ML20151H044
| ML20151H044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H036 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8808010117 | |
| Download: ML20151H044 (3) | |
Text
,
- jD. as a
'o UNITED STATES l'
I,%
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
...h i 3
usmNG TON. D. C. 20555 Sh
'AFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGL'LATION I
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 41 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NpF-38 LOUISTANA p0WER AND LIGHT COMPANY l
WATERFORD STEAM El.ECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 l
DOCKET NO. 50-382 l
1.0 JNTRODUCTION By application dated Fay 20, 1988, Louisiana Pcwer and Light Company (LP&L or the licensee) recuested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to facility Operating License Nc. NPF-38) for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3-The proposed changes would rereve Figure E.?-1, Offsite Organi:atter, and Figure 6.2-2, Unit Organization, and rep 11.ce them with a narrative description of the offsite and onsite organi7ations functional requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 6.2.1 [and unit staff qualifications in 6.2.23. Guidance for these proposed changes to the TS was provided to licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 88-06, dated March 22, 1988.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Consistent with the guidance provided in the Standard Technical Specifications, Specifications 6.2.1 and 6.2.7 o' the administrative control requirements have referenced offsite and unit (onsite) organization charts that are provided as figures to these sections.
On a plant specific basis, these organization charts have teen provided by applicants and included in the TS issued with the operating license.
Subsequent restructuring of either the offsite or unit organizations, following the issuance of an operating license, has required Itcensees to submit a license amendment for ERC approval to reflect the desired changes in these organizations. As a consequence, organizational changes have necessitated the need to request an amendrnent of the operating license.
Because of these limitations on organizational structure, the nuclear industry has highlighted this an area for improvement in the TS. The Shearon Harris licensee proposed changes to remove organization chart, from its TS under the lead-plant concept that included the endorsernent of the preposed changes by the Westinghouse Owners Group.
In its review of the Shearen Harris orWosal, the staff concluded that most of the essential eierents of offst, and onsite organization charts are captured by other regulatery e.4uirements, notably App 6ndix B to 10 CFR 50. However, there were aspects of the crganizational structure
' hat are important to ensure that the administrative control requirements 8800010117 080719 PCR ADocg 030cro39p P
puu
, cf 10 CFR 50.36 wculd be ret and that would not be retained with the removal of the organizatien charts. The applicable reculatory requirements are these administrative controls that are necessary to ensure safe operaticn of the facility. Therefore, those aspects of organization charts for Shearen Harris that were essential for cenfomance with regulatory requirerents were added (1) to Specification C.2.1 to define functional requirements for the offsite and onsite crganizations and (2) to Specification 6.2.2 to define qualification requirements of the unit staff.
By letter dated January 27, 1988, the staff issued Amendment No. 3 to facility Operating License NPF-63 for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant that incorporated these changes to their TS.
Subsequently, the staff developed guidance on an acceptable femat for license arendrent recuests to remove the organizational charts free TS. Generic Letter CC-06 provided this guidance to all power reactors.
3.0 EVALUATION The licensee's proposed charges to its TS are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-06 ard addressed the items listed below.
(1) Specifications C.2.1 and 6.2.2 were revised to delete the referer.ces to Figures 6.2-1 and 6.2-E that were removed from the 75.
(2) Functional recuirements of the offsite and onsite orgarizatters were defined and added to Specification 6.2.1, and they are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic letter 88-CC.
The specification notes that irpler4ntation of these requirement.s is docunented in the Vaterford 3 updated FSAP.
(3) The senior reactor eperater anc reacter cperator 1 m nse qualified positicns of the unit staff were added to SpeciUcatict 6.2.2.
Therefore, this requirerent that was identifirA on the organization chart for the unit staff will be retained.
(4) Consistent with requirerents to docurer.t the offsite and onsite organization relationships in the fere of organization charts, the licensee had ccnfimed that this doeurentation currently exists in the FSAR and will be trantained in accordance with 10CFR50.71(e).
(5) The licensee has confimed that no specifications, other than those noted in item (1) above, include references to the figures of the organization charts that are being reroved from TS for their plant.
Hence, this is not an applicable consideration, with regard to the need to redefine referenced requirenants as a result of the removal of these figures.
On the basis of its review of the ateve itees, the staff concludes that the licensee has provided an accentable respense te these items as
J 1
3 addressec in the NRC guidance on rer.oving orgarizatice charts from the administrative centrol requirements to TS.
Furthermore, the staff finds that these changes are consistent with the staff's generic finding on the acceptability of such changes as reted in Generic Letter 00-06.
Accordingly, the staff finds the proposed changes to te acceptable.
4.0 ENVIR0hMENTAL CONSIDERATICh This amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, or administrative procedures or requirerents. The Coesnissien has previously issued a preposed finding that the arendrent involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public conenent on such finding.
Accordingly, the arendment m u ts the eligibility criteria fer categorical exclusien set fcrth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),
no environrotal impact staterent er environrental assessrent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendrent.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Com.initr rade proposed deterr.inatiens that the atendment invc1ves no significant hazarJ: c:nsideration, which were published in the Federal Register (53 FR 22402) on June 15, lop 8.
The Comission consulted with tFc 5 tate of Louisiana.
Nc public coments were received, and the State of Louisiana did net have any cosir.ents.
On the basis of the consideratiens discussed above, the staff concludes that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the poposed inanner, (2) such activities will be conducted in ccepliance with the Corrissien's regulations and the issuarce of the amendrent will net te inir.fcal to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: July 19,1988 Principal Contributor: Thcess G. Dunning D. Wigginton l
l l
l