ML18046A751

Reply Supporting Util Workers Union of America & Mi Util Workers Council 810331 Request for Hearing on Overtime Restrictions Imposed by NRC 810309 Order.Requested Hearing Would Not Involve Labor/Mgt Dispute.Proof of Svc Encl

ML18046A751
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	05/28/1981
From:	Campbell L, Sachs T MARSTON, SACHS, MUNN, KATES, KADUSHIN & O'HARE, MICHIGAN UTILITY WORKERS COUNCIL, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML18046A749	List: ML18046A748 ML18046A751
References
EA-81-018, EA-81-18, NUDOCS 8106260234
Download: ML18046A751 (21)

Text

'.*

r

• 1

.. f

. I

• 1 I.. \\.

. I

. 1

. I t.

jj:

[

l.* -

~;

l.*

i*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY ooei<mB*

t;S~]

BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of J-ij~{2 -~: 19611 !>; *'

z~

o>:~.., ~~d!~ s

\\ ~-,*~:'c

.* -~_t:,.:i~mc

~

~

CONSUMER'S POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-255 (PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY)

REPLY BRIEF. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR HEARING BY TEE UTILITY WORKERS' U1lION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, AND THE MICHIGAN UTILITY WORKERS COUNCIL

. INTRODUCTION AND STATEl!ENT OF FACTS.

(EA 81-18)

• On March 9, 1981;' the ~uclear Regulatcry.Commission

• issued an Order Confirming Lic~nsee Actions to Upgrade Faculty Performance with regard to the regulated operations at P.alisades*Nuclear Power *Facility; loca.ted*in Van Buren._County, l>'.ichigan.. This "Conf.irniJ.ng.Order"* formalized several opera~.

. tional changes proposed *by** the* licensee, *cons\\lrner' s. Power' Company.;. and provided, inter -alia, that:

"Extended overtime on the part ~f *licensed operators shall b~ avoided by restricting the.overtime for licensed operators as follows:

(1) t*;o more than 4 overtime ho\\irs iri any 24-hour period; (2) l<o more than* 24 overtime hours. in any 7-day period; (3)

No more than 64 overtime hours in any 28-day period; The Director of R~gi~n III.may relax or*

terminate any. of the preceding. conditic:i'ns in writing for good cause."

(Order! Part V, Section B.)

.On March 31, 19 81,. the Util.i ty Workers' t:nion of.

America, and its affiliate,. che Michigan State Utility Workers Council, the exclusive collective bargain_ing _representative of* the licensed operators at the Palisades facility~* filed a.petition with the Commission requesting_ a hearing on the

.*. rs ll 0 6. 2 6 0 23 '/..

I

~.

..r

.- l

1 overtime r'estrict.ions imposed b.y the_ March.9, 1981, order.

This petition was filed pursuant_.to 10 CFR 2. 714 and pursuant*

. to Section. VI of the Order I which authoriz.ed. affected parties.

to request a.hearin,;(on theorderwithin twenty-fiye days of its issuance.

The Union's. request for hearing is grounded on* tjle fact that the overtime restrictions. were proposed and pro-mulgated *by the licens'ee* and the NRC without: notice to or con'.'." _

sultation with the ll..censed operators represente.d by the Union,

.in 'total disregard and. in violation* of their fundamental.due process righ1;.s, and evidently *as* a gratuitous. and irrelevant

.response to unrelated. problems. _The li.censee, evidently con~

~erned by rece.ntl~* :escalated NRC ~nforcement actions, offered to. make* several op,erational changes,. including the restric-tion on op~rator overtime, at*a*February 1.8. 1981, rneeting with NRC enforcement staff members.. At no time were tl"e license1l operators at the fa~iHt:(.informed or a~corded '.input. into

• the dedsion to* restri~t the *a:roount of permissible. overtime~

de~pite the* f~ct' that.the res.trictio~s will directly and* ad-;.

versely affect their working conditions. as establ~shed under

.the p'rovisions of the. collective bargai.ning agreement with the licensee and despite thei~ ~pe~ial:kn~wledgewith_regard to the effect-of *operator overtime* on* personnel performance.

Furthermore*,*.* al.though the licensee suggested that the' operators' overti.me ho,,;rs be substantially limited t~ a level*well below.that otherwise. permitted by the Commi.ssion's

.1:./

• genera*l: standards, apparently *no reason was ever demon.,-*

strated to justify the Commission's co,nfi'rmation of the

• .greater _overtime restriction.

1/

• See_

1980, by Division at~athed criteria for _shift staffirig, issued July. 31; the comz::ission,-. by Darrell G. r:isenhut, Dir~ctor, of Licensirig, whic~ provides as*follows:

2

'l i '.

!* i

._ \\.

! 1

. l

• 1

.. I I

f j;.

i: ~

~;,.

i. -

On April 23, 1981, *the Union received. a response to its request for hearing filed with the Comiiil.ssion by the NRC staff, which argued that the Onion's request.should.be.

denied because, according to the staff, the Union is merely*

seeking to resolve*a labor-management dispute-before the Commission,. and such disp.ut.:s fall outside-of the commission's jurisdictional. mandates.

This characterization of* the* Union's purpose in seeking a hearing before. the Commission is unfair, unwar-ranted,. and is equally *gratuitous*.

As the licensed operators' representative, the Union seeks to be h~ard before the Com-

. mission in order to protect its members.' valuable contractually protected employment rights, a*s well as* to* ensure their oc,-.-

. cupa tional heal th. and safe.ty.

The* tin ion quite properly func-tions to preserve vital occupational interests of the Palisades.

employees, in' whatever foruin' tho*se interests. are threatened, and ac-*

cordingly. now *insist.s *that the* t;nion be.'accorded its t"unda~

• mental due process right.to be.heard with regard_ to a* decision_,

made ostensibly in the interest of safety.: that i_ntimately

• I involves the. day-to-day working conditions of the employees.

.. l./ (Cont.)

"(l)

An* individual shall *not be*permitted to work more than 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> straight.

(not including shift turnover time).

(2)

An individual shall not be permitted to work more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in any 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period..

( 3)

.An indl.vidual shall not* work more than 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.

(4)

An 'individual* shall not work more than

• 14 *consecutive days without having

. ~o-corisec1:1ti ve d?J'.S

~ff_: _

However, recognizing that circ=stances may arise requiring deviation from the above reitriciions, such deviation may be a uthori.zed by the. plant* manager or higher levels of management in accordance with published pro*cedures and. with appro-priate.documentation of the* cause.".

• _ 3 -.

. ~

I t

.f. !*

. L'

.t*

i i

It is this fundamental due* process in.terest in union partici-pation in a decision which vitally affects its members that t.~e Union seeks* to examine before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Union does not, as claimed by the NRC sta.f!,*

• seek in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a forum to air contractual complaints.

Accordingly, the Union now files this Brief in Support of its request for hearing and' in response to the contrary position taken by the NRC staff.

I.

• THE UNION fiAS. A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN THIS MATTER.

A.

The Union's procedural due process rights have been violated.

There is no more* fundamental legal proposition.

than the proposition that "parties whose rights are to be

... affected are en ti"tled to be heard." *. Fuentes* v Shevin, 407. US 67,. *so (1972). *.Th~ due process*. clause.mandates procedural safeguards against government deprivation of property inte~ests.

Klein v Califano, 586 F2d 250,* 257 (l978);"Board of Regents v Roth~ 408tTS 564, 576 (1972).

Furthermore, it is clear that the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, as a* federal administrative agency, enjoys *no special.

position or privilege that can justify an abridgement of constitutional rights to due process.

Union of Concerned Scientists v Atomic Energy Comm'n.; 499 F2d 1069 (1974);

see Atomic Energy Act, 42 USC 2239: and Nuclear *Regulatory

.commission Regulations: 10 CFR 2.714 (providing for hearings for interested parties).

Simply stated,* the Union "indisputably possesses a**_direct and *tangible :interest in maintaining *valuable el:l-ployment rights and_ benefits arising out of.its contrac_tud relationship with the licensee.

These interests are economic and non-economic, and ~nclude* the* right to bargain.-o:ver changes in working conditio~s, the right to future overtime com?erisatio~

-* 4 -

- ~.

I ' i i

j,

t. r t;

1*

~

i

. ~

and the rign t to maintain safe working conditions.

These interests are real and substantial, they are* recognized 2/

and protected by state* and federal '"'Taw, and these interests stand to be adversely affected by the* March 9, 1981, order issued by the Commission*.

The Commission may not constitu-tionally interfere* with. these Union interests. without affording the Union an opportunity to be heard.

It is irrelevant that.the interests that the Union seeks to protect spring from. its labor relationship. with the licensee, or that the Union inay also* seek to enforce its rights in these interests agains~ the licensee in another forum.

In ~

forum the Union seek~ to enforce* its consti-tutional due process right to be heard *before a governmental.-

• agency.which has.issued an order affecting i.ts interests without affording t.""ie *union notice or hearing:

While the due proces~ clause:.does not create rights. in the.Union, it does mandate that *existing property rights be 'protected from.

"governmental interference without an opport\\lnity to be heard.

B. A h*earing is authorized both as a matter of right and as a matter of discretion.

1.

The Union has standing to request a hearing.

Section 2.714 of Nuclear R~gulatory co~issio~

Regulations, 10 CFR 2.714, permit any person.whose in.terest may be affected by a Commission proceeding *to request inter-vention in the proceeding, or to request a hearing.

In

. L.censing pioce~dings, as well as* in enforcement actions s.uch as this. case',. the Conur.ission has traditionally applied judi-cial concepts of* s tandin'g in determining the petition's.

right to be heard.

Public Service Co. of Indiana (.Marble Hill

.. 1.../ The Union is* exclusive bargaining agent of Pal~sades.

emoloyees pursuant to arbitration of the National Labor Reiations Board: (Case No..

7-Rl59~. June 13,.1944) * '29 u:c Sl59, with ~orrelative bargaining rights under 29 USC Sl~S.

5 -

1.

l

• 1

• • I I I. l Nuclear Generating Station, Units l

& 2), CLI-80-10, 2* Nuclear Reg Rep (CCH) "30, 482 (1980).

According to established

.standing requirements the petitioner* must show *that it pos*sesse:...

an interest that is arguably wi~i~ the zone o~ interests protected by the. Atomic Energy Act, and that that interest has*been or may be injured in fact.

Id.,.at 4.130*, 482.031

~

also*Virainia Electric and*Power*co.

(North. Anna. Power Station, Units l

& il, AI.A.6-363, [1975-1978.Transfer Binderi Nucl.ear Reg. Rep (CCH)

II 30, 131 (1976) (standing COnCe?tS applied in plant li.censing proceeding).

According' to these requirements, the Onion is clearly entitled to.a hearing, before the Commission.

The Pal~sades* facility licensed _operators represented by the Cnicn

• indisputaply possess a* r.eal and slibstantial 1n-terest in the* maintenance of contractually prot.ected employ-ment.rights, as discussed in Section.A above.

• To* the* extent*.

this interest is econom:.c~ it is a specific, parti~ulari~ed a."!d ~ontractuall.y-mandat~d intere~t clearly possessed by the

• licensed workers.

It is plainly not an economic* *interest *of the gei:ieralized.*or diffuse* sort cl,aimed by power company* ratepayers, which have frequently held to be not cognizable* befo.re* this conunission.

See, i.e.,Detroit Edison co. '(Eriri.co Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2),.ALAB,-470, [1975-1978 Transfer Binder) Nuclear Reg Rep' (CCHl II 39., 291: (1978).

-7he union's direct and substantial einpioyrnent-related interests stand to be affected by* the Commission's acti.on and clearly support.its right to be heard as.an.interesteQ*party.

Furtherrr.ore, it surely canno.t be dis*puted that workers**

in~ n*u::lea~ facilities ~pos~ess *a unique* interes*t* in:*having***a voi.ce in decis.ions* designed to a9dress the maintenance of safe conditibns withi~ the nucl~~r ;facility at which they are' employee.'

In promulgating s~ction 19 of. its regul*ations,

6. -

.,::*1:...

z:

j

• 1 10 CFR 19.1 ~ seq, this Commission has speci.fically recog-nized the special safety concerns inherent in employment whereby workers engage in activities licensed by the commis-sion.

In these regulations the* Commission provides, inter ill!,. for:

l.

The posting of notices to workers regarding.

licensed operations, op.era ting procedures and violations by the licensee (10 CFR 19.11);

2.

The issuance of* instructions to workers

• with regard _to radioactive materials.*

exposure to radiation, and areas restricted with in the facility (10.CI'R 19.12,'.i3l;

3.

The presence of a worker's *representative during all safety inspections of the.

premises by Commission inspectors (10 CFR 19.14);

4; Private consultation l?etween Commission inspectors and workers regarding occupa-tional hazards (10 CFR 19.15);

5.

Requests by workers for inspection of the work place for which there may be no employer retaliation (10 CFR 19.16).

It would appear to be obvious that whenever action is contemplated to change working conditions of.operators of regulated faci.li,ties, osten,sibly in the* interest. of improving safety, *that those licensed workers who participate in. the regulated _activity on a dail~ basis should be consulted as a matter of course. There can be no more valuable resour.ce in th!=!. development of the safe operations with* a radiological facili~y than the licensed wbrkers who have training_and experience with regard to 't."leir employmen~ responsibilities, and are 7 -

• t t,-

1; L

I*

intimately acquainted with the effects of working conditions, i.e.,-overtime standards, on their own ability to perfom in* a safe manner.

The commission, further*, should. not* overlook

• thE potentially dangerous effect on employee morale and perfor-mance. that may be the result of ignoring or failing to adequately consider the safety~related suggestions and per-ceptions of highly trained ~d experienced nuclear facility personnel.

That the unilateral decision to restrict* o'per~tor overtime. in the Palisades facility may also have an adverse impact.on tl}e* employment opportunities of the affected workers further supports the Onion's claim of interest in being*

heard ~n this matter.

• What is more_, the simply physical PJ:'OXimity o~

.... *.orkers in nuclear facilities -to radioactive operations, standi'ng alone'. sufficiently es'tablishes the requirements for Union. standing.

Virginia Electri~- & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units l & 2),-:ALAB-522, 2 Nuclear Reg

• Req_(CCHl 1130, 360 (1979).

In Texas Utilities Generating Co. (Comanche Peak 'steam Electric Station, Units:

.l & 2f,.Order, ASLAB; 2 Nuclear Reg Rep (CCH) 1130, 400 (1979) I an environmental aSSOCiati~n pa'titioning for inter-vention in a licensin_g proceeding pursuant to.10 CFR 2. 714

~as held. to have satisfied the requirements for standing to be heard by showing that one of its members lived within the geographical zone that migh_t be affected by the accidental release of fission proc'iucts.. Distances of up to approx.ima~ely SO miles have been found to support standing* to participate*

in Corr.!ni.ssion.licensing proceedings based solely on rcsider:ce.

Tennessee Valley Authbrity (Watts Bar*Nuclear Plant, Units i* & 2) ;* ALAB-413, *[1975-1978 Transfer Binder] :Juclear Reg 8 -

' '. ;~

. t Rep (CCH) 4130,' 201.91 fn. 4 {l977)..

Clearly the Union, as exclusive representative of workers employed within a radio-logical facility, has a.*specialized. interest in insisting upon union participation in matters which. vita~ly concern the *safety of its members.

If the licensee or the Commission seek to develop program changes which purport to* alter working conditions in the interest of safety, the workers must not be denied a voice in* such a decision.

The Union thus plainly possesses a very real and substantial* interest within the zone of in*terests protected by federal atomic *legislation.. It is also plain that this interest stands. to be* irreparably. injured.if the Union is continued to be denied its rightful participation in a

. decision making process which vitally concerns it.

2.

The union. is also entitled to be hea*rd as a matter of.

discretion.

• "Even if the Union were not enti tl'ed to.a hearing.

concerning the advisability of the decision to restrict*

permissable* operato'r overtime* as a matter.of right I and the Union submits that it clearly is so entitled,* the Commission should,* as a matter of* discretion,. permit the Union to *be heard as a participant possessing unique knowledge and experience which would proyide a valuable contribution to the decision-making process.. 'Portland Ge.neral Electric* Compa:w *

(Pebble.Springs Nuclear. Plant, Units l

& *2J, CLI-76-27,

[1975-1978.Transfer Binder] Nuclear Reg Rep (CCHJ 'J30, 127.0l (1976).

I_n determining whether to permit intervention or a hearing under 10 CFR 2. 714 as a matter of discretion, the Commission looks primarily to whether the petitioning party is "equipped to l':lake a substantial contriblJtiori to the development* of a sound *recorc" with*

regard to the matter.

9

. i Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2) ALAB-470, (1975-1978 Transfer SinderJ nuclear Reg Rep (CCHl '30, 291.0l, fn. 4 (1978).

As the Commission explained in Portland General Electric Co., (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units l. & 2), ~*

"[p J errnission to intervene. should. prove more readily available where petitioners show significant ability to. contribute on substantial issues of law or fact which will not otherwise be properly.

raised or presented, set* forth these

• matters with suitable specificity to allow evaluation, and demonstrate their.

importance and immediacy, justifying the time necessary to consider them."

[1975-1978 Transfer Binder] Nuclear Reg Rep (CCH) 1i30, 127.04 As. discussed in the preceding section, the Union; as representative of licensed facility operators plainly h_as a* significant and singular ability to contribute in a substantial. manner as* to the effects of.overtime and other working conditions on'safe.ty in.plant operation.

As noted above, the CorTimiss_ion has recognized the uni~ue position of

)

nuclear. *facilit:r workers.to provide vital information to the*

Commission in the context of enforcement of plant reg.ula-'

tions by promulgating the regulations contained in Section 19, 19 CFP..19.. l ~~* To reiterate, not only may.workers.be

. represented during Comnission inspections of plant facilities, consult with inspectoxs privately regarding plant safety, aJ'ld request inspections by* the Commission without fear *of repr_isal, but. workers.also have a right to be kep_t infornec as to safe operating p_rocedures and safety violations.

• (10 CFR 19.11-19.16.)

Clearly, the Commission has determined that workers* occupy *a* s*trategic vantage point a*s far as.. their ability to make* observations and contribution~ regarding facility safety regulation.

It* is likewise clear that neither the licehsee nor the Ccmrniss ion possess an interest in protecting the Union's 10 -

• i-_*

i

. t.

.-I i* /,

f

1.

L

' I*

l

~.

• rights or occupy the same sort of position with regard to their ability to comment upon the vital subject of the

.relationship between working conditions: and safe pla.'l t opera-tions.

By their failure to.solicit and consider the obser-vations of the Palisades plant workers, the licensee and the Commission enforcement personnel have ignored the Union's established employment interests and have overlooked what is undoutedly*their most valuable s~urce of knowledge. in their efforts to improve the. s.afety record of the Palisades facility.

Certainly the.Union,* on behalf of these workers, should be granted an opportunity to be heard on this mat.ter before the

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in the exercise* of the Com-mission's discretion.

II.

THE OVERTIME RESTRICTIONS WERE -APPARENTLY IMPOSED WITHOUT ADEQUATE,CONSIDERATION,

.. REASON OR BASIS.:

The Union has not been *privy to the *comnnin.icatl.ons.

between the licensee and the l~RC regui a tocy staff regarding the decision to c!'lange operator overtime.

Nevertheless I it' seems apparent -that the resttictio~s ultimately contained in the Commission's March 9, 19811 Confirming.Order amoi.lnt to a gratuitous action made without adequate consideration, reaso.n or basis.

The.restrictions were suggested by the licensee as part of a propose*d program* presented iri an ap_parent attempt to molfify the Commission and* to prevent the.possible termination of: licensed operations at the plant.

As state.d in Section II.of* the C~nfirming Order, the his.tory *of operations *at *the *facility :).Ver *the past* five years reflects many instances of noncomplianc~ with

• _regulatory requirements, *and also *that Consumers Po1.*er has hac i~_;

.license modified and has been ordered to pay almost $.460,000 in civil penalties.

While it appears that so:re instances

('

c l:l...,

(....

c

• ~.*

.i~***

• of regulation violation have involved per&<:>nnel error, the Union is u.'laware of any basis for finding that operator overtime practices contributed in any way to any violation or for justifying the'*order' s substantial reduction in permissible overtime, to the Union's detriment.

The Union is, of course, highly inter.ested and.

concerned with the *avoidance of undue. risk to heal th.and safety of plant personnel and the public, as well as being greatly concerned in assuring the continued operation of the facility.

It is obvious that if it is unsafe for the plan.t to operate without a change in procedure,. then. such change must and should be made.

However, the Union vehemently* objects to a-* knee-jerk response imposing' a. program c!':ange. made without due consideration, basis or need, especially where such change detrimentally affects the interests of Union members without. their knowledge or input:.

The primary function of legal P.rocess is to minimize the risk of.erroneous *decisions.

.Government officials, in-eluding this Commission, are constitutionally required to minimize such risks of error an*d unfairness whenever i.t. cc-n-ducts procedures which. may threaten established rights and interests.

Jacksonville Shipyards~ In~., v Perdue, 539 F2d 533, 546 (1976) (Department of Labor Benefits.Review Board proceeding). *The.Union's members stand to be injured by what amounts to a unilateral decision to restric~ o~~rtime of licensed oerators, an ill-advised arid gratuitous action taken.without adequate. investigation.

They have not yet been afforded he'a,ring, *and plainly deserve and have a right to be heard.

CONcLUSI0!1 In conclusion, ~e Union would again emphasize.

that in re~uesting a hearing in this matter it does not ask 12 -

the Commission to act as a* forum for the resolution of a dispute of a labor-management nature.

It requests, rather, that the Commission recognize the Union's indisputable interest arising from its bargaining relationship wi.th the licensee, and accordingly, afford the Union the opportuni t~*

to be heard in the interest. of protecting its members' rights and interests and in* ensuring the continued health and safety*

of its members and the public at large, as a participant with a particularized interest, a vital concern and a unique and special expertise. in the matter of the relationship between working conditions in the Plaisades Nuclear Plant and the safe operation of the facility.

DATED:

Respectfully submitted, MARSTON, SACHS, Nu"NN,. KATES*,

~~~~

THEODOP.E SACHS (P-19827)

'-;)

~

(}

• ~~u(__

- "13 -

Attorneys for Union 1000 Farmer Street Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) (65-3464

• 1 t::

f i:*

~;

UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOP.Y CO.MM!SSION BErORE THE COMMISSION.

In the Matter of CONSUMER'S POWER COMPANY Docket No. 50-255 (PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY)

_S'!ATE OF.-MICHIGAN )

) SS

- COUNTY OF WAYNE )

PROOF OF SERVICE (EA 81-18)

___ -_z._:a_ry-=-_R_o_b_e_r_t_s _______, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is ei:nployed by the law firm of MARSTON, SACHS, NUNN, KATES**, KAouSHIN

~* O'ff!UtE, *P.C*.;.attoni*e.ys for. _*._u_n_i_o_n ________ -_. *-~*. _

and th.at on the~ day of:

May

, 19~, (s)he serv.ed.a t~e ~~PY of Reply Brief ih -Support of Request for Hearing by the UtjlityWorkers' Union of America, AFL-CIO, and the Michigan Gb.lity worKers Council

. upon the defendant(s) in the above cause by mailing same t~ the attorney(s) of record, in.a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to:

Stephen G. Burns,.Karen o. Cyr, Counsei for NRC Staff, Office of Executive Legal *Staff, Mail Stop 9604, U.S. Nuclear Regul_atory Comrn'n.,.

Washington, o.c. *.20555; Judd L. Bacon, Managing At~y., Consumers Power 212 W. Hicnigan Avenue, Jackson, Michigan 49201 c:o.

and. by depositing sa~d envelope(s) in a u. s. mail receptacle with

-postage fully prepaid thereon.

I

• Subscribed and sworn to before me thi~. 2Bthday of --M_a""y_* ___ _

19~

. -~*~*A< 'i.-7{* (~J

c

• )

~

'q

~.

I

';. *\\: "*-:;11111;~'

f

~... ~/..

• ... *~.

.. o'"

t.

c..;)

'....... /) ~

PAI \\S,4 TO ALL LICENSEES OF OPERATING PLANTS AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATJNr.;-.~~

AND HOLDERS OF *CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

SUBJECT:

INTER! M CR! TERJA FOR SHI FT STAFF I NG This is to provide you with the shift manning requirement~ as indicated in item (1) of our letter qf May 7,.1980.*

Pending completion of the long-term development of criteria for shift staff~rig-~nd administrative controls, the NRC staff has developed interim criteria for licensees of operatin~ plants and applicants for operating licenses.

Except for senior reattor operators, these interim criteria for* shift staffing sha 11 remain as described in the Standard Review Plan, Section 13.L2, NUREG}S/087.

Special requirements.

regarding the utilization and qualifications of an on-shift technical ad.visor to the shift supervisor.were* provided in our letter of October 30,_1979.,

We have-changed the pre~i ous requirements for* senior* reactor operators and* *

. riow require that there.. be one licensed senior reactor operator in the control r~

~t all times, other than during cold shutdown conditions.

This will therefore require.that there be-a minimum of two senior reactor operators at each si~e at all time*s~. other than during cold shutdown conditions, to assure ~the avai 1 ability of one senior reactor operator in the* control *room with out affect i 11, the freed6m of th~ shift supervisor to mo~e about the ~ite as needed.

The criteria for reactor and auxiliary operators are stated below and the required staffing levels for selected.station configur*tions artd various.plant operating modes are summarized in the enclosed table. *.

At any time* a licensed nuclear unit is being operated.in Modes l-4 for. a PWR (Power Operation; Startup, Hot Standby, or Hot Shutdown respectively) Qr in Modes 1-3 for a BW'R (Power Operation, Startup,. or Hot Shutdown r*espectively),

the. minimum shift crew shall include two lic*ensed senior.reactor operators

{SRO)~ one of whom shall be designated as the shift supervisor, two licensed reactor operators (RO).and two unlicensed auxiliary operators {AO).

Fo'I". a multi-unit *station, depending upon the station configuration, shift.staffing may be adjusted to allow credit forl.ice*nsed senior reactor operators (SRO) and licensed reactor operators (RO) to serve as relief operator~ on more than one unit; however' these i ndi vi dua 1 s must be properly 1 i ce'nsed on each such unit.* At all other times, for a unit loaded with fuel, the minimum shift creh*.

shall includ~ one shift supervisor wh6 shall be a licensed senior reactor opera:

• (SRO), one li.censed reactor.operator (RO) and_ one unlice~sed auxili_ary_ op_era_tor._

Adjunct requirements to the shift staffing criteria stated above are as follows:

a.

A shift supervisor with a senior reactor *operator's license, ~ho is alsc

• a rnem.ber of the station supervisory staff, shall be onsite at all times,,,.---

whe~ at least 6ne unit is loaded with fuel.

1A.lf>t 0 t=

ATTACHMENT

~ 06 ~ l Soo 4.. o

~ -

. b.

c.

. d *.

~..

2 A licen~ed s~nior reactor operator {SR~) shall, at all times, be in the contr*ol room from which a reactor is being operated.

The shift supervisor may from time-to-time act as relief* operator for the licen~ed senior reactor operator assigned to the control room.

For ~ny station with more than one reactor containing fuel, the number of licensed senior reactor operators-onsite shall, at all times, be at least o:ne more than the* number of contro 1 rooms. from which the reactors a re being oper~ted *.

In addition to the licensed senior reactor operators specified in a., b~ 1 and c.: above, for each reactor containing fuel,. a: licensed reactor operator (RO) shalT be in the control room at all times *. *

. In addition tci the operators specified in a., b.,. c ** and d. above, for each control room from which a* reactor is being operated, an additional

• licensed reactor operator (RO) shall be onsite at al~ times and available to serve as relief.operator for that control room.

As noted above, this individual.may serve as relief operator for each ~nit being operated from that control room, provided he holds a current license for each unit.*

• Auxiliary (non-licensed) operators shall be properly qualified to support the* unit to which assigned..

I~*add~t~on to the staffing requirements stated ~bove~ shift crew assign~

ments during periods of core*alterations shall.include a licensed senior reactor o~erator {SRO) to:~ir~ctly supervile th~ core alterati~ns. This li~ensed senior rea~tor op~rator.may ha~e fuel handling duties but shall

_not have other concurrent operational duties.

These criteria do. not relieve licensee*s* of any special requirements for add_itional

~perators which may have been imposed for individual units.

General application of revised shift staffing criteria will be the subject of a rulemaking proceedin~. However, these interim criteria will be effectfve

. for plants.receiving operating licenses during the interim period {including.

TMI-1).

Licensees of plants already holding operating licenses shall examine their current staffing practices-and capabilitie~ in li9ht.of these interim criteria*,and.advise this office within 90days of re~eipt of this letter of the date by which their shift staffing could be in compliance with these criteria. licensees of operating plants shall take stgps to m~et the revised

• • criteria as* soon as practical, but no later than July 1, 1982.

In your response

. _* tq. thi ~ 1 et.t.e.r, you _a r.e, requested. to di scuss-:-your pl ari*s*, -schedules and commitments*

to meet th~se staffing criteria. *Holders of construction permits who have.not as yet applied for a~ operating license should factor these triteria into their recruitment and crew training ~lans.

ln additi~n. licensees of operating pl~nts and applicants for operating licenses sha.11 include in their administrative procedures (required. by lice.nse conditions) provisions governing* required. shift staffing and. movement o*f k.ey individua*ls about th* plant.

These provisions are required to assure that qualified plant personnel to man the operational shifts are readily available in the event of an abnormal or emergency situation.

The administrative prdcedures shall also set forth a policy concerning over-time work for the senior reactor operators, reactor operators, and shift technical advisor required by these interim criteria. These procedures shall stipulate that overtime shall not be routinely scheduled to compensate for an inadequate. nurrber of personnel to meet the*. shift crew staffing requirements.

rn the event that overtime must be used, due to unanticipated or* unavoidable*

circumstances, the following overtime restricti-ons. shall be followed:

( 1 )

An i ndi vi dua*l shall not be permitted to work more than 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> st..ra i ght (not. including shift turnover ti me).

0 (2)

An i ndi vi dua 1 sha 11 not be* perm.itted to. work* more than-.24" hours/:i n* any :

48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period.

(3)

An i ndivi dua 1 sha 11 not work more than_.z.z_.~~ur.~_iJl...;.J!IY..:.7~day~peri od.

(4)

An, ; ndi vi dual shall not work more* thanJ.£._~pnsecu~i,ve* days. wi tho1Jt having two consecutive days off.

.... * * /

Ho~1ever, recognizing that circumstances may arise requ1r1ng deviation* from the.

above restrictions;. such deviation may be* authorized by.the plant manager or higherc 1eve1 s of management in accordance. with *pub 1 i shed procedures* and with. appropriate documentation of the cause.

.The limitations on overtime follow the gui.dance provided in.IE Circular 80-02, except for the* requirement noted above on the restriction on use of* overti.me in circumstances that are unavoidable.

Operating license applicants shall complete these administrative procedures before fuel loading.

Development and implementation of the administrative procedures at operating plants will be reviewed by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement b~ginning 90 days Jfter the date of this letter.

Enclosures:

f\\s stated

. cc:

OR Licensees, and OL Appl_i cants

• tP Holders Service Lists

incerely,

\\****"-

'\\. J

\\.

l

\\ *,\\ \\

\\.. '.

\\. ~

~ne Unit Operattn9*

\\11 Units Operating*

~11 Units Shutdown

~S - Shift Supervisor

• .One Unit One Control Room l SS (SRO)

. 1 SRO 2 RO 2 AO NA NA l SS (SRO) 1 RO 1 AO SRO

.Licensed Senior Reactor Operator INTERIM REQUIRED *SHtt f STAFflNfi Two Unit$.

One Control Room

• l SS (SRO) l SRO 3 RO 3 AO l SS (SRO)

. 1 SRO 3 RO 3 1\\0 1 SS.(SRO) 1 SRO 3 RO 3 AO

. l SS (SRO) 2 RO 3 AO Two Units Two Control Rooms 1 SS (SRO) 1 SRO 3 RO 3 AO 1; SS (SRO) 2 SRO

• 4 RO 4 AO 1 SS (SRO) 2 SRO 4 RO 4 AO 1 SS (SRO) 2 RO 3 AO RO

~ Licensed Reactor Operator AO. - Aux i1 i ary Opera tor Three Units Two Control Room~

1 SS (SRO) 1 SRO.

• 4 RO 4 AO 1 SS (SRO) 2 SRO Only one SRO requir~d if both units are operated from one control room) 4 RO 5 AO 1 SS (SRO) 2 SRO 5 RO 4 AO 1 SS (SRO).

3 RO 5 AO NOTE:

1. *In. order to opet:'ate or supervi~e the operation of mor~ than one unit, an operator (SRO or RO) inus.t *

.. hold an appropr1ate, current l1cense for each such un1t.

• Z.

In addition to the staffing requir~ments iridicated in the table a licensed senior operator ~ill be required to directly supervise any core alteration activity.

• Modes 1 through 4 for PWRs.

Modes l thr~ugh 3 for BWRs. *

-~ J

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO?J In t.he Matter of CONSUMERS* POWER *COMPANY (Palisades Nuclear Power Fa6ility)

}

}

Docket Mo.

}

License No.

>

• EA a1-1a~

PETITION oF* UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF N1ERICA. AFL-cio AND ITS MICHIG1'.N STATE UTILITY WOPJ<EP.S COUNCIL FOR HEARING ON OP.DER CONFIPJ1INC LICENSEE ACTIONS TO t"PGRADE FACILITY PERFOPY~CE The: Utility Workers Union of 1'~erica, 1'.J='L-CIO, and its Michigan St.ate Utility Workers Council (hereafter, "the

. Union")

hereby_ request a*. hearing on.the Order of this Commission dated March 9, 1981_, captioned "Order Confirming Licensee Actions to Upgrade Facility Performance," for the following *

• reasons and grounds:..

I..on March 9, 19 81, the. Commission issued an Order Confirmi.ng Licensee Actions to Upgrade Facility Performance.

Par.t V, Sec. a* thereof, *provided that:

"Extended overtime on the part of.licensed.

• operators shall* be avoided by restricting the overtime for licensed operators as follows:*

(ll No more than 4 overtime hours in any 24-hour period; (2)

No more than 24 overtime hours in any 7-day period;.

{3)

Ho more *than 64 overtime hours in any

• 28-day period; The Director of Region III may relax or

• terminate any of the preceding conditions in writing for good cause,"

• II *. Said provisions restricting overtime were evidently proposed by the licensee, not this Co~.ission, and vv.-r 6-- o F

'2r' l 0 '-l. C) t 0 la. 5 '7

• .~ *-

e e

without notice or consultation with. the rnion, *which is the col lee.ti ve bargaining agent for operating, maintenance and construction.employees of the licensee* at the Palisades Facility.and elsewhere in Michigan.*

III'.

The overtime restriction contained in said:

Order is more restrictive than this Commission's standards otherwise applicable, as set forth in the interim criteria for shift staffing, iss.ued July 31*, 19 80, by the Commission,

.by Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, as follows:

"(l).An individual shall not be permitted to work more than.12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> str.aight.

(not. including shift turnover time).

( 2) An individual shall not be permitted *

• . to work* more than 24.hours in any 4 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.period.*.

(3) A:n*individual shall not work more *than 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.

. (4) An individual shall not work more.than

• 14 consecutive days: wi tho.ut having

. *

• two consecutive days off.

H~wever, recognizing that circumstances may arise requiring deviation from the above restricticins, such. deviation: may be authorized by the plant.manager er higher levels of management in accordance with publi'shed procedures.and with appro-

. priate documentation of.the cause."

IV.

Ori ~nformation and belief, no reason was dernon-strat*ea**a'.r* *existed or-was* pert.inent to this Commission's March 9, 1981 Order to occ~sion greater restriction on overtime that is otherwise required oy the Corranision's general standards, or is permitted to the licen.see under its

• collective bargaining obligations to the Pnion under the*

• 2.;,.

PAuant to 10. CFR 2,' 714 (a)~) and said M~rch 9-, 19 81 Order, the Union represents. that, as aforesaid, it is* the exclusive.

collective bargaining agent by law for affected employees; arid that the employment opportunities-I or its.members are; or may be adversely affected by said Order.

VI.

For the foregoing reasons, the Order should not be sustained insofar as it cont_ains the aforesaid restric-*

tions.on overtiI!te hours.*

WHEP..EFORE', Petitioners pray that a-hearing be held for reconsideration of such Order in the foregoing respects~ and.~hat such Order be vacated in the foregoing respects.

MW Respectfully submi.tted,

• UTILITY WOP.KERS UNION OF Al'~RIC~:,

AFL-CIO,

• AND ITS-11ICHIGAN STATE UTILITY. WOP.KEP.S* COUNCIL*~*

by their.Attorneys,

MAP.STON, SACHS, NUNN, KATES,

KADUSHIN & O'HARE,. P.C.

BY~"

3 -

THEODOP.E SACHS (P-l 9 827) 1000 Farmer Street Detroit, nichigan. 48226 (313) 965-3464

-~

.._,