ML20248H637
| ML20248H637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248H631 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910110303 | |
| Download: ML20248H637 (3) | |
Text
.
- e ce
o UNITED STATES g
T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.n
,g l
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%o
/
sse*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.139 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346
1.0 INTRODUCTION
the Toledo Edison Company (TS's) appended to(TED)
By letter dated June 20, 1988, requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1.
The proposed changes are to revise the TS's to reflect changes in organization responsibilities, position and title changes, as well as editorial changes to the TS's.
The organization responsibility changes involve removing investi Board (gative and report preparation responsibilities from the Station Review SRB), reassigning review of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCM) and the Process Control Program (PCP) to the Company Nuclear Review Board (CNRB) (this responsibility was previously assigned to the SRB), and several minor editorial and administrative changes. The proposed amendment would change the title of Operations Quality Assurance Manager to Quality Assurance Supervisor in Specification 6.5.1.2.
This position is currently filled by the Engineering Assurance Supervisor.
The proposed changes would revise the existing SRB responsibility in Technical Specification 6.5.1.6.e to enhance the SRB's capability to perform its review and oversight function. This would be accomplished by removing the responsibility of investigation and report preparation from the SRB, allowing the SRB to concentrate their review on matters of nuclear safety and determinations regarding potentially unreviewed safety questions.
The proposed changes would delete Technical Specification 6.5.1.69 and add this responsibility to a completely revised Section 6.5.1.6e. This latter section will now require a review of reports of violations instead of investigating violations of the Technical Specifications.
s92o110303 891003 PDR ADOCK 05000346 p
1
.. )
l The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 6.5.1.61 to achieve consistency with the associated Davis-Besse security plan titles in the Industrial Security Plan, the Security Training and Qualification Plan, and the Security Contingency Plan.
The proposed changes would revise document titles contained in Technical Specifications 6.5.1.6j, 6.5.2.8e and 6.5.2.8f, to agree with current document titles. Titles in Technical Specifications 6.8.1.d and 6.8 le are also proposed to be changed to be consistent with procedure titles proposed to be changed in Section 6.5.3.la where the title Security Implementing Plan Procedures is proposed to be changed to Industrial Plan Procedures; the title Emergency Implementing Plan Procedures would be revised to add the name of the plant.
Also, the revision to Technical Specifications 6.5.1.6p and 6.5.1.6q would reassign responsibility for review of the ODCM and the PCP to the CNRB. The licensee also proposed revising Section 6.5.1.7 to be consistent with a proposed relettering of the items in Specification 6.5.1.6.
This lest proposal was not accepted by the staff since it is an administrative change not required for any reason other than eliminating a blank section (i.e., Section 6.5.1.69) but could introduce inconsistencies. This denial is considered to be "de minimus" thereby not requiring any further action.
Finally, the proposed amendment would add the words "shall be" for clarification to TS 6.5.3.1d, and TS's 6.5.2.81 and 6.5.2.8m are proposed additions which would include the audit functions for the CNRB.
2.0 DISCUSSION Consistent with the guidance provided by NUREG-0926 (June 1982) and NUREG-0932 (August 1982), Specification 6.5.1.6e of the Administrative Controls requirements includes the responsibility of the Station Review Board (SRB). Specification 6.5.1.6p and 6.5.1.6q of the Administration Controls were proposed to be 1985),
revised in accordance with the additional guidance in NUREG-1133 (May(CNRB),
ano delineate the responsibility of the Company Nuclear Review Board including the responsibility of reviewing the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) and the Process Control Program (PCP) consistent with NUREG-0472 (Revision 2). The proposed addition of Specification 6.5.2.81 and 6.5.2.8m of the Administrative Controls are also consistent with guidance provided by NUREG-0472 (Revision 2), and include audit functions for the CNRB.
Specification 6.5.1.61 of the Administrative Controls include Davis-Besse Security Plan titles and are developed pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, and Appendices B and C to 10 CFR 73.
Specification 6.5.1.2 of the Administrative Controls presently includes the position of Operations Quality Assurance Manager. The proposed revision to this Specification changes this title to Quality Assurance Supervisor. The proposed changes to Specification 6.5.1.6j, 6.8.1.d and 6.8.le are only title changes. The change to Specification 6.5.3.1 is proposed to be consistent with the title changes discussed above.
. 1 Additional changes regarding Specification 6.5.1.2 have been superseded by the amendment proposed by the licensee in its letter dated March 8,1988.
3.0 EVALUATION The proposed change to Specification 6.5.1.6e is acceptable since the licensee is adopting, by reference, the applicable portions of the Technical Specifica-tions approved by the NRC staff in its Safety Evaluation Reports (SER's) for Grand Gulf, Unit 1, (NUREG-0926, June 1982) and for Sumer, Unit 1 (NUREG-0932, August 1982).
The proposed change to Specification 6.5.1.61 is accep(3)(1) and 73.55(b)(4)(ii) table since it is in compliance with the requirements of Sections 73.55(b) of 10 CFR 73.55 and Appendices A and B to 10 CFR Part 73 with respect to-establishing written security procedures documenting the structure of the security organization and the training and qualifications of the security organization personnel.
The proposed change to Specifications 6.5.1.6p and 6.5.1.6q are acceptable since the licensee is adopting, by reference, the applicable portions of the Technical Specifications previously approved in the staff's SER's for Grand Gulf, Unit 1; Summer, Unit 1; and Palo Verde Unit 1 (NUREG-1133, May 1985).
The proposed changes to Specifications 6.5.1.2,6.5.1.69,6.5.1.6j,6.5.2.8e, 6.5.2.8f, 6.5.3.la, 6.5.3.1d, 6.8.1d and 6.8.le are administrative changes which are consistent with the staff's guidelines in its Standard Technical Specifications for PWR's.
The proposed additions of Specifications 6.5.2.81 ana 6.5.2.8m are acceptable since t1ey are consistent with the staff's guidelines in NUREG-0472, Revision 2,
" Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications for PWR's."
l
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: A. Massey, M.D. Lynch Dated: October 3, 1989 I
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _.