ML19329A355
| ML19329A355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1975 |
| From: | Zech G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001020937 | |
| Download: ML19329A355 (4) | |
Text
O00 M TI[C
,4~
[0-G 69 Meeting Summary for Duke Power Co.
October 10, 1975 3
cc:
Licensee H. Denton NRC PDR B. Grimes Local PDR M. B. Spangler R. C. DeYoung R. L. Ballard D. E. Vassallo J. Kastner W. R. Bulter W. P. Gammill O. D. Parr Project Manager V. A. Moore Attorney, OELD J. F. Stolz OIGE (3)
K. Kniel S. M. Sheppard A. Schwencer NRC Participants D. J. Skovholt R. Fraley, ACRS (16)
P. F. Collins T. B. Abernathy, DTIE R. H. Vollmer D. Eisenhut R. W. Houston K. R. Goller R. A. Purple D. L. Ziemann G. Lear R. Reid R. P. Denise R. A. Clark T. P. Speis D. R. Muller G. W. Knighton G. K. Dicker B. J. Youngblood W. H. Ragan S. Varga T. J. Carter R. Heineman R. L. Tedesco J. Collins G. Lainas V. Benaroya R. R. Maccary J. P. Knight S. S. Pawlicki L. C. Shao V. Stello D. F. Ross T. M. Novak T. A. Ippolito 5
t
(
~,
8001020f37
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CJ ASHIN GTCN, D. C. 20555 DOCKET NOS.:
50-269/270/287 DATE: October 10, 1975 LICENSEE:
Duke Power Company (DPC)
FACILITY:
Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 SUWARY OF MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 2, 1975, TO DISCUSS THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF REVIEW AND AUDIT PERSONNEL FOR OCONEE UNITS 1, 2, 6 3 On October 2, 1975, representatives of Duke Power Company met with the NRC staff to discuss the licensee's proposed amendment to the Oconee Technical Specifications which would reassign the review and audit function from a committee responsibility to a full time review unit. Specific discussions were also directed toward the qualification requirements of the members of the proposed unit.
t A list of attendees is enclosed.
Significant points are discussed below.
The licensee was informed that their proposed amendment of June 19, 197S, had been reviewed and that with the exception of questions we had regarding the qualifications of review and audit personnel and the proposed formaticn of a review unit to replace the existing review committee, the proposed amendment had been found to be acceptable.
It was pointed out to the licensee that the proposed shift from the existing committee method of performing the required review and audit functions raised several questions regarding the comparative qualification requirements of the members of the new review and audit unit. We advised the licensee that it was our view that a person performing review and audit functions should have a minimum of 5 years professional work experience in the discipline or specialty he represents, in addition to an appropriate degree. This requirement is intended to quantify the provisions of section 4.2.2.3 of ANSI N18.7 which calls for " extensive experience."
The proposed amendment by the licensee would require that personnel assigned to the review and audit unit have a minimum of seven years of technical experience, of which a minimum of three years would be in one or more specific areas. A maximum of four years of this seven years could be academic or related technical training. These require-ments are less than those described above and are not considered to be acceptable requirements.
t
.l
, October 10, 1975 With respect to the qualification requiremcats of the supervisor of the proposed review and audit unit, the licensee's amendment would require that the requirements be the same as those for the members of the proposed unit, i.e., seven years technical experience, four of which could be academic or related technical training.
We advised the licensee that we felt that the supervisor of a full time unit would have considerably more authority than a committee chairman for making unilaterial decisions on review and audit activities, and, therefore, we felt that the supervisor should be a person of considerable experience. Specifically, our criteria for such a position is a minimum of ten years professional work experience int luding three years nuclear plant design and/or operations, in addition to an appropriate degree.
We indicated that the experience and education requirements were not completely inflexible and that, in the case of review unit members, appropriate consideration would be given, for example, to allow credit for the years spent in obtaining an advanced degree.
)
l The licensee responded to the above remarks by describing the intended procedures by which the proposed review and audit unit would function.
From this description, it appeared that the members of the review unit would be people who would rerain in their present jobs, performing the review function as an add.ed responsibilf'y.
Only the supervisor, and perhaps one or two other people, would be full time dedicated to the review and audit function.
It thus appeared that the review unit, as envisioned by the licensee, was not significantly different in concept from a committee operation. Accordingly, it was possible that we could find that the qualifications of the supervisor could be less than described above. The licensee agreed to revise his submittal to more clearly describe the operating characteristics of the review and audit function and to include certain restraints on the authority of the supervisor of the unit so as to ensure consensus consideration of safety-related a*tivities rather than unilateral decisions by a single individuti. The licensee's resubmittal will also propose a specified minimum number of member-qualified personnel so as to meet the areas of technical expertise listed in Section 4.2.2.2 of ANSI N18.7.
1Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI N18.7.</br></br>1" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. Gary G. Zech, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
1.ist of Attendees cc: See next page
)
j m+
.,1
,s-
.i-LIST OF ATTENDEES FOR DUKE POWER COMPANY OCTOBER 2, 1975 NRC D. J. Skovholt F. R. A11enspach R. A. Purple G. Zech S. M. Sheppard
' l--
DUKE POWER COMPANY D. Holt M. Tuckman i
E. Blakeman i
e i
EA,; - (.
LS-