ML20006E037
| ML20006E037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006E035 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002160132 | |
| Download: ML20006E037 (3) | |
Text
_
t N
63 ICEG e
o UNITED STATES
'g 8."
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- t WASHINGTON,0. C 20656 i
....+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTlHG AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO FACILITY OPERATING LifJHSE NO. NPF.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-322
1.0 INTRODUCTION
licensee) proposed changes to Technical Specifications (TSsLong Island Lighting Co By letter dated June 13, 1988, 6.2.1, Offsite Organization,'and 6.2.2, Unit Staff. The proposed changes would remove Figure 6.2.1-1, Corporate-Nuclear, and Figure 6.2.2-1, Unit Organization, and replace them with a narrative description of the offsite and onsite organizations functional requirements in TS 6.2.1.
Guidance for these proposed changes to the TS was provided to licensees and applicants-by Generic Letter 88-06, dated March 22, 1988.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Consistent with the guidance provided in the Standard Technical Specifications, Specifications 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 of the administrative control requirements have referenced offsite and unit (onsite) organization charts that are provided as figures to these sections. On-a plant specific basis, these organization charts have been provided by applicants and included in the TS issued with the operating license.
Subsequent restructuring of either the offsite or unit organizations, following the issuance of an operating license, has required licensees to submit a license amendment for NRC approval'to reflect the desired changes in the organizations. As a consequence, organizational changes have necessitated the need to request an amendment of the operating license.
Because of these limitations on organizational structure, the nuclear industry has highlighted this as an area for improvement in the TS.
The Shearon Harris licensee proposed changes to remove organization charts from its TS under the lead-plant concept that included the endorsement of the proposed changes by the Westinghouse Owners Group.
In its review of the Shearon Harris proposal, the staff concluded that most of the essential elements of offsite and onsite organization charts are captured i
by other regulatory requirements, notably, Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
However, there were aspects of the organizational structure that are important to ensure that the administrative control requirements of 10 CFR 50.36 would be met and that would not be retained with the removal of the organization charts. The applicable regulatory requirements are those 9002160132 900201 PUR ADOCK 05000322
- P PDC
T
)
j 4 f.
- 4 4.
,p, i
administrative controls that are necessary to ensure safe operation of the facility. Therefore, those aspects of organization charts for Shearon Harris that were essentit0 for conformance with regulatory requirements were added (1) to Specification 6.2.1 to de#ine functional i
requirements for the offsite and onsite organizations and (2) to Specification 6.2.2 to define qualification requirements of the unit staff.
By letter dated January 27, 1988, the staff issued Amendment No. 3 to Facility Opetating License NPF-63 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant that incorporated these changes to their TS. Subsequently the staff developed guidance on an acceptable format for license amendment requests to remove the organization charts from TS. Generic Letter 88-06 provided this guidance to all power reactors.
3.0 EVALUATION The licensee's proposed changes to its TS are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-06 and addressed the items listed below.
(1) Specifications 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 were revised to delete the references to Figures 6.2 1 and 6.2-2 that were removed from the TS.
(2) Furetional requirements of the offsite organizations were defined and added to Spacifications 6.2.1, and they are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 88-06. The specification notes that implementation of these requirements is documented in the plant document Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
(3) The organization chart for the unit staf# does not stipulate senior reactor operator or reactor operator license qualified positions.
Hence, this is not an applicable consideration related to the removal of the organizatica charts from the TS for their plant.
L (4) Consistent with requirements to document the offsite and onsite organization relationships in the form of organization charts, the licensee has confirmed that this documentation currently exists in the USAR.
(5) Specifications 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 referenced the figure for the offsite and unit organization charts being removed from TS and has been revised to define the requirements that were identified by these l-charts.
L On the basis of its review of the above items, the staff concludes that L
the licensee has provided an acceptable response to these items as addressed in the NRC guidance on removing organization charts from the administrative control requirements of the TS.
Furthermore, the staff
3 finds that these changes are consistent with the staff's generic finding on the acceptability of such changes as noted in Generic Letter 88-06.
Accordingly, the staff finds the proposed changes to be acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL C0H510 ERAT 10N These amendments relate to changes in recordkeepina, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibilit CFR51.22(y)(10). criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environnental impact c
statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (53 FR 46147) on November 16, 1988 and consulted with the State of New York. No public comments were received, and the State of New York did not have t.ny comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable arsyrance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner and (2)suchactivitieswillbeconductedincompliancewiththeCommIssion's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Thomas G. Dunning, OTSB/DOEA Dated: February 1,1990 m.
u.