ML20009E097
| ML20009E097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1981 |
| From: | Swanson D, Swartz L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107270088 | |
| Download: ML20009E097 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
+
Staff 7/22/81 s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
) Y~h'9 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 9
In the Matter of
)
g}
METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY, Docket No. 50-289 " b ET AL.
)
Restart v
)
/
+'
//
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
)
cv a m NRC STAFF fLOPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND THE SR0 REQUIREMENTS 1.
On July 9, 1981, the Licehing Board in this proceeding orally ruled that proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the narrow subject of the e..ergency planning aspects of shift manning with respect to tne licensee's July 7,1981 commitments on senior reactor operators (SR0's) must be filed on or before July 23, it81. Tr. 23112; Confirmatory Order on Schedule far Shif t Manning Findings, dated July 13, 1981. The Board also ruled that reply findings of fact on this issue will not be permitted.
I d_.
2.
The issue of shift manning and its effects on emergency planning centers around the Staff's recently revised requirements concerning the number of senior reactor operators to be stationed in the control room at TMI-1. While the Staff initially required the licensee to have two SR0's assigned on each shift prior to restart (Staff Ex.14,3t 22), in response to a Commission Order dated March 23, 1981 (CLI-81-3) the Staff later changed its position to require the licensee to assign a second SRO on 9507 each shift by July 1, 1982. Staff Ex. 14, at 23. The March 23 Order S
I I 8107270088 810722 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G
O i
directed the Staff to treat TMI-1 as an operating reactor rather than as a unit with a pending operating license application, unless the record indicated another conclusion. CLI-81-3, Slip Op. at 7.
Licensees of operating reactors are required to assign two SR0's on shift by July 1,1982.
Staff Ex. 14, at 22.
[For a discussion of the Staff's bases for its revised position, see NRC Staff Reply Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Management Capability, dated June 29, 1981, at Paragraphs 7-12.]
3.
In their proposed findings, both Mrs. Aamodt and the Commor. wealth of Pennsylvania argued that the Staff had failed to evaluate the effect of the revised SRO requirement on the licensee's site-specific emergency response plan.
Commonwealth Findings at 127-130M; Aamodt Findings at 51.
Further, the Board raised a question as to the effect on the Staff's determination of the adequacy of onsite emergency response staffing of the fact that the licensee may have only one SRO on shift rather than two SRO's as previously plant..:d. Tr. 20763-64.
4.
Responding to these concerns, the Staff presented additional testimony by fir. Chesnut.
Staff Ex. 17.
In addition, the licensee l
sub.iitted specific commitments regarding shift manning in an attempt to resolve the questions raised by the Board, the Commonwealth and Mrs. Aamodt.
These commitments, which were made in a letter dated July 7,1981 from Mr. Blake, counsel for licensee, to Mr. Adler, counsel for the Commonwealth, were received in evidence as Licensee Exhibit 59.
If This citation will refer to the paragraph number of the proposed findings.
. 5.
When he prepared his original testimony for this proceeding, Mr. Chesnut did assume that there would be two licensed SRO's on shift because that was what was being planned for at the time. He did not rely on the second SR0 as being a mandatory element of the licensee's emergency organization and did not view the second SR0 on shift as necessary for emergency response purposes. Mr. Chesnut's conclusions regarding the licensee's staffing of its emergency organization were not dependent on a se::cnd SR0 being assigned on each shift.
Staff Ex. 17, at 3.
6.
The licensee's emergency plan provides for four people on each shift who have an operational background. These four people are the Shift Supervisor, Shift Foreman, and two licensed Reactor Operators (R0's). Tr. 22290 (Chesnut).' The Shift Supervisor will be a licensed CRO.
Staff Ex. 4, at 39; Staff Ex.17, at 4.
In addition',
the licensee has committed to, at the time of restart, having the Shift Foreman be either licensed as an SRO or licensed as an R0 and trained as an SRO.
Licensee Ex. 59, at 2.U y
The Board notes that the licensee's commitment 1.a (Licensee Ex.
59, at 2) could permit a person to serve as Shift Supervisor who is merely licensed as an R0 and trained as an SRO. As discussed above, the Staff has assumed, at least for purposes of judging the adequacy of the licensee's emergency plan, that the Shift Supervisor will be a licensed SRO. Staff Ex.17, at 4.
The licensee's commitment 1.a is discussed more fully at Paragraphs 13-16, infra, i
l
7.
After the Staff decided that the licensee need not assign a second SRO on shift until July 1,1982, Mr. Chesnut again reviewed the emergency responsibilities assigned to the Shift Foreman to ascertain whether the Shift Foreman's emergency duties indicated a need for SR0 qualification. Although SRO qualifications for the Shift Foreman would enhance the qualification level available in the control room, the emergency functions assigned to the Shift Foreman in assisting the Shif t Supervisor do not require an SRO license. Staff Ex.17, at 3.
8.
If the Shift Supervisor became incapacitated or otherwise unavailable, the Shift Foreman would perfonn the duties of the Shift Supervisor which, during an emergency when no other SR0 is onsite, would include those of the Emergency Director. The TMI-1 emergency plan and l
emergency plan implementing procedures, however, call for the Shift Foreman to be trained to perform the duties of an Emergency Directoe.
Id_. at 4.
9.
In addition, the Shif t Fo eman may be required to L:t as Operations
(
Coordinator for a limited period of time if the Shift Supervisor is not available. An Operations Coordinator who is not a licensed SR0 will not be permitted to direct plant operations under the licensee's emergency plan. However, numerous support engineers (at least one of whom would maintain SRO qualification), as well as an Emergency Director and Operations Coordinator, would be augmenting the emergency organization within 30 minutes to one hour of an emergency. These augmenting personnel would -elieve the Shif t Foreman of his emergency duties upon arrival onsite. Thus, a non-SR0 licensed Shift Foreman might only be 1
called upon to perform the duties of the Emergency Director or Operations Coordinator for the brief period prior to the arrival of the onsite emergency organization.
Id at 4-5.
10.
It is unlikely, however, that the Shift Foreman would ever have to become the Emergency Director. Tr. 22254 (Chesnut). At all times when THI-1 is operating at power levels above 20% rated power and there is only one licensed SRO on shift, the SRO-licensed individual on shift will remain within the control room (including the Shift Superviscr's office) or within the plant at a location from which the control room is accessible in less than five minutes.
Furthermore, at all times when TMI-1 is operating at power levels above 20% rated power and the SR0-licensed individual on shift is not in the con.rol room (including the Shift Supervitor's office), the licensee will ensure that the control room (includir.g the Shift Supervisor's office) is manned by a minimua of two RO's, a third individual with an R0 license and SRO-trained, and the Shift Technical Advisor.
Licensee Ex. 59, at 3.
- 11. During cross-examination on the one SR0 requirement, Mr. Chesnut reiterated his belief that two SR0's would provide an additional margin of safety in the response to an emergency but that such a requirement is not a mandatory or necessary element for adequate emergency response.
Tr. 22288-89 (Chesnut). He also stated that there is nothing in the licensee's emergency plen which requires that there be two SR0's on each shift. Tr. 22265-66 (Chesnut). Mr. Chesnut further testified that TMI-1 is in a better position to respond to an emergency than are other operating reactors because there are more health physics personnel and
auxiliary operators on each shift than at other reactors. Tr. 22316 (Chesnut).
No evidence was presented which indicated that two SR0's would be needed to adequately respond to an emergency at THI-1.
12.
The Board finds, based on the facts presented above, that assigning one SRO per shift until July 1,1982 will not affect the ability of the licensee to adequately respond in an emergency.
Specifically, the Board finds that proper implementation of the licensee's emergency plan does not necessitate the presence of two SR0's on each shift.
- Thus, the Board concludes that, in this inttance, the record does not indicate that a sufficient cause exists to overcome the Commission's expressed preference for grouping TMI-1 with facilities which presently possess operating licenses.
Providing two SR0's on shift by July 1,1982 will be sufficient to protect the public health and safety.
13.
The commitments contained in the licensee's July 7,1981 letter to the Commonwealth (Licensee Ex. 59) supplement the licensee's commitments regarding shift staffing and operating personnel contained in its June 22, 1981 letter to the Commonwealth (Licensee Ex. 57).
The Board received these commitments into evidence and, with one qualification, relies upon them in reaching its conclusions regarding the management capability of the licensee. The sole qualification pertains to item number 1.a. of Licensee Exhibit 59.
Item 1.a. deals with the manning of the shift operating staff for TMI-1 at the time of restart, and the qualifications of these operators.
14.
Item 1.a. of LicenseeExhibit S9 provides that, at the time of restart of TMI-1, each shift will have at least one NRC-licensed SRO.
However, the commitment does not specify, in the event that there is only one SRO, whether that person is the Shift Supervisor or the Shift Foreman.
In essence, the comuitment would permit two possible scenarios in the event that there is only one SRO available fcr a shif t.
The first scenario would provide for the SRO to be tne Shif t Supervisor, whereas the Shift Foreman may be licensed as an RO but with SR0 training.
Such a situation would be consistent with the testimony of Mr. Hukill, who stated that the Shift Supervisors would be SRO-licensed, and that all six Supervisors were already SRO's. Tr. 11,667-69 (Hukill).
He testified that, although it was the licensee's goal to have all of the Shift Forenen also possess SRO licenses, these persons were not required to be SRO-licensed until July 1, 1982.
Tr. 11,668 (Hukill).
Until that date, the Shift Foremen may or hay not be SRO-licensed, depending on whether they pass the NRC licensing examination. Tr.11,668-69 (Hukill).
- 15. However, comuitment i'em 1.a. would also be permissive of a situation where the Shift Forem ; could be an SRO, whereas tne Shift Supervisor may only be an R0. This is the first indication that the licensee may intend to use a Shift Supervisor who holds only an R0 license. The use of a non SRO-11 censed Shift Supervisor would be inconsistent with the referenced licensee testimony. Moreover, Mr. Hukill also testified that both the Shift Supervisor and the Shift Foreman for each shift oversee the activities of the control room operators, but that the Shif t Foreman reports to the Shift Supervisor.
Hukill, et al., ff.11,617, at 14,18. Thus, the alternate interpretation of this commitment item would permit a situation where
a non SRO-licensed Shift Supervisor has responsibility for directing the licensed activities of licensed operators, including an SR0-licensed Shift Foreman.
Such a situation would be in conflict with 10 CFR 6 50.54(1), which provides that such a person (the Shift Supervisor),
designated to be responsible for directing the licerised activities of licensed operators, be licensed as a senior operator pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55.
- 16. Accordingly, the Board modifies the proposed license condition 1.a. to be consistent with the regulations and the licensee's own testimony as follows:
a.
Licensee will at the time of restart of TMI-1, man all shifts at TMl-1 with a minimum of one NRC-licensed SRO, who will act as Shift Supervisor, a second individual, either NRC-licensed as an SRO or NRC-licensed as an R0 and trained as an SRO, who will act as Shift Foreman, and a minimum of two NRC-licensed R0s who will act as Control Room Operators.
The Board finds that the above statement should be imposed as a license condition for startup of Unit 1.
Respectfully submitted, Lod d.-
d Lucinda Low Swartz Counsel for NRC Staff
//s. & 5, Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nc' day of July,1981.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ffilSSION BEF')RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY-AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of I
liETROPOLITAii EDIS0N COMPANY, Docket No. 50-289 ET AL.
(Three Mile Island, Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AMD CON G.USIONS OF LAW REGARDING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND THE SRO REQUIREMENTS",
dated J uly 22, 1981 in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissior's internal mail system, this 22nd day of July,1981:
- Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Administrative Ms. Marjorie M.'Aamodt R.D. 45 Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Cnatesville, PA 19320 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Thomas Gerusky Bureau of Radiation Protection Dr. Walter H. Jordan, Administrative Dept. of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Judge 881 W. Outer Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Oak Ridge, Ten 1essee 37830 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Dr. Linda W. Little, Administrativa 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19149 Judge 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Metropolitan Edison Company ATTN:
J.G. Herbein, Vice President George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
P.O. Box 642 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Reading, Pennsylvania 19603 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Ms. Jane Lee R.D. 3; Box 3521 Karin W. Carter, Esq.
Etters, Pennsylvania 17319 505 Executive House F. O. Box 2357 Walter W. Cohen, Cor.sumer Advocate Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dapartment of Justice Strawberry Square,14th Floor Honorable Mark Cohen Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17127 512 D-3 Main Capital Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
f Thomas J. Germine Deputy Attorney General Division of Law - Room 316 1100 Raymond Boulevard Newark, New Jersey 07102 John Levin, Esq.
Allen R. Carter, Chairman Pennsylvania Public Utilities Comm.
Joint Legislative Committee on Energy Sox 3265 Post Office Box 142 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Suite 513 Senate Gressette Building Jordan D. Cunningham, Esq.
Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Fox, Farr and Cunningham 2320 North 2nd Street Robert Q. Pollard Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 609 Montpelier Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Louise Bradford 1011 Green Street Chauncey Kepford Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Judith H. Johnsrud Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Hs. Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss Ms. Frieda Berryhill, Chairman 1725 I Street, N.W.
Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 Postponement 2610 Grendon Drive Mr. Steven C. Sholly
~
Wilmington, Delaware 19808 Union of Concerned Scientists 1725 I Street, N.W.
Gail P. Bradford Suite 601 ANGRY Washington, D.C.
20006 245 W. Philadelphia St.
York, Per.nsylvania 17.~01
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 g
Chi (t
<[
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1.ucinda Low Swartz U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Counsel for NRC Staff Washington, D.C.
20555
- Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Chief. Docketing & Service Br.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Williem S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 L'ashington, D C.
20006
.