ML20212F284

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 57 to License NPF-12

ML20212F284
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	12/22/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20212F253	List: ML20212F249 ML20212F270 ML20212F284
References
NUDOCS 8701090638
Download: ML20212F284 (2)

Text

l f V punq i*

d UNITED STATES 8 O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t,  :; WASH?NGTON. D. C. 20655 ty . . . . . p$

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 57 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1?

S0llTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC 4 GAS COMPANY S0llTH CAROLINA PilBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY VIPGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-395 INTRODUCTION Rv letter dated August ?,1985, as supplemented September 11, 1986, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the licenseel reouested a change to Section 6.5.3.1(el of the Technical Specifications for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. This propnsed change would revise the qualification reoufrements for individuals performina certain safety reviews required by Section 6.5.3.1 of the Technical Specifications.

EVALIIATIGN Section 6.5.3.1 of the Technical Specifications now requires that individuals performing the safety reviews meet or exceed the qualification requirements of Section 4.4 of ANSI N18.1-1471, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel." Section 4.4 of the standard reouires individuals to have a minimum of five years of experience in their fields, of which a minimum of two years should be related technical training and a maximum of four years may be related technical or academic training. Individuals filling positions in reactor engineering or physics must have a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering or the Physical Sciences plus two years of experience in their field.

The licensee's request for the change was prompted by an open item in Inspection Report 50-395/83-15. The inspector questioned the limited applicability of Section 4.4 of ANSI N18.1-1971, which specifically applies to Professional-Technical personnel in the fields of reactor engineering and physics, instrumentation and control, radiochemistry, and radiation protection. The inspector was of the opinion that the qualification requirements should be broadened to also include operations personnel, managers, supervisors or other positions at the facility.

The staff's review of the licensee's initial request revealed that while it eliminated the reference to Section 4.4 of the ANSI Standard, thereby accomodating the inspector's concern, it also reduced the required experience level of the reviewers to four years instead of the minimum of five years specified in the Standard, h0$

P

4 This preliminary staff finding was communicated to the licensee and, by letter dated September 11, 1986, the ifcensee amended its request. The licensee

now proposes to change the wording of Technical Specification Section 6.5.3.1.e to read that, " Individuals responsible for reviews . . . shall . . . meet or exceed the cualification requirements of Section 4 of ANSI 18.1, 1971. . . ."

Section 4 of the ANSI Standard addresses the qualifications of all nuclear power plant personnel, thereby accommodating the concern of the inspector.

The qualifications required by Section 4 of the standard are those endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.8. Persons meeting the qualification requirements of the standard, therefore, meet the acceptance criteria of Section 13.4 of NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan. The proposed change is, therefore, acceptable.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to administrative procedures or requirements.

The staff has determined that the amendnent involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards j consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, j this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection 4

with the issuance of this amendment.

CONCLUSION l

i

We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the p(ublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and?) such activitie regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Dated: December 22, 1986

! Principal Contributors:

Lawrence P. Crocker, Facility Operations Branch, DPLA Jon B. Hopkins, Project Directorate #2, DPLA l

l

-_ . -__ -- -- - -__ _ - . .. - - _ --