ML20134J778
| ML20134J778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134J777 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611180055 | |
| Download: ML20134J778 (2) | |
Text
. _
i f,*
j#
g p~
t UNITED STATES i
g
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30886-0001 3.
%,*****f i
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 212 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 l!
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY j
CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY
{
THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY l
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 1 i
j DOCKEY NO. 50-346
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letter dated September 4, 1996, Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees),
submitted a request for changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) Technical Specifications (TS). The requested amendment would revise TS 6.2.3, " Facility Staff Overtime," by removing specific overtime limits and working hours. Additionally,. a requirement would be added to procedurally require that the plant manager or his designee (s) perform a monthly review of overtime for personnel who perform safety-related functions.
2.0 EVALUATION TS Section 6.2.3, " Facility Staff Overtime," describes the administrative controls that limit the amount of overtime worked by personnel who perform safety-related functions:
senior reactor operators, reactor operators, health physicists, auxiliary operators, and key maintenance personnel. The objective of the current TS was to have operating personnel work a normal 8-hour day, 40-hour week while the plant is operating. Since this language was approved, a great deal of experience has been obtained on working 12-hour shifts which entail working more than a 40-hour week.
On February 18, 1982, the NRC published " Policy on Factors Causing Fatigue of Operating Personnel at Nuclear Reactors" (47 FR 23836).
In June 1982, the NRC revised the policy slightly and subsequently disseminated the revision in Generic Letter (GL) 82-12,' " Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours," which recommended that licensees incorporate specific overtime limits in the TS to minimize the potential for operator errors ren1 ting from fatigue. The staff subsequently determined that few events at U. S. nuclear plants have been attributed to inadequate control of working hours, and that licensees can adequately control working hours with administrative procedures. This approach is consistent with Action Item I.A.I.3.a, " Limit Overtime," of NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements."
9611190055 961108 PDR ADOCK 05000346 P
l ,
.- l The staff has determined, on a generic basis, that specific overtime limits i
need not be specified in TS since this matter is not one of the subjects required by 10 CFR 50.36 to be in TS; this change will be incorporated on a generic basis in a revision to the improved ST3 (NUREG 1430). The staff concludes that control of this matter through administrative procedures 3
j provides reasonable assurance that personnel overtime will not jeopardize safe i
plant operation, and that specific overtime limits and associated procedures j
to minimize the potential for operator fatigue can be relocated to the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR), or other licensee controlled documents i
incorporated in the USAR by reference, for which future changes can be made pursuant to 10 CFR'50.59. Accordingly, this proposed change for DBNPS is acceptable.
The licensees propose adding a requirement to procedurally control the review, by the plant manager or his designee (s), of overtime for facility personnel i
who perform safety related-functions. The objective of this review 'shall be to ensure that excessive hours, that could lead to increased personnel error rates, are not being routinely worked.
The proposed changes have been reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable, because they do not affect the safe operation of the plant.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
1 In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Ohio State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no i
comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes an administrative requirement. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 52970). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will'not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
L. Gundrum Date: November 8, 1996
-.