ML20244E148
| ML20244E148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244E145 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906200172 | |
| Download: ML20244E148 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
[ g ):(n UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wassincrow. o. c. 20sss
- .g'v /
(.....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF IfUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 20 TO FACILITY OPERATIt'G LICENSE NPF-68 AND AMENDMENT NO.
1 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-81 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425 V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 1.0 IllTRODUCTION By letter dated April 5,1989, Georgia Power Company, et al., requested a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP),
Units I and 2.
The proposed change deletes the following sentence from TS 6.4.2.2; "The SRB shall be organized as one board for all GPC Nuclear power plants." This change will allew a separate Safety Review Board (SRB) for each Georgia Power Company (GPC) nuclear plant.
2.0 EVALUATION GPC operates two nuclear power plants. One is the Hatch Nuclear Plant, a boiling water reactor of General Electric design, and the other is VEGP which is a pressurized water reactor (PWR) of Westinghouse design.
Currently, the VEGP TS require that the same SRB be used for both of these plants. This proposed change to the TS deletes that requirement. The licensee has provided the following information in support of the change. The removal of this restriction will allow the formulation of a specific Safety Review Board for VEGP. This will allow more individual attention of the SRB to VEGP and will allow a greater concentration of PWR and VEGP specific experience within the VEGP Safety Review Board. The qualifications for merbership on the SRB will not change. The responsibilities of the SRB will not change, and the amount of time available for SRB review of VEGP designated activities should be enhanced.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Ebove inforartion and finds that it provides adequate justifiestion to temove the requirement, to have one SRB for All GPC nuclear plants.
Therefore, the SRC staff conclades that the change is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CCt4 SIDERATION The amendments involve a change in administrative. requirements. Accordingly, the anendments meet the eligibility criteria fer categorical exclusion set forth in10CFRE1.22(r)(10). Pursutr.t to 10 CFR 61.22(b),, no environmental impact t,tatennt far envirenc+ntal assessment need be preparec in connection with the it,srance of these amendments.
8906200272 890609 PDR ADOCK 05000424 P
PNU l
9 n
4.0 CONCLUSION
l The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published.in the Federal Register on May. 3,1989 (54 FR 18947), and consulted with the state of Georgia. No public coments were received, and the state of Georgia did not have any comments.
The. staff 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Jon B. Hopkins, PDII-3/DRP-1/II Dated: June 9, 1989
---_______-m__m__
_ _ _ - _ _. _