ML20052D771

Submits Addl Info in Response to NRC 820427 Request Re FSAR Chapter 13

ML20052D771
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/04/1982
From:	George Thomas PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
To:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
SBN-269, NUDOCS 8205070200
Download: ML20052D771 (3)

Text

d Lj PUBLIC SERVICE Company of New Hampshire May 4, 1982 M SBN 269 (

T.F. B7.1.2 NECggggo t l, AYB 1& Q 4 Y /

United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing Re fe rences : (a) Construction Pemits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444.

Subj ect: Seabrook Station; Responses to Verbcl Requests for Information Concerning FSAR Chapter 13

Dear Mr. Miraglia:

On April 27, 1982, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) received verbal requests for additional information from NRC Region I concerning Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 13.

A summary of the questions and our responses follow:

(1) Question: Will the Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) be on-site, dedicated and full-time as stated in NUREG-07377 Response: PSNH is in the process of developing the charter for the ISEG. This charter will identify the composition and

( reporting relationships. This information will be made available to the NRC upon completion.

(2) Question: What is the membership, by title, for the Nuclear Safety Audit Review Comittee (NSARC)?

Response: The following list identifies the prime membership of NSARC, by position title:

Chairman - Nucleer Quality Manager (PSNH) l Vice Chairman - Manager, Electrical Engineering (YNSD)

Member - Director, Environmental Engineering (YNSD)

Member - Principal Engineer, Nuclear Engineering (YNSD)

Member - Operations Engineer (PSNH)

Member - Engineering Manager (PSNH)

Member - Seabrook Station Manager (PSNH)

Member - Manager, Nuclear Projects (PSNH) 0 e20so70200 e20so4 l fDRADOCK 05000443 $ I l6 PDR 1000 Erri St., P.O. tsua .330 Manchester . NH 03105 Telephone 603/G69-4000

wumc stzvice CcuPANY or New HAMP2Hl2E Pact .2~

d (3) Question:- Clarify item (b) of Technical Specifications'6.5.1.5 and 6.5.2.7.

~

Response: As stated in NUREG 0452, quorum requirements of the Station Operation Review Committee (SORC) and Nuclear Safety Audit Review Committee (NSARC) are a Director.or his designated alternate and four members. PSNH has added item (b) to '

make it clear that the Vice Chairman is considered to be' a member. Therefore, when the Chairman and Vice Chairman are both present, only three additional members are require'd to meet.the quorum requirements.

At the request of Region I, PSNH has asked NRR to review these sections of the Technical Specifications and advise Region I of their acceptability. I (4) Question: NUREG 0452 Technical Specifications 6.5.1.6 (i) and (j), and '

6.5.1.7 (c) state that the NSARC should receive SORC recom-mended changes to the Security Plan and Emergency Plan and be notified of disagreements between the SORC and the Station Manager. PSNH proposed Technical Specifications do not include this provision.

Response: Proposed Technical Specifications 6.5.1.6 and 6.5.1.7 will j be amended as follows:

6.5.1.6

i 1

i 3

i. Review of the Station Security Plans and bnplementing  ;

{ procedures and shall submit recommended changes to the  !

i Nuclear Production Superintendent, with a copy to the ,

Chairman, Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee.

i j j. Review of the Radiological Emergency Plan and unple-menting procedures and shall submit recommended

~

[

j changes to the Nuclear Production Superintendent, ,

I with copy to the Chaionan, Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee.

i 6.5.1.7 I i

c. Provide written notification within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to the l Nuclear Production Superintendent, with a copy to the l Chairman, Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee, of -

disagreement between the SORC and the Station Manager.

l The Station Manager, however, 'shall have responsibility for resolution of such disagreements pursuant to 6.1.1 I above. ,

(5) Question: Proposed Technical Specification 6.5.2.3 lists the ' academic and/or experience requirements of the NSAR Committee mem-  :

bers. As these-requirements are subject to periodic  ;

change, it may be more appropriate to remove them from the  !

Technical Specifications and place them in FSAR Chapter 13. . '

l I

i ,

-. Pucucas:nvice coups.NY OF Ntw HAMPZHerft- PAG 3 Response: The academic and/or experience requirements stated in Technical Specification 6.5.2.3 are per ANS 3.1 - 1978.

This conunitment already exists in FSAR Section 13.4.2.2.

Therefore, Technical Specifications 6.5.2.3 will be removed in its entirety.

(6) Question: Explain when the SORC will assume their duties related to the acceptance of systems. How does this relate to the acceptance reviews performed by the Joint Test Group?

Response: The initial test program at Seabrook Station is divided into two major categories: (1) preoperational testing and (2) initial startup testing. A description of each cate-gory exists in FSAR Section 14.2.1. As stated in FSAR Section 14.2.4 and as shown on Table 14.2-1, the Joint Test Group has the responsibility for the review and approval of system test procedures and test results during the pre-operational test program, and the SORC has final review and approval authority for test procedures anci test results' during the initial startup program.

Yours very truly, C

Geor e S. Thomas Nuclear Production Superintendent

GST

SDF:cr ,

cc: Robert M. Gallo e

I