ML20132E522
| ML20132E522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1984 |
| From: | Mark Resner NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132E314 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-419 NUDOCS 8510010107 | |
| Download: ML20132E522 (3) | |
Text
,
U.. 4UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON Office et ineector anc Aucitor
% tCDCI 18. 1984 c.i............
.a ReDort of Interview John Michael Puckett, Director, Enforcement and Investigative Coordination Start, Region II, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comr.ission (NRC), was interviewed concerning nis knowledge of the discrepancies in the Licensed Operator Train-ing Program (LOTP) at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) relative to Region II enforcement actions.
He provided the following information:
15-17, 1983, training assessment by Region II of LOTP Following the February at GGNS, there was an early to mid-March meeting held at Region 11 in order to discuss the findings of the assessment as well as any possible enforcement actions to be taken by Region II in this matter.
At the meeting the issue was raised concerning a possible Material False Statement (MFS) made by Mississippi Power and Light (MP&L) in connection with the discrepancies in LOTP. Specifically, the discrepancies were apparent missing or misplaced It was. resolved during the neeting that there was not enough documentat1on.
information available at that time to make a determination as to whether or
~ Also, it was resolved that the discrepancies noted not MP&L committed an MFS.
during the assessment would be pursued as an unresolved inspection item pending further inferr.ation. The Region II personnel in attendance at that meetino were then Reactor' Projects Branch (RPB,
tvision o neactor roj ects.
RPB, David Verrelli, Chief, RPB, RPSIA, and himself. He noted that
.rm Operatinns Branch, Division recall were also in attendance o neactor ety, and others wno ne at that meeting.
A follow up inspection / assessment of operator training at GGNS was conducted by Region II on August 15-September 1, 1953.
the findings of the follow up inspection indicated that the discrepancies concerning the missing or mis-placed documentation may have been more than just a paper problem in that some of the reactor operators may not have received all of the training which MP&L had cent.itted to in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
Additionally, from the end of August 1983 through September 20, 1983, there were a number of discussions and inforration gathering efforts by Region II to further determine the extent of the problem with LOTP at GGNS.
Because of these efforts and discussions, Region 11 concluded that.the problems associated with the operator training at GGNS were greater than first believed.
~
Consequently, on September *20,1953, there was an enforcement panel convened within Region 11 to evaluate the available information and make a determina-He tion as to what enforcement action Region 11 should take in this matter.
0510010107 850923 PDR FOIA REDER85-419 PDR 84-35 Secta h r 14, 1994 Atla:?a, Gecia
.i W4P h hva C* iC at'. OIA o.,,....... Sectc6er 18, 198 4 T=is 00CvutNT st *m0*t *TV 08 Nmc of LO ANic TO ANCTwtm AGENCv et AND tTS CONTENTS Amt NOT TC 88 sNs*tCTom AND Ayoitom.
OuT5s01 TMt atCliveNG AGENCv wif wout Pt awissioN 08 TML o* 8 sCL 08
.-.~.n
/*
2 were in attendance ith respect to h n himself an MP&L had The panel resulted in a ceaciock wThe pane dees not recall who, other t a with but could not reach any conclusions ilable at meeting that day. shculd be taken.
was not enough information avai what enforcement actioncemitted an MFS in this matt He recalled that durino the at the se there respect to willfulness becau ld not make such a detemination.how serious he bel Because the in that time to NRC operator licensi,g examinat o. eleva he ask s.nown about the train n n
decision regarding enforcement was It was detemined onLeve h
have been allowed to take t e had Regten P. O'Reilly) level.
e would be cited with a Severity at that time, that because th h
panel was deadlocked, t e Regional Administrator's (James was going to be referred that the license O'Reilly also made a detemination, 20, 1983, esolved, the matter September wi11 fulness issue could not be rions(01).
violatien.
perator He to the Oftice of Investigat to suspend or revoke reactor o is.
f 1954, as amended, provides for th ause and suspend operator licenses without With respect to NRC's authority t be Region 11 at that time, it cou licenses the Atomic Energy Act o said that NRC,does not revoke orfrom the info n though was justified. sed through an NRC ex established that such.actioncperaters at GGN h and safety l t d all of their training.r and because of th i
they cay not have comp e e l at no more than five percent powe S was considerations were minimal,'.
the operating license for GG not there agement competence and wheth if operator licenses had be The' issue of revoking or suspending I
et suspending or revokin generdily depend.ent upon MP&L man erators to run the plant iousty, there was In this instance, the issueidered becau were enough licensed op Also, the suspended or revoked.
operator licenses was not consnot enough in ify such action.
d to be inadequate at that time.
ware that t perspective, that he beca management was not detemine as ious meetingsdoi The first time, from an enforcemen with LOTP at GGNS was much grea e He explained that because o ll problem 23, 1983.
i concerning GGNS and the cont nu September
.infomation in that regard graduallyld be gained.
atory dis-l perspective of the problem cou t mber 1983 he did have exp or vocat i istrator concerning suspensio the tri He noted that '.in early to mid-Sep e Again, the inf ormation relating i n or cussions with the Reg.ional Adm n t that time to justify suspens o en he and O'Reilly of operator licenses at-GGNS. deficiencie He added that such discussions be enforcement perspective he a i
poss-revocation.
uncomon and that' f rom andiscourse betwee d asses October 31 through November 4,The information needed.
sed operat was given by NRC to the f LOTP was duties of LOTP at GGNS.
a recertification by MP&L owalk through exam assessment aa result, certain operators wer
plant. The mejority of the operators were found competent and they had 4
already been lic,ensed by NRC, therefore, a suspension or revocation of their licenses was not warranted on the basis of discrepancies in their training program. The conritment by MP&L to recertify LOTP was confirned by Region II in a December 5,1983, letter to MP&L.
With respect to language in the letter stating " prior to exceeding 55 pewer,"
he agreed that obviously the licensee could not exceed five percent power with a low power license.
It is possible that the underlying purposes for not using language in the letter stating that the licensee shall not operate were (1)
If the reactor was not allowed to operate, the reactor startup scurces would decay to a level which would not permit reactor startup without replacement of the sources. To replace the sources would be a very costly procedure as well as a very delicate one from i
a health and safety aspect.
(2) By allowing the reactor to operate at less than five percent power, low power testing could be continued.
Moreover, the magnitude of:the problems associated with the operator training at GGNS became known to Region II over an extended period of time and discrete events did not occur in that regard enabling Region Il to take actions based solely on one event or circumstance.
l i
i 1
a l
t
.. - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _, -.. - _ _,,. _ _ _.,... _ _ _