ML19330A169
| ML19330A169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1970 |
| From: | Skovholt D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150940 | |
| Download: ML19330A169 (1) | |
Text
Gu,,4., Q
/.
..V i
QWJ L JJ j) >
g';.%,4g..\\? M ATOM!C ENERGY COMMISSION umTro suT:s A/
3
- . 6 )-
f.-
4 1
WASHINGTON. O.C.
20545 THIS DOCUME T CONTAINS
/
POOR QUALTY PAGES ON
./ y-P. A. Morris, Director, DRL OPERATOR LICENSING AT MULTI-UNIT STATIONS In anticipation of the advent of operational multi-unit power stationsr during the summer of 1969, we reviewed the characteristics of such suations from the standpoint of operator and senior operator performance and demonstration of competence under Part 55.
We then proposed a policy, subsequently adopted, to be followed regarding examinations at such stations.
In particular, we focused on the extent of the examination that would be appropriate for an operator who.is already licensed on one unit at the time he applies for licensing on a subsequent unit.
As indicated in the general policy, we concluded that a fairly complete scope of examination would be necessary when the two units under con-sideration were of different technologies, e.g., Peach Botton Units 1 and 2, as compared to two units of similar technologies but substantially different size and/or vender design, e.g.,
Indian Points 1 and 2.
We further indicated that when the two units were almost identical, in that they were the same vendor design and power rating, even less examination l
would be necessary.
However, it appeared at that time that even if the licensee intended to rake both units identical in all respects, the time lag of 9 to 18 months in commissioning the second unit probably would see changes in the second unit.
These could occur because of technological developments, revisions to regulatory policy, and operating expericace of the first unit; therefore the two units would probably not b ' truely identical.
Experience during the last year now indicates to us that it is quite possible that in some situations the two units will be virtually identical.
l The regulatory staff and the ACRS are routinely effecting reviews of tuin units at one time and the Commission's backfit policy is being strictly 1
implemented.
Further, delays in first unit operation because of public hearings are shortening the time between units. Consequently, we have reconsidered the situation and have concluded that if the two units are identical in all significant respects and if the operator's performance in
- a. licensed capacity during his tenure on the first unit has been satisfactory, it would be appropriate, and consistent with Part 55 provisions, for us to consider a complete waiver of examination in connection with his licensing gon the w ond anit.
Appropriate documentation in support of these indgments
- Iwe'id be required as part of the application for licensing on the second unit.
wh.
h4 Donald J. Skovholt
/
800Mg Assistant Director for Reactor Operations Division of Reactor Licensing v
-