ML17228A971
| ML17228A971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17228A969 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9412300155 | |
| Download: ML17228A971 (3) | |
Text
gP,8 8800 c>
0 Cl C
O IVl O
~O
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMIVIISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 69 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-16 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ET AL.
ST.
LUCIE PLANT UNIT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-389
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION In August 1993, NRC published the "NRC's Regulatory Review Group Report."
This report found the current TS concerning the Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) inflexible and provided adoption of the Revised Standard Technical Specifications as a solution.
Specifically, Volume 3, Appendix A
- states,
"...the composition of ISEG provides little flexibility.
- However, a
Technical Specification change can be submitted adopting the Improved Standard Technical Specification approach; that would provide considerable flexibility in the implementation of this requirement."
The report concluded, "The Improved Standard Technical Specifications permit the ISEG function to be performed under the review and audit program.
This permits more flexible methods of performing the ISEG function (i.e.,
by a standing committee or by assigning'ualified individuals capable of conduction these reviews and audits)."
By letter dated September 23,
- 1993, and augmented by letter dated July 25, 1994, Florida Power 5 Light Company (FPL) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the St. Lucie Unit 2 facility. Specifically, FPL proposed to (a) delete TS 6.2.3 "Independent Safety Engineering
- Group, (ISEG)"
(b) add TS 6.5.2.9 "Technical Review Responsibility,"
and (c) add TS 6.5.2. 1l.d "Technical Review Records."
The July 25, 1994 letter clarified the original request, but did not make any changes to it.
2.0 DISCUSSION The existing St.
Lucie TS 6.2.3 has five sections:
6.2.3. 1 Function, 6.2.3.2 Composition, 6.2.3.3 Responsibilities, 6.2.3.4 Authority, and 6.2.3.5 Records.
The Licensee proposes to retain and transfer the Function section to the proposed TS 6.5.2.9.a.
This would transfer the ISEG function to the guality Assurance (gA) Department.
Appropriate controls, such as organizational reporting and implementing procedures, are in place to ensure the independence of this function and to ensure recommendations regarding nuclear safety improvements are properly dispositioned.
9412300155 941222 T(
PDR ADDCK 05000889 P
P~DR
The Responsibilities Section is maintained and transferred to the proposed TS 6.5.2.9.b and c.
The Authority Section is maintained and transferred to the proposed TS 6.5.2.9.d.
The Records Section is maintained and transferred to the proposed TS 6.5.2.11.d.
The Licensee proposes to delete the Composition Section since the function of the present ISEG organization would be transferred to the gA organization.
This transfer would result in better utilization of the available technical talent and provide gr eater flexibilityfor performance of the required reviews.
An analysis of the current arrangement showed considerable overlap in the'eviews conducted by these groups.
Guidelines for the conduct of technical reviews will be provided in guality Instructions and assignments for the reviews will be based on both technical and audit expertise within the gA staff.
Personnel assigned to the technical reviews will meet the qualifications of ANSI/ANS 3. 1 1078 as stated in TS 6.3. 1.
In addition, the St.
Lucie Plant gA organization contains several individuals with previous ISEG experience.
The proposed changes are consistent with the recommendations contained in the NRC's Regulatory Review Group Report, Volume 3, Appendix A; dated August, 1993.
In addition, the proposed changes are also consistent with the guidance of NUREG-1432, "Standard Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants."
- 3. 0 TECHNICAL FINDINGS Based on the above consideration, the staff concludes that the proposed changes are acceptable.
- 4. 0 STATE CONSULTATION Based upon the written'otice of the proposed amendments, the Florida State official had no comments.
- 5. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental asessment need be preprared in connection with the issuance of this 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 l
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Norris Date:
December 22, 1994