ML19210B224
| ML19210B224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1974 |
| From: | Schwencer A US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Arnold R METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911040167 | |
| Download: ML19210B224 (3) | |
Text
.
(
Docket No. 50-289 D
Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN: !!r. Robert C. Arnold Vice President P. O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 i
Centlemen:
We have reviewe.1 the operator requalification program for Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station as submitted in Amendment 47 to the Final Safety Analysis Report for Unit 1.
Based on our review, we find that program acceptable subject to incorporation or satisfaction of the coments listed in the enclosure to this letter.
Originsi 51gned 17 i'
A. Schwencer, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
Cournents on Three Mile Island Operator Requalification Progran ec: George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 910 17th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 DISTRIBUTION:
AEC PDR OGC LFDR R0 (3) docket File PCollins VAMoore JHolman DEisenhut RBernero EGoulbourne LWR 2-3 Reading RKlecker
}L}'[ 2g[
ACRS (16) d 5 Extra
.X.7ES5/.LW3..2.-3...L.;.Q/ LWR.2-3 o m c:.
/hb$-
..d$.f) sUP AME b h@EUREQICdh..
CJllaTA ' P T" 1
4 r..... 3/b/7.4..
. 38. 1.7.4.....
., u n
.y
.u...a 4o 7911040/67 8
C030fENTS ON THREE MILE ISLED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM Revisions are referenced to the appropriate sections of the Three Mile Island submittal in Amend =ent 47 to the Unit 1 Final Safety Analysis Report, Appendix 12B.
II A.
The grade criterion should be 80% for determining that an individual requires additional training in a particular area or subject.
II B.
We believe it is inappropriate to commit the Atomic Energy Co= mission to supply specifics of our examination results to facility management. Therefore, the last sentence of the last paragraph should be deleted.
The FSR program is described as consisting of self-study assignments, possible tutorial sessions with designated technical instructors and evaluation quizzes. Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 55 specifically requires the indicated sub-jects to be part of a preplanned lecture series. In order to comply with the requirements of Appendix A, a statement should be included that no more than 50% of the FSR program may be accomplished through the means of films, videotapes and/or individual study.
The grade criterion for the FSR evaluation quiz should be 80% instead of 70%.
III.
The list of reactivity manipulations must be more definitive.
Ites 1 must be more accurately described.
Item 2 is accept-able only if it includes a startup to the point of adding heat and states this. Item 4 must be accomplished with the reactor control system in manual. Item 5 is not considered an acceptable reactivity manipulation.
It should be specifically stated that the additional operations listti are not considered to be reactivity manipu-lations for credit.
The program, as described, is designed to be administered on site. However, the program states that a simulator may be used in meeting the on-the-job training section of the program. We would consider the use of a simulator to be a significant Cc _, pursuant to Section 10 CFR Part 50.54(1-1).
Consequently, we would have to review the plan prior to implementation.
n bb
\\ "b 'D I
.~.
Three Mile Island IV.
The second item of the standards applying to the annual written evaluation examinations should be revised to show 80% as the mini =um category grade on the annual written examination.
An additional criterion should be added to the four standards listed on page 123-8, so that if an individual receives a grade of less than 70% overall on the annual examination it should be mandatory that he be placed 'in an accelerated requalification program. His participation in the accelerated program should be such that it would preclude performing licensed duties.
The duration and course content, of course, must be determined in each case.
VI. A certification of a satisfactory rating must be made to the AEC prior to the individual's return to licensed duties.
.VIII.
It is not appropriate for the Atomic Energy Commission to be co=mitted to supply any infor=ation to the facility regarding an individual other than a license or denial letter. We believe that there are sufficient facility evaluations available immediately prior to the administration of our examinations to determine the need for additional training. Therefore, the 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph should be deleted.
1567 2u9