ML20056D712
| ML20056D712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056D710 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308170351 | |
| Download: ML20056D712 (2) | |
Text
--
- pa uc
'o UNITED STATES
~,
!" 3 7,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5-
.E W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
=-
o.
E
%,..... /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.149 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-6 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC..
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT N0. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 7, 1993, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 (AND-2)
Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would correct typographical errors that were introduced in the original TSs and in subsequent amendments.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed amendment would correct typographical errors and provide clarification (i.e., renumbering, placing paragraph designators in parenthesis, correcting misspellings, rephrasing, correcting references). The staff has reviewed the changes and found that the changes do not affect the intent of any specification. Also, the proposed changes do not provide any relief from or add requirements to the TSs, or change the intended operation or administrative requirements of the plant or its design basis.
In addition, the staff suggested to the licensee that the proposed revision of TS 4.6.2.3 is still unclear, since it may imply that both groups of cooling units shall be demonstrated operable to the same criteria. However, there are two different criteria for demonstrating operability and it is possible that one group is demonstrated operable to one criteria, while at the same time the other group is demonstrated operable to the other criteria. Accordingly, the licensee requested (per telecon) that the staff change the words "each group" to "the group". The staff agrees that the words the group" provides the desired flexibility and has made this change to the TSs as requested.
Based on the above, the staff finds that the proposed amendment is acceptable.
%$k8 Doh k8 P
~
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Arkansas State official i
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant 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 exposure. The Commission has previously issued a pro-posed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 34076). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR SI.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
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 ame.iment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to ti,0 'ualth and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. Alexion, PDIV-1 Date:
July 26, 1993
~g l
r
/
P i