ML20078Q820
| ML20078Q820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078Q815 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8311140150 | |
| Download: ML20078Q820 (3) | |
Text
[
(*U%q%
UNITED STATES l
^
,["
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. 20 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-255
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 20, 1983, Consumers Power Company (the licensee) submitted a request to amend Provisional Operating License No. DPR-20 for the Palisades Plant. The proposed change would delete from the guard training and qualification and physical security plans commit-ments to utilize two types of shoulder weapons as' guard response weapons.
1 A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Pro-posed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43135). No request for hearing and no comments were received.
2.0 EVALUATION 10 CFR 73.55 requires that armed guards to be immediately available to fulfill response requirements and to use force sufficient to counter the force directed at them including the use of deadly force. Appendix B i
I of 10 CFR 73.55 requires each guard to be qualified in the use of assigned ~~
weapons.
The licensee has complied with these requirements. While not a requirement, the licensee has provided for guards to be trained in and have immediately available two types of response weapons. However, the licensee has requested that the commitment in the Physical Security and Guard Training and Qualification Plans be changed to show that the guard force is trained in the use of only one type of response weapon. An analysis based on site specific considerations has been provided to jus-tify the proposed changes.
l The licensee has also requested that certain communications protocol be removed from the physical security plan and placed into the procedures.
8311140150 831007 DR ADOCK 05000255 p
PDR I
2 The staff has reviewed the proposed changes against the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b) through (h), and has determined that the use of a single type of shoulder weapon is acceptable in meeting the site specific aspects of the physical security plan implementation.
In addition, the staff has concluded that the transfer of certain cunmunications protocol to the site security procedures provides increased operational flexibility, thereby enhancing the value of the security communications system.
The staff has determined that the Palisades Plant Physical Security and Guard Training and Qualification Plans, as revised, continue to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(b) through (h). Therefore, the staff finds the proposal acceptable.
Based on the above, and the need for improving clarity and format, License Paragraph Nos. 3.F (Physical Security Plan), 3.G (Safeguards Contingency Plan) and 3.I (Guard Training and Qualification Plan) have been con-solidated into Paragraph 3.F.
Therefore, License Paragraphs 3.G and 3.I have been deleted.
License Paragraph 3.H pertains to feedwater line water hammer test require-ment, which was only applicable to Cycle 4 (see the Safety Evaluation supporting License Amendment No. 56, dated April 30,1980). Accordingly, the condition set forth in this paragraph is fully satisfied and there is no further limitation or condition on this license as a result of Paragraph 3.H.
Accordingly, Paragraph 3.H has been deleted.
The staff has discussed the license changes described above with the licensee and they have mutually agreed to this action.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
l The amendment revises a license condition to reflect the Commission's
(
approval of revisions to the Guard Training and Qualification Plan and, therefore, does not authorize a change in effluent types or. total amounts "
nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant l
environmental impact. Having made this determination, the staff has con-cluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR l51.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issu-ance of this amendment.
i l
('
3-
4.0 CONCLUSION
Since the amendment revises a license condition to reflect the Commission's approval of revisions to the Guard Training and Qualification Plan, the staff has further concluded that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comnon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT C. Gaskin and H. Smith contributed to this evaluation.
Date: November 7, 1983 r.
e-l y..--, -. -
-,..-,----,,v...
w my