ML19332E431
| ML19332E431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332E430 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912070216 | |
| Download: ML19332E431 (4) | |
Text
1,7 *.[ 7
'.i...u\\
UNITED STATES '
c.,
-I
[]
~{
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
usmuctow. o. c. rosss t.....~
5:rg;Y EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
- 3ELAJEDTOAMENDMENTNO.43TOFACILITYOPERATINGLICENSEN0.DPR-80 E
AND AMENDMENT NO. 42 TO FACIllTY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-82 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NO. 50-275 AND 50-323 q
i L
- rpr:T:cm Ey letter datedMarch,20,1989(ReferenceLAR89-02),assupplementedby letter cated June 29, 1989, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or the licensee? recuestec: amendments.to the combined Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License' Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for the R
Eintic Caryon Power Flant (DCPP), Unit Nos. I and 2, respectively. The j
v er.dments as proposed would have changed TS Section 6.0, " Administrative i
Centreis," regarding the General Office Nuclear Plant Review and Audit Committee (GONPRAC) membership, operating personnel working hours and limits, the plant staff cualifications and training program, and. routine ar.d special reports, f
The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed changes and finds acceptable.the l
changes that are applicable to the GONPRAC, and to routine and special i
reports.
The. other proposed changes are unacceptable and are hereby denied. The bases for the staff's findings for each proposed change are given bElow.
l The submittal dated June 29, 1989 withdrew the previously proposed change in the title of one-of the GONPRAC members. This change does not significantly alter the action noticed or affect the initial
'i determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff has reviewed the TS changes proposed by the licensee and finds some of them acceptable, and some of them unacceptable, based on the j
following evaluation:
A.
Section 6.2.2 - Organization o
U PG&E proposed two changes to TS Section 6.2.2.f regarding the l -
administrative procedures that limit working hours. The licensee 8912070216 890719 PDR ADOCM 05000275 P-PNU 4
- i. : '., i.;.;
2-proposed to revise the statement that "The objective shall be to have L
operating personnel work a normal 8-hour day 40-hour week while the
(
. unit is operating." This would be changed to 'The objective shall be
- to have operating personnel work a nominal 40-hour week while the unit 4is operating." The licensee also proposed to change the statement.that "An individual should not be permitted to work... more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in any 48-hour period..." This would be changed to "an f
individual should not be permitted to work...more then-28. hours in anyl48-hours period..."
f These' changes.were proposed to allow the use of a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift rotation... We find the change to a nominal 40-hour week acceptable p
L because-it is' consistent with past approvals on this subject, and will,lby'itself, allow the licensee to use a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift rotation.
We find the requested change to allow working 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> in a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period not acceptable, on the basis that the Comission Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours (46 FR 23836) states that an individual should not be permitted to work more than 224 hours0.00259 days <br />0.0622 hours <br />3.703704e-4 weeks <br />8.5232e-5 months <br /> ir. any 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period.
Accordingly, the latter change is.
- hereby der.ied.
L E.
Section 6.3 - Plant Staff Qualifications In this section, three changes were proposed.
(1) PG&E proposed that the requirement in-TS Section 6.3 that each member of the plant staff l
shall meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of ANSI N18.11971 be changed to ANSI /ANS 3.1-1978.
(2) PG&E proposed that the requirement L
that the. Radiation Protection Manager meet or exceed the p'
Qualifications recommended by. Regulatory Guide 1.8,"" Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,-September 1975 i
be changed to reference Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, April 1987.
(3) PG&E proposed to delete the statement that "The licensed Operators and Senior Operators shall also meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of the supplemental requirements specified in Sections A and C of Enclosure 1 of the March 28, 1980, NRC letter to i,
l all licensees." P6&E proposed to replace this with the statement
[~
that "The licensed Operators and Senior Operators shall also meet or exceed the minimum qualifications of 10 CFR Part 55."
i L
l We find the first two changes acceptable on the basis that they meet L
current staff requirements. We find the last change partially unacceptable, because 10 CFR Part 55 does not specify the p
qualifications for eligibility for taking an Operator or Senior Operator examination, which the existing TS covers by referencing uE Section A of Enclosure 1 of the March 28, 1980 letter. On the other hand, Part-55 does address operator requalification, thereby superseding Section C of Enclosure I to the March 28, 1980 letter, p
On this basis, we find acceptable the substitution of 10 CFR Part 55 i
for Section C of Enclosure I to the March 28, 1980 NRC letter. On i
[
the same basis, we find unacceptable and hereby deny the proposed i-deletion from the TS of the requirement to meet Section A of l to the March 28, 1980 NRC letter.
--m
=-
-+'e'--v-e v
we
=+w-wre w
W-er4-, * ' - - --
,m-+
--e
=w-w-
--v-w e-w
-one a y
- f. J
- 4.
t T. -.
Section 6.4 - Training PG$E proposed to change the statement in TS Section 6.4 that "A retraining and replacement training program for the plant staff
-...shall meet or exceed the requirements and reconmendations of Section 5.5 of ANSI N18.1-1971 and Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 55 and the supplemental requirements specified in Sections A and C of of the March 28, 1980..NRC letter to all licensees, and include familiarization with relevant industry operational experience." The licensee proposed to replace this with the statement that."A retraining and replacement training program for the plant staff...shall-meet or exceed the requirements of 10 CFR Fert 55.
We fir.d this proposed change acceptable except for the deletion of Section 5.5 of ANSI N18.1-1971.
The reference to 10 CFR Part 55 is acceptable ~to the extent it covers the training of licensed operators. The deletion of the reference to Section 5.5 of AhS' NIE.1-1971, is unacceptable, because that section applies to the entire plant staff, while 10 CFR Part 55 applies only to the retreir.ing of licensed operators.
On this basis, the deletion of reference to Section 6.5 of ANSI N18.1-1971 is hereby denied.
2.
Secticr. C.E.3.2 - General Office Nuclear Plant Review and Audit Co=ittee (GONPRAC) - Composition PG&E-requested that the. Plant Manager, Diablo Canyon Power Plant be
~
added as a member of the GONPRAC committee.
In its March 20, 1989 t
subrittal, PG&E requested that the title of committee member Manger, L
Station Construction be changed to Manager, Station and Hydro i-Construction.
By letter dated June 29, 1989, PG&E withdrew the L
-reouest for the change in committee member title. Therefore, the committee member title change is not included in these amendments.
We find the addition of the Plant Manager to the GONPRAC to be acceptable on the basis that it conforms to the Standard Technical l'
. Specifications.
E.
Section~6.9 - Reporting Requirements L
PG&E proposed that references to the NRC Office to which reports L
shall be submitted in TS Sections 6.9.1, 6.9.1.7, 6.9.1.8, and 6.9.2 L
be revised to' state that reports will be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4.
We find these proposed changes acceptable because they they meet the Contrission's regulations, specifically,10 CFR 50.4.
p
.[,
s.
y.,.
Eased en the above, the'NRC staff finds acceptable the proposed revisions
~
to T5 Section.6,0, " Administrative Controls, that involve changes in the General Office Nuclear Plant Review and Audit Comittee (GONPRAC) membership and in routine and special reports. The other proposed
. changes, relating to operating personnel working hours and limits. and the plant' staff qualifications and training program, are unacceptable and are T
hereby denied.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes in administrative requirements.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility (criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c) 10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), tio environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
f.: CON:LL'5 :0N The NRC-staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, thet:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by ooeration-in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's reculations and-(3) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to'tne common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
IL Crincipal' Contributors:
Frederick R. A11enspach Harry Rood j'
Dated:
July 19, 1939 l
-