ML20002C718
| ML20002C718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002C710 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101100782 | |
| Download: ML20002C718 (5) | |
Text
_
- \\
UNIT 13 STATES f
n
'4 NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION
{
. AsHINGTON. D. C. 20655 w
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.12 TO LICENSF NO. OPR-6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155 INTRODUCTION By application for license amendment dated March 8,1976, as amended by letter dated March 3,1977, Consumers Power Company (CPCo) requested changes to the Technical Specifications for Big Rock Point.
The changes relate to recent General Office and plant staff organization changes, the correction of minor typographical errors in the Administrative Controls section, a reduction of the specified number of non-licensed reactor operators from two to one, and adding a definition of sur-veillance requirements.
EVALUATION We have reviewed the proposed amendment dated March 8,1976, as modified by letter dated March 3,1977, relating to the Administrative Controls part of the Technical Specifications.
The proposed organization changes included a change in title of the Executive Manager - Bulk Power Operations (BPO) to Vice President - Production & Transmission (P&T).
The Vice President - P&T's responsibility and authority remain the same as those of the Executive Manager - BP0; therefore, this change in title does not change the effectiveness of the organization and is acceptable.
This change also included the deletion of the position Executive Manager -
Bulk Power Operations when the incumbent in that position became Vice President, Production & Transmission. The deletion of this position would have little impact on the chain of carnand in the CPCo organization since all personnel (and the Safety and Audit Review Soard) previously reporting to the Executive Manager now report directly to the Vice President (P&T). We find this change acceptable.
710110 OM#
e
-k
(
2-Plant Review Committee members' title changes were proposed, but their basic duties and qualifications remain unchanged; therefore,
-the proposed changes are acceptable.
The proposed change also provides for a new position of Operations Supervisor in the line organization between the Operations Super-intendent and the Plant Shift Supervisors. The Operations Super-visor would be a qualified Senior Reactor Operator.
This new l-position would be required to be filled if the Operations Super-intendent does not hold a senior coerator's license such that he could directly supervise the Plant Shift Supervisors.
Relieving 1
the Operations Superintendent of these functions would give him more time to manage the operations thereby strengthening the existing organization. On this basis the proposed new position of Operations Supervisor is acceptable.
The position of Manager - Operating Services has been incorporated
~
under the broad title "0THER SERVICES" shown on Figure 6.2-1.
Any safety-related actions (licensing,-fuel management, radiological and health physics servkes) initiated by the organization within this broad grouping are reviewed by the Plant Review Committee.
and by the Safety.and Audit Review Board as necessary.
Since the Manager - Operating Services had no authority to implement safety related actions without review by the Plant Review Committee, deletion of the position from the organizational table is acceptable.
The positions of Training Coordinator and Training Instructor have been established by CPCo's proposed change. The Training Coordinator would report directly to the Plant Superintendent rather than the Operations Sdperintendent,.as was previously the case.
Because this change would remove an une.ecessary workload from the Operations Superintendent and would strengthen the training function by providing direct access to the Plant Superintendent, this change is acceptable.
The proposed changes an March 8,1976, to Table 6.2-1 " Minimum Shift Crew Composition" would reduce the number of licensed reactor operators from tw to one during normal power operations.
Our requirements ara based on assuring that a sufficient number of properly qualified reactor operators are readily available at all times to perform the required safety oriented functions.
The require-ment recognizes the possibilities of an operator becoming incapacitated and not available 100% of the time during his shift.
Subsequently, i
e r -
-m----w-,
.-ww s
e v
+- - - -.. -.-..
(
k
, t in a letter dated March 3,1977, CPCo amended the March 8,1976 proposal to maintain two licensed operators but reduce the number of non-licensed operators from two to one during nomal power operations.
Staffing requirements for cold shutdown and refueling-conditions are not changed.
Normal duties of the non-licensed operators are to assist the licensed operators under the direct supervision of the licensed operator.
CPCo states that the tasks of the non-licensed operator at a small pl v t such a Big Rock Point "can be readily perfomed by a single individual during normal plant operations without jeoprdizing any aspect of operational safety." The proposed reduction in non-licensed reactor operators is acceptable.
The minor editorial correction made to the Technical Specification index brings the index into agreement with the contents and is acceptable.
The correction of the typographical error in Section 6.5.1.7(b) is acceptable.
By letter of March 3,1977, CPCo proposed adding a definition of surveillance requirements to reduce ambiguity in implemeting and scheduling the existing surveillance requirements.
This is consistent with current regulatory requirements and therefore is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS We have detemined that the 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 detemination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or regative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, 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 r.ot 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the comnion defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: March 16, 1977
\\
,f UNITE 3 STATES y'
NUCLEAR REOULATCRY COMMISSION g
)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- s.,*...+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO LIC:NSE NO. DPR-6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155
\\
INTRODUCTION N
By application for license amendment dated March
, 1976, Consumers Power Company (CPCo) requested changes to the Te nical Specifications for Big Rock Point. The changes relate to rec t General Office and plant staff organizational changes and the co ection of minor typo-graphical errors in the Administrative Contr s Section.
In reviewing the proposed license amendme t requent we found the proposed reduction of licensed reactor erators does not meet our requirements and.therefore is unaccep ble. Therefore, this proposed change has not been included in the ndmer.t.
u We have reviewed the proposed am.dment dated March 8, 1976, relating to the Administrative Controls rt of the Technical Specifications.
The proposed organization cha es include a change in title of the Executive Manager - Bulk Po r Operations (BPO) to Vice President -
BPO. The Vice President - P0's responsibility and authority remain the same as those of the v2cutive Manager - BP0; therefore, this change in title does no change the effectiveness of the organization and is acceptable. The proposed change also provides for a new positicn of Operatiptis Supervisor in the line organization between the Operations Superigrendent and the Plant Shift Supervisors. The Operations Superviaor would be a qualified Senior Reactor Operator. This new position would be required to be filled if the Operations Superintendent does not hold a senior operators license such that he could directly supervise the Plant Shift Supervisors.
Relieving the Operations Superintendent of these functions would give him more time to manage the operations strengthening the existing organization. On this basis the thereby'd new position of Operations supervisor is acceptable.
propose s
2
r
?
L -
The proposed changes to Table 6.2-1 " Minimum Shift Crew Composition" would reduce the number of required licensed reactor operators from two to one. This change would be inconsistent with our current staffing requirements as stated in Standard Review Plan 13.1.2.
Big Rock Point's shift manning was revised by Amendment No. 9 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 in December, 1975. At that time, we reviewed the shift manning as one of the several items being reviewed for all operating reactor plants. We determined that Big Rock Point's shift manning proposal prior to Amendment No. 9 required modification to conform with the minimum shift manning. This modification was made; therefore,the current number of licensed reactor operators approved for Big Rock Point meet our criteria.
This requirement is based on having a sufficient number of properly qualified reactor operators readily available at all times to perform the required safety oriented functions.
The requirement recognizes the possibilities of an operator becoming incapacitated and not available 100% of the time during his shift.
Therefore, the proposed reduction in licensed reactor operators is not acceptable.
The minor editorial correction made to the Technical Specification index brings the index into agreement with the contents and is acceptable. The correction of the typographical error in Section 6.5.1.7(b) is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS We have determined that the 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 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amenda nt 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 nargin, 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 by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities d al be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
T 4
..