ML19250C565
| ML19250C565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250C559 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911280216 | |
| Download: ML19250C565 (2) | |
Text
4 arog g
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-344 Introduction Py letter dated August 13, 1979, as supplemented August 22 and September 12, 1979, Fortland General Electric Company, et_ al.,
requested changes to the Technical Specifications for operation of Trojan Nuclear Plant. The proposed changes would involve revisions to both the off-site and on-site organizational structure and would include changes to the cornorate organization, Trojan plant staff organization, Plant Review Board (PRB), and Nuclear Operations Board (N0B).
Discussion and Evaluation The corporate changes would include the combining of the Environmental Sciences and Analytical Laboratory into one division, the Office of Environmental and Analytical Services; the change in title only of the Chief Nuclear Engineer to Manager, Generation Licensing and Analysis; the assignment of Nuclear Fuel Management into the new department of Fuel Operations; the creation of the position of Director, Corporate Security, with responsibility for nuclear plant security; and the creation of the position of Trojan Safety Coordinator, with responsiblity for the Trojan Fire Protection Program. We find these corporate changes provide for continued technical support to the plant in the areas of responsibility affected and are acceptable.
The plant staff organization would be restructured so that the seven groups that report to the Assistant Plant Superintendent would be organized into three departments that report directly to the position of General Manager (Trojan).
These departments would be the Operations and Maintenance, Technical Services, and the Plant Services Department.
1404
<03 7911280
The proposed changes to the Plant Review Board would delete the positions of Plant Superintendent and Assistant Plant Superintendent from the board and assign the Manager, Technical Service Department, as the Chairman of the board and would add the Radiation Protection Supervisor as a member.
We find that these proposed changes to the plant staff organization and the Plant Review Board meet the provisions of ANSI N18.7-1976/ANS 3.2, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.33 and are therefore acceptable.
The proposed changes to the Nuclear Operations Board (NOB) would delete the Trojan General Manager (formerly Plant Superintendent), from the N0B and redesignate several positions on the N0B from a person identified by a specific title to a " designated" person from each of several identified groups.
We find these proposed changes to the NOB meet the provisions of ANSI N18.7-1976/ANS 3.2, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.33, and are acceptable provided that the specifications include minimum qualifications for the " designated" persons on the N0B.
These minimum qualifications should include an academic degree in an engineering or science field; and in addition, should include a minimum of five years of technical experience,.of which a minimum of three years shall be in one or more of the areas specified in Section 6.5.2.1 of their Technical Specifications.
The licensee has agreed to the addition of this requirement on minimum qualifications. We therefore find this change acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does 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 amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does 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 t.1e Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: November 8,1979 I404 404