NRC-2011-0058, Comment (9) of Thomas N. Weber on Behalf of Arizona Public Service Company, on Proposed Rule PR-26, Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements
| ML11151A141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/2011 |
| From: | Weber T Arizona Public Service Co |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 102-06365-TNW/CJS, 76FR23208 00009, NRC-2011-0058, PR-26 | |
| Download: ML11151A141 (6) | |
Text
PR 26 (76FR23208) Docket ID NRC-2011-0058 Thomas N. Weber Mail Station 7636 Palo Verde Nuclear Department Leader Tel. 623-393-5764 PO Box 52034 Generating Station Regulatory Affairs Fax 623-393-5442 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 102-06365-TNW/CJS May 27, 2011 ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff DOCKETED USNRC Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 May 31, 2011 (7:57 am)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND
Dear Sirs:
ADJUDICATIONS STAFF
Subject:
Docket ID NRC-2011-0058 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-52815291530 Comments on Proposed Rule - Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements Federal Register Notice (76 FR 23208), dated April 26, 2011, provided an opportunity for public comment on the proposed rule related to the Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements associated with 10 CFR Part 26. The Enclosure to this letter provides the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) comments for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS).
In addition to the generic industry comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), APS is providing comments that may impact implementation of the alternative at PVNGS.
No commitments are being made to the NRC by this letter. Should you need further information regarding these comments, please contact Russell A. Stroud, Licensing Section Leader, at (623) 393-5111.
Sincerely, TNW/RAS/CJS/gat AI rnei,, : i -,fth I STARS (-rit .,a, T .imi dlcl lld.i P.e:,in.-& -li.:rjnq) A-, j.i,.
s!-a,1i.- .n -Fi~.A~i:
- 1i-i-ad F- i : *r':-s e ' ~i TI:tL' *.. Atl T..i ~.
TEMPLATE = SECY-067 DS 10
ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Proposed Rule - Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements Page 2
Enclosure:
PVNGS Comments on Proposed Rule - Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements cc: E. E. Collins Jr. NRC Region IV Regional Administrator (enclosure)
L. K. Gibson NRC NRR Project Manager for PVNGS (enclosure)
J. R. Hall NRC NRR Senior Project Manager (enclosure)
M. A. Brown NRC Senior Resident Inspector for PVNGS (enclosure)
ENCLOSURE APS Comments on Proposed Rule Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements
Enclosure APS Comments on Proposed Rule - Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements Introduction Federal Register Notice (76 FR 23208), dated April 26, 2011, provided an opportunity for public comment on the proposed rule related to the Alternative to Minimum Days Off (MDO) Requirements of 10 CFR Part 26. This Enclosure provides the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) comments for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS). In addition to the generic industry comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), APS is providing comments that may impact implementation of the alternative at PVNGS.
Comment on the Proposed Rule The staff analysis associated with the proposed rule is explicit in specifying adoption of one alternative for an entire site. The proposed rule language does not specifically reflect this position. The proposed rule simply requires that procedures clearly identify which provision is being used to ensure individuals comply with the cumulative fatigue provisions.
Licensees can specify which rule provision is being used programmatically on a covered work group basis. Plant procedures and management tools have the capacity to implement either alternative of cumulative fatigue management. Since both methods are effective in controlling cumulative fatigue, licensees should be able to select the method that works best for a given covered work group.
Split implementation (MDO vs. 54-hour weekly average) is reasonable because, for example, the 54-hour average alternative is better suited to operations leadership than the MDO provisions (which may be better suited for maintenance), it restores the long-standing safety beneficial practice of Shift Manager Meetings, and it effectively manages cumulative fatigue. As described in the implementation issues discussion that follows, not allowing split implementation may have the effect of delaying the restoration of the long-standing safety beneficial practices by approximately one year.
The relevant proposed rule language is as follows (emphasis added):
(d)(3) Licensees shall either ensure that individuals have, at a minimum, the number of days off specified in this paragraph, or comply with the requirements for maximum average work hours in § 26.205(d)(7). For the purposes of this section, a day off is defined as a calendar day during which an individual does not start a work shift. For the purposes of calculating the average number of days off required in this paragraph, the duration of the shift cycle may not exceed 6 weeks.
(d)(7) Licensees may, as an alternative to complying with the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3), comply with the requirements for maximum average work hours in this paragraph. Licensees voluntarily choosing to comply with the alternative maximum average work hours requirements in this paragraph are not relieved from complying with all other requirements in § 26.205 other than § 26.205(d)(3).
2
Enclosure APS Comments on Proposed Rule - Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements (i) Individuals may not work more than a weekly average of 54 hours6.25e-4 days <br />0.015 hours <br />8.928571e-5 weeks <br />2.0547e-5 months <br />, calculated using a rolling period of up to six (6) weeks, which rolls by no more than 7 consecutive calendar days at any time.
(ii) Each licensee shall state, in its FFD policy and procedures required by § 26.27 and § 26.203(a) and (b), with which requirements the licensee is complying:
the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) or maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
A specific clarifying comment could be that (d)(7)(ii) have a phrase added at the end that reads: "for each covered group."
Implementation Issues The industry is interested in restoring long-standing safety beneficial practices, such as Shift Manager Meetings. In order to accelerate implementation of these practices, licensees may use the published enforcement discretion (76 FR 22802, dated April 25, 2011) in preparation for transitioning to the final rule when issued.
Licensees use software to implement the existing work hour controls. The current software, while consistent with the existing rule MDO requirements, is not yet adapted to the proposed rule alternative (i.e., 54-hour weekly average, calculated over a floating 6 week cycle). Implementation of the alternative, in advance of the software development, requires a separate management tracking tool (e.g., database program or manual tracking methods). In addition, any MDO violations the existing software may identify while implementing the alternative would have to be addressed. It is impractical for most licensees to transition to the alternative, site-wide, prior to the existing software being adapted to the alternative described in the proposed rule.
The NRC staff analysis published with the proposed rule does not permit split implementation (i.e., by covered work group) of the alternatives at a given site. The enforcement discretion is not so proscriptive. The staff analysis is, therefore, not consistent with the enforcement discretion and the text of the proposed rule. If the final rule is enforced to preclude split implementation, any licensee that used split implementation under the enforcement discretion would have to revert back to the MDO rules, until the software was adapted site-wide. This would likely stop the safety beneficial practice of Shift Manager Meetings, for example, for that site.
The NRC is expected to issue the final rule before the implementing software is available.
If the final rule permits split implementation of the alternatives for a given site, then licensees that have used split implementation under the enforcement discretion would be able to continue, while awaiting the site-wide fatigue management software update. The effect of not permitting split implementation may be a delay in the restoration of safety beneficial practices, such as Shift Managers Meetings, by approximately one year.
3
Rulemaking Comments From: Carl. Stephenson@aps.com Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 7:06 PM To: Rulemaking Comments Cc: Russell.Stroud@aps.com
Subject:
Comments on Proposed Rule - Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements Attachments: 10206365 external Comments on Proposed Rule - MDO Alternative.pdf Attached is the APS comments on the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2011 (76 FR 23208).
Carl Stephenson (623) 393-5760 1