOTE: Record OSC meeting if change was previously tabled.

s t. .

1 Preparer / Reviewer Checklist .Circleone

1. Site Facilities are changed temporarily / permanently and evaluated ~ YES NO

a. Adverse hasards are created outside their gyalification profile. YES NO

, b. Radwaste system is involved (refer to IfC 40 14). '

YES No

c. Environmental qualifications of equipment or plant are af feched. YES No

d. System, structure or compot.ent performance is changed. YES, NO

2. A procedure describsd in the UFSAR is changed such as **', YIS NO

a. Referenced documents that are a commitment to an inspection, surveillance or operating requirement are af fected. YES No

b. System, structure or component performance is changed. YIS , NO

3. Test or experiment not in the ITFSAR is involvedi such as e YES NO

a. Outside of Technical Specification surveillance compliance. YES NO

b. Reduces adequacy of 17FSAR equipment to prevent accident or mitigate consequences of an accident. YIS NO

c. System. structure or component performance is changed. YES NO

4. A change to the Tech. Spec. is required and Licensing notified. YES NO

-- If any answer to items 1, 2. or 3 is answered "Yes", a safety evaluation is required.

Refar to SAF 10. .

The above change (s) meets or exceeds the original intent or design requirement. Both the probability of previously an.*1ysed accidents and the consequences of such accidents are unchanged.

SECAUSE Prepared By: Reviewed ly _

• • • • • +e***********..u u n ..u ******++e ,e...********e....,

OSC Comment s : Racossended Approval No Unreviewed Safety Questions Exist O Recoe ended otsarerovst O rahted 0 Concurred with Above State ente Requires Review.and Approval by ORC and WRC Additional OSC Comments attached

( -

IV 05C- -

OSC Chairman . . Meeting No.

FIGURE 1 ,

- . Page 15 of 21 Revision 8

ne y s l

-- I Euc1:4r Cr:up - Site Admi istrative Procedure.s Chapter 10 6

(EXAMPI.E ) *

,N uclecr* Croup - Site Administrative Procedures Attachment _ . _ . _ ,

Subjects $ArtTY EVALUATION (10 CFR 50.59) TOR CRANCES. TESTS OR tXPERIMENTS  ;

1. WillReport thebeprobability sacreased?of an accident previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis YIS NO t.

2. CillReportthe be consequences increased? of an accident previously evaluated in the safety Analysis Yt3 No

3. Will the probability increased? ,, of I malfunction of equipment important to safety be Yt3 NC 4.* Cill the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety (be increased? YES NC

5. Will the possibility of an accident of a different analysed in the Safety Analysis report be created? type than any previously YIS N(

'*/

\

i n. Will the possibility of a malfunction of a dif ferent type than any previously YES N' cvaltated in the Safety Analysis Report be t.eated? '

', Cill the margin of safety as defined la the basis for any Technical Specification YES N be reduced?

• l -

It c y of the abeve questions.are answered "Yts" an Unreviewed Safety Question is involved cad the change may not be made without NRC concurrence.

Prepared 3y Date Reviewed 3y Date sc Conegrred OSC Chatruan /Date

/ BV' 0$C- -

77t If appitcable. the specific section of the update PSAR or Tech. Spec down to at' teast g one decimal place should be referenced and the criteria or reasons for the decision \

documented.

' PICURI 2 Page 16 of 21 Revision 8

e . ,

Enclosure 3 Persons Contacted Re

'Frb'cieYu'rles,'!af,Fea~y)garding 10

[,7,a))gy,,Fcy,e,r,,P,l a n,tCFR 50.59 G. Beatty K. P.cMullen S. Sovick J. Spiegel l

l l

l l

i I

>