ML19317E989
| ML19317E989 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1972 |
| From: | Peltier I US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Deyoung R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317E990 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001070787 | |
| Download: ML19317E989 (2) | |
Text
~
i 9
JUN 6 1972 Docket Nos. 50-26 50-270 and 50-237 D**0
- 'O mtjYy, bc
- $. J e
o R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Presourised Water Reactors, L TICIU:
A. Schwencer, Chief, Pressurized Water Reactors Branch No. 4, L PANAGE!ENT POSITION ON OCONEE 1, 2, AND 3 STAFFING PlQUI22 D TS FOR OPZRATING SHIFT C2EWS Bach 3round In a P. A. F. orris to Duke Power Company letter dated February 13, 1970, copy enclosed, we took a position regardin;; the staffing of the
'ini - shift crews for Oconee Unit 1 operation and gave our thinking at that time with regard to mini =um crew size for Units 2 and 3 operation.
A final position was held open until such time as Duke took the i
opportunity to present ar;;usents in support of acaller crews.
Proposed Position In the upcoming June 15, 1972 meeting with Duke at 3ethesda on this subject we intend to hold to the position stated in the enclosed Van Niel to Peltier meno, dated May 31, 1972, unless Duke can present overwhelming evidence that smaller crew sises are justified.
- fana;;ement concurrence in this position is requested prior to June 15, 1972.
Original Signed by Irvin: A. pejuer I. A. Peltier, Project Leader Pressurized Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Directorate of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
P.L'Iorris ltr to Duke dtd 2/13/70 2.
CRVan Niel mesmo to IAPoltier dtd 5/31/72 DISTRIBUTION cc:
A. Schwencer Docket (3) upson PWR-4 Reading
{
C. R. Van Niel L Reading I. A. Peltier (2)
PWR-4,,,,, ',,,,,, I.:P,$h4..f.j y/..e omet>
ASchwe(ncer
\\,.
p' IAPeltier:emp suanaut >
DATE >
.b.!.........
so f
.7....
ror. Atc.no <aev.9-m Ascx ono
- v. s. cortmm nmx, emer, im o. as.m
)'
)
2 February 13, 1970 Duke Power Company
_.e D3 Because the Oconee Unit 1 steam generators will be the first full-scale produ. tion units of this design, we have concluded that measure-ments should be made of the actual vibratory motions of the steam generators during preoperational testing and during initial power operation. Your plans for such measurements should be submitted for our review.
As we discussed with your representatives at the November meeting, since each unit in your complex will be phased into service at approx-imately yearly intervals, the overall Oconee Station operating organi-zation will undergo several changes during this period. A detailed discussion of the organizational functions and administrative controls during the transition period encompassing the activation of each unit should be provided for our review.
For the initial operation of Oconee Unit 1, we have concluded that a minimum of five men will be required for each shift crew, including one Senior Licensed Operator and two persons with Operator Licenses.
Af ter significant operating experience has been obtained, we will con-sider a smaller shif t crew size if it can be shown that fewer men can perform all normal and emergency functions in accordance with estab-lished and proven procedures.
For operation of Units 1 and 2 which share a common control room, our current thinking is that a minimum of eight men per shif t crew is f
required, including two Senior Licensed Operators, and three persons with Operator's Licenses.
Our present thinking is that operation of all three units would require l
a total shift crew complement of twelve men. Assuming overall facility operation is under the direction of a single supervisor, three Senior Licensed Operators and four Licensed Operators would be required in addition to the supporting auxiliary operators.
In this case, each licensed operator is assumed to hold a license valid on each unit in order to achieve maximum flexibility.
Serious consideration should also be given to providing an Instrumentation & Controls Technician
.for overall site support. on a shif t basis.
3 5efore taking final positions on the required staffing for multiunit operation, we would be pleased to meet with you and consider any addi-tional information you have developed which would support a smaller j
crew size.
As indicated during our discussions in November,1969, we would expect such information to include an assessment of the miniaum shif t manpower necessary during periods of abnormal or emergency operation.
m,
%