ML20082S386
| ML20082S386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082S374 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505030044 | |
| Download: ML20082S386 (2) | |
Text
- _. - - _ _ -
poCrop
[
t UNITED STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001
.... 4 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 AND AMENDMENT NO. 62 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-81 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 20, 1995, as supplemented by letter dated April 4, 1995, Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee) proposed license amendments 1
to change the Technical Specifications (TS) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1 and 9 The proposed changes would revise the administrative requirements Lf TS 6.4.1.2 related to the areas of technical expertise that must be reprejented on the Plant Review Board (PRB). The licensee proposed this chang in order to maintain an appropriate level of PRB expertise after the implementation of a planned reorganization that includes combining certain departments that are listed separately in the current TS 6.4.1.2 requirements.
The April 4, 1995, letter provided additional and clarifying information that did not change the scope of the January 20, 1995, application or the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 [ VALUATION The licensee has proposed te specify the PRB composition in terms of representatives of functional areas as a replacement for the current provisions of TS 6.4.1.2 which specify PRB composition in terms of representatives of organizational departments.
Five departments would be replaced in TS 6.4.1.2 by four functional areas.
However, the requirement for the total number of personnel to be on the PRB would not be reduced.
The current requirement in TS 6.4.1.2 is that the PRB shall be composed of Department Superintendents or Managers, or supervisory personnel reporting directly to Department Superintendents or Managers, from five specified departments. The proposed revision would require the PRB to be composed of at least five but not more than nine Department Superintendents or Managers, or supervisory personnel reporting directly to Department Superintendents or Managers, and further require that the five to nine members include representatives from four specified functional areas.
The five listed departments in the current TS are: Operations, Maintenance, Health Physics, Engineering Support, and Technical Support.
The four listed functional areas in the proposed revision are: Operations, Maintenance, g0Mk b 4
p
l L
~
Health Physics and Chemistry, and Engineering. The licensee has completed plans for a reorganization that, in part, combines the current Engineering Support and Technical Support Departments listed in TS 6.4.1.2 into one unit.
The combined departments are replaced in the licensee's proposed change to TS 6.4.1.2 by the functional area of Engineering.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not significantly alter current requirements or reduce the effectiveness of the PRB. The proposed changes do not reduce the required qualifications for PR8 membership, nor do they alter the function of the PRB or the manner by which it fulfills its functional requirements, and therefore does:not result in a decrease in the ability of the PRB to perform its safety function. The staff finds that theymeettheappropriateacceptancecriteriaofSection13.4oftheStandard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).
Therefore, for these reasons, the staff finds the proposed change to TS 6.4.1.2 to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
l
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change 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
'FR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment ne'd be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
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 be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
L. Wheeler Date: April.27, 1995
-