ML17221A750
| ML17221A750 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1988 |
| From: | Julian C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Woody C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8805040107 | |
| Download: ML17221A750 (39) | |
Text
April '27, 1988 Florida Power and Light Company ATTN:
Mr. C. 0.
Woody'roup Vice President Nuclear Energy Department P. 0.
Box 14000 Juno
- Beach, FL 33408 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
REACTOR OPERATOR AND SENIOR OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS In a telephone conversation between Mr. Roger Walker, Instructor-Licensed Training and Mr. Charles A. Casto, NRC Region II Operator Licensing Section, arrangements were made for administration of the replacement examinations at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
The written examinations are scheduled for the week of July 25, 1988.
The simulator/operating examinations are scheduled for September 1988 at the St. Lucie simulation facility. The plant oral examinations are scheduled for July 25-August 1, 1988.
In order for us to meet the above schedule, it will be necessary for the facility to furnish the approved reference material listed in Enclosure 1,
"Reference Material Requirements for Reactor/Senior Reactor Operator Licensing Examinations,"
by May 25, 1988.
Any delay in receiving properly bound and indexed reference material will result in a delay in administering the examinations.
Our examinations are scheduled far in advance with considerable planning to utilize our present limited examiner manpower and to meet the 'examination dates requested by the various facilities.
Therefore, missing the May 25, 1988 deadline, even by a few days, will likely result in a long delay, because it may not be possible to reschedule examinations at other facilities.
Mr. Walker has been advised of our reference material sets that are required, and the examiners'ames and addresses where each set is to be mailed.
The facility management is responsible for providing adequate space and accom-modations in order to properly conduct the written examinations.
Enclosure 2,
"Requirements for Administration of Written Examinations,"
describes our requirements for conducting these examinations.
Mr. Walker has also been informed of these requirements.
In addition, to better document simulator examinations, the chief examiner will have the facility simulator operator record prespecified plant conditions (i.e., plant pressure, temperature, pressurizer level, etc.), for each simulator scenario.
The candidate will be responsible for providing this information, along with any appeal of his simulator operating examination.
Therefor e, the facility training. staff should retain the simulator examination scenario information until all candidates taking the examination have either passed the operating examination or all appeals filed by the candidates who failed the operating examination have been completed.
8805040107 880427 PDR ADOCK 05000335 V
Cg II Og Ol I
COLLEGE OF ENG INEERING UNIVERSITYOF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE, ORIDA 32601 AREA CODE 904 PHONE 392 1401 ARTI4ENT OF NUCI EAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES 202 NUCLEAR SCIENCES CENTER January 16, 1973 Mr. Paul F. Collins, Chief Operator Licensing Branch Directorate of Licensing Washington, D.C.
20545 Re:
Facility License No. R-56
Dear Mr. Collins:
The following UFTR licensed operators are no longer associated with the University of Florida and we respectfully request their Reactor Operator licenses not be renewed:
l.
Mr. Richard L. Fiedler License No. OP-2901 Docket No. 55-3717 2.
Dr. Richard W. Englehart License No; SOP-1152-1 Docket No. 55-1393 3.
Mr. Michael J.
Dunn License No.
SOP-1516 Docket No.
55-3793 4.
Mr. Paul Roberts License No. OP-2519-1 Docket No. 55-2985.
S' rel y
rs, Nx
- iaz, Assi ant Pr fessor and Reactor Supervisor NJD: jb
Florida Power and Light Company Enclosure 2 also contains the Rules and Guidelines that will be in. effect during the administration of the written examination.
The facility management is responsible for ensuring that all candidates are aware of these Rules.
All reactor operator and senior reactor operator license application information should normally be submitted at least 60 days before the first examination dates
. so that we will be able to review the training and experience of the candidates, process the medical certifications, and prepare final examiner assignments after candidate eligibility has been determined.
If the application information is not received at least 30 days before the examination dates, it is possible that a
postponement will be necessary.
This request for information was approved by, the Office of Management and Budget under Clearance Number 3150-0101 which expires on May 31, 1989.
Comments on burden and duplication may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
The facility staff review of the written examination will be conducted in accordance with requirements specified in Enclosure 3,
"Requirements for Facility Review of Written Examination."
Mr. Walker has been informed of these.requirements.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
If you have any questions regarding the examination procedures and requirements, please contact Mr. John F. Munro, Chief, Operator Licensing Section 1 at 404/331-5544.
Sincerely, (ORIGINAL SIGNED Bg C. A. JULIAN)
Enclosures:
1.
Reference Material Requirements 2.
Requirements for Administration of Written Exams 3.
Facility Review Requirements cc w/encls:
P. Fincher, Training Supervisor G. Boissy, Plant Manager bcc:
(See page 3)
Caudle A. Julian, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
F1orida Power and Light Company April 27, 1988 bcc w/enc1s:
E. Tourigny, Projects
- Manager, NRR B. A. Mi1son, Section Chief, DRP C. Casto, OL Examiner Senior Resident Inspector MIUFument Contro1 Desk State of florida RII RII PRShaw:obw asto o4/
/ss 04/~~/ss RI I Pean 04/~/88 RII
'J un' 04/~/88 RII+
CAJu1 an 04/2.)/88
ENCLOSURE 1
REFERENCE MATERIAL RE(UIREMENTS FOR REACTOR/SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS l.
Existing learning objectives and lesson plans (including training'anuals, plant orientation
- manual, system descriptions, reactor
- theory, thermo-dynamics, etc.)
Training materials should include all substantive written material used for preparing candidates for initial RO and SRO licensing.
The written material should be inclusive of learning objectives and the details presented during lecture, rather than outlines.
Training materials should be identified by plant and unit, bound, and indexed.
Failure to provide complete, properly bound and indexed plant reference material will result in canceling or rescheduling of the examinations.
Training materials which include the following should be provided:
a.
System descriptions including descriptions of all operationally relevant flow paths, components, controls and instrumentation.
System training material should draw parallels to the actual procedures used for operating the applicable system.
b.
Complete and operationally useful descriptions of all safety-system interactions and, where available, BOP system interactions under emergency and abnormal conditions, including consequences of anticipated operator error, maintenance
- error, and equipment failure.
c.
Training material used to clarify and strengthen understanding of emergency operating procedures.
d.
Comprehensive theory material that includes fundamentals in the area of theory of reactor operation, thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow, as well as specific application to actual in-plant components.
For ~exam le, mechanical theory material on pumps should include pump theory as well as descriptions of how these principles actually apply to major plant pumps and the systems in which they are installed (i.e., Reactor Coolant pumps, all ECCS pumps, Recirculation
Reactor theory material should include descriptions that draw explicit ties between the fundamentals and the actual operating limits followed in the plant (i.e., reactor theory material should contain explanations of how principles relate to the actual curves used by operators to verify shutdown margin or calculate an ECP).
Enclosure 1
2.
Procedure Index (alphabetical by subject) 3.
5.
All administrative procedures (as applicable to reactor operation or safety)
All integrated plant procedures (normal or general operating procedures)
Emergency procedures (emergency instr'uctions, abnormal or special procedures) 6.
Standing orders (important orders that are safety-related and may supersede the regular procedures) 7.
Fuel-handling and core-loading procedures, (initial core-loading procedure, when appropriate) 8.
Annunciator procedures (alarm procedures, including 'set points) 9.
Radiation protection manual (radiation control manual or procedures) 10.-
Emergency plan implementing procedures ll.
Technical Specifications 12.
System operating procedures 13.
Piping and instrumentation
- diagrams, electrical single-line diagrams, or flow diagrams 14.
Technical Data Book, and/or plant curve information as used by operators and facility precautions, limitations, and set. points (PLS) for the facility 15.
guestions and answers that the facility licensee has prepared (voluntary by facility licensee) 16.
The following on the plant reference simulation facility a.
List of all readily available initialization points b.,
List of all preset malfunctions with a clear identification number.
The list should include cause and effect information.
Specifically, for each malfunction, a concise description of the expected result, or range of results, that will occur upon implementation should be provided.
Additionally, an indication of which annunciators are to be initially expected should be given.
c.
A description of simulator failure capabilities for valves, breakers, indicators and alarms.
Enclosure 1
d.
Where the capability exists, an explanation of the ability to vary the severity of a particular malfunction should be provided, i.e., ability to vary the size of a given LOCA or steam leak, or the ability to cause a slow failure of a component such as a feed pump, turbine generator or major valve (e.g., drifting shut of a main feedwater control valve) e.
An identification of modeling conditions/problems that may impact the examination f.
Identification of any known Performance Test Failures not yet completed
- g. 'dentification of significant differences between the simulator and'he reference plant's control room h.
Copies of facility generated scenarios that expose the candidates to situations of degraded pressure control (PWR), degraded heat removal capability (PWR and BWR),
and containment challenges (BWR) may be provided (voluntary by licensee) i.
Simulator instructors manual (voluntary by licensee) j.
Description of the scenarios used for the training class (voluntary by licensee) 17.
All material different from that listed in items 1-16 that is specific to the Operator Requalification Training Program 18.
Additional material required by the examiners to develop examinations that meet the requirements of these standards and the regulations.
The above reference material should be approved, final issues and should be so marked.
If a plant has not finalized some of the material, the chief examiner shall verify with the facility that the most complete, up-to-date mate'rial is available and that agreement has been reached with the licensee for limiting changes before the administration of the examination.
All procedures and reference material should be bound with appropriate indexes or tables of contents so that they can be used efficiently.
ENCLOSURE 2
'EQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS 1.
A single room shall be provided for completing the written examination.
The location of this room and supporting restroom facilities shall be such as to prevent contact with all other facility and/or contractor personnel during the duration of the written examination.
If necessary, the facility should make arrangements for the use of a suitable room at a
local
- school, motel, or other building.
Obtaining this room is the responsibility of the licensee.
2.
Minimum spacing is required to ensure examination integrity as determined by the chief examiner.
Minimum spacing should be one candidate per table, with a 3-ft. space between tables.
No wall charts,
- models, and/or other training materials shall be present in the examination room.
3.
Suitable arrangements shall be made by the facility if the candidates are to have lunch, coffee, or other refreshments.
These arrangements shall comply with Item 1 above.
These arrangements shall be reviewed by the examiner and/or proctor.
4.
The facility staff shall be provided a
copy of the written examination and answer key after the last candidate has completed and handed in his written examination.
The facility staff shall then have five working days to provide formal written comments with supporting documentation on the examination and answer key to the chief examiner or to the regional office section chief.
5.
The facility licensee shall provide pads of 8-1/2 by ll inch lined paper in unopened packages for each candidate's use in completing the examination.
The examiner shall distribute these pads to the candidates.
All reference material needed to complete the examination shall be furnished by the examiner.
Candidates can bring pens,
- pencils, calculators, or slide rules into the examination
- room, and no other equipment or reference material shall be allowed.
6.
Only black ink or dark pencils should be used for writing answers to questions.
Enclosure 2
NRC RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONS During the administration of this examination the following rules apply:
1.
Cheating on the examination means an automatic denial of your application and could result in more severe penalties.
2.
Restroom trips are to be limited and only one candidate at a time may leave.
You must avoid all contacts with anyone outside the examination room to avoid even the appearance or possibility of cheating.
3.
Use black ink or dark pencil
~onl to facilitate legible reproductions.
4.
Print your name in the blank provided on the cover sheet of the examination.
5.
Fill in the date on the cover sheet of the examination (if necessary).
6.
Use only the paper provided for answers.
7.
Print your name in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of each section of the answer sheet.
8.
Consecutively number each answer sheet, write "End of Category
" as appropriate, start each category on a
new page, write on ~onl one side of the paper, and write "Last Page" on the Tast answer sheet.
9.
Number each answer as to category and number, for example, 1.4, 6.3.
10.
Skip at least three lines between each answer.
ll.
Separate answer sheets from pad and place finished answer sheets face down on your desk or table.
12.
Use abbreviations only if they are commonly used in facility literature'.
13.
The point value for each question is indicated in parentheses after the question and can be used as a guide for the depth of answer required.
14.
Show all calculations,
- methods, or assumptions used to obtain an answer to mathematical
- problems, whether indicated in the question or not.
15.
Partial credit may be given.
Therefore, ANSWER ALL PARTS OF THE QUESTION AND DO NOT LEAVE ANY ANSWER BLANK.
Enclosure 2
- 16. If parts of the examination are not clear as to'intent, ask questions of the examiner only.
17.
You must sign the statement on the cover sheet that indicates that the work is your own and you have not received or been given assistance in completing the examination.
This must be done after the examination has been completed.
18.
When you complete your examination, you shall:
a.
Assemble your examination as follows:
(1)
Exam questions on top.
(2)
Exam aids - figures, tables, etc.
(3)
Answer pages including figures which are a part of the answer.
b.
Turn in your copy of the examination and all pages used to answer the examination questions.
c.
Turn in all scrap paper and the balance of the paper that you did not use for answering the questions.
d.
Leave the examination
- area, as defined by the examiner.
If after
- leaving, you are found in this area while the examination is still in progress, your license may be denied or revoked.
ENCLOSURE 3
REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITY REVIEW OF WRITTEN EXAMINATION 1..There shall be no review of the written examination by the facility staff before or during the administration of the examination.
Following the administration of the written examination, the facility staff shall be provided a marked-up copy of the examination and the answer key.
2.
The facility will have five (5) working days from the day the written examination is given to provide formal comment submittal.
The submittal will be made to the responsible regional office by the highest level of coporate management for plant operations, e.g.,
Vice President for Nuclear Operations.
A copy of the submittal will be forwarded to the chief
- examiner, as appropriate.
Comments not submitted within five (5) working days will be considered for inclusion in the grading process on a case by case basis by the. regional office section chief.
Should the comment submittal deadline not be met, a
long delay for finalization of the examination results may occur.
3.
The following format should be adhered to for submittal of specific comments:
b.
c ~
NOTES:
Listing of NRC question, answer and reference Facility comment Supporting documentation 1.
No change to the examination will be made without submittal of complete, current, and approved reference material.
2.
Comments made without a concise facility recommendation will not be addressed.
UNITED,STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION V/ASMINGTON. D.C.
20545
'r f
~
~'~>s~<'i/0'lj' 4
1969 is<<her, Reactor Projects Branch jul Div. ion of'eactor Licensing Ti",J:
Dudley Thompson, Chief Operational Safety Branch, RL Ref:
~.i;LulTXNARY SAFETY ANALYSXS REPORT FOR HUZCHXNSON XSLPZfD PLAKZ -
FLORXDA'O:,':.9 RW LXGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-335 I
(a)
DRL Review Plan Hutchinson Xsierd. Plant, Florida Power and.
Light.'Company, Docket No. 50-335~ dated May 6~ 1969.
(b)
Memo from F. R. Allenspach, OSB, to D. F'scher, RPB jjl, "Draft ~estions for Florida Power and. Light Company, Hutchinson Xsland. Plant, Docket No., 50-335," dated.. June iI, l9L9.
(c)
Letter from P. A. Morr's to G. KinsiI:an, FPM. Co. of August 22'969.
M.-
-.eve reviewed.. the information currently available in the applicant's (and aIIendmcnts rece'ved.
o date) for those areas of review assigned.
"c erence erence (b) ind'cated that additional information I.la. be reouired of the ape'cent in tne areas of Technical Qualifica-t'ons, Organization and. Training in order to continue with an evalua-tion in support o
the rev'ew for e Construction Permit.
Reference (c) omitted. auestions. to the applicant which would. aid us in conducting a more comprehensive review and. determination of adeauacy n the assigred.
areas.
Xn order to determine the applicant's aualifications to engage in the proposed. design, fabrication, construction and. testing of the structures, systems and components of the facility~ sufficiently detailed.
PSAR docu-men"ation is considered td be both necessary and. appropriate in the areas o" "echnicel (<ualifications, Organization and Training.
'At the CP stage, di '
- sion of limited scope in the remaining areas normally considered.
unde'" the "Conduct of Ope'rations" heeding will normally suffice.
Station
,Procedures~
- Records, Review and. Audit, Emergency Planning, Xnitiel Tests and. Operation~
Xndustri'al Security and. St'artup-Organization'should.
be, add"essed in sufficient detail to ensure that the entire "Conduct of
D.
r ~ocher Operations" subject will be adeauately developed. in the PSAH.
To the above ex ent, the information currently.furnished. by the applicant in the PRW is considered. to support an evaluation of satisfactory, unsatisfac-tory or i.;comple'te as ind.icated in the attached enclosure, which is submitted.
as draft. material for the ACRS report.
H. E. Collins Operational Safety Branch, DHL cc:
D. J. Skovholt, AD/RO, DRL D. R. Muller~ Cnief, EBB qual,, DRL
REACTOR OP~+TXONS EVALUA'ON OP HUTCHXNSON XSLAÃD PLQZ DOCKET NO.
$0-3/5 F
A., Technical Qmlifications t'I 1.~The depth of the applicant's corpo ate technical, support organiza-t"on is not indicated. in the PS&.
Although the applicant is I
currently involved. in construction of Turkey Point Plant Units P
8c 4, it does not necessarily follow that the applicant has acouired.
and. estab'.ished.
a corporate technical support organiza-tion sufficient to specifically provide the technical expertise reouired. by a rapidly expanding commitment to nuclear power.
(As a separate but related. matter, questions concerning Florida Power and. Light Company's corporate technical support organization are expected. to be forwarded. to the applicant pursuant to a preliminary review of the applicant's PSAR and. application for an Operating License for the Turkey Point hMclear Units.)
- 2. v The extent of consultant, vendor and. other technical support for the nuclear plant construction effort is not delineated.. ~The extent of technical support recuired goes beyond that indicated.
~n Che~dentification of Contractors" (Section 1.6) and. the "ality Assurance Program" (Section 3..8).
The exact responsibili-
~n I
ties and. interrelationships of the various groups during the design and construction phase is not clearly indicated..
B.
Organization 1.
Corporate hfanagement Organization:
Florida Power and. Light Company's corporate raw~ agement organization is similar to those of other utilities and is considered. to be satisfactory w th regard.
to assigning and. f'xing line responsibility'elative to management of the nuclear plant.
2.
Operati'ng Snift Crew Organization:
The app3.icant proposes an operating shift crew comprised. of a Watch Engineer (Mcensed.
senior operator),
Control Center Operator (licensed. operator),
Turbine Area Operator (unlicensed.),
and. an Auxiliary Equipment r
y
~
Operator (unlicensed.).
Normally, =a-.. minimum-of
-five personnel, jgl three--licensed.-and.
two:unlicensed.-are considered;-to.be acceptable for='a=-single-unit-, -nuclear plant-shift.crew.>~Further, under these I
conditions, at 3.east one of the shift crew should. qeet the 'auali-ications of a Health Physics Technic'an.
Although the=:above
-shift crew=-organization-is-not=-required;,=i
- s. desirability =has-been eflected.=:in both internally-.developed..guidelines=
for=-nuc'ear I
plant-shift staffing (see cLraft OSG-~~ )-, as well as in a recently published. AEC'd.ocument "Uti3.ity Staffing for Nuclear Power, July 1969" (WASH-1130).
The applicant=has=not provided.=-justifica-tion=forr,-the=adequacy
=-of=the-=proposed.-= four-man=-single=unit-crew 7P, staffing,-in=-coping=with=-plant-ope ating -requirements--during
- routine, abnormal--'and.-emergency.=-si uations. ~Therefore, we con-elude that the proposed. operating shift,'crew staffing is
considered to be unsatisfactory, i.e., inadequate in both numbers'nd.
proposed. 3.icensing Qualifications of personne3..
(As a separate but related, matter, PAL's proposed shift crew staffing for Turkey Point Unit ~ prescribes five personne3.
(three licensed.,
two unlicensed).
The'proposed.
addition of only one licensed.
member to the above five members when unit 4 becomes operational, is being questioned. pursuant to a -preliminary review of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant operating license ~pplication,.)
3'.
Nuclear Plant Organization (General):
Except as noted. for shift crew'taffing,the brief outline of the general nuclear plant organization appears to be in consonance with prescribed.
and.
currently'ccepted..guidelines'for nuclear plant staffing.
However, detailed. information outlining the minimum qualification requirements for the plant staff should. normally have been provided.
at this time.
Xnfornation concerning actual aualifications and.
experience of the staff will be reouired. at the operating license application review stage.
Specifically, aualifications and.
I experienc of key personnel assigned. respbnsibility in the reactor operations, reactor physics~
chemistry/radiochemistry, and. nuclear plant maintenance areas are of immediate and. future concern and.
n cannot be evaluated. at this time with the limited. information presented..
Note:
Since the technical staffing of PPM.'s Turkey Point Nuclear Plant is an item of current concern under preliminary OL application review, the degree to which nuclear trained.
personnel will be drawn from the Turvy ey Point Nuclear Plant~ to staff the Hutchinson island. Plant, poses aues-I tions concerning the company's ability to effectively staff the expanding nuclear commitment in toto.
C.
Training The details: concerning-content--and-duration of the applicant's nuclear power training program are not sufficiently reflected. in the PSAH-Since the nuclear plant training program should.
commence well I
in advance of planned. operations, and. is normally conducted. prior to and. in conJunction with the construction phase, it is considered. that the entire prog am should. be described:.in detailed. and specific terms
~n the PSALM in order to render a comprehensive and. timely evaluation of the program.
A nuclear engineering course-of class hours was conducted. for approximately 40 employees of FPM by the University of Florida, Department of Nuclear Engineeri..g.
This.group of employees included.
all senior engineering and. operating personnel plus a plant supervisory I
group from whom Hutchinson Xs3.and. plant upervisory personnel will be chosen.
The course was followed. by an 80-hour laboratory course at t
Gainesville," Florida, utilizing the,.University of Florida.'test reactor.
An advanced. Nuclear Technology course was then given 'to'pproximately 00 employees, by the University of Florida'epartment of Nuclear Engineering.
This group included. senior, engineering and, plant supervisory personnel.
This particular phase of'raining is the same
as that indicated. for the Turkey Point Units 3 h 4 and. it is conside ed.
that this phase of the training program is general nuclear orientation applicable to FP8~ 's efforts to establish a base of nuclear knowledge for the company's nuclear commitment.
As such, it is considered. to be satisfactory.
However, the nuclear power training p ogram for the Hutchinson island. Plant staff appears to rely heavily on a "bootstrap" training operation.
Certain company p'ersonnel from whom the plant staff is expected. to be selected. will receive nuclear training and then in turn will serve as ins ructors for a tra'ning program to 'be given to the remaining plant personnel.
Since.the=effectiveness-of-the=-train-
/
ing program for-=the-nuclear=plant=staff=will-cLepend;//in=-great=-measure upon==the-duration=ant-/auality-of=.instruction=--(which==implicitly--inclucLes the=aualiikcations/ of..-instructors)-;--it=-is=-difficult-:to-:evaluate -the-Ioverall auality of FPM.! s."bootstrap."--training-program..
Of particular
~
concern at this time is the training which will be provided. to those personnel who will be candidates for AEC Licensing.
Information con-L cerning the "in-house" training effort (as opposed. to information con-cerning the standard Westinghouse Training P ogram previously utilized.
for FP8~ 's Turkey Point nuclear Plant personnel) is not detailed. enough to indicate that operating personnel and. technical personnel will be adeouately trained. to assume their responsibilities.
m 4 5
~ h
~
a
~,
~,
', as We conclude that the scope, of the training program's out" ined. by I
the applicant is generally satisfactory.
However, the duration and s
qualitY o'he prop"am 1s a matter o
concern at th1s ttme a<ace'Xt 1s based in some measure upon a "bootstrap" training operation which is not well defined. in that it is lacking in essential descriptive detail coupled with a detailed. time frame for implementation.
D ~
Bemaining Conduct of Operations Areas The abbreviated. information supplied. by the applicant in the remain-ing areas-normally considered.
under "Conduct of Operations," reflects
~he applicant's cognizance of the. requirements for writt'en procedures
- records, administrative controls (including review and, audit ), replace-
\\
ment training, industrial security and. emergency planning.
We will require that the applicant expand. the brief information concerning these areas at the OL sthge, as well as other areas which will be a r
matter of concern during the OL review.'nit~=Zests and. Operatm ons s
The applicant has describeL an initial tests and. operations s
l program in brief and. general terms which is considered.-'satisfactory for a construction permit appli,cation.
We will reouire that the applicant exoand. the brief outline of initial tests and. operations at the OL stage by providing detailed. information concerning test objec-s tivesp acceptance criteria and. scheduling of the entire testing program.
With regard to initial operations, the applicant will be required. to I
outline the functional roles, responsibilities and. aualifications of the regular and. augmenting startup personnel as well as such other areas as may be a matter of concern at that time.
0
~
v ~
I a I~
P
~
j
. >j'RCr Po+gjj~
0 a
o
~+
FFErrE g UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C.
20545 D. J. Skovholt, Assistant Director for Reactor Operations, DRL THRU:
Dudley Thompson, Chief Operational Safety Branch, DRI'ECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS - FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COWPANY, HOTCHINSON Ft ISLAND - DOCiKT NO.
$0-335 Ref (1):
- Nemo, D. J. Skovholt to P.
A. Morris, "Technical Specification Requirements for CP Reviev," 7/29/69 (2):
- IPlemo, R. A. Birkel to D. Fischer, captioned. subject, 10/29/69 An interim position regarding a
CP requirement for a preliminary techni-cal specification was discussed.
in reference memorandum (1).
This requirement vas confirmed. by P. A. Morris on 9/23/69 to be consistent with the intent of 10. CFR
$0.3II.
Reference'emorandum (2) discusses this requirement as it applies to the, Hutchinson Island. application.
I
'.Me have revie~red the recently submitted. (12/II/69) revised. preliminary tech-nical specifications for Hutchinson Island. and. have again conc1uded. that they do not meet the requirement for a CP preliminary technical specifica-tion.
The Hutchinson Island. document is merely an outline of those fea-tures, characteristics and. conditions which the applicant presently contemplates will comprise the technical specifications under which the proposed. plant will operate.
Although the staff does not yet have a model CP technical specification
- document, we are currently revie~ring submittals for Beaver Valley, North Anna'o.. 1 and 2, and. Millstone Point No. 2, all of vhich have shown to be more responsive than Hutchinson Island.
It should. be noted. that although the Pacific Gas and. Electric Company application antcdates 10 CFR 50.3II (amended,),
the ASLB during the pre-hearing for Diablo Canyon No. 2 requested.
information regarding the applicant's preliminary technical specifications.
Based.
on the above, it has been observed. that there is a lack of uniform interpretation regarding, the requirement, for a preliminary techni,cal specification at the CP stage of the reviev.
To reiterateF as discussed.
r
D..,J.
Skovholt PECS 3
1969 P review should. be policy has been established by P. A. Norris.
The C
consonant with this policy.
- earlier, an interpretation of l0 CFH 50.34 has been made and, a. Division cc:
M. M. Mann, DR P.
A. Norris, D/DRL F. Schroeder, D.Dir/DRL S. Levine, AD/HT, DHL R.
S.
Boyd,, AD/RP, DRL Branch Chiefs, DHL D. Fischer, RPB j/l, DHL R. A. Birkel Operational Safety Branch,, DRL
g///@QZ>0 ~
QzgP Distribution Sheet Distri58.txt Priority: Normal From: Stefanie Fountain Action Recipients:
K Jabbour Internal Recipients:
RidsRgn2MailCenter RGN2.
/DIP MAL ILE CENTER 01 ACRS External Recipients:
NOAC Copies:
Paper Copy OK Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Total Copies:
Item: ADAMS Document Library: ML ADAMS"HQNTAD01 ID: 003689338:1
Subject:
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2-Termination of Operator License Body:
ADAMS DISTRIBUTION NOTIFICATION.
Electronic Recipients can RIGHT CLICKand OPEN the first Attachment to View the Document in ADAMS. The Document may also be viewed by searching for Accession Number ML003689338.
M003 - Operator Requalification Program Docket: 05000335 Page 1
q~~<)ly93
Docket: 05000389 Distri58.txt Page 2
0
Florida Power &Light Company,6351 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL34957 March 1, 2000 L-2000-045 10 CFR 50.74 10 CFR 2.790 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn.: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
=r Termination of 0 erator License Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.74(a), please terminate the Operator License listed below:
Docket No.
55-22255 License No.
OP-21236 Name
- Johnson, C. P.
Effective February 14, 2000, Mr. Johnson no longer requires an operator license in the performance of his duties.
This letter contains personal information, the disclosure of which would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(a)(6), we request that this correspondence be withheld from public disclosure.
Please contact us ifthere are any questions regarding this matter.
'I Very truly yours, Rajiv S. Kundalkar Vice President St. Lucie Plant RSK/spt a
cc:
Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region II Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant Harold O. Christensen, USNRC, Region II an FPL Group company
b
Distribution Sheet Distri25.txt
@ ssPrg Q/jp/goaD Priority: Normal From: Patricia Exum Action Recipients:
K Jabbour Internal Recipients:
RGN2.
NRR/D ILE CENTER 01 "C
External Recipients:
NOAC t
Copies:
1 Paper Copy H
Paper Copy 1
Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Total Copies:
6 l
f, Item: ADAMS Document Library: ML ADAMS"HQNTAD01 ID: 003685471'1
Subject:
Letter terminating the operator license OP-21238 for S. R. Shaffer, pursuant to 10CFR50.
74(b). Effective February 4, 2000 the above individual was no longer employed by Flori da Power & Light Company.
Body:
ADAMS DISTRIBUTION NOTIFICATION.
Electronic Recipients can RIGHT CLICKand OPEN the firstAttachment to View the Document in ADAMS. The Document may also be viewed by searching for Accession Number ML003685471.
M003 - Operator Requalification Program Page 1
0 I
Docket: 05000335 Docket: 05000389 Distri25.txt Page 2
Florida Power 5 Light Company,6351 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL34957 February 14, 2000 L-2000-037 10 CFR 50.74 10 CFR 2.790 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn.: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 Termination of 0 erator License Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.74(b), please terminate the Operator License listed below:
Docket No.
55-21690 License No.
OP-21238 Name Shaffer, S. R.
Effective February 4, 2000, the above individual is no longer employed by Florida Power 8c Light Company.
This letter contains personal information, the disclosure of which would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(a)(6), we request that this correspondence be withheld from public disclosure.
Please contact us ifthere are any questions regarding this matter.
E Very truly yours, Rajiv S. Kundalkar Vice President St. Lucie Plant RSK/spt cc:
Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region II Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant Harold O. Christensen, USNRC, Region II an FPL Group company H<Cjg98&97
(
Distribution Sheet Distri82.txt Priority: Normal From: Stefanie Fountain Action Recipients:
W Gleaves NRR/DLPM/LPD2-2 Copies:
Not Found 1
Not Found Internal Recipients:
~ RGN 2.FILE 01 NRR/DIPM/OLHP CE E
ACRS External Recipients:
NRC PDR NOAC Not Found 1
Not Found Not Found Not Found Not Found Not Found Total Copies:
Item: ADAMSDocument Library: ML ADAMS"HQNTAD01 ID: 993240367
Subject:
Letter requesting that additional restrictions be added to senior operator license SOP-2 1031 for W. J. Casias.
Body:
PDR ADOC 05000335 V Docket: 05000335, Notes: N/A Docket: 05000389, Notes: N/A Page 1
Florida Power 5 Light Company, 635i S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach. FL 34957 FPL Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Mr. Harold O. Christensen Chief, Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Atlanta, Georgia 30303 November 9, 1999 L-99-237 10 CFR 2.790 10 CFR 50.74 10 CFR 55.23(b) 10 CFR 55.25 Re:
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 Chan e in Licensed 0 erator Medical Status Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.25 and 10 CFR 55.23(b), please add additional restrictions to the Senior Operator License listed below.
Docket No.
55-20977 License No.
SOP-21031 Name Casias, WilliamJ.
The attached NRC Form 396 describes the additional restrictions.
By copy of this letter, FPL is providing the 10 CFR 50.74(c) required notification of a change in the medical status ofa licensed operator.
The attachment contains personal and medical information, the disclosure of which would clearly constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(a)(6), we request that the attachment'be withheld from public disclosure.
Very truly yours, J. A. Stall Vice President St. Lucie Plant JAS/spt Attachment ggooaas V'c:
~ Document Control Desk, USNRC, Washington, D.C. (w/o encl.)
Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant (w/o encl.)
an FPL Group company
~ ~
~
?
l 1
(i