ML19256D259
| ML19256D259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1967 |
| From: | Birkel R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Grimes B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910170771 | |
| Download: ML19256D259 (2) | |
Text
3,y-2
- c 3;,,, ;7 ;,19 g Re. ---.Y l ;..-i l - I'.cx;cn, Chicf rz.
- . f.
TE.A r
Lperational'.5 fety branch, EEL Ealph A. Eir'.:el Operaticnal Safety Eranch, E C.
EEP:1ITA': ZOIECU..
- Z._E.iILE 13L,.';D J';II.;2.1 DCCET 30 50-22?
The PSAR for the subject applic:: tion and in particular h:endment No. 4 have been reviewed with the intent of establishing a ecnstructicn perrit staff finding in the areas of technical ccepetence, persennel training and organization and emergency planning. Our review has resulted in an affir:sative finding in the areas cited.
Several specific ecuments however are provided for possible discussion with the applicant on December 14.
Since the engineering organisation chart (fig.1-13) has a.
been significantly revised, several relationships and functicns require same clarification. These would include ecc: position, function, authority and rssponsibility of the Nuclear Design Review Ecard and the System Technical Staff; inter-elationship of VP Engineering and Director Nuclear Power Activities; final responsibility and authcrity of Plant Superintendent, Superintendent of Production and Project Manager, Director NPA vis-a-vis Chief Engineer and VP Engineering.
b.
It would be apprcpriate to have a clear statement as to who has the ulti ate responsibility fer ecnstruction and pcst-constructicn inscection, acceptance criteria, surveillance, quality contrcl and testing; "ston and resume" authority; approval of inspection procedures; quality assurance progras during fabricatien and installation; previding and maintaining a materials and equiptent schedule during construction.
Although the review and audit precedure appears adequate c.
(patterned fran Cyster Creek) the interrelatienchip between
- ^^ " -' --
a
.a.
v u,-,
z...:i-I l
OFFICE >
I SURNAME >.
E a... 2/
z..
_._,._,,_,, q g 5 0=1 -
e.
nm.uc.m m,..
- 3. Grbes Decenber 12, 19 @
Scard should be identif4 *d M so, the use of cutsid'
- ncultant; ch2' J c'ir
.c d.
Ihc caer;;cncy plan as provided to Question 131 was excepticnally well prepared and ver/ adequate for a CP stage review.
Several ecr.ments may h: wever be approcriate.
the Radiatic.n Frotection Jupe-visor has the ultimate rcsp:nsibility to implement the plan yet his trainin; and experience in healt' chysics and station operati:n is not defined and the Station Organizaticn Chart (fig.12.1) indicates that he is nct a ecllege graduate.
A statement regarding his immediate availability to the station on weekends and backshifts veuld be desirable as well as provisions for his alternate / designee.
the intent is not clear regarding evacuatien of statien employees vs. plant operators due to plant location, only one evacuation route is available, i.e. via bridge; an alternate means (noter launch) should be censidered the ccaposition and availability of the emergency menitoring team should be defined.
00:
D. J. Skc chelt, EE1
?00R ORGNAL 2 5trih'It'0"*
Suppl 2 D?i. Reading CS3 L ading 1450 127 CmCE >... $hkk kh__.
ph t
c, T h e.n -
l
...-a-+.t.,'.e'
- 90
e
$URNAME>
' t r.t.t.r - -
o ;;- ?..s n..
i
,oj9 i;-
l
- O / *-*'7 / 4-l r
DATE > !..., w s.e ~. r /
-~. ' '
- Ebrm AEC-318 (Rev. 9-L.
gagg,mpra e-v m