ML20136B353
| ML20136B353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136B337 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-56628, TAC-56629, NUDOCS 8511200191 | |
| Download: ML20136B353 (2) | |
Text
-
g UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
7.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 4s TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9
' AND TO AMENDMENT NO. 29 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 I.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated December 10, 1984, the licensee proposed amendments to License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 which would change Technical Specification 6.2.2.f with respect to working hours of plant staff. The NRC staff has evaluated these proposed amendments.
II.
EVALUATION The proposed amendments modify Technical Specification 6.2.2.f with respect to the specified objectives on normal working hours of unit staff who perform safety-related functions. The modifications substitute a 12-hour day with alternating 48-hour and 36-hour work week in place of the 8-hour day, 40-hour week. For those occasions which require substantial amounts of overtime or during extended periods of shutdown for refueling, major maintenance or major plant modifications, the specified guidelines on the maximum number of working hours recomended on a temporary basis for any 48-hour period are increased 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> (i.e., from no more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to no more than 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br />). The corresponding guidelines of not more than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> any 24-hour period and not more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> for any 7-day period are not changed by the proposed amendments.
In support of this request, the licensee stated that the change from an 8 to a 12-hour shift has been found to be more efficient, to reduce worker transfer continuity (per day, and to have the advantage of shift turnovers from 3 to 2 i.e., an individual worker transfers the duties to the person from whom he or she had taken over the duties 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> earlier). The licensee also found this continuity to enhance familiarity with the ongoing operations for the shift workers, to result in enhanced safety and improved work quality, and to enhance the effective management of shift turnovers. The Comission finds these observations by the licensee to be consistent with the experience of other operating nuclear power plants utilizing a 12-hour shift. The change to allow an individual to work 28 hours3.240741e-4 days <br />0.00778 hours <br />4.62963e-5 weeks <br />1.0654e-5 months <br /> in a 48-hour period provides flexibility for those occasions when an individual works 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />, takes a 12-hour break, and returns for a normal 12-hour shift (i.e., the change allows this individual to complete that normal shift).
)
8511200191 851112 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
\\
l
. The Commission finds that the proposed change in working hour guidelines in the Technical Specifications does not create a significant adverse
' impact on safety as the effect of longer working hours is offset by less frequent shift turnovers and improved employee morale; nor does the Commission's experience to date with other similar shift schedules indicate an increase in operator errors. Therefore, the change is acceptable.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in administrative procedures or require-ments. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental assessment need be prepared in connec-tion with the issuance of these amendments, d
IV.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal-Register on August 28,1985 (50 FR 34939) and consulted with the state of North Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of North Carolina did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the i;ealth and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
D. S. Hood, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL M. Schoppman, Licensee Qualifications Branch, DHFS F. Allenspach, Licensee Qualifications Branch, DHFS Dated: November 12, 1985 4
e