ML20074A376
| ML20074A376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20074A375 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305120589 | |
| Download: ML20074A376 (2) | |
Text
__
n j
s d
SAFETY EVALUATION AMENDiiEllT NO. 14 TO LICENSE NPF-11 LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO 50-373 Introduction By letters dated March 11,1983 and April 27, 1983, Conmonwealth Edison (licensee) requested the deletion of license condition 2.C.(26). Part (a) of license i
condition 2.C.(26) states that all Radiation / Chemistry Technicians on the j
backshift at La Salle Unit 1 shall have satisfactorily completed training in energency response procedures, in addition to having conpleted training in accordance with La Salle's Training Qualification Guide. Part (b) of license condition 2.C.(26) states that by June 1,1983, La Salle Unit 1 nust have round-the-clock onshift coverage by Radiation / Chemistry Technicians who reet AHSI N18.1-1971 qualifications or who are cualified in accordance with an NRC approved alternative progran.
Evaluetion In the La Salle Final Safety Analysis Report, the licensee proposed havino Rad /
Chen Technicians who are not ANSI N18.1-1971 cualified serve on backshifts.
The staff requires that there be an ANSI N18.1-1971 or suitably qualified radiation protection technician onsite at all times. Prior to plant startup, the staff issued license conditicn 2.C.(26) which permitted the licensee to operate for one year (until June 1,1983) with an individual on backshifts who is cualified to perform backshift radiation protection duties, but who does not have the two years of experience in his/her specialty as stated in l
ANSI N18.1-1971. The licensee was given one year to submit a description of their complete Rad /Chen Technician training and qualification program for NRC review and approval as an alternative to qualification in accordance with i
ANSI H18.1-1971. The licensee submitted an alternative qualification progran l
to the NRC, and the staff has determined the alternative Red /Chen Technician qualification progran is acceptable. The approved alternative qualification i
program is that an individual completes the Rad /Chen training program and one-year of working experience in his/her specialty.
In addition, for an t
individual who has conpleted the Rad / Chem Technician training progran, but has not accrued the one-year of working experience in the specialty nay serve l
as a Rad / Chem Technician on backshifts providing he/she is supervised by an I
onshift health physics supervisor who meets the requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971 Section 4.3.2 or Section 4.4.4 License condition 2.C.(26) also states that all Radiation / Chemistry Technicians on the backshift shall have satisfactorily completed energency response training.
f The itcensec has incorporated an acceptable energency response training progran into their Rad /Chen Technician training program.
8305120589 G30505 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P
PDR OFFICE)
SURNSME )
e oorE) nne ronu ais co-soj nacu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usano. isei-susso
i I
i
{
e
\\ I Since the licensee's alternatives to ANSI N18.1-1971 for oua11fying Rad / Chem Technicians to independently perform all pertinent health physics and chemistry functions assigned to them has been approved, since the licensee has incorporated the emergency response objectives outlined in the license condition into their Rad / Chem Training program, and since the Technical Specifications are changed to incorporate the licensee's approved alternative Rad /Chen Technical quali-fications, we find that the licensee has complied with the condition set forth in license condition 2.C.(26) and that license condition 2.C.(26) be j
deleted.
l Environmental Consideration We ha,ve determined that this amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amount nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that this amendment involves action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, ad, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration
~
and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with
(
the issuance of this mnendment.
Conclusion i
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that as to the related license amendment; (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in tire proposed manner; t
and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Conmission's regulations and the issuance of this amendnent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l MAY 5 1983 Date:
i d
4 OFFICE h cu m ue) one>
unc ronu sia nomacu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa,.o: i,u_us-seo