ML17229A332
| ML17229A332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1997 |
| From: | Curtis Rapp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17229A331 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705190155 | |
| Download: ML17229A332 (8) | |
Text
gp,A ~ECy P
+
0 Cp
. A
'k~
~O
+>t*w+
MEMORANDUMFOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 10I MARIETTASTREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 ATlANTA,GEORGIA 303234199 February 25, 1997 Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator Curtis W. Rapp, Senior Reactor Inspector REPLY TO AD HOC PANEL REPORT I have reviewed the results of the Ad Hoc Panel concerning the management-initiated Differing Professional View (DPV) as transmitted to me by your memorandum dated February 7, 1997.
It is evident that the Ad Hoc Panel was very through in their review of my concern.
I believe that substantial changes will result from their review and these changes will have a positive effect.
I sincerely appreciate their efforts. While I generally agree with their findings and recommendations, there are certain statements in the report that need clarification.
First and foremost, I want to make it clear that I did not allege "unprofessional conduct" by Mr.
Caudle Julian.
In the context used in the Ad Hoc Panel's report, "unprofessional conduct" implies misconduct on the part of Mr. Julian.
In my memorandum to Mr. Julian, I said Mr. Julian was insincere in his response to my concern.
This does not mean that Mr. Julian was unprofessional nor that he engaged in misconduct.
I believe that Mr. Julian's response to my concern was largely due to the manner dissenting views have been handled previously; that is to treat anyone that disagrees as adversarial.
In this regard, it is a pervasive attitude with agency management and not just a particular individual.
Section III paragraph A, Technical Accuracy of the Inspection Report, of the Ad Hoc Panel's report characterizes my argument that 30% power was the minimum power level for determining that any NIS problem existed as "speculative."
To support my position, I provided the Ad Hoc panel with the raw ASI data taken during power accession (Attachment 1) as well as some plots of this raw data.
One of these plots (Attachment 2) clearly demonstrates the unsettled nature of NIS indications from 0% power to about 30% power. Also, a review of the notations I made concerning plant conditions indicates that NIS channels were out-of-service at various times between 0% power and 30% power. These documents clearly demonstrate that NIS indications were not reliable below 30% power. Also, it is my experience that calibration of
~
NIS drawers below 30% power is questionable as an independent variable is not available.
The lack of a quality secondary calorimetric results in an NIS calibration valid for only a single datum point. While I agree that this is a trivial point for regulatory enforcement, the inspection report was technically incorrect. As stated in the Ad Hoc Panel's report, it was my "...professional responsibility to produce a quality report that is... technically correct..."
The Ad Hoc Panel's report states there wag no escalated enforcement because the delay in identification "...was not sufficiently egregious..."
As noted in the Ad Hoc Panel's report, I did attend the enforcement caucus discussions.
The enforcement guidance in NUREG-1600 states that consideration should be given ifthe licensee identified the problem through self-checking efforts and the opportunity for prior identification. When'the issue of identification was raised, I
stated that the error was self-identifying because it become obvious when the licensee reduced the ASI data taken during power accession.
'Regarding prior opportunity, Mr. Mark Miller 9705K'POi55 970512 PDR ADQCK 05000335
'P ' 'DR
/i'~'P
brought up the fact that reactor operators had questioned NIS response several times during power accession.
This fact is reiterated in the Ad Hoc Panel's report.
Despite these facts being brought forward, Mr. Albert F. Gibson, the senior manager leading the enforcement caucus discussions, summarily stated "I think they found it." This proclamation from Mr. Gibson chilled any further discussion and the licensee was improperly given credit for identification. During the discussion, Mr. Gibson did not address the egregiousness of the licensee's failure to identify the miswiring earlier.
If identification credit had not been given, then a base civil penalty would have resulted.
Section III paragraph B.2, Findings, of the Ad Hoc Panel's report states that I "...was assigried to Mr. Casto to work on this special inspection."
I was not aware that I was working for Mr.
Casto during this inspection.
My understanding was that I was simply assisting Engineering Branch as part of my assignment as the technical expert in core physics.
It was not clear to me who would review my input to the report or with whom I would discuss my findings. Also, Mr.
Christensen was not my acting supervisor on November 22, l997. The only reason Mr.'ulian became involved was because I called Mr. Son Ninh and informed him of my concern.
Mr.
Julian then came to my office about 15 minutes later to personally discuss my concern.
I did not know that Mr. Christensen was acting for Mr. Casto until told so by Mr. Julian. At no time did I have any discussions with Mr. Christensen nor did he inquire about my concern.
This type of "matrixed management" has been demonstrated to be ineffective at fostering accountability because the individual at the working level does not know to whom they are accountable.
The Ad Hoc Panel identified a significant issue that goes unaddressed in Section V. The Ad Hoc Panel's report states that the inspection report "...was on a particularly fast track to support a previously scheduled enforcement conference."
The issue that is not addressed is if inspection report due dates should be driven by previously scheduled meetings or should meetings be scheduled when all the technical and regulatory issues are identified and understood.
The licensee identified unrealistic schedule demands for the level of effort involved as a contributing factor to the NIS miswiring. That contributing factor would also apply to inspection reports.
While on-site, Mr. York and I had several telephone calls with Mr. Casto concerning our
. findings. During one of the these telephone calls, I told Mr. Casto that these findings were extremely complex and insisted that we should have a conference call with a senior manager, Mr. Landis, and someone from EICS present.
Instead, Mr. Casto took this opportunity to
"...explain the process..." to me.
Mr. Casto said we would brief him, he would brief Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Gibson would brief Mr. Ebneter.
Consequently, no one other than Mr. Casto was present when we discussed our findings. Based on our findings, Mr. Casto directed Mr. York to remain for an additional week. As required by regional policy, Mr. York informed the licensee that he was extending his inspection.
However, due to the lack of senior management presence during the initial telephone conversation, Mr. Casto called back several hours later and retracted that direction. This strict adherence to form over function resulted in unnecessarily cycling the licensee and contributed to an apparently a lack of understanding of the underlying technical issues as demonstrated by the questions asked during the Enforcement Conference.
In regards to the DPV process in general, in the two instances I have had it used for me I found the process confusing.
In both cases, the panel members directed questions away from technical issues to questions about agency administrative and policy matters.
In particular, I
~
e (
~
~ found it troubling that the Ad Hoc Panel was concerned ifthe agency would have done anything differently. It was my impression that the DPV process was to first determine ifthe concern was valid and then to provide recommendations.
It is unseemly that the Ad Hoc Panel would consider ifthe overall outcome wa's adversely affected as a factor in determining the validity of the concern.
Just because the outcome was not adversely affected in one case does not imply that will be true in all cases.
- Again, I appreciate the efforts of the Ad Hoc Panel.
Inkeeping with my request that the Ad Hoc Panel's report be made public, I also request this response be made public as well.
Oate 07/2 SC 'A' 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
-0.04
-0.99
-2
-1.6
-1.6
-2.1 9
-1.8
-1.8
-1.6
-2
-3
-3
-3.1
-2.9
-2.6
-2.7
-2.8
-2.8
-2.8
-2.9
-2.9
-3.2
-3.3
-3.3
-3.3
-0,28
-0.29
-0.05
-0.06
-0.06
-0.07
-0.09
-0.09
-0.1
-0.1
-0.11
-0.17
-0.21
-0.25
-0.29
-0.33
-0.33
-0.37
-0.37
-0.37
-0.36
-0.36
-0.35
-0.36 SC
'B'.05 0.04 0,04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.16 2.5 5.1 4.3 4.1 6.5 5
4.8
-4.6 OOS 0.05
-0.4
-4.6
-0.42
-0.6
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.7
-0.71
-0.6
-0.6
-0.27
-0.24
-0.17
-0.17
-0.63
-0.63
-0.91
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
-0.8
-0.87
-0.86
-0.84
-0.84
-0.8
-0.76
-0.73
-0.67
-0.64
-0.62
-0.6
-0.6
-0.59
-0.62
-0.59
-0.62
-0.62 SC C'0.09
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.33
-4.8
-9.7
-0.16 0.11 0.11 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.85 1.2 0.9 0.95 0.92 0.86 0.53 0.49 0.45 0.43
-0.63
-0.66
-0.39
-0.03
-0.4
-0.41
-0.43
-0.43
-0.44
-0.44
-0.45
-0.51
-0.55
-0.59
-0.64
-0.67
-0.67
-0.71
-0.71
-0.71
-0.7
-0.7
-0.7
-0.7 SC
'D'0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01'0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.04
-0.71
-1.4
-1
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
-'l.1
-1.05
-1.2
-1.7
-1.75
-1.85
-1.6
-1.2
-1.3
-1.4
-1.5
-1.5
-1.5
-1.6
-1.97
-2
-2
-2
-0.53
-0.54
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.29
-0.3
-0.31
-0.32
-0.32
-0.33
-0.38
-0.42
-0.46
-0.5
-0.55
-0.55
-0.59
-0.58
-0.59
-0.59
-0.59
-0.57
-0.58 07/26 07/27 Time 5/96 12:00 AM 01:00 AM 02:00 AM
'3:00 AM 04:00 AM 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 06:00 PM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM
/96 12:00 AM 01:00 AM 02:00 AM 03:00 AM 04:00 AM 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 06:00 PM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM
/96 12:00 AM 01:00 AM 02:00 AM 03:00 AM 04:00 AM 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Grp 7 Height RO Log Entries jJft~~chn <n+ ~
121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 69 86 96 91 90 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 105 110 110 110 144 122
'l22 122 122 122 122 122 116 116 116 115 116 116 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 Completed ZPPT Reactor power at 3-5%, SC-C removed from servi Rx power at 25% plateau WR and LR channels OOS for calibration SC-D failed to cal - OOS to troubleshoot Reactor power at 40%
Started power increase to 50%
SC-C restored
- cal sat; SC-B OOS for monthly ca SC-B restored
~,y ta
-0.4
-0.42
-0.42
-0.43
-0.46
-0.47
-0.47
-0.51
-0.52
-0.52
-0.52
-0.51 OOS 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
-0.01
-0.06
-0.11
-0.14
-0.18
-0.23
-0.3
-0.32
-0.4
-0.43
-0.43
-0.47
-0.47
-0.47 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.56 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.6 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 I ~
12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 06:00 PM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 07/28/96 12:00 AM 01:00 AM 02:00 AM 03:00 AM 04:00 AM 05:00 AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 06:00 PM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 07/29/96 12:00 AM 01:00 AM 02:00 AM 03:00 AM 04:00 AM 05 00AM 06:00 AM 07:00 AM 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM 06:00 PM 07:00 PM 08:00 PM 09:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM
-0.57
-0.74
-0.52
-0.51
-0.5
-0.48
-0.46
-0.46
-0.46
-0.48
-0.48 0
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02 0.01 0
0.02 0.07 0.13 0.17 0.'i 9 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.5 0.49 0.49 0.44 0.37 0.33 0.3 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.23
-0.81
-0.81
-0.82
-0.85
-0.86
-0.86
-0.85
-0.84
-0.85
-0.83 0
0 0
0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.01 0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.09
-0.14
-0.17
-0.21
-0.26
-0.33
-0.35
-0.44
-0.46
-0.47
-0.51
-0.51
-0.5
-0.45 0.44 0.47 0.5 0.53 0.56 0.55
'0.55 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.58 0.58
-0.54 '0.76
-0.54
-0.76
-0.55
-0.78
-0.61
-0.64
-0.63
-0.65
-0.68
-0.68
-0.69
-0.72
-0.73
-0.74
-0.73
-0.72
-0.72
-0.71 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.03 0
-0.04
-0.09
-0.12
-0.16
-0.21
-0.29
-0.3
-0.4
-0.42
-0.43
-0.47
-0.47
-0.47
-0.41
-0.39 0.54 0.57 0.59 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.65 122 122 122 122 122 122 123 124 125 127 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 129 130 131 132 132 132 133 134 134 135 135 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 Rx power at 50%
Started power increase to 70%
3 SC-A OOS for calibration SC-A cal complete J
Started power increase to 80%
Rx power at 80%
Reactor at 98%, SC cals completed
10 ASI 0% - 100% RTP 140 120 k+Ag kA
&%4 A aaaaaaaaaaa CX 100 +
e0
+nut
-5 80 SC'A' SC'8'
~SC'C' SC'D' Grp7 10 11AO AM 11AO PM 11AO AM
'llCO PM 1 1AO AM I1CO PM l?OO AM I0AO PM 11AO AM 11AO PM CIAOAM 04AO PM CIAOAM OIAO PM CIAOAM 0400 PM OIAOAM CIAOPM 04AO AM OICO PM 01AO AM 04AO PM 04AO AM C4AO PM C4AO AM C4AO PM COCO AM 04AO PM C4AO AM 04AO PM 7/25 - 7/29 60
II W