ML20010H830

Reply Opposing Aamodt Comments Which Criticize ASLB Partial Initial Decision on Mgt Issues & Implicitly Oppose Lifting TMI-1 Suspension Order.Aslb Has Carefully Analyzed All Issues Identified in Comments.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20010H830
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/25/1981
From:	Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8109290330
Download: ML20010H830 (12)

Text

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

~

LIC 9/25/81 @

//

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~

MD 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O '

- t

.- SEP 2 51981, * -

f G?q ' % bereta.y BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C' C - m &Wa Ecd: g 4

In the Matter of ) N

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-239 (Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

)

(Restart

-}R //g, Station, Unit No. 1) ) / y' Q D' S& ,/?? -%. .

O ~#

LICENSEE'S REPLY TO COMMENTS FILED BY THE AAMODT FAMILY ON WHETHER THE ;

[3 $ g {0 ,

/) i 2'

PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION ON MANAGEMENT L-3 g' s COMPETENCE SHOULD BE MADE IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE

'j y. '

u In response to the Commission's August 20, 1981' Order ,

CLI-81-9, concerning immediate effectiveness, the Aamodt Family filed comments which criticize the Licensing Board's partial initial decision on management issues (PID), and implicitly -

oppose lifting of the TMI-l suspension Order. For the reasons specified below, Licensee does not believe that the concerns raised by the Aamodt Family in their comments are of sufficient significance to warrant maintenance of the license suspension imposed by the Commission in its July 2 and August 9, 1979-1/

Orders.

As a preliminary matter, as stated in Licensee's Reply to TMIA Regr :st for Stay Pending Review, dated Septem-ber 25, 1981, Licensee essentially agrees with the Staff's thoughtful presentation of the immediate effectiveness issue, as set forth in the NRC Staff Comments on Immediate Effectiveness I)503 l_/ CLI-79-8, 10 NRC 141 (August 9, 1979).

//

8109290330 810925 "

PDR ADOCK 05000289 o PDR

• \

2-with Respect to Licensing Board Decision on Management Competence /

, Operator Training, dated September 11, 1981. In Licensee's view, the Commission must determine whether, upon issuance of the r Licensing Board's complete decision, the Commission should lift the immediately effective July 2, 1979 Order, which directed that TMI-l remain shut down until further order of the Commission.

See Licensee's Reply to TMIA Request for Stay Pending Review, September 25, 1981, at 1-3.

The Aamodt Family contend that the PID is seriously flawed on the basis of a number of specific disagreements the Aamodt Family has with the Board's findings and conclusions.

In view of the fact that the Commission is not now entertaining exceptions to the PID pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.762, but rather is considering the status of the PID and its impact on the Commission's July 2, 1979 suspension Order, to the extent pos-sible, Licensee will avoid arguing the details of particular PID findings and conclusicn'. Instead, our focus here is on the sufficiency of the underlying record with respect to the management issues on which the TMI-1 operating license sus-pension was based, and the degree to which the PID addresses the management issues identified by the Commission in its August 9, 1979 and March 6, 1980 Orders and the management-related contentions filed by the parties, including the Aamodt Family.

The first Aamodt Family comment questions whether the Licensing Board properly used the 1978 rather than the

. . - - -. , ~ . _ - - - . _ . - - _ y. . -

.,-..,v- y---.-- - - , . - , . - - - . , - . - . - . , , ,

_ m.

draft 1979 standard, ANSI /ANS 3.1, to evaluate the adequacy of the qualifications of TMI-1 personnel. See Aamodt Family 1

j comments, numbered 11 1-4. What is most troublesome about 2 this complaint is the fact that, as admitted in their comments to the Commission, *he Aamodt Family did not raise this very broad issue until the submission of their Reply Findings in late 3 a, 1981.-2/However, it has been abundantly clear since December of 1980 when management testimony was filed by the i

Staff and by Licensee, that, with respect to the training and qualification criteria applicable to the TMI-l unit staff, the NRC Staff's requirement and Licensee's commitment was that TMI-l unit personnel meet the standards of ANSI /ANS 3.1 (1978).-3/

In addition, Licensee's org:'nizational structure was compared by the Staff, with favorable results, to the guidelines for utility management and technical resources contained in draft NUREG-0731. See PID 11 64, 164. Neither the Staff witnesses who testified on this very subject, nor any of the numerous Licensee witnesses who addressed TMI-l management and personnel i

qualifications, were questioned by the Aamodt Family as to the basis for their assurance that the currently adopted ANSI 2/ ANSI /ANS 3.1 (1978), Draft ANS 3.1 (December 1979), Draft ANS 3.1 (October,1980), Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8 (February, 1979) and Second Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8 (September, 1980) are all documents which the Staff distributed to interested parties in February, 1981, bnmediately prior to the time its witnesses testified on the subject of the TMI-l unit staff's qualifications. However, no party requested that these documents be received in evidence, and they are not part of the TMI-l evidentiary record.

3/ ANSI /ANS 3.1 (1978) is endorsed in Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8 (February 1979).

r- - - - ,.s---.,- --,--,e.sw , . , . - - - - - - - - - . , . , , . _ , m-- m, - - ,w,- - , - - - - - - - - . - - - , _ , - --

...,,w--.. -- -

e- <a-

_4_

standard, ANSI /ANS 3.1 (1978), was the appropriate standard to use in evaluating TMI-1 personnel qualifications, kaeping in mind the lessons learned from the TMI-2 accident. In fact, >

the Aamodt Family asked no questions of the Staff or the Licensee witnesses who test.:.fied on this subject.-4/

In addition, in their comments, the Aamodt Family fail to idantify why they believe that the requirements of ANSI /ANS 3.1 (1978) are " inappropriate and meaningless,"

other than their general complaint that the 1978 standard pre-dates the TMI-2 accident. In support of their position, the Aamodt Family cites their Reply Findings, 19 7-9. These findings refer to statements contained in the Value/ Impact Statement accompanying Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8. According to the Aamodt Family, the Value/ Impact Statement indicates that the 1978 ANSI standard was "not expected to raise personnel qualifications." However, the Value/ Impact Statement states that more stringent requirements were imposed by ANSI /ANS 3.1 (1978) with respect to qualifi-l cations for operating personnel. Also, the 1978 revision to ANSI /ANS 3.1 expanded the req'tirements of the training i

4/ Messrs. Crocker and Allenspach, staff members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, sponsored testimony on the subject of TMI Unit 1 personnel qualifications. Licensee's witness on the general corporate structure and organization of GPU Nuclear Corpora-tion, including TMI-1, was Mr. Robert C. Arnold. Licensee also sponsored a panel of witnesses, headed by the Vice President of TMI-1, Mr. . Henry D. Hukill, on the subject of TMI-l's organization, i

including personnel qualifications. In addition, Mr. William i Wegner, of Basic Energy Technology Associates, testified on behalf of Licensee, giving his impressions of Licensee's reorgan.ization

! since the TMI-2 accident, including the qualifications of TMI-l personnel. The Aamodt Family asked no questions of any of these l witnesses; in fact, to the best of Licensee's knowledge, the Aamodt l

j Family did not even attend the sessions of the proceeding during which these witnesses testified.

y - ~ .y,, ,#, _ . , , . - _ _ . . , . . . - , - -

y -- -,,.__.,.--,.-,,__.,.r.. ,,.,,,_.w,-,,.., ,,..,-.-.,-,,,. ,.,, ,- _ y , . ~ - c.. ,., e.4_., , ,_-,

i J

program for licensed personnel, including requalification j training,- and the requirements for general employee training.

See Value/ Impact Statement accompanying Proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8, at 2-3.-5/

In conclusion, with respect to the Licensing Ecard's adoption of ANSI /ANS 3.1 (1978) as the proper standard for assessing the qualifications of the TMI Unit 1 staff, Licensee is aware of ro basis for Commission concern that the Licensing Board has not carefully considered the level of qualifications which the Staff ought to impose upon TMI-l personnel. The Licensing Board specifically questioned the NRC Staff witnesses who testified during the restart proceeding on this subject, and extensively reported its findings in the PID. See PID 11 64, 93, 101' 106, 116-162, 164.

, The Aamo-?t Family did not participate in the development of this portion of the record. No reason is posed by the Aamodt Family for finding 5/ While the Value/ Impact Statement does indicate, as the Aamodt Family states, that the impact of the new standard would be "neg-ligible," it is referring here to the impact on the NRC' Staff of evaluating the qualifications of nuclear power plant personnel l

according to ANSI /ANS 3.1 (1978), rather than using the previously 4

applicable 1971 standard. See Value/ Impact Statement, at 2. With 2

respect to the utility industry, the Value/ Impact Statement states:

l l The impact of the changes to existing guidance will make

! it necessary to ensure that personnel hired to fill the positions covered in the standard meet the requirements of the standard. Since these requirements are more stringent and fewer exceptions are allowed, the utility m.'" have more difficulty in filing the position and may

'.6ve to pay a higher wage or salary to the personnel involved.

l Id. at 7.

i w.._,.n... , , - , . . . . , . ,

y-., -

, _ , . , - , , , _ _ , _ . . , , , , , , _,.,y,,,-,,+,mr,g,.-_-_n,y, . _ __,,,,,,,,,y, ,,,,,.p.,,.7,,, , 7.,w,,,.,y-n,_,

l fault at this juncture with the Licensing Board's carefully considered resolution of the broad issue of TMI Unit 1 personnel qualifications.

There are a number of subjects identified by the Aamodt Family as unsupported by the record: unlicensed per-sonnel training, the adequacy of the TMI-1 licensed operator l curriculum, shift manning criteria, special TMI-l plant management training, and simula:or examinations. See Aamodt Family comments, numbered 11 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 16. In Licensee's view, the Licensing Board's extremely thorough decision speaks for itself on these subjects. See PID 11 163-181, 208-224, 366 (unlicensed personnel training) ;

174-176, 182-207 (licensed operator curriculum) ; 556-578 (shift manning criteria) ; 552-553 (special TMI-l plant

, management training) ; 542-551 (simulator examinations) .

Moreover Licensee does net believe that the Commission's consideration as to whether to lift the immediately effec-tive suspension Order with respect to matters resolved by the PID ought to be based on disagreements parties have with the Board's judgment witr respect to particular sub-issues fully litigated in the restart proceeding. Rather, in our view, the question is whether the Board thoroughly and carefully examined the issues raised by the Commission 6/

in its August 9,1979 Order and its March 6, 1980 Order,-

as well as the issues identified in contentions, prior to reaching a decision on Licensee's management capability 6/ CLI-80-5, 11 NRC 408 (1980).

-. _ , _ _ , , , . _ _ . , - - . . r_., _ . , , _,....-,.-._,...,.___m. . , . - . _ ,- - - - - . -

-7_

and technical resources. We believe the detailed decision of the Licensing Board, which relies u'pon many thousands of pages of record testimony and exhibits, fully meets and disposes of the particular items identified in the Aamodt Family comments.

With respect to the Aamodt Family's criticisms of the Board's decision to reopen the ree rd in order to allow the agreement reached by Licensee anu s.ie Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be reflected tharein, see Aamodt Family numbered 1 12, it is clear from the PID that the subject agreement had significant impact on the Board's decision because of the number of requirements to which Licensee was prepared to commit in the area of management capability.

See PID 11 42, 523-555. Moreover, the Board's consideration of this agreement was based in part upon the Commission's general policies favoring negotiation and settlement. See PID 1 526. As the PID reflects, in view of the relevancr of these commitments to the Aamodt Family contention concerning licensed operator training, the Aamodt Family was given ample opportunity to and did respond to the commitments made by Licensee. These issuea were exten-l sively litigated before the Licensing Board; the Aamodt ramily presents no basis in its comments for questioning the merits of the Board's resolution of subjects covered in the agreement reached by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Licensee.

-e v - - -- - - -- w - - ,,-,y -,r v.w.-- ---m~w-.- ,-1-,--m-, -- -- , - - - - - - + - . . , - . . , - - . - -

_w_

Finally, with respect to the evidence of operator t

cheating discovered in July, 1980, see Aamodt Family comments, numbered 11 6, 9, there is no question but that the Licensing Board has retained jurisdiction to consider further the effect of the investigation of cheating on its management findings.

PID 11 43-45. In fact, the Board has already reopened the record on this matter, and has scheduled a conference of the parties to discuss the scope of the reopened proceeding, as well as to the procedure and schedule which will govern that litigation. See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Reopening Record on Matters Related to Cheating, Appointing a Special Assistant, and Scheduling a Conference of the Par-a ties, September 14, 1981.

For the reasons specified above, Licensee does not i

believe that the Aamodt Family comments provide any basis for the Commission declining to lift its July 2, 1979

, immediately effective suspension Order. The Aamodt Family identifies no issues which the Licensing Board failed to carefully analyze in accordance with the Commission's mandate.

The only matter left unresolved by the PID is operator cheating.

That issue is currently pending before the Licensing Board, which will hear evidence on the subject and, most assuredly, issue an initial decision in the future which reflects the i

I

+ --,xse e,-oeer,,y -- -w w wm . -w m w-e -- , v er,a- c. m m-' '+w-

• w, 9,e* - e v s t ~ w

• s, w - w m* v ~ m- w -'-*A = ' e =+mmww~n=- m'v

I Board's findings and conclusions on operator cheating.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE J AA/ 'n & *

/d

"@ rge/F Trowdridge .

f

& nest L. Blake, Jr.

Deborah B. Bauser Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 1

(202) 822-1000 Dated: September 25, 1981 i

v y w -- - +---y +g.--.yw-y-4 -- -y--., - - ------,---,-..,ww.,...w-e -we-, p-e.-- + - - -,-%.e- --%,w ,,w wwwy.- -

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart)

-(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF 3ERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Reply to Comments Filed by the Aamodt Family on Whether the Partial Initial Decision on Management Competence Should be Made Imme-diately Effective," dated September 25, 1981, were served by hand on Chairman Palladino, Commissioners Gilinsky, Ahearne, Bradford and Roberts, and the Secretary of the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, by delivery to the offices of the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; and l were served by deposit in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, upon those persons on the attached Service List, this 25th day of September, 1981.

l MG1/ ( 's M '

4 George F. Trowbridge /

~

Dated: September 25, 1981

- , - - - -- , - -- ,,-- ,, - -,n- _ , - -~---+,,,,--,,-...,w p, , , ., . , , , . - , , .--

l

\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289 SP

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Robert Adler, Esquire Chairman, Atomic Safety and Karin W. Carter, Esquire Licensing Board Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 505 Executive House Washington, D.C. 20555 Post Office Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Administrative Judge Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Attorney General of New Jersey 881 West Outer Drive Attn: Thomss J. Germine, Esq.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Deputy Attorney General Division of Law - Room 316 Administrative Judge Linda W. Little 1100 Raymond Boulevard Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Newark, New Jersey 07102 5000 Hermitage Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 John A. Levin, Esquire Assistant Counsel Administrative Judge Gary L. Milhollin- Pennsylvania Public Utility Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission 1815 Jefferson Street Post Office Box 3265 Madison, Wisconsin 53711 Harrisburg, PA 17120 James R. Tourtellotte, Esquire (4) John E. Minnich Office of Executive Legal Director Chairman, Dauphin County Board; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Commissioners l

Washing' ton, D.C. 20555 Dauphin County Courchouse

. Front and Market Streets Docketing and Service Section (3) Harrisburg, PA 17101~

Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Walter W. Cohen, Esquire l Washington, D.C. 20555 Consumer Advocate l Office of Consumer Advocate i

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 1425 Strawberry Square Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Harrisburg, PA 17127 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Q. Pollard l Washington, D.C. 20555 609 Montpelier Street l Baltimore, MD 21218 l

l

,--..----.,,,,,-,,7-.y,.--me.----.,,,..--.,-,.....--w , ,.-,,w ,,, w, ..w,m...,-+,..,---,- ---,---m-----%~..--,s.-,%n-,_. - , - . -

t i 1 i

I Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Fox, Farr & Cunningham Harmon & Weiss 2320 North Second Street 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Washington, D.C. 20006 Ms. Louise Bradford Chauncey Kepford TMI ALERT Judith H. Johnsrud 315 Peffer Street Environmental Coalition on Harrisburg, PA 17102 Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire State College, PA 16801 Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite Sn6 Marvin I. Lewis Washington, D.C. 20006 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149 Steven C. Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists Marjorie M. Aamodt 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 601 2. D. 5 Washington, D.C. 20006 Coatesville, PA 19320 Ms. Gail Phelps ANGRY 245 West Philadelphia Street York, PA 17404 I

m .

, , , . . . _ . _ _ ,, .-- w,-,--e ----- --

• ---r- - - - - - -'"'"~"**** """*"' " " "' " ' '