ML20032D506
| ML20032D506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032D505 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-43742, TAC-43743, NUDOCS 8111170156 | |
| Download: ML20032D506 (3) | |
Text
~
l
. n as:
o y
g UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmwcTow, o. c. 20sss
{
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 52 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-24 AND AMENDMENT NO. 58 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 Introduction By letter dated April 6,1981 and modified by letter dated June 22, 1981, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the licensee) submitted an application for amendments to the licenses for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The amendments would make several administrative changes to the
~
Technical Specifications.
Previously, on February 4, 1981, the licensee had submitted an amendment request in response to Darrell Eisenhut's letter to all pressurized water reactor licensees dated July 2,1980.
Part of that submittal addressed the cualifications and duty status requirements for the Duty Technical Advisors.
This issue is also addressed in these amendments.
Discussion and Evaluation Many of the proposed changes involve minor clarifications and corrections and are acceptable.
In addition, the licensee is proposing title changes to the corporate organization to best describe the management's function.
The licensee also proposes that the plant staff organization be changed to provide for the addition of a General Superintendent reporting to the Manager-
[
l Nuclear Operations and having direct responsibility for plant operations and l
direct support.
Further, several titles of plant staff personnel have been
~
changed. The position of Duty Technical Advisor has also been included in the Operations Group shift makeup. This addition was originally proposed in licensee's amendment application to the NRC dated February 4,1981 regarding i
Technical Specifications for TMI related changes filled at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant since January 1,1980.
l The licensee also proposes that certain plant staff positions are not critical key positions and wishes to make changes to the facility staff organization which affect these positions without prior NRC approval.
i 8111170156 810820 PDR ADOCK 05000266 p
PDR l
L
~
O After reviewing the proposed changes, we conclude that Figure 15.6.2-2 does not indicate that the following plant positions are critical:
(1) General Superintendent (2) Superintendent of Technical Services (3) Superintendent - Training, and (4) Superintendent Engineering, Quality and Regulatory We cannot agree that the positions mentioned above are not key.
Confusion during the TMI incident was inherent because the Plant Manager and Technical Support Superintendent were very new to their jobs and the licensee was not required to have a qualified backup.
We believe these positions are important and that prior NRC approval is re-quired before planned changes to these positions are made.
Therefore, we cannot accept this portion of the proposed Technical Specification change which deals with the designation of non-key plant personnel and their subsequent changes without prior NRC approval.
The addition of the Duty Technical Advisor to the staff organization is in accordance with the standard technical specifications for Westinghouse pressurized water reactors and is acceptable.
The proposed title changes to organizational staff are considered minor administrative changes and are acceptable.
Telephone conversations with members of the licensee's staff were held during the evaluation of the licensee's submittals to clarify certain of the proposals.
The licensee approved the following minor changes to the proposed Technical Specifications:
1.
"The Duty Technical Advisor shall also receive training in plant design and layout including the capabilities of instrumentation and controls in the control room." was added to section 15.6.3.4 to make it more closely conform to the standard technical specifications.
2.
Section 15.6.9.2.A required no change from that previously approved.
3.
Figure 15.6.2-2 has been modified to show a solid line in the re-porting relationship between the Health Physicist and the Manager-Nuclear Operations in order to cnnform to previously approved technical specifications. Also the dotted line reporting relation-ship between the Duty Technical Advisors and the Superintendent-Training has been deleted.
The licensee's staff has stated that these were in error of their intent.
4 Figure 15.6.2.2 has been modified to add the words "one per shift" under the position of Duty Technical Advisor in order to conform with the licensee's original February 4,1981 submittal.
O 5.
Figure 15.6.2-4 and section 15.6.5.2.2 were modified substituting
" Superintendent - Training" for " Training Engineer" and " Superintendent-Instrumentation and Control" for " Instrumentation and Control Engineer" to conform with the licensee's June 22, 1981 submittal.
6.
Figure 15.6.2-4 was also modified to include the designation of
" brigade member" under the position of Contract Security Guards to conform with that previously approved by the NRC.
7.
A typing error was corrected on page 15.4.9-1.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do 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 amendments involve 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 environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of t.hese amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the hecith and safety of the public.
Date: August 20, 1981 Timothy G. Colburn OPBf3 James C. Snell LQB
-