ML20209F911
| ML20209F911 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082410749 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 GL-84-16, NUDOCS 8704300422 | |
| Download: ML20209F911 (6) | |
Text
_.
SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-323
References:
1.
Memorandum, W.T. Russell to T.M. Novak, dated November 6, 1984, "SSER Input for Diablo Canyon, Unit 2."
2.
Memorandum, W.T. Russell to T.M. Novak, dated January 7,1985,
" Operator Staffing and Experience at NT0Ls."
3.
PG&E Letter No. DCL-85-004, dated January 8,1985.
4.
Facility Operating License DPR-80 (Operating License for Diablo Canyon, Unit 1).
5.
Technical Specifications for Diablo Canyon, Unit 1.
6.
Proposed Technical Specifications for Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2 (Licensee Letter No. DCL-85-100, dated March 7, 1985).
7.
PG&E Letter No. DCL-85-124, dated March 26, 1985.
Background
Questions have been raised regarding the adequacy of shift staffing, the need for shift advisors and need for license conditions for Diablo Canyon, Unit 2.
This SSER addresses each of these subjects.
Shift Staffing In Reference 1, we stated that the operators at Diablo Canyon were to be.
dually-licensed on both units so that the operators who would be operating Unit 2 would be the same individuals who previously had been. operating Unit 1.
We noted in Reference 1 that, provided the operators successfully passed an examination on the differences between the two units, we considered them to be adequately trained and qualified to operate Unit-2.
In Reference 2, we confirmed that we were comfortable with the operator staffing 1
for Diablo Canyon, Unit 2.
7 8704300422 870417 ME
-197 PDR
. In Reference 3, the licensee informed us that a total of 59 operators had been licensed on Unit 1 (44 Senior Operators and 15 Operators), and that efforts were underway to convert 55 of these licenses (44 S0 and 11 RO) to-dual-unit licenses by mid-February 1985; the remaining individuals were scheduled to be i
upgraded to dual-license status in June, 1985. The licensee also reported in Reference 3 that operations at Unit 1 were being conducted with a five-shift rotation, which allowed for one week of training every five weeks; and that, since August,,1984, each licensed sh'ift operator had received at least 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> of training time on the new, plant referenced simulator.-
As noted in Table 6.2-1 of Reference 6, the minimum staffing level for two-unit operation is two S0s and three R0s. This is in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54 (m) (2).
Informal contact with Region V on March 13-14, 1985, revealed that the licensee is operating with 25 operators assigned to the rotating shifts (5 per shift for 5 shifts) and 13 operators assigned to a relief shift for 1
use as necessary. The remaining operators have duties elsewhere on the plant j
staff, but are available for use on shift if necessary. A -total of 46 S0s j
and 11 R0s now have dual-unit licenses, with four additional R0s scheduled to.
l take dual-unit S0 exams in May,1985.
In addition, a class of'12 S0s and 7 R0s is scheduled for dual-unit exams in May, 1985.
t We conclude on the basis of the above that the licensee has adequate numbers of qualified operators to operate Units 1 and 2 simultaneously.
i i
\\
r
. Shift Advisors At the time the low power license for Unit I was reinstated (April 19,1984) the licensee had no operators on staff who had had previous operating experience on a large, commercial PWR. Accordingly, we required the licensee to utilize the services of advisors to the operating shifts to provide this base of previous experience. Generic Letter 84-16, dated June 27, 1984 describes the staff's position related to Shift Advisors.
Generic Letter 84-16 requires that each operating shift have at least one senior operator assigned who has had at least six months of hot operating experience including at least six weeks above 20 percent of full power, and including startup and shutdown experience.
Unit 1 operations to date have been conducted using shift advisors while the plant staff gained the requisite operating experience required by Generic Letter 84-16.
The full power license for Unit 1. DPR-80 (Reference 4), was issued on November 2, 1984.
It is our understanding that Unit I has now reached the 100 percent power level and that final testing at 100 percent power is underway, with the intent of being in commercial operation by late April, 1985. Unit 2 is now scheduled for fuel load in late April, 1985, with initial criticality scheduled for late June,1985. Thus, by the time Unit 2 goes critical, the plant operators will have had a total of more than one year of hot operating experience (since reinstatement of low power license).
Nearly eight months of this time will have been at power levels between 5
4
'- percent and 100 percent full power, and the operators will have participated
- in plant startups and shutdown,s.
We do not have detailed information regarding the experience levels of
. individual operators; however, we consider it very likely that the licensee now has at least one senior operator on each shift who meets the minimum guidance of Generic Letter 84-16. Thus, we see no necessity for the continued service of shift advisors at the time of fuel load of Unit 2.
However, the decision on when to release the advisors should originate with the licensee, in accordance with License Condition 2.C(6)c. of DPR-80 (Reference 4).
License Conditions
' DPR-80 contains three license conditions addressing areas of interest to LQB.
For reasons as noted below, we see no need to incorporate these, or similar, license conditions in the low power license for Unit 2.
1.
License. Condition 2.C(6)a. of DPR The requirement for a Shift Technical Advisor is adequately covered in the Unit 1 Technical Specifications (see TS Table 6.2-1 and Section 6.2.4 of Reference 5). Thus, we see no need for License Condition 2.C(6)a. The requirement for a Shift Technical Advisor is similarly provided for in Table 6.2-1 and Section 6.2.4 of the proposed Technical Specifications for combined operation of Units 1 and 2 (Reference 6).
I m
-#s=
.. ~.
,e
+n
~,.,., - -, - -
. =. - -. =..
~
. We recommend that the license for Unit 2 be issued without a license condition regarding the Shift Technical Advisor.
'2.
License Condition 2.C(6)b of DPR This license condition was imposed at a time when the total number of operators available to operate Unit 1 appeared marginal. However, as l
noted earlier in this SSER, the licensee now has a more than adequate supply of operators qualified to operate either Unit 1 or Unit 2.
There are 57 dually-licensed operators available, of which 38 are assigned to shift duties. Minimum staffing for five shifts requires 25 operators. There thus is no need for a license condition on Unit 2 similar to that imposed on Unit 1.
Further, License Condition 2.C(6)b could be deleted from DPR-80.
3.
License Condition 2.C(6)c of DPR As discussed earlier. the operators at Diablo Canyon now meet, or very nearly meet, the operating experience requirements of Generic Letter 84-16. Certainly they will do so by late June when Unit 2 is scheduled for initial criticality. Further, this applies to all operators on shift and not just a minimum of one senior operator as sf acified by the generic letter. We thus see no need for a license condition on Unit 2 similar to that imposed on Unit 1.
.r,%.-.
_w
,4-s..
.2
.. In a letter dated March 26, 1985 (Reference 7), the licensee provided additional information related to staffing considerations for two-unit operation. The licensee stated that both units will not be in low power or power ascension test programs at the same time and that, whenever Unit 1. is operating and Unit 2 is undergoing significant testing activities, the operating staff will be supplemented as necessary. The licensee also pointed out in the letter that the Shift Technical Advisors at Diablo Canyon, in addition to their technical expertise, are all licensed Senior Operators.
Thus, the licensee has one additional' senior licensed individual on each shift beyond the two senior operator personnel required by the Technical Specifications.
1 The commitment to augment the operating staff when significant testing is underway on Unit 2, the continuous presence of an STA who holds a senior operator license, and continuing management attention to the effects of Unit 2 ~
startup on Unit 1 operation will, we believe, provide significant added assurance of safe plant operation.
~
_ _.... ~.
.