ML20214J822
| ML20214J822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214J815 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612010487 | |
| Download: ML20214J822 (3) | |
Text
a usua
~"
y k
UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.19 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AFD APENDMENT N0. 9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DUKE PCKER COMPANY, ET AL.
I.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 9,1986, (addressed to Mr. H. R. Denton, NPR), Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed to change the facility Tech-nical Specifications (TS) to pennit an exception to the experience requirements for two candidates for senior reactor operator (SRO) licenses for Catawba Units 1 and 2.
These requirements are contained in a March 28, 1980 staff letter which is referenced in TS Section 6.3 " Unit Staff Oualifications" and Section 6.4
" Training." By letter dated July 8,1986, (addressed to the Operator Licensing Section, Region II), the licensee has identified the two SR0 candidates. By letter dated September 12, 1986, (addressed to Mr. H. R. Denton, NRR), the licensee has provided additional infonnation in response to an NRC staff letter issued about August 25, 1986, undated, and described the experience and training that qualify them for a waiver of the experience requirements in the examination prerequisites specified in Technical Specification 6.3.
II.
EVALUATION The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's submittals dated July 8 and 9, 1986 and September 12, 1986. The Technical Specifications Section 6.3 " Unit Staff Qualifications" and Section 6.4 " Training" require, among other things, that the licensee's unit operating staff meet or exceed the requirements specified in Sections A and C of Enclosure 1 to the NRC letter dated March 28, 1980.
The requested amendment would permit waiver of the experience requirements contained in Section A.
No change has been requested relating to the Rcquelifi-cation Programs contained in Section C.
Section A of Enclosure I states in part that an applicant for senior reactor operator (SRO) license should have 4 years of responsible power plant experience and that this experience should be obtained as a control room operator in either fossil or nuclear power plants or as a power plant staff engineer. A maximum of two years of this experience may be fulfilled by academic or related technical training. This experience requirement is one of the guidelines established by the staff to implement a requirement in 10 CFR Part 55 of the Commission's rules that an applicant for an operator license provide evidence to the NRC that he or she has learned to operate the controls of the facility in a safe and competent manner.
In general, the hRC requires that evidence of a combination of experience and training be provided in order to be deemed eligible to sit for an NRC examination. Although standard guidelines have been established in the NRC staff's fiarch 28, 1980, letter, waivers may be granted on a case-by-case basis if the NRC staff determines that an equivalency to the standard guide-lines exist.
8612010487 861120 DR ADOCK 05000413 FDR
-?-
This determination is based upon an evaluation of the applicant's academic training, technical training relevant to reactor operation and work experience.
Whether or not a waiver of part of the eligibility guidelines is granted, all applicants for SR0 licenses must pass an NRC administered SR0 examination.
Passing this examination, together with each applicant's academic training, technical training relevant to reactor operation and work experience relevant to reactor operation as well as control room experience, provides the staff with reasonable assurance that a candidate has sufficient knowledge to operate a nuclear reactor in a safe and competent manner.
The NRC staff has reviewed the training and experience of the two SR0 candidates described in the licensee's letters.
The two SR0 candidates are highly trained at Catawba Units 1 and 2, each has held a reactor operator license for more than two years and each was required to pass the SR0 license examination.
Each of the two candidates has a minimum of 8 years of experience on-site at Catawba, during which each has been actively involved in preoperational testing and checkout, startup testing, and operator training. Catawba Unit 1, which received a fuel leading and precriticality testing license in July 1984, a low power license in December 1984, and a full power license in January 1985, has not been in operation long enough to provide an opportunity for these reactor operators to have 4 years of control room operating experience. Likewise, Catawba Unit 2 received a low power license in February 1986, and a full power license in May 1986. However, each applicant's work-related experience and training more than offsets the amount by which his experience falls short of the stated guidelines.
Based on this review, the staff finds that each of the two candidates has a combination of training and experience which is equivalent to that recomended in the standard guidelines of staff's March 28, 1980, letter.
The staff concludes that the guidelines recomending 4 years of responsible power plant experience can be waived for the two SR0 candidates for Catawba Units 1 and 2 identified in the licensee's July 8, 1986, letter.
The staff further concludes that the qualifications of each of these two candidates, as excepted from the staff guidelines, meet the experience requirements of 10 CFR 55.10(a)(6).
Therefore, exception to Technical Specification 6.3 is acceptable.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATI0?'
The amendments involve a change in administrative procedures or requirements in the license. Accordingly, the amendments meet 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 environmentel assessment need te prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
i
,.~
- IV. CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 36088) on October 8,1986, and consulted with the state of South Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments. We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Kahtan Jabbour, PWR#4/DPWR-A T. Syzmanski, Operator Licensing Branch, OHFT Dated: November 20, 1986
.--