ML20105C966
| ML20105C966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20105C963 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9209240151 | |
| Download: ML20105C966 (2) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _.
[p e%"'eg UNITED sT ATEs NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
WASHINGTON, D C. 705%
l
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION QLELpff1CE 0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMDgmLRD. 5610 FACILITY OPERATING LICQSE NO. NPF-42 ROLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WQL L QfEK GENLRATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-482 1.0 INTRODUCTIOS By application dated June 19, 1992, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to facility Operating License No. NPF-42) for the Wolf Creek Generating Sta ion.
The proposed changes would revise Technical Specification (TS) 6.8 to clarify the approval process for plant procedures, make an editorial correction to TS 3.3 and update position titles in TS 6.5.1.2.
2.0 [yMj)A1108 The licensee proposed changes to three Technical Specifications in order to provide clarification of requirements or editorial corrections.
The first proposed change corrects a footnote to Table 3.3-6 to reflect revisions incorporated by Amendment 42 which removed radiological effluent technical specifications (RETS).
Specifically, the change replaces a reference to TS 3.11.2.1, which was deleted by Amendment 42, with a reference to the appropriate section of the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (0DCH).
Since the change does not affect the actions to be taken in accordance with
~
the footnote but instead only corrects the source of information from a deleted specification to the ODCM, the staff finds the proposed change to be acceptabic.
The second proposed change revises TS 6.5.1.2 regarding the composition of the Plant Safety Review Committee (PSRC) to reflect a position title change of one of its members.
Since the change is an editorial correction which does not actually change the PSRC memoership, but anly reflects a change in title which resulted from organizational restructuring, the staff finds the proposed change to be acceptable.
The proposed change to TS 6.8.3 is intended to clarify the approval process for plant procedures. The existing TS 6.8.3 allows for limited changes to procedures under the jerisdiction of groups other than Operations to be made with the approval of a cognizant group leader and a call superintendent without the involvement of the Shift Supervisor. The wording of the existing specification might be misinterpreted since groups other than Operations are specifically named and the list of organizations is incomplete.
i 9209240151 920910 PDR ADOCK 03000402 l
P PDR l
e
- To clarify the specification, the proposed amendment changes the wording from a list of specific groups to ' groups other than operations' and provides the existing list in the form of examples.
The proposed amendment does not result in any change in the actual 3rocedural requirements but attempts to avoid a potential interpretation pro)1em.
Since the change consists only of an editorial clarification, the staff finds it to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Kansas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no coments.
4.0 fNVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or ddministrative proced1res or requirements.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (57 FR 34593).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursu: int to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 [QNCLUSION The Comission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the pubite will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted.in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuanco of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health end safety of the public.
t l
Principal Contributor: William D. Reckley, NRR/PDIV-2 Date:
September 10, 1992 l
l l
l
,.