ML19337A703
| ML19337A703 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19337A704 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8009290451 | |
| Download: ML19337A703 (3) | |
Text
7,O*
[#
,)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
UNITED STATES t,
a wAsm NGTON, D. C. 206S5
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-64 AND #4ENDMENT NO. 50 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-59 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NO. 3 JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NOS. 50-286 AND 50-333 Introduction By letters dated November 2,1978, October 2,1979, November 28, 1979 and May 23,1980 the Power Authority of the State of New Ycrk (the licensee) requested amendment of Facility Operating License No. DPR-64 for Indian Point Nuclear Generatin9 Unit No. 3.
By letters dated October 2, 1979 and December 6, 1979 the licensee requested amendment of Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 for the James A. Fitzpatrick Huclear Power Plant.
The October 2,1979 letters proposed minor changes to the organization charts and position titles that apply to both facilities.
Additional position title changes were identified in a letter dated April 25, 1980 and subsequent discussions with the licensee.
The November 28, 1979 letter for Indian Point 3 and the December 6,1979 letter for Fitzpatrick proposed an increase ir, the membership of the Safety Review Comittee (SRC).
In addition, the India.n Point 3 letter proposed to delete a redundant SRC review and the Fitzpatrick letter proposed to alter the format of Section 6.5.2 to make it consistent with the General Electric Standard Boiling Water Reactors Technical Specifications (GE STS).
The November 2, 1978 letter for Indian Point 3 proposed to increase to 60 days the review by the Plant Operating Review Comittee (PORC) and approval by the Resident Manager of temporary changes to non-radiological environ-mental procedures.
The May 23, 1980 letter for Indian Point 3 responded to our April 10, 1980 request and proposed a change to the definition of the term " operable."
't 800929
Evaluation The proposed change to the organization chart has the Resident Managers reporting administratively to the Executive Vice President and Director of Operations instead of to the General Manager and Chief Engineer.
Since the Executive Vice President and Director of Power Operations reports directly to the President and Chief Operating Officer, the proposed change will strengthen the licensee's management of nuclear operations.
We, therefore, find this change acceptable. We also find acceptable changes in position titles.
The proposed increase in membership of the SRC will increase its expertise and diversity and is therefore acceptable.
The Indian Point 3 Technical Specifications required the SRC to both review and audit the Fire Protection Program which is redundant. The proposed change deletes the review function while the audit function remains unchanged.
This is consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications and, therefore, we find it acceptable.
The change to the GE STS format in the Fitzpatrick proposal is also acceptable.
The proposal to increase to 60 days the PORC review and Resident Manager approval of temporary changes to the non-radiological environmental procedures makes the Technical Specifications consistent with Consolidated Edison's Technical Specifications for Indian Point. Unit Nos. I and 2.
Since most of the non-radiological environmental procedures are the same for all three units, and are reviewed and approved jointly by PASNY and Consolidated Edison, we find this change acceptable.
The proposed definition of the term " operable" meets the intent of our April 10,1980 letter to all power ieactor licensees (Section 3.0.5 of the Model Technical Specifications).
The other requirements in our April 10, 1980 letter are already satisfied in the Indian Point 3 Technical Speci-fications. We, therefore, conclude that the proposed chatnge satisfactorily responds to our request and is acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that these amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that these arendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or n<
'4"e declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be preparco connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because these amendments do not involve a significant increase in the ' prob-ability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, these amendmentsda 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 con-ducted 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.id safety of th( public.
Date:
September 5, 1980 t
_-