ML20132E522

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rept of Interview W/Jm Puckett Re Discrepancies in Licensed Operator Training Program at Facility,Per Region II Enforcement Actions.Reactor Operators Not Trained Per FSAR Commitments.Portions Deleted
ML20132E522
Person / Time
Site: Grand Gulf Entergy icon.png
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)
v • d • e


Text

, -

U .. 4UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON Office et ineector anc Aucitor c.i............  % tCDCI 18. 1984

.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:

Following the February 15-17, 1983, training assessment by Region II of LOTP 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 documentat1on. It was . resolved during the neeting that there was not enough information available at that time to make a determination as to whether or not MP&L committed an MFS. ~ Also, it was resolved that the discrepancies noted 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,

.rm RPSIA, and himself. He noted that Operatinns Branch, Division o neactor ety, and others wno ne recall were also in attendance 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 Atla:?a, Gecia ,,,,, 84-35 Secta h r 14, 1994 .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 sNs*tCTometANDAND tTS CONTENTS Amt NOT TC 88 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 dees not recall who, The other panel t a resulted in a ceaciock wThe with pane meeting that day. shculd bebut taken.could not reach any conclusions ilable at at the was not enough information ava i what enforcement actioncemitted se there He recalled an MFS thatindurino this ld notmattthe respect to willfulness becau that time to make such a detemination.how serious hethebeli in Because n

he ask s.nown about h NRC the trainoperator n licensi,g examinat o . eleva had Regten decision regarding enforcement P. O'Reilly)

It was detemined wasonLeve have been allowed panel was deadlocked, t e h

to take t e level.

e would beat cited withthat that time, a Severity because th Regional20,Administrator's 1983, that the license (James was going to be referred September O'Reilly also made esolved,a detemination, the matter violatien. perator wi11 fulness issue could not to the Oftice of Investigat to suspend or revoke reactor o is. be rions(01). He ause and f 1954, as amended, provides t be for th With respect the Atomic Energy Act osuspend operator licenses without to NRC's authority licenses Region 11 at that time, it cou n though said that NRC,does not revoke was justified. orfrom sed through an the h andNRC info safetyexa i

established that l t d all such.actioncperaters of their training.r and because at GGN of th they cay not have comp e e S was l considerations at no more than five were minimal,'.percent powe the operating license for GG not there I agement competence and wheth if operator licenses had be The' issue of revoking eratorsupon or suspending to run MP&L the plantman et suspending or revokin iousty, there was generdily depend.ent were enough licensed opIn this instance, the issueidered Also, the becau suspended or revoked. ify such action.

operator licensesd to wasbe inadequate not consnot at thatenough time.ware that in as management was not detemine t perspective, that he beca The first time, from an enforcemen ious meetingsdoin with LOTP at GGNS was much grea e ll problem September 23, 1983. He explained that because o i

concerning GGNS and the cont nu atory dis-

.infomation in that regard graduallyld be gained. l vocat perspective of the problem t mber cou 1983 he did have expthe ortri i istrator concerning suspensio He noted that '.in early Again, to mid-Sep the inf e ormation i n relating or cussions with the Reg.ional t thatAdm timento justify en hesuspens and O'Reilly o of operator licenses He added that such discussions be at-GGNS. deficiencie i poss-revocation.

enforcement perspectived asses he a uncomon and that' f rom andiscourse betwee October 31 throughf LOTP November was needed. 4,The information sed operat duties a recertification by MP&L was of LOTP at GGNS.

owalk given throughby exam NRC to the assessment aa result, certain operators wer

. 4 plant. The mejority of the operators were found competent and they had 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

_ . - - . _ - , _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ . __ .- _ _. . . . . . _ , . , _ _ _ , _ . _ . - _ , . . - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ , - . . - _ _ , , . _ _ _ . , . . . _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20132E522&oldid=3458165"