ML20078R020
| ML20078R020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078R010 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9502220167 | |
| Download: ML20078R020 (2) | |
Text
.
, p@ Uco
[+
?*.
UNITED STATES
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
's WASHINGTON, D.C. 200664Joot
%*****/SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 35 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86 NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION i
SEABROOK STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated June 18, 1993, as amended by letter of November 23, 1994, North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) proposed an amendment to the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) for the Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook).
The proposed changes would revise the Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) relating to the Independent Safety Engineering Group.
Specifically, the amendment would revise the title of TS 6.2.3 from Independent Safety Engineering Group to Independent Technical Reviews, and would replace the requirements for the ffve person Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) with requirements relating to a technical review program to perform independent technical reviews.
North Atlantic's letter dated November 23, 1994, grovided a minor revision to the application but does not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION North Atlantic has proposed to revise TS 6.2.3 by:
1)
Changing the title of TS 6.2.3 from Independent Safety Engineering Group to Independent Technical Reviews.
Staff evaluation: North Atlantic's proposal to change the title of TS 6.2.3 reflects an organizational change. The ISEG function, which previously was in the Quality Programs Division has been combined with the Operating Experience Review Group within the Licensing Services Division to create an integrated organization known as the Nuclear Safety Engineering Group. This change is acceptable to the staff since the ISEG function is unchanged.
2)
Combining TS 6.2.3.1 (Functions) and TS 6.2.3.3 (Responsibilities) into a new TS 6.2.3.1 (Functions) that combines the elements of the current TS 6.2.3.1 and 6.2.3.3.
The revision would include the responsibility for making d2 tailed recommendations to the Senior Site Official.
Staff evaluation: The proposal to combine TS 6.2.3.1 (Functions) and TS 6.2.3.3 (Responsibilities) is acceptable as the substance of the current TS is retained.
J 9502220167 950214 l
PDil ADOCK 05000443 P
pm.
. 3)
Deleting the current requirement of TS 6.2.3.2 (Composition) for at i
least five, dedicated full-time engineers located on site, and replacing it with the requirement that the Independent Technical Review Program shall utilize several on-site personnel who are independent of the plant management chain to perform the reviews.
Staff evaluation: The proposed changes conform to the improved Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, NUREG-1431.
Therefore, the staff finds these changes acceptable.
4)
Deleting the requirement of TS 6.2.3.4 (Records) that records shall be forwarded each calendar month to the Senior Vice President and replacing that with the requirement that a copy of the monthly Technical Review Program report shall be provided to the Senior Site Official.
Staff evaluation: The staff finds this change acceptable as the records will be forwarded to a senior level official.
The staff concludes that the requested changes meet the appropriate acceptance criteria of Section 13.4 of NUREG 0800, the Standard Review Plan and conform to Section 5.5 of the improved Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-1431 (September 1992). Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the New Hampshire and Massachusetts State officials were notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State officials had no coments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATI03 The amendment changes an administrative procedure or requirement.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(:)(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 Comission 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 Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
F. A11enspach Date:
February 14, 1995