ML20085N702
| ML20085N702 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20085N699 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9111180050 | |
| Download: ML20085N702 (3) | |
Text
_
[ga nc e
UNITED STATES y
3 f, g
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION y, E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j/
SAFETYEVALUATipp,By,TpE,pfFICE,pF,p0CLEA3,fEACTpR,3EGULA_T]pp SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86 PUBLIC SERVICE,CpMPAp]_pf, PEW HAM,P, SHIRE SEABROOK STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50,,4,43 1.0 IpTRODUCTION By letter dated January 24, 1991, New Hampshire Yankee (NHY, the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would incorporate a Digital Channel Operational Test (DCOT) definition in Sectirc 1 of the TS and revise the footnotes to TS Tables 4.3-5 and 4.3-6 to specilically reflect the proposed definition.
NHY proposed the DCOT definition to clarify existing surveillance methods for the Radiation Fonitoring (RM) System manufactured by General Atomic.
In response to the amendment request, the NRC staff posed additional quest"v s by letter dated April 2, 1991. NHY responded with supplemental informatiot by letter dated June 4, 1991. The NHY letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION NHY proposed the DCOT definition to clarify existing surveillance methods for the Radiation Monitoring (RM) System manufactured by General Atomic.
During the course of the staff's review of the proposed amendment, the staff reviewed the DCOT surveillance procedures as part of a follow-up on an open inspection item.
In Inspection Report 50-443/91-02, dated April 1, 1991, the staff found NHY's method of performing DCOT surveillances acceptable.
Based on the staff's review of the technical information contained in the NHY submittals and inspection of the DCOT surveillance methods, the staff identified no additional safety concerns regarding the specific application of the DCOT to the RM system currently installed in the plant. However, NHY proposed a broad based DCOT to be incorporated into the definitions section of the TS. The acceptance of the proposed amendment in its current form would imply the acceptance of a broad based DCOT definition which could be construed to be applicable to other digital equipment presently installed in the plant or equipment that may be installed at a later date.
If this definition were applied to digital systems in general, data base manipulation alone may not sufficiently test the input circuitry or the hardware and sof tware as a system.
9111100050 911010 fDR ADDCK 05000443 PDR
i,
The staff informed NHY of the staff's DCOT applicability concerns, and agreed to revise the definition to narrow its focus and thereby remove the staff's applicability concerns. The following revised definition is acceptable to the staff.
Digital Channel,0pe, rational _Te,s,t Definition "A Digital Channel Operational Test shall consist of exercising the digital computer hardware using data base manipulation and/or injecting simulated
. process data to verify Operability of alarm and/or trip functions.
This Digital Channel Operational Test definition is only applicable to the Radiation Monitoring Equipment."
Based on the information provided in the NHY submittals and on the NRC staff's review and acceptance of the DCOT surveillance, the staff finds the revised DCOT definition, as stated ir. this Safety Evaluation, acceptable. The TS table footnotes are consistent with the revised definition and are acceptable to the staff in the originally proposed form. The remaining proposed changes are administrative re-numbering changes to the definitions section of the TS and reflect the addition of a DCOT definition. Therefore, the numbering changes are also acceptable to the staff.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Hampshire and Massachusetts State officials were notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State officials had no comments.
4.0 ENyIR,0!Q1ENTALCONSIDERATION E
The_ amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant-increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 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 (56 FR 24217).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
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.
i l
l.
l-t L
3
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 r/alic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Ccmmissien's regulations, and (3) t s issuance of the amcndment wi'l not be inimical to the common def?nse and security or to the health 270 safety of the public.
Principal Contr'butor:
G. Garten Date:
August 23, 1991
..