ML14183A243
| ML14183A243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14183A242 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-82-12, NUDOCS 9301060228 | |
| Download: ML14183A243 (2) | |
Text
o UNITED STATES 0
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 144 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-23 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 9, 1990, as supplemented January 17, and December 28, 1992, Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) requested a revision to the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBR2), Technical Specifications (TS) to provide consistency with the overtime work limits promulgated by Generic Letter (GL) 82-12, "Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours."
The existing HBR2 TS are inconsistent with the GL 82-12 working hour guidelines in three principal areas: (1).the overtime limits do not apply to auxiliary operators, maintenance personnel, or health physics personnel; (2) the overtime limits apply only when the reactor coolant temperature is greater than 200 degrees Fahrenheit or when fuel is being moved within the reactor pressure vessel; and (3) the overtime limit for hours worked in any 7-day period is less conservative. The January 17, and December 28, 1992, letters provided updated TS pages and did not affect the initial no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The staff reviewed section 6.2.3.b of.the proposed TS amendment provided as an enclosure to the licensee's July 9, 1990, amendment request. The review focused on determining the consistency of the proposed amendment with the guidelines provided in the Commission's "Policy On Factors Causing Fatigue of Operating Personnel at Nuclear Reactors" (Policy) promulgated by GL 82-12.
The staff found that the proposed amendment is generally consistent with the Policy. The proposed amendment: (1) applies to unit staff who perform safety related functions (e.g., senior reactor operators, reactor operators, health physicists, auxiliary operators, and key maintenance personnel), (2) applies to all modes of operation, and (3) establishes limits on individual working hours that.are identical with the guidelines provided in the Policy.
Consequently, the staff has determined that the three previously identified areas of inconsistency with the Policy are adequately resolved by the proposed amendment.
The staff identified one difference between the proposed amendment and the Policy. The proposed amendment does not include a statement establishing a nominal 40-hour week as an objective while the plant is in power operation.
The staff recognizes that the licensee has implemented a normal 12-hour shift schedule and that 12-hour shift schedules do not result directly in 40-hour 9301060228 921230 PDR ADOCK 05000261 P
_PDR
2 work weeks. Nevertheless, a nominal 40-hour week is an appropriate objective as an approximate average to be attained over a full shift rotation (i.e., 5-6 weeks of shift schedule designed in accordance with other guideline limits in the Policy).
Such an objective provides assurance that shift schedules are designed in a manner consistent with the general intent of the Policy, which is to assure "to the extent practicable, personnel are not assigned to shift duties while in a fatigued condition that could significantly reduce their mental alertness or their decision making ability." The HBR2 normal shift schedule is consistent with the intent of the policy.
Based on its review, the staff concludes that the proposed amendment to the HBR2 TS is consistent with the working hour Policy as indicated in GL 82-12 and is, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of South Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment involves only changes in administrative procedures and requirements. 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 (55 FR 32324). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion.set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
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's 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.
Principal Contributor: D. Desaulniers Date:
December 30, 1992