ML20207S462
| ML20207S462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1987 |
| From: | DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207S453 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703190493 | |
| Download: ML20207S462 (3) | |
Text
_
TABLE 6.2-1 MINIMUM SHIFT CREW COMPOSITION #
SINGLE UNIT FACILITY I!mimipi!RiWR:5!:Raaim!G-iH!BERiRHiisisisisisiMH8ii=::isiis:r=isi. =i=MN s
LICENSE CATEGORY APPLICABLE MODES 9
QUALIFICATIONS 1, 2, 3 and 4 5 and 6
. !N@!$i$i$$$$$!U$$0!dU$!U$!!$NN!!!!!iliid! 0!$EU$E E isisiEsis=iEEE==S=S=S=i=h - ~_~_~_ _
5 Ei SRO*
2 1**
RO 2
1 Non-Licensed Auxiliary Operator 2
1 Stift Technical Advisor 1(a)
None l
Required Includes the Licensed Senior Reactor Operator serving as the Shift Supervisor.
Does not include the licensed Senior Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator Limited to Fuel
- Handling, supervising CORE ALTERATIONS.
shift crew composition may be one less than the minimum requirements for a period of time not to exceed 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in order to accommodate unexpected absence of on-duty shift crew members provided immediate action is taken to restore the shift crew composition to within the minimum requirements of Table 6.2-1.
l This provision does not permit any shift crew position to be unmanned upon shift change due to an oncoming shift crewman being i
late or absent.
(
l (a)
A single qualified person can be used to satsify the requirements of the STA position for both units.
BEAVER VALLEY - UNIT 1 6-4 PROPOSED WORDING 8703190493 870305 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P
^
ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Technical Specification Change No. 106, Revision 3 No Significant Hazard Evaluation Description of amendment request:
Change Request No.
- 106, Revision 3
would update our previous submittals dated January 15, 1986; June 30, 1986 and January 15, 1987 to clarify the shift crew composition of Table 6.2-1.
Unit 1 and Unit 2 have similar technical specifications regarding required shift crew composition.
The units have a common control room and in accordance with NUREG-0737 Item I.A.l.1 the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) may serve more than one unit at a multi-unit site.
Therefore, the STA position at Unit 1 and Unit 2 may be filled by one individual.
Note (a) has been added to Table 6.2-1 to clarify this requirement and ensure it is clear that only one STA is required to satisfy this position.
Basis for no significant hazard determination:
Based on the criteria for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as setforth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), plant operation in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
1.
Involve a
significant increase in the probability of occurrence or the consequence of an accident previously evaluated because:
This change provides clarification of the shift crew composition setforth in Table 6.2-1 regarding the onsite STA staffing requirements.
For a multi-unit site only one STA is required on site and can serve both units.
This is in accordance with NUREG-0737.
This is an administrative change to clarify the number of STA's required when one or both units are in Modes 1, 2 3
and 4.
Therefore, this change will not affect the probability of occurrence or the consequence of an accident previously evaluated since it provides clarification, is in accordance with the regulations, and is administrative and not technical in nature.
2.
Create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
No change in plant operations or to equipment or components is required.
This change is administrative in
- nature, does not affect the safe operation of the plant and does not affect Section 14 of the UFSAR.
Therefore, this change will not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from those described in the UFSAR.
3.
Involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety because:
This change is administrative in
- nature, does not affect the bases for any technical specification and will not affect the safe operation of the plant.
Attcchment B Paga 2 Conclusion The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident, does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This change clarifies the STA staffing requirements to ensure it is clear that only one STA is required to satisfy this position for both Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Therefore, based on the above, it is proposed to characterize the change as involving no significant hazards consideration.
1