ML16138A786
| ML16138A786 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16138A784 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9501100268 | |
| Download: ML16138A786 (4) | |
Text
p REGO UNITED STATES 0
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.208 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-38 AMENDMENT NO. 208 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE 47 AND AMENDMENT NO. 205 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1. 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, AND 50-287
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 11, 1993, as supplemented February 23, April 12 and July 29, 1994, Duke Power Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Technical Specifications (TS).
The amendments reflect the consolidation of the Quality Verification Department with the Nuclear Generation Department that realigned the Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) to report to the Senior Nuclear Officer, change an organizational unit term from "group" to "division," modify titles of positions designated to approve modifications, clarify the responsibilities of the Safety Assurance Manager, and delete the requirement to perform an annual independent Fire Protection Audit.
The February 23, April 12 and July 29, 1994, letters provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the November 11, 1993, application or the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION CONSOLIDATION OF DEPARTMENTS The consolidation of the Quality Verification Department with the Nuclear Generation Department is reflected on the subject TS pages in TS 6.1.3.3 wherein Quality Verification Department audits are renamed Quality Assurance Program audits. The audit group is maintained as before with the exception that it is now moved into the Safety Assurance Group. The specification of the list of audits in TS 6.1.3.1 and the requirement that the NSRB review these audits are not changed by this amendment. Since the envelope of the audits to be performed and the NSRB review requirement are unchanged, this change is acceptable.
9501100268 950104 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
PDRL
-2 REALIGNMENT OF NSRB REPORTING RELATIONSHIP -
TS 6.1.3.2. 6.1.3.4. 6.1.3.5 The licensee requested changes in an earlier application and the staff approved TS changes in amendments numbered 193, 193, and 190 for Units 1, 2 and 3, respectively, on May 1, 1992, that elevated certain TS-listed reporting relationships to a licensee management level that is generally one level higher than the level addressed by NRC staff guidance, including the Standard Technical Specifications (STS).
Included in these changes was the elevation of the NSRB reporting level to the licensee's Executive Vice President. The licensee requests, in the current amendment application, to return this NSRB reporting relationship and associated responsibilities to the Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation. This change is reflected in TS 6.1.3.2.a, 6.1.3.4.g, and 6.1.3.5. The Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation, is the licensee's Senior Nuclear Officer and the staff concludes that this proposal is consistent with general staff guidance in the Standard Review Plan and the STS and is acceptable. For purpose of consistency, the title Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation Department was changed to Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation in TS 6.1.3.4.g. The licensee agreed with this change.
RECORDS OF NSRB ACTIVITIES - TS 6.1.3.5 Consistent with the change in the NSRB reporting relationship discussed above, the Executive Vice President is removed from the list for receipt of NSRB meeting minutes, reports and audit reports, and the Site Vice President is added to this list. This change provides comparable management levels as contained in the STS and is acceptable.
TECHNICAL REVIEW AND CONTROL -
TS 6.1.2.1.c. 6.1.2.1.e The licensee initially proposed to modify the authority for approval of modifications by deleting specifically named management positions-and substituting a generalized delegation of authority by the Station Manager.
This was subsequently revised in the submittal of July 29, 1994, to a more restrictive proposal to augment the Station Manager's authority for approving modifications by adding the Manager of Engineering and by revising the position titles in these TS to reflect the titles of these positions in the current licensee organization. The title of Mechanical Superintendent is revised to the Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent and the I and E Superintendent is revised to the I and E/Maintenance Support Superintendent.
The staff finds these changes to be acceptable as they provide for approval by the appropriate division manager or superintendent level.
SAFETY ASSURANCE MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES - TS 6.1.2.1.f, 6.1.2.1.k The Safety Assurance Manager's responsibilities are clarified to those of ensuring the development of TS 6.6.2.1 reports and to provide for a designee who may approve these reports from the prior requirement that the Safety Assurance Manager approve all such reports. The staff finds this change acceptable, as the reports are approved and sent to appropriate management levels.
-3 PROCEDURE APPROVAL AND CHANGE AUTHORITY - TS 6.1.2.1.a The licensee proposed to change the approval authority from "group" manager to "appropriate division" manager. This change reflects the retitling of comparable management positions due to the reorganization. Either the former or the current title is consistent with the STS guidance for the appropriate level of management responsibility for this function and is acceptable.
ANNUAL INDEPENDENT FIRE PROTECTION AUDIT - TS 6.1.2.1.j The requirement to perform an "annual" independent fire protection audit, formerly stated in TS 6.1.3.4, was deleted in Amendments 193, 193 and 190 for Units 1, 2 and 3, respectively, issued on May 1, 1992. That amendment retained the requirement to perform such audits, but relocated the audit frequency requirements to the Duke Quality Assurance Topical Report, a document controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(a).
The licensee now seeks to correct an administrative error whereby the word "annual" inadvertently was not deleted from TS 6.1.2.1.j at that time. This constitutes an administrative change, to make the requirements of this TS consistent with the previous TS amendments. The NRC staff finds this change.
is administrative in nature and is acceptable.
3.0 OVERALL
SUMMARY
The staff finds the licensee's proposed changes acceptable, as they meet the appropriate acceptance criteria of Section 13.4 of NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan, and are consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The amendments also relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (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 amendments.
-4
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: F. Allenspach L. Wiens Date:
January 4, 1995