ML20027D586
| ML20027D586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1982 |
| From: | Caruso R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027D583 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211080107 | |
| Download: ML20027D586 (2) | |
Text
-
[
'o UNITED STATES
-[ % gg' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO MISSION M
E;. #', EJ WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 3
%;%.V qt..... sp o
/ > *<
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY YANKEE NUCLEAR POW R STATION
~
DOCKET NO. 50-29
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 24, 1982, Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC)
(the licensee) proposed changes to Section 6 of the Technical Specifi-cations for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Yankee). The proposed changes would approve modifications in the organizational structure and reflect changes in titles of individuals.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION 2.1 In Figure 6.2-1, the position of Manager of Operations has been eliminated, and his duties have been assumed by the Vice-President in charge of operations. This change was necessary as a result of the reassignment of the current Manager of Operations to the Seabrook Station. The new organization will shorten the operational chain of command between the plant and senior corporate management, so that the oversight function of the Vice-President in charge of operations will be strengthened.
The NRC resident inspector was contacted to determine whether he had noted any problems in this particular part of the organization. He reported that the current Vice-President in charge of operations is capable and should have no problems in assuming the additional duties of Manager of Operations.
Furthermore, the most recent report from the Systematic Appraisal of Licensee Performance (SALP) Board noted that the licensee's management was performing well. We, therefore, conclude that this change will not reduce the effectiveness of the licensee's management organization. Thus, we find the proposed changes acceptable.
2.2 Also in Figure 6.2.1, the blocks defining the positions of Vice-President (s) and the Treasurer have been combined to allow the chart to fit on one page. No change to the chain of command is intended and this modification is therefore acceptable.
8211080107 821102
~~
~
PDR ADOCK 05000029 P
s M
%f
\\
2.3 In Figure 6.2.2 and on pages 6-6 and 6-7, changesIhave been made y
to reflect the change in title of the Technical Services Mana'ger to the Technical Services Supervisor. Because these changes are purely adminis-trative and 1_nvolve no safety consideration, they.are acceptable.
2.4 The guidance used by the NRC staff in determining acceptability of the plant organization is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Protgram Requirements (Operation). The proposed organiiational 1
m changes conform with the Regulatory Guide criteria. We have concluded s
s.
that all of the above changes are administrative in nature, do not reduce t'
1 the effectiveness for the management or safe operation of the Yankee Plant
\\
and are, therefore, acceptable.
? '?
+
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
y 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 4
not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made~ this determination, we have further concluded that the' amendment involves an action which is insignificant frWthe standpoint of environniental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 55f.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in. connection with the.issua.nce of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the consideralfons discussed above', that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a-significant increase in the probability or consequences of an aceide'nt previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident or a type different from
\\
/
any evaluated previously, and does not" involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, 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 will 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.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation has been prepared by R. Caruso.
Date:
November 2, 1932
,