ML19340A242
| ML19340A242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1975 |
| From: | Zech G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 751010, NUDOCS 8001140861 | |
| Download: ML19340A242 (4) | |
Text
,
UNITED' ST ATES
..VCt.E AR REGULATORY. COMMISSION r>-a.m W ASHING TON, D.
C.' 20555
' October '10, 1975
' DOCKET NOS.:
.50-269/270/287
~DATE:
LICENSEE:
Duke P r Company (DPC)
Oconee Units 1,., and 3 FACILITY:
SUhNARY OF' MEETING HELD ON OFTOBER -2,1975, TO DISCUSS Tile QUALIFICATION REQUIREMEFTS OF REVIEW AND AUDIT PERSO
.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 ti. e m
d the
. Specific liscussions were also directed towar review unit.
qualification requirements of the members of the proposed unit.
A list.of attendees is enclosed.
Significant point., are discussed below.
The licensee was informed that tr.eir proposed amendment of June 19, 1975, had been reviewed and that with the exception of questions we had regarding the qualifications of review and audit personnel and the proposed formation 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 We advised the licensee that it was our view that a person unit.
performing review and audit functions should have a minimum of 5 years professional work experience in the discipline or specialty heThis requirement is represents, in' addition to an appropriate degree. intended to qu 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 A maximum of four years of this seven in one or more specific areas.
These require-
. years could be academic or related technical training.ments a acceptable requirements.
.c
\\ ' p 1s-f a
$001140[g[
. October 10, 1975 With respect to the qualification requirements 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 including three years nucicar 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.
The licensee responded to the above remarks by describing the intendeo 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 remain in their present jobe, performing the review function as an added responsibility. 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 functian and to include certain restraints on the authority of the supervisor of the unit so as to ensure consensus consideration of safety-related activities rather than unilateral decisions by a single individual. 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.
Gary G. Zech, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
List of Attendees cc: See next page W
4 LIST OF ATTENDEES _
FOR DUKE POWER COMPAN_Y OCTOBER 2, 1975 NRC D. J. Skovholt F. R. Allenspach R. A. Purple G. Zech S. M. Sheppard DUKE POWER COMPANT_
D. Holt M. Tuckman E. Blakeman I
)
Declad file ED-500 3 -
October 10, 1975 Meeting Summary for Duke Power Co.
l cc:
Licensee H. Denton NRC PDR B. Grimes Local PDR M. B. Spangler R. C. DeYoung R. L. Ballard D. B. 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 I
R. H. Vollmer D. Eisenhut R. W. Houston K. P. Coller 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. Regan S. Varga T. J. Carter R. Heinecan 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
'