ML20101F882

Application for Amend to License NPF-3,revising Tech Spec Section 6.4.1 by Adding Title of Nuclear Training Manager

ML20101F882
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	12/16/1984
From:	Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20101F869	List: ML20101F867 ML20101F882 ML20101F889
References
TAC-56795, NUDOCS 8412270350
Download: ML20101F882 (4)

Text

- - - - _ - - _ _

APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 FOR DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

. UNIT NO. 1 Enclosed are forty-three (43) copies of the requested changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-3, together with the Safety Evaluation for the requested change.

The proposed' change includes Section 6.4.1.

By /s/ R. P. Crouse Vice President, Nuclear

~

r

-Sworn and subscribed before me this 16th day of December, 1984.

/s/ Laurie A. Hinkle nee (Brudzinski)

Notary Public State of Ohio My Commission Expires May 16, 1986 SEAL i

O P

, ~ , . , . .

n Docket No. 50-346 i License No1 NPF-3' Serial No. 1109

- December. 16,-1984-

, -Attachment-I.- 1 Changes to Davis-Besse Nuclear. Power Station Unit 1, Appendix A:

Technical Specifications 6.4.1.

'A. . Time required to Implement. This change is to be effective upon NRC approval.

B .' Reason for Change (Facility Change Rcquest 84-051).

' To add the. title " Nuclear Training Manager" to Section 6.4

Training which-only contains " Position Title".

~C. Safety Evaluation-(See Attached)

D. Significant Hazard Consideration

'(See' Attached)'

s:

9 9

.. -. - . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _.___m _ _ _ _ .

e

[ SIGNIFICANT HAZARD CONSIDERATION ^

~ The latthched amendment request' to add the' title .of " Nuclear Training -

~

Manager":for direction of the training program at Davis-Besse does not

. represent a-significant hazard consideration.

p cThe proposed change is to correct' an oversight when the standard technical Jspecification'was-adopted. The title " Nuclear Training Manager" was

-omitted. The Nuclear Training Manager is charged with the Nuclear training

. programs'at Toledo Edison. The amendment request reflects the organiza-~

tionaliresponsibilities for Nuclear Training. Therefore, tl:e. Nuclear-Training Manager title is added to Section 6.4.1.

-The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870).

One of the examples of actions involving-no significant hazards considera-tions related to a purely administrative change to technical-specifications:

for example, a change to achieve consistency-throughout the technical-specifications, correction of an error,.or a change in nonmenclature (Example 1).

The-amendment request is an administrative change by adding the Position Title to Section 6.4.1-that was previously omitted. The addition of the Nuclear Training Manager title to the Technical Specification does not change any duties'or responsibilities but defines the responsibility for-the Nuclear training programs.

Based on the above information, this~ amendment request would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of ' accident-from any accident previously evaluated;

-or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Therefore; based on the above, the requested license amendmen't does not-present a Significant Hazard.

ks b/1 i

7; - -

SAFETY EVALUATION

This' amendment request to change wording in the technical specifications, Section-6.4.'1,-to indicate that the Davis-Besse Unit 1 training program is under the direction of the Nuclear Training Manager.

The safety function of Section 6.4.1 is to ensure safe operation of the 1D avis-Besse Unit 1- facility by requiring that. an adequate training program J- <

is maintained.

The. proposed change is to correct an oversight when the standard technical specification was adopted. The title " Nuclear Training Manager" was omitted. -The safety function of the technical specification is not being' degraded by this change.

-It'is concluded that the change as proposed does not constitute an

. .unreviewed safety question.

.