ML20247A148
| ML20247A148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1989 |
| From: | Tam P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-66427, NUDOCS 8907210143 | |
| Download: ML20247A148 (4) | |
Text
,___
p***%e%
UNITED STATES f\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jg, y
WASHmGTON, D. C, 20555 g
r v
/
July 18,1989 Docket No. 50-412 MEMORANDUM FOR:
John F. Stolz, Director Project Directorate I-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:
COMPLETION OF REVIEW 0F THE 1988 BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 10 CFR 50.59 REPORT (TAC 66427) l By letter dated April 27, 1939, the licensee submitted the 1988 Report of Facility Changes Tests and Experiments, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
I reviewed that report following the guidance of Section 3.4.4 of Revision 1 of the Project Manager's Handbook.
1 The licensee's Site Administrative Procedures (SAP) assure that each facility I
modification, test or experiment has been reviewed against the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 by the Onsite Safety Committee. Enclosure 1, consisting of three pages extracted from the SAP during a previous site visit at Unit 2, provides details and is self-explanatory.
Based on my review t,f the licensee's report, I conclude that there is reasonable assurance that the changes, tests and experiments meet criteria l
in 10 CFR 50.59. No new licensing actions need be opened as a result of review of the licensee's report.
This completes TAC 66427, "1988 Annual Report of 10 CFR 50.59 Chaqges for Beaver Valley Unit 2". A copy of this memorandum will be placed in the PDR and local PDR, and a copy will be provided' to the residnent inspectors for incorporation of appropriate material into future inspection reports.
V l
l 1
Pe S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 i
Division of Reactor Projects I/II l
t
Enclosure:
As stated i
l l
l Distribution:
0 f Docket files M
i l
NRC and local PDR I
]
Resident inspectors t
j BR72MR MEka l
R l
J
Enclosure /
Nuclear Group - Site Administrative Procedures Chapter 10 FIGURE 3 I
REVIEW PROCESS 1
i s.5.s...e 6.s.....
t.s.s.s.t.s..e...m v.s...s.i.e.s
-inn s,x restit,<.non,.
- i. int er amoursemass
- a. operitten er=mes tr= wore casa,e asemest t
er ante..assen
- r. t.s. vietetiers Asst.
e) ***
- 4. $rntal b) Sevtstone with I
teuters 1steet chmages a) teuestery changes i
ff.s.4.s.3) i, Prepare or Flame henseer Properor evaluate
.1 Effect II.s. er 10 m 30.H Asaftv10s (333)
'6 1 [
I 05C COMMITTEE SEVIEWS 5
e 4
e Yes Propefe er evaloste
^
ggy l Art to osc chsnes reementetses y
testuste fesu laslement I
feo 10 cm to.H (stR) 8 I
y App tes(concur) s no to All l
-=...
..e.u......
Pasat meneser AF' * *t/
fes/ unrevion
\\ leo e
app %,,
essapprovat Safstr Guesttens cascommended
/
\\
l Approval /
1 or
\\
/
?
Disapproval j
T.$. Chanpa 2
Disapp
)
i ves g
/h e
taht**
1 e
e' et 1
0
- t.,t preaerer ei ll tl 4
eseme ll nr.ua..
I Il*
j to 1
- 8)e OltC 8
aeyfew
=
v 1
1 Page.17. of 21 Revision 8 1
j
l';
' Chapter 10
. Nac1 p t Group - Sits Administrative Frecadurso (EIAMPLE)
DATE:
OSC CEANCE PRESENYAYION FORM Attachment 1
~
Subject or Procedure No.:
, Issue
,' Revision TITLE:
i I
Reason and/or Description of Change (Include refsrences, if applicable)
NOTE: Escord OSC meeting if change was previously cabled.
i i
1 i
j l
4 Freparer/ Reviewer Checklist Circle One 1.
Site Facilities are changed temporarily / permanently and evaluated:
YES NO
- a.. Adverse hasards are created outside their qualification profile.
YES NO b.
Radwsste system is involved (refer to IfC 80-18).
YES No Environmental qualifications of equipment or plant are affaeled.
YES No c.
- d. -System, structure or component performance is changed.
N YES, NO 2.
A procedure described ir the UFSAR is changedi such as:
YES N0 a.
Referenced documents that are a commitment to an inspection, surveillance or operating requirement are affected.
YES No b.
System, structure or component performance is changed.
YES-N0 i
3.
Yest or experiment not in the UFSAR is involved; such ass YES ' NO I
a.
Outside of Yechnical Specification surveillance compliance.
YES NO b.
Reduces adequacy of UFSAR equipment to prevent accident or mitigate consequences of an accident.
YES NO c.
Syste, peructure or component performance is changed.
YES NO j
4.
A change to the Yech. Spec. is required and Licensing notified.
YES NO I
If any answer to items 1, 2 or 3 is answered Yes", a safety evaluation is required.
Refer to SAP 10.
The abovs change (s) meets or enceeds the original intent or design requirement. Both the j
probability of previously analysed accidents and the consequences of such accidents are unchanged.
j RECAUSE:
1 1
l Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
444.4.4...
444...............................e......
CSC Comments:
O meco== ended Approval. so Unreviewed Safeer questions =ist O Reco== ended missepro at O Ya61ed O Concurred ith Above State
=ts Raquirea Review.and Approval by ORC and NRC Additional OSC Comments attached SV
-0SC-Mer. ting No.
- ~
OSC Chairman-TICURE 1 no
_n no n
m.
'l 5
f Nucisar Crcup - Sits Administrative Prse:dursa.
1 Chapter 10 i
(EXAMPLE)
Attachment
' L 21ssr Group - Site Adr8nistrative Procedures AAFETY EVALUATION (10 CTR 50.59) FOR CRANGES. TESTS OR tKPER1MENTS Subjects
)
l L Will the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the safety Analysis Aepart be increased?
YES NO t.
\\
- 2. Will the consequences of an accidant previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis l
Rep;rt be increased?
YES No i
{
i i
- 9. Will the probability of I wi.t. function of equipment important to safety be icersased?
YES MC' m~
f 1
- b. Will the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety i
e YES NC i
- ncrossev7
.e.
i 1
. Will the possibility of an accident of a different type than any previously cualysed in the Safety Analysis report be created?
YES N(
'v I
\\
Will the possibility of a malfunction of a diffeNt type than any previously o
YES Na GValu3ted in the Safety Analysis Report be created 7
. Will the marsin of safety as defined in the basis for any Yechnical Specification b3 reduced?
YES H If csy of the above questions.are answered "YES" an Unreviewed Safety Question is involved and th3 chanSe may not be made without NRC concurrence.
Prepared 4y Date Reviewed By Date
@ Cracgtreds OSC Chaimen __
/Date
/SV' -0$C-TE: If opplicable, the specific sectic* of the update FAAR or Yech. Spec down to at' least e.n2 decimal place should be referenced and the criteria or reasons for the' decision k
dccumented.
~
- FIGURE 2
^
-Pase 16 of 21 Revision 8*
- _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _.. _.. _ _..