Fatigue Management 10 CFR Part 26 and "shift cycle"

[nukedude]

New guy here   

I'm a Licensed Reactor Operator and have been for more than 10 years.  My utility recently implemented the Part 26 rules (waited until damn near the last minute, I know) and a few of us Operators think that some of the Part 26 requirements are being interpreted/used incorrectly as per the actual rule and I'm curious as to how your utilities are implementing this.

My question has to do with how is your utility interpreting what a "shift cycle" actually is?  To me, the actual rule is VERY clear.  The rule defines a shift cycle as... "Shift cycle means a series of consecutive work shifts and days off that is planned by the licensee or other entity to repeat regularly, thereby constituting a continuous shift schedule."

We have 5 crews, work 12 hour days, and rotate every 5 weeks.  A very normal/typical 5 week rotating shift schedule.  While it would seem very clear to me that we are on a 5 week shift cycle, my utility is using a 6 week shift cycle for the purposes of calculating our minimum days off requirements. 

I've done a lot of reading on the Part 26 rules and even the examples lead one to believe that if you have 5 crews and rotate every 5 weeks that you are on a 5 week shift cycle.  The concern that we are doing this incorrectly has been brought to the attention of management but our fleet Part 26 gurus continue to say that we can use a 6 week shift cycle.  Now, I can see how if somebody is on a 1,2,3 or 6 week shift cycle that one could say that a 6 week shift cycle, for the purposes of calculating your minimum days off, is allowed (since those are all multiples of 6 and thus, using a 6 week shift cycle the schedule would repeat continuously as per the definition) but there is no way from the way I read it that a 4 or 5 week schedule could be made into a 6 week "shift cycle" as per the Part 26 rules.  There are a number of us right now who are, in our opinions, violating the Part 26 rule because we have less than 2.5 days off per week (averaged) over the 5 week shift cycle but when using 6 weeks we are just above the requirement. 

Anyway, I'm curious to hear from those of you who are also on a 5 crew, 5 week schedule if you are using a 5 week shift cycle or a 6 week shift cycle for Part 26 rules?  Thanks!

[Fermi2]

You are incorrect, the utility can define it as anything reasonable so long as it is repetitive. The example was not meant to be inclusive or binding.

In my opinion the whole fatigue rule is stupid and wasn't required. But what do I know? I've only been on shiftwork for 25 years. (Soon to end though!)

Mike

[nukedude]

LOL!  I hear ya.  Been on shift work for close to that long myself and it is getting OLD.

But "anything reasonable so long as it is repetitive" does not meet the actual rule and is not found anywhere in 10 CFR Part 26 from what I have found but maybe I missed it.  The definition of "shift cycle" that I posted is not from our procedure but from the actual rule.  You can't take any slice of our schedule and have it repeat continuously every 6 weeks.  If you say week 1 is our day shift week then week 6 (of a 6 week cycle) would be day shift as well since we work 5 different work weeks then start the process over again (5 week schedule).  To repeat this "shift cycle", when trying to call it a 6 week shift cycle, would then have me on day shift again for week 7 (since week 1 was our day shift).  

I do understand what you are saying but where are you getting your definition from?  The wording I provided was not an example but the actual defintion

[Fermi2]

From my training and from presentations at industry seminars.

I'm getting out of the industry in about 15 months. At least the Ops end of it.

Mike

[nukedude]

That's odd then... if they intended for the utilities to do basically whatever they wanted then they should have written the rule like that and not provided a specific definition (IMO of course!).

You must work at a utility where you don't work all that much overtime to think that it wasn't needed.  I happen to welcome it and embrace it! LOL!  We have kept the payroll budget looking good by using overtime instead of hiring more people.  I don't mind overtime because it is just part of being an Operator but there is a time when it's just too much.  We are really struggling with the Part 26 rules right now mostly because we just don't have enough Operators for the work they want to get done.  The new rules are going to ensure that I have somewhat of a life outside of work

Seems like you're getting out at an opportune time to jump right back in for big bucks if that is something you want to do.  I haven't heard from any old Operators that quit/retired and regretted it.  The ones who don't want to stay gone come back for way more money.  In fact, many Operators that retired many years ago have been offered so much money to come back to work that even though they didn't want to, they are back!  LOL!

Anyway, are you actually on a 5 week rotation but are you guys using a 6 week "shift cycle"?

Anybody else?

Thanks!

[Fermi2]

I work at a utility that has more OT than almost any other plant in the country.

I think it's a bunch of BS and pseudo science. It's not needed, someone whined to their congressman and this monstrosity is the result.

Yes they wrote the rule ambiguously, that's how the NRC writes all their rules. They want to have guidelines to how to manage fatigue but not direct you on how to do it.

Didn't your utility give you training on the rule?

[nukedude]

I guess it all depends on whether you're a guy who likes as much overtime as he can get or one that prefers to not work so much.  I like the overtime (buys the toys!) but 75 hours a week, week after week, is too much.  While definitely not perfect at least the rule prevents this from happening.  For me that is good... for a guy who WANTS to work 75 hours a week all the time, not so good

We got about 15 minutes of training but it was all related to timesheets and how the new software interfaces with Passport (database which runs most everything we do including timesheets).  So, nope, no actual training is causing me to ask these questions.  I did my own research into the actual rule vs our procedures and implementation.  Operators do this often at our utility and catch many "issues" if you want to call them that

I also didn't find the rule very ambiguous at all.  It is pretty darn detailed I thought.  In fact, there have been some in management who are trying to "work around" the rule in different ways but each time they think they found something which could be used to extend our hours a little more, another part of the rule creeps into the picture which puts the kibosh on their idea. LOL  So, in my review/reading of the rule, they seem to have covered most of the bases with pretty detailed requirements. 

[Fermi2]

Nope, it's very ambiguous in many parts, when pointed out to the NRC they said they wanted the utilities to choose how they manage it.

To be honest it doesn't take anything away from the OT Hounds, nowhere does the rule say they can't work all the hours they want, it simply requires more paperwork and that HATEFUL Fatigue Assessment!

As for OT. If I work past a certain amount it ends up costing me big on taxes.

Mike

[MeterSwangin]

You are incorrect, the utility can define it as anything reasonable so long as it is repetitive. The example was not meant to be inclusive or binding.

In my opinion the whole fatigue rule is stupid and wasn't required. But what do I know? I've only been on shiftwork for 25 years. (Soon to end though!)

Mike

This analysis is correct.  Read the NEI Position on the Rule. 

[JustinHEMI05]

Sucker. 

[Neutron_Herder]

So I show up on site thinking that the 6 months prior to starting ILT will allow me to get familiar with the plant and the NLO's work routines...  Soon we find out that our ILT start date has been pushed back a full 6 months.  Little responsibility, solid pay, and more time to learn how all the gears work... who could complain? 

Until today. 

Ops support manger:  "We've decided to fully integrate you into ops support; we'll have you start with our bargaining unit scheduling, so you can learn and appreciate how the new work hour rules affect us." 

Me:  "Noooooooooo!!!" 

The extra 6 months sounds like a great deal...  Like you said, more time to learn the plant.

You need to find someone to take your place before you go into an outage.  You'll spend all day writing up justifications for the people who are going to violate the rule!

It seems to me that they sometimes forget that you are there to learn.  While it's a great thing to know how the process works for managing personnel and their work hours, it's also become apparent to me that no one cares about the time you spend in the plant until it's too late.  You're getting paid to learn the plant, respectfully remind them of that.

We're just finishing up an outage, and I got selected for what they thought was one of the crappiest jobs around...  Housekeeping.  What I've done is turned it into an opportunity to get into all of those places that RP wouldn't let me go just to "Look around".  Now I have an excuse to get into all of those rooms, and I use it constantly!  While checking on the progress and cleanliness of contractor's jobs I use the time to walk down the systems in the rooms to try to tie it all together.  It's put me leaps and bounds above the others in my class who get to spend "quality time" delivering papers from here to there. 

Definitely use the time as a learning experience, but then do what you can to pass it off to someone else so you can get out in the plant!

Just my non-qualified 2 cents worth...

[JohnK87]

Waivers are not a big deal- they are very difficult to justify!  Unless someone calls in sick for a duty position or you have Pri 1 work going on, we don't do it.

The rule is not designed to manage fatigue- if it was, they would realize that the number of hours worked is far less important than consistency of schedule.  I would much rather work a 5 on/2 off straight nights or days than my current outage schedule that has 4 nights and 3 days every 12.  Fully compliant with the rules, but switching back and forth every week?  Ugh.

The rule was designed to force the industry to hire more people.  The NRC needed something because the "routine heavy use of overtime" in the previous rule was too vague to enforce.  The unions don't care about OT, they want more people paying dues.  The anti-nukes, like rulemaking petioners the Union of Concerned Scientists, want to price nuclear power out of existence.  The nuclear industry wanted to maintain short outages and pushed for changes to allow this, but it made the rule much more complicated.

A friend worked at a Canadian plant.  He said their rule was much simpler- you got 400 hours of overtime a year you could work, period.   

[Dustball]

Next outage we'll be over the 60 days.  Anyone else been in that position yet?  Covered workers just turn into pumpkins at 60 days??  We're not quite sure how this is going to work.  Any suggestions?

Zilla:  You stated a waiver is no big deal, just some paperwork.  Big deal here.  Used to write waivers all of the time prior to the new rules.  Now upper management will not agree to them. I've talked to others, I think that is more the case at quite a few plants.

I agree with the fact that the anti's are getting what they want.  With all of the new rules (fatigue, security, safety....) we are pricing ourselves out of the market.  Just another gov't entity with uncontrolled spending and no financial accountability.  At some point there is a risk vs reward that has to be considered.

[Dustball]

Nope, it's very ambiguous in many parts, when pointed out to the NRC they said they wanted the utilities to choose how they manage it.

To be honest it doesn't take anything away from the OT Hounds, nowhere does the rule say they can't work all the hours they want, it simply requires more paperwork and that HATEFUL Fatigue Assessment!

As for OT. If I work past a certain amount it ends up costing me big on taxes.

Mike

Looks pretty specific to me?! Waiver can be granted, but only if  "(i) An operations shift manager determines that the waiver is necessary to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety" and does the assessment.  The two that typically get us is the 34 hour break in any 9 consecutive days and the averages over the shift cycle.  We have a software package that assesses.  I guess the ambiguity would be how a facility implements.

(1) Except as permitted in § 26.207, licensees shall ensure that any individual's work hours do not exceed the following limits:

(i) 16 work hours in any 24-hour period;

(ii) 26 work hours in any 48-hour period; and

(iii) 72 work hours in any 7-day period.

(2) Licensees shall ensure that individuals have, at a minimum, the rest breaks specified in this paragraph. For the purposes of this subpart, a break is defined as an interval of time that falls between successive work periods, during which the individual does not perform any duties for the licensee other than one period of shift turnover at either the beginning or end of a shift but not both. Except as permitted in § 26.207, licensees shall ensure that individuals have, at a minimum—

(i) A 10-hour break between successive work periods or an 8-hour break between successive work periods when a break of less than 10 hours is necessary to accommodate a crew's scheduled transition between work schedules or shifts; and

(ii) A 34-hour break in any 9-day period.

[JohnK87]

Our previous outage went over 70 days.  It didn't matter when the 60 day clock ended much, because we were without an outage agreement for the union so ALL the RO/NLO's were working non-outage hours, and that's the big reason it took so long.  Much better this outage with an agreement.  You will find that after 60 days, with everyone back to online hours, that your productivity takes a step drop, especially on weekends.

[rpinphx]

Lets talk 5 or 6 week rotation.  My plant is on a 5 week cycle, but the plant uses 6 week to track fatigue management for the F-Rule.  We could not get the IT folks to understand initially, that it would be easier for the workers affected to track their own hours if we used a 5 week cycle.  The law allows a maximum 6 week cycle, the software vendor built the software for 6 week. 

So the uninformed believe that 6 weeks allows more days to be worked (27 days on 15 days needed off).  However we discovered that when a 6 week cycle encompasses 2 training weeks, shift availability actually decreases.

If you stay on a 5 week cycle, an operator can work 1 extra shift per -on-shift week.  Simple and easy to track.  So 4 extra shifts every 5 weeks.

On a 6 week cycle it will vary, from 5 extra days to as little as 3 depending on if 2 training weeks are in the cycle.
We use EmpCenter software.

As for waivers....basically you better need it for minimum shift manning requirements.  That is the only real reason to use one.

As for an outage going over 60 days...you only get 60 days for outage hours after that it goes to on line hours.  EXCEPT.....let's say you had operators in training and they enter the outage at day #10, then their 60 day clock would start at day 10 and go to day 70.
SONGS just went through this in their S/G replacement outage. 

[Fermi2]

Looks pretty specific to me?! Waiver can be granted, but only if  "(i) An operations shift manager determines that the waiver is necessary to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety" and does the assessment.  The two that typically get us is the 34 hour break in any 9 consecutive days and the averages over the shift cycle.  We have a software package that assesses.  I guess the ambiguity would be how a facility implements.

(1) Except as permitted in § 26.207, licensees shall ensure that any individual's work hours do not exceed the following limits:

(i) 16 work hours in any 24-hour period;

(ii) 26 work hours in any 48-hour period; and

(iii) 72 work hours in any 7-day period.

(2) Licensees shall ensure that individuals have, at a minimum, the rest breaks specified in this paragraph. For the purposes of this subpart, a break is defined as an interval of time that falls between successive work periods, during which the individual does not perform any duties for the licensee other than one period of shift turnover at either the beginning or end of a shift but not both. Except as permitted in § 26.207, licensees shall ensure that individuals have, at a minimum—

(i) A 10-hour break between successive work periods or an 8-hour break between successive work periods when a break of less than 10 hours is necessary to accommodate a crew's scheduled transition between work schedules or shifts; and

(ii) A 34-hour break in any 9-day period.

What is non specific is how one defines a cycle. Given I'm the guy who has to approve a waiver I'm pretty certain I know the detailed requirements.

[mostlyharmless]

I work on a four week rotation. 11.7 hrs Four nights on three days off  three days on one night off  three nights on three days off  four days on  seven days off.