ML20056D718
| ML20056D718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056D717 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308170362 | |
| Download: ML20056D718 (3) | |
Text
.
\\
UNITED STATES i)W [ j E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg,.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
\\.,\\(.*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Entergy Operations,Inc., by letter dated October 21, 1992, requested changes to the Administrative Controls Section of the Technical Specifications for Waterford Generating Station, Unit 3.
These requested changes amend the function, composition, responsibilities and authority of the Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) 2.0 EVALUATION
- a. Section 6.2.3 - Independent Safety Engineering Function (ISEG - - Entergy has proposed to delete the ISEG organizational unit and incorpora)te the ISEG function within a Nuclear Safety Organization.
Section 6.2.3 has been retitled Independent Safety Reviews.
The staff finds this change acceptable as the ISEG function is retained.
- b. Section 6.2.3.1 - Function - The title ISEG has been removed and the a
rec;uirement for making recommendations has been revised and included in Section 6.2.3.3 (Authority).
The staff finds this change acceptable as the function is retained and recommendations are required to be made monthly to the Director of Nuclear Safety.
- c. Section 6.2.3.2 - Composition - The qualification requirements have been changed from "a bachelor's degree in engineering or related science and at least two years professional level experience in his field, at least I year of which experience shall be in the nuclear field" to "a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering or Physical Science or equivalent and at least two years professional level experience in his/her field."
The staff finds this change acceptable contingent upon' retaining the qualification requirement of two years professional experience, at least one year of which is in the nuclear field.
In discussion with the licensee, it was determined that the omission of the reference to experience of at least one year in the nuclear field was not intentional and that the licensee had intended that it remain in the statement. The licensee agrees with the staff to retain that requirement.
9308170362 930726 PDR ADDCK 050003B2 P
pyg
.g-.
t d. Section 6.2.3.3 - Responsibilities - Entergy has proposed deleting the reference to ISEG and amended its responsibilities to include surveillance of unit activities rather than be responsible for the surveillance of these activities.
The staff finds these proposed changes acceptable as they are editorial in nature.
- e. Section 6.2.3.4 - Authority - This section has been revised to delete the reference to ISEG and restated the authority as " Individuals assigned the authority to perform the functions and responsibilities delineated above shall make detailed recommendations for revised procedures, equipment modifications, maintenance activities, operations activities, or other means of improving plant safety."
The staff finds these changes acceptable as they reflect the revised organization and include activities formerly included in the section on functions.
- f. Section 6.2.3.5 - Records - This section has been revised such that recommendations for improving plant safety are forwarded each calendar month to the Director of Nuclear Safety, rather than to the Director Operations Support and Assessment.
The staff finds this change acceptable as it reflects the revised organization.
1
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Louisiana State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets
)
the eligibility criteria for categorial exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 55580).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement ore environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
i
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, I
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 i
,a.
i 4 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 Contributors:
F. Allenspach D. Wigginton Date:
July 26, 1993 e
t 5
?
)
F i
j l.
l b
l l
F i
-l l
i