ML19339C983
| ML19339C983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339C979 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102130040 | |
| Download: ML19339C983 (2) | |
Text
..
.f o,
UNITED STATES
!'f,#(
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.'i E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 (Q v,/
s SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REG'JLATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 46 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-35 dOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-293 1.0 Introduction By letter dated September 29,1980, (BECo. #80-241: Boston Edison Comp.iny (licensee) requened modifications to Appendix A of Operating Lic.ense No. OPR-35, for the Pilgram Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
Tne proposed modifications would reflect the latast organizational changes in the management of the facility.
2.0 Evalua tion As a result of a recent management reorganization, changes to Section 6.0 - Administrative Controls of the Technical Specifications are required to reflect new positions and titles as described below.
The title of the Pilgrim Station Manager has been changed to Nuclear Operations Manager and he now reports directly to the Vice President -
Nuclear (Figure 6.2.1).
Previously, the Pilgrim Station Manager (located on site) reported to the Nuclear Operations Manager (located off site) who, in turn, reported to the Vice President - Nuclear. Also reporting directly to the Vice President - Nuclear are the Manager Quality Assuranec, Man >ger Nuclear Engineering, Manager Operations Support, and Nuclear 'afety Review and Audit Committee, all located off site.
The r,< organization for operation of the Pilgrim 1 plant is shown on Figure 6.2.1.
The licensee has agreed to change the figure to indicate which functions or groups are located on site or off site. A block showing the plant staff reporting directly to the Nuclear Operations Manager or the Deputy Managers will also be added to the organization chart shown on Figure 6.2.1.
0102130 g
- 2 The new Pilgrim I station organization is shown on Figure 6.2.2.
The Assistant Station Manager's title has been changed to Deputy Nuclear Operations Manager (two positions). The Chief Engineers of Operations, Maintenance, Radiology, and Technology who previously reported directly to the Station Manager, as well as those positions who reported to the Assistant Station Manager, now report directly to the Deputy Nuclear Operations Managers.
A new Nuclear Training Group has been established. The group reports directly to the Deputy Managers. This should enhance the status of training. The title of the Methods, Training and Compliance Group 4
has also been changed to the Management Services group.
The position of Nuclear Operations Fire Prevention and Protection Officer has been deleted (Fig. 6.2.3).
The composition of the Opera-i tions Review Committee (ORC) has also been changed. The Chairman of the ORC is now one of the Deputy Managers.
Prior to the reorganization, the Station Manager was the Chairman. This is an acceptable change.
3.0 Sumnary We have reviewed the above changes in organization and responsibilities and find these changes acceptable as they should strengtnen the overall plant management and provide more depth in the management organization.
i The organizational changes also meet the provisions of N18.7-1976/ANS-3.2 as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.33 and are, therefore, acceptable.
4.0 Environmental Consideration We have determined that this amendment does 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 the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.0 Conclusion 1
We have cor:cluded based on the considerations discussed above that:
(1) because the amendment 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 amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered oy operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will ce conducted in compliance with the Commission's regula-tions and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
February 2,1981
- - -.