ML20095G887
| ML20095G887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095G886 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9512220004 | |
| Download: ML20095G887 (2) | |
Text
-
fd*%
,p g
k UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4 001 k*.****;[
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 118 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-38 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3 DOCKET N0. 50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letters dated Septembei 7, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated February 8,1994, and August 9,1995, Entergy Operations (the licensee) requested to amend the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Operating License No. NPF-38. The licensee submitted for staff review and approval a revision to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Physical Security Plan.
These revisions provide explicit details which would allow alternative actions for compensatory measures for failed protected area security equipment and systems at the Waterford Generating i,',ation.
The August 9,1995, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no siginficant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 DISCUSSION si.o licensee's proposal to modify how alternative compensatory measures can be utilized for failed protected area security equipment and systems was analyzed by the NRC staff.
It was determined that these changes can be used in the place of the existing compensstory measures which are consistent with NUREG-1045, " Guidance on the Application of Compensatory Safeguards Measures for Power Reactor Licensees", and will continue to provide adequate capability to the protected area perimeter barrier and isolation zones for assessing and detecting unauthorized access to the site.
3.0 CONCLUSION
It is the staff's determination that the amendment fc the Waterford Steam Electic Station, Unit 3 Physical Security Plan, as described in the licensee's letters of September 7, 1993, February 8, 1994, and August 9, 1995, does not increase the risk of sabotage at the facility. The plan continues to satisfy 10 CFR Part 73.55.
9512220004 951219 PDR ADOCK 05000382
.P PDR
i
4.0 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.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment is related solely to safeguards matters and does not involve any significant construction impacts. Accordingly, the emendment meets 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 amendment.
6.0 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:
R. B. Manili 4
Date: Deceevr 19, 1995 i
i
.