ML17229A337
| ML17229A337 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1997 |
| From: | Baldwin R, Crlenjak R, Merschoff E 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 9705190176 | |
| Download: ML17229A337 (8) | |
Text
(4ge,A AEGG Po a
0O I
r Y/
~O
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 101 MARIHTASTREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 ATLANTA,GEORGIA 303234199 January 30, 1997 MEMORANDUM T:
Luis A. Reyes",
Regional Administrator FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ellis W. Herschoff, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator V
Richard V. Crlenjak. Acting Deputy Director'/
Division of'eactor Projects Richard S.
Baldwin, Reactor Engineer'perator Licensing and Human Per formance Branch Division of Reactor Safety DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW REGARDING ST.
LUCIE NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION On January 8.
- 1997, you appointed me Chairman of an Ad Hoc Review Panel to review a Differing Professional View submitted by Hr. Curtis Rapp.
We have completed our review of this matter and have attached the report documenting our efforts.
In summary, the panel found that whi le the report was correct as written, Hr. Rapp's concerns were not addressed consistent with Regional expectations as defined in Regional Office Instruction 2210.
Our specific conclusions and recommendations are attached.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4 Differing Professional View Concerning St. Lucie Nuclear Instrumentation Inspection Report 50-335/96-22.
50-389/96-22 Hemo dtd January 10,
- 1997, Evans to Merschoff Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalties EA 96-458,
- 464, 457 Statement of Hr. Caudle Julian 9705i90i76 9705i2
, PDR ADQCK 05000335 P>
'Iy~ I I JI 1
<y.
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW CONCERNING ST.
LUCIE NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION I.
Issue On January '6,
- 1997, Hr. Curtis W.
Rapp provided, in a memorandum to Caudle A. Julian.
(Attachment 1) concer'ns regrading the accuracy of NRC Special Inspection Report 50-335/96-22.
50-389/96-22.
Specifically, he
.stated that he told Hr. Julian he would not concur on the report as written because the conclusion concerning Nuclear Instrumentation indications was not technically correct.
The report was subsequently
- issued, without Hr. Rapp's concurrence and without the issue of his disagreement being resolved.
The Differing Professional View (DPV) contains two issues.
One dealing with the technical accuracy of the inspection report, the second dealing with the process that resulted in the issuance of an inspection report
'ithout resolving an inspector's comments.
Both of these issues were addressed by the Ad Hoc Panel.,
A third issue in Hr. Rapp's memorandum of January 6,
1997 alleges unprofessional conduct on the part of Hr. Caudle Julian.
This aspect is being handled separately in accordance with Regional Office Instruction No. 1801.
II.
Approach January 6,
1997 - Memorandum from C.
Rapp received January 8,
1997
- Regional Administrator appoints Ad Hoc Review Panel January January 9,
1997 - Ad Hoc Review Panel meets.
collects germane information, interviews C.
Rapp. J.
York and H..Hiller 23, 1997
- Ad Hoc Review Panel meets.
interviews C. Julian, C. Christensen.
C. Casto.
and P. Fredrickson January 30, 1997
- Ad Hoc Panel meets to develop final conclusions and recommendations.
III.
Findings A.
Technical Accurac of Ins ection Re or t Hr. Rapp's concern involves the use of the words "the first indications" in the last paragraph on Page 10 of NRC Special Inspection Report 50-335/96-22, 50-389/96-22 (Attachment 2).
This paragraph states:
"The inspector further concluded that a failure to resolve the first indications of channel disagreement in a formal, technically defensible way (i.e., testing performed Attachment,
2.
specifically. with the goal of establishing a basis for the channel-to-channel differences) delayed the identification."
Hr.
Rapp agrees that the licensee should have identified the problem sooner.
and would substitute the word "earlier" for the phrase "the first" as he feels the first indications, which occurred at less than 5 percent power, were not sufficiently unambiguous to conclude action should be taken.
Hr. Rapp's view was that any power level less than 30 percent, considering the modifications made to the Nuclear Instrumentation
- System, would be difficult to support as a clear opportunity for the licensee to identify the issue, due to the uncertainty of the response of a new detector.
Mr. Hiller, the author of the paragraph in question, did not intend to imply the very first indication (less than 5 percent power). but rather the first indications (plural) meaning the first few indications of divergence of the detectors, up to 13 percent.
He intended to convey the thought that the licensee had opportunities.
which were missed. to identify this error sooner than it was actually detected (at or near full power).
Hr.
Hilier stated that the same thought would be conveyed by use of the adjective "earlier" in lieu of the phrase "the first,"
although either would be correct.
In summary, all parties agree that the issue could have been identified earlier during plant power ascension.
The professional disagreement between the two knowledgeable inspectors revolves around a difference of 17 percent power at the lower power levels.
In addressing the question of whether sufficient information was available f'r the issue to be reasonably identified, Hr.
Hiller's position is that sufficient information was available at or below 13 percent power while Hr. Rapp's position is that sufficient information would not have been available at least until 30 percent power had been achieved.
Since both arguments are speculative. it would be difficult and of very little value to ascertain which position, if either, is precisely correct.
- Based, in part, on a literal review performed by the Regional Counsel (Attachment 3), the report as written is literally correct if "the first indications" is viewed as the first group of many indications recorded over five days from one percent to 100 percent power.
However. the report would have more accurately represented the views of all the inspectors by use of the word "earlier" in lieu of "the first."
Further, the ultimate enforcement action (Attachment 4) was not escalated for failure to identify the deficiency sooner.
The enforcement panel (which included both Hr. Rapp and Hr. Hiller)
Attachment
~.
recognized that, although recognition of the issue was delayed, the delay was not sufficiently egregious to warrant imposition of a civil penalty.
Consequently.
the Ad Hoc Review Panel does not recommend changing the words in the inspection report.
Implementation of the Regional Expectations Concerning obtaining concurrence on inspection reports.
B. 1 Requirements NRC expectations concerning obtaining concurrences on inspection reports are provided in Management Directive 3.57, Parts II, III. and IV, and implemented for inspection reports in ROI 2210, Rev.
5.
Specifically, this ROI states:
Care must be taken in the review and issuance of the final report to assure that the intent and technical content have not been changed without the concurrence of the originating inspector(s).
As a minimum, substantive changes will be discussed with the appropriate inspector(s) prior to issuing the report to assure that they concur in the final modified inspection report.
Differences of opinion regarding
'he characterization of issues identified during the inspection are normally resolved during the report preparation process.
Any differences amounting to nonconcurrence by an inspector with the Region II management position will be resolved following the guidance specified in ROI 2304, "Resolution of Differing Professional Views or Opinions."
When issued, the inspection report must represent and contain the overall judgement of Region II.
The focus on an agency document is not meant to diminish in any way an originating inspector's professional responsibility to produce a quality report that is factual, technically correct, and as aware of safety-related issues as possible.
Concurrence and approval signatures in the inspection report and transmittal letter certify. to the extent known by the individual signing or concurring. that the contents are factual, complete, technically correct, and in accordance with NRC policy.
The person signing the transmittal letter is responsible for the overall scope.
- content, conclusions, and enforcement actions associated with the inspection.
Attachment
0 4
B.2 Findings In this instance Hr.
- Rapp, who normally reports to Hr. Fredrickson, was assigned to Hr. Casto to work on this special inspection.
Issuance of this report was on a particularly fast track to support a previously scheduled enforcement conference.
On Wednesday, November 20, 1996, with six days remaining,'r.
Casto was scheduled to be absent for surgery.
Hr. Casto turned over Branch Chief responsibilities to Hr. Christensen who was. acting for him, but requested that Hr. Julian continue working to issue the report (Hr. Julian's statement is attached as ).
Mr. Casto was aware of Mr. Rapp's concerns when he turned over responsibi lity to Hr. Christensen.
On Friday, November 22, Hr.
Rapp made Hr. Julian aware of his concerns, and Hr. Julian involved Hr. Christensen (Rapp's Acting Supervisor) in the discussion.
Hr. Julian and Hr. Christensen each assumed the other had responsibility for capturing and resolving Hr. Rapp's specific concerns when in fact, neither one did.
On the evening of Friday, November 22, Hr. Julian telephoned Hr. Casto to inform him he (Hr. Julian) was unable to work on the report; that Hr.
Rapp had concerns with its accuracy; and that he (Hr. Julian) would be on leave the next week (Thanksgiving).
Hr.
Rapp and Hr. Christensen took the week of November 25th off as well.
When Mr. Casto returned to work on Honday.
November 25, he obtained a copy of the report, incorporated known comments, but elected not to change the 5X issue of concern to Hr. Rapp, as he (Casto), Julian and (in their opinion) the licensee's documentation all supported that identification should have occur red early in the startup.
Hr. Casto requested that Hr. Fredrickson obtain Hr. Rapp's concurrence.
Hr. Fredrickson had returned that day from a four week absence, but was aware of Hr. Rapp's concern.
Hr. Fredrickson attempted to contact Hr.
Rapp unsuccessfully, but left a message on Hr. Rapp's home telephone answering machine and e-mailed him a copy of the report.
Hr. Fredrickson then marked Hr. Rapp's concurrence N/A and initialed it for Mr. Rapp and included the note "N/A called, left message and e-mail not available."
Hr.
Fr edr ickson and Mr. Casto met with Mr. A. Gibson, Director, Division of Reactor Safety.
and briefed him on the report and Hr. Rapp's concerns.
Hr. Gibson signed and issued the report on the following day, the report's due date, without resolving Hr. Rapp's concerns.
Attachment
IV.
Conclusions 1.
Mr. A. Gibson failed to assure that a staff concern was appropriately addressed in accordance with Region II ROI 2210.
2.
There was a lack of ownership by both DRS and DRP management in assuring that a concerned staff member's issues were appropriately resolved during the report review and concurrence process.
3.
There was a lack of clear understanding of the guidance in ROI 2210 concerning obtaining concurrences and resolving staff concerns by all managers involved.
4.
Mr. Rapp's e-mai l of December 2.
1996 to Mr. Julian and Mr. Casto which stated "... I would not concur with the report as written" was not handled appropriately.
5.
The Inspection Report as written is literally correct and need not be changed.
ROI 2210 does not include guidance on actions to be taken when an employee will not concur in a document.
Recommendations 1.
Provide training to all managers concerning addressing staff concerns.
2.
Use this instance as a case study in DRS,
3.
Provide training to Region II staff and managers on the responsibilities of both management and staff concerning concurring in inspection reports as described in ROI 2210 and Management Directive 3.57.
Revise ROI 2210 to include agency guidance on concurrence and provide additional guidance on the meaning of concurrence particularly in integrated reports and actions to be taken when an employee refuses to concur in an action.
Attachment