ML20040G279
| ML20040G279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1982 |
| From: | Larry Wheeler Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257F308 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202120085 | |
| Download: ML20040G279 (5) | |
Text
....
& + N, j
x y
7 c
s b
'i}.
4*
Q 3
g
(
g QN i
JAN 2 51982 RECENED JAN 281982> Q-1 Docket Nos.: 50-443/444 p
,,m m e m "am a r l
APPLICANT:
Public Service Company of New Hampshire
- " b""
J i
C>
FACILITY Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2 4
SUBJECT:
MEETING SUP94ARY On January 4-6, 1982, the NRC staff met with representatives of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) and Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) to discuss the review of selected sections of Chapter 13 of the Seabrook Station Final Safety Analysis Re;' ort (FSAR). Enclosure 1 is a meeting notice with an attached ' agenda, A list of persons attending the meetings on January 4, 5 'and 6 is provided at Enclosure 2.
The meetings were open to the public to observe, but no one from the public attended, nor were there any media representatives present.
Prior to these meetings, NRC ~ Region I had performed a review of portions of the FSAR Chapter 13 in preparation for drafting the related section of the Seabrook Safety Evaluation Report (SER). During this review, several requests for additional information were developed and forwarded I
to PSNH by letters dated December 17 and 22,1981. These requests and the applicant's responses formed the basis for the discussions over the next two days.
~
The meeting on January 4,1982 was held at the PSNH corporate offices in Manchester, New Hampshire. At the beginning of the meeting, the applicant distributed a handout (Enclosure 3) containing information relevant to those questions that could mo'st appropriately be discussed by corporate office personnel. The applicant's opening remarks included a note that some of their responses had been aggravated by changing requirements reflected in the new Standard' Review Plan (SRP), and that some of the responses were still in a sta'te of flux.- It was also coted that some of the responses could be found 'in the apporpriate Technical Specifications.
g.
neo There was a discussion of each point identified in each question in the 3 a.
sequence in which the questio'ns appeared in the handout. The applicant S
described the responses and the staff consented on the adequacy of the og responses.
e 4
W In several cases, clarification of the staff's requests were discussed h
in consideration of the content of the applicant's responses.
~<
Ea, The meeting on January 5,1982 was held at the site in Seabrook, New g"o Hampshire. The questions that were not discussed at the corporate offices the previous day were discussed at thh meeting. The applicant ate +,i u.a h.aa.+ trarinen.. a so. +h. - +4..
ei-41.. on +k.
omerp handout that had been prepared fo/theJanuary 4,5982 meeting. The
'" ""'discussinn's"f6TlW6t"th4"tuM"pu tturn"&1"th6tu' 6f"tNe"iiruiffdos" day.' "All" ' " " " " ' " " " ",
. " " " " >.........of..the renaining. questions were eldressedv~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ " " ~ ~
~~~~~~~ -"
"' I NRC FORM 318 tlO BO4 NR M O2 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- w 28 e:4
~
'y n
q
~~M v(',
W b.
k
,a
.. JAN 2 51982 On January 6,1982, the meettrg was continued at the site. This session consisted of a review of each question to verify there was mutual understanding of the staff's request and the applicant's intentions for providing a
(
response. The results of the meeting are summarized as follows:
It was agreed that no revisions to the wording of any of the staff's requests were warranted. They were sufficiently explicite to identify the staff's coricerns and provided the applicant with suitable guidance for developing the information desired by the staff.
l All the applicant's responses will be forwarded as amendments to the FSAR. To avoid unnecessary delays in the flow of information, some responses may be forwarded to the staff by separate corr-espondence prior to issuance of an FSAR amendment, but this does not detract from or replace the requirement that all responses must ultimately be incorporated into the FSAR.
The applicant requested ' clarification of the staff's position on compliance with the new SRP and asked for additional guidance on a specific requirement in NUREG-0737. The staff has responded to this request by a letter to the applicant dated January 20, 1982 in which these two items' are discussed.
The applicant identified their intentions to upgrade senior reactor operator training to provide shift supervisors with the same qualifications required for Shift Technical Advisors (STA), and thereby delete the necessity for having' STAS on crew.
For those cases where the shift supervisor is ~not trained to meet STA qualifications.
it is the applicant's intention to provide an STA for that crew.
As' justification for this action, the applicant cited the wording of the NRC's STA requirements which states that STAS will only be required until such time as operator proficiency is adequately improved. The applicant' intends to have crews trained to a suitably proficient level at the" initial start of plant operations. The NRC staff pointed out that this is a significant departure from current industry practic'e, and for this reason, the applicant should submit separate correspondence as soon as possible to the Assistant Director for l'icensing that highlights this plan and provides full justification for its adoption. The correspondence will be evaluated and an NRC position will be developed.
........... ~
.. ~.. ~
~ ~... ~ ~ ~
~ ~... - -
. ~..... -
....... ~ ~. ~.
.~... ~..
. ~ ~... -
~...... ~ ~
.~
..~.
... ~
.. ~ ~ ~.....
nac ronu ais iioreoinncu o24o OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY
= = -328 2.
4 ;-
y v-y _.
- s e
u.
p y
a v
.~
{
- JAN 2 5 582 The currently available information describing management qualifications l
does not satisfy the staff's requirements for concluding that 1
corporate personnel are fully qualified to manage the Seabrook f
project. The applicant will provide expanded discussions of managenent qualification;s for staff evaluation.
There are several instan~ces in which the staff wanted to know more about the support PSNH will be receiving from other organizations.
Procedures and commitments need to be more clearly defined. They need to provide assurance that outside support will be available whenever it is needed, for both routine and abnormal requirements.
The final comment by the staff emphasized that support for Seabrook Station must be guaranteed, and the guarantees must be demonstrated in the FSAR. This applies not only to the areas discussed during this visit, but also to the rest of the FSAR.
Louis L. Wheeler, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page.
3
.... pL :(B,# 3,
..DL :
- 3
--+ 'Wheyl p,r:j b
,' i a g
Omp 1/fM82,,,
1 82 1
l NRC FORM 310 (10 80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- - e 2n24
g.
w MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Docket file 50-W. Johnston NRC PDR S. Pawlicki
-Local PDR V. Benaroya NSIC Z. Rosztoczy W.'llaass TERA LB#3 Files D. Muller H. Dent'on R. Ballard E.: Case W. Regan D. Eisenhut A. Toalston R. Purple R. Mattson R. Tedesco T. Speis
'B. J. Youngblood M. Srinivasan A. Schwencer
- 0. Parr F. Miraglia F. Rosa E. Adensam B. Sheron,-Acting J. Miller L. G. Hulman G. Lainas R.11oustan T. Wambach, Acting W. Gammill B. Russell _
F. Congel D. Crutchfield L. Rubenstein T. Novak W. Butler S. Varga C. Berlinger T. Ippolitto R. Clark F. Schroeder J..Stolz K. Kniel R. Vollmer D. Skovholt J. Knight G. Knighton R. Bosnak M. Ernst F. Schauer A. Thadant R. Jackson W. Minners G. Lear S. Hanauer Project Manager L. Wheeler H. Thompson Attorney, OELD D. Vassallo J. Lee P. Collins 0IE (3)
D. Ziemann ACRS(16)
V. Moore NRC Participants R. Gallo, RI bcc:
Applicant & Service List
SEABROOK William C. Tallman Chaiman and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Hampshire P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 John A. Ritscher, Esq.
E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Ropes and Gray Assistant Attorney General 225 Franklin Street Office'of Attorney General Boston, Massachusetts 02110 208 State House Annex Mr. Bruce B. Beckley, Project Manager Public Service Company of New Hampshire The Honorable Arnold Wight c
P. 0. Box 330 New Hampshire House.of Representatives Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Science, Technology and Energy Committee State House G. Sanborn Concord, New Hampshire 03301 U. S. NRC - Re'gion I Resident Inspector 631 Park Avenue 19406 Seabrook Nuclear Power Station King of Prussia,. Pennsylvania c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold P. O. Box 1149 S' abrook, New Hampshir.e 03874 3 Godfrey Avenue e
Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Mr. John DeVincentis, Project Manager Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company
'0'Neill, Backus and Spielman 1671 Worcester Road 116 Lowell Street Famingham, Massachusetts 01701 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Mr. G. F. Cole, Project Manager Homan Ross, Esq.
United Engineers and Constructors 30 Francis Street 30 South 17tW Street Brookline, Massachusetts 02146 Post Office Box 8223 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Karin P. Sheldon, ?sq.
Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Mr. W. Wright, Project Manager 1725 1 Street, N= W c Westinghouse Electric Corporation Washington, D. C.
20006 Post Office Box 355 Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15230 Laurie Burt, Esq.
~
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Thomas Dignan, Esq.
Environmental Protection Division Ropes and Gray One Ashburton Place 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Boston, Massachusetts 02110
-D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq.
General Counsel
- Public Service Company of New Hampshire P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105