ML20133G189
| ML20133G189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1997 |
| From: | Huffman W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701150210 | |
| Download: ML20133G189 (6) | |
Text
__
(z ~ cc 3 p5400 j
. 44 UNITED STATES p-j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
't WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066H001
\\.....,#
January 10, 1997 l
4 i
APPLICANT:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation PROJECT:
AP600
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON AP600 SCALING AND PIRT CLOSURE REPORT QUESTIONS On December 23, 1996, members of the NRC staff and Westinghouse (Attachment) conducted a telephone conference (telecon) concerning questions the staff issued to Westinghouse in a December 10, 1996 letter on the AP600 scaling and PIRT closure (SPC) report, WCAP-14727.
The following is a summary of actions and highlights of the i
telecon relating to each of the staff's questions:
Q# 1 - The staff agreed that Westinghouse did not need to address this question in the SPC report.
Q# 2 - Westinghouse stated that it is not possible to entirely separate analyses from testing in the PIRT rankings.
Westinghouse agreed to provide a discussion in the SPC report 3
which explains the role that code calculations had in the PIRT rankings.
Q# 3 - Westinghouse stated that it will withhold addressing this question until it receives NRC comments on the revised PRHR HX Final Test Report.
Q# 4 and 5 - Westinghouse will update the SPC report to address these questions.
Q# 6 - Westinghouse stated that it is conservative to neglect the hot leg nozzle bypass path and it does not need to be modeled.
The NRC staff accepted this explanation.
i t
Q# 7 - Westinghouse stated that the time of pump trip is consistent with the SSAR analysis.
Westinghouse will add a footnote to the SPC report table to reference the SSAR c(}(
analysis.
\\
WOOM hf 9701150210 970110 PDR ADOCK 05200003 A
PDR d
2 Q# 8 - Westinghouse will correct.
Q# 9 - Westinghouse will address this question in the SSAR Chapter 15 discussion and analyses for long term cooling.
Q# 10- Westinghouse stated that it will withhold addressing this question until it receives NRC comments on the revised PRHR HX Final Test Report.
Q# 11 - Westinghouse will update the SPC report to address this question.
Q# 12 - Westinghouse stated that this question has been addressed in the WCOBRA/ TRAC Long Term Cooling Final validation Report.
The NRC staff accepted this explanation.
Q# 13 - Westinghouse stated that it is assessing how the SPC report can be reorganized to improve the structure and presentation of the report material.
No specific actions were agreed to but Westinghouse committed to study this issue and revisit it with the staff before the SPC report is revised for other reasons.
Q# 14 - Westinghouse stated that they really aren't using matrices for these analyses.
Westinghouse agreed to provide an explanation and clarification of methodology being used in the SPC report.
Q# 15 - Westinghouse committed to validate the Pi groups with several examples using the method suggested by this question.
Q# 16 - Westinghouse will revise the SPC report to the appropriate references for the separate-effects scaling evaluations.
Q# 17 - Westinghouse is still evaluating this question and will revisit it with the staff prior to issuing a revised SPC report.
Q# 18 - Westinghouse will correct inconsistencies in the report nomenclature.
Q# 19 - Westinghouse did not agree with the staff that applying the Wulff scaling methodology was important for the high-pressure depressurization phase of a SBLOCA.
Westinghouse agreed to add an explanation in the SPC report as to why this is not important.
3 a
Q# 20 - Westinghouse stated that it will address this e
question in conjunction with the response to question #14.
Q# 21 - Westinghouse will correct this item.
I e
l l
e Q# 22 - Westinghouse will clarify the method used in its choice of pressure ranges.
I Q# 23 - Westinghouse is still evaluating this question and will revisit it with the staff prior to issuing a revised SPC report.
Q# 24 - Westinghouse will clarify its assumptions in the SPC e
report.
It does not believe that phase distributions are very important.
Q# 25 - Westinghouse agreed to provide a clarification in the SPC report.
Q# 26 - Westinghouse stated that it did not neglect the inertia effects in equation 3-72.
The staff agreed that no additional action is necessary for this item.
Q# 27 - Westinghouse is still evaluating how to respond to this question and will get back to the staff prior to revising the SPC report.
Q# 28 - No action is necessary.
Q# 29 (a)
Westinghouse will reference where Pi groups are calculated.
(b)
Westinghouse will reference the appropriate areas of the CMT report which addresses the concerns raised in this question.
(c)
Westinghouse will document the source.
(d)
Westinghouse wil fix the equation.
(e)
Westinghouse will add the appropriate reference.
(f)
Westinghouse will add the appropriate reference.
(g)
No action necessary.
l l
l
4 The staff and Westinghouse agreed to have a followup telecon prior to reissuing the revised SPC report to discuss details of the changes made to address the above commitments.
j original signed by:
l William C.
Huffman, Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.52-003
Attachment:
As stated cc w/ attachments:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket' File PDST R/F PUBLIC 4
TMartin DMatthews TRQuay TKenyon BHuffman JSebrosky 1
DJackson JMoore, 0-15 B18 WDean,'0-17 G21 ACRS (11)
ALevin, 0-8 E23 TCollins, 0-8 E23 GHolahan, 0-8 E2 DOCUMENT NAME:
A:
PIRT-SCL. TLC To seceive a copy of thle clocument,insincate in the boa: "C" = Copy without ettechment/ enclosure "E" = Copy wRh attechment/ enclosure
'N' = No copy a
0FFICE PM:PDST:DRPM l
D:PDST:DRPJi l NAME WHuffmanL8=-AW TQuay % # c-DATE
/ /3/Dfff7 i /l0/96 P"
i
~
Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo Docket No.52-003 Westinghouse Electric Corporation AP600 cc: Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Mr. Frank A. Ross Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Analysis U.S. Department of Energy, NE-42 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Office of LWR Safety and Technology Westinghouse Electric Corporation 19901 Germantown Road P.O. Box 355 Germantown, MD 20874 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Mr. Ronald Simard, Director Mr. B. A. McIntyre Advanced Reactor Program Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
Energy Systems Business Unit Suite 300 Box 355 Washington, DC 20006-3706 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 Ms. Lynn Connor Mr. John C. Butler Doc-Search Associates Advanced Plant Safety & Licensing Post Office Box 34 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Cabin John, MD 20818 Energy Systems Business Unit Box 355 Mr. James E. Quinn, Projects Manager Pittsburgh, PA 15230 LMR and SBWR Programs GE Nuclear Energy Mr. M. D. Beaumont 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 165 Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division San Jose, CA 95125 Westinghouse Electric Corporation One Montrose Metro Mr. Robert H. Buchholz 11921 Rockville Pike GE Nuclear Energy Suite 350 175 Curtner Avenue, MC-781 Rockville, MD 20852 San Jose, CA 95125 Mr. Sterling Franks Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.
U.S. Department of Energy Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott NE-50 600 Grant Street 42nd Floor 19901 Germantown Road Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Germantown, MD 20874 Mr. Ed Rodwell, Manager Mr. S. M. Modro PWR Design Certification Nuclear Systems Analysis Technologies Electric Power Research Institute Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company 3412 Hillview Avenue Post Office Box 1625 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Mr. Charles Thompson, Nuclear Engineer AP600 Certification NE-50 1
19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874 i
^
WESTINGHOUSE / NRC AP600 SCALING AND PIRT CLOSURE REPORT TELECONFERENCE DECEMBER 23, 1996 PARTICIPANTS M8ME ORGANIZATION Larry Hochreiter WESTINGHOUSE Gene Piplica WESTINGHOUSE J
Phil Roensthal WESTINGHOUSE 1
Alan Levin NRC Bill Huffman NRC Attachment i
J THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Case No. 1 96 021 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS P_A9e SYNOPSIS 1
l LIST OF INTERVIEWEES 5
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION 7
l Applicable Regulations 7
Purpose of Investigation 7
Interview of Alleger 7
Review of Documentation....................... 8 Coordination with Regional Staff 8
Allegation.............................. 9 Evidence 9
Agent's Analysis.........................
14 Conclusion............................
16 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
........................17 LIST OF EXHIBITS 19 l
l i
Case No. 1 96 021 3
LIST OF INTERVIEWEES EXHIBITS BARGER. James Mark. Manager of Human Resources, Koppel Steel Corporation (KSC)......................
23 CORRIGAN, Bernie. Helting buperintendent KSC..............
13 DESANZO, John A., Rolling Department Superintendent, KSC.............................
21 & 21A DROGUS, Robert S., Human Resources Representative, KSC.............................
14 & 14A EHRENBERG, Robert Kenneth. Maintenance Supervisor.
KSC................................. 9 GOEHRING. Lee Donald, former Maintenance Supervisor and i
RSO, KSC 3 & 31 H0HLMAN, William. Safety Director for Heckett Multiserve Di vi si on, formerl y o f KSC......................
8 LADUN. Richard H., Health Physicist, NRC, RI 4
MASON, Edward Master Technician and Electronics Repairman.
KSC.................................
7 MEDARAC, James. Stores Supervisor / Buyer, KSC 12 HURPHY, G. Michael, Maintenance Planner and Associate Mechanical Engineer. KSC.....................
11 SCHLAEGLE. James. Environmental Engineer, KSC..............
24 Case No. 1 96 021 5
l l
\\
i i
i i
THIS PAGE LEFT Bl.ANK INTENTIONALLY l
Case No. 1-96 021 6
GOEHRING advised that an NRC inspection was conducted on April 23, 1996, at KSC.
G0EHRING stated that he informed LADUN that he would find violations within the Radiation Safety Department. GOEHRING furnished his communication regarding not being responsible for RSO duties, dated June 15, 1995 (Exhibit 6), to LADUN. G0EHRING re conducting some of the inspections, ported to LADUN that he had not beenbec result of receiving no cooperation from management. GOEHRING stated that training had not been conducted, also because of lack of management support.
GOEHRING stated that LADUN informed Bob DR0GUS. Human Rasources.
Jim SCHLAEGLE, Environmental Engineer, DESANZ0, and himself, regarding the findings of the inspection (Exhibit 5). Approximately two weeks later, after Hugh MADDEN, Vice President of Engineering and Materials, received the Notice of Violation, G0EHRING was summoned to a meeting to discuss his side of the story. G0EHRING was summoned once again on June 11, 1996, to meet with DESANZO, DROGUS, and Jim BARGER, Manager of Human Resources. At this meeting.
BARGER advised that it had been recomended that GOEHRING be terminated for his " misrepresentation to the NRC."
GOEHRING stated that he had surgery in 1995, and after his recuperating period, he ret ne to wor, only to find his job gone. He was placed in an unfamiliar position and then given a below average evaluation.
GOEHRING advised that the reason given by KSC for his termination was "Hisrepresentation as RSO," because he told LADUN that he was not the RSO (Exhibit 27). GOEHRING denies telling the NRC inspector that he was not the RSO.
Review of Documentation A review of the NRC Application for Material License, No. 37 20657 01, for KSC, revealed a renewal to this license, dated March 28, 1994, signed by Lee D. GOEHRING, RS0 (Exhibit 2).
Other documents are referenced throughout this report.
Coordination with Recional Staff (Exhibit 4)
On September 17 and October 7, 1996 LADUN, Health Physicist NRC, Region I, King of Prussia, PA, was interviewed regarding his inspection of KSC on April 23, 1996 (Exhibit 5). The following information was provided:
LADUN recalled conducting a routine safety inspection of KSC on April 23, 1996, and citing KSC on five separate violations of NRC regulations and license conditions. When LADUN arrived at KSC, he asked for GOEHRING, the RSO. GOEHRING appeared and escorted LADUN into the plant.
LADUN said that GOEHRING told him that he was glad to see him and that he had planned to call the NRC. GOEHRING furnished LADUN with a memo (Exhibit 6), which essentially said that he would no longer be responsible for the RSO rsition. G0EHRING then went on to say that he wanted to be honest: that LAX)N would have found out anyway: and revealed the deficiencies in the radiation safety program, as cited in the Notice of Violation (Exhibit 5).
Case No. 1 96 021 8
went to G000WALD and DESANZO to attempt to get the program on track.
4 After the inspection, MASON remembered that he was present for a few minutes at an exit meeting with DESANZO, SCHLAEGLE, GOEHRING, and the inspector, where 4
DESANZO stated that GOEHRING was responsible for the RSO position. MASON did not view the memo written by GOEHRING (Exhibit 6) as a statement that he was no longer the RS0: MASON was of the opinion that it was a communication to advise KSC management that G0EHRING was not getting company support.
Interview of William H0HLMAN (Exhibit 8)
On September 16, 1996. H0HLMAN was interviewed. H0HLMAN was employed with KSC from approximately March 1991 to December 1994. He was the RSO for another Koppel Steel plant and travelled between plants. H0HLMAN advised that he was not an assistant RSO, but a "back up" to GOEHRING if needed in an emergency situation. H0HLMAN does not recall GOEHRING not receiving any cooperation from management for his radiation safety program, but does recall GOEHRING being " frustrated" because he did not have much administrative help with his RSO responsibilities. G0EHRING had told him at one point that he did not want the RSO duties anymore and wanted H0HLMAN to take over those responsibilities.
H0HLMAN explained that GOEHRING, and other employees, " wore many hats" and worked many overtime hours at KSC. H0HLMAN did not recall G0EHRING having any job performance problems.
H0HLMAN stated that in late 1994, there were some management changes, which may have led to some difficulties. H0HLMAN speculated that with a younger group of executives heading KSC. there may have been some conflict with the employees.
Interview of Robert Kenneth EHRENBERG (Exhibit 9)
On August 20, 1996. EHRENBERG was interviewed and furnished the following information. EHRENBERG and G0EHRING worked together at B&W before the company was taken over by KSC in a> proximately 1991.
EHRENBERG recommended that KSC hire GOEHRING.
EHRENBERG 1as known GOEHRING since about 1988, and his family knows GOEHRING's family. He stated that GOEHRING is a very sharp, self taught electrical techr.ician.
EHRENBERG was GOEHRING's supervisor from approximately 1990 1994. He had submitted a merit review for G0EHRING, which constituted a raise for G0EHRING sometime in 1992. He advised that since KSC was a new company in 1992, performance reviews were not a normal procedure.
EHRENBERG advised that the Human Resources Department of KSC determined whether or not a performance review was needed.
EHRENBERG recalled that in 1994, GOEHRING was having problems with his hearing, being forgetful and employees were complaining. At about the same time, G0EHRING had urgery. DESANZO reorganized the staff, and when GOEHRING returned rom surgery, he was relieved of his position as Electronics Supervisor. He retained his title and salary, but lost his crew.
EHRENBERG attempted to get a crew back for GOEHRING, but about that time (October 1995), he found out that G0EHRING was having performance problems.
DESANZO told him that G0EHRING was late with re> orts, and not present for a clean up project.
EHRENBERG stated that he toot over the project from Case No. 1 96 021 10
LADUN remembered that Ed MASON was present to assist in retrieving records and equipment during part of the inspection / interview at KSC. G0EHRING told LADUN on several occasions that he was not getting cooperation from the company for i
his radiation safety program. LADUN said that GOEHRING realized that the NRC would hold him resmnsible for NRC license violations, however, he felt powerless because 1e had no authority to enforce regulations. LADUN held an exit meeting with G0EHRING, DESANZO and SCHLAEGLE.
LADUN read the viciations to those present, instructing GOEHRING to remedy the situation, LADUN recalled saying something to the effect that there must be a problem with the managerial structure of KSC, while showing them the memo by GOEHRING (Exhibit 6), LADUN added that he could have cited KSC for not having an RSO, however, he decided against it because GOEHRING was still considered the RSO by KSC and LADUN.
LADUN stated that SCHLAEGLE was surprised that this situation (referring to the safety violations) occurred and said he would insure that corrective actions would be taken. LADUN felt that there was a breakdown in the radiation safety program at KSC, and that management should be responsible for enforcement of the rules.
LADUN stated that the fact that GOEHRING showed him the memo dated June 15, 1995 (Exhibit 6), did not affect his inspection.
LADUN stated that GOEHRING never misrepresented himself as the RSO. He never gave LADUN the impression that he was not the RSO.
LADUN stated that he knew GOEHRING was the RSO at KSC because GOEHRING identified himself as the RSO and his name is on the KSC license.
LADUN felt, with high probability, that GOEHRING was discriminated against because he cooperated with the NRC.
Allecation: Discrimination Against the Facility Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) for Providing Information to an NRC Inspector Evidence i
The following individuals were interviewed regarding the allegation that i
GOEHRING was discriminated against by KSC.
Interview of Edward MASON (Exhibit 7)
On October 17, 1996. MASON was interviewed and stated that he intermittently worked under GOEHRING for about three years at KSC. MASON recalled being present during the NRC inspection on April 23, 1996, with GOEHRING. MASON i
assisted GOEHRING in locating files and records for the inspector. HASON witnessed GOEHRING furnish the inspector with the memo regarding responsibility for the RSO msition (Exhibit 6). MASON recalled that G0EHRING reported to the inspector w1at was wrong with the radiation safety program.
He had told the inspector that he had continued to furnish the film badges, but did not do leak tests or calibrations. MASON stated that GOEHRING told the inspector that he only did some of the elements of the RS0 position, stating that the reason for not scheduling radiation safety training classes was an unsupportive management. MASON recalled that GOEHRING, at one time.
Case No. 1 96 021 9
~'
~
~
)
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION j
fl Apolicable Reaulations i
10 CFR 30.7: Employee Protection 10 CFR 30.10: Deliberate Misconduct i
Puroose of Investication This investigation was initiated by the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC).
Office of Investigations (OI), to determine whether Lee Donald GOEHRING, 1
former Maintenance Supervisor and Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) at Koppel l
Steel Corporation (KSC), Post Office Box 750, Beaver Falls, PA, was discriminated against by having his employment terminated for providing information to an NRC inspector (Exhibit 1).
Backaround I
KSC began operation in approximately 1990. The company was insacted by the NRC on December 5,1990, in which two violations were cited by (RC Inspector Richard H. LADUN. Both violations were resolved by GOEHRING in a communication to the NRC on A)ril 11, 1995. On April 23, 1996, during a i
routine inspection of KSC (Ex11 bit 5), G0EHRING advised NRC Inspector LADUN i
that he was not receiving management support in implementing the radiation i
safety program. G0EHRING also furnished LADUN information which resulted in the identification of five violations of NRC regulations. On June 14, 1996, i
GOEHRING was terminated from KSC.
t i
GOEHRING submitted a complaint alleging violations of the Energy l
Reorganization Act. dated August 5, 1996, to the U.S. Department of Labor i
(DOL), Wage and Hour Division, Pittsburgh, PA.
On October 8, 1996, 01 was contacted by Investigator Russell CONNOLLY, D0L, Pittsburgh, PA, regarding j
their investigation, j
Interview of Alleaer (Exhibit 3)
On July 17.1996, G0EHRING was interviewed by OI:RI at the Holiday Inn in Beaver Falls. PA. GOEHRING provided the following information:
i G0EHRING had been employed by KSC for six years when KSC took over Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), holding the titles of Maintenance Supervisor and RSO.
In i
approximately early 1990, after the take over, a general Radiation Safety j
class was conducted and, thereafter, GOEHRING held some one day refresher courses for about three years. GOEHRING felt that management was not lending him the support he needed to fulfill his RSO duties. He advised that he j
informed superiors that radiation safety classec needed to be conducted, however, the classes were never formulated. GOEHRING advised that on June 15, i
1995, he submitted a letter to the company stating he would no longer be j
responsible for the RSO duties (Exhibit 6). GOEHRING's supervisor, John DESANZO told G0EHRING that per the General Manager, Gerry G000WALD, he should continue his RSO duties.
t j
Case No. 1 96 021 7
,y