ML20236P422

Proposed Tech Spec 6.1.G.1.7,changing Language from ROs Requiring 24 H Notification to NRC to All Reportable Events

ML20236P422
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	11/09/1987
From:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20236P420	List: ML20236P416 ML20236P422
References
NUDOCS 8711170300
Download: ML20236P422 (4)

Text

.--_.._ __

s

+

ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR OPERATING LICENSES NPP-ll AND NPF-18 Revised Pages':

NPP-ll NPF-18 6-4 6-4 l

l 3823K ff9CK05000373 00 g73399 DR P

PDR

A q

w

.w

Investigative Function is unavailable, he shall designate this responsibility to an established alternate, who satisfies the formal ~ training'and experience for the Super--

l i

intendent of the Offsite Review and Investigate Function. The-I

,1 responsibilities-of the personnel performing this function ~are Estated below. The Offsite Review and Investigative Function shall review:

~

- 1)' -The safety evaluations for'(1) changes to' procedures, equipment, or systems as described in the safety-analysis d

report.and (2) tests or experiments completed.under.the provision of 10 CFR 50.59 to verify that such actions did

.not constitute an'unreviewed safety. question.

Proposed changes to the Quality Assurance Program description shall'

~be. reviewed and approved by the Manager of-Quality Assurance.

2). Proposed changes to procedures, equipment or systams which involve an unreviewed safety question'as defined in 10 CFR 50.59.

3)

Proposed't'ests or experiments which involve an unrsviewed safety question as defined.in 10 CFR 50.59.

'l 4)

Proposed changes in Technical Specifications.or NRC operating.

' licenses.

5). Noncompliance with NRC requirements, or of inte'rnal procedures, or instructions having nuclear safety significance.

6)

Significant cperating abnormalities or deviation from normal and expected performance of plant equipment that affect nuclear safety as referred to it by the Onsite Review and Investigative Function.

7)

%pc-* M e ecturrence: r:;uf ^ g 21 h:ur :tt'f::tf:r ::

a :m;.

All MP0ATAsLt Evanrs.

8)

All' recognized indications of an unanticipated deficiency in some aspect of. design or operation of safety-related structures, systems, or components.

9)

Review and report findings and recommendations regarding l

f' all changes to the Generating Stations Emergency Plan L

prior to implementation of such change.

k 10') Ra> view and report findings and recommendations regarding all items referred by the Technical Staff Supervisor, Sta-i tion Manager, Assistant Vice President and General Manager -

l

)

Nuclear Stations, and Manager of Quality Assurance.

LA SALLE UNIT 1 6-4 Amendment No. 47 l}

g 4

[ s*f~

I

'w '

O.'.

~ j g

ADMINISTRATION' CONTROLS Offsite Review ano Investigative Function (Continueo)

(5) ' approve and recort in a timely manner all. findings of non-ccmpliance with NRC requirementsito the Station Manager, Assis-1 Manager of Quality Assurance, and the Vice President - Nuclear

- j tant Vice President and General Manager - Nuclear Stations, J

Operations. During periods when the Superintendent of Offsite i

Review and.-Investigative Function is unavailable; he shall designate this responsibility to an established alternate, who

. satisfies the formal training and experience for the Superin-tendent of the Offsite Review and: Investigate Function. The.

responsibilities of the personne1~ performing this function are E

stated below. The Offsite Review and Investigative Function shall review:

I

'1).The safety evaluations for:(1) changes to procedures, equipment,'or systems as described.in the. safety analysis 4

report and (2) tests or experiments completed under the-provision of 10 CFR 50.59 to verify that suen actions did-not constitute an unreviewed~ safety question.

Proposed changes to the Quality Assurance Program description snail be reviewed and approved by the Manager of Quality Assurance.

2)- Proposed changes to procedures, equipment or systems which' involve an unreviewed safety. question as defined in 10'CFR 50.59.'

3)- Procosed tests'or experiments'which involve an unreviewed~

~

safety question as defined in 10.CFR 50.59.

~)

' Proposed changes in Technical Specifications.or-NRC operating 4

licenses.

5)

Noncompliance with NRC requirements, or of internal procedures, or instructions having nuclear safety significance.

6)

'Significant operating abnormalities or deviation from normal and expected performance of. plant equipment that affect nuclear safety as referred to it by the Onsite Review and Investigative Function.

7)

M ;rn b h :::; h n::: c:;; iring S h ;r n:tific:ti:n ::

.

...=. AH REPORTA6LE EVENTS.

8)

All recognized indications of an unanticipated deficiency in seme aspect of design or operation of safety-related structures, systems, or components.

9)

Review and recort findings and recommendations regarding all changes to the Generating Stations Emergency Plan prior to implementation of such change.

10) Review and report findings and. recommendations regarding all items referred by the Technical Staff Supervisor, Station

._ Manager, Assistant Vice President and General Manager -

Nuclear Stations, and. Manager of Quality Assurance.

L LA SALLE - UNIT 2 6-4 Amenc:ent No. 29

[

g

gw-

'Y

=

n.

i l

'W M O B'

p.. ~. L

• t

. +;

[

p-ATTACHMENT Bi gj SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION.

a Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed' Technical-Specification Amendment and determined:that.it does not represent a significantLhazards consideration.- Based on the criteria for defining.a p.

significant. hazards consideration established in 10 CFR,50.92, operation of L'aSalle County. Station Units 1 and 2 in'accordance with the proposed: amendment:

will po_t,:

t

1.

Involve a'significant increase in the probability:or consequences of'

an; accident previously-evaluated because:

• H, This proposed amendment involves an administrative change to revise

-the language to that: requested by the-NRC in GL 83-43.. The proposed:

change ~will not alter, in any'way, the plant facilities or plant.

operation as described in the UFSAR.

2.z Create.the. possibility of a new or'different kind of accident from

~

any accident previously evaluated because:

This proposed amendment involves an administrative.. change to revise.

theilanguage to that requested by.the NRC..The proposed change will not alter, in any way. the plant facilities or plant operation as described in the'UFSAR.

3.

Involve asignificant reduction in the margin of safety because:

-This proposed. amendment involves an administrative change to revise the language to that requested by the NRC. The proposed change will not alter, in any way,'the plant facilities or plant operation as described in the UFSAR.

-Guidance has been provided in 51 FR 7744 (Reference 1), for the application of standards to license change requests for determination of the existence of significant hazards considerations. This document provides examples.of amendments which are and are not considered likely to involve a significant hazards considerations. According to the criteria established in this document,'this amendment may be classified as an administrative change wnich is an-example of a change not considered likely to involve a significant

' hazards consideration.

l

-This propoed amendment does not involve a significant relaxation of

.the criteria used to establish safety limits, a significant relaxation of the

bases for the limiting safety system settings or a significant relaxation of the bases for the limiting conditions for operations. Therefore, based on the j

, guidance provided-in the Federal Register and the criteria established in 10 i

CFR.50.92(e), the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration.

3823K

-w___-_-_____

___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _