ML20012A912
| ML20012A912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012A911 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003120782 | |
| Download: ML20012A912 (2) | |
Text
>~
i Q:
w 6
-y a A400 i
,~ ki UNITED STATES
, ;((
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 7.
Is WASHINGTON, D, C. 20666 j
,. +
+
e,,,,
[
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE-OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1
RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 61 T0 a
u
. FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 l
QUISIANA'POWERANDLIGHTCOMPANY WATERFORD STEAM. ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382 i
1.0' INTRODUCTION By applications dated August'23 and October 16,1989,< Louisiana Power and '
Light Company (LP&L or the licensee) requested changes to the Technical
]
- Specifications'(Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. NPF-38) for 1
Waterford. Steam Electric. Station, Unit 3.
The proposed changes would revise Section 6 on operator training and qualifications to reflect the
)
- current' regulation; 10~ CFR Part 55.' The proposed _ changes would also correct administrative errors and-inadvertent mistakes in the? Technical
' Specifications.-
j 2.0 DISCUSSION-Section 6 of the Waterford 3 Technical _ Specifications on operator qualifi-
. cation and training refers to an NRC -letter'to all licensees dated March:28, 1980. 'In May;1987,'the NRC incorporated this letter and the then current Appendix A'to-10 CFR Part 55 into annew 10 CFR Part 55. Generic Lettw 87-07 issued on March 19, 1987 provided information to the licensees on the revistan to 10 CFR Part 55.-
1 4
The proposed amendment to replace the reference to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 55 and the~ March 28, 1980 letter with a new reference to 10 CFR. Part 55 will,-at this time, maintain the requirements on the licensee for
. operator training and qualification. We find this change to the Technical Specifications acceptable.
~ The licensee's letter dated October 16, 1989 brought to the staff's attention.several errors and inadvertent mistakes that have existed in the Technical Specifications. The reactor vessel capsules are being renamed to match the source document from Combustion Engineering; the schedule for withdrawal does not change. Amendment 50 inadvertently left
- a. reference to fire brigades in a note to Specification 6.2.2.
This is being removed as all other references were removed by Amendment 50.
Amendment 50 also failed to correct a reference in Specification 6.8.1.h..We have reviewed each of these corrections and find.them acceptable.
9003120782 900221 I
DR ADOCK 0500 2
.c
'L
. w,gn-p 7
- + Tr yl _
an
+.
- -g n-
' g-g N
.s
-)
f, XX i
J 4
i
'g's %-
1 4
-c 3
I
.1 L
4 4
W
'.1 y
',kj,
i.)
y f
'I i
' h, p,_
s g
~1q
.tI s
' ' k s.
s f 'r
(
.I 5
s I
.?tf t
_'{<-^
- f
<Jf
,.t t
m:
+
E.-
v 17
.)
4 s
t i
A.
4 i
s h
%.L1 k.'y a
Y;,.
\\
- q y
+
4
- 4 i
Yl-.
-\\
s 1
&,.s'.
.6
- p. -
4>
z A
/
- 4. 3 l'
kb ?.
'si
,4y i
si4kPe' 3
4.l
].
i f
?
I d
t jf '
i '
s I
3...
h,'
k,.,'
't *'i f,,
."47
- ;-:.3 -
-\\;,r
,i-,
g
[
?
~
, s
- 3. 0' CONTACT WITH STATE'0FFICIAL m
The NRC staff has advised the Administrator, Nuclear Energy Division, Office of Environmental Affairs, State of Louisiana of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration.
No coments were received.
(
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ~ CONSIDERATION The amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the.
installation or use of a facility component. located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements and also relates-to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administra-tive procedures or requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no signi-ficant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and,there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly,theamendmentmeetstheeligibility)criteriaforcategorical exclusionset'forthin10CFRSection51.22(c)(9 and(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
1
.i 5.0. CONCLUSION l
Based upon its' evaluation of the proposed changes to the Waterford 3 Technical: Specifications, the staff has concluded that: there is reason-able assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be
-endangered by. operation in the proposed manner, and'such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the-issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and.
security or to the health and safety of the public.. The staff, therefore, concludes-that the proposed changes are acceptable, and are hereby
[
incorporated into the Waterford 3 Technical Specifications.
Dated: February 21,'1990 Principal Contributor:
D.'Wigginton l.
L 3
,