ML20205N654
| ML20205N654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N651 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811040252 | |
| Download: ML20205N654 (2) | |
Text
.
?pa aog%' %
UNITED STATES 8"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE HPF-68 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-424 V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 14 1988, as supplemented Septenber 27, 1988, Georgia Power Company, et al., (the licensee) requested o change to the Technical Specifications for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, (VEGP), Unit 1.
The proposed change would change the Technical S9ecifications (TS) to make training requirements be in accordance with 10 CFR 55.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 6.3, "Training."
The revision would change a training requirement from 10 CFR 55 Appendix A to 10 CFR 55.59 in accordance with a revision to 10 CFR 55. The change would also allow on accredited program endorsed by NRC to satisfy training requirements in lieu of the training requirements specified in TS 6.3.
Additional information was submitted by letter dated September 27, 1988. This submittal revised the previous submittal to make the TS consistent with 10 CFR 55.59.
Specifically, a reference to a March 28, 1980 NRC letter was deleted and reference to ANSI N18.1-1971 was changed to Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2.
Both of these reference changes are in accord with the revision to 10 CFR 55 and prevent potential confusion regarding the training requirements.
These reference changes did not substantially affect the amendment request as noticed or the staff's initial determination; therefore, the amendment was not renoticed, in Generic Letter (GL) 87-07, "Information Transmittal of Final Rulemaking for Revisions to Operator Licensing - 10 CFR 55 and Conforming Amendments," it was stated that the 10 CFR 55.59(c) content requirements (formerly Appendix A to 10 CFR 55) can be met with a performance-based program for a f acility as approved by NRC.
In its Final Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, the Commission endorsed industry-accrediter.i programs as performance based, in the Federal Register dated March 25, 1987, (52 FR 9453) it was stated that:
"The requalification program must meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section, in lieu of paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, the Commission may approve o program developed by using a systems approach to training."
8811040252 G81101 PDR ADOCK 05000424 P
m 4
2 The licensee has developed training programs that are based on a systems approach to training. Also, these training programs are accredited by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.
The NRC staff finds that this meets GL 87-07 and 10 CFR 55 regarding training requirements in lieu of TS 6.3 training requirements and, therefore, is acceptable.
The TS reference changes to 10 CFR 55.59, Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, and deletion of the March 28, 1980 NRC letter are in accord with 10 CFR 55 and, therefore, are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in administrative procedures and requirements.
Accordingly, the omendment meets the elig)ibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentol impact statement hor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the omendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made o proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register on July 13, 1988 (53 FR 26523), and consulted with the state of Georgia.
No public comments were received, and the state of Georgia did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed dbove, that- (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safet encongered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2)y of the public will not be such activities will be conducted in compliance with the 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.
Principal Contributor: Jon B. Hopkins, P0ll-3/0RP-1/II Dated: November 1, 1988