ML20206B099
| ML20206B099 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206B089 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704080327 | |
| Download: ML20206B099 (3) | |
Text
_- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9
. p o
UNITED STATES
g 8'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
't WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 27 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 31, 1985, and supplemented November 8, 1985, March 7 and October 1 and 10,1986 Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed changes to Technical Specifications (TS) 6.5, 6.6, 6.8 and 6.10 regarding
" Administrative Controls" for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The i
changes (1) add the Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling to TS 6.5.1.3, 6.5.1.5,6.6.lb,6.8.2,and6.8.3c.,(2)(addtheSuoerintendentofStation3) change the rec Services to TS 6.5.1.8 and 6.8.lc., and in TS 6.10.2 for records of quality assurance activities required by the OA manual.
EVALUATION 1.
Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling The licensee proposes to add the position of Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling to the list containing three other superintendents authorized to review and/or approve certain designated plant procedures, tests, experiments and modifications described in Sections 6.5.1.3, 6.5.1.5, 6.8.1, 6.8.2, and 6.8.3, and as a reviewer of Reportable Events described in Section 6.6.1 of the TS. The plant TS previously provided that the Operations Suterintendent, the Maintenance Superintendent and the Technical Services Superintendent have this review and approval authority as designated by the Station Manager.
By letter dated August 15, 1986, the NRC staff requested additional infor-mation regarding the proposed amendments. By letter dated October 10, 1986, the licensee stated that each of these superintendents has received Oualified 4
Reviewer Training which includes review and accroval of procedures and pro-cedure changes, and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
In addition, each of these superintendents meets the minimum qualifications specified by ANSI N18.1-1971. The staff finds these qualifications and the reviewer training sufficient to accept these four superintendents as qualified to perform the reviews contemplated by the plant TS. Therefore, the staff finds ecceptable the licensee's request to add the position of Superintendent of Integrated i
Scheduling to the list of plant superintendents authorized to perform the reviews described in Sections 6.5.1.3, 6.5.1.5, 6.6.1, 6.8.2 and 6.8.3 of the Catawba Station TS.
8704080327 B70402 PDR ADOCK 050 3
A o 2.
Superintendent of Station Services The licensee also proposes changes to Sections 6.5.1.8 and 6.8.1 of the plant TS to allow either the Station Manager or the Superintendent of Station Services to review and approve modifications to the station security program and related implementing procedures.
As previously provided by the plant TS, only the Station Manager has this authority. Furthermore, as described in the licensee's October 10, 1986 letter, the qualifications of Superintendent of Station Services meet the minimum qualifications requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971 for comparable station positions.
Thus, these qualifications meet the requirements of Section 13.1.2 of the Standard Review Plan and art acceptable.
In view of the qualifi-cations of the Superintendent of Station Services, the staff finds the licensee's proposal to allow him the authority to review and approve modifications to the station security program and related implementing procedures as described in Sections 6.5.1.8 and 6.8.1 of the plant TS acceptable.
3.
Records Retention These amendments change the record retention period in TS 6.10 for records of quality assurance activities required by the OA Manual. 6.10.21 previously re-quired that these records be retained for the duration of the Operating License.
The change substitutes a new TS 6.10.3 requiring that these records be retained 1
for the period specified by ANSI N45.2.9-1974, " Requirements for Collection.
Storage, and Maintenance of Ouality Assurance Records for Nuclear Power Plants."
ANSI N45.2.9-1974 provides a list of the various types of OA records and divides them into " Lifetime" and " Nonpermanent" categories for retention period purposes.
For each record type in the "Nonpennanent" category, ANSI N45.2.9-1974 designates a specific minimum retention period ranging from 0 to 6 years. As stated in Regulatory Guide 1.88, the requirement. and guidelines for collection, storage and maintenance of quality assurance records that are included in ANSI N45.2.9-1974 are acceptable to the NaC staff and provide an adequate basis for complying with the pertinent quality assurance requirements for Aopendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
By letter dated October 1,1986, the licensee stated that, based on the infor-mation contained in ANS!/ASME N45.2.9-1979, the records for data and infomation used in post-trip reviews shall be retained for the life of the Operating License.
The change discussed above involves only the substitution of a more specific and more appropriate requirement for 0A records retention pursuant to a standard accepted by the NRC staff. Because this substitution would not shorten the re-tention period for those types of OA records which the Comission has detemined should be retained for the plant lifetime and does appropriately recognize that some of the Qt record types have limited significance and may be retained for lesser periods, the change has no adverse impact on safety and is, therefore, acceptable.
Or ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in indivi-dual or cumulative occupational exposures. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public connents on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical ex-clusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Recister (52 FR 5852) on February 26, 1987, and consulted with the state or soutn Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed abuve, 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 the amendments will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Kahtan Jabbour PWR#4/0PWR-A Lawrence Crocker, F08/0PWR-A i
Dated:. April 2,1987
-