ML20066B979

Answer to Sunflower Alliance 821019 Reply Brief to NRC & Util Answers to Sunflower Motion to Submit Addl Contention on Shift Rotation.No Support Exists for Sunflower Untimeliness Argument.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20066B979
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	11/04/1982
From:	Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20066B973	List: ML20066B970 ML20066B979
References
NUDOCS 8211090288
Download: ML20066B979 (5)

Text

_

November 4, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO " REPLY BRIEF OF SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE, INC.

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUDMIT AN ADDITIONAL CONTENTION" Sunflower Alliance, Inc. et al. (" Sunflower") in its reply to Applicants' and Staff's answers to Sunflower's proposed shift rotation contention, puts forward only one argument concerning its untimeliness. That argument involved Sunflower's characteri-zation of references which Applicants had cited to demonstrate that shift rotation was not a new issue.

In its September 24, 1982 Answer, Applicants identified several references, both in technical publications and in popular literature, which discussed shift rotation. The purpose of these l citatiol.s was to show that the Science News article relied upon by Sunflower was not the first widely available publication to dis-cuss the effects of shift rotation on worker performance. Since the subject had been covered in readily available literature, Sunflower could not take credit for the recent Science News article to support its untimeliness.

' 'B2110902EB 82i104' l ~PDR ADOCK 05000440 'f u.O , , , , , , _ _ _PDR

Sunflower's October 19, 1982 Reply Brief attempted to deflect Applicants' argument by alleging that the cited articles only dealt with " health dangers to shift workers" and not to " shift worker performance" .

The articles cited by Applicant deal with health dangers to shift workers; although this undoubtedly occurs, Sunflower's contention did not address the health of Perry plant workers.

Rather, it dealt with possible threats to public health and safety posed by errors made by plant operators who must work unnatural shifts. Unlike the references Applicant cites, the Science News article specifically address shift worker performance in industries involving public safety.

Reply Brief at 1.

Sunflower's characterization of the cited articles is simply incorrect. All four of the cited articles address the increased incidence of accidents for workers on shift rotation. The Slade article, " Shifting the Dangers of Shift Rhythms", Psychology Today, April 1979 at 107, cites the 1978 NIOSH report identified in footnote 4 of Applicants' Answer as stating that a greater choice of shift rotations and schedules "should improve job satisfaction and performance".b! And in the Bennetts article,

" Studying the Woes of Working Nights", New York Times, April 5, 1979 at C1, 5, discusses the effect of the stress of night rota-tions, pointing out 1/ The NIOSH study itself contains sections on performance effi-ciency and industrial accidents. Tasto and Colligan, " Health Consequences of Shift Work", DHEW (NIOSH) Pub. No.78-154, at 10-11, 34-39, 75. The second NIOSH study cited in Applicants' Answer contains an entire chapter on "Shiftwork and Performance".

Johnson, et al., "The Twenty-Four Hour Workday", DHHS (NIOSH)

Pub. No.81-127 at 347-373.

s -

i.

T s \

s

.,_ q

,g - N None of this helps one's professional per-formance. "The increased incidence of errors and changes in attentiveness and vigilence are ,

clearly proven", Dr. Weitzman said.

The only apparent explanation for Sunflower's mischaracteri-zation of the references cited by Applicants is that Sun [ lower only looked at the titles of the articles and did not read them..

.y This is suggested by the acknowledgement of Sunflower's counsel %

to Applicants' counsel that he had not read the references cited.\

N ,,

Whatever the explanation, Sunflower's single attempt to avoid'its 1

,5 untimeliness finds no support. 3 ,'.

Applicants believe, for these reasons and the othdr reasons set forth in Applicants' Answer, that the proposed shift rotation contention should not be admitted.

Respectfully-submitted,

,w, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS'& TROWBRID'GE

/ /

BY: '

JAY E. SILBERG, P.C.

Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W., Suite'900S '

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1063 .

DATED: November 4, 1982 I

November 4, 1982 4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matt'er of )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

i Units 1- and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Motion for Leave to File Answer to ' Reply Brief of Sunflower Alliance, Inc. In support of Motion to Submit an Additional Con-tention'" and " Applicants' Answer to ' Reply Brief of Sunflower Alliance, Inc. in Support of Motion to Submit an Additional Con-tention"t, attached thereto, were served by deposit in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 4th day of November, 1982, to all those on the attached Service List.

//

.5 JAY E. SILBERG DATED: November 4, 1982

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of ,- )

) .-

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC. ) .Do'cket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY . ) .

50-441

)

(Parry Nuclear Power Plant, ) ,

Units 1 and 2) )

SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon James M. Cutchin, IV, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Christine N. Kohl, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Ms. Sue.Hiatt Appeal Board .

OCRE Interim Representative U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8275 Munson Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 Mentor, Ohio 44060 Dr. Joh'n H. Buck Daniel D. Wilt, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 08159 Appeal Board Cleveland, Ohio 44108 l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 Donald T. Ezzone, Esquire I Assistant Prosecuting Attorney l

Gary J. Edles, Esquire Lake County Administration Center l Atomic Safety and Licensing 105 Center Street Appeal Board Painesville, Ohio 44077 ,

U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John G. Cardinal, Esquire i Prosecuting Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing Ashtabula County Courthouse Board Panel e Jefferson, Ohio 44047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Terry Lodge, Esquire 915 Spitzer Building Toledo, Ohio 43604