ML20235T691
Text
,
.r INPUT BY THE RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BRANCH FOR THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR SEABROOK REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTIOh TO GDC-4 Seabrook Station Unit Nos. 1 & 2 Public Service of New Hampshire Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444 i
The staff has reviewed the occupational radiation protection aspects of the Public Service of New Hampshire's request for an exerption to GDC-4 for I
the Seabrook Station Units 1 & 2.
The acceptance criteria used in the j
evaluation were those stated in Section 12 of NUREG-0800, (SRP) and Regulatory Guide 8.8, "Information Relevant To Ensuring That Occupational J
Radiation Exposures At Nuclear Power Stations Will Be As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable." The applicant, as part of the justification for the exemption to GDC-4, has estimated an occupational dose saving for i
plant personnel of approximately 1400 person-rem for both units over. their operating lifetime. This occupational dose estimate is based on a break-down of occupational dose saving during inservice inspections and main-tenance procedures in and around the Reactor Coolant System.
The staff review of the applicant's analysis shows it to be a reasonable estimate of dose saving. Therefore, from the perspective of radiation exposure and-ALARA considerations, the staff finds the applicant's request acceptable.
8707220238 870717 PDR FDIA GDRENB7-51 PDR
FJ3IOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BRANCH - SALP INPUT PLANT:
Seabrook 5:ation Unit Nos.1 & 2 A.
Functional Areas:
Licensing Activities 1
I 1.
Managemer,: involvement in assuring quality.
The appli: ant's submittal describing potential occupational dose savings was more than the required minimum necessary to evaluate the exemp; ion request. Management involvement was average.
Rating: 2 2.
Approach to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint.
The appli: ant demonstrated that ALARA and radiation safety aspects of the propcsed change were considered.
No additional technical infor-mation was required by RAB, indicating the applicant's approach to resolutice of technical issues was significantly better than average.
Rating:
3.
Response :o NRC initiatives The appli: ant's submittal was based on information supplied by the NRC and t*e ALARA data were complete.
The applicant's response was significa tly better than average.
Rating:
1 4.
Staffing (including management).
1 No information j
Rating.
5.
Reporting an analysis of reportable events i
N/A
l I
..O 6.
Training and qualification effectiveness j
N/A
)
Rating:
7.
Overall Rating for Licensing Activity Functional Area:
1 j
B.
Other Functier.al Areas (e.g., radiological controls, refueling) 1.
Rating:
2.
Rating:
1 1