ML19309F662
| ML19309F662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309F661 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004300285 | |
| Download: ML19309F662 (2) | |
Text
0004800 % ( [
,s y
c, UNITED STATES f Yp. [* 'e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'-' c i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 sl4 -* h, bl/l
%....9 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO A"ENDMENT !;0. 42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. OPR-24 AND AMEl;DMENT NO. 47 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 Int roducti on Ey letter dated July 10, 1979, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the licensee) requested a change to the Point Beach fluclear Plant Technical Specifications. This change would upgrade the qualifications of the Site Health Physicist (Radiation Protection Manager).
Evaluation The proposed change in Technical Specifications 15.6.3.2 and 15.6.3.3 delineates the mininun requirements for the position of the Site Health Dhysicist.
Sections 15.6.3.2.(a), (b) and (c) conform to the regulatory Josition of Regulatory Guide 1.8 and are therefore acceptable.
Section 15.6.3.2.(d), however, proposes that a candidate for the site Radiation
'rotection Manager (RPM) having a bachelor's degree in health physics (HP), radiological health '(RH) or radiation protection (RP) need only have two years of professional experience in applied radiation protection in a nuclear facility dealing with radiological problems similar to those encountered in nuclear power plants in lieu of the five years recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.8.
With an advanced degree (e.g., Masters or Ph.D) in HP, RH or RP, the candidate need only have 1 year of this professional experience.
The staff did not agree with the licensee's position and proposed that a candidate having a BS in HP, RH or RP should have a miniren of three years of applicable professional experience, while a candidate with a Masters or Ph.D in these subject areas should have a mininum of two years of applicable experience.
With this education and experience, the staff felt that the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.8 would be more closely followed since a professional degree in health physics provides technical experience in solving problems dealing with radiation dosinetry, shielding, biological effects, instrumentation theory, etc.
The licensee agreed with the staff's position, and the Technical Specifications have been revised ac m dingly.
N
. Additionally, Section 15.6.3.3 of the Technical Specifications would provide for the appointment of an RPM in the event that an individual does not reet the qualifications of Section 15.6.3.2 but is otherwise well qualified (e.g.,
a non-degreed health physicist certified in reactor health physics by the American Board of Health Physics).
In this case, HRC staff concurrence in approval of the individual would be required.
This Technical Specification is therefore acceptable to the staff since we recognize that it is difficult to provide specifications that include very exceptional people who may not meet the exact reconmendations of Regulatory Guide 1.8 but are otherwise well qualified and therefore would meet the intent of that Guide.
i Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and
' will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having r.ade this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant froc,he standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do riot involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) i there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Conmission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and. safety of the public.
Date: March 19,1980 l
l l
l