ML20149E899
| ML20149E899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149E896 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9408080155 | |
| Download: ML20149E899 (2) | |
Text
I en aro p
[
4 UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 p
- +
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.191 AND 196 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and OPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 27, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated April 29, 1994, and June 27, 1994, the Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TS).
The rey ested changes allow the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) position to be filled by an on-shift Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) (as long as a minimum of three on-shift individuals fill the SRO and STA positions). The supplemental letters contained additional information which did not change the staff's original no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's current TS require two SR0s and one STA for each shift.
In its October 27, 1993, letter, the licensee proposed to combine the STA position with one of the SR0 positions in accordance with the NRC's stated preference to combine these positions in the " Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift," issued October 22, 1985 and published in the Federal Reaister on October 28, 1985.
Specifically, the change would have amended the TS to require one SR0 and one combined SR0/STA.
During the review of the licensee's proposal, the staff determined that the licensee's original submittal did not state that a site-specific analysis was performed in order to verify that the SRO and STA positions could be safely combined at PBAPS.
In a March 29, 1994 request for additional information (RAI), the staff asked the licensee if a site-specific analysis was performed in order to verify that the positions could be safely combined.
In its April 29, 1994, response to the staff's RAI, the licensee stated that the site specific analysis requested by the staff was not performed.
940BOOO155 940002 PDR ADOCK 05000277 p
i
, Consequently, in a June 7,1994, telephone call, the staff notified the licensee that it had failed to provide adequate analysis for combining the SR0 and STA roles.
In a June 27, 1994 letter, the licensee revised its initial request. The revision allows the SR0 and STA positions to be combined in accordance with the NRC's stated preference in the policy statement, while maintaining a minimum of three on-shift individuals filling the SR0 and STA positions. Therefore, there would not be a reduction in the number of on-shift personnel from the current TS requirements.
Specifically, in TS Table 6.2.1, the position title "STA" will have the following footnote:
When the STA position is filled by an on-shift SR0, provided the ndividual meets the 1985 NRC Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift, the shift crew composition must have a minimum of 3 SR0s."
Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed changes are acceptable because they:
- 1) are consistent with the NRC's preference for a dual role SR0/STA as stated in the Commission's October 22, 1985 policy statement, and
- 2) maintain the current level of three on-shift individuals filling the SR0 and STA positions.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
i
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
1 The amendments relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or i
administrative procedures or requirements.
Accordingly, these 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 the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSIDH 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:
S. Dembek Date:
August 2, 1994
\\