ML20236U559
| ML20236U559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236U555 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-60732, TAC-60733, NUDOCS 8712030159 | |
| Download: ML20236U559 (3) | |
Text
- in nec N
UNITED STATES l8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
. t.
.j wAsHINCTON, D. C. 20655 l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0MENTS NOS. 148AND 85 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57 AND NPF-5.
GEORCIA POWER COMPANY OGLtlHORPE POWER CORPORATION-MUNICIPAL ELECINIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON,-GEORGIA EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-321-AND 50-366 1.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated January 6,1986 (Reference 1), Georgia Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS).for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and.2.
The requested changes would provide flexibility to allow the licensee to have operating personnel work '12-hour shifts. By letter dated May 16,1986 (Reference 2).. in response to'NRC staff questions, the licensee supplemented the initial request (Reference 1) with details regarding preliminary planning for 12-hour shift operations. and shift-j staffing. The supplemental information furnished in Reference 2 did not in.any i
way modify the request for change submitted in Reference 1..
.j II. EVALUATION Sections 6.2.2 9 of the TS for Unit 1 and 2 now state, in part', "The objective-d shall be to have operating personnel work a normal 8-hour day, 40-hour week l
while the plant is operating." The licensee. proposes to change this sentence to read, "The objective shall be to have operating personnel work a nominal
- 1 40-hour week while the plant is. operating." The change would eliminate.the reference to an 8-hour day, thereby providing for a more flexible shift schedule with nonnal shift durations of up to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. Other provisions of j
the TS regarding overtime, maxitaum shift lengths, and minimum break time 1
between work periods would remain unchanged.-
l A study performed for the NRC (Reference 3) recommended that'the NRC consider l'
applications for use of 12-hour shift scheduling or a plant-by-plant basis using a number of criteria for evaluating the licensee's request. ' The study'
_{
noted the potential advantages and disadvantages of 12-hour shift schedules, i
but without firmly concluding that 12-hour schedules are either better or-worse than 8-hour shift schedules. A more recent study perfonned for the Department of Energy (Reference 4) reported on the results of 12-hour shift-operations at the Fast Flux Test Facility. The study concluded that'the longer shift length did not increase either;the number or severity of off-nonnal events at the FFTF and that the error rate during 12-hour shifts was even lower than it' had been on 8-hour shifts. There was an increased productivity of craft personnel and a decreased attrition rate, resulting in more experienced personnel being'on shift.
8712030159 871124 Y DR ADOCK 050 31
s The Commission previously has approved the use of routine 12-hour shift sche-dules for other nuclear plants.
The three Duke Power Company plants (0conee, with 12-hour shift schedules similar to the schedule propo 1
for the Hatch Units 1 and 2.
Each of these 12-hour shift operations has been i
conducted successfully, resulting in improved operator morale, with no de-l crease in efficiency and no adverse impact on accident rates.
l The Comission now has under consideration a revised Pclicy Statement on Working Hour Limits which specifically provides for 12-hour shift schedules.
The guidelines proposed in the new Policy Statement for the use of.12-hour shifts, which generally follow the recommendations of. Reference 3 are:
1.
The schedule should contain a maximum of 4 consecutive 12-hour work days.
1 2.
Four consecutive 12-hour work days should be followed by no fewer than 1
4 days off.
i 3.
bas 12-hour day schedule should be "2-on, 2-off," "3-on, 3-off*"
- off, on, or a systematic combination of these such as th
,,{ery-th eekend-off-schedule" which combines "2-on, 2-off!with l
4.
The plant should have the capability to cover unexpected absences without requiring any individual to work more than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> per day.
i J
5 The average number of hours worked per week should be 40.
l The preliminary planning information submitted by the licensee in Reference 2 is generally in accordance with these guidelines.
l Thus, the proposed 12-hour shift scheduling for Hatch Units 1 and 2 is not in conflict with the
{
guidance of the draft revised Policy Statement.
Further, the NRC staff notes that, as stated in the draft revised Policy Statement, the NRC is moving away from prescriptive requirements in licenses to control work hours because reactor operating experience indicates that abuse of work hours has not been connected with safety-related incidents.
Rather, the NRC intends to emphasize that it is the licensee's responsibility i
to set and enforce limits on excessive work hours as necessary to assure safe operations and maintenance, i
On the bases that studies have not indicated any deleterious effects resulting from 12-hour shift operation, that the licensee's proposed 12-hour shift sche-duling is similar to shift rotations now being used successfully at several other nuclear power plants, and that it is in confonnance with the guidelines for 12-hour shift scheduling contained in the draft revised Policy Statement on control of working hours, and in light of the NRC intent to move away from prescriptive requirements in the TS governing work hours, the staff finds acceptable the licensee's proposed changes to the TS for Hatch Units I and 2
i a
5 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in reporting requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no signif-icant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of I
any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there should be no signif-icant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments 1
involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public j
comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR $51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
CONCLUSION l
The Commission made a proposed detennination that the amendments involve no l
significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 10460) on March 26, 1986, and consulted with the state of Georgia.
No l
public comments were received, and the state of Georgia did not have any Coninents.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1)there is reasonable assurar,ce that the health and safety of the public will not be en-dangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be l
conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of I
the amendments will not be inimical to the corinon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l
References:
l 1.
Letter from J.T. Beckham, Jr., Georgia Power Company, to D. Muller, NRC, 1
dated January 6,1986.
2.
Letter from L.T. Gucwa, Georgia Power Company, to D. Muller, NRC, dated Pay 16,1986.
3.
Report, NUREG/CR-4248, " Recommendations for NRC Policy on Shift Scheduling and Overtime at Nuclear Power Plants," issued July 1985.
4.
Report, PNL-6017, " Evaluation of 12-Hour Shift Schedules at the Fast Flux Test Facility," issued September 1986.
Principal Contributor:
L. Crocker F. Allenspach Dated: November 24, 1987
____ _ -..