ML20235B322
Text
. - - . . '
- /Jt
,. a ' -
j 4
(fNIT[D ST Al t S
- NUCLE An HEGULA10llY COMMISSION
.(..h WASHmCToN. D. c. w.,55 YiAQ..,
y*, l,E**** .
April 13,1977 MEMORANDUM FOR:-
J. Branch, H. Sniezek, I&E Chief, Light Water Reactor Programs FROM:
Karl R. Goller, Reactors, DDR Assistant Director for Operating
SUBJECT:
MINIMUM SHIFT CREW COMPOSITION Your memo of March 21st suggests the need for modification of the STS /
\
language relating to minimum shift crew composition. Specifically, you are concerned with (1) the lack of an absolute minimum manning require-ment during the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> time period permitted to accommodate unexpected absence of on-duty shift crew members and (2) the lack of action state-ments related to operation with less than a full shift crew complement.
The provision to allow unexpected absence of on-duty shift crew members for a time period not to exceed 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> was included in the STS to allow licensees to obtain the necessary medical care and other treatment for shift crew personnel dictated by the total spectrum of possible conting-encies.
The provision was intentionally worded to provide flexibility in application so that, if in the judgement of the Shift Supervisor, one or more shift crew members were required to leave the shift in order to '
missible without incurring a violation of the technical s Not withstanding our intent, we appreciate your concern regarding the !
flexibility of this specification in that an absolute minimum shift crew limitation is not provided for during the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> time period. This lack of specificity limits enforcement action in this area should it become necessary.
Accordingly, we will modify this provision in the STS to limit the unexpected absence of shift crew members to one less than re-quired for any given operational mode.
As a matter of further clarification on this subject, we believe you should be aware that this provision was not intended to permit the initial sibilities. absence of any member of a shift crew assuming on duty respon-For this situation, sufficient members of the shift being 9707090021 070701 LIk ~12l
- 2. c. .: . - .
J. H. Snfezek .
April 13, 1977 i
until other arrangements can be made. relieved should be he Your concern about the lack of specific action statements to be follow-ed when'a shift crew is depleted below its minimum composition is a s ject of ment that the we STS.evaluated in considerable detail during the initial deve inappropriate and would prempt the prerogative of the or remaining shift crew member (s) in executing the safest course of actio for a variety of possible combinations of operational casualty situation Since we could not reasonable be expected to anticipate each of these .
situations nor could we unequivacally determine the most prudent cour we believe the' current treatment of this subject is J. M. McGough of my staff.Should you have any further questions k Th Karl R. Goller, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Operating Reactors cc: V. Stello D. Skovholt .
.C. Heltemes F.'Allenspach G. Constable P. Collins-STS Group Members ;
i
.e e