ML20034G840
| ML20034G840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034G839 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303110398 | |
| Download: ML20034G840 (2) | |
Text
-
o UNITED STATES
!~'
~,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
,E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o
e I
'%.. + J SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.162 AND 144 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-51 AND NPF-6 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-313 AND 50-368
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 28, 1992, as supplemented December 2,1992, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit Nos. I and 2 (ANO-1&2), Operating License Nos.
DPR-51 and NPF-6. The requested revisions to the AN0 Industrial Security Plan would allow added flexibility to determine the security shift staffing requirements and compensatory measures based on plant activities and the status of the overall security program. These revisions provide explicit details which would allow changes to the method of determining adequate security shift staffing requirements and the utilization of compensatory measures during times when there are security system component outages.
2.0 EVALUATION The first proposed revision for the security shift staffing requirements allows the licensee to adjust its current commitment from a specific overall number of security force members per shift to a regulatory commitment for armed response force members in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55. The second proposed revision allows more latitude in the use of compensatory measures from the current written guidance for worst case situations where there has been a degradation in the security equipment or systems.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Arkansas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comment.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSfDERATION The amendments are related solely to safeguards matters and do not involve any significant construction impacts. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(12).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
9303110398 930308 PDR ADOCK 05000313 p
?
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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Robert B. Manili Date:
March 8, 1993 E
n b
t l