ML20112H574

Comment on 850314 Commission Policy Statement on Training & Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.Policy Statement Should Not Affect Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20112H574
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/28/1985
From:	Jordan W, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:
References
CON-#185-318, CON-#285-318 SP, NUDOCS 8504020292
Download: ML20112H574 (9)

Text

$:

/ UCS - March 28, 1985

-s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOChETED US%=C .

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

) 65 APR-I Al0:59 In the Matter of )

)

S. I p METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docketrjio,50g8.9,Ey (Res tarECC$emandQ

) Management:TMNcn '-

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

)

UCS' COMMENT ON COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT'ON' l

TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERSONNEL On March 14, 1985. the Commission issued a Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.

The Board has sought the parties' comments on "the effect the policy. statement should have on the Board's partial initial decision on the training issue." The Board particularly invited the parties to comment on the fact that the NRC has endorsed the five essential elements of the INPO-managed accreditation program.

For various reasons, the policy statement should not affect this proceeding at all. First, the Commission must not have l

l intended this policy statement to affect the proceeding. The Board's charge is to address the issues raised by the Appeal Board in ALAB-772. The Commission itself.has reviewed ALAB-772.

Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-85-2 (February 25, 1985). The Commission did not reverse or modify the Appeal Board's .

I, '

l Ts03 - . _ - .

dacicion. To the contrary, the Cocaission effectively confirmed l 4 the significance of the issues raised in ALAB-772 by ruling that as a matter of policy the Commission will allow the Licensing Board to render a decision on the training issue and by urging i the Board to inform the Commission of its decision as soon as it l can, even before the Partial Initial Decision, if possible. Slip 1

op. at 8-9. Moreover, the Commission took titis action on 1 February 25, only 17 days befor-e it issued the policy statement.

If the Commission had intended the policy statement to have any effect on this proceeding, it would surely have said so when it issued the policy statement.

Second, the issues in this case and the principles on which the Board must base its decision have been determined primarily by the previous course of this unique litigation. As established by the evidence presented in this case and particularly by the proposed findings of the Licensee and UCS, the Board must, in essence, determine the adequacy of the current TMI-l training program in order to address the Appeal Board's concerns.

Licensee Proposed Findings : 16, UCS Proposed Findings : 35.

Many of the principles discussed in the policy statement, including the essential elements of a training program, were the subject of factual litigation during this hearing. See, e.gz, Regan, ff. Tr. 33,532 at 5-11.

It is well settled that the Commission may not rely upon a policy statement to resolve contested issues of fact. State of Minnesota v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Thus, the Board may not rely upon this policy statement as establishing the essential elements of a training

1 l

l progrco or for cny othsr purpoco.1 I

• Third, the only other way that the policy statement could l

. i affect this proceeding is by influencing the Board's factual ,

determination as to the adequacy of the training program under I

the applicable principles. For the reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, any such use of the policy statement would be illegal. The parties litigated the adequacy of the training program at length. Several witnesses mentioned INPO and the INPO accreditation program.2 If the Board is to reach any 1 UCS takes this position despite the fact that the policy statement strongly favors UCS' position on one of the central issues in this case. According to the Commission, a sound training program must include " evaluation and revision of the training based on the performance of trained personnel in the .iob setting." Policy Statement at 4. (Emphasis added). This is precisely what Dr. Regan testified and what UCS argued in both its Proposed Findings and its Reply to Licensee's Supplemental Proposed Findings. UCS believes, however, that the fundamental principle of adhering strictly to the hearing record must override any benefit that UCS might derive from the policy ,

statement in this particular situation.

2 See, e.g., Newton , ff. Tr. 32,409 at 65-68 and Tr. 32,408 (describing briefly the INPO accreditation program and Licensee's effort to receive accreditation); Persensky, Tr. 33,249-260 (cross-examination concerning primarily relative qualifications of INPO accreditation reviewers and members of the OARP Committee, also generally describing the policy statement in the context of a discussion of the adequacy of the work done by the OARP Committee); Knief & Leonard, ff. Tr. 33,364 at 10-11 (discussing Licensee reference to INPO materials in developing aspects of its training program and noting that Licensee has applied for INPO accreditation); OARP Committee, Tr. 32,044-053 (general discussion of INPO accreditation), 32,108-109 (discussion of Kimel's experience with INPO and comparison of hours spent by accreditation team with hours spent by OARP Committtee). Any findings related to INPO must be based upon this testimony and the few other scattered references to INPO that appear in the record. The relevant testimony does not support a favorable ruling by the Board on the adequacy of the licensed operator training program at TMI-1, nor does it support a finding that the program is adequate under the Commission's new policy statement.

i

findingo ecncerning INPO, Licensee's application for INPO

accreditation, or the significance of the INPO accreditation program, those findings must be based on the record of this proceeding, not on this policy statement. It may not rely upon this policy statement for any purpose. State of Minnesota v.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 602 F.2d 412.

, Respectfully submitted, MJ . V

. William S. an. III El yn R. Weiss l-HARMON, WEISS, & JORDAN 2001 S Street, N.W.

Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20000 (202) 328-3500 Dated: March 28, 1985 e

e l

r March 28, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AM0RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289

) (Restart Remand on (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Management) ~

Station, Unit No. 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' COMMENT ON COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERSONNEL, was served on those indicated on the accompanying Service List. Service was made by deposit in The United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, on March 28, 1985, except that those indicated by an asterisk were delivered by hand.

/ - ,:. .5[ L a , .' ..

William S. dan, III

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

t I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

[ ) Docket No. 50-289 l

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) (Restart Remand on

) Management)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No.1) )

SERVICE LIST dministrative Judge Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.

ary J. Edles, Chairman Office of the Executive Legal Dir.

Licensing Appeal Bd.

tomic Saf ety & U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss'on

.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was'Tington, D.C. 20555 ashington, D.C. 20555 dministrative Judge Deborah Bauser, Esquire ohn H. Buck Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowcridge comic Safety & Licensing Appeal Bd. 1800 M Street, N.W.

.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 ashington, D.C. 20555 dministrative Judge -

Ms. Louise Bradford

.hristine M. KohlLicensing Appeal Bd. TMI Alert tomic Safety & 1011 Green Street17102

.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA

-ashington, D.C. 20555 dministrative Judge Joanne Doroshaw, Esquire van W. Smith, Chairman The Christic Institute tomic Safety & Licensing Board 1324 North Capitol Street i.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20002 ashington, D.C. 20555 dministrative Judge Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt heldon J. Wolfe 200 North Church19365 Street tomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Bd. Parkesburg, PA i .S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'ashington , D.C. 20555 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

.dministrative Judge -

Government Accountability Project

ustave A. Linenberger, Jr. 1555 Connecticut Ave.

.tomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20009 J .S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission

?ashington, D.C. 20555 McBride, Esq.

Michael F.

iocketing and Service Section LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae #1100 iffice of the Secretary 1333 New Hampshire Ave, N.W.

).S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036

'ashington , D.C. 20555

' . ;Michnol W.-Maupin, Ecq.

, Hunton & WilliEma

• '707. East Main Street -

~P.O. Box 1535 .

Richmond, VA 23212 Thomas Y. Au, Esq..

Office of Chief Counsel Department of Environmental Resources 505-Executive Houses P.O. Box 2357 ,,

l'7120 Harrisburg, PA -'f'. .

s 9

, a e

o e ,

9 5

e e

• 4 e

1 1

< - - - . . - _ . = . , . _ . _ , . _ _ _ , ,_, _ __ , ,. __ _ , , , _ , , , . ,_ _ , __ ,_ _ _