ML20086P155
| ML20086P155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086P154 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9112260226 | |
| Download: ML20086P155 (3) | |
Text
~
n y;f UNITED sT ATEs NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
t j
WASHWGTON, D. C 205S5
\\*...*/
ENCLOSURE 3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.156 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT NO.145 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 5 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-327 AND 50-328
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 14, 1990, as supplemented October 15, 1991, the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licansee) submitted a request for changes to the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The requested amendment would change the title of the Operations Department staff person specified in Technical Specificatior. (TS) Section 6.2.2.f. who must hold a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license, from the Operations Manager to the Operations Superintende9. The proposed change would reflect a ch:inge to the structure of the Operations Department staff organization which resulted in creation of an Operations Superintendent position between the Operations Manager and the Shif t Operations Supervisors.
By letter dated December 14, 1990, the licensee originally proposed an amendment to, among other things, change the title of the staff person who must hold an SR0 license from the Operations Manager to the Operations Superintendent. All proposed changes, except the request to change the title of the SRO-licensed staff person, were approved and issued by Amendment Numbers 152 and 142 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, by letter dated August 22, 1991. As stated in this letter, the SRO-license change was denied because the staff determined that an SR0 license was needed for the individual who performs the duties and responsibilities of the Operations Manager, as they were described in the Organizational Topical Report and in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
This determination was made using the ANSI N18.1-1971 Standard.
The licensee has subsequently comitted to revise the Organizational Topical Report to describe the duties and responsibilities of the Operations Manager and Operations Superintendent, in a letter dated October 15, 1991. The letter does not comit to a similar change to the FSAR, since the FSAR is being changed to reference the Organizational Topical Report, which will remove the description.
Based on this comitment, the licensee requested that the staff reconsider the denial of the proposed change to Specification 6.2.2.f.
bk I, $$k o o 27 PDR p
-2 2.0 EVALUATTON ANSI Standard N18.14971, " Selection and Training of Nuclear power Plant personnel " states that the Operations Manager shall hold an SRO license at the time of eppointment to the positiun. This standerd, to which the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant is committed, defines a manager's function as one to which are assigned broad responsibilities for direction of major aspects of the operation of a nuclear power plant.
The FSAR and the Organizational Topical Report for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant describe the Operations Manager as the person who has overall responsibility for plant operation and overall execution of plant operational activities.
The staff has determined that these two functional descriptions are similar and, therefore, would require that the Operations Manager hold an SRO licensee at the time of appointment to the position.
By letter dated October 15, 1991, the licensee committed to revise the duties at.d responsibilities of the Operations Manegar and Operations Superintendent in the Organizational Topical Report using wording similar to the folicwing:
Operations Manager The Operations Manager has responsibility for plant.ing, organizing, setting policy, and motivation relating to the Operations, Chemistry, and Work Ccitrol Group persconel. These activities include operational strategies fev generation, chemistry control, water and waste usage, approved authority for more system enhancements, and prioritization of maintenance activities.
To meet these objectives, functions related to Operations, Work Control, and Chemistry are grouped under one manager responsible for facility generation (i.e.,OperetionsManager).
The Operations Manager has three principal reports:
Operations Superintendent Work Control Superintendent Chemistry Superintendent Operations Superintendent The Operations Superintendent is responsible for all plant oparations.
The superinter. dent, through the shift operations supervisors, manages the day-to-day operation of the facility, refueling ojerations, start-up, operational test 99, water and waste processing, and plant operations. The superintendent is i a,nsible for coordinating and scheduling the training program for all Operations personnel as well as pro /iding the nucleus for emergency response teams.
The line manager;.ent organization related to the Operations Department consists of the Plant Manager, the Operations Manager, and the Operations Superintendent.
The proposed wording change to the Organizational Topical Report clearly indicates that the Operations Superintendent is responsible, through the Shift Operations Supervisors, for the day-to-day operation of the facility, and that i
1
o the Operations Manager has other Operations Departirent responsibilities and authorities. Therefore, based on this information and description, the staff has determined that the persor performing the duties and responsibilities
-dt. scribed in ANSI 18.1-1971 as requiring an SRO license, appropriately rests with the person holding the title of Operations Superintendent. Accordingly, he staff finds th6t the amendment is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Conmission's regulations, the Tennessee State official was notified cf the proposed issudnce of the amendment. The State official had no coments.
4.0 ENVIRONMEN#L CONS _10 ERAT 10N
-The amendment involves a-change in administrative-procedures or requirements.
The Comissit,n has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public i
comment on such finding (56 FR 57704). Accordingly the amendment meets the eligibilitycriteriaforcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.2?(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepsred in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
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 Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. LaBarge D?ted: December 16, 1991 1
t I
.p.
b -
f*
AMENDMENT N0.156 FOR SEQUOYAH UNIT NO.1 - DOCKET NO. 50-327 and AMENDMENT N0.145 FOR SEQUOYAH UNIT NO. 2 - DOCKET NO. 50-328 DATED:
December 16, 1991
-Docket" Fili NkC PDR Local PDR SQN Reading file S. Varga 14-E-4
'F.
Hebdon D. LaBarge M. Sanders B. Wilson RII W. Little RII OGC 15-B-13 D. Hagan MNBB-3302 E. Jordan MNBB-3302 G. Hill PI-130 (4 per docket)
Wanda Jones MNBB-7103 J. Calvo 14-E-4 ACRS(10)
GPA/PA 2-G-5 OC/LFMB MNBB-9112 E. Brach 10-A-19 l.
l l
-