ML20049E298
| ML20049E298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1981 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049E246 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110020408 | |
| Download: ML20049E298 (7) | |
Text
.
~.
U.S. NUCLFAR REGULATORY CO.t115SION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFF.TY AN,0_ LICENSING BOAR In the Matter of
)
'. ~
y METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.)
Docket No.~50-289
)
(Restert)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.)
Unit 1)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF R,0BE,R,T_D. MARTIN I, Robert D. Martin, being duly sworn, do depose and state:
1.
I am eraployed as the Deputy Director of the Region II Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached to this affidavic.
The purpose of this affidavit is to provido a description of my responsibilities 2.
in connection with the preparation of a document entitled _"Rycomendations of THI-2 IE Investigation Team (Operational Aspects)," dated September 1979, and in addition, to describe how the Staff Action plan (NUREG-0660) deals with certain of these Recomendations. Specifically, the affidavit deals with
'~
those Recomendations cited by intervenors Union of Concerned Scientists and Stephen C. Sholly in their motions tu reopen the record filed September 11, 1981 ("Intervenors' Nations").
3.
After the accident occurred at Tiil on March 28, 1979, an investigation teas, was formed by IE lleadquarters to investigate the performance of the licensee during and imediately following the accident.
I was the' lea ~ der of the The team was composed of inspectors and inveAtigators from nperations team.
the Regional Office and the IE Headeluarters staff. The Deputy" Director of Region I was assigned overall supervisory responsibility for the conduct of l
_~ =
8110020408 810930 PDR ADOCK 05000289 O
PDR f *~
~
2 m ::
the investigation, and the Investigational score was defined,by Headquarters.
The results of this investigation were published as NUREG 0600.
4.
During the course of the investigation, the menbers of (F team fonnulated a number of views with regard to certain technical issues,1ha{ arose during the course of the investigation. Addressing those issues in NUREG-0600 was inappropriate because of the defined scope of the investigation, and each team decided to prepare a memorandum to forward those views to management for consideration during any post-accident actions taken by the agency.,That is the background which lead up to the Reconsnendations transmitted to the Deputy Director, Region 1, on Octcber 10, 1979.
5.
I am aware from my discussions with staff assigned to the Action Plan Steering Group that the Reconnendations were given consideration 7urihg' the fonnulation of the THI Action Plan (NUREG-0660). When those Recommendations were fonnulated, we knew that they would, in many instances,' duplicate, spgf c or general actions already being considered or in progress.
The Recommendatijfs," although fannulated by experienced inspectors and staff, were not the nesult of detailed analyses, but rather they represented a consensus judguent of issues which were believed to deserve consideration. The points contained in that document were not intended as final staff conclusions ready fur implementation. Ourlu'rposewastohighlight areas we thought merited further consideration by other Staff _in the aftermath of the accident.
As we stated in HUREG-0600, (t)he reports f, rom other investica_tions and studies will be_ needed to fully understand,tJg,,causes of this accident and the l
appropriate actions to be taken as a result of that understbding."
(Emphasis added.)
G e
66 1.
.____-r___._
.a a -
~ ~ ~
3-l 6.
The issues raised by intervenors Sholly and Union of Concerned Scientists are related to the team Reccmendat'ons on pressurizer heaters, Jhe pilot operated e
relief valve (PORV) and iLs block valve, a lock-in feature or. ESFAS, incore
~
thennocouples, pressurizer level and temperature instruruent, control room sound recording system, multipoint recorders, instrument failure modes, and the Integrated Control System (ICS).
=
7.
In May 1900, the Staff Action Plan for THI-2 was completed (NUREG-0660).
I have compared the Action Plan requirements with those of our R_esoinmendations cited in Intervenors' Motions.
8.
The Recom:nendation relative to the pressurizer heaters was_grimarily directed towards reliable power sources for their operation and is addrvssed in Task II.E.3 of NUREG-0660.
The Recommendations relative to the PORY and it,s.,b}p,ck.y4}h.c. wr.e..pr.igrily 9.
directed towards a general upgrading of the reif ability of;those valves. Actions directed towards that end are contained in Task II.G and II.D of NUREG-0660.
- 10. The Reconuendation relative to the lock-in feature for ESFAS was primarily directed towards precluding premature resetting of components important to safety by operators. Agency actions directed toward precluding such premature manipulations by the operators are addressed in Tasks 1.A..J, I.C.S. I.C.6, l
II.B.4. II.K.1, I. A.I.1, I.C.1, and II.E.5.2 (among others) of NUREG-0660.
- 11. The Reconendations on incore thennocouples and the pressurizer level and temperature instruments were directed towards increasing the, ryliability and utility of these instrument systems under adverse accident conditions. Agency P.ctions toward that end are addressed in Tasi.s I.D.1, I.D.2. I.D.4, II.F.2 II.F.3, and II.F.5 (among others) in NUREG-0660.
. :'= =.
'.9
~
F.
1N
a
' " " o:..
. ~u o.a The Recomendation relative to the control room sound {cmfg, system was 12.
directed towards a method for r.taining information that fin [be useful during post-accident reviews.
While my review of the Action Plan _ d_id not identify that Recoraaendation specifically, the several informatI@ late'd igency I~
actions (e.g., Emergency Notification System, Health PhysGi Notification System). coupled with the actions celled for in Tasks l'.
1 1.D.2, and
_t-III. A.3.4 (among others) in NUREG-0660, do adequately. a[d"e(s re_ lated. issues on cummunications and information retention.
The Recommendation on multipoint recorders was diracted. gds assuring that 13.
information important to the operator during cmergency re pt[nse actions is in a suitable form for use under those conditions.
This gendral area, encompassing a broadcr view of the probleu, is addressed in Task I.D NUREG-0660.
The Recommendations on instrument failure modes an'd the"TC5here 14
-H~
towards a general upgrading and raview of critical instrument performance and suitability, as well as a detailed review of the appropriateness of the ICS These issues are addressed in Tasks I.D.1. II. 7E,hl.E.5,and design.
II.F.4 (among others) in NUREG-0660.
m=
Based on the above review and a generci knowledge of related agency actions.
15.
I have concluded that the operations team Recommendattog e considered during I
i the formulation of NUREG-0E50.
Furthermore, I t.m satisfied that those issues have been or will, under the further analytical and/or experimental reviews called for in the Action Flan, be satisfactorily resolve'T: i d
.i [
.- y N$
-25'
.g :
E
==-H
-_,= 2
=
~_
....:....o...
. M
_Q1 a...........
The above statements and opinions are tree and correct to.'th.s best of g personal knowledge and belief.
.......... ;.g.j. &......... -
__.h__.
4' 9I
..e m.:
Subscribed and sworn to before me, m t...
this 25th day of September 1981.
.== s.
. as a
....... ~..
- h. a.f.t.Z.f/
WJ m AOf 5
I.T.%4.x,. e_; [h./ h:u gary Public. Geurps..uta.x tarse c
gy snission Operes sect 17.1984
.a u
M
..................g....
.J 5
- m e
~~R. 5.
l l
t
.8 88
.d
.a e
n
--m-,
-.-o
,--,---e--
i i,
c; PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ROBERT U. MAltTIN
.,.g i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10lG ';
(
REGION II
- t h:rti-
-=
s I am currently employod as the Deputy Director of the Regio 5 0 0'ffice ofi the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, with offices at 101 MahthStreet, N.'d...
-- ~ii -
C Atlanta, Georgia.
I assumed tiiese duties in December 19%
m,
.....7.....'......
From March 1979 to ' December 1980, I held the position 'of sect'fo'.th1Ef Tn n
=s 1 the Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch in thc of!I, Office.
.dits ::
During the period of April-August 1979, I was assigned as 3 pperations HI Team Leader for the Officc of Inspection and Enforcenenty-spigation of,
s the Accident at TMI-2.
Prior to March 1979, I was a reactor. ipspector with
- the Region Ill Offjce of NRC in Glen Ellyn,1111nois...... 7,7.f.............
e
.4 Prinr to my employment with the Nuclear Regulatory Comiss.imi.jn August 1974, I was c:mployed by the University of.'iichigan Ann Arbor, MTCh.1gan..D;om.,
y.g.
u January 1974 to August 1974 as Manager nf their research njegr reactor.
C From 1970 to 1974, I was a consultant to the USAEC conducting pperator licensing examinations at nuclear power plants.
From 1972 to 4974, I was a part-time lecturer for the Department of huclear Engineering at the m
a-t University of Michigan teaching a course on Nuclear PoWQ,gng Systems.
. 4,',
I'..
.....' 2M. __....".2
'L t-s
..s
.. N c..
x
.;s S,
- mme..n
_g_
.g. ___ - -
5b
=O $.. -..."........
s
\\,,
N'
,From 1959 to 1954.' I was Reactor Supervisor at tfic't/n'{of dd'do'ipo'Ntton Research Reactor at Texedu, New York.
.s g..
?,
L
(
From 1957 to 1959.31 was' er.p~oyed by Union Carbide at their -Tifxedo, New York 1
st u
l l
and Oak Ridge, Tenngee locations at various duties includint shift engineer
'w ' " son the Oak Ridge Research Reactor, and a supervisor of ShleTding Research Reactor.
n 2 IJ 3
4 receivQi my Bachelor's degree in Mechanical.EngineerinpYonf the Polytechnic.
m.
l Institute of Brooklyn in 1957. M.S. in Nuclear Engineerin 9p7)andg I
N' Mclear Erigineer Degree (1973) finm the University of Mic
_~ L
~ '. x-A', 's-y N
.qq s
.........._..su..........
s s
s y
s.
............I...........
~
3
.= =
s
..........._..._..._..._c._.._
N'
,p
. ~
1 A
I.
+
- u.......
s.
.6 r
W.
1 x
N
\\
'%3
\\
u
,-s.
N N
LJ f N
.n
-t
.4
. e-
\\
..........g-............
[
=
[_~
1,'"
s.
...lll2 3
! x s
,a
-- AJ..........
.._g g
- g -
~,
s
. ~
d.,
W.
n