ML20079G886
| ML20079G886 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079G884 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9110100006 | |
| Download: ML20079G886 (2) | |
Text
-
[e... %;
UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
e o
W ASHING TON. D. C. 205b5 I
S,*...<
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REAC10R REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 29 AND 20 TO FACILITY JPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-76 AND NPF-80 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF SAN ANTONIO CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS DOCKET
'05. 50-498 AND 50-499 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 AND 2
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By application dated October 15, 1990 (ST-HL-AE-3234), Houston Lighting & Power Company, et. al., (HL&P) (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80) for the South Texas Project. Units 1 and 2 (STP-1 and STP-2).
The proposed amendment would delete the reouirement in Section 6.2.2.g that the Plant Operations Manager hold a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license.
The change.
is requested because maintenance of an SRO license requires considerable time and effort which could dilute the effectiveness in management functions.
An SRO. license requires seven weeks per year in requalification training, during which the Plant Operations Manager must.still attend to management of the operation of STP-1 and STP-2, 2.0 EVALUATION The staff has evaluated the licensee's quest for revision of the Technical l
Specification (TS) in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Standard Review Phn (SRP) Sections 13.1.2 and 13.1.3, " Operating Organizations."
Additihe: f;/, Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8, Revision 1-R,1977, " Personnel Select u n ind' Training," and ANSI-N18.1-1971, " Selection and Training of
-Nuclear. Power Plant-' Personnel" wert reviewed since they are the basis for the STP-1 and STP-2 TS-commitments.
Section 50.S4(1) of Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that the licensee shall designate individuals holding SRO licenses with the responsibility of directing licensed activities of licensed operators, Additionally, RG 1.8, Rev. 1-R, endorses, with exception, the criteria for l
9110100006 910926 PDR -ADOCK 05000490 o
P PDR
,,
,y.-..m-..
m-c-,,
,..---.y.-
..-..mc
<-,,-r
,% - % %-, w%
,-,, w w--w y m i. n.wi.,
-g.
selection and training of nuclear power plant personnel contained in
-ANSI-N18.1-1971.
ANSI-N18.1-1971 describer in detail the qualifications for the functional levels of the operating organization including both managers and supervisors.
According to ANSI-N18.1-1971, Operations Managers shall hold an SRO license *t the time of appointment to the position.
HL&P has incorporated additional levels of line supervision in the direct chain of command between the operating crew and the Plant Operations Manager to satisfy the requirement that the operations management maintain in depth, plant-specific knowledge.
These three positions; the Units Operations l
Managers, Shift Supervisors, and Unit Supervisors, are all responsible for
-directing the licensed activities of licensed operators, and all require SRO licenses.
As a result of implementing and maintaining these additional levels of line supervision. HL&P has satisfied the requirements of 10 CfR 50.54(1).
The proposed deletion of the requirement for the Plant Operations Manager to hold an SRO license is, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Texas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had i
no comments, i
4.0, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with issuance of the amendments.
i
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has_ 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not bc nimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Greg Galletti Date:
September 26, 1991 l
l l-l
_ _ _, _,