ML19322B371
| ML19322B371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19322B358 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912020220 | |
| Download: ML19322B371 (5) | |
Text
.
(
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINoToN, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTDR REGULATIO SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.l 8 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DP SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.Y 8 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. D SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.I 6 'IO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DP DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287 Introduction By letter dated February 28, 1975, Duke Power Company (the licensee). requested changes to the Technica Specifications appended to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-38, DPR-47 DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station.
, and The proposed changes consi'st of revised portions of Section'd.1, Organization, Review and Audit, and involve the following:
1.
The assignment of required technical review and control functions to qualified individuals or groups rather than to an onsite review committee 2.
The assignment of several review functions to the onsite operating organization rather than to an onsite review committee, and 3.
A restructured review and audit organization.
Discussion The Commission requested, by letter dated December 18, 1974, that the licensee review Section 6.1 of its Technical Specifications, Organization Review and Audit, and submit a proposed change to include the requirements of the guidance provided.
t.
rs.s16 7912020 r
. {
o I
g l By letter dated February 28, 1975, as amended June 19 and December S, 1975, the licensee submitted a proposed amendment in response to our request and, in addition, requested other changes to the existing technical specifications relating to Section 6.
Specifically, the licensee is requesting the elimination of the Station Review Committee (SRC) as the onsite organization responsible for technical review and control functions.
Qualified individuals or groups from the cognizant organization, as selected by the Station Manager, would substitute for the SRC in the review of the following:
1.
Procedcres and procedure changes which affect station nuclear safety, 2.
Proposed changes to the Technical S ecifications, and P
3.
Proposed modifications to nuclear safety related. structures, systems and components.
The present policy regarding the above three areas is that an original draft is prepared by qualified individuals or groups from within the responsible organization. A review of the draft is then conducted by the SRC, and recommendations made to the Station Manager regarding the disposition of the orginial proposal.
The proposed change would require that a second-party review be conducted by qualified individuals or groups from within the responsible organi:stion, rather than by the SRC, p.rior to final approval by the Station Manager or his designated alternate.
For other matters normally assigned to the'SRC, such as incident investigation, performance of special reviews, review of the station security plan and review of the station emergency plan, the licensee is proposing that the Station Manager assign personnel of the onsite operating organization to perform these functions, rather than having these functions performed by the onsite review committee as presently specified.
The licensee is also proposing the establishment of a Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) to replace the existing Nuclear Safety Review Committee (NSRC). The NSRB would be staffed by five members with the required length of technical experience p1'us consultants to provide necessary e,xpert advice and additional staff members to assist the NSRB. The NSRB would perform the required independent review and audit functions to verify that the Oconee Nuclear Station is operated and administered in accordance with acceptable and approved standards.
l I
t'
[
-,... - ~ -.
(
(
3_
i Evaluation The present procedures utilized by Oconee Nuclear Station for originating i
procedures, procedure changes and system modifications specify that the cognizant department submit the proposed document to the onsite Station The SRC then conducts its review and Review Committee (SRC) for review.
makes its recommendations to the Station Manager who then makes the final
)
approval.
The Station Manager is responsible for appointing members of the SRC l
Committee, and is required to assign at 1 cast S members from the station supervisory staff.
Representatives are to be from Operations and The present technical specifications refer to Technical Services.
ANSI N18.1, Selection and Training of Nuclear. Power Plant Personnel, for j
guidelines for the training and experience requirements of the station supervisory staff.
The proposed amendment would assign qualified individuals or groups from the station supervisory staff to replace the SRC in the review of procedures, procedure changes, technical specification changes and plant modifications involving nucicar safety.
These individuals / groups would be previously designated by the Station Manager to perform the reviews. The final approval of the above reviews would be by the Station Manager or, in j
certain cases, by his designated representative. The individual or group conducting the review would be other than the individual or group who prepared the procedure, procedure change, technical specification change or plant modification, but may be from the same organization as the a
individual or group which originated the proposal.
In addition, for each review conducted, a determination would be made as to.whether or not j
additional, cross-disciplinary review is necessary.
If concluded that it is necessary, the additional review would be performed by the appropriate designated station review personnel.
The existing Technical Specifications and the proposed amendment both reference ANSI N18.1 fcnc the minimum training and experience requirements for the station-staff and therefore there would be no lessening of the qualifications of the individuals conducting the reviews.
During our review of the proposed changes, we found that certain modifications to the proposal were necessary. These changes were discussed with the licensee and have been incorporated into the proposal.
_ In view of the above, it is concluded that the review of procedures and procedure changes involving nuclear safety, technical specification changes and plant modifications involving nuclear safety, can be. effectively conducted 4
~
I
' by the licensee, utilizing the methods of the proposed amendment.
4 l
6
-8 o
. e i
.\\
=
s 4-The proposed amendment would also reassign other matters prese the purview of the onsite review committee (SRC) y within performance of special reviews, review of the station security pro review of the station emergency plan, to individuals or ad hoc grou and operating organi:stion, as assigned by the Station Manager ps from the members of the onsite review Committee are as This would
, the from the supervisory personnel of the operating organization n Managar and of the preceding discussion, we agree that the Station R a
In view of this, be eliminated and its reponsibilities assigned to the individualeview C discussed herein.
s and groups as The licensee has also proposed that an off-site Nuclear Saf t (NSRB) be established to replace the present Nuclear Safety R e y Review Board (NSRC).
The NSRB would be staffed by five members, all of whom would eview Committee a minimum of nine years technical experience, of which three year ave be in one or more of the areas of expertise listed in ANSI N18 7 u
maximum of four years of the nine years of experience would be all A
academic training.
the existing requirements of the NSRC which consistThese exper owed as consultants would be utilized to pr. ovide expert advic In addition, necessary by the Director of the NSRB.
~
, as determined provided to assist the NSRB in the performance of its functionsStaff ass The proposed amendment would expand the responsibilitic '
completed under the provisions of 10 CFR S0.59 w s of the NSRB as or actions those which were considered to involve unreviewed saf t e, not just all proposed Technical Specification or operating license chang e y questions and (2) reviewed, not just those considered to involve unreviewed safety es would be questions.
We have concluded that the responsibilitics of'tde proposed NSRB that the means by which it will carry out these respon are acceptable.
the NSRB as a replacement for the NSRC.In view of this, we agree wit s are We have determined that the amendment does not auth effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in po orize a change in will not result in any significant environmental impact wer level and this determination, we have further concluded that th Having made an action which is insignificant from the standpoint ofe amendment inve;<es impact and pursuant to 10 CFR ESI.S(d)(4 environment'.1 ment, negative declaration, or environmen)tal impact appr ithat an envir i
.not be prepared in connection with the issuance of~this am a sal need sy i
endment.
-v WWp s.
f l
1
.h N@ S
- 6.
(.
(
s
~
t S-Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the change does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with.the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
A b%e FEB13 gig.
Date:
9
- I 1
I l
.t i
.I
I
.. o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULA'IVRY COMMISSION DOCKET HOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-237 DUKE POWER' COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendments No.18, I 8 and 15 to Facility Operating Licenses No. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55, respectively, issued to Duke Power Company which revised Technical Specifications for operation of the Oconce Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, located in I
Oconec County, South Carolina. The amendments are effective March 1(
1976.
These amendments revise portions of the Organization, Review and Audit section of the Technical Specifications and consist of (1) changes in the methods by which technical review and control functions are performed, (2) the reassignment of certain specific review requirements to the onsite operating organization and (3) a restructured review and audit organization.
The application for the amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations Prior in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendments.
public notice of these amendments is not required since the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
' [a Fil??o633
'~
(
.-e 2-The Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) an environmental statement, negative declaration or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of this amendment.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the g
as supplemented application for amendments dated February 28, 1975,,
June 19, and December 5, 1975, (2) Amendments No.I 8, # 9,andU 5to r
Licenses No. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55., (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington,'D.C. and at the Oconee County Library, 201 South Spring Street, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691.
A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissipn, Washington, D.C.
- 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Reactor Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this FEB 131976 i
FOR ' DIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C05BIISSION Ngfnal sigded by J
h Purple g
Robert A. Purple, Chief
\\
Operating Reactors Branch #1 l
Division of Operating' Reactors I
ORB #1 OELD,,,,_,_ _ 0RB,#1 omes,
RAPurple GZech:1b
~'
oan>. 1/08/76 1/ /76 1/ /76 1/. /76
~
see ess--no-eness-s esame
(
Pese AEC.Ste(Rev.9 53) AECM ONO y
l
.