ML20195F531
| ML20195F531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1999 |
| From: | Gaukler P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195F538 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#299-20524 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9906150020 | |
| Download: ML20195F531 (24) | |
Text
go5 4 1
DOCKETED USt4RC June 11,1999
'99 #414 P3 :20 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION or, n e
RUil t
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
.c SFSS
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF UTAH CON-TENTIONS F & P-TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION Applicant Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (" Applicant" or "PFS") files this motion for summary disposition of Board Contention 4, " Utah F/ Utah P -Inadequate Training and Certification of Personnel," (" Utah F&P") pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
2.749. Summary disposition is warranted on the grounds that there exists no genuine issue as to any mate-rial fact relevant to the contention and, under the applicable Commission regulations, the Applicant is entitled to a decision as a matter oflaw. This motion is supported by a statement of material facts, an affidavit from Michael Ladd, and related exhibits, and the deposition of the State designated witness for training.
I.
STATEMENT OF TIIE ISSUES On April 22,1998, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or
" Board") admitted Utah F&P. Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel 9906150020 990611 PDR ADOCK 07200022 j$g C
4-Storage Installation), LBP-98-7,L47 NRC 142,192 (1998). The contention, as admitted, asserts that:
Training and certification of PFS personnel,' including radiation protection
. training, fails to satisfy Subpart I of 10 C.F.R. Part 72 and will not ' assure -
that the facility is operated in a safe manner.
If at 252. In admitting the contention, the Board limited its scope concerning radiation protection training to the description of"a training program that insures all personnel who direct activities or work directly with radioactive materials or areas are capable of evaluating the significance of radiation doses " Id. at 194.'
The Applicant moves for summary disposition of Utah F&P on the grounds that no genuine dispute remains concerning any facts material to the adequacy of the PFS
^
training program, and that PFS is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw.
II.
PFS IS ENTITLED TO
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF UTAH F&P PFS has set forth the relevant law governing summary disposition at some length in its first motion for summary disposition, and the legal basis provided in that motion is incorporated by reference herein. See Applicant's Mot. Summ. Disp. Utah C at 4-16 i
I (April 21,1999). The State may file affidavits purporting to contain expert opinions in opposition to this motion. Therefore, the legal requirements concerning such, iA at 10-15, will be particularly relevant here. These requirements include 1) demonstration of the
' Utah F was also admitted "with the caveat that the second portion of the contention's basis concerning physical and mental condition of operators has been resolved / withdrawn." M at 188.
1 2
J
'O, alliant as an expert 2 and 2) an explanation of facts and reasons in the affidavit supporting
]
~
the affiant's expert's opinion.3 An affidavit made on "information and belief" is insuffi-cient,d as are mere unsupported conclusions.5 As the Supreme Court has held, reliable
]
expert opinion must be based on "more than subjective belief or unsupported specula-tion." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,509 U.S. 579,590 (1993).
Moreover, based on deposition testimony of the State's witnesses, PFS does not i
believe that the State's identified witness on Utah F&P can meet these requirements. An j
expert's education or experience must pertain particularly to the matter to which he or she j
t testifies. h, Eagleston v. Guido,41 F.3d 865,874 (2d Cir,1994), cert. denied,516 U.S. 808 (1995) (must embrace " specific body of scientific or technical expertise perti-nent" to the issue in question).6 Thus, for example, one could not testify to the adequacy of an NRC training and certification program rnerely by being a physicist or a nuclear i
- engineer, 2 Sullivan v. Rowan Cos.,952 F.2d 141,144 & n.6 (5* Cir.1992). A licensing board will detennine an affiant's qualifications under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Florida Power & Light Co. (Tur-key Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), ALAB-950,33 NRC 492,501 n.5 (1991). Under Rule 702, non-expert testimony regarding " matters which are beyond the realm of common experience and which require the special skill and knowledge of an expert" is not admissible. Randolph v. Collectramatic, h,590 F.2d 844,846 (10* Cir.1979).
,See Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exchange Nat'l Bank,877 F.2d 1333,1339 (7* Cir.1989); Carolina 8
c Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), LBP-84-7,19 NRC 432,447 (1984).
- Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors. Inc.,944 F.2d 1525,1529 (9* Cir.
1991), all'd on other grounds 508 U.S. 49 (1993).
5 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBP-83-32A,17 NRC 1170, i177 (1983).
- To be reliable, an expen opinion must have a sufficient basis in "the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline." Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, No. 97 1709,119 S. Ct.1167,1999 U.S. LEXIS 2189, at *3,19 (March 23,1999).
3
a i
l 1
Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, whom the State submitted as the only person it expens to testify as a witness on Utah F&P,7 lacks the experience or credentials to be considered an expert in NRC training programs. In his deposition, Dr. Resnikoff stated: "I haven't ac-a tually, you know, been involved in the training of those workers" at nuclear power plants or dry storage facilities. Resnikoff Dep. at 36. Nor has he ever reviewed a training pro-gram for "this type of facility"(an ISFSI). Id. at 41. His only exposure to any training program at any NRC facility was his review of the training manual for the West Valley facility more than twenty years ago. E at 37,43. He has never participated in an NRC training program. E at 36. He has no publications on training or certification programs.
M at 44. He has never reviewed any NRC StalTguidance on training and indeed was unaware that any even existed. E at 40-41.
In short, Dr. Resnikoff has no training, experience, or education in the preparation or conduct of NRC training programs; he appears to have reviewed only one program in his entire career,"a long time ago." Ld. at 37. Therefore, he simply is not qualified as an 1
expert in training and certification, and thus any opinion he may render in regards to the PFS training program would be mere lay speculation, which this Board should reject as inadmissible.
PFS submits that the lack of expertise pertinent to NRC training programs pos-sessed by its designated witness renders the State incapable of refuting the showing of the 7 " State of Utah's Amended Responses to Applicant's First Set of Formal Discovery Requests."(Apr. 29, 1999) at 3.
4
io adequacy of PFS's training program, set forth below, and that hence PFS is entitled to judgement as a matter oflaw.
A.
PFS's Training and Certification Program Satisfies NRC Requirements In its bases for Utah F, the State claimed that PFS "has not explicitly defined a training program," PFS has not defined "a listing of physical conditions that would bar a person from employment in specific positions [at the PFSF]" and PFS "has not shown that [the] qualifications [in the training program) are sufficient to guarantee that the facil-ity will be operated safely." Utah Contentions at 40-41. The State generally complains of the lack of detail in the PFS training and certification program and takes issue with the experience PFS will require of the PFSF General Manager and PFSF operators. IA at 41.
Contrary to th'e State's claims, however, PFS has explicitly defined a training and certifi-cation program and has provided sufficient detail to satisfy NRC requirements. Moreo-ver, the PFSF General Manager and operators will have sufficient education and experi-ence to perform theirjobs safely. Finally, the State's claim regarding a list of physical conditions that would bar one from employment is simply groundless, in that a require-tnent to provide such appears nowhere in the NRC's regulations.
NRC regulations provide that an ISFSI training and certification program is to consist of" training, proficiency testing, and certification ofISFSI... personnel." 10 C.F.R.
72.192. Personnel operating equipment and controls important to safety and su-pervisors who direct the operation of such must be trained and certified. 10 C.F.R. Q f
72.190. In addition, the physical condition and health of personnel certified to operate 5
l l
[
i equipment important to safety must not be such that the operation of the equipment by
.such personnel would endanger other plant personnel or the public health and safety. 10 C.F.R.
72.194. In Utah F, the State is simply advocating that requirements stricter than those imposed by the Commission's regulations ought to be imposed on PFS. The State's claims have no regulatory support and the State has not moved for a waiver of the Commission's training and certification regulations under 10 C.F.R. f 2.758. Thus, the State is left with nothing more than argumentation-unsupported by expert opinion. As I
PFS shows below, it has defined a training and certification program that comports with the NRC's requirements that is equally or even more detailed than the programs submit-I ted with the applications for other ISFSI licenses that the NRC has granted. Thus, sum-
{
mary disposition of this contention is warranted for PFS.
The PFSF License Application (LA) and Safety Analysis Report (SAR) provide the training and certification program required by the regulations. Ladd Dec. at j i The PFSF program as described in the LA and the SAR identifies those PFSF personnel that are to be trained and the specific areas in which training is to occur. Id; at 116-7. It adopts the " Systematic Approach to Training" (SAT), which is a well defined training process mandated by the NRC for the training of nuclear power plant personnel under 10 C.F.R. Q 55.4 for implementing the PFS training program. Ladd Dec.116,12-14. As it does for operator training, the PFS program similarly provides for a systematic approach to testing operator proficiency and it provides the standards which are to be used in PFSF operator certification. IA116,16-17. This is a comprehensive program that more than
)
i l
6
>~*
e L.
L i
adequately covers each of the points that 10 C.F.R.
72.192 mandates for the training of l
l ISFSI personnel. Id. at116-20.
i Regarding who mus't receive operator training, the SAR states that "[i]ndividuals l-who operate equipment and controls... 'important to safety'... must be trained and certified. Supervisory personnel who direct the operation of equipment and controls that
- are 'important to safety' must also be certified." SAR at 9.3-3. Thus, the SAR identifies the scope of PFS's operator certification requirements. This definition of the scope of the training program is in accordance with NRC requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. f 72.190.
l-Ladd Dec. at i 7..
The SAR identifies the specific subject areas in which PFSF operators and their l
supervisors are to be trained. SAR at 9.3-3 to -4; Ladd Dec. at 18. It provides that all L
l L
PFSF personnel involved in activities important to safety will be trained on the associated procedures prior to conducting the activity. SAR at 9.4-5; Ladd Dec, at 19. It also pro-vides that appropriate personnel will conduct preoperational testing of the actual storage
- system components at the PFSF as part of their certification training. SAR at 9.2-4; j
Ladd. Dec. at j 10. "The purpose for operational testing is to ensure that... personnel i
involved in spent fuel shipping. receipt, and canister transfer, onsite transport, and storage operations perform their intended tasks in accordance with approved procedures, with L
ALARA awareness, with efficiency, and without compromising personnel or public safety." SAR at 9.2-5. The SAR specifies the pieces of equipment on which PFS per-sonnel will conduct preoperational testing. SAR at 9.2-4. The SAR also specifies the 7
)
q.j v
[
t s
~
operational tests that PFS personnel will perform on that equipment as part of their certi-fication.- SAR at 9.2-5 to -6. Finally, the SAR provides that where additional training is required, training materials will be developed using the SAT. SAR at 9.3-4; Ladd Dec. at I
l 1 11..
)
i In addition to identifying the areas in which and equipment on which PFSF per-
]
)
sonnel will be trained, the SAR provides that training in these areas will be implemented "using a Systematic Approach to Training," SAR at 9.3-1, which as previously noted is a 1
- well defined process mandated by the NRC for the training of nuclear plant operators un-der 10 C.F.R. { 55.4. Ladd Dec at 112. The Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) as defined in 10 C.F.R. @ 55.4 includes five basic elements. These are:
- 1. Systematic analysis of thejobs to be perfonned.
- 2. Learning objectives derived from the analysis which describe desired per-formance aller training.
- 3. Training design and implementation based on the learning objectives.
- 4. Evaluation of trainee mastery of the objectives during training.
- 5. Evaluation and revision of the training based on the performance of trained personnelin thejob setting.
E The SAT is an " essential" part of an NRC training program. See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mi'le Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1), LBP-85-15,21 NRC 1409, 1455-56 (1985). Through the SAT, PFS will analyze the PFSF job performance require-ments to establish the knowledge level and skills that are required for each position at the facility. SAR at 9.3 1; Ladd. Dec at 113. PFS will generate explicit learning objectives 8
)
o
O' and performance measures from this analysis. SAR at 9.3-1. It will develop training plans which identify training settings, sequences, and materials required. M PFS will implement the training program by conducting the training activities, documenting the training and evaluating the program's effectiveness. & The SAT is a well defined proc-ess, implemented at nuclear power plants throughout the industry, by which PFS will identify the functions to be performed at the PFSF, develop individualjob tasks for each of the functions, and link those individualjob tasks to individual training objectives, testing requirements and ultimately certification. The implementation of the PFS training program through the well-defined industry-wide approach, defined by the SAT, is analo-gous to a quality assurance program that is implemented through its quality assurance procedures. Ladd Dec. at 114.8 The PFS training program also sets forth both formal testing requirements, tied to specific passing examination grades, as well as on-the job training (OJT) requirements.
E at 116. The program provides that proficiency is to be tested by completion of OJT qualification cards, a practical exam based on the OJT, and a formal written exam. Et 1 A at 7-1. Further, the PFS training program provides the standards under which opera-t ors are to become certified before independently operating equipment important to
' It is well established that the N RC regulations require submission of programs in a license application, and not the detailed procedures by which the programs will be implemented. Louisiana Powerand Light Co.,Waterford Steam Electric Station) ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1107 (1983)(emergency procedures not required); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-734,18 NRC i 1,12-14 (1984) (quality assurance procedures not required). Accordingly, the inclusion of the detailed curriculum and tests resulting from the SAT process need not be included in the license application as the State claims. Indeed, as explained in Michael Ladd's declaration, these are sound reasons why such detail is not required at the license application stage. Ladd Dec. at 140.
9 j
~
(* r
.~
safety. Ladd Dec. at.117. Finally, in accordance with the SAT methodology, the SAR provides for the evaluation of the PFS training program. Id. at 118.
The PFS program also specifies that employees will receive job-specific and certi-fication retraining at least once every two years. ' Topics for retraining will be selected from initial training, NRC bulletins and information notices, major equipment and proce-dure changes, relevant industry events, and ' opics designated by the PFSF General Man-t ager or requested by other site personnel. SAR at 9.3-5; Ladd. Dec at j 19. The methods of and standards for certification after retraining are the same as those for initial certifi-cation. Response to Request for AdditionalInformation 9-6 (February 10,1999).
In summary, PFS has described in sufficient detail the specific subject areas and PFSF systems and components on which PFS employees will receive training, defined
~ the process (i.e., the SAT) by which this training is to be implemented, and set forth the requirements and standards for the testing of proficiency and certification of PFSF per-sonnel. PFS will certify that all personnel are trained as required as part of the PFSF Op.
erational Readiness Review, before receiving spent fuel at the PFSF. SAR at 9.2-7. The PFS training program more than adequately addresses each of the three NRC require-ments specified 10 C.F.R. @ 72.192 and there is no basis for the State's claim that PFS has not adequately defined a training and certification program for the PFSF. Ladd Dec.
at 120.'
In addition to being sufficient under the NRC's regulations as shown above, the PFS training program is sufiicient in that it is very similar to the training programs that 10
e -_
y 7
the NRC has approved for other ISFSIs under 10 C.F.R. Part 72.' Ladd Dec. at 121. In fact, the PFS program contains more detail in the LA and the SAR regarding ISFSI sub-jects and equipment on which PFSF operators will be trained than do the training pro-grams for both the Prairie Island and Calvert Cliffs ISFSIs. Ladd Dec. Exhibits 3 and 4
- (training programs included'in the Part 72 license applications for ISFSIs located at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant).
i Although both the Calverts Cliffs and Prairie Island ISFSI training programs generally.
referred to their existing nuclear plant training programs, the development of the training program for the ISFSI specific activities in those applications is generally less than that set forth in the PFSF training program. The NRC approved both programs.'
Finally, the State's specific complaints about the lack of detail in the PFS training and certification program in the bases of Utah F are either immaterial, in that the State,
asserts that PFS should include material that the NRC does not require, or they are simply factually erroneous, in that the State has overlooked material that is included in the PFS
_ program. PFS's training expert, Michael Ladd, refutes each of the State's arguments about detail in his declaration. Ladd Dec. at 1122-40. Moreover, the sufficiency of the detail in the PFS training program is readily apparent in comparing it to the training pro-grams for the Calvert Cliffs and the Prairie Island ISFSis approved by the NRC. The
' See Safely Evaluation Report for the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's Safely Analysis Report on Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at Calverts Cliffs, November 1992 at 3 8, Exhibit A to this
~ Motion and Safety Evaluation Repon for the Prairie Island independent Spent Fuel Storage installation, July 1993 at.8-2, Exhibit B to this Motion.
)
11 q
l
NRC approved both programs even though "[t]he details ofinstruction courses, training programs or work on simulation facilities" for ISFSI functions were "not laid out in de-tail" as the State claims is necessary here.' This is in accordance with the well estab-lished precept that detailed implementing procedures are not required as part of the li-cense application. See note 8 supra.
- In addition to the State's complaints about the lack of detail in the PFS training program having no regulatory basis, the State's complaints about PFS not requiring the PFSF General Manager and operators to have prior experience in dry storage operations,
- Utah Contentions at 41, are also meritiess. The General Manager and the Operators will be trained to operate the PFSF safely as described above and moreover, their qualifica-l tions are consistent with the qualifications of similarly situated personnel at nuclear
{
power plants licensed by the NRC", Ladd Dec at1123-27.' Specifically, the NRC does l
not require the General Manager or the Operators to have prior dry storage experience.
g at 1124-26 (citing American National Standard N18.1-1971, Selection and Training
. of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, {Q 4.1,4.2.1,4.5.1 (March 1971); Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities, NUREG-1567 (Draft, Oct.1996), at 13-7).
The General Manager will have sufficient nuclear experience to understand facility op-erations and to make decisions such that the facility is operated in a safe and efficient manner. The Operators will have sufficient education to perform theirjobs safely. In-
~ Sy Utah Contentions at 41.
" Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. i 72.28(a), PFS has specified the minimum personnel qualification requirements for holders of key positions at the PFSF SAR at 9.1-23 to -27; Ladd Dec. atl 15.
12
4 deed, PFS will require both the General Manager and the PFSF operators to have more experience than the minimum required under accepted ANSI standands. Ladd Dec. at 11 26-27. Thus, this basis for Utah F should also be' summarily disposed.
Finally, the State's claim that PFS must submit a list of physical conditions that would bar a person from operating equipment at the PFSF, Utah Contentions at 40, is without foundation. NRC regulations require that the physical condition and health of personnel certified to operate equipment important to safety not be such that the opera-tion of the equipment by such personnel would endanger other plant personnel or the public health and safety.10 C.F.R. { 72.194. They do not require an applicant to submit with its license application a list of physical conditions and corresponding pieces of equipment that one with such conditions could not operate. Ladd Dec. at 22. The regu-lations only require that an ISFSI licensee not allow a person to operate any equipment important to safety if that person cannot do so safely because of a physical condition.i2 Thus, PFS is entitled to summary disposition of this portion of Utah F.
B.
PFS's Radiation Protection Program Satisfies NRC Requirements The State claimed in its bases for that portion of Utah P admitted by the Board that PFS did not " adequately describ[e] a training program that insures all personnel working with radioactive materials, entering radiation areas or directing the activities of others who work with radioactive materials or enter radiation areas understand and can
Indeed, to enable PFS compliance with section 72.194, all PFSF staficertified for operations important to safety will receive medical examinations to ensure that their physical condition would not impair their
. safe conduct of operations. PFS SAR at 9.4-1 to -2.
13
h evaluate the significance of radiation doses in terms of the potential risk, including out-lines of the training classes." Utah Contentions at 111-12 (citing Reg. Guide 8.8 Q "1.c")." The State's claim is erroneous; PFS does' describe a training program' that will ensure that all personnel who direct activities or work with radioactive materials or areas are capable of evaluating the significance of radiation doses. Ladd Dec. at 1141-42.
The contention overlooks relevant material in the PFS training and radiation pro-tection programs. PFS has committed to implementing a Radiation Protection Program in accordance with 10 C.F.R. QQ 72.126,20.1011, and 19.12, and ALARA program fol-lowing the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and the guidelines of NRC Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10. SAR at 7,1-1 to -3. These provisions require instructions in the significance ofradiation doses. Specifically,10 C.F.R.
19.12 requires instruction in "the health protection problems associated with exposure to radiation" and Reg. Guide I
l 8.8 { C.l.c recommends instruction in "the biological effects of exposures to radiation to permit the individuals receiving the instruction to understand and evaluate the signifi-cance of radiation doses in terms of the potential risks."
Further, the SAR expressly provides that "PFSF personnel will be trained and up-dated on ALARA practices and dose reduction techniques to assure that each individual
)
. understands and follows procedures to maintain his/her dose ALARA." SAR at 7.1-3.
During General Employee Training, all PFSF personnel will be trained in "[t]he nature and sources of radiation and contamination, interactions of radiation with matter, biologi-i
" Reg. Guide 8.8 i C.I.c discusses the Staff regulatory position on ALARA training and instruction.
14
1 1
cal effects of radiation, methods of detecting and controlling radiation and contamination, ALARA concepts, facility acces:: and visitor controls, decontamination procedures, use of monitoring and personal protective equipment, regulatory and administrative exposure and contamination limits, and site specific hazards." SAR at 9.3-3. Thus, PFSF person-nel will be thoroughly educated in radiation safety, including the signif;cance of radiation dose. Ladd Dec. at 142. Therefore, PFS is entitled to summary disposition of Utah P.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Board should grant the PFS summary disposition of Utah F & P.
R-fully st b2 itted, W
Jay E. Silberg Emest L. Blake, Jr.
Paul A.Gaukler SHAW PITTMAN 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington,DC 20037 (202) 663-8000 Dated: June 11,1999 Counsel for Private Fuel Storage L.L.C.
)
4 j
15 J
7 l
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
l ln the Matter of
)
)
l PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ON WHICH NO GENUINE DISPUTE EXISTS i
The Applicant submits, in support ofits motion for summary disposition of Utah F&P, this statement of material facts as to which the Applicant contends that there is no genuine issue to be heard.
- 1. The Private Fuel Storage Facility (PFSF) License Application (LA)(Chapter 7) and Safety Analysis Report (SAR) (Chapter 9) provide a program for the training, proficiency testing and certification of PFS personnel, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Q 72.192. Ladd Dec. at 16.
j
- 2. The PFSF training program provides for a structured approach to training by adopting the " Systematic Approach to Training" (SAT), which is a well defined training process mandated by the NRC for the training of nuclear plant operators under 10 C.F.R. f 55.4, for implementing the PFSF training program. Ladd Dec. at
.51 12-14.
- 3. The PFSF training program identifies those PFSF personnel that are to be trained j
and the specific areas in which training is to occur. Ladd Dec. at 116-8.
l
- 4. The SAR provides that individuals who operate equipment and controls important to safety must be trained and certified and that Supervisory personnel who direct the operation of equipment and controls that are important to safety must also be j
certified. Ladd Dec. at 17.
1
- 5. The SAR identifies the specific areas in which these persons are to be trained. It provides that the Operator Training Program will address the following subject areas: 1) canister transfer system design and operations,2) canister transfer system 1
i L.._.
7, normal and olT-normal procedures,3) storage facility normal and off-normal procedures,4) normal and off-normal transportation procedures for on-site transportation 5) maintenance,6) storage cask temperature monitoring system,7) radiation detection, monitoring, sampling, and survey instruments, 8) facility layout and functions,9) operator responsibility and authority,10) Technical Specifications,11) normal and emergency communications,12) transportation, and
- 13) topics covered in General Employee Training (GET) with specific emphasis on operations. The SAR also specifies the topics in which GET will be provided, which includes facility operation and design. Ladd Dec. at 18.
- 6. The SAR provides that all PFS personnel involved in activities important to safety will be trained on the associated procedures prior to conducting the activity. Ladd Dec. at 19.
- 7. As part of their certification training, appropriate personnel will conduct J
preoperational testing of the actual storage system components at the PFSF. Ladd Dec. at 110.
i
- 8. The SAR provides that where training in addition to that specified in the SAR is required, training materials will be developed using the SAT. Ladd Dec. at j 11.
- 9. The SAR provides that, following the SAT method, the training program will be based upon analysis of the job performance requirements to establish the knowledge level and skills that are required for each position at the PFSF. Ladd I
Dec. at j 13.
- 10. Based on leaming objectives and performance measures generated from the analysis ofjob performance requirements, tminipg plans will be developed which identify training settings, sequences, and materials required. The curriculum will outline the steps necessary to perform each task on which instruction is given.
Ladd Dec. at 113.
- 11. Training will consist of classroom and on-the-job training (OJT), as appropriate, for all individuals, commensurate with theirjob duties and responsibilities. Ladd Dec.
at j 13.
- 12. PFS has specified, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
72.28(a), the minimum personnel qualification requirements for holders of key positions at the PFSF, including:
3 General Manager / Chief Operating Officer, Radiation Protection Manager, Radiation Protection Technicians, Lead Mechanic / Operator, Mechanics, Lead j
instrument and Electrical Technician, Instrument and Electrical Technicians, Lead
. Quality Assurance Technician, Quality Assurance Technician and Quality Assurance Auditor, Lead Nuclear Engineer, Nuclear Engineers, Security Captain, j
and the Emergency Preparedness Coordinator. Ladd Dec. at 115.
1 2
l
- 13. The PFS training program provides for both practical and formal testing of the proficiency of PFSF operators. The operators wili have to pass comprehensive -
- written and practical examinations in order to become Certified. Operators must also complete on-the job training (OJT) requirements that will be documented in a set of Qualification Cards containing the Job Performance Measures of practical factors that are required to be performed by the operator. Ladd Dec. at 116.
j l
- 14. The PFS training program provides the standards under which operators are to become certified before independently operating equipment important to safety.
An operator must have completed the OJT qualification cards, pass the practical exam, and achieve an 80% or higher on the formal written exam. Ladd Dec. at 1 17.
- 15. PFS will certify that all personuel are trained as required as part of the PFSF Operational Readiness Review before receiving spent fuel at the PFSF. Ladd Dec.
at 117.
- 16. In accordance with the SAT methodology, the SAR provides that the effectiveness of the training, and the training program will be evaluated by reviewing written test performances, performance on walk through evaluations, on-the-job training, and feedback from trainees, supervisors, and instructors. Ladd Dec at 118.
- 17. After initial training, testing, and certification, all PFS employees will receive periodic retraining. Ladd Dec. at 119.
- 18. The PFS training and certification program, provides for the comprehensive training of PFSF personnel in the various areas that they will be required to function in accordance with the well-established principles of the SAT and adequately addresses the requirements specified in 10 C.F.R.
72.192. Ladd Dec. at 1114,20.
19.10 C.F.R. @ 72.194 (Physical requirements) does not requires a listing of physical or mental conditions that would bar a person from employment at an ISFSI. Ladd Dec. at 122.
- 20. The SAR provides that the PFS General Manager will have ten years of responsible experience within the nuclear indus:ry and a bachelor's degree in an engineering or i
scientific field generally associated with nuclear power production, fuel storage, or radiation protection. Furthermore, the General Manager shall be familiar with all applicable rules, regulations, codes and procedures. Ladd Dec, at 124.
- 21. Neither NRC regulations nor industry standards require plant managers to have J
specific experience in any single facet of plant operation. Ladd Dec. at 1125-26.
I
- 22. The level of nuclear experience specified in the SAR for the PFS General Manager exceeds the minimum required by American National Standard N18.1-1971, Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, 4.1 (March 1971).
Ladd Dec. at 126.
3 l
- 23. The SAR provides that PFS operators will have high school diplomas plus four to six years of prior experience in mechanical maintenance, which exceeds the minimum required by American National Standard N18.1-1971, Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, { 4.1 (March 1971) for plant operators that are not licensed reactor operators. Ladd Dec. at 127.
- 24. Further, the General Manager and the operators will be trained to operate the PFSF safely as described above. Ladd Dec. at 123.
- 25. The PFS training program provides a sufficient level of detail to satisfy NRC regulatory requirements. Ladd Dec at 1120,30.
- 26. The level of detail in the PFSF trr, ming program is equivalent to, or exceeds, that found in the license applications and safety analysis reports for other ISFSis. Ladd Dec. at 121.
- 27. In the SAR, PFS has committed to implementing a Radiation Protection Program in accordance with 10 C.F.R. QQ 72.126,20.1011, and 19.12, and an ALARA program following the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and the guidelines of NRC Regulatory Guides 8.8 and 8.10. These provisions to which PFS has committed require instruction in the significance of radiation dose. Ladd Dec, at 142.
- 28. The SAR expressly provides that "PFSF personnel will be trained and updated on ALARA practices and dose reduction techniques to assure that each individual understands and follows procedures to maintain his/her dose ALARA." Id. at 7.1-
- 3. During General Employee Training, all PFSF personnel will be trained in the nature and sources of radiation and contamination, interactions of radiation with matter, biological effects of radiation, methods of detecting and controlling radiation and contamination, ALARA concepts, facility access and visitor controls, decontamination procedures, use of monitoring and personal protective equipment, regulatory and administrative exposure and contamination limits, and site specific hazards. Ladd Dec. at 142,
- 29. PFS has committed to, and has made sufficient provision for, educating PFSF personnel in radiation safety, including the significance of radiation dose. A fully l
developed Radiation Protection Training program need not be described in the SAR l
and, in particular, an outline of courses is not required. Ladd Dec. at 1141-42.
- 30. The PFS training program meets the requirements of the law as stated in 10 C.F.R.
l
{ 72.192. In addition, PFS has set forth in appropriate detail personnel l
qualifications and testing and training requirements for PFSF personnel. Ladd Dec.
I Document #: 774001 v.2 l
4 3
- o-00CKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o9 JUN 14 P3 :20 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board OFFK-r RULF ADJJ FI.
In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Utah Contentions F & P - Training and Certificate" and " Statement of Material Facts,"
dated June 11,1999, and supporting Declaration of Michael Ladd were served on the per-sons listed below (unless otherwise noted) by e-mail, with exhibits thereto by facsimile, with conforming copies by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 1 Ith day of June, 1999.
O. Paul Bollwerk III, Esq., Chairman Ad-Dr. Jerry R. Kline ministrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 e-mail: GPBenrc. gov e-mail: JRK2@nre. gov and kjerty@erols.co'n Dr. Peter S. Lam
- Susan F. Shankman l
Administrative Judge Deputy Director, Licensing & Inspection Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Directorate, Spent Fuel Project Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oflice of Nuclear Material Safety &
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Safeguards e-mail: PSLGnrc. gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Q
- Office of the Secretary
- Adjudicatory File U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission :
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington,' D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff '
e-mail:- hearingdocket@nrc. gov
. (Original and two copies)'
Catherine L! Marco, Esq..
Denise Chancellor, Esq.-
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General-Office of the General Counsel
- Utah Attorney General's Office Mail Stop O-15 B18 160 East 300 South,5th Floor-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 140873 Washington, D.C. 20555 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0873 e-mail: pfscase@nrc. gov
- e. mail: dchancel@ state.UT.US John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq.
Joro Walker, Esq.
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Land and Water Fund of the Rockies Reservation and David Pete 2056 East 3300 South, Suite 1 1385 Yale Avenue.
Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 e-mail: joro61@inconnect.com
- e-mail: John @.kennedys.org Diane Curran, Esq.
Danny Quintana, Esq.
liarmon, Curran, Spielberg &
. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians
- Eisenberg, L.L.P.
Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.
t 1726 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 50 West Broadway, Fourth Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 e-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com e-mail: quintana @xmission.com
- By Hand Delivery only
/l b
F5Iul A.Gaukler Docunwnt #: 774267 v.1 I
2 i
June 11,1999 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C.
)
Docket No. 72-22
)
(Private Fuel Storage Facility)
)
ATTACilMENTS FOR APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF UTAH CONTENTIONS F & P-TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION i
)
l
f 1
y ATTACHMENT CONTENTS
/
Tab No.
Subject 1.
Declaration ofMichael Ladd 2.
Exhibit A - Excerpts from SER for Calvert Cliffs ISFSI j
i 3.
Exhibit B - Excerpts from SER for Prairie Island ISFSI I
4.
Excerpts from Deposition of Marvin Resnikoff i
e