ML20069P481
| ML20069P481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069P479 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101100213 | |
| Download: ML20069P481 (2) | |
Text
.
p%
4 k
UNITED STATES
!j g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
-l W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 (w...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED T0 AMENDMENT NO._151 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0_._DPR-32 AND AMENDMENT N0.148 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-37 V_lRGINI A_ ELECTRIC _ AND_ POWE_R_ COMPANY SURRY POWER __ STATION, UN_IT_NOS_._1_AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND_50-28_1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 11, 1990, as supplemented October 12, 1990, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) proposed a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Surry Power Station, Units No. I and No.
2(SPS-1&2).
Specifically, the chan Draf t) ge would provide for and document exceptions to ANS-3.1 (12/79 in the SPS-1&2 station staff organization and the qualification requirements regarding the position of Operations Manager as described in the standard.
2.0 DISCUSSION The proposed change to TS 6.1, " Organization, Safety and Operation Review,"
Draft)pecific exceptions to the qualification requirements of ANS-3.1 (12/79 adds s for the Superintendent Operations and the Supervisor Shift Operations.
ANS-3.1 (12/79 Draft), which is cited in TS 6.1 for establishing the qualification requirements of the plant's staff, requires that the individual fulfilling the function of the " Operations Manager" hold a current Senior Reactor Operator's (SRO) license, in the past, the licensee has determined that the Superintendent Operations is the equivalent position in the licensee's SPS-1&2 organization and therefore, that position has been filled by persons holding SRO licenses.
This requirement makes it difficult for the Superintendent Operations to perform certain management functions.
Specifically, the ability to monitor the quality of operating shif t qualificatior, and requalification programs is substantially impaired. The Superintendent is not free to fully examine the training programs in progress, simply because he is also a trainee and is thus restricted from obtaining certain information.
In addition, a substantial part of the Superintendent Operations' time is consumed in maintaining tFe SR0 license in an active status, which requires 60 days of reaualification time each year.
l 9101100213 901231 i
PDR ADOCK 0500 0
P
2 To relieve the Superintendent of these requirements so he can better fulfill his management responsibilities, the licensee would institute an intermediate position, directly subordinate to the Superintendent Operations, that has cognizance over all SPS-1&2 plant operating shifts.
This position would be the Supervisor Shift Operations, who would be required to maintain a current and active SR0 license and would fulfill the functional and qualification requirements of the " Operations Manager" as required by ANS-3.1 (12/79 Oraft).
3.0 EVALUATION The proposed change, as described above, is administrative in nature, and would change only the staff organizational position of the individual required to maintain an SR0 license, thereby fulfilling the functions of the
" Operations Manager" as described in ANS-3.1 (Draf t 12/79). The required level of training and qualification would not be changed and the levels of responsibility. and authority to the " Operations Manager" would remain as the individual immediately superior to the operating shift supervisors. Also, a subsequent version of ANS-3.1,1987 explicitly provides for the organizational structure described'in the licensee's above proposed change. Therefore, we find the proposed change to be acceptable.
4.0 LNVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERAT_ ION These amendments relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR St.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activiites will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the' issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: December 31, 1990 Principal _ Contributor:
C Buckley
-