ML20041A111
| ML20041A111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1982 |
| From: | Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-1.A.1.3, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8202190110 | |
| Download: ML20041A111 (3) | |
Text
r o
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA; TENNESSEE 37401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II
, e --
t-S February 10, 1982 I
E5!/EQ g,
FE L
T eg.,(B kah.F
~
i Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director pg en g%(
y
- g rM Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
'i U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'n -
-Washington, DC 20555
'x 'y
, \\\\
Dear Mr. Denton:
In the Matter of the
)
Docket Nos. 50-259 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-260 50-296 T. A. Ippolito's letter to H. G. Parris dated December 29, 1981 requested that TVA provide additional information regarding our responses to NUREG-0737, Item I.A.1.3.2, " Minimum Shift Crew." The results of our review of this item are enclosed.
1 Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L. M. Mills, Manager Nuclear Regulation and Safety Subscribe,me this / gd sworn a
day of l_1982.
&adA 61.7dA Notary Public l
My Commission Expires Enclosure cc:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II l
ATTN: James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 I, o$
6' i 8202190110 020210
~
PDR ADOCK 05000259 P
PDR An Equal Opportunity Employer
-1
ENCLOSURE NUREG-0737, ITEM I.A.1 3.2 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT As requested in T. A. Ippolito's December 29, 1981 letter to H. G. Parris, we have reviewed our implementation schedule for the subject NUREG-0737 item. Our review indicates all requirements of NUREG-0737'cannot be met in the 1982 calendar year. The total number of SR0s at Browns Ferry exceed NRC requirements. However, to confine an SRO to the control room at all times requires two additional positions (9 men) in order to have another SRO to respond to trouble in the plant and lead the fire brigade. We believe it to be counterproductive and in some cases adverse to safety to do otherwise. This requirement takes no credit for an STA being available on shift and, as statad, requires us to increase our SRO shift manning by two positions.
The requirement for five R0s for a two-control room plant also requires two additional shift positions (9 men). Presently, our_ technical specifications require one RO per unit. We have, as a standard procedure, maintained a fourth licensed operator for relief for both control rooms. The NUREG-0737 requirement means an additional RO for each control room.
In addition to these two manning requirements, our present shortage of personnel precludes us from complying strictly with the overtime guidelines. These overtime guidelines could be adhered to if we allowed our staffing to decrease to the present minimum technical specification requirements. We do not believe this to be in our best interest and have balanced that against exceeding the overtime guidelines.
Our operator attrition rates during 1981 were hi'gh.
Seven licensed operators and ten unlicensed operators left the plant during the calendar year. During the same year, only 40 percent of operators taking the licenso examinations were successful. This low passing rate has, to some extent, affected the number of unlicensed operators willing to take training for the examination. Attached is a summary of our expected licensed operator staffing levels for 1982.
It can be seen from the attachment that it would be difficult at this time to estinate when we can supply the NUREG-0737 requirements for additional positions.
I
- < :. e 4-s.
ATTACHMENT s
PRESENT STAFF SPRING 1983 STAFF 1982 GROWTH ~
' RO IBL
.1 ASE 12 4*-
.1 ASE
-1 UO' 21 8*
'UO 24 4*
UO 3
- License trainee ANTICIPATED NO. OF NRC
-EXAMS - 1982
' ANTICIPATED NO. OF LICENSE ACQUIRED EXPECTED ATTRITION-SRO RO
12 3
6
~4
-3 Note:
This number is limited Note:
Based on'_50-percent passing l Note:. Based on 1981-by-the availability of
-ratio.
turnover.
properly trained volunteers.
W-