ML20082J126

Responds to Operator Work Schedule Compliance Backfit. Proposed Changes to Plant Overtime Work Practices Submitted, Including Assessment of Current Overtime Pratices & Changes to Overtime Pratices for Operations Dept Shift Personnel

ML20082J126
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	08/22/1991
From:	Woodard J ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9108270178
Download: ML20082J126 (6)

Text

. _ - _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

Awam ew4 co,om

. . 40 h#ien Cet FM way Po9 Ove (% wm a

n. mp , A g ena " m Tu ; A me 'M % 1 % %

a o.w e d Alabama Power

[;j.[ " " Augus t 22, 1991 n. v. ,, .

Docket Nos. 50-348 10 CFR 50.109 50-364 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Dr. Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Response to Operator Work Schedule Compliance Backfit By letter dated May 24, 1991 from Mr. Steven A. Varga (Director, Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II), entitled " Operator Work Schedules at the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2," the NRC Staff requested changes to the farley overtime work practices under the " compliance exception" to the backfitting rule, 10 CfR 50.109(a)(4)(1). Specifically, the NRC stated that during single-unit outages, the overtime guidance of Farley Technical Specification 6.2.2.f "was intended to apply only to the shutdown unit and not to the unit which is still operating." Thus, the NRC took the position "that during single-unit outages, the staff of the operating unit should continue to work a nominal 40-hour week while the plant is operating." The NRC also recommended that Alabama Power Company reconsider routinely preplanning overtime in excess of the guidance in Technical Specification 6.2.2.f during extended outages.

The NRC requested that Alabama Power Company respond within 30 days

" indicating your plan for resolving this issue and your schedule for compliance," or "to appeal the determination" to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Subsequently, the NRC Staff verbally granted an additional 60 days to formulate a response.

In the interest of achieving a mutually-acceptable resolution of this issue, Alabama Power Company has outlined in Section i below certain modifications of its Operations Staff (i.e., Shift Supervisors, Shift Foremen, Reactor Operators, System Operators and Shift Technical Advisors) overtime practices which it is willing to make to address the Staff's concerns. Alabama Power Company requests the Staff reconsider its decision in light of these proposed changes. :towever, if the Staff decides to maintain its position as stated in the May 24, 1991 letter, this submittal should be treated as a backfitting appeal. Section 11 discusses Alabama Power Company's conclusions regarding why the current overtime work

.ractices at Farley are in compliance with the governing Technical Specification and why the NRC decision represents a new position that should be justified by a backfitting analysis.

9108270178 910822 PDR P

ADOCK 0D000'348 PDR 1 h: }

l

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 2 I. Proposed Chances To The Farlev Overtime Work Practices A. An Assessment of Current Overtime Practices Alabama Power Company acknowledges the concerns raised by the NRC Staff in the May 24, 1991 letter, but maintains that the overtime scheduling practices for the Operations Staff at the Farley facility have been uf t, previously understood by the NRC Staff, and consistent with the Techt m l l Specifications (with the exception of past isolated incidents of exce';sive i overtime). The work schedules during unit outages, while permitting work of up to 84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> in a 7-day period, provide a minimum of 2 off days between shifts and 9 off days in a 5-week rotation. These schedules provide for high morale among shift workers as they are not subject to ,

call-in on these off days. In fact, during past outages, Alabama Power l Company has supplemented on-shift licensed personnel with personnel from other departments holding licenses to handle various administrative tasks j and thereby reduce the amount of overtime worked by the operating staff.

Alabama Power Company will continue this latter practice as necessary.

Alabama Power Company does not believe that a nominal 40-hour work week for l the operating unit Operations Staff during a : Agle-unit outage would I necessarily improve plant safety. Specificall, without supplementing the staff at the outage unit with personnel from the ,perating unit (and thereby maintaining a nominal 40-hour work week at the operating unit), the number of days off for the personnel on the outage unit would be reduced.

With fewer workers available to work the outage, the length of the outage would increase, This would result in increased fatigue due to the increase in the total number of hours worked by an individual during the outage.

Alternatively, if some operators from the operating unit were used to equalize the work load and radiation exposure at the outage unit, but the operating unit Operations Staff were still limited to a nominal 40-hour work week, variances in the composition of some shift crews would result as well as more frequent shift changes. These changes could increase the possibility-for personnel errors and would likely erode the crew concept.

Finally, from past experience, more stringent limitations on the operating unit than on an outage unit are not justified. Generally the ahiount and nature of work on tne operating unit during a single-unit outage is less fatiguing than on the outage unit.

To assess the effect of past overtime practices, Alabama Power Company recently reviewed the Farley staff performance over the duration of past outages and found_that performance did not deteriorate. Alabama Power Company also contacted a number of licensees to determine whether the Farley overtime scheduling practices were consistent with those at similar facilities. The results of our informal survey c dicate t'. t other multi-unit facilities also schedule overtime for bMh u.at staffs when only one unit is in an outage. These results are consistent with the similar conclusions reached by an independent consultant (Circadian Technologies, Inc.) engaged by Alabama Power Company in 1989 to review and evaluate the Farley overtime practices.

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 3 i

l Nevertheless, Alabama Power Company appreciates the NRC Staf f concerns with current practices, in order to address these concerns, Alabama Power Company has developed several changes to the current overtime practices, and requests the Staff to reconsider its position in light of the proposed changes.

B. Proposed Chances To Current farlev Overtime Ptketices for Qperations Department Shift Personnel l

Alabama Power Company is currently considering the following changes to the overtime practices for the Operations Department Staff:

1. Exceptions to the existing limit of 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 would be restricted to unusual circumstances.

l

2. Exceptions to these guidelines would be permitted on a case-by-case l basis with the approval of plant management.

3. The overtime worked during outages will be further reduced.

Alabama Power Company considers these changes acceptable and within the

-intent of.the existing Technical Specification guidelines and consistent with industry practices, in addition, Alabama Power Company does not consider these changes to be overly fatiguing for normal outage periods.

Alabama Power Company is continuing to evaluate other methods to improve i

the current work schedules and provide guidance and counseling to shift workers in order to assist them in coping with rotating shift work.

If these proposed guidelines are acceptable to the Staff, Alabama Power Company would commit to implement them prior to the next refueling outage at the Farley facility, and would not pursue an appeal, if the Staff maintains its position as stated in the May 24, 1991 letter, Alabama Power l Company-requests that this submittal be considered as an appeal of the Staff's porition. The following discussion presents the bases for such an appeal.

II. Anneal Of NRC Staff Position i A .- Current Farlev Overtime Reouirement The overtime guidelines for the Farley facility are contained in Technical Specification 6.2.2.f. The Technical Specification provides that "[t]he objective shall be to have personnel work a nominal 40-hour waek while the

, plant is operating." However, the specification recognizes that

" unforeseen problems" and " extended periods of shutdown" may warrant the use of overtime. Accordingly, specific overtime " guidelines" are identified which should be followed under such circumstances. For example, l the " guidelines" in the Technical Specifications limit the maximum amount of hours for an individual to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any seven-day period, unless l appropriate management approval is obtained, l

i

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 4 Alabama Power Company has consistently interpreted Technical Specification 6.2.2.f to limit work schedules to a nominal 40-hour week when holh units at f arley are operating. When either unit is in an extended shutdown, the overtime guidelines apply so that staff on both units are placed on overtime schedules. This interpretation is consistent with the language in the Technical Specifications. The Technical Specification objective of a nominal 40-hour week applies when the " plant" is operating, which Alabama Power Company interprets to mean when both units are at power.

Furthermore, several Alabama Power individuals involved with the development of the subject Technical Specification recall discussions concerning the interpretations of " unit" and " plant". The interpretation used by Alabama Power Company, i.e., plant refers to both units while unit refers to a single unit, was discussed with the NRC prior to the issuance of the Technical Specification.

As discussed in more detail below, the NRC has approved the farley overtime practices based on this interpretation of the Technical Specifications.

The NRC's May 24, 1991 letter (at page 1) specifically notes that Alabama Power Company "has utilized its current practice of scheduling overtime for a significant period of time, and the staff has indicated in the past that the practice appeared to be acceptable . . . ." In fact, the NRC Staff cites six recent inspection reports which specifically reviewed the farley overtime practices and either noted acceptance of or did not document specific concerns with the overtime scheduling practices while one unit is operating and the other unit is shutdown.

Nevertheless, the NRC Staff requested Alabama Power Company to change its practice, concluding that imposition of the new position was justified in order to bring the farley plant into compliance with Technical Specification 6.2.2.f. The basis provided for this NRC position is the stated " objective" in Technical Specification 6.2.2.f that " operating personnel work a nominal 40-hour week while the plant is operating."

8. New NRC Staff Overtime Position The NRC Staff appropriately considered their position a potential backfit since, for the first time, the Staff expressly interpreted Technical Specification 6.2.2.f to exclude the use of overtime at an o)erating unit when the other unit at the same site is shutdown. Neither t1e language of the Farley Technical Specifications nor the NRC guidance documents on overtime directly address this position. Moreover, on June 10, 1991, the NRC Staff issued Information Notice 91-36, which states that the farley overtime practice is inconsistent with both NUREG-0737 and Generic letter 82-12, but cites the May 24, 1991 letter to Alabama Power Company as a basis for its conclusion. Given the Staff's previout acceptance of the overtime practices at Farley, the issuance of this Information Notice further suggests that the NRC position contained in the May 24, 1991 letter is a new regulatory position.

i Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 5 The NRC Staff's position reflects only one of the two possible interpretations of the f arley Technical Specification. As noted above, Alabama Power Company's past practice has been to interpret Technical Specification 6.2.2.f on a "per site" basis, so that personnel on one unit may be placed on overtime schedules when the other unit is in an extended outage. The language of the Technical Specification does not preclude Alabama Power Company's interpretation, and, for the reasons discussed above, this interpretation is preferable from a health and safety standpoint. The application of the f arley interpretation was specifically ,

discussed with senior NRC personnel at a management meeting in the Region 11 offices on July 31, 1989. At that meeting the NRC representatives j generally agreed with the Alabama position, and subsequently documented j their conclusions in NRC Inspection Report 50-348,364/89-16 dated August  ;

17, 1989:

The licensee representatives discussed their present method of scheduling licensed operator crews for shift work and explained that during periods when one unit was in an outage that they maintained essentially the same schedule but extended shifts from eight to twelve hours such that crews worked 84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> in one week. They opposed any changes to their scheduling method because it would be disruptive to crew morale and have possible ALARA considerations.

The NRC representatives generally agreed with the licensee's position but expressed concern about several cases in which operators used overtime excessively. The licensee agreed with l this concern and committed to. tighten control of overtime approval to eliminate isolated excessive overtime.

With the exception of the issue of isolated excessive overtime (subsequently corrected through the implementation of appropriate controls), the NRC did not docment any concerns with regard to overtime scheduling at both units. The h10 staff reiterated their acceptance in inspection Report 50-348,364/89-22 (Nov. 9, 1989), at page 10. Thus, the NRC Staff has been aware of Alabama Power Company's specific overtime scheduling practices and has indicated that they were acceptable. Egg aho inspection Reports 50-348,364/88-05 (May 18, 1988) at pages 6-7, and 90-32 (Dec. 20, 1990) at pages 5-6.

Since the past overtime practices were deemed acceptable, a change in the NRC position as to the acceptability of the same practice cannot now fall within the compliance exception of the backfitting rule, but rather represents a reinterpretation of the Technical Specification provision. In its " Statement of Considerations for Section 50.109" issued in the Federal Register (50 Fed. Reg. 38097, 38103 (1985)), the Commission has stated:

o 4

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 6 The compliance exce) tion is intended to address situations in which the licensee las failed to meet known and established standards of the Commission because of omission or mistake of fact, it should be noted that new or modified interpretations of what constitutes compliance would not fall within the exception and would require a backfit analysis and application of the standard (of Section 50.109).

In essence, the Staff's position represents a new or modified interpretation of what constitutes compliance and should not have beci classified as a " compliance" matter.

Accordingly, if the Staff maintains the position reflected in the May 24, 1991 letter after considering the proposed changes discussed above, Alabama Power Company beileves the NRC should complete a systematic and documented analysis pursuant to Section 50.109(c) prior to imposing the new position as a backfit. Please advise us if the Staff has any questions or desires further information.

Sincerely, ALABAMA POWER COMPANY h ;m u.

({ Woodard JDW: map 0829 cc: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. S. T. Hoffman Mr. S. A. Varga Mr. G. F. Maxwell Mr. J. M. Taylor Mr. E. L, Jordan

_-- -