ML19323F916

Motion for Reconsideration of Aamodt Motion to Compel Licensee to Respond to Third Set of Interrogatories & Deposition on Contention 2,re ASLB 790809 Order.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML19323F916
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/22/1980
From:	Aamodt M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8005290636
Download: ML19323F916 (5)

Text

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

y; y , y. . ~,: .

F *. #

4 -

POCKETED April 22, 1980 7

t g 2immo

~

United States of'Ameri.ca g g g .D q

- 0$ uclear. Regulatory Commission.

I Oliced.j'hh he Atomic Safety and Licensing Board _

f In ' M d, of Metropolitan Edison Company, Three Lille Island b V Nuclear Generating Flant, Unit 1 Docket 50-289 .

A MOTION T,0 THE BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AAMODT INTERROGATORIES AND' DEPOSITION REGARDING CONTENTION.2 As we envisioned Contention 2 to be meaningful in fulfilling the objectivo of, the Augus5 9 order, it was in its effect "on the actual operation of the control rocm by TMI operators". Since the l Board has given this as its reason for exclusion, we motion for I reconsideration on the basis of the following argument:

Testing in a training program should not be an academic ex-ercise (measurement of immediate retention), but a tool for pre-diction of ability to perform on the job. A reasonable assumption is that the testing and licensing established by'NRC and testing designed and executed by Met Ed are based upon that concept. l We are asking- that the testing programs be scrutinized for re-liability, and accordingly training and testing be revised for more reliability /$ediction of performance .than was the case at TMI-2. This was stated in the accepted contention, restated with underlining for emphasis relevant to argument: l

2. It is contended that DII-1 should not open until the performance 'of licensee technicians and management can be demon-

_strated to be_ upgraded as certified by an independent engineering firm. This upgrading should include 100% test performance of M description with provision for retraining and retest, or discharge of those who cannot consistently and confidently master all necessary information for safe conduct of their job descrintion under all

_ anticipated critical situations as well as_ routine situations.

In order to improve reliability, the training and testing should include as many variables as will be present in actual per-formance in critical situations as well as routine situations.

The Board has recognized the need to simulate critical conditions in allowing "strers" as a variable in training and testing over the licensee's objections. Numb.er g of hours von- 4be job ,is..a , l variable in r utine as well as critical situations. l 8005290636

l..s.,.y 2

i i .

c Number of hours on the . job'should also. be allowed as a consideration in that it is a form of stress , and is already

?

. included under this ' umbrella'.

Since the unions and Met Ed have obted for a twelve hour shift, training then"must be adequately planned to prepare all personnel to function reliably at all times during these twelve hour shifts, for instance by " overtraining" or spaced training or any other techniques which mitigaterthereffects of hours on'the job.

Testing must then,be designed to test that this training is as planned. This m'ust be certified by an independent engineering firm. This was the thrust of the contenti.on as it would bear on the safe operation of TMI-1.

n A fault of training prior.to the TMI-2 accident was inade-quate simulation of real operating conditions both in terms of equipment used and in terms of. situations. For instance, response to single modes of failure were trained for; this training was found inadequate when there were several modes of failure, as during the TMI-2 accident. Ehe accept'd e philosophy had been that an operator could bring together the individualized training at the time it was needed, an acceptable score on testing response to single mode failure was considered an adequate predictor for response to multiple failures. And it was .not. To assume that training that does not take into account length of shift is adequate to assure reliable performance would appear to be chance taking again.

The above argument is for reconsideration of oun" motion tp compel licensee to respond to discovery requests, Third (Sici Sixth)

S t,_.Interrogato' ries 22 through 26.

Regarding Interrogatory 36, a request for deposition of TMI-1 or 2 personnel, the Board has misunderstood.our request. We, there-fore, motion for reconsideration in view of this misunderstanding by the following clarification:

The Board has interpreted the request for the names of all employees as a desire on our part to subject all these employees to a written questionnaire. That.is not the case.

The licensee in their objections to' our ' motion to compel' stated what we in-tended: .

~

( p. .:p . . - v -

' y .

3 .

"It is now f'equested that , Licensee provide to the - Aamodts

. 'a complete list of employees submitted by job category, location (TMI-l or.2).' The Aamodts would then select by some process 10 ' employees 'from each job category who would be required to respond under oath to a written questionnaire on perfonnance and training."

2. O' ur object was to obtain evidencec that'would be reliable in predicting how the entire personnel would answer if, deposed without actually.. deposing the entire, personnel. We were therefore attempting to apply small samp' ling technique. -

Our request for d,eposition was made before the cut-off 3

date of February 15 We_wsre unaware t' hat filing on that date rather than prior to that date.would hinder the request.

4. We understood that thirty days subsequent to February 25 were allowed to take noticed depositions. That thirty days has expired due to the refusal of the licensee to make any attempt to understand our request or to communicate with us for clarifiedtion.

5 According to'10 CFR 2.740 a the exact identity of the person or persons to be deposed is not required but, "a general description sufficient to identify him or the class or group to which he belpngs".

6. Since questions used in oral deposition are not required to be formulated and serviced prior to deposition, we reserved this right, regarding the writing of answers by employees to simply be a means of recording answers (without expense of court reporter) and to hasten the process. ,

7 The number of persons to be depos'ed would not number

" hundreds of persons" as the licensee srgues, unless job categories number more than twenty. Licensee mentions four categories. "W e agree wi.th four ccategoriesi management, control roca, guards and maintainence -- a total of forty persons.

8. ' Interrogatory 36 was intended as a notice for taking depositions. Subsequent discussions by both the licensee and l the Board recognized this in their ' objections' and ' memorandum',

~

respectively. The licensee calls it "in reality a request for depositions.'" We, unfortunate 13, have no legal training and under-stood that in intervening cro se that there would be no attempt to apply standards nof absolute legal procedure. There was no-attempt on our part to willfully ignore legal procedure; in the press to mset the February 25 deadline. for noticing, we channeled our efforts in a manner that we believed vtas dnderstandable to all

,-;.m .x. ~ ' ' T F B 7 ;: T ~ ';~; Y : ce - p. .-

s:.

-3.'

s. 7 ,; .

4 ,

~

~

parties,' evidently at the expense of adherence to perfunctory legal procedure. :We are learning through this initial experience

/

with intervention,. however we -did;not: understand that small.~ err 6rs in procedure would jeopardize r case.

spectfully submitted, w r v

g!b'."

. MarjheM.Aamodt.

• g .

e e

e e

e e

9%

4' O

9 9

(

=

S 9

w - ; - - . - .., - - - - - -

-m, m

y . 9. ; :- .

! April 24, 1980

/ ~

_ United St5Ltes of' America

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Before the Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Company, Three Mile Island j Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 l Docket 50-289  ;

Certificate of Service I hereby certify that " A MOTION TO THE BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AAMODT INTERROGATORIES AND DEPOSITION REGARDING CONTENTION 2" was served on those persons named below by deposit in the United

's 24th day of-April, 1980.

States mail, postage prepaid', tfs &h . .

Lef Marj g e M. Aamodt Dated: ' April 24, 1980 '.

~

SERVICE LIST * ~

George F. Troubr.i.dge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge .

1800 M Street, N.W.

, Washington, D.C. 20036 #/ . .

.- - h Ivan W. Smith, Esquire g pgttto USNGC 4' 7- -

~

Chairman 9 Atomic Safety and Licensir "C M 2 01980 > F Board Panel g gyp 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory y@te sono p~

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 k< o j ge %N Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 ,

Dr. Linda W. Little Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 James A. Tourtellotte, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' '

Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Washington, D.C. 20555 .

.