ML20098F412
| ML20098F412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1984 |
| From: | Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20098F410 | List: |
| References | |
| SP, NUDOCS 8410020715 | |
| Download: ML20098F412 (7) | |
Text
!
r Srpterbar 28, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C -l
[:i!.'G; BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
. Z i_
S
)
In the Matter of-
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart - Management Phase (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
)
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES The following answers, by agreement memorialized in a letter from Deborah Bauser to Ellyn Weiss, Sept. 26, 1984, supplement UCS's answers to Licensee's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to UCS.
In exchange i
for these answers, GPU agreed to withdraw its September 14, 1984 motion to compel against UCS.
U-4, U-S The procedures which currently form the basis for UCS' concern about training' keeping pace with changing plant procedures are those referred to in UCS's first document production request to GPU, 43.
U-6 In UCS's previous answer to interrogatory U-6, UCS stated :
...we seriously doubt the GPU training programs can be 0410020715 840928 PDR ADOCK 05000289 8
3
,. effectively administered by persons who bear responsibility for the conditions which caused widespread disdain for the training program, persons who bear responsibility for GPU's response to the cheating episodes - a response which UCS considers egregrously inadequate, persons who do not acknowledge or understand that the training program revealed by the evidence in the cheating hearings was a failure."
UCS' believes that the individuals falling within this category include Mssrs. Long, Newton, Husted; Hukill, R. Wilson (responsibility for response to cheating).
While we are not yet in possession of sufficient information to know who is responsible for deciding to retain and promote these people, we assume that Mssrs. Clark and Hukill must approve such decisions.
U-17 The following pages of the Report of the Sepcial Master support UCS's position on Interrogatory U-16:
15 NRC 928; 931-2 (0+H, highly respected supervisors, cheated and showed lack of respect for responsibilities); 934-943 (nature of exam questions, and answer keys, ineffectiveness of training, role of memorization); 946-8 (weekly quizzes); 959-961 (Husted attitude);
977-988 (nature of NRC exams and answer keys, NRC dependence on GPU,. inconsistencies between training and plant design);
1006-1013 (requalification and make-up exams, disrespect for training program; 1014-1020 (GPU training and testing program);
1020-1022 (certification of candidates); 1024-1034, 1054-6
.(content of NRC exam) ; 1045 (Husted attitude);
l
-. ~ -.. -
c-
_3 1049-1051, 1053-4 (negative attitude to training); 1051-3 (GPU response to cheating).
The pages of the ASLB decision are :
16 NRC 296 (GPU test procedures, operators' disrespect for training and testing);
298-9 (content of NRC exam); 300 (failures of Nuclear Assurance Division); 308 (GPU response to G+H); 318-320 (Husted attitude);
325-333 (NRC exam dependence on GPU); 344-355 (requalification and make-up exams, certification); 355-3,65 (GPU tests, particularly weekly quizzes, role of memorization, deficiencies in quality of instruction, grading); 365-6 (ce r ti fica tion) ;
367-373 (content of NRC exam, dependence of NRC exam of GPU);
379-381 (GPU failure to assure quality of instruction and examination process).
U-19 See UCS's answer to Licensee's second set of interrogations, I
U-24 UCS has identified the following additional concerns from statements in the RHR report:
1.
Operators are dissatisfied with the training for the requalification exams.
They feel there is insuf ficient time devoted to this and that the handling of the repeat courses is boring and often produces a " turned off" attitude.
RHR Report, March 15, 1983, unnumbered page under heading " Issues of Training."
2.
Only eight out of ten operators felt that they were better
4_
prepared for an emergency as a resultlof the changes since the TMI-2 accident.
I d,., Unnumbered page under heading "II Explanatory Material."
3.
One-quarter of the operators agreed that operatorc tended to underestimate the potential danger.
Id.,
next unnumbered page.
4.
There is a strong agreement that the procedural complexity is a hazard to safety.
Operators agree that they suffer from information overload.
Id.,
2 pages after..
5.
There'is considerable feeling that emergency procedures need to be simplified.
Id. next page.
6.
It was felt that procedures need to be written by individuals familiar with operations.
Id.
7.
The operators feel that what is taught in training is different than what they experience in the plant.
Id.,
4 pages after.
8.
Operators complain that not enough time is devoted to requalification training, and training is often cancelled at the last moment.
Id.
9.
There appear to be antagonisms between requalification trLiners and licensed operators.
Id.
- 10. The present training program is geared to the needs of the Ex-Navy personnel and out of phase with the need of the operator who comes up through the plant; those who come up from the plant feel left behind and at a disadvantage.
I d,.
- 11. Many operators have said that while the training department has grown in size, the staff assigned to operator training has
1 j '. shrunk.
They 'believe the training department'is not' staffed to.
handle the range-of operator needs.
d.
- 12. Operators complain'about the lack of-inter-departmental cooperation _.. They are greatly dissatisfied with Training policies.
Jd., 3 pages after.
i Submitted by:
l Ellyn R.-Weiss General Counsel Union of Concerned Scientists 4
G S
+
t fj UNITED STATES OF AMERICA u,
i
-L NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY C091ISSION
'.E S..,
In the Matter of
)
)
MEROPOLITAN EDISON CINPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart-Management Remand)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "UNICN OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS RESPONSE
'IO LICENSEE'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGA*IVRIES 'IO UCS" and " UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTIS'IS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE 'IO FIRST SET OF INTERROGA'IVRIES" have been served on the following persons by deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, this 28th day of September 1984.
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Three Mile Island Alert U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1911 Green Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Alternate Chairman Joanne Doroshow Atomic Safety and Licensing Board The Christic Institute U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20002 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Lynne Bernabel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Government Accountability Project U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1555 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20009 Mrs. Marjorie Aamodt Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud R.D. 45 Dr. Chauncey Kepford Coatsville, PA 19320 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Thomas Y. Au 433 Orlando Avenue Office of Chief Counsel State College, PA 16801 Department of Environmental Resources 505 Executive House John A. Levin, Assistant Counsel P.O. Box 2357 Pennsylvania Public Utility Comission Harrisburg, PA 17120 P.O. Box 3265 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
e
. -Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washirgton,. D.C. 20555 Jack Goldberg Office of Executive Legal Director-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest L. Blake Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Michael F. McBride LeBoeuf, tamb, I41by & McRae -
1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 t
9