ML20003D808
| ML20003D808 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1981 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104010044 | |
| Download: ML20003D808 (6) | |
Text
.
03/30/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMitISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of r
co METROPOLITAN EDISON C0ftPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket ho. 50-28 (/
l (Restart)
/2/
Qf g@#.Dj (Three Mile Isla:
Nuclear Station, d
Unit 1)
)
Qh 9p&
pj y}
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AAMODT FILING OF MARCH 10, 19 s
3'
% ; mi s
I.
INTRODUCTION Duri.19 the February 17, 1981 session of this hearing, Intervenor Marjorie Aamodt attempted to introduce a piece of testinony which included, inter alia, a section entitled "Another Stressor, Fatigue".
The Licensee and the Staff objected to the receipt into evidence of that portion of the testimony, arguing that it was not relevant to her contention in that it did not raise the issue of training or testing, and that it was not reason-ably related to the accident, thereby bri.1ging the subject matter of this portion of the testimony outside of the scope of this proceeding (Tr. 12,903-07).
Nevertheless, the Board ruled that the referenced portion of Mrs. Aamodt's testimony was admissible (Tr.12,919).
The Board subsequently ruled that the admissibility of the testimony was subject to a demonstration by firs. Aamodt that fatigue was a contributor to the accident and therefore relevant to this proceeding (Tr.12,926).
Accordingly, the Board granted Mrs. Aamodt a period of time within which she could p' ovide support for her argument that fatigue was relevant to this proceeding and that absent this demonstration, the referenced portion of her tastimony could not be used in proposed findings (Tr. 12,930,13,194).
On fiarch 10, 904010 OD br
2 1
1981, Mrs. Aamodt fi ed "Intervenor Response to Board Request for Evidence l
That Consideration of Control Room Operator Fatigue is Appropriate" ( Aamodt Response).
The Staff's reply to that Response follows, i
II.
DISCUSSION In her Response, Mrs. Aamodt discusses a number of issues, only one of which she was granted permission by the Board to address.
The single issue which the Board requested input from Mrs. Aamodt on was whether she could i
demonstrate, based on the evidence in the record or on other reliable evidence, whether fatigue was a contributor to the accident or the subsequent handling of the accident, thereby bringing this topic within the scope of this proceeding (See Tr. 13,189-90).
However, !!rs. Aamodt, in her filing, fails to reference a single citation to the transcript record in I
support of her argument that fatigue was a contributor to the accident or that it played a role in the subsequent handling of the accident, lier presentation instead is based on her argument that the Commission must 'iave been referring to fatigue in issuing the August 9,1979 and liarch 6,1980 Orders ( Aamodt Response, pp. 1, 2).
She further relies upon her own interpretation of the Essex Report (NUREG/CR-1270, Vol. I) to arrive at the conclusion that fatigue was a contributor to the accident (jd. at 4).
Ilowever, the Essex Company concluded in its report that:
"in reviewing the transcript of the several interviews conducted with the control room operators there is no evidence that, at the time of the accident, the actions and inactions were significantly influenced by fatigue, i
disorientation, or distractions" (Essex Report, supra, at 23).
i 1
4 I
-s
q
< Similarly, the Staff is unaware of other investigations of the accident in which the conclusion was reached that fatigue or length of shift in any way contributed to the accident.
Nor do the referenced Commission Orders-mention fatigue in defining the issues in this proceeding. Mrs. Aamodt refers to an unidentified Inspection and Enforcement document (apparently I&E Circular 80-12) as a document which suggests that I&E knows something about the work schedule at TMI-2.
However, there is nothing in the document which even references TMI, much less suggests that the THI-2 accident was caused by fatigue, nor does Mrs. Aanodt point to any such connection.
She also refers to NUREG-0737, which contains a Staff recom-nendation that the length of operator shifts be restricted.
- However, despite the fact that the title of that document references THI-related requirements for new plants, there is nothing in that document which indicates that fatigue or length of operator shift caused the accident.
Indeed, it is the Staff position that this requirement regarding operator shift lengths was inserted into NUREG-0737 quite independently of the TMI-2 accident.
III.
CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Staff simply reiterates that Mrs. Aamodt has pointed to no sources in the record, nor to reliable sources of evidence outside of the record, which even hint that the TMI-2 accident was caused by fatigue, or that the subsequent handling of the accident was affected by fatigue.
Accordingly, the Staff continues its objection to the consideration in this proceeding of that portion of Mrs. Aamodt's testimony dealing with fatigue or with any evidence elicited by Mrs. Aamodt during her cross-examination
e of witnesses which deals with operator fatigue.
On the basis of the above discussion, the Staff therefore urges the Board to take the action specified by the Board on the record (Tr.12,930), that Mrs. Aamodt's testimony regarding fatigue not be used in proposed findings in this proceeding.M Respectfully submitted.
[J?iwm Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, liaryland this 30th day of March, 1981 M Although not pemitted to do so by the Board, firs. Aamodt included in her Response a discussion of the relationship of fatigue to her contention number 2.
As the Staff has previously noted on the record (Tr. 12907), it takes issue with argument that her cortention even remotely covers the subject of operator fatigue.
Her contention is purely and simply an argument that the testing of operators and other technicians and management should be certified by an independent engineering firm, and that the test should include a 100~. test perfomance of the job description. Only in the event of a failure of these personnel to consistently and confidently master all necessary information required for the safe perfomance of their job in all anticipated critical and routine situations does Mrs. Aamodt argue that there should be provisions for retraining, retesting, or discharge.
In summary, the Staff continues to argue that her contention in no way would pemit the inclusion of a discussior, on operator fatigue or length of shift as a function of testing of the operators.
Indeed, Mrs. Aamodt appears to have implicitly conceded this point on page 11 of her Response where she states that to prevent fatigue by training is to ignore the issue.
The Staff understands ftrs. Aamodt here to be arguing that in fact training has no reasonable relationship to operator fatigue.
It would seem to follow, therefore, that fatigue in turn has no relationship to her contention, which itself is only conditionally related to training.
i
Y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO AA"0DT FILING CF
" ARCH 10, 1921" in the above-cactioned proceedinc have been served on the fcilowing by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indi-cated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'.
internal mail system, this 30th day of March, 1981:
Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman
- Walter W. Conen, Consumer Advocate Actinistrative Judge Departnent of Justice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Strawberry Souare, lath Floo-25 North Court Street Harrisburg, PA 17127 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Mr. Steven C. Sholly D*. Walter H. Jordan Union of Concerned Scientists Acninistrative Juoge 1725 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 601 25 North Court Street Washington, DC 20005 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Dr. Linda W. Little Bureau of Radiation Protection Administrative Judge Department of Environmental 25 North Court Street Resources Harrisburg, PA 17105 P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 1800 M Street, N.W.
6504 Bradford Terrace Washington, DC 20006 Philadephia, ?A 19149 Karin W. Carter, Esq.
Metropolitan Edison Company 505 Executive House ATTN:
J.G. Heabein, Vice P.O. Box 2357 President Harrisburg, PA 17120 P.O. Box 542 Reading, PA 19603 Honorable Mark Cohen E12 E-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 O
Ms. Jane Lee John Levin, Esq.
R.D. #3, Box 3521 PA Public Utilities Commission Etters, PA 17319 Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Gail P. Bradford ANGRY Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
245 West Philadelphia Street Fox, Farr and Cunningham York, PA 17404 2320 North 2nd Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 John E. flinnich, Chairman Dauphin Co. Board of Commissioners Ms. Louise Bradford Dauphin County Courthouse TMI ALERT Front and Market Streets 1011 Green Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Robert Q. Pollard Ms. Ellyn R. Weiss 509 Montpelier Street Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Baltimore, MD 21218 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 Chauncey Kepford Washington, DC 20006 Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Thomas J. Germine, Deputy Nuclear Power Attorney General 423 Orlando Avenue Division of Law - Room 316 S ate College, PA 16801 1100 Ray 90nd Boulevard Newa rk, N.J.
07102 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Cnairman Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dostponement Panel
- 26:0 Grendon Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wiimington, DE 19808 Washington, DC 20555 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal R.D. #5 Panel (5)*
Coatesville, PA 19320 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Senator Allen R. Carter, Chairman Joint Legislative Committee on Docketing and Service Sect'on (7)
Energy Office of the Secretary Post Office Box 142 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 513 Senate Gressette Bldg.
Washington, DC 20555 Columbia, SC 29202
.H.w A J m-- iz,- ~ -.
Daniel T.
Swansen Counsel for NRC Staff