ML20044H036
| ML20044H036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044H031 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306070256 | |
| Download: ML20044H036 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.- - .e l o u, 0 S UNITED STATES -{ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /- wAssiwatow; o.c. 20sss-oooi g..... f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 154 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-13 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON' COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN ON0FRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-206
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letter of January 15, 1993, and supplemented March 31, 1993, Southern ? California Edison Company (SCE or the licensee) submitted a request for a change to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No.1, Technical Specifications appended to facility Operating License No. DPR-13. The proposed changes would permit the licensee to replace the 10 CFR Part 55 ~ licensed operator program with an approved Fuel Handler Certification (FHC) program at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1.(SONGS 1) plant. 2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION As the result of an agreement. with the California Public Utilities Commission, l SONGS 1 was permanently shut down on November 30, 1992. -The reactor is ~' defueled and the fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool. Future operation of SONGS 1 is prohibited by license Amendment No.150, which. amended the Facility Operating License No. DPR-13 to remove the operating authority of the licensee and allows the licensee to possess but not operate SONGS 1. Amendment No. 150 became effective on March 9, 1993. With the reactor permanently defueled and future operation prohibited, the use of 10 CFR Part 55 licensed operators is not required by 10 CFR Part 50.54. In its letter dated January 15, 1993, the licensee proposed changes to its Technical Specifications related to operator qualifications and staffing requirements. This request, if approved, would permit the licensee to replace the 10 CFR Part 55 licensed operator program with an approved FHC program at SONGS 1. This reduction of operator qualifications and staffing requirements was requested based on the permanently defueled and shutdown status of SONGS 1. 1 The staff evaluation of each of the changes proposed by the licensee to the SONGS 1 Appendix A Technical Specifications is as follows: 9306070256 930527 DR ADOCK 0500 6 J
4 5. (1) Technical Specification 6.1.2 (Control Room Command Function) The existing specification assigns the " Control Room Command" function to the Shift Superintendent. The proposed change would assign _this function to a new position title, the Shift Supervisor. Evaluat 4 a: The licensee is creating the Shift Supervisor position to allow it flexibility to potentially eliminate the Shift Superintendent position. The person who fills the position of Shift Supervisor will be qualified as a 4 Certified Fuel Handler. Since the qualifications of the new position are appropriate for the permanently shut down and defueled condition of SONGS 1, this change is acceptable. j (2) Technical Specification 6.2.2.a and Table 6.2-1 (Operator OualificatJp_n1 and Staffino) Table 6.2-1 specifies minimum shift crew composition during the specific modes of operaticn. The licensee proposes to eliminate operation modes in Table 6.2-1. The licensee also proposes to reduce the required control room crew to two: 1) the Shift Supervisor, a certified fuel handler, and
- 2) the Shutdown Control Room Operator, a noncertified fuel handler.
The licensee also proposes changes to the procedare to address absence of the Shift Supervisor from the Control Room Area and redefinition of the Control Room Area. Evaluation: Amendment No. 150, the possession only license amendment, became effective on March 9, 1993. This amendment prohibits operation in modes "1" through "6". Therefore, the licensee proposes the elimination of mode dependent control room crew staffing requirements from Table 6.2-1. The staff ? considers this proposed change to be appropriate and finds it acceptable. The licensee proposes to reduce the minimum control room crew to two people. The bases provided by the licensee for this reduction were the reduced activities in the Control Room Area, and the increased time allowed to respond to plant defueled evolutions. The staff agrees with the assessment of the licensee of minimum control room crew staffing requirements for the permanently defueled status of SONGS 1 and this change is acceptable. The proposed change in the procedure to address absence of the Shift Supervisor from the Control Room Area reflects the changes in the composition and staffing levels of the control room crew. The proposed change is appropriate for the permanently defueled status of SONGS 1 and is therefore acceptable. (3) Technical Specification 6.2.2.b (Control Room Mannino) The existing specification requires that a licensed operator be at the controls when there is fuel in the reactor and provides an exception during refueling. The licensee proposes changes to reflect the use of nonlicensed operators and the permanently defueled status of SONGS 1. Evaluation: The proposed changes to specification 6.2.2.b are consistent with the changes proposed above in items (1) and (2). Therefore, the proposed changes to specification 6.2.2.b are acceptable for the reasons provided above in items (1) and (2). 1
(4)-Technical Specification 6.2.2.d' (Core Alterations)- 1 The existing specification requires that _ core alterations be observed.and j directly supervised by a-senior reactor operator (SRO) or an SRO-licensed in fuel handling. The licensee proposes to modify specification 6.2.2 d to require that fuel handling operations be observed and supervised by a _ s Certified Fuel Handler. l Evaluation: The basis provided by the licensee for this proposed _ change is l the permanently _ defueled status of SONGS 1; - As a result of the permanentlyo defueled status of SONGS 1 there will be no future core alterations at_ SONGS 1. Additionally, there will be no SR0 or SRO licensed in. fuel handling-at SONGS 1 for the reasons.provided above. Therefore,;the proposed changes to specification 6.2.2.d are acceptable. i l (5) Technical Specification 6.2.2.e-(Fire'Briaade Mannina) The existing specification requires that' the Shift'~ Superintendent and the- -two'other members of the minimum shift crew necessary for the safe-shutdown of the unit be excluded from fire brigade duties. The. licensee = proposes to change specification 6.2.2.e to be consistent with the title. change discussed above in proposed change (1) and the reduced _ control room -i l crew staffing requirements _ discussed above in proposed change (2). j i l Evaluation: The licensee noted that the proposed change will not affect the i ~ number of personnel available for. Fire Brigade manning, since a ' dedicated. site l Fire Department' is maintained which fulfills fire-brigade requirements for all three units on site. Based on the nonreduction of personnel for Fire Brigade l manning, the staff. finds this proposed change acceptable. 1 i l (6) Technical-Specification 6.2.2.f (Overtime Guidelines) l l, The existing specification lists the operator positions which are subject to overtime guidelines. The position-titles of the on-shift operator may change or be eliminated as a result of permanently defueled status 'of SONGS 1. The licensee proposes to change specification 6.2.2.f.to utilize a functional description of which operations personnel are subject to overtime limitations, rather that listing specific positions. Additionally the exemption for the Shift Technical Advisor- (STA) from i overtime limitations was deleted. Evaluation: The staff finds the propused change of specification 6.2.2.f, from personnel subject to overtime restrictions based on job-specific titles'. i to functional descriptions of operations department personnel, acceptable j based on the permanently defueled status of SONGS 1. Further, since the STA position is being deleted from the ' minimum control room; shift crew, the remo' val of the overtime exemption is also acceptable. (7) Technical Specification 6.2.2.a (Manaaement Oualifications) The existing specification requires that the Plant Superintendent (at the 1 time of appointment), the Assistant Plant Superintendent, the Shift L .,.,-s.g i leap P- 'eFw** g-M tda-W M"'
- CW"M"
Superintendent, and the Control Room. Supervisor. hold SR0 licenses. The existing specification also requires that the Control Operator and Assistant Control Operators hold reactor operator (RO) licenses. The licensee proposes to change specification 6.2.2.g to be consistent with the proposed elimination of 10 CFR Part 55 licenses and reduction of-control room shift crew staffing. Evalu'ation: The licensee proposes to change specification 6.2.2.g to require the Plant Superintendent to be a Certified Fuel Handler at time of appointment to the position or to have previously held an SRO license for the unit.- Staff finds this proposed change acceptable, based on the reason discussed above_ and i the permanently defueled status of SONGS-1. (8) Technical Specification 6.3.1 (Staffina 0ualifications) The existing specification requires ~ the Operations Manager to hold an SRO. The licensee plans to have the Operations Manager function fulfill the position of Plant Superintendent. Therefore', the licensee proposes to l change this specification to eliminate the requirement.for the person fulfilling the Plant Superintendent position to hold an SR0 license. ~ Additionally the licensee proposes to eliminate ~ the required STA qualifications from this specification. Evaluation: The staff find this proposed change acceptable for the reasons discussed above in proposed change (7). Further the staff finds the elimination of STA qualification requirements from this specification acceptable since the position of STA is being eliminated.from the control room l j minimum crew, discussed in proposed change (6). ~ (9) Technical Specification 6.4.1 (Trainina). l The existing specification requires that the unit staff retraining and replacement training program meet or. exceed certain requirements and recommendations, including those contained in Appendix A of 10 CFR I Part 55, and Sections A and C of Enclosure 1 to a March 28,-~1980, NRC letter. The licensee proposes to change this specification to remove the l requirement for the licensed operator.and senior operator' training programs to meet 10 CFR Part 55 and to add the requirement that Certified i Fuel Handlers be trained and qualified using the Certified Fuel Handler training proaram. Evaluation: In a letter dated January 15, 1993, SCE submitted a proposed " Certified Fuel Handler Certification and Recertification Training Program, Revision 1," _for NRC approval. The review of Revision I resulted in a telephone conversation between NRC and SCE on March 12, 1993. In a letter i dated March 31, 1993, SCE submitted the " Certified Fuel Handler Certification and Recertification Training Programs, Revision'2." This revised submittal l incorporates comments from the March 12, 1993 telephone conversation. On the basis of its review of the " Certified Fuel Handler Certification and i Recertification Training Programs, Revision 2," a non-licensed operator training and retraining program' subject to 10 CFR 50.120, the staff finds the L proposed program to be is acceptable.
6 3 i
- - Therefore the staff finds the proposed change to specification 6.4.1 acceptable..
(10) Technical Specification 6.8.3.b (Approval of TemDorary Procedure Chanaes) The existing specification requires that at least one of the two - l management staff members approving a temporary procedure change hold an l SR0 license. The licensee proposes. to change this specification to . require that at least one of the two' management staff members approving a temporary-procedure change be a Certified Fuel _ Handler. Evaluation: The staff finds this proposed change to be consistent with the-above-proposed changes and, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i In accordante with the Commission regulations, the California' State official -[ was notified-of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments. f l 4.0. NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The Commission has ~previously issued a proposed. finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 7005). 7 l 5.0 ENVIRONMENTA'L CONSIDERATION i The-amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical. exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection l with the issuance of the amendment. i
6.0 CONCLUSION
i The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, ~ (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and' safety of the public. -t Principal Contributor: Richard M. Pelton, NRR/HHFB, 504-1028 Stewart W. Brown, NRR/0NPD, 504-3143 Date: May 27, 1993 [ E i t i l -}}