ML20138M531

Decision ALAB-826 Affirming ASLB Final Two Partial Initial Decisions Resolving Issues Affecting Mgt Competence & Integrity in Licensee Favor.Served on 851219

ML20138M531
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	12/18/1985
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
References
CON-#485-537 ALAB-826, SP, NUDOCS 8512230012
Download: ML20138M531 (7)

Text

. .

r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NN.%,5P ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA'RD Administrative Judges:

'85 0B119 A10:21 Gary J. Edles, Chairman December 18, 1985 Dr. W. Reed Johnson  :,FF( ALAB+ 8 26 ) '

Christine N. Kohl UEdy]{y-[

In the Matter of l SERVED DEC191985

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ) Docket No. 50-289 SP ET AL. ) (Management Phase)

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

)

DECISION We have before us for sua sponte review the Licensing Board's final two partial initial decisions in this special proceeding.1 They resolve in the licensee's favor issues affecting the central question of management competence and integrity -- namely, the adequacy of licensed operator training, and the circumstances surrounding a May 1979 mailgram sent by Herman Dieckamp (President of the licensee's parent firm, General Public Utilities (GPU)) to Congressman Morris Udall. Both decisions were issued in 1

See LBP-85-15, 21 NRC 1409 (1985); LBP-85-30, 22 NRC 332 (1985).

2 In LBP-85-15, the Licensing Board imposed a condition requiring the licensee to implement a plan for formal

on-the-job evaluation of operator performance. See 21 NRC

! at 1502, 1536-37. The licensee thereafter submitted such a (Footnote Continued) 8512230012 851218 PDR ADOCK05000gB9 G

h d'O 2 ,

2 response to our remand in ALAB-772, where we found that further record development was necessary before we could make any final judgment regarding the licensee's overall management capability.3 In the absence of an appeal,4 we review on our own initiative any final licensing board decision (and pertinent portions of the underlying record) concerning significant (Footnote Continued) plan, and the Board approved it. LBP-85-21, 21 NRC 1751 (1985).

19 NRC 1193, 1232-39, 1265-68, 1279-80 (1984). We also reopened the record and ordered the Licensing Board to conduct hearings with respect to allegations that leak rate data at Unit 1 had been falsified, id. at 1276-78, but the Commission reversed our decision on this score and decided that no haaring on that subject was warranted. CLI-85-2, 21 NRC 282, 306-14, reconsideration denied, CLI-85-7, 21 NRC 1104 (1985). Earlier, we had reopened the record and required the Licensing Board to hold hearings on the so-called "Hartman allegations" of falsification of leak rate data at Unit 2. ALAB-738, 18 NRC 177, 183-92 (1983).

But after staying these proceedings the Commission some time later determined that the Hartman allegations "no longer raise [d] a significant safety issue" so as to warrant further hearings in this proceeding. CLI-85-2, 21 NRC at 304-05. Nevertheless, it decided to institute a separate proceeding to consider certain aspects of the Hartman allegations. Id. at 305-06. Thereafter, the Commission lifted the order directing that Unit 1 remain shut down and permitted resumption of operations. CLI-85-9, 21 NRC 1118, aff'd, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. v. NRC, 771 F.2d 720 (3d Cir. 1985).

4 Appeals from both Licensing Board decisions here were timely filed but thereafter withdrawn. See Appeal Board Order of October 21, 1985 (unpublished) .

3 safety or environmental issues.5 Our review of the Licensing Board's thorough, well written decisions here has  :

disclosed no error necessitating corrective action, and therefore we affirm both.6 Indeed, the Board more than fulfilled the terms of our remand, conducting hearings and issuing decisions more comprehensive than we had anticipated. We nevertheless offer a few parting observations regarding the matter of licensed operator training, to which the Commission gave special emphasis in

. its 1979 order instituting this proceeding, and which we characterized as "[t]he most significant issue requiring further hearing."

The initial record and Licensing Board decision on training were unquestionably substantial. The concern that prompted our remand, however, was that, following the revelation of cheating on licensee and NRC reactor operator examinations and the Board's reopening of the record to explore that matter, the Board failed to reevaluate Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-655, 14 NRC 799, 803 (1981).

6 In accordance with our standard practice, no stare decisis effect, however, is to be accorded any of the

Licensing Board's conclusions on purely legal issues.

Consumers Power Co. (Big Rock Point Plant), ALAB-795, 21 NRC 1, - 2 (1985).

7

! CLI-79-8, 10 NRC 141, 144-45 (1979); ALAB-772, 19 NRC at 1279.

4 adequately its original, favorable conclusions with regard to the licensee's training program. We found this to be particularly true insofar as concerned the testimony of the outside consultants who were members of the Operator Accelerated Retraining Program (OARP) Review Committee and upon whom the Board had heavily relied.8 We therefore directed the Board to obtain the further views of these individuals in light of the disclosures of cheating and other incidents that reflected negatively upon licensee's training program.9 The Licensing Board described the OARP Review Committee as "a select committee made up of experts in the fields of

-educational psychology, engineering / human factors psychology, nuclear engineering education, nuclear power generation, and nuclear power plant operator training."10 The Committee's reassessment of the TMI training program in response to ALAB-772 was carried out in two phases. Within a week of the issuance of our decision, the Committee met to take a quick look at the training program, primarily through documentation and briefings with the licensee's training 8

ALAB-772, 19 NRC at 1233.

Id. at 1234-37 O

LBP-85-15, 21 NRC at 1414 n.1. See also ALAB-772, 19 NRC at 1210-11.

5 staff. The Committee then prepared a Special Report of its observations -- an 87-page document submitted to the Commission for consideration in connection with its then-pending restart deliberations.11 The second phase of the Committee's assessment, when the Committee members scrutinized the training program itself, took place during August-November 1984. They observed classes, interviewed operators and instructors, and visited facilities both at TMI and in Lynchburg, Virginia, where they reviewed the simulator training program.12 The Committee filed testimony in the remaid hearing, documenting its updated assessment of the TMI training program and including its earlier Special Report. The I1 LBP-85-15, 21 NRC at 1509-12; Tr. 33,351. One of the documents the Committee reviewed at this time was the licensee's self-evaluation of the training program, which had been prepared for submission to the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) as part of an accreditation process. See note 18, infra. One Committee member, Dr.

Eric Gardner, considered this material to be a uniquely valuable description of the program. For, as he made clear under cross-examination, the licensee was likely to be candid in its program assessment, knowing that an INPO site visiting team was coming to make its own in-depth evaluation. Tr. 33,352. Dr. Gardner's reasoning is persuasive.

I LBP-85-15, 21 NRC at 1513-22. A TMI replica simulator is scheduled to be installed at the improved onsite training facility in late 1985. Already in operation there is a Basic Principles Training Simulator. See id. at 1430-33.

4

6 Committee also submitted rebuttal testimony, responding to the prefiled testimony of intervenor Union of Concerned Scientists and the NRC staff. The OARP Review Committee's overall evaluation is that the training program is effective and adequate to justify restart of Unit 1.13 It is not necessary for us to review here particular aspects of the Committee's testimony and findings. The Licensing Board has done this job exhaustively and well, discussing and disposing of criticisms of the Committee's work raised by'the parties below.14 We note only that, in accordance with ALAB-772, the Committee's assessment of the licensee's training program specifically takes the cheating incidents into account. Although it was unable to identify the root causes of the cheating, the Committee concluded that, in any event, the licensed operator training program as it now exists at TMI is effective.15 Indeed, in its opinion, the GPU Nuclear Training and Education Department "now ranks among the top utility training programs in the United States." 6 Based on the Committee's testimony and Fol. Tr. 31,749 at 31; fol. Tr. 33,320 at 18.

See LBP-85-15, 21 NRC at 1508-35.

15 Fol. Tr, 31,749 at 31.

Id., Attachment 1 at 82.

7 J

that provided~by the other witnesses (and subject.to a now-satisfied condition 17) , the Licensing Board reasonably concluded that the training program at TMI is effective and adequate.18 Our earlier concerns having been allayed, the Licensing

~

. Board's decisions are affirmed.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD

b. be a C. (pan Saoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board c

1 4 e f

17 See note 2, supra.

18 See LBP-85-15, 21 NRC at 1535-36. The Board also indicated that,-at the time of the hearing, the licensee wtm seeking accreditation of its licensed operator training program from INPO. Although the Board disclaimed reliance on the INPO accreditation in reaching its decision, it took official notice that such accreditation was obtained on February 28, 2.905. Id. at 1421, 1503-08. The Commission

! Lhas generally endorsed the INPO-managed training accreditation program. See 50 Fed. Reg. 11,147 (1985).

n

.