ML20062M378

Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Application of TMI- Related Actions to Nuclear Facilities Pending Licenses. Opposes Commission Decision to Exempt Operating Reactors from Rulemaking.Fr Notice Encl

ML20062M378
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/06/1981
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:	Ahearne J, Bradford P, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
FRN-46FR54378, RULE-PR-50 46FR54378-54, NUDOCS 8112170181
Download: ML20062M378 (8)

Text

.

W?50 Marjorie and Norman Aamodt 81 EC -9 P2:22 R. o. 5, sox 428 g Coatesville, Pennsylvania 19320

- ~ ~ t i ClIF,

- .C.;_

- December 6, 1981 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 m Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino .- [j Commissioner John F. Ahearne N 91 fl y Commissioner Peter A. Bradford Commissioner Victor Gilinsky L Ch- I i Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts y DEC2 8 pg 7

.. \ anD p

Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

V q /

N The Commission provided notice in Federal Register Volume 46, No. 211 on page 54378 and dated November 2, 1981 that the Commission would receive comments concerning thdir proposed >rulemaking which is to apply TMI-Related Actions to nuclear facilities pending licenses. The Commission noted that they have postponed rulemaking of TMI-Related' Actions for operating reactors.

~

The Aamodts are submitting comments'cohcerning bo.th Commission actions although the time limit for receipt of such coisments has passed.

The Commission indicated that comments received after November 30, 1981 may be considered. The Aamodts request such consideration in view of their interests in the operation of the nuclear facilities at Peach Bottom, Salem and Three Mile Island, and the'pending license at Limerick. All these facilities are within fif ty' miles of' the' Aamodt residence. Th6 Aamodts were not able to file comments earlier due to their active participation in the reopened hearing of the cheating incident at TMI-1.

The Aamodts' comments are directed to specific TMI-Related Actions in hvc-which they4had an interest in the TMI-l Restart hearing. The comments contain information which may not be readily available to the Commission j

in rulemaking.

l 8112170181 811206 PDR PR 6(J.h l

50 46FR54378 PDP

Y -

'Concerning the Commission's Decision to Postpone Rulemaking of TMI-Related_ Actions for Operating Reactors l The Commission's. decision to exempt' operating reactors from the rulemaking of TMI-Related Actions is alarming. These actions were Lessons Learned from the TMI-2 accident and are safety-related.

The f act that a ' plant' is presently operating does not lead reasonably- * .

to the conclusion that the Lessons Learned at .TMI-2 should not-bel- ,-

applied. TMI-2 had been' in full operation for a year.before the .

accident.

Since TMI-l is to be treated as an operating reactor, TMI-l will be exempt from any rulemaking of TMI-Related Actions. .This is . . . . . . . .

particularly unreasonable ~ becanse. of th,e similarities between the TMI-l and TMI-2 plants.in the areas .of' the~ TMI-Related Actions;such as operator tra'i'ning and plantz desighi ~ ' - - -

There was clearly an assumption by the parties to the ASLB hearing of the TMI-l restart that rulemaking of TMI-Related Actions wo'uld apply to TMI-1. NUREG-0737 stated that the TMI-Related Actions approved by the Commission would be applied to all licensees, the only

~

dif ference being the schedule for required implementation. The' parties to the hearing have therefore been denied the opportunity to argue whether the TMI-Related Actions should apply. as opposed to when they should apply.

The . Commission.hasi also denied the~public in the vici'niEp bf of TMI the opportunity to address the Commission's cha6ge in position.

The Commission should give clear notide to" the ~publid of the thange. ' .

The Staff considered the TMI-Related Actions of NUREG-0737 dst necessaryforthe-safeoperation[ofallnuclearplants, Unless the conclusions of the studies from which the TMI-R31ated Actions were developed are demonstrated to be invalid, the Commicsion should move quickly to impose-those actions through rulemaking on all operating reactors.

e

The Commission's failure to proceed with TMI-related rulemaking for operating plants has paved the way for unreasoned leniency by the Staff. For example, in the reopened hearing of the cheating incident at TMI-1, the Staff testified that there is no minimum number of operators needed to operate a nuclear power plant.1 Not only is.

this testimony absurd, . it is , in direct contradiction to that given by the Staff in the main hearing on TMI-l restart. The Staff also testified that no overtime restrictions would be imposed on the work schedules of TMI-1 personnel.2 The Staff has paved the way for the use of extended working hours since Metropolitan Edison has an extremely reduced complement of licensed operators. A.lthough NUREG-0737

~

states th'e Staff's concern about. overtime work for members of the plant staff who perform safety-related functions and presents, guidelines for overtime restrictions, these overtime resiilcEfons

. will not apply to TMI-l under the commission's proposed rulemaking.'

Comments Cencerning TMI-Related Actions The TMI-Related Actions are identified and clarified in NUREG-0737.

These actions should be considered as minimum requirements in licensing proceedings.

For example, there is a requirement that two' . licensed senior reactor operators be on duty while the plant is . operating, O ther' NRC documents, notably NUREG-0731, consider two licensed senior reactor operators a minimum staff complement in the event of an emergency.

1 Testimony of Lawrence Crocker, presented November 21, 1981 2

Response of Lawrence Crocker to Staff question, November 21, 1981, NUREG-0737, Table I.A.l.3-4.

W' d

l

- NUREG-0737-includes overtime restrictions which are so minimal Lthat they. barely exceed,.in practice, the present NRC_ rule of no overtime restrictions, The overtime restrictions of NUREG-07374are:

x

-A 12-hour shift, not including the time for shift turnover.

-A 721 hour0.00834 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.743405e-4 months <br />' work week.

J

-Fourteen consecutive days on shift followed by 2 days off.

L i - These criteria are not restrictions compared to other industry.

~

i. If these criteria should.be L  : practices. - They are,in fact, license.

j inserpreted as . guidelines, .such work schedules would impair the i health and morale of the workers.. The Staff has specifically

' established these overtime criteria for the plant staff who perform safety-related functions (e. g., senior reactor operators, reactor j.

operators, : health physicists, auxiliary operators, IEC technicians ~

- and key maintenance personnel). The Staff cannot have considered '

i the wealth of data developed over the past thirty years 'in setting

'their' overtime restrictions.

+

that The particular task required of the control room operators, l'

of monitoring, is particularly susceptible to fatigue, including that .

induced by boredom. The reliabili 'yc of the human, as a monitor,

) decreases markedly after as short a time as one-half hour.' Although l there are ways to extend vigilance over a longer time, it is in-comprehensible that any means could extend the reliability of an

[

operator's monitioring capabilities over a twelve hour shift.

The control room operator's job is inherently fatiguing. The ,

small differences between the light signals and the background lighting require additional effort. The~ control room operator is_on his feet l

l' most'of'the time. He eats his lunch at the control board, only' leaving -

the room ' to use the restroom. The noise level is high, equal to thate' f of a - city = street during the dayshif t at TMI-1. A weekly shif t . rotation,;

[ at'TMI-1, is the least' desirable in ' terms of fatigue-

[' used.. -

effects.

V .

e k

i .

v .,,,__..y _ . . . , _ _ ,.,....,_%-,....,wa ,,,,...y,.sw..,,._,, . .v_ _ . . r.. , ~ ,.m,o_,m,-.N. .-

r-l The Staff writes in NUREG-0737 at I. A.l.3 under Clarification that "there'is a lack of hard data on the effects of overtime beyond the generally recognized normal 8-hour working day, the effects of shift rotation, and other f actors. " Disregarding "other factors" which are not defined, this statement is not true. Since the pioneer studies of F. C. Bartlett in 1951, the studies of human performance in a variety of situa ions have established a consistent body of knowledge concerning the length of the work shif t, shift rotation and scheduled breaks within the work shift.

Some of the established findings of psychological studies in industrial situations have been presented. O thers , that relate to optimum human performance, follow. The "backshift" hours should be short in length. ' The highest probability of human error in terms of time of day is at 3 a. m. Shifts should not be rotated more frequently than at a six-week interval. If possible, personnel who prefer "backshift" hours should be identified and permanently assigned.

(Many persons require a week to adapt to each shift rotati'o n.)

Scheduled " breaks" away fr'om the immediate work environment are needed to assure efficiency over any extended shift. -The normal 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> shif t is too long for jobs which are boring, yet require reliability.

(References are attached, however they are not all inconclusive of the numerous studies which confirm the above conclusions.1 The Staff's own study, IE Circular No. 80-02, acknowledges ~ that

" Studies indicates that with fatigue, especially because of loss of sleep, an individual's detection of visual signals deteriorates markedly, the time it takes for a person to make a decision increases and more errors are made, and reading rates decrease. Other studies show that fatigue results in p6rsonnel ignoring some signals because they develop their own subjective standards as to what is important, and as they become more fatigued they ignore more signals "

e

Considering the conclusions of industrial studies cited above,

the Staff's overtime restrictions are' grossly insufficient .for assuring i that personnel are alert and ready to perform ~their jobs. Failure to regulate working hours in a manner that assures alertness can* lead '

f to the : consequences of human error.

The Staff's inclusion in their TMI-Related Actions of overtime restrictioas may indicate a knowledge by- the Staff of use of extended i- e work shifts-in nuclear power plants. In view of the length,of l shift- and work week. cons'idered to be restrictions by the Staff,-

it can be assumed that use of overtim'e by Licensees exceeds. those restrictions. The shortage of licensed personnel throughout the industry 'will cause 'further abuse 'of'.overtimee to theidetriment of the

. safe operation of the plant, unless the Commission institutes a r

realistic overtime policy.

Conclusion

• =

4 The Commission should enforce the requirements of NUREG-0737

, for all reactors. It is a breach of faith for the commission to i:

renounce the lessons learned from the TMI-2 accident in regulating operating r: actors. The NUREG-0737 requirements should be considered minimal requirements in pending license applications. The requirements for overtime restrictions on the working schedules of s'afetyJrelated personnel are too lenient, so that the safe operation of nuclear powar plants may be jeopardized by the condition of the people-who operate them.

Respectfully submitted, ,

U e

Marjo{f/M. Aamodt i

1-* y , r-- ,, -- ,- + ..n- -

a w - a _--- - ~ --,

References Psychology and Industry Today, Duane P. Schultz, Macmillian, 1973,

, ,The Conditions of Work, p. 332-38,.344-49 Allocations of Functions Between Man and Machine, p. 429.

Industrial PsychologV, B. von Haller Gilmer, McGraw- Hill, 1966.

Men and Machines, p. 300-01, 324-25, 291-95. ,

Organizational behavior and Industrial Psychology, -Kenneth N. Wexley and Gary A. Yukl, Oxford University Press, 1975, Industrial Fatigue, p. 638-39.

Studies in Personnel and Industrial Psychology, Revised Edition, Edwin A. Fleishman, Dorsey Press, 1967, Fatigue, Monotony and

' Working Londitions, p. 542-44, Monitoring of Complex Visual j Displays-Some' Vigilance and Decision-Making Problems, p.708-09.

Bartlett, F. C., The Bearing of Experimental Psychology upon Human Skilled Performance, British Journal of Industrial Psychology, 1951, 8, 209-17.

T .' C . Cooke and T. Shipley, Human-Factors Studies of Working. Hours cf UK Shift Pilots, A Field Study of Fatigue,, Psychological Abstracts i 13596.

Korner, I. N., Working Hours, American Psychlogy, 1956, 11, p. 543-46.

i.

McGregor, D., New Concepts of Management, Technical Review, 1961, 63, 2-4.

\

I e

i N '

- ---w , - - - - , y

9 a

4*

5.t re Fed:r:1 Regist:r / Vol. 46. No. 211 / Monday. Novernber 2,1981 / Proposed Rults NUCLEAR REGULATORY Commission decicW against proceeding Comments and the outside of the COMMISSION with an operating reactors rule at this envelopes in which they are transmitted time. . should be marked ' Proposed to CFR Part 50 In view of this action, the Commission Amendments-Ou: door Natural Gas believes that bcensees who had awaited Ughting Program".

TMI.Related Requirementa for publication of the proposed rule for Fon ruRTHER sNFoaM ATioN CONTACT:

Operating Ucense Applications operating reactors to finalize their Robert L Davies. llirector. Office of Fuel AotNCy: Nuclear Regulatory {"'bcense pp icat a s should be Con m ion.Eco somic Regulatory Cmminion. allowed a reasonable time to complete ' Adzninistration. Department of Action: Proposed rule: extension of their comments.nerefore the comment Energy. 2000 M%reet. N%

comment period and supplemental period for the proposed rule for Washington. D.C. 294et. (202) 653-information. operating license applications is hereby 3649 extended until November 30.1931. Marya Rowan. Ofbee of the General suuuARY: The Nuclear Regula.ory Cem=ussion has previously proposed a Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day Counsel. Departpent of Energy. Room rule to add to its power reactor safety of October test. 6B-178.1000 Ind rpendence Avenue For the Nuclear Regulatory Cc.nmissiec.- SW., Washing

• 1. D.C. (202) 252-2967.

regulations a set oflicensing requirements applicable to operating William J. Dircks, SUPPt.E McMTARY lh FORMATIO 8C license applications.These requirementa Executive Directorfor Operations. A. Background stemmed from the lessons learned from gn o ,. n-me r.1.um ass sal .

the accident at the Three Mile Island aans.o coot rsem-se ne FinalRule on the Sale and Direct (30) nuclear power plant. His notice Industrial Use of Fatural Gas for advises that the comment period for that Outdoor Ughting (lo CE Part 516,44 m proposed rule is extended and that a DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 27606. May 10.197 3)(Final Rule) was similar proposed rule applicible to issued by the Ecoromic Regulatory cperating reactors will not be . Econom!c Regulatory Administration Administration of Jie Department of f:rthcoming. Energy on May 3.1 979, to implement 1 CFR Part 516 section402of the Powerplant snd g Ats:ne comroent period for the etice cf proposed rulemakingis extende6 o (Docket No. ERA-B-79-6-Al Industrial Fuel Usi Act of 1978. 42 U.S.C.

November 30,1981. Comments on that R301 et seq.De Final Rule, as required n;tice reccived after this date will be Sale and Direct Indu strial Use of by section 402, prchibited local natural considered if it is practical to do so: Natural Gas for Outd,oor Ughting: gas distribution ecmpanies from howsver, assurance of consideration Proposed Amendments to Fhal Rule suppl;tng natural Jas for outdoor cannot be given. Aotacy: Economic Regulatory lighting by residertial, municipal or Administration. DOE . commercial customers and prohibited AooResses: Comments should be sent l s fro un na a to the Secretary of the Commission.U.S. ACT10N: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

Nucleat Regulatory Commiss, ion.

e[

sUMM ARY:%e Econo:nic Regulatory by FUA localdistibution companies Washington. DC 20555. Attention DocM and Service Branch. Admuustration (ERA of the Department and direct industrial users were of Energy (DOE) hereay proposes prohibited from initalling new natural FOR FURTHER INFORMATloM CONTACT amendments to the Final Rule on the gas outdoor lightirg fixtures (10 CFR Mr. David M. Verre111. Division of Sale and Direct Industrial Use of 516.20).

Ucensing. Office of Nucleer Reaetor . Natural Gas for Outdbor Ughting (the On August 13. Inst, the Omnibus Regulation. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory , Rule), which renendrents are required Budg'et Reconciliation Act of 1981 was Comrnission. Washington, DC 20555: by the amend nents t > section 402 of the enacted. Section 1524 of that act made telephone (301) 492-84M. Powerplant arsd indu itrial Fuel Use Act certain amendments to section 402 of sVPPt.EMENTARY INFORM ATicN: On May of 1978. 42 U.S.C. 830 et seq (FUA or FUA. Specifically. those amendments (1) 13,1981. the Nuclear Regulatory the Act).made by sec tion 1024 of the lift the prohibit en on the supplying of Commission published in the Federal Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of natural gas for use in outdoor residential Rtgister (45 m 2M91) a notice of 1981. Pub. L 97-35. Aagust 13.1981 lights installed pridt to and in service on proposed rulemaking.%e comment (FUA amendments).'The amendments to November 9.1978 (2) require local -

period at that time was to expire 90 days FUA lift the prohibiti m on the sale of distribution companies to select and later on August 12.1981.%e natural gas for use in outdoor residential develcp a method to periodically inform Supplementary Information portion of lighting but establishinew customer their customers of the amount of natural thdt notice stated that the Commission notification and repo[ ting requirements. gas used for outdoir lighting and the intended to iugment its regulations with The proposed regulatory amendments annual cost thereo f: (3) require local a similar rule for operating reactors and are intended to reflect the new statutory distribution compi nies to report the that such a proposed rule would be requirements in a mannen that affords method selected tc the Secretary cf published for comment with8n a matter maximum flexibility knd imposes the Energy; and (4) rec aire the Secreta , of cf weeks. " . least burden on regulated entities. Energy to propose and promulgate r les he staff prepared a proposed rule DATES: Comments or[the proposed relating to customer notification and that would codify those NUREG-0737 ' revisions must be rechived no later than reports to the Secretary of of Energy.

Items applicable to operating reactors. December 2,1981. Ary person wishing Under the prior law. residential outdoor However, on August 6.1981, the to comment should send to copies to: lights could not be supplici with natural Economic Regulatorg Administration, gas after January .1982. .dthough the

%1 REC-o*F le avelsbie by miuryr US FUA amendments erM those Office of Fuels Convgtsion. Department t e o t in a ,a of Energy. 2000 M Street NW., residential fixturei in service on Dumnt cenust. ADM. Wa shington, D.C. 20W.. November 9.1978 a continue to be

.