ML090270865
| ML090270865 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/06/2009 |
| From: | Mallett B NRC/EDO/DEDR |
| To: | Alexander M Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Martin Kamishan, IOLB/DIRS/NRR 415-3469 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML090400046 | List: |
| References | |
| G20090034, OEDO-2009-0029, TAC ME0430 | |
| Download: ML090270865 (4) | |
Text
March 6, 2009 Alexander Marion Vice President, Nuclear Operations Nuclear Generation Division Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
SUBJECT:
REPLY TO LETTERS REGARDING 10 CFR PART 26
Dear Mr. Marion:
I am responding to your letter, dated January 15, 2009, your February 9, 2009, e-mail, and your letter dated March 3, 2009. Your letters and e-mail requested senior NRC management attention to what you believe is an incorrect interpretation of the requirements in Subpart I, Managing Fatigue, of Title 10, Part 26, Fitness for Duty Programs, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 26) in two key areas. The areas are: Worker eligibility for outage minimum days off (MDO) at multiunit power reactor sites and the use of the concept of periodic overtime and the impact on the workers schedule and minimum days off requirement.
Your letters suggest that the incorrect interpretation of the requirements is a result of staff positions, contained in the draft regulatory guide and expressed during public meetings. The draft or final regulatory guide provides an acceptable approach to implementing some of the actions required by the regulations. It is not an interpretation of the requirements. Nor is it a requirement for licensees to use the guidance in the regulatory guide. We have had several public meetings to work with industry and other stakeholders to develop an acceptable method for industry to use in implementing some of the required actions. I have indicated in several public meetings that we desire to endorse any generic guidance industry develops, but that guidance must not be in conflict with the requirements in the rule. One of these meetings was a public meeting, held on October 16, 2008; and I participated in that meeting to obtain first-hand knowledge of the potential implementation issues related to the two areas described in your letter.
In response to your January 15 letter, I requested the NRC staff to re-review the concerns and issues and provide me an understanding of the NRC response to them and how they are dealt with in the regulatory guide. I also did my own review of the issues. The remainder of this letter, provides you with the results of those reviews.
With respect to worker eligibility for the outage MDO, the rule provides the following two sets of MDO provisions for covered groups: one that is generally applicable and one that is applicable during the first 60 days of an outage to individuals while working on outage activities. The outage MDO is less restrictive and, therefore, has greater potential for cumulative fatigue as individuals work longer periods without a break. To aid in implementing the rule, we have
proposed that the regulatory guide and your guidance indicate all workers at the nuclear power reactor site may use the less restrictive, MDO for outages during times when one unit at a multiunit site is in outage, with the exception of a minimum crew at the controls of the operating units.
As I understand it, the industrys definition of the minimum crew is one reactor operator (RO) and one senior reactor operator (SRO) in the control room of an operating unit and that this crew would not be eligible for the outage MDO but that all other covered workers would be eligible for the outage MDO. The NRC definition is that licensees should maintain a minimum complement of licensed operators on the nonoutage unit to respond as necessary to transients or events on the operating unit; and this minimum complement is derived from the minimum site staffing requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(m), which was established to specify minimum site staffing of operators necessary to operate a reactor unit controls. For example, at a two-unit site with one unit in outage, the NRC definition is that two ROs and two SROs would be necessary for the operating unit and not be eligible for the outage MDO but that all other covered workers would be eligible.
In evaluating the industrys proposal to maintain a single RO and SRO on the nonoutage unit, we note that many control rooms have control panels that are arranged such that two ROs are required to operate the equipment and systems affected by plant transients or relied upon to mitigate significant events. In addition, one SRO would be expected to maintain oversight of control room activities during a significant event, and a second SRO would be expected to oversee the response in the plant as well as to coordinate emergency plan implementation as necessary. Based upon this evaluation and given the intent of the minimum staffing requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(m), we conclude that the industry proposal to retain only one RO and one SRO on the nonoutage MDO is not adequate to meet the standard of applicability while working on outage activities for the relaxed cumulative fatigue provisions of the outage MDO requirements. The NRC regulatory guide does suggest provisions for short-term relief of the nonoutage MDO licensed operators, for transition from the outage MDO back to the nonoutage MDO when necessary to meet contingency situations, and for all plant staff (other than those at the controls of the operating unit or supervising the control room of the operating unit) to participate in outage-related activities except when responding to transients or events.
With respect to periodic overtime, the NRC notes that the rule does not discuss such a concept.
Rather, the rule discusses the use of work-hour controls, minimum days off, and waivers. The flexibility that the industry seeks by introducing the concept of periodic overtime already exists in the rule language. For example, as permitted by 10 CFR 26.205(d)(1), individuals who are subject to the work-hour controls in Subpart I may work as many as 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> in any 24-hour period, as many as 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> in any 48-hour period, and as many as 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any 7-day period. When designing the MDO requirements of 10 CFR 26.205(d)(3), the NRC also considered variations in workload that result from emergent work. The MDO requirements can be met based on average daily work hours over a period of up to 6 weeks. For example, over a shift cycle, a covered individual may work an average of as many as 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> per workday if he or she has, on average, a minimum of 1 day off per week; an average of as many as 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> per workday if he or she has, on average, a minimum of 2 days off per week; and, for some categories of personnel, an average of as many as 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> per workday if he or she has, on average, a minimum of 2 days off per week.
Licensees have the flexibility to distribute these extra work hours as necessary to accommodate emergent work. In addition, 10 CFR 26.207, Waivers and Exceptions, permits licensees to authorize waivers of the Subpart I work-hour controls, including the MDO requirements, when additional work hours are necessary to prevent or mitigate conditions adverse to safety or security. The industrys proposed periodic overtime process described in NEI 06-11, Revision 1, Managing Personnel Fatigue at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites dated October 2008, would appear to allow work hours for emergent work to be excluded from consideration in the determination of the applicable MDO requirements, which is inconsistent with 10 CFR 26.205(d)(3) and the waiver requirements in 10 CFR 26.207.
I appreciate your raising these issues and concerns to the NRC. It is vital that the industry implement the 10 CFR Part 26 requirements, and that the NRC understand concerns or impacts from implementing this rule. Your March 3, 2009 letter recommends that our inspection procedures, etc., be made publically available to enable stakeholder feedback. We will do that at the appropriate time. Your March 3 letter also recommends the use of an NRC panel to review inspection findings. We will consider this recommendation. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Bruce S. Mallett Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs Office of the Executive Director for Operations cc:
Marvin Fertel, President and CEO, NEI
Licensees have the flexibility to distribute these extra work hours as necessary to accommodate emergent work. In addition, 10 CFR 26.207, Waivers and Exceptions, permits licensees to authorize waivers of the Subpart I work-hour controls, including the MDO requirements, when additional work hours are necessary to prevent or mitigate conditions adverse to safety or security. The industrys proposed periodic overtime process described in NEI 06-11, Revision 1, Managing Personnel Fatigue at Nuclear Power Reactor Sites dated October 2008, would appear to allow work hours for emergent work to be excluded from consideration in the determination of the applicable MDO requirements, which is inconsistent with 10 CFR 26.205(d)(3) and the waiver requirements in 10 CFR 26.207.
I appreciate your raising these issues and concerns to the NRC. It is vital that the industry implement the 10 CFR Part 26 requirements, and that the NRC understand concerns or impacts from implementing this rule. Your March 3, 2009 letter recommends that our inspection procedures, etc., be made publically available to enable stakeholder feedback. We will do that at the appropriate time. Your March 3 letter also recommends the use of an NRC panel to review inspection findings. We will consider this recommendation. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Bruce S. Mallett Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs Office of the Executive Director for Operations cc:
Marvin Fertel, President and CEO, NEI DISTRIBUTION: G20090034/EDATS: OEDO-2009-0029 NSalgado RidsNrrDirsResource RidsNsirOd KMartin RidsNrrOdResource RidsOgcMailCenter MBoggi RidsEdoMailCenter LTrocine TKolb RidsNrrAdes VBarnes RidsNrrAdro SMorris RidsNrrMailCenter CLui RidsResOd
- Via email ADAMS Accession No.: ML090270865; ADAMS Package No.: ML090400046 Office DIRS/IOLB NRR/DIRS NRR/DIRS OGC RES
- NSIR TECH ED NRR EDO Name NSalgado PHenderson FBrown HBenowitz CLuil SMorris KAzariah-Kribbs ELeeds (BBoger for)
BMallett Date 02/04/09 02 /04/09 02/04/09 2/6/09 02/05/09 2/05/09 2/11/09 2/12/09 03/06/09 Official Record Copy