ML20027E672
| ML20027E672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027E668 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211150595 | |
| Download: ML20027E672 (3) | |
Text
.
5 fi UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,, j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3
e Y
i i
,o
....+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 65 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET N0. 50-219
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 15, 1982 GPU Nuclear Corporation and Jersey Central Power & Light Company (the licensees) requested an amendment to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
This amendment would authorize changes to the administrative organization at the Oyster Creek plant by, (1) retitling the position of Director Station Operations to Deputy Director Oyster Creek, (2) assigning the same Technical Specification responsibilities of the Director
- Station Operations to the Vice President and Director Oyster Creek, (3) retitling the position of Fire Protection Manager to Fire Protection Supervisor, and (4) retitling the position of Radiological Controls Foreman to Radiological Controls Group Supervisor.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The licensee's proposed Technical Specification change request would i
revise various organizational positions and responsibilities.
Specifically the position of Director Station Operations would be retitled, Deputy Director Oyster Creek, and the responsibilities of that position would remain the same. Also, these responsibilities would be concurrently assigned to the Vice President and Director Oyster Creek.
The licensee has defined the qualification requirements of both positions to be equivalent and identical to the existing requirements.
In addition, the position of Radiological Controls Foreman would be retitled, Radiological Controls Group Supervisor, and the position of Fire Protection Manager would be retitled, Fire Protection Supervisor.
l l
Their respective qualifications and responsibilities remain unchanged, l
therefore, these changes are administrative title changes only.
l l
I F211150595 821105 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
PDR 1
I L
.. The licensee has also proposed the following reporting requirement changes.
(1) personnel who perform the fire protection surveillances that presently report to the Fire Protection Supervisor will report to the Preventive Maintenance Manager, and (2) personnel who perform the plant chemistry work that now report to the Chemistry Manager will report to the Operations Department.
In each case, the change is an administrative change, and the responsibilities presently assigned to the Fire Protection Supervisor and the Chemistry Manager remain the same.
In addition, the licensee proposes to add a note to Figure 6.2.2 concerning the manning of equipment operators. At the present time an onshift equipment operator is assigned on an as needed basis to be a radwaste operator.
This change would require the radwaste operator to be a full-time position and would be considered part of the minimum shift staffing of equipment cperators.
The guidance used by us in determining acceptability of the plant organization is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation).
The proposed changes are consistent with the criteria stated in the Regulatory Guide. Thus, we have concluded that all of the changes discussed above are administrative ecin nature, do not reduce the effectiveness for the management or safe operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Therefore, we find the proposed changes acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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 envir.onmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(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.
4.0 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 an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction
v:
3-
]
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 compli-ance with the Commission's regulation and the issuance of this amend-ment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS J. Lombardo prepared this evaluation.
Date: November 5, 1982 to-
~
l a
W w