NPL-99-0057, Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,revising TS 15.6 & 15.7 to Reflect Proposed Administrative Control Changes
| ML20202F642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1999 |
| From: | Reddemann M WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202F650 | List: |
| References | |
| NPL-99-0057, NPL-99-57, NUDOCS 9902040127 | |
| Download: ML20202F642 (18) | |
Text
, , __ _m, _ _ _
\s #
MARK E. REDDEMANN g gg Sita Vic2 President A WISCONSIN ENERGY COMPANY Point Beach Nuclear Plant 6610 Nuclear Rd.
l . Two Rivers, WI 54241 Phone 920155-6527
- NPL 99-0057 10 CFR 50.4 10 CFR 50.90 January 29,1999 10 CFR 51.22 Document Control Desk U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
- Mail Stop PI-137 i Washington, DC 20555 l l
Ladies / Gentlemen:
DOCKETS 50-266 AND 50-301 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CilANGE REQUEST 211 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES TO REFLECT PROPOSED
- ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL CIIANGES TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS POINT BEACH NUCL. EAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 l In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.4 and 10 CFR 50.90, Wisconsin Electric - :
Power Company (WE), licensee for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), proposes to amend Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for PBNP Units 1 and 2, respectively. The requested amendment will reflect changes in sections 15.6 and 15.7 of the plant Technical Specifications (TS).
' The major changes encompassed in the proposed amendment consist of: changes in title from the Manager - Point Beach Nuclear Plant to the Plant Manager; changes in title from the Duty
- Technical Advisor to the Shift Technical Advisor; increases in minimum operating crew shift staffing; deletion of the Duty and Call Superintendent function
- relocation of the Manager's Supervisory Staff (MSS) composition and functional requirements to owner controlled documents; and revisions to the procedure review and approval process.
The proposed changes are necessary to reflect the change in senior management philosophies at f PBNP to more closely align plant processes and programs with current nuclear standards and to f allow flexibility.in revising, refining and improving the MSS process without requesting approval via a license amendment request. The proposed changes are considered to be conservative and administrative in nature and have no effect on plant safety.
- Included in Attachment I to this letter are: (1) Description of proposed changes and supporting information; and (2) A safety evaluation of the proposed changes. Included in Attachment 2 to this letter is a no significant hazards determination. Included in Attachment 3 to this letter are the marked-up Technical Specifications indicating the proposed changes.
19902040127 990129 lPDR ADOCK 05000266 7 4
- P PDR n
l 3 _ . . ,
i NPL 99-0057 January 29,1999 Page 2 a e It has been determined that the proposed changes meet the categorical exclusion criteria of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) in that they: (1) Change record keeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), an environmental assessment or impact statement need not be prepared.
WE requests approval of this amendment prior to June 1,1999. An implementation date of 60 1
- days after approval is requested to allow time to complete the numerous procedure changes required for the proposed changes and to allow training of the plant staff ' Should you have any questions on this submittal or require additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely, i- 'M N 1 ark E. eddemann Site Vice President
. Point Beach Nuclear Plant MAW / tat s
Subscribed to and sworn before me on this Jf" day of - /1- ,1999
/V m A. Y O J U Notary Pl>lic, State of Wisconsin #4ry 4 . Mad /h.
My Conimission expires on ///e/x./ .
//
. ; Attachments cc: NRC Regional Administrator NRC Resident Inspector NRC Project Manager PSCW
i . j..
NPL 99-0057 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 14
- I Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 Introduction The major changes encompassed in the proposed amendment consist of: changes in title from the Manager- Point Beach Nuclear Plant to the Plant Manager; changes in title from the Duty Technical Advisor to the Shift Technical Advisor; increases in minimum operating crew shift stafling: deletion of the Duty and Call Superintendent ftmetion; relocation of the Manager's Supervisory Staff (MSS) composition and functional requirements to owner controlled documents; and revisions to the procedure review and approval process.
The proposed changes are necessary to reflect the change in senior management philosophies at a PBNP to more closely align plant processes and programs with current nuclear standards and to allow flexibility in revising, refining and improving the MSS process without requesting approval via a license amendment request. The proposed changes are considered to be conservative and administrative in nature and have no effect on plant safety.
A description of the proposed changes and the basis for these changes follows. Deletions from the presently approved Specifications are indicated by revision bars and lineout, and additions are indicated by revision bars and underlined.
g Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information:
Thefollowing proposed changes reflect the change in titlefrom the Manager - Point Beach Nuclear Plant to the Plaitt Manager.
TS 15.6.1.1 (ggrgimen e referreg ,m 2r ,qe u, 2ger) shall be The Plant Manager P^;"+ nezcb "uc!c m,m, l
respcnsible for overall facility operation and shall delegate in writing the succession to this responsibility during absences from the Point Beach Nuclear Plant area of greater than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> and where ready contact by telephone or other means is not assured.
TS 15.6.2.1.b The Plant Manager shall be responsible for overall safe plant s.afe operation and shall have l
control over those onsite activities necessary for safe operation and maintenance of the plant.
TS 15.6.8.2.A Each procedure, or change thereto, of the categories listed in 15.6.8.1 (except 15.6.8.1.4) and 15.6.1 I shall be reviewed by an individual or group other than the individual who prepared the procedure, or change thereto, but who may be from the same organization as the individual who prepared the procedure, or change thereto.
All mayw procedures of the categories listell in 15.6.8.1 (except 15.6.8.1.4) and 15.6.11, and modifications to the intent thereof, shall be rede" ed by 'he "'"2ge^ cupe 9 ~ r a c n' m d approved by the Plant Manager or a department manager assigned responsibility for those procedures (hereaf ter referred to as the Approval Authority) prior to implementation. Non-intent changes shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with 15.6.8.2 or 15.6.8.3.
l..... . . . . . . .
NPL 99-0057
- l. Attachment 1 j
- j. Page 2 of 14
? '
' . Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 TS 15.7.8.7.A.3
]
Revisions shall become effective after re' !c r e"d 2ccepte ce b y 'he "2n2;;c^ cupe- 6 ~ y ct2 rr and. the approval of hy the Plant Manager - PWP.
TS 15.7.8.7.B.2 )
Shall become effective after rei!e" 2nd eccept'"ce 'r 'he "'"2;;e- c 'upe-*6~y et2ff and the l
' approval of the Plant Manager "PP, i
Basis for Change !
The above title changes are administrative only and do not change the intent of the Technical 'I Specifications or the responsibilities of the Manager - Point Beach Nuclear Plant. These changes . l simply clarify that the Manager - Point Beach Nuclear Plant is the Plant Manager, and are I necessary to make the Technical Specifications consistent with this title in PBNP's other policies )
and procedures. The discussion ofindividual procedure reviews, removal of the Manager's
- Supervisory Staff function, and the discussion of approval authority are provided for information and consistency and will be described later in this amendment request. i 1
^ Thefollowing changes are proposed to be made to increase the requiredfacility staff under section 15.6.2.2 ofthe 15. j I
TS 15.6.2.2 Facility staning shall be subject to the following requirements: ;
- a. Each on-duty shin shall normally be composed of at least the minimum shift crew I composition (f- 2!! "'^A~ eveep! "-hh 2 un:t defue'ed) as follows:** l
- 1. Shift Superintendent (SRO)* - one per shift
- 2. Shift Duty Technical Advisor - one per shift located on-site on ten minute call to the control room i
- 3. Operating Supervisor (SRO)* - one per shift )
- 4. Operator (RO)* - three m per shin for one or two unit operation * * *
- two dwee per shift h with neither two unit in. operation"* '
i
- 5. Non-licensed Operator . - !" ^ pr d'in f~ ^ eun" eperst!^^
.n mg 7 en:n em.,,-m , , ,, : , gg gmm
- one per shift for each unit containing fuel and an j additional one per shift when either unit is in operation * *
- c ru g nm,y 7egsm:gei ^ g ,:e _
- e imge,gg m , e:tg mm tgg_,:m..gc,n,m,qg,.gm,mi !
seanw I
- b. ^ ' 'e'c' ^ 'e "cr'-M Ape ^ ch'" he ' 'he c e "^ ' ^ ^ " h e" cu g :e :,, g;,qe gget-When there is fuel in either unit, an SRO* shall be in the control room at all times. In addition to this SRO*, for each unit containing fuel, an RO* or SRO* shall be present at the controls at all times.
NPL 99-0057 .j Attachment 1 Page 3 of 14 i I ' Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 I
- c. DELETED ." 'e*+ + "cerred operet^~ ^2" he prere2+;" +be r"+ ' -~n dur;"g
,me,- c,3 ug scNg _ea d reee+~ 4+d~ 2 u d ; *g e:~;e y r-~ r+~ + ipr
- " A unit is considered to be operating when it is in a mode other than cold shutdown or I refueling shutdown. l TS 15.6.3.4 The Shift Duty Technical Advisor shall have a bachelor's degree or equivalent in a scientific or l engineering discipline with specific training in plant design and response and analysis of the l
plant for transients and accidents. The Shift Duty Technical Advisor shall also receive training l in plant design and layout including the capabilities ofinstrumentation and controls in the control room. I i
i TS 15.6.3.5 If the Operations Manager does not hold a Senior Reactor Operator license at PBNP, then an operations middle manager to whom the operating crews report shall hold a Senior Reactor l 1 Operator license at PBNP. l Basis for Change This proposed change is more conservative than the present TS (i.e., requires more on-duty operating shift personnel) and more clearly relates staffing levels with respect to each unit's
. status. The Operations organization at PBNP has determined, based on operating and simulator training experience, that the minimum staffing numbers indicated in the proposed change are
' sufficient to safely operate the PBNP Facility. In addition, this change in minimum staffing levels meets or exceeds the requirements contained in both 10 CFR 50.54 and NUREG 1431,
" Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors."
The note "for all modes except with a unit defueled" was deleted because it was determined to be unnecessary with the proposed revisions. The staffing requirements for this condition are now more clearly defined under 15.6.2.2.a or 15.6.2.2.b (depending on what status the units are in).
The change in title from Duty Technical Advisor to Shift Technical Advisor is administrative
. only and does not change the intent of the Technical Specifications or the responsibilities of the
- Duty Technical Advisor. The deletion of 15.6.2.2.a.6 and relocation of the phrase " located on-L site on ten minute call to the control room" to 15.6.2.2.a.2 is administrative in nature; it simply l relocates this requirement.
The change in Reactor Operator staffing levels under 15.6.2.2.a.4 is conservative because it requires more staff with one unit in operation and defines what the minimum staff requirements l 'are for Reactor Operators when neither unit is in operation (this condition is undefined in the L present TS).
The change in Non-licensed Operator (NLO) staffing levels under 15.6.2.2.a.5 is equivalent to
{ the present TS (in terms of requiring the same number of NLO's with one or two unit operation)
- NPL 99-0057 Attachment 1 ,
! Page 4 of 14 Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 l'
and was necessary to more clearly define NLO minimum staffing levels when both units are not in operation or defueled. The change is conservative because the present TS defines NLO staffing levels based only on unit operation (requiring 2 NLO's for one unit operation and 3 NLO's for two unit operation) and is presently undefined when both units are not in operation or defueled.
t The addition of the definition for " operation" is conservative because the present TS does not define " operation". This definition of" operation" is also consistent with the definition contained
. in 10 CFR 50.54. The deletion of the sentence in 15.6.2.2.b and the replacement with the proposed revision is conservative because it requires at least two licensed operators to be in the control room when fuel is in either unit instead of the current requirement of one. TS 15.6.2.2.c was deleted because the staffing requirements contained in 15.6.2.2.c are bounded by the staffing requirements proposed in 15.6.2.2.b, which requires the presence of two licensed operators in the control room when fuel is in either reactor.
The change in TS 15.6.3.5 to add the word " report" is administrative in nature; without the addition of the word " report" this sentence is a sentence fragment and does not make sense.
PBNP remains committed, in a response to Enforcement Action (EA)96-273 (reference letter l
from R.R. Grigg of Wisconsin Eleuric to J. Lieberman of NRC dated January 31,1997; PBL 0037), to increase overall operating staffing levels to support a normal shift complement of three SROs. four ROs, and four (non-licensed) Auxiliary Operators. This commitment reflects management efforts in support of a return to excellence in operations and continued performance improvement. These enhanced staffing levels exceed that required by 10 CFR 50.54 and stated in NUREG 1431. As discussed above, the Operations Department has determined that the minimum staffing levels proposed in this amendment request are sufficient to safely operate the PBNP facility and meet regulatory requirements. Over the long-term, staffing levels depend on L multiple factors including approved processes and procedures as well as scheduled and emergent evolutions and attrition. Therefore, management needs to retain the flexibility and authority to set the appropriate staffing levels for any given period of time, within regulatory requirements.
Ilowever, WE remains committed to providing additional staffing in pursuit of operational excellence.
It is proposed that the Duty and CallSuperintendent Function / Process he eliminated as
- follows.
L TS 15.6.2.3 i n e'r '"d Ce" cuper;" tender! DELETED
? T^2" H andc^urre!'he chin c up" 4"+e 'de := coce me qg .,:qc,m, gpg ,,:gg es e.,,c, ,
n g,p g c,n e peg :.eg.,gg,,1 g.-mup n ,c ugem g~,nucng i The nu,) s.c,n c upe 4"tende"! gr^up ch2!! ce" A" ^rqu2!!9ed perc^"e desig"*'ed != ';ng by 'h e u ,"ager i-
l-lm . a .
NPL 99-0057 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 14 Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 l h 1" +he even, me, repe-+2ble ^ece rence +he ch ^ c uper;" tender + ch," eemun eta e m .:,n ,, im, c, m.,.,. n o, e _s c_. e n c , , m, :,,, m., a_ m_ m , u_ ._-,m.r_,,t.:,,,,
m m,nm_ .n..,,,.
n ,:m,,,,ma: ,,m_
..c _. _ _ _ . .
m ., .n c upe : +e 'de"+ " :" be sc gned t^ be "e -
g g.pg, 2c t:m, gqu: ed. n"e n ut; # re" g3n a .,, 7n ,:,,, e c TS 15.6.8.3.A (Proposed TS 15.6.8.3.B)
Temporary changes to majw procedures, of the categories listed in 15.6.8.2A, which do not l change the intent of the approved procedure, may be made provided such changes are approved by two members of the plant staff, at least one of whom holds a Senior Reactor Operator's
- License.the cegn%"t gr^uphe~! (Duty ac upe""tende"+
- " nperat ^"r) s"d ^"e er,qg put; i
,,,g c,n c pe y :m,gmag .,,-
TS 15.6.8.3.B (Proposed TS 15.6.8.3.C) . .
All temporary changes to majw procedures of the categories listed in 15.6.8.2.A, (^ Acy2 b ngty ,nd c,n cy,my :mtenggm. ,"d e!^ e '. cegn % nt group ^'d ^-+he D uty h n-c upe "+c"de-t) shall subsequently be reviewed by +he u,n3gg7 cype- :cm- et2rr and +
approved by +he """2;e-in accordance with 15.6.8.2 within 2 weeksg Te^'p"r2ry ch'n;;ec +^
m.._, a_ . . , ,, , , a m , m , ,, :, m .m ,m,:,
,,,,,m..
y.. . a_ m : m.c, :. m. r. ,_m. _m...,,,m.
-. . . u. m.
_y .,, . ,- u. m.
,, . _, .m_ . : .m. ,.ma_ ., m_ a. ,,, _m.
m a_.
m :,,:,:,1
,, ., ,,7 . : ,,, , p.: m. c :,;c3!;tp mr.he re!^ed cere; Temporary changes only become permanent changes after approval by the Approval Authority."'"2ger'" c"pe~ e^~
ct2rr t
ret e" rd "2n2ger'c 2ppr~;2! -tepr Basis for Change The Duty and Call Superintendent (DCS) function / process is proposed to be discontinued.
PBNP has determined that'this program is no longer necessary. Advances in comrnunications technology since the 1970s enable the Shift Superintendent to reach Senior Station Management for assistance and counsel at any time via pager (or direct phone call to office, home or cell
. phone) in the event of a significant operating incident or when reportability questions arise. The Emergency olanning organization (which consists of Senior Station Management among others) is also available via pager to staff the Technical Support Center and Operations Support Center in the event of a significant operating incident.
- Elimination of the DCS position requires modification of the procedure temporary change approval process. Currently, the DCS is one of two required approvals for temporary changes to major procedures.' The proposed change requires two members of plant staff, one of whom holds
[
a Senior Reactor Operator License, to approve temporary changes. This change is more conservative than the existing requirements because it ensures that personnel most knowledgeable of procedure content and current plant conditions approve temporary changes.
- Based on the above, the DCS function / process was determined to be unnecessary and is being proposed for elimination.
h i
NPL 99-0057 Attachment '
Page 6 of 14 I '
Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 The removal of the Manager's Supervisory Staff function and addition of approval authority is provided for information and consistency and will be described later in this amendment request.
it is proposed that the Manager's Supervisory Staff Function / Process be removedfrom the TS and relocated to owner controlled documents asfollows.
TS 15.6.5 15.6.5 REVIEW AND. AUDIT 15.6.5.1 Manager's Supervisory Staff DELETED, RELOCATED TO OWNER CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS i.< c .< i i Th..m. u e n ,m, , s c.,m.,r.,.:cmre c. ,re n,. 4c c ,3 ci.,._,n. c,m..o.,.:m., ,,.
, a_ , .: c a. . h n. u. , n._,nem.. e. m ., n
.e..
e,i p tore e n!q t id f n t,s inIn n e e q E,f t c
.. . .- I.n. D Oi_g O I'In. r
! ! n , PT
- c IT I",I ' .O..
e,O On aII
..n. . . ...i,/- O-Ti._ n e I f Y Ii O
.g- O._
I#
1 O. . _O 0,- O fI n. r.
c
[rn m
- - I cf nI n v i nI n N.a. N a. nd e t arIntqIc In thn. bnI! n t a n. .,nJI o
en l
- . - _ . ,n . t r, n c a nesc O. ,nn ro f
.' ?.Y 0 e IIn,teh Dhec:nc I,
.g f1 I. n.. al, .r . , I', I'$
I Ir nes c e r,41 rO I, $ I, II
..c i .< c c i , re.. h. :.,a :, : a. ..,I m mm,cm,.:,,,, ._.
. . , _ u.e e a.:.e.,.,:.,nn. m. ., e t,. _, n. . . , m, + m ,. . . . m n. a_ h. .n ,, , , , n. . n ,, ,, : m .,
7_
.r a. n. i.g .s --e r. a ns. n..,e...
,fe enne U. n. d i. t, C a. r. f n e,
.4 O n f A MC I V l 9 1_ l o71,
- n. t*n.a.,n. t. o c A_nco r hnl .n C. ,nnnI N na finn
-I.< [ 7 7 [neth.n. IInoIlh Ubec o et t , 1O -F,,OI', c #, O F19'i O f I l',9' 9"/, I,,
. ..n. . . _ . . . a. .e. n. . n n k. n. -
.,1' --
....c.. .
l
.O. c't $.*(% I I,n. .c ,9%O.19 ./.98',...,t.D nn
' d. s e !. g . o f nM_ h. ,i t h.a. E i. n._g
-. . _ n. . n nn. r o n.rI .c hm.a.
.q II a. t. n c a t n n_ n. d. t h.n. n,i.i.n I e C.n. o.t t.e.
n nn. n,i_v e. rn. m a. n t e .e,n a. n. .U. n. d . n c a. o. ,.In n 16 1 nr A veI v191 1091 _.
Th.n. c h. . , :. rm. . _, n. c h. . n l. t. n. n .c . , rn. t h ,, + h. n. ,m e n. ,nn. ., A : en :.,nI. :,, n. c. o .rn.
e,
,n rn. c. a n t i n o N_ M__ en_ e c t h.n. I f n. et, c f n ha_yhen. s_t m h. .t f n i h.n. k iC Q fnr.n_ri.u.
. . .. . t.s n_ o_ o n r. d_ _o n.o n. st Ith C,na. c. I. N. r.s o.f t n1<[< . n 19 I.< 4 < 1.< T h..n. \ ( Q Q c h. . n I. I m.n. n. t. n t I n o ct n n n. n.,n. o. r r_ o l. n. e,d o_r. m n n t h a n.d_
- . - - _ . . _ . _. _o .c.a. n.. n i. a n n d_ h. j t h.a.
t k i( C rh q I rm. ..o.s,.
=.
1.< 4 .< 1 4 A. n i in es i m n e ', h. .n. A ice ch ,It o.n. n c:c, n r ,hn. r_ h. . , :,. m. . _, n. e n. A_ rn , , , m.n. m ha rc .n. ,., rm. n. n + : n.,,,
n I t, nr En v i r N I. ff. o rn n.t. d_ . e n. . g . l. e n z.,oed.d_ . i n n i h. n. 3n a_v n. . et t m. . cb olI h. n.
- . . . . - en. y . n. e n. n t n. f i t e.tt.ne.c.
. - [fb.n.
- i e n. c h n. e ts. er iI e ni s c ^ nM i < c 's i , A i:c, n r u c e ,,,m,,hn e ch,n he m ,: m..a.,c3 ,,,d + "" he "I'd '+ cd M's+
( n nesinoIIt I
i i
l '.
i
1 l
h NPL 99-0057 Attachment 1 Page 7 of 14 Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 i< x < i e Tn.o. u c e ch,n h ,, ., t h.a_ Emu n, s e m_ c _ , f a: m_ .. . .. _
t
- nr oc I
_ D. a t. _ a. t t
- 7 . n n_ a_i f_I r_ n_t-a n, ra_ t_tra_
c d_ h_ t - t h a_ c. n. Ta_ n_ b M
.., s /_Ol
.. ( na_ a t b o_ nD.a n es c t t. e a t s
- n t \ s_
e t_.
. ,n r. n.n o d_ t i rn_ nr
.e.
c_ h. . o n. c, tit.a. t o .c.r. n. t n s t h o_ h. _o f. C. .w f n i i n_ l a_a r e q E_ _s t_ t - _o < Icn__t n_ em
, n.a_ f_I h. ,t - t h a_ h i a n..n_.n n_ e .
D_ m_.s. a t-t -' .uI h
I. n 7r. n.e,, n..c a _A f. a_ ef c o n d o.v.,nn eI m.a. n e. . . t en_ I_ n.t. n_ _l f. n r* t_t o_ l. a_ a rm_
_ _ ._ c. od_ f. ,t.f.,t
- h. a. ro_ c. i_t l_ f e i h n_ r. a. n.f n o_ t, .., t, ,i:n
- n. . ,hi.m.
ne r_*. D_ e_ t.i_ a_ s t
- _n! !. 3 . n.,nid. . n .t. OI, t
q rs.g'I n_ .c f n Ta_ r_ h n . n o !. Q,nn_ n_ I_ C r_ o t t n n e a.I. D. a. t. e a_ t s n I !. ,n e. n. ,nm. . d o_ b q tra
- n. .c _n e tu n.d_ . S n o t n n e f n ,MY. o n.t t,t . f. a. tn e n r a. q,-a t .7n m. ._i n.t u h a_ r.o.n.b. q. n.c aa._ c.
,0fant t,t,,,imer c ,c,,t 1 3r:nd: 11
- e. n..._ui-a_ . .
,n .t ,nf n.,na. r, + : n n .- En e. ,n n.f a n.t:n!h ,,nede in n , w i n , e c 4 C. .s t.s.
ha ( nnh em nuein nn\ e nda ranarf e m ach iot nne and f D.a s e _i t s t d al_ _a f_ e nm nI Ta_ r_*\i n e n ol C. r nI C o d e !n n e 1
ra_ n n ns tu.n. n d. o f a n t, c .
l 4
at I \ 1*tu c *% %
- q t f 19 ri r 9, s*n 9,'1 r4 4 t z1t,rT rf c i 141 f*a 4 ', t's #1 e en/t t IO C f a /
n e. r. a T. *. n_1 i t8 i ,i4
- c. _, .. 1 ti14_4 et. . g ..f f r\ t, c r1 -- - -r - - - -
- --i-- - , ---
c h ,: rm. . _, ,, m f t h.n. n rf c : f_m_ D. m. . : m t . c m ,m :f,m.m_.
n D.m.. , a. t t . f i,,, r_, o. n. : t t . r:rm. D rmf m o f :m, n vsa
~g,1.., m. , f. i n_ , c f m .,,, m. 7.t m_ . m m,,h e in a. r.s e ,1,.., f nn_ 7 . m,er , m.
t, s.
m en n i _s a_ f e a. ct u hl c h a_ . I o_ n_
t en a_ n t e. a n. .d r. e.in,n.s. b a_ en o t,f e
$ Int i_s e f. .c. e r t o.t. o_ t. .a t d n_ t s , a n d_ ra. ,nn rf n n n II co,nn.ef o hl. n_ n_ t 'a. n t e
,e . D. o t e. . u.s ..S., t.' n_ . ._ rt -_en_ ! n o nc fa.ro t_! s. n._o n_t. t.a. en n f are n!. f n f b_a_ n_ t_, t $ rnn ru n_ n t
_ _ __ n_ o v.n_ n_ e c n E t h_ltm
. n_ fe c,na_ n_ s_ C a_ d_(
r1 an. t. e n n I<7<
- _ - C a_t ch. en. t. a_ t t .
st- ! n. n I. t i d a _o c i s m en n ,etn-f o.t.ro_l t t o f n e, ra_ n_ n en en u s d o t s n n and l e e,n c 9 f I n ti r4 nn$ n t, i r% t,Pa.1. n_ t1 f va_ o_ t_i **t. 'n. 9., /_9.,,
I_.. . g. 19 /.\ re. nn_ f 1 t ..1 . _
- g. . .
v D m. : . ,, t .,n. . n u m. ng--a c fn f.u. . a. u c, D ,,,A n n e, u -
i.< n < i o Tn..m. u , ..gmm. _ e c e t..,asm. e., a c m, . et,00 eben n..,t.a. fu..m. On n m n a t.s.,,t t.n e,t,m, c : h : n t ,,
.n C a. n-1. a.ne n n. n di.E rn rt a __
- o. n. en te f f n_ a_ fn i b. n. \ i o n. . o r t a. .r c
h S i_o b.n- va_*n m m.snAntsanc fn t h. i s k i. _n n. . o rt o_ r b,e nen na col e sindar f am e o t h envirth M nhnt a In thn
_c .
r- r- - - - - - --- - --
-c-----' - - - --
n t. o_ n t n f f_l . .e_n c n r. a n tu.n n.t h. a. f.t t. nn_
. . _n.ntu o, t a.re f ,t ' n f f h.n. C.e_, i nn_ et t e n rs ' C t a f[ n_t,M_ r_In_ n_ I_ e nne ht.
t \ s.a_k i n e, q..c r t n. e. i b. . a. - - . n[ 6 n. t.
rsru i re ,
an st dIl ha_ d nf n e-ns i n n r_I h. ,t - ( b.ka_
_ _ .. i.n ti o..g o r, n a. r - . .d_ t. h.n.d_ e.cie n.g . n_ ., ru. n. t, f en i niI n t IIn c rJ.4/5 fi r/
. n_ / ,1_4
. .-4 u,t m .a_ n_ m.m e,, a. t., A f : ~, mefm c- ne f i, m O.. . . _
u .h. .m. t. n. m. .. m. n m f. 7 . m. 7m e ,n. n. m., a. s_ . t m. d.. h. ,t . .. e t._,00 : m n h.., . .
r, t e n c t e n n e t e n. rn. t.
-. e. a_ s t a_ d_ e n_ f., a. ..
_ _ t. ,s
- r_I . D. n. t. s. a. t.t
- n. e,, d_ .
. a vs,n rn t.*a.<*n.n t.n_ n f c n f. o r-t h.a. . . _
- e. n t,n et Inc n och vars.mrf oh!n m 'nnf Onn!nc nf OII ctioh
-4 - - -- - - -
rt e t ishen fin;I f.n t h.a. I I o. n. U ra edant - \Irin!nne Dru t ca_ ,n a. c h. .o l. I. h. a.
- . . . ._. .-_ _ n. r n n d f.fs.n. Ib.n . etu n n n ffh.a_ n1 D. m. s m.s . c. m m m : f f m. _.
m_ .
wta t f. .
t, n, : ,, m f. a_ c..
m f m,nh t ._ .
.f : t.,. ,1 .- n. . _e . .n k_, t..m.-
- ,n.m_a_ h. e c,,fft,,m..,,h m..c , n. d_ . ~, g,:. _ e n , n h. .,
,n e. n t rIa_ r_I f n ih.n. 11 o. n. D ra c < I n. ti f V i..t o l. n_ a r Un t t n. r o t,d f h o ren o n n ffh.n. n ff CIf.n. D.a. t E n. t t ' -- -
I, n m en f i. n_ a_ .
TS 15.6.6 15.6.6 DELETED PPn"^ m n cmr7 A cmv
- c. ,.,~_ _, : n. n. .e , : m n rr Th.n. Ost lnt s i n. .g .o n_ f In ti c h. . o l. l. h. a, f o b o_ n 0, r D - nn.et. o_ go h I. n. U n. n. ,, f c =
a
. . e.
NPL 99-0057 Attachment 1 -
Page 8 of 14 I i Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 L
Tn_._, cm,, m , c c :m, e n_ __e t. i n. , _
- m. : n m a e n.a_ i~ _, ._.m_ ,.m. e , , n ,, : , , ,, a ,,, , c . , , ,, , , m , n. .m. m_ , , , , : ,m_
,, , ., , e mr Q mi_, t $ . , n _$O Y tn i O cUn \,,rt fO nna 3,
r m_,n o.,,,m enim._ r_
. .m.
_. en..n um. .m. .. : m. .,..ma_ n. ,, . ._.n .m- u. ., ,,_ ,, ,, m_ .'._, e c... . .,_, e_,. m,__. c., rr < u c c., x,,,a_ . _
m n.,, :,, m a ,m , um_ n er c:,,, o_m_
. m_ c m., ,,, : ,, m m_ <n eo c_s en.a_ ,na. en:me v..,,im,r n m ,,m___
s TS 15.6.8.2.A Each procedure, or change thereto, of the categories listed in 15.6.8.1 (except 15.6.8.1.4) and 15.6.1 I shall be reviewed by an individual or group other than the individual who prepared the procedure, or change thereto, but who may be from the same organization as the individual who prepared the procedure, or change thereto. ,
All myw procedures of the categories listed in 15.6.8.1 (except 15.6.8.1.4) and 15.6.11, and
- modifications to the intent thereof, shall be re'. ! erd by +he u zn2;;gr ee c upgr e _ y c,ger,ng
' approved by the Plant Manager or a department manager assigned responsibility for those procedures (herein after referred to as the Approval Authority) prior to implementation. Non- -
intent changes shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with 15.6.8.2 or 15.6.8.3.
_ TS 15.6.8.2.B Individuals responsible for reviews performed in accordance with 15.6.8.2 and 15.6.8.3 shall be members of the plant staff previously designated by the Plant Manager and meet or exceed the qualifications ofTechnical Specification 15.6.3.
u : n m. mm. ,, a . , m. .m. <,,u.
, . _ _ _ _ _ ,. __ m,tm ec i: e - a. , m., a , . : ~ , n . _ a m, - a mi, enmmec ei, -
_..,.m - m. ,,n_ m.,,:-, ~
l d h ana y t"? pr^cedurer +ec -!c2! :~+ruct:^-r rper!2! end reut:-e m2!-+en2nce pr^cederer, n im -, , m, . ,,, , ,, , , a e , m . ,,_ _.s,.e__e_
nn ., ,~.. :m. m : n :n.._a. . . . ,. u. m_ .m..:m.,.ma_ n o in.m_ u_,n ,,,__,e c . ,,,m_ _, s m_, .
y _. _ c ., y c ,, cr , n_ a_ .,.,,,,m m..ma_ n- .n.m. u. e n , ,_
, -..g_
TS 15.6.8.3.B (Proposed TS 15.6.8.3.C)
All temporary changes to majw procedures of the categories listed in 15.6.8.2.A, ("'"A" by2
,, , m m im,, .m a m_ :a, m. ,_ ,,mm : , n,. gm ,. nm,a n-._, , - , ,, a c , n. . c . ., .,_: m.. a,e_ n_-_- en:n
..g.. . m. ,n. .
c u, er:-+r-4-t'shall subset 1uenti.v be reviewed b." +he "2 2.2er'c c u e-6^~ ct2fr _a _n d.
i .
approved b" 'h^ "'-"c"cr in accordance with 15.6.8.2 within 2 weeks _. : Te ,-~~~. he-"cr
. c '^
e,,, m ,, Im
_,,n.r ,n enr m M_ . , rm .e.
e
._n._n e .1. m. .n.t_, n. ,. a_ t_e r. . n.!. ,. e,r..em_
r., n ,.,,,m_ m , . . n. m. .rm. . . m t .n_ a_ , n a <m,nem. m_ a_
et_.n_ l_ n.c
.m
_y ,
___7 .
,, 2ny a .,,g p.:~ ,e :n:nei g :,:g.,n,y mr.gg g ,ma i ,.ere, Temporary changes only become permanent changes after approval by the Approval Authority " >"2;;er'e cuper~^~ c.,rr
- r. m. . :. m.-e ,,,a_ u., n. _,mc _ _c , n m.m. _a_ ,, m -. .
TS 15.7.8.l' c.,rc DELETED Dud e= ^r.he "2 ac.s c u -^-6^~ s K .
E, m_ a n s, a n.c. .n n f n_m_ k i__._c_. , ri e n n re e _, , i n n_ et ., c n r c ._ _, r_ r . . d i n rm_ e,n._ .
,__t n_ re_ _a_ I. n .i n- .c,fdm.
. n,* e_ I_. ,,,
e m. t.i , Tm ,i I, ,, I,. , i
.,m__o I. N. ,_, , ,. I. n n iS [ $.l 9 , , I , m. r. n e. ,, . _e_ nM [-
,1 D. ,am,_ _ n. N ,, ,, n n e , rm. ! c,ma c.., _ . .. _. .
i
1 NPL 99-0057 Attachment 1 Page 9 of 14
~
- Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 TS 15.7.8.7.A.3 Revisions shall become'elTective aner m4;" 2nd eccept26ce b ; t' u 2;e^ cuper6~
- c+2r r amL the approval o_f f hy the Plant Manage. " P'"
TS 15.7.8.7.B.2 Shall become effective after sc0e" and eccept2m b y %e " 2ger'c <upere~retarrmd the approval of the Plant Manager """,
Basis for Change The Manager's Supervisory Sta rf function / process is proposed to be removed from the Technical Specifications and relocated to owner controlled documents. The process function / requirements are currently described in the PBNP FSAR and existing administrative procedures and policies.
PBNP proposes to relocate the MSS ftmetion/ process out of the TS to allow flexibility in revising, refining and improving the MSS implementation requirements. Relocating this process from the TS to owner controlled documents would allow this flexibility by eliminating the undue burden (both on the PBNP staff and NRC staff) of requesting approval of a license amendment each time the process is revised / refined.
The PBNP FSAR in Section 12.8," Review and Audit " describes the MSS function / process and references the TS. This is consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.70," Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants LWR Edition," Section 13.4.1, which states that the onsite review function should be described in the FSAR. The FSAR references to the TS l with respect to the MSS function / process will be removed after approval of this proposed TSCR.
The current FSAR and procedure revision processes (under 10 CFR 50.59 when applicable) would control revisions to the MSS function following this proposed relocation approval.
- This relocation is consistent with and would align the PBNP TS to NUREG 1431, " Standard
- Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors"(STS). Detailed discussion of the onsite review process was not included in the STS because the requirements are covered under appropriate plant procedures and equivalent change control is provided under 10 CFR 50.59.
.The requirements for Reportable Events contained in TS 15.6.6 is proposed to be deleted because of redundancyc The requirements of TS 15.6.6.A are already required by 10 CFR 50.73; therefore, stating it in the TS is redundant. The MSS review requirements of TS 15.6.6.B will be relocated to owner controlled documents as described above. The TS 15.6J.B requirement for OSRC to review Reportable Events is already included under TS 15.6.5.2.7.g and is therefore redundant. Submittal of each reportable event to the Chief Nuclear Officer is an administrative internal distribution requirement and does not need to be included in the TS.
l NPL 99-0057.
l Attachment 1 Page 10 of 14 I Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting information for TSCR 211 Deletion of the MSS function from the procedure review and approval process should have no adverse effect on procedure content and quality. The entire process for review and approval of procedures is being proposed for revision and is described below. Justification for revision of the current TS procedure review and approval process will follow a description of proposed changes for TS 15.6.8.
It is proposed that the Procedure Review and Approval Process, TS 116.8, be revised as fcdlows.
15.6.8 PLANT OPERATING PROCEDURES 15.6.8.1 The plant shall be operated and maintained in accordance with approved procedures. Wjos Perocedures , cupp~'ed bp epprepr;c ~;"^r precederer (r"cb es cheeb ^m"+ eper""ng L, yg t m., < 'g e . , cnge, et, .,, respmergg, egg.,,:-,~ en3y,;e3! p,^cedu "r e+c ) shall be provided for the following operations where these operations involve nuclear safety of the plant:
- 1. Normal sequences of startup, operation and shutdown of components, systems and
' overall plant.
- 2. Refueling.
- 3. Specific and foreseen potential malfunctions of systems or components including abnormal reactivity changes.
- 4. Security Plan Implementation.
- 5. Emergencies which could involve release of radioactivity.
- 6. Nuclear core testing.
- 7. Surveillance and Testing of safety related equipment.
- 8. Fire Protection Implementation.
15.6.8.2 Approval of Procedures.
A.
Each procedure, or change thereto, of the categories listed in 15.6.8.1 (except 15.6.8.1.4) and 15.6.1I shall be reviewed by an individual or group other than the individual who prepared the procedure, or change thereto, but who may be from the same organ'ization as the individual who prepared the procedure, or change thereto.
All m.yos procedures of the categories liste[1 in 15.6.8.1 (except 15.6.8.1.4) and 15.6.11, and modifications to the intent thereof, shall be retierced by +he M2n2;;er's c upe~;-~ c',#2nd approved by the Plant Manager or a department manager assigned responsibility for those procedures (hereafler referred to as the Approval Authority) prior to implementation. Non-intent changes shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with 15.6.8.2 or 15.6.8.3.
B.
Individuals responsible for reviews performed in accordance with 15.6.8.2 and 15.6.8.3 shall be members of the plant staff previously designated by the Plant Manager and meet or exceed the qualifications of Technical Specification 15.6.3.
- . - . . ._ __ - - - _ - -- -~ - . -- - .
i NPL 99-0057 i
Attachment i Page11of14 2
l Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information forTSCR 211 u :,, n m er i r c. e m..n~_ _ a_ ._._ ._, c <,,n m_ ,,t_
- s. _ m,m, r e , : m.
. . _ _ . : ~_.c,+ ,., ,,,, : m, , a ,,, e n om,c, ,i e r,,,
.._, e. n. m.,
., c_ . o. n. . m_ .,, : c . ,, .
h i 2"2!y'!c2! pr~: dures tec "ic2! " + uct e~, spech! 2nd"eut!"e";"'e"2~:epr^cedures, i, nm r e , m, . ,,,,,,,,,ie
- . ,,,, s, c n. . , n.,,.,, r: m. . m :,,:,:,i
,,cm
- e. m. s. :. . , t.t. m_ a n,- .u.,.,,,.,m_,.,
- u. m_ . - n.m_ .
e , , ,,._, ,, . : c m t .
' C t , IY , n ,4 , n nrn t a A ht- fn g k i, n;t mi>r C.
i Each review shall include a determination of whether or not additional, cross-disciplinary review is necessary. If deemed necessaryt such review shall be performed by qualified personnel of the appropriate discipline.
D.
5~ach review shall include an assessment for applicability of 10 CFR 50.59 and when necessary appropriate evaluations shall be performed.
15.6.8.3 Changes to Procedures L - A.
Changes to procedures, of the categories listed in 15.6.8.2A that may involve a change to the t intent of the original piacedures shall be approved in accordance with 15.6.8.2.
B.
- Temporary changes to mayu procedures, of the categories listed in 15.6.8.2.A, which do not change the intent of the approved procedure, may be made provided such changes are approved by two members of the plant staff at least one of whom holds a Senior Reactor Operator's t
L i ce n se. '.b. .". ^. ^. g" ". - - '. c" . ^. ",- ' ^ ' y.
. .-- d ' n "'," ^ C.",~_' " "._".d^". ' " n ~.'.-:^" ", '.".A_ ^"," ^ r.n.n. n. m_u.,
nn A_ r_ ,ii Ciin.or:ntan Annte_
CE ill temporary changes to maps procedures of the categories se li t dni 15 .6. 8 . .2 , A ("'2de b y2 n n+
_e.n a c_ _,i. i. c ._, m_, : ., m m i m.,..
,- _ _ _ _ . _ _ _.. __ _ , ,, a_ n : , n m_ _. ,_ ,, ~. y. n : ,, n ,. c . m.. _,., n.-
,t e
. . - _ n._.
n.,,. a t .~ en:c,
, n. .n.
c u- r;"tende"0 shall subsequently be reviewed *b' 'he Man 2cer' uc "er":c~- c4r _and K ev s e approved
'."',h" u,n,"e-in o accordance with 15.6.8.2 within 2 weeksgT e s~'-'~, "o" e r +^
m e_, e n..r ,n, rn. . a. N_ _i en .e n sw eda in e ert rv e t
. . - __. _n c . s. a s,_.. i n n. e t. d_ i_s.ra e..o .fe en r. i inI. n e, ,,. . , A t i. f. _, ,n a. m. ._, j. hn. ca. s e.
. .- n t.a.
_ri,n. ,n. a.
- e. M_n t. ,n.n.d_
d_
- n:,:,i ,. :,:,,,i:,t.
.,t ,ny f:n,e pr:m. .m nr.n.e e'^2d cere; Temporary changes only become L permanent changes after approval by the Approval Authority "2n2;;er's c"per" c^~ ctarr L
res !ew end M2na;;e 'c 2pprm:2! c' err
'^" d '" e tu~c~;c~ ^r tc~s~^ ar" ^r "e~"2ne"t ch2n"er a 1 o '^ "' "^r s"r~ edure" ch2!! Sc 2^u"r~;e s a 1
- t b. .n.r a. y,t .e,. r._h n. f.nrc . n_ t_t ,M.
r n tr
[n.
s n_a, t_t e E n I b. C i_t,eu. r. es tn eo In e,fO. ,nne. _,f.- ..n,n_c. h rir.,.N_ .e n _,I ! k_ n_ e t t h e n,1,11
__ __. . a_ n f.i.j
.ra n- ,s t a_ d_ e n A e nnent .___,4 h,t . f u. .n.,n em a,n. hn. ,d n r t.u.n. o. n n n. . e .i_rime e, f. c . n.i_i ,n .
.g ..
I e
l l'
i.
! NPL 99-0057 Attachment 1 Page 12 of 14 i, , .
Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 Basis for Change a
The entire specification for procedure review and approval is being proposed for revision to l refine the process and more closely align it with current nuclear standards. Changes within this-l specification include deleting major and minor designations; allowing the review currently l performed by Manager's Supervisory Staff to be performed by a qualified individual or group designated by the Plant Manager; allowing department managers to approve procedures they are responsible for; and changing the temporary change approval process to be performed by two -)
- members of plant staff, one of whom holds a Senior Reactor Operator's License. These changes ~
y ' provide the flexibility necessary to streamline the procedure development and temporary change
! processes while including the appropriate level of controls to assure procedure quality. These changes are conservative in nature since they will ensure the personnel most familiar with i procedure content and use are required to review and approve them. Specific discussion of each requested change is contained in succeeding paragraphs. !
l Nuclear safety related procedures are currently divided into two categories - major and mmor, 4 each with a different review and approval process. The proposed change to 15.6.8.1 combines -
the two categories into one with the same review and approval process. This change is conservative for the following reasons. Eliminating the requirement to categorize procedures
- simplifies the process and eliminates the potential for error if the wrong category is chosen. The
~
l proposed process is basedhn the process currently used for major procedures (the more stringent process). The proposed process is consistent with the review and approval requirements specified in ANSI N18.7-1976, Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the !
Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants, Section 5.2.15. This is the standard for i administrative controls that PBNP has committed to in the FSAR.
l New and revised major procedures and new minor procedures are currently reviewed by i Manager's Supervisory Staff and approved by the Plant Manager. Existing Technical Specifications require that Manager's Supervisory Staff make a recommendation to the Plant
,. Manager as to whether the proposal involves an unreviewed safety question. Subsequent I
!~
revisions to minor procedures are reviewed by a supervisor of the cognizant group and approved by the group head. The proposed changes retain the requirement for independent review and
)
approval and allow this review to be performed by an individual or group other than the individual who prepared the procedure, or procedure change.
l- This change allows flexibility within the process while at the same time eliminatmg unnecessary i L administrative burden from senior managers who are currently assigned as Manager's !
- Supervisory Staff members This allowed flexibility still provides adequate assurance of procedure quality for three reasons. The first is that individuals authorized to perform this l review must be q'ualified according to Technical Specification 15.6.3. The second is that i personnel authorized to perform this review must be previously designated by th.e Plant Manager.
The final reason is that this review will require a determination to be made of whether additional
! cross-disciplinary review is required, and if required, to be performed. For these reasons, the proposed changes to the procedure review process are conservative. ;
e -t-- -
y , ,--
4.. p ,
.;,, . .: l NPL 99-0057 Attachment 1 Page 13 of 14
" Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 l The Plant Manager currently approves all nuclear safety related procedures reviewed by Manager's Supervisory Staff, and group heads approve all other nuclear safety related l
procedures. This is an administrative burden on the Plant Manager, who may not necessarily be the person most familiar with the procedure. The proposed change allows the Plant Manager or a department manager assigned responsibility for the procedure to approve procedures before issuance. This change is more conservative because it allows procedure approval to be performed by personnel most familiar with the content and intended use of the procedure and because it reduces the administrative burden on the Plant Manager.
New specification 15.6.8.3.A is included in the proposed revision. This new specification
. clarifies that changes to procedures which change the intent of the original procedure shall be reviewed and approved according to Specification 15.6.8.2. This is an editorial change to eliminate confusion between approval ofintent and non-intent procedure changes.
The proposed revisions to 15.6.8.3.B, and C allow temporary changes to procedures provided the intent of the original procedure is not changed and the changes are approved by two members of
. plant staff, at least one of whom holds a Senior Reactor Operator's License. The proposed revision also requires review and approval according to specification 15.6.8.2 within 2 weeks of implementation. The changes to allow approval by two members of plant staff are being made to allow elimination of the DCS position as previously discussed above. Changing from a cognizant group head and the DCS to two members of the plant stafTensures that personnel most familiar with the current plant conditions and status are approving the changes. Changing the !
requirements for subsequent review and approval of temporary changes according to 15.6.8.2 l within 2 weeks ofimplementation is also conservative. The current TS requirements allow for relaxations of this 2 week review and approval requirement during refueling outages or if the procedure is classified as a " minor" procedure.- The proposed revisions would eliminate these relaxations.
Safety Evaluation of Probosed Changes:
The title changes identified above are administrative only and do not change the intent of the Technical Specifications or the responsibilities of the positions described. The above title changes are necessary to make the Technical Specifications consistent with the titles in other L~ PBNP policies and procedures.
-- The proposed change to minimum operator staffing levels is more conservative than the present TS (i.e., requires more on-duty operating shift personnel) and meets or exceeds the requirements contained in both 10 CFR 50.54 and NUREG 1431. As discussed above, the Operations l
Department has determined that the minimum staffing levels proposed are sufficient to safely
- operate the PBNP facility and meet regulatory requirements.
l
l NPL 99-0057 l Attachment 1 Page 14 of 14 I I Description of Proposed Changes and Supporting Information for TSCR 211 l
l As noted above, the Duty and Call Superintendent (DCS) function / process is proposed to be l discontinued. Advances in communications technology since the 1970s enable the Shift ;
Superintendent to reach Senior Station Management for assistance and counsel at any time via pager (or direct phone call to office, home, or cell phone) in the event of a significant operating ;
incident or when reportability questions arise. The Emergency Planning organization (which l consists of Senior Station Management among others)is also available via pager to staff the )
Technical Support Center and Operations Support Center in the event of a significant operating incident.
The procedure temporary change process will not be adversely affected by the elimination of the !
DCS review. The proposed change requires two members of the plant staff, one of whom holds a Senior Reactor Operator's License, to approve temporary changes. The change is more conservative than the existing requirement because it ensures that personnel most knowledgeable of procedure content and current plant conditions approve temporary changes.
As noted above, the Manager's Supervisory Staff function / process is proposed to be removed l from the Technical Specifications and relocated to owner controlled documents. The process l function / requirements are currently described in the PBNP FSAR and existing administrative l procedures and policies. The PBNP FSAR in Section 12.8," Review and Audit," describes the I current MSS function / process. The current FSAR and procedure revision processes (under 10 CFR 50.59 when applicable) would control revisions to the MSS function following this proposed relocation approval. In addition, this relocation is consistent with and would align the PBNP TS to NUREG 1431 (STS).
As discussed above, the proposed changes to the procedure review and approval process are in general equivalent to or more conservative than the CTS. The changes are necessary to refine the review and approval process and more closely align PBNP with current nuclear standards, while still maintaining the quality and content of procedures.
Based on the above discussion, WE has concluded that the proposed TS revisions would have no adverse etTect on nuclear safety.
5
NPL 99-0057 Attachment 2 Page1of2
~
I No Significant llazards Determination of Proposed TSCR 211 No Significant flazards Determination of Proposed Changes:
In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.4 and 10 CFR 50.90, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WE), licensee for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), proposes to amend Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for PBNP Units 1 and 2, respectively. The requested amendment will reHect changes in section 15.6 and 15.7 of the plant Technical Specifications (TS).
The major changes encompassed in the proposed amendment consist of: changes in title from the Manager - Point Beach Nuclear Plant to the Plant Manager; changes in title from the Duty Technical Advisor to the Shift Technical Advisor; increases in minimum operating crew shift stafHng; deletion of the Duty and Call Superintendent function; relocation of the Manager's Supervisory Staff (MSS) composition and fimetional requirements to owner controlled documents; and revisions to the procedure review and approval process.
The proposed changes are necessary to reflect the change in senior management philosophies at PBNP to more closely align plant processes and programs with current nuclear standards and to allow flexibility in revising, refining and improving the MSS process without requesting approval via a license amendment request. The proposed changes are considered to be conservative and administrative in nature and have no effect on plant safety.
WE has evaluated the proposed amendments in accordance with the requirement of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1), against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92, and has determined that the operation of the PBNP in accordance with the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The evaluation against each of the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 follows:
- 1. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with the proposed
- amendments will not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
These changes are administrative and therefore do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because no such accidents are affected by the proposed revisions. The proposed TS changes do not introduce any new accident initiators since no accidents previously evaluated have as their initiators anything related to the administrative changes described above.
In addition, initiating conditions and assumptions are unchanged and remain as previously analyzed for accidents in the PBNP Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed TS changes do
- not involve any physical changes to systems or components, nor do they alter the typical manner in which the systems or components are operated. All Limiting Conditions of Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings, and Safety Limits specified in the TS remain unchanged.
Therefore, these changes do not increase the probability of previously evaluated accidents.
NPL 99-0057 j
l Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2 '
l I -
No Significant flazards Determination of Proposed TSCR 211 l .
l- These changes do not involve a significant merease m the consequences of an accident l l previously evaluated because the source term, containment isolation or radiological releases are L
not being changed by these proposed revisions. Existing system and component redundancy and l- operation is not being changed by these proposed changes. The assumptions used in evaluating ;
l the radiological consequences in the PBNP Final Safety Analysis Report are not invalidated; l- therefore, these changes do not affect the consequences of previously evaluated accidents. ;
1 :
1
- 2. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with the proposed I
! amendments will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from I any accident previously evaluated.
These changes do not introduce nor increase the number of failure mechanisms of a new or different type than those previously evaluated since there are no physical changes being made to the facility. The design and design basis of the facility remain unchanged. The plant safety analyses remain unchanged. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is not introduced.
l
- 3. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with the proposed ;'
amendments does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction m the margin of safety because existing component redundancy is not being changed by these proposed changes. There are no new or significant changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or l consequences, and safety margins established through the design and facility license including the Technical Specifications remain unchanged. Therefore, there are no significant reductions in a margin of safety introduced by this proposed amendment.
Environmental Assessment of Proposed Changes: 1 An environmental assessment is not requiced for the changes proposed by this change request because the requested changes conform to the criteria for " actions eligible for categorical exclusion," as specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). The proposed changes meet the categorical exclusion criteria of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10) in that they: (1) Change record keeping, reporting, or i administrative procedures or requirements. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), an environmental assessment or impact statement need not be prepared.
l
,