ML20005B410

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on 810515 Mgt issues.Five-shift Rotation Would Not Adversely Impact Licensee Training & Operations.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20005B410
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/29/1981
From:	Adler R PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
References
NUDOCS 8107080193
Download: ML20005B410 (12)

Text

.. $ 0l bb UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tEISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFEIY AND LICELEIIE BOARD In the Matter of )

t

)

MEIROPOLITAN EDISON 00MPKW, )

) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, Unit No.1) )

6 \

goagygo tame -

a7 'JUE 21981' * -2

~

L (IMDIEALTH OF PEIEEYLVANIA'S REPLY @

FINDIIES OF FACE AND CONCLUSIONS OF IAW ON MANAGEMEtir ISSUES

~

\\ k 93 Q Ntfh ,y llg&Q g

ROBERT W. ADLER Attorney for the Connonwealth 505 Executive Pa se P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-7060 D.SDS

.5 ll l

8107080193 810629 Pg PDR ADOCK 05000289s-O PDRf l

j

. A c

E l

TABLE OF CONIH HS l

I. NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN LICENSEE AND THE CCM0tEEAL'IH OF PENNSYLVANIA................................................ 1 II. OPERATIONAL RESOURCES.......................................... 4 A. Shift Staffing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Operational Personne1..................................... 6

. 4 I. NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN LICENSEE AND THE COR 0 WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANTA

1. The Comotsv.alth of Pennsylvania suhnitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on management issues on May 15, 1981.

Rather than filing proposed findings and conclusions on all manag ment issues in the proceeding, the Couronwealth elected to " advise the Comission" pursuant to its rights unde- 42 U.S.C. 52021 and 10 C.F.R. 52.715(c) "on specific management issues on which the Cmmnealth perceives deficiencies that need to be r eedied." Comorwealth's Proposed Managment Findings at 2. The Comonwealth subnitted proposed findinga and conclusions in the following area: I. Burden of Proof c;-

Management Issues, II. Additional Training Requirments (including Licensed Operator Reexamination, GRC Evaluation of Operator Performance, Simulator Training, Training for Senior Managenent Personnel, Training in Anticipated Transients Operator Guidelines, and Training in Class 9 .

Accidents), III. Operational Resources (including Shift Staffing Requirements, Operational Personnel, and Radwaste Staff Requirenents),

and IV. Staff Review of Financial QmHfications. Although the Conrrnwealth in general indicated that it believed,that Licensee had met its burden of proof on all other managenent issues in the proceeding, it did not adopt the findings and conclusions proposed by any other party and reserved its right to participate as a full party on appeal.

2. After the filing of the Cottonwealth's proposed findings and conclusions on management issues, Licensee proposed that an extension be granted for proposed reply findings to issues raised by the Conmormv.alth, so that Licensee and the Connorsvalth could engage in discussions and negotiations on these issues. In light of the general policy of the Cocaission favoring the settlement of disputes between parties, this

. 4 extensions was granted. Tr. 21, 844-54. h Board is pleased that the discussions between Licensee and the Cocuoruealth were highly productive.

As a result of these discussions, and based upon conmitments made by Ilcensee to resolve many of the concerns raised by the Cocmoealth, the Cocmonwealth agreed to withdraw its proposed findings and conclusions with respect to the following issues: II. Additional Traimng Paquirenents (all subissues) (.1135-117) and III. Operational Resources (Radwaste Staff Requirenents only) (11150-154). See Letter from Ernest L. Blake, Jr. , Counsel for Licensee to Robert W. Adler, Attorney for the Cocronwealth (June 22,1981) [he einafter Blake letter]. The issues not withdraw by the Conmonwealth are addressed in the Board's proposed decision on managenent issues, infra.

3. The Board finds that the agreement reached by Licensee and the Conrouwealth is a fair and reasonable solution to the issues raised in the Couractuealth's proposed findings. The Board recognizes, however, that the Couronwealth possesses no enforcenent mechanism to ensure that Licensee's "comi.tments" are honored, short of a motion to show cause,

.:hich is subject to the Staff's discretion. 10 C.F.R. 52.206.

Accordingly, the withdrawal of the Cocmonwealth's findings was contingent upon the agreement by Licensee not to object to the imposition of Licensee's comitmente as license conditions for the restart of 'IMI-1.

Blake Letter, at 5. Moreover, Licensee agreed to make these cmmitments a matter of record in this proceeding. Tr. _, . The Board agrees that this approach is appropriate. Therefore, the Board directs that the following. cocmitments of Licensee be enforced by the Staff as license conditions for the restart of 'D4I-1:

(1)_ Prior to restart, Licensee shall denonstrate to the NRC Staff that licensee has examined on the subject matter identified in Comission Order Its 1.e. (i.e. , Category T examination), the four reaining individuals of the thirty-six whom Licensee has certified for NRC licensed operator examination prior to restart, and the Staff shall include in its certification to the Conmission that Licensee has complied with this condition. 'Ihe Staff is directed to review all Category T examinations utilized by Licensee for these thirty-six individuals prior to restart. No operating license shall be issued to an operator who has not passed an NRC-approved Category T examkation; (2) Prior to restart, Licensee shall d monstrate to the NRC Staff that all of its licensed operators have received at least three additional days of training covering the M-2 accident subject matter, and the Staff shall include in its certification to the Conndssion that Licensee has complied with this condition; (3) Prior to restart, Licensee shall demonstrate to the IRC Staff tha.t. all of its operators who have not previously held IEC licenses have successfully completed at the B&W sinulator an NRC-administered examination, in addition to the written examinations and the operating examinations at M-1, and the Staff shall include in its certification to the Comission that Licensee has complied with this condition; (4) Prior to restart, Licensee shall deonstrate to the IEC Staff that Licensee has available for use at M-1 a cathode ray tube (CRT) part-task simulator uhich displays emperature and pressure, and the Staff shall include in its certification to the Conmission that Licensee has complied with this condition; (5) Prior to April 1, 1982, Licensee shall prepare for bids and distribute specifications for a M-1 exact replica simulator anticipated to be installed in 1985;

(6) Prior to restart, Licensee shall denonstrate to the IEC Staff that Licensee has contracted for a basic principles trainer for IMI-l anticipated to be installed in 1982, and the Staff shall include in its certification to the Cm mission that Licensee has complied with this condition. Following availability of this trainer, Licensee shall provide for each operator as a part of annual requalification training at least one week training per year on this trainer in addition to the wek each year at ESFe sinnlator, at least until Licensee's exact rplica sinulator is available.

(7) Prior to restart, Licensee shall denonstrate to tha IEC Staff that metioers of Licensee's senior managenent who have joined Licensee since July 1,1979, and who are designated to act as Emergenrf Directors or as Emergency Support Directors, have received a formal training course addressing site-specific plant design features, and the Staff shall include in its certification to tfie Cocmission that Licensee has complied with this condition.

(.8) Licensee shall conduct training of all of its operators in AIOG prior to AIOG implementation.

4 II. OPERATIONAL RESOURCES A. Shift Staffing Requirenents

4. Licensee asks the Board to accept the Staff's retraction of its original shift manning requirement, which would have required two SR0s and two R0a per shift at the ti=e of restart. This retraction was apparently based on the Staff's determination that there is nothing unique about 7MI-l that would warrant capliance with the two and two criterion on a schedule earlier than other operating plants. Licensee's

4 Proposed Management Finding 41. The Staff asks us to reach the same conclusion.- Staff's Proposed Managanent Finding 50 n.5.

5. The Staff's position on this issue is completely contradicted by earlier testimony by representatives of the NRC Staff's senior managenent. On cross-examination by Licensee's counsel regarding the reasons for treating IMI-l differently from other operating reactors, the Director of the Division of Systans Integration of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation testified "It had to do with the fact that the plant has been down for two years with essentially no operating experience." Tr.15, 656 (Ross); Personal Qualifications Statement of Denwood F. Ross, Jr., accompanying Ross, ff. Tr. 15, 555. Dr. Ross supported this position by stating that:

With the stable code it has been in for the last two-and-a-half years there has been no--

let's say the intrinsic challenge comes from operating a plant. The experiences, in my opinion,' are not the same. The alarms do not arrive. The transients do not come. You do not start it up. You do not go to hot standby. It is not the same operating experience.

Tr.15, 663 (Ross). Dr. Ross also attributed importance to the fact that Licensee's operators were trained in teams of four rather than ,

tears of three:

. . . at startup you have what I wuld characterize as a symbiotic relationship amongst the operating crew. And we have witnessed this operate as a team in response to various abnormal events or energency procedures.

If there happens to be three in there, then the three of them will respond as a team. On the other hand, if there are four, they will respond differently. Different people will do different things. I do not think that the plant response to a three-man team that has been trained and for which procedures have been written will be the same as four ...

s 0

Tr.15, 661-62 (Ross). Finally, Dr. Ross felt that it m uk not be desirable to switch from a three-person to a four-person shift in the middle of a refueling cycle. as apparently m uld be required by the current NUPIG-0737 July 1,' 1982 deadline for the two and tw requirenent.

Tr.15, 656-57; 15, 662 (Ross).

6. The Board fails to understand the reasons for the change in the Staff's position on this issue. No evidence was presented by either the Staff or the Licensee to corcovert Dr. Ross' detailed and valid reasons for treating 'IMI-l as an NIOL rather than as an operating reactor for the purposes of shift manning requirenents, as pointed out by the Contenwealth. Conronwealth's Proposed Managenent Findings 120-137.

Consequently, the Board concludes that Licensee should be treated as an NIOL for this requirenent, and thac Licensee is required to maintain two licensed SR0s and tw licensed R0s on shift at all times.

B. Operational Personnel

7. Licensee asks the Board to determine that its shift Inanning is adequate by asserting that " Licensee's licensed shift operating staff is couposed of six shift supervisors, seven shift foremen . . . and about twenty control room operators ..." Licensee's Proposed Managenent Finding 41 (ecphasis added). Ibreover, Licensee consistently asks the Board to base its decision in this case on the assumption that Licensee will have six operational shifts. See, e.g., Licensee's Proposed Managenent Findings 118, 138. Yet by Licensee's own admission, all of these operators nust pass NRC license examinations and other criteria prior to obtaining NRC licenses to operate the plant. Licensae's Proposed Management Finding 185. The Board cannot base its decision as

to the adequacy of Licensee's shift manning on the assumption that all of these 33 operators will receive licenses to operate M-1. In fact, as noted by the Cocmonwealth, only 29 of Licensee's operational personnel took the AC licensing examination (16 Ros and 13 SR0s). Connonwealth's Proposed &nagenent Findings 56,143. Using Licensee's approach, the Board essentially would adopt no standard regarding the numbers of qualified and licensed operational personnel necessary to operate M -1 safely.

8. The Comonwealth's approach, on the other hand, is to have the Board set minimum standards for the runbers of licensed reactor operators and senior reactor operators necessary to operate the plant safely. See Connonwealth's Proposed Managenent Finding 148. While there may be room for disagreement regarding the actual numbers of licensed personnel (including both the number of shifts and the number of operators per shift) necessary to. operate the plant safely, the Board agrees with the Cocconwealth that, in judging the adequacy of Licensee's operational resources, it is necessary to establish a reasonable standard.

9. Licensee presented no evidence regarding the mininun staffing levels it believes necessary to operate the plant safely. Rather, as noted above, Licensee asks the Board to assume the availability of six operating shitts. License 2 further explained that three shifts are necessary to cover each twenty-four hour period; that on any given day there are three shifts that are not manning the control room; and that these three shifts are divided into one off-duty shift, one relief duty shift, and one training shift. Licensee's Proposed &nagement Findir6 138. Licensee then merely notes that "Six shifts is not an tRC requirement; the IEC requires that the plant be adequately staffed.

Tr. 20, 773 (Crocker)_." Id. n. 18.

10. By contrast, the Staff did present evidence on the adequacy of Licensee's Operational Staff. This evidence a s analyzed by the Cocmonwealth. Cocmonwealth's Proposed Managenent Findings 144-146. To sucmarize the Staff's position, although the Staff expressed concern regarding the ntebers of qualified R0s and SR0s on Licensee's staff, it determined that Licensee could operate with a five-shift operation.

. Staff Ex. 13, at 4-5. The Staff made this assessment, however, without evaluating the effect of reverting to five shifts on Lic_aee's training program, or on the anuunt of hours that each operator wuld be required to wrk. In any case, there is no evidence on the record that less than five shifts w uld be acceptable. Based on the Board's determination that each shift nust be compromised of two licensed SR0s and two licensed Ros, see supra, this would dictate an absolute min h m of ten licensed SR0s ara'. ten licensed R0s on Licensee's operational staff, without accounting for attrition. bbreover, considering that Licensee asks the Board to judge its operator training program on the basis of a six-shift rotation, and the fact that Licensee's cperators were deliberately trained by shift to produce positive performance reults, a minimn of twelve licensed SR0s and twelve licensed R0s is warranted, absent denonstration that a five-shift rotation would not adversely impact Licensee's training and operations.

Respectfully subnitted,

,? / ' ' (!

dKh0 ? Q /}l/v < LI.h;2 .

( . -1 ROBERT W. ADIIR I Attorney for the Cacmonwealth l

-S-i

, ~

O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RE H ATORY CO MLSSION BEFORE THE ATOfIC SAFE 1Y AND LICENSING BOARD In the lhtter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON (IMPANY, )

. ) Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) (Restart)

Station, Unit No.1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached "CmtrKrealth of Pennsylvania's Reply Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law on Management Issues" were served on the parties on the attached service list this 29sh day of June,1981. Service was by hand or by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid.

]

~

r- 01 n ,

Q'yk tyd-y

, ikO bl f' noBERT w. ADtzR /

. =

a UNIUD STAH3 CF #' ERICA NUCIZAR REGULA1 CRY C2t".ISSICU BEFIRE ':HE AITIC SAFE 1Y RD LICE:EI!C BCARD In the Matter of )

)

PEROPOIRAN EDISCN C2fMTf, )

) Docket !b. 50-289 (2xree Mile Island & clear ) (Restart)

Station, thit !b.1) )

SDNI LIST Cecrge F. T:n.tridge, Esquire Dr. Linda W. Little Shaw, Pitt:aan, Potts & Trowbridge Atocsic Safety ard Licensing Board Panel 1800 M Street, N.W. 5000 Hermitage Drive E shington, D.C. 20006 Raleigh, North Carolira 27612 Ms. Marjorie M. Aa= ode Docketing and Service Section R.D. #5 office et the Secretarf Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320 U.S. !belear Pagulator/ cm-4sion Washington, D.C. 20355

_ hs._.Gail Bradfo_d. r _.

Anti-!berear Group'Fapresenting ~ Ellyn R. Weiss York (R ERY) Shelden, Pamen, Foisman & Weiss 245 W. Philadelphia Street 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 York, Pemsylvania 17404 Washingtm, D.C. 20006 Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman Karin P. Sheldon, Esquire (PX E)

Coalition for !belear Power Sheldon, Harmn, Roisman & Weiss Plant Postponement 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 2610 Crandon Drive Wshington, D.C. 10006

. Wil::dngton, Delaware 19808 James A. Tourteilotte, Esquire It. Robere Q. Pollard Office of the Executive 14 gal Director 609 lbntpelier Street U.S. !belaar Regulatory cm-4sion Balti: ore, N rfland 21213 Washington,'D.C. 20555 -

Walter W. Cohen, Esquire

• John A. levin, Esquire Consumer Advocate Assistant Counsel Depart:asnt of Justice Pennsylvania Public Utilief Ccrc:ission Strawberry Square,14th Floor P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17127 Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17120 Dr. Chauncey Kepford Robert L. Knupp, Esquire Judith H. Johnsrud Assistant Solicitor, Counef of Dauphin Envirernental Coalition on :bclear P.O. Bcac P, 407 ! brth Front S::eet Pcwer Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17108 433 Orlando Aver:ue State College, Pemsylvania 16001 John E. Minnich. Chai=.an Dauphin Counef Board of Ccrc:issioners Mr. Steven C. Sholly Dauphin Coune/ Courtbruse thicn of Concemed Scientists Front and Market Streets

'1725 I Street, N.W. , Suite 601 Parrisburg, Fernsylvania 17101 Washington, D.C. 20006 Jordan D. (bnningham, Esquire .

Ms. Iouise Bradford . Atton2ey for th. terry Township 2fI Alerc T.If.I. Steering Cctr:ittee 315 Peffer Street 2320 lbrth Second Street Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17102 Harrisburg, Pemsylvania 17110 Ivan W. Sc:ith, Esquire, Chaiman Marvin I. Icais Atoc:ic Safety ard Licensing Board Pa:ml 6504 Bradford Terrace U.S. Ibclear Ra;ulatory cm-4sion Phild=1mMa, Pemsylvania 19149 Washington,-D.C. 20555 Jane Lae Dr. Walter H. Jcrdan R.D. 3, Box 3521 Atoc:ic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Etters, Pemsylvania 17319 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Temessee 37830 2xres J. Ger=ine, Esquire Dep rf Atterrey General, Division of law Roon 316, 1100 Ray end Bculevard

h: ark, tiew Jersey Oh02

, - , - - - . _ _ . -