ML20035G718
| ML20035G718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035G712 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304290123 | |
| Download: ML20035G718 (2) | |
Text
.
~ -..
=.
- 'Gug
?t UNITED STATES
,,.i l. 4W E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i'
E WASHINGTON. D.C. 20655-0001 f
\\.'..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 20 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86 NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION SEABROOK STATION. UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443 l
J
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated November 3, 1992, supplemented by letter dated February 26, 1903, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (NAESC0/the licensee) proposed to amend the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) for 1
the Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook). The proposed amendment would delete the requirement that the Operations Manager must be a currently licensed senior reactor operator (SR0). However, the amendment would require that the Operations Manager either shall hold or shall have held a senior reactor operator license for the Seabrook Station (proposed TS 6.2.2 f). The requirement that the Assistant Operations Manager hold an SR0 would be retained (proposed TS 6.2.2 g).
2.0 EVALUATION Using Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 13.1.2-13.1.3, " Operating Organization" and ANSI /ANS 3.1-1978, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," the staff has evaluated NAESCO's request for the Seabrook Operations Manager to not be required to maintain an SRO qualification.
In the November 3,1992, submittal, NAESCO stated that the most senior individuals on shift, the Shift Superintendents, are supervised by the Assistant Operations Manager who is required to hold and will continue to be j
required to hold an SRO license. Additionally, in a letter dated February 26, i
1993, NAESCO stated that in times of transition, when the Assistant Operations Manager position might be vacated, a person with a current SRO license would be assigned to that position. NAESCO identified several sources of personnel j
with current.SRO licenses from which the position of Assistant Operations i
Manager could be filled to ensure staffing of all positions requiring an SRO license and meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.S4.
~
NAESCO has provided information on the requirements for appointment to the i
position of Operations Manager. NAESCO has stated that'the Updated Final i
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) will be revised to take exception to the
-l requirement in ANS/ ANSI 3.1-1978 for the Operations Manager to holi a senior reactor operator license at the time of appointment. However, the revised UFSAR will require the Operations Manager to hold or to have held an SRO 9304290123 930426 PDR ADOCK 05000443 P
+
license for Seabrook Station for appointment to that position. This requirement is consistent with the guidance in ANS 3.1-1987.
Based on the supplementary information provided by NAESCO on how the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 will be met during times of transition, and based on the proposed requirements for appointment to the position of Operations Manager, the staff finds that the proposed Technical Specification 6.2.2 f and 6.2.2 g meet the relevant criteria in SRP Section 13.1.2-13.1.3, " Operating Organization" and 10 CFR 50.54 and are, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
x In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Hampshire State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The New Hampshire State officials had no comments. Good faith attempts were made to contact the Massachusetts State official regarding proposed issuance of the amendment.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes an administrative requirement. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 61119). Accordingly, the 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 assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 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: Mary Ann Biamonte i
Date:
April 26, 1993 h
-