ML20149M902
| ML20149M902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05560755 |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5737 87-551-02-SP, 87-551-2-SP, SP, NUDOCS 8802290231 | |
| Download: ML20149M902 (273) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:m g' n . I v \ O ; N F's - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
)
ALFRED J. MORABITO )
) Docket No. 55-60755" (Senior Operator License for ) ASLPB 87-551-02-SP Beaver Valley Power Station, ) .
Unit 1) ) ,
)
)
O Pages: 1 through 270 - Place: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Date: February 22, 1988
, / 0b HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OficialReporters 1220 L Stnet N.W., Suite 600 Washinston, D.C. 20005 e8022'/
SECY L $@$@[8] (202) 628-4884 PDR k .____:__._.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD k 4 In the Matter of: )
)
5 ALFRED J. MORABITO, ) Docket No. 55-6075
) ASLPB 87-551-02-SP 6 (Senior Operator License for )
Beaver Valley Power Station, ) 7 Unit 1) ) 8 Monday, February 22, 1988 9 William S. Moorhead Building 10 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 11 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 12 pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. 13 i
' BEFORE: JUDGE CHARLES BECHHOEFER, CHAIRMAN 14 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission : 15 Washington, D.C. 20555 i 16 JUDGE DAVID L. HETRICK, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, D.C. 20555 l 18 APPEARANCES
19 ! On behalf of the License Candidates l 20 l DAVID W. HELD l 21 LAWRENCE G. SCRAD Duquesne Light Company 22 P.O. Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 23 24
- 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
8 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 On behalf of the NRC Staff 3 COLLEEN P. WOODHEAD, ESQ. BENJAMIN H. VOGLER, ESQ. 4 Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 Washington, D.C. 20555 6 JAY GUTIERREZ, ESQ. NRC Region I 7 Office of the General Counsel Allendale Koad 8 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 9 10 11 12 (~'t 13 O' 14 15 16 17 l 18 l 19 l 20 1 21 1 1 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
A / a + - - J 4 4 Y I
-3 a./
- 1. I NDEX
- WITNESSES: EXAMINATION
~
2 3 Barry S. Norris 13 4 David M. Silk 13 ' 5' Theodore L. Szymanski 13 6 Lawrence G. Schad 17 7
, 8 EXHIBITS MARKED RECEIVED DESCRIPTION 9 Morabito's: .
10 1 11 Specification of claims 11 2 11 Statement regarding l claims 12 3 12 Statement regarding-() 13 service 1-28-88 14 4 42 Non-normal conditions 15 5 270 Objection to lack of thoroughness of Joint , 16 affidavit of Barry S. . Norris and David M. 17 Silk t 18 Staff's: 19 1 14 NRC Staff response to specifications of claims 20 2 15 Joint affidavit of Barry i 21 S. Norris and David M. i Silk i 22 s 3 15 Letter from Ms. Woodhead 23 to Judge Bechhoefer 1-29-88 24 , 4 15 Affidavit of Theodore L. 25 Szymanski , ( Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 ; na, , , , , ., , , , , - , - - - -- - , ,, .- -w, ene._a,---,.---n.-,,.-------,--,----------------,-n,,
i
V 4 i l %/
1 PROCEEDI NGS 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. This proceeding involves the application for a 4 senior operator license for Beaver Valley-Power Station, Unit 1 5 of Mr. Alfred J. Morabito. The hearing was authorized by 6 Commission Order of July 1, 1987. Notice of hearing was 7 published several weeks thereafter. 8 I am the presiding officer in this informal 9 proceeding. My name is Charles Bechhoefer. I am an attorney 10 member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel of the - 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 12 At my right is my technical assistant and technical 13 interrogator for this proceeding, Dr. David Hetrick. He is a (]) 14 professor at the University of Arizona and is also a member of 15 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. 16 This proceeding may perhaps be deemed unique. It la 17 at least the first of its kind. It is the first time that 18 there has ever been an appeal from a denial of a senior 19 operator license which is later gone to hearing, oral hearing. 20 I authorized this oral hearing or oral presentation 21 by my order of November 24th and I published a notice of the 22 time and place of this hearing on December 8. It appeared in 23 the Federal Register on December 14th, 24 The procedures here are somewhat different from the 25 normal licensing proceeding. But at the start, as in all O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l i [] 5 l
. ( /-
1 Commission licensing proceedings we are authorized to hear 2 limited appearance statements from members of the public. And 3 I would do that now if there is any member of the public -- in 4 other words, not a party to the proceeding - who wishes to 5 make a statement of'approximately five minutes on really 6 anything having to do'with the subject matter of the hearing. 7 Is there anyone here who would wish to make'cuch a statement? 8 (No response.) 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I see none. So, we will go 10 on to the substantive part of the hearing. This proceeding is 11 really divisible into two parts: the written examination and 12 the simulator examination. On February 17 -- I might say on L 13 the written examination, Mr. Morab.ito had a non-passing grade (]) 14 on only one of the six sections. I believe it'c six. On only , 15 one of the sections. It was Section 6 that he had a non- ; 16 passing grade. 17 On February 17th, the Staff filed an affidavit which 18 appears to conclude one part of the written exam by adding -- 19 well, the Staff said a half a point. My calculations say it 20 should be a quarter of a point. But be that as it may, my 21 calculations show that Mr. Morabito now has a grade of 70.3 22 I think it is on the w'itten exam. 23 I would like to ask the Staff -- well, if the Staff 24 wishes to answer this through its witness, I'll swear him. 25 But, if you would wish to answer it as an attorney, you may do Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888
,~\ 6 x_/
1 so. Either way. 2 I guess we should identify for the record the 3 representatives of the parties and Mr. Morabito. Mr. Morabito, 4 would you identify yourself for the reporter? 5 MR. MORABITO: My name is Alfred J. Morabito. I 6 reside at 685 Tulip Drive, New Brighton, Pennsylvania. 7 JUDGE BECHHOE2ER: Ms. Woodhead? 8 MS. WOODHEAD: Yes. My name is Colleen P. Woodhead. 9 I am counsel for NRC Staff. To my immediate right is 10 Mr. Benjamin Vogler, also counsel for NRC Staff. To my far 11 right is Mr. Jay Gutierrez, counsel for Region 1 of NRC. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, Ms. Woodhead, on the written {} 13 part of the exam, I thought we would do that before we get into 14 anything else. My calculations based on the affidavit of 15 Mr. Szymanski show that Mr. Morabito would have 10.3; am I : 16 correct? '1 17 MS. WOODHEAD: Those are my calculations also, 18 Jedge Bechhoefer. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, my question ist Does the 20 Staff agree, then, that Mr. Morabito has passed the written 21 exam? 22 MS. WOODHEAD: Yes. We agree. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So, I can rule from the bench that 24 you have passed the written exam. So, we will go on from here 25 to take care of the simulator exam.
- (
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
o i* 7 LJ 1 I designated earlier several bits of evidence which I 2 thought should be considered as direct testimony. Well, I 3 still think those pieces of -- those documents should go into. 4 the record. To the extent they relate to the written exam, 5- they will no longer be relevant or pertinent. But I imagine 6 since they are going to be presented as bound copies, it is 7 easier just to put the whole thing in the record. I am 8 certainly not going to rely on any portions of it that have now 9 become moot. 10 MR. MORABITO: Judge Bechhoefer? H 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 12 MR. MORABITO: With regard to the written () 13 examination, I have contended that if I can show incompetence 14 in the development of the exam and in the grading of the exam 15 that not only did that contribute to my achieving a passing 16 grade, but it also questioned the qualifications of the 17 examiners and led to the question: How could they be in error 18 on something that is relatively objective, such as a written 19 exam, and then expect me or anyone else, any. candidate for that 20 matter, to believe that they can produce a professional 21 subjective judgment on the performance on the simulator exam. 22 So, I think that going through the various questions on the 23 written exam is necessary in order for me to challenge their , 24 ability to perform that professional judgment. 25 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Bechhoefer? O ' i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
O 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 2 MS WOODHEAD: Could I ask that you instruct 3 Mr. Morabito as to the procedures that you intend to apply in 4 this proceeding? It is my understanding that you and 5 Dr. Hetrick would lead the question and any testimony would be 6 as a_ result of your questioning, at least initially. 7 JUDGS BECHHOEFER: Yes, that's correct, although 8 Mr. Morabito has asked permission to examine the Staff 9 witnesses on several matters and when we get to those matters, 10 I may allow Mr. Morabito to ask certain questions. He has 11 filed requests previously. 12 As I do think that we have to confine our proceeding 13 to what actually is at issue. But to the extent certain (]) 14 qualifications are involved, you may be able to ask that
~
15 certain matters be workeu in which relate thereto. 16 Technically, since the record does demonstrate that the Staff 17 examiners have been properly certified, I have really no basis 18 -- I don't have authority to undermine that certification, but 19 Staff has done what it is required by the regulations to do to 20 establish that the examiners are at least technically 21 qualified. So that I would doubt whether we can hear too much 22 relating to their performance on the written exam unless it is 23 directly pertinent to something that they did or didn't do on 24 the simulator exam. 25 Now, we have a lot of questions relating to the O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) G28-4888
9 J, .; - 1 simulator exam. So, I think the way the proceedings worP, it 2 just would not be in order to permit questions, at least 3 specific questions on the written exam, now that you have 4 passed it. I do think that there will be sufficient 5 opportunity to examine the validity of certain comments on the 6 simulator exam so that I think you won't be prejudiced 7 presenting your case in that respect. And, if you should be 8 deemed to have passed the simulator exam, this may or may not 9 resolve problems that you perceive with the Staff program, but 10 that is not my -- I am not authorized to do that and this 11 proceeding isn't the place to do that. 12 MR. MORABITO: I understand that and I know that that 13 has been ruled on various times as we went through the .{ } 14 proceeding. My point here is that the failure of the examiners 15 to correctly grade what should have been a relatively objective 16 examination throws considerable doubt on their ability to 17 arrive at subjective determination on my passing on the 18 simulator exam. 19 I will be content to let this question ride for now 20 and we will see where these proceedings go. But, please 21 understand: I think there is a very definite interplay between 22 their performance on grading of the written exam and their 23 subsequent performance of the grading of the simulator 24 examination. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: All right. Well, now, I would ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
10 f L] 1 like to formally put into the record the documents which I am 2 going to have designated as exhibits which I guess there should-3 be three copies presented to the reporter of each. 4 Mr. Morabito, do you have with you the three 5 documents? Your specification of claims, including the 6 exhibits as No. 1. Second, your response to the Staff. Third, 7 your response to my questions. I think we will deal with them 8 separately. 9 First, Mr. Morabito, let me ask you because I am not 10 sure that everything in all of those documents that you wrote 11 was under oath or affirmation. Mr. Morabito, would swear, 12 first, that everything you say today and everything in the (} 13 documents which you authored is true and correct to your best 14 knowledge?
~
15 MR. MORABITO: I do swear that it is true and correct 16 to my best knowledge, with the exception of one editorial 17 correction that I wish to make. 18 Whereupon, 19 ALFRED J. MORABITO 20 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein 21 and was examined and testified as follows: 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, I will offer you the f 23 opportunity to make corrections as we go through these 24 documents. 25 The first document is your specification of claims ( ' lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
11 1 and that should be marked Morabito Exhibit.1. It is~a 2 specification of claims, including all the exhibits. 3 (The document referred to was 4 marked for identification'as 5 Morabito Exhibit No. 1.) 6 MR. MORABITO: And where should they be put? 7 JUDGE BECHHC2rER: Just give those to the reporter, I 8 guess. Three copies is the usual procedure. Those should be 9 marked Morabito Exhibit 1. 10 Does the Staff have any objection to any individual 11 portion? I'm not going to rely on the portions that aren't 12 relevant, but on occasion Staff would prefer to take out (} 13 14 non-relevant sections. MS. WOODHEAD: I am not sure that that is needed here. No. The Staff has no objections. f , 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm not going to rely on anything 16 that isn't pertinent anymore. I think I will do all the 17 Morabito ones first and then the Staff documents. a 18 The second one is Mr. Morabito's response or rebuttal 19 to the NRC affidavit of November 7th. That will be marked 20 Morabito Exhibit 2. 21 (The document referred to was 22 marked for identification as 23 Morabito Exhibit No. 2.) , 24 The next document which would be Morabito Exhibit 3 25 is the response to presiding officer's request for additional O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. - - - . , .,-._s, . - . , , . - _ .
r r"x 12 U 1 information. And that was flied on January 28, 1988. That 2 will be Morabito Exhibit 3. 3 (The document referred to was 4 marked for identification as 5 Morabito Exhibit No. 3.) 6 Mr. Morabito, in case you have other exhibits, would 7 it be easier to introduce them now or better to wait until they 8 become pertinent to the line of questions? I think the latter. 9 MR. MORABITO: I think it would probably be better to 10 wait until they become pertinent if they become pertinent. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let's turn to Staff. 12 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Bechhoefer, would this be an (~T 13 appropriate time for me to introduce the staff witnesses? U 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, it would be. 15 MS. WOODHEAD: The Staff is presenting three 16 witnesses today. To my right, seated at the witness table, is 17 Mr. Theodore L. Szymanski from the Division of Licensee IR Performance of and Quality Evaluation in the Commission's 19 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 20 To Mr. Szymanski's right is Mr. Barry S. Norris. To 21 Mr. Norris' right is Mr. David M. Silk. Mr. Norris and 22 Mr. Silk are both examiners from the Commission's Region 1. 23 JUDGE BECHHOLFER: I think it may save time if I 24 swear you all at this time. 25 Mr. Szymanski, do you swear that the testimony you O Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 I y w-
,~ 13
(,I 1 are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 2- the truth, so help you, God? , 3 MR. SZYMANSKI: Yes, I do. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Norris, do you swear that the r testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth 6 and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 7 MR. NORRIS: I do. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Silk, do you swear that the 9 testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth ., 10 and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 11 MR. SILK I do. 12 Whereupon, (~T 13 THEODORE L. SZYMANSKI v 14 BARRY S. NORRIS 15 DAVID M. SILK 16 having been first duly sworn, were called as a witnesses herein 17 and was examined and testified as follows. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you wish to introduce the three 19 exhibits, none of which I identified. 20 MS. WOODHEAD: Yes, I could identify them by title. 21 Do you want me to have the witnesses identify them? Or will it 22 be sufficient for me to just read the titles of the documents? 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It is sufficient for you tc do 24 that. ; 25 MS. WOODHEAD: All right. I believe there will be O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
7w 14 L) 1 four exhibits to include Mr. Szymanski's affidavit. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Do you have three copies 3 of each? 4 MS, WOODHEAD: I have three copies of each document. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think the rest of the parties 6 have received everything. Did you receive the latest 7 affidavit? 8 MR. MORABITO: Yes, I did. 9 MS. WOODHEAD: Shall I read the titles for the 10 record? 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. And the exhibit numbers. 12 MS. WOODHEAD: Well, I will start with the earliest {} 13 date and I would assume that would be the first exhibit. The 14 title of the document I am presenting for the record is, "The 15 NRC Staff Response to Specification of Claims, dated 16 October 9, 1987. And I believe that would be Exhibit 1. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. That includes the attached 18 affidavit plus the statement of professional qualifications. 19 MS. WOODHEAD: Correct. 20 (The document referred to was 21 marked for identification as 22 Staff Exhibit No. 1.) 23 The second document is entitled, "Joint Affidavit of 24 Barry S. Norris and David M. Silk." And it is dated 25 December 21st, 1987. This would be Staff Exhibit No. 2. (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i
'h' t 15 1 .(The document referred to was l
~'
2 marked for identification as i 3 Staff Exhibit No. 2.) 4 The third document.is also entitled, "The Joint l 5 Affidavit of Barry S. Norris and David M. Silk." This document 6 is dated January 29, 1988. And that would be Staff Exhibit 3. 7 (The document referred to was 8 marked for identification as 9 Staff Exhibit-No. 3.) 10 The fourth document is entitled the affidavit of 11 Theodore L. Szymanski. This is dated February 17, 1988. That-12 would be Staff Exhibit 4. And I am now presenting three copies () 13 of each document to the court reporter. Mr. Vogler will hand 14 the court reporter the copies. 15 (The document referred to was 16 marked for identification as l 17 Staff Exhibit No. 4.) 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I assume, Mr. Morabito, you have 19 no objection to those documents? 20 MR. MORABITO: I have no objection. ! 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Again, to the extent those 22 documents relate to matters that are no longer at issue, I will 23 not be relying on them. , 24 (Pause.) 25 The first thing that I would 11ko to do is get into t i ( Horitage Roporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 i i e , - - , , , - - - - , - - - - - , e-. - , , -w - - - -,,e. . , -- -- -
1 -m 16 1 the record a genera 1' description of the simulator and 2 Dr. Hetrick has a few questions to ask the various witnesses to. 3 establish certain features of it or lack of features of it. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito, if I could begin with 5 you. Is this a plant-specific simulator for one unit of Beaver 6 Valley Plant? 7 MR. MORABITO: Yes, it is. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Is there another simulator for the 9 other unit? They are separate? 10 MR. MORABITO: No, there is not. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: I see. 12 MR. MORABITO: We are still debating the issue as to 13 whether we can certify the Unit i simulator as a simulation {3 m/ ' 14 facility for Unit 2 or whether we have to purchase a Unit 2 15 reference simulator. But there is right now one simulator and 16 it is plant specific for Unit 1. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: For Unit 1. And it is a control room 18 replica? 19 MR. MORABITO: Yes, it is. 20 JUDGE HETRICK: As reasonable complete, would you 21 say? 22 MR. MORABITO: Yes, it is. 23 JUDGE HETRICK: How old is the Unit i simulator? 24 MR. MORABITO: About three years. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Do you know the manufacturer? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 F m - . - - . , . , _ .
17 N/ 1 MR. MORABITO: Westinghouse. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: It's built by Westinghouse? 3 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: With what type of computer? Do you 5 know? 6 MR. MORABITO: Can Mr. Schad answer some of these 7 questions? 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We will swear Mr. Schad. 9 Mr. Schad? ! 10 MR. SCHAD: Yes, sir. . 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We will swear you in as a witness. 12 Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the 13 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, (]) 14 God? 15 MR. SCHAD: I do. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you identify yourself, 17 including spelling your name and your background, briefly, just 18 for the record? 19 MR. SCHAD: My name is Lawrence G. Schad, S-C-H-A-D. . 20 I am currently the Simulator Coordinator at Beaver Valley Power 21 Station. My background: I spent six years in the nuclear 22 Navy. I was a supervisor at the Shippingport Atomic Power 23 Plant. I was a shift supervisor at the Beaver Valley Unit 1 l 24 for original start-up and subsequent operations. I was the 25 operations supervisor at the Unit 1 Beaver Valley Plant for i O Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
~ .- - - -
y l
/'N 18 I N] l 1 about seven years. And I was transferred to the simulator i 2 project in 1985. And I held an SRO license on the Unit 1 since 3 1976.
4 JUDGE HETRICK: .You currently hold an SRO license? 5 MR. SCHAD: That is correct. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: So, you have gone through a number of 7 recertifications. Is that right? 8 MR. SCHAD: That is correct. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: This came up when I asked the 10 question about the computer. What is the hardware of the 11 computer in the simulator? 12 MR. SCHAD: It is a Gold 8780 model. () 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito, you have had occasion 14 to go through a lot of training using the simulator, I assume. 15 How many hours training is involved in getting ready for this 16 SRO license examination? Hours of operation with the 17 simulator? 18 MR. MORABITO: Probably in the actual getting ready 19 for the examination about three weeks' worth of work at about 20 six or seven hours per day. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: And in doing this, are there people 22 who play the role of examiners? 23 MR. MORABITO: Yes. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Is there people in the training 25 organization at Beaver Valley? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
d g 19 1 MR. MORABITO: We have instructors who operate the 2 simulator and they perform the role of the NRC examiners as 3 they run us through various scenarios. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: And these people have separate 5 control areas where they set up incidents for the trainees to 6 diagnose and the response? 7 MR. MORABITO: That's correct, yes, sir. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, I have a few general 9 questions about the simulator exams and the first one deals l 10 with -- it relates to my previous question, (b)(1)(d), 11 concerning the multiple use of the single unsatisfactory 12 observations. And I have a question of the Staff on this. And 13 that is whether a single action or statement, per se, becomes 14 more significant because it may affect more than one 15 competency. And, as an example, the one I deem -- the comment 16 2 on the compliance use of procedures and comment 3 on
- 17 communications crew interactions. That was the one where 18 Mr. Morabito muttered some words perhaps to himself,'perhaps 19 not. But the thinking out loud comment. Does that become more 20 significant because it affects two competencies than it would 21 if it just affected one? Any of the Staff witnesses who know, l 22 or all of you can answer.
23 MR. NORRIS: If I understand your question, sir, it 24 is not that one action or comment would become more significant ' 25 because it addresses more than one competency. We take the () Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888
4 l 20 Y,_s) ~ 1 individual actions and, if they fit more than one competency,- 2 we.just address them within those individual competencies. And 3 then we rate the' competency based on the comments that the 4 Staff has made for that competency. 5 JUDGE BECHh0EFER: So, then, if a particular comment 6 were not significant enough to result in a flunking of one 7 competency, does that mean it would not be significant enough 8 to result in a flunking of the other competency as well? 9 MR. NORRIS: I can't say that statement is a true 10 statement across the board. A action or a comment by a 11 candidate may be a significant comment within one competency, 12 but not significant enough to fall him, but in another j 13 competency, that same action or statement may be cause to fail (]) ; 14 that competency. It would depend on the specific action taken. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, my next general question 16 concerns how M ratings, I should say, were handled. Because I r i 17 notice there are no M ratings in the current edition of the l 18 Operator License Standards, but there were at the time of this ; 19 exam. How would multiple M comments be evaluated? Would 20 M comments, by themselves, if enough of them existed add up to
- 21 an unsatisfactory in a competency?
22 MR. SZYMANSKI: We have wrestled with that for a long 23 time. And that is probably one of the major reasons why we no 24 longer have a marginal rating. We always question ourselves i 25 What would be the decision on the examination if every ( Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888 I l
V~
.rm 21 L] 1 competency was rated marginal. And the difficulty there is 2 Well, what we are saying is he cer'tainly isn't unsatisfactory.
3 He certainly is marginal because that is what we are rating him 4 as. And did we want to face the situation whereby we would 5 license a person who we would say was a. marginal operator. 6 So, would he be rated as satisfactory? Most likely. 7 All M's, he would be rated as satisfactory. At that time, that 8 is probably what would have occurred. It never occurred, but 9 that is probably what would have happened. 10 MR. NORRIS: Judge Bechhoefer? 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 12 MR. NORRIS: I will ask a clarification from you. {} 13 Are you asking for marginal with respect to the comments -- are 14 you asking about like the comments under "Use of Procedures," 15 whether we rate each one of those four comments as marginal? 16 Was that your question? 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, my question would be if all 18 four or however many comments there were under one competency 19 were rated marginal, would that result in an unsatisfactory for 20 that competency. That was what I was trying to drive at. 21 MR. NORRIS: We don't rate the individual comments 22 that we make under each conpetency. The comments are, they are 23 just comments. A comment usually designating a single specific 24 unsatisfactory action or statement. We then take those 25 comments to make the determination whether that competency l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y~N , 22 Q
.1 should have been rated as satisfactory, marginal or t'
2 unsatisfactory. We don't rate each individual comment,-sir. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. These ES Standards seem to 4 indicate each -- well, each competency would be' rated, but it 5 seems to be focused in terms of an individual comment. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: May I ask a question to clarify? P 7 As I understand it, you are saying that within one 8 competency, there may be niany comments? ; 9 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. ! 10 JUDGE HETRICK: You put them together and decide on a 11 rating for that competency. 12 MR. NORRIS: That is correct, sir. f () 13 JUDGE nCTRICK: And that could be marginal or [ 14 unsatisfactory. All right. And then there are eight ! 15 competency categories. 16 MR. NORRIS: Correct. , l 17 JUDGE HETRICK: And I understand the original j i 18 question then to be hypothetical Suppose a candidate received 19 marginal in the eight competencies. And I got the impression ] 20 that, yee, such a person probably would still have passed the i t 21 examination, as a hypothetical case. ) l 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the reason I asked the 23 question the way I did was the way these operator licensing j 24 examiner standards read, I am focus on No. ES 303. I don't ; 25 know if you have -- well, I guess they are page numbered the ; ( Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 i l 4 I
, , ~ - , - - - .
23 4 p 1 same. This is page 1 of.6.1 2 MS.-WOODHEAD: Judge Bechhoefer, can-you tell us what 3 revision it is that you are looking at? i
'4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Revision 2.
5 MS. WOODHEAD: Revision 2. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. This would not be in the 7 latest revision. Under the last paragraph on the page, they 8 talk about an example of a marginal evaluation and they saam to 9 focus that on one response. Do you see the paragraph 1 t-10 referring to at the bottom of the page? t 11 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And so that is why I was at least ; 13 viewing the evaluation on a question-by-question or 14 action-by-action basis. It seems to be focused on a single ! 15 obsr:rvation or action. 16 MR. NORRIS: If a decision within a competency was to l 17 be based on a single comment, then you are right in that we i 18 would have to rate that individual comment as marginal or l f l 19 unsatisfactory. But when there are a number of comments for a 20 specific competency, they go together and a decision is made i 21 based on those numerous comments whether that competency should 22 be marginal or unsatisfactory. This would be trying to clarify 23 an individual comment, if you thought that comment was 24 significant enough to be unsatisfactory in and of itself. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: I'm looking for a clarification in ; i O Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 . r
1 (~S 24
%.)
I this standard that explains what you have told me a few moments 2 ago that if there is more than one comment, then you must 3 consider all of them together in arriving at a rating for a 4 category of competence. And this is at least confusing, it 5 seems to me. 6 MR. NORRIS: Realize that ES 303 is not talking about 7 simply a simulator examination, but the entire examination. 8 That included the plant walk through, the theoretical section 9 and the control room systems. The Form 157, which was in use 10 at that time had numerous categories that you needed to 11 evaluate as part of the examination. Each of those categories 12 was also rated as S, M, or U. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, yes. I understand. (s') 14 MR. NORRIS: So, we had to make a determination to 15 each one of those grades and follow up on that. And then as 16 the simulator examination, we had to rate eight competencies as 17 S , M, or U. And the comments were just our supporting l 18 documentation for that decision. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: That answers my question. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Morabito, do you have an l 21 comments on that general subject before we go on with something 22 else? 23 MR. MORABITO: Well, I note that in your memorandum , 24 and order requesting answers to various questions, you cited 25 each of the comments that the examiners had put down and you . ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
ic r"S 25
' Gl-1 asked: Would this comment by itself have been sufficient to 2 generate a U or an unsatisfactory. rating?
3- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's correct. 4 MR. MORABITO: In each of those cases, the examiners 5 explained that: No, none of those comments by themselves would 6 constituto a U rating, which means that at the very worst,'they 7 must all be M's. And, now, I get back to the question that you 8 were raising earlier. When you say How can you take four 9 M's, for example, under "Compliance and Use of Procedures," and 10 come up with a U. 11 And I would also like to point out that of those four 12 comments on compliance and use of procedures where-the j 13 aaminers have indicated that the unsatisfactory rating was
-(]) f 14 based on four comments and they underline the word, "four," the l
15 Region gave in durinc the appeal process on one of those 16 comments. So, there really is currently only three comments i 17 existing. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was going to get to that when I 19 got to the question. When we got to the area. I might add I 20 don't read the Staff's various affidavits or have any comments 21 saying that any one of them was M. I think they considered 22 them all U, but it is herd for me to say given just answers. I i 23 had thought that each one was rated individually. And, of 24 course, there were on some of these -- let me turn to another 25 thing, a chart. [ i C:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
26 1 MR. NORRIS: Judge Bechhoefer? 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes? 3 MR. NORRIS: If I may clarify something, you asked if 4 any one of the four comments in and of itself would have caused 5 the competency to be rated as unsatisfactory. We did not say 6 that the four comments in and of themselves, each one was 7 marginal. 8 Each one of the comments, in and of itself, in this 9 case, would be an unsatisfactory comment, but each comment in 10 and of itself is not significant enough if it was the only 11 comment in an area, to declare a whole competency as 12 unsatisfactory. ,S 13 We did not in this case consider any of the comments 'G 14 to be marginal. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think thac's how I understood 16 the conwents. 17 I would like to now turn to specific comments on the 18 simulator exam. And I want to go through the terms of the 19 questions asked previously. 20 My question Number B2A1 concerning the power range 21 instruments giving readings different, two of them giving 22 readings different from the other two, I would like the staff 23 to comment on Mr. Morabito's statement on that lasue, which 24 appears on Pages 8 and 9 of his responses to my questions. 25 Pages 8 and 9 of Morabito Exhibit 3. fs \") Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
27 (m 'V 1 l'd like the staff to comment on whether they 2 consider what is on Pagea 8 and 9 a plausible response to why 3 certain things happen and would the evaluation remain the same 4 or change as the result of this explanation. 5 It starts on Page 8 and carries over through Page 9. 6 Perhaps through the top of Page 10, as a matter of fact. 7 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, Your Honor. He do accept that 8 that is o possible reason why two of the indications were 9 reading differently from the other two indications. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, in view of that explanation, 11 was the action that Mr. Morabito actually took grievable, when 12 he saw these matters? () 13 MR. NORRIS: We did not fault Mr. Morabito on this 14 comment for not determining why the indications were not 15 consistent. 16 The comment was that he had inconsistent indications 17 for whatever reason they may have been. Rather than pursuing a 18 path of determining why they were not consistent, using an 19 approved procedure to have either his instrumentation and 20 control people do a check of the instrumentation or have a 21 surveillance procedure run, which are approved procedures, have 22 been looked at by the staff of Duquesne Light, he went in the 23 direction without use of a procedure to reduce power and on his 24 own just see if the four instruments were in fact tracking 25 consistently. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
, -q 28 ( 4
1 The comment was that he did not follow approved 2 procedures. We did not fault him for not determining at that 3 time why they weran't consistent.
4 JUDGE HETRICK: The comment originally says the 5 procedure calls for the plant to be in Mode 3 if two power 6 range channels are malfunctioning. 7 Could you clarify what that means? O MR. NORRIS: Mode 3, sir, is a condition called hot 9 shutdown. The reactor is shut down. The plant is being 10 maintained in a hot condition. I believe for Beaver Valley 11 that is greater than 350 degrees. But I am not positive. But 12 it's a case where the reactor is in fact shut down. It's at fs 13 less than zero percent power. t 14 The comment that it should be in Mode 3 if more than 15 one instrument is malfunctioning or considered inoperable, by 16 having two of them not reading the same as two others, and Mr. 17 Morabito saying I need to reduce power to see whether they are 18 in fact operable or not, he is making a determination that my 19 indications are not consistent. I've got a potential for two 20 of them not being accurate. He did not go in the safe 21 direction of putting the plant either in Mode 3 as required or 22 in having a surveillance procedure initiated to determine if in 23 fact he had four operable power range instruments. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Now, to go to Mode 3 doesn't 25 necessarily -- well, does it necessarily mean a reactor trip, O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/~N 29 \)
1 or a slow approach to low power? 2 MR. NORRIS: There is no need in this condition to i r 3 initiate a reactor trip. They could have in fact shut down the 4 plant by reducing power. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Slowly? 6 MR. NORRIS: Slowly, controlled evolution, and making , 1 7 sure in fact which ones of his instruments were the correct 8 indication of power before he started that evolution. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: The comment itself makes no reference 10 to other than the 10 percent power reduction, but as I read now 11 in Exhibit 3, in Morabito's Exhibit 3, I judged that we were 12 facing potential loss of control, and again ordered (]) 13 conservative action, reactor trip. 14 Is that what was done, actually? ', 15 MR. NORRIS: I'm sorry. Could you say that again? 16 MR. MORABITO: Dr. Hetrick? - 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Maybe Mr. Morabito should answer 18 that. 19 MR. MORABITO: I think you are a little bit ahead. 20 You are later on in the scenario. The power range malfunctions 21 were determined prior to that. The situation that you're 22 reading about there is when we had the turbine throttle valves, ; 23 or the governor valves, I forget which they were, 24 malfunctioning and we had this dilution going on which I had 25 not diagnosed so we were having a problem on the reactor side, CE) Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
a 30 0- 1 im were having a problem on the turbine plant side, couldn't a 2 gain control of either one of those situations. And so I
.3 ordered a reactor trip.
4 JUDGE HETRICK: So that is later'in the scenario. 5 'MR. MORABITO: That's later in the scenario. 6- JUDGE HETRICK: And not relevant'to what is listed'in 7 the examiner's comments. 8 MR. MORABITO: No. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: .In that -- 10 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, I believe so. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Now, one of the questions I recall-i 12 was asked was, is a procedure needed to make a small power 13 reduction, and staff's answer was no, it isn't necessarily. 1 14 I guess my question here is -- 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, they said not in an 16 emergency, which this wasn't. 4 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, the original question was l 18 intended, is a procedure required at any time to make say a 10 19 percent power reduction. Is that true or should that be 20 qualified? 21 MR. NORRIS: Rather, the Beaver Valley procedures 1 22 specifically require a procedure be reference for a 10 percent 23 power reduction. I don't have that procedure available. That 24 is a normal evolution, that they should be able to handle 25 without reference to a procedure. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i-1 f~~} 31 V 1 JUDGE HETRICK: And in this case, Mr. Morabito, you ; 2 elected to do this as a diagnostic tool. Is that correct? 3 MR. MORABITO: That is correct. f
-l 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Is this something that you had 5 encountered during training? Perhaps used before, or discussed 6 or thought of as a possible action?
7 MR. MORABITO: The power reduction for diagnosis of 8 problems? 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. 10 MR. MORABITO: Yes. That is not an unusual approach. 11 The use of these particular instruments, these 12 recorders, they are not a normal reference tool during () 13 operations, and I would have to say that I had never worked 14 with them nor have very many trainees ever encountered their , 15 use during the course of the scenario. So I was caught by 16 surprise when I happened to observer that I had two recorders 17 going in one direction and two recorders going in another 18 direction. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: When did it first occur to you this 20 might be a symptom of a dilution? 21 MR. MORABITO: Not until after the scenario exam the t 22 next day in going over the scenario in my mind and with Larry 23 Schad and several other instructors at the facility, we 24 researched exactly what those recorders were doing and 25 determined that in fact the first two were reading top Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 32 x_/ 1 detectors. The far range instruments are set up in four 2 channels, each channel having a top detector and a bottom 3 detector. 4 The four recorders have two tracings on each recorder 5 and I made an assumption that they were simply recording the 6 top and bottom detectors on each of the four recorders. That 7 assumption was incorrect. In fact, the first two recorders 8 were recording the top detector output and the second two were 9 recording the bottom detector output. 10 Now, if you take that knowledge and you put it 11 togetner and you say, oh, obviously there was some homogeneous 12 perturbation to reactivity going on in the core. But at the [ () 13 time, I looked at it and I said no, it looks like some kind of 14 an axial perturbation or a non-homogeneous perturbation to 15 reactivity, and we were looking for something like a stuck rod
- 16 or a dropped rod, something along those lines, a stratification 17 of cooling in the core, something like that.
18 JUDGE HETRICK: I need another clarification here. 19 Each channel consists of the top detector and the 20 bottom detector. Does that mean that each channel is reading , 21 an average of indications top and bottom? ! 22 MR. MORABITO: The channel output that the operator I 23 sees is in fact an average. Yes, sir. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: All right. Essentially an average. 25 Then I guess I am confused about why two channels could be O Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 I
, 33 1 rising and two dropping.
2 MR. MORABITO: We didn't have two channels rising and 3 two dropping. We had two top detectors, four top detectors 4 showing decreasing power, four botton detectors showing 5 increasing power. 6 It was evenly dispersed around the core. What was 7 happening was the power peak was siinply shif ting away from the 8 top detectors, closer to the bottom detectors, so that the 9 detectors in summation were still getting the same power 10 output. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: That's my question. If each channel 12 is an average or sums of top and bottom, now could you tell 13 what was happening at the top as compared to the bottom? 14 MR. MORABITO: Because the recorders recorded the 15 specific output of each detector. 16 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, each detector was being 17 displayed? 18 MR. MORABITO: Yos, sir. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: That was not clear in your comment. 20 Then how could this be a homogeneous change in 21 reactivity? 22 MR. MORABITO: Well, it was something that was t 23 affecting the core in general. The core responded to 24 reactivity being put into it by initially increasing 25 temperature. We saw that as an increase in T-AVE. The increase l ( He.-itage Reporting Corporation > (202) 628-4888
?
g .c 34 U 1 in T-AVE was picked up by the automatic rod control survey and 2 the rods began stepping in in response to that increased T-AVE. 3 And it was this rod motion inward that forced this 4 power peak down towards the bottom of the core. 5 so it_was essentially a homogeneous reectivity input 6 into the core causing the rods themselves which are equally, 7 which are symmetrically spaced around the core, to begin 8 inserting and causing the power distribution to change. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Then in this case do I understand 10 homogeneous to refer to the radial distribution? 11 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE ilETRICK: Okay. I understand. 13 Did it then not occur to you to follow a procedure 14 for attempting to diagnose malfunction in this scenario? 15 MR. MORABITO: I was doing a diagnosis. There is no 16 procedure that covers this situation. JUDGE HETRICK: 17 But now, the comments by the 4 18 examiner, number one, comments -- the candidate did not consult > 19 any procedure. And later it says, AOP 10 calls for the plant 20 to be in Mode 3. Which sounds like a reference to an operating 21 procedure. Right? 22 MR. MORABITO: AOP 10 is an abnormal operating 23 procedure. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Abnormal operating procedure. 25 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
' if 8 I
I O 1 JUDGE HETRICK: But you apparently did not consult l 2 AOP 10.. Is that correct?
'3. MR. MORABITO: That is correct. I did not consult ;
4 AOP 10. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Why? 6 MR. MORABITO: For two reasons. There are no 7 symptoms that lead you into AOP 10. The closest symptom is one , 8 that states erratic indication of instrumentation. Well, I 9 didn't have erratic indications. I.had indications that I l 10 didn't understand. In fact, they weren't erratic. They were 7 11 responding to a real situation. ! 12 Even had I looked at them as something that needed to 13 be clarified, I would have had to say to myself well, which of . 14 the-two are reading erratically? You know, which of the two
- 15 sets are reading erratically? I had no way of determining that1 16 without doing some diagnosis.
17 Now, if I may, I would like to point out, and I have
- .18 AOP 10 here if the examiners don't have it, but there is only I 19 one step in AOP 10 that references the situation had I gone to
20 AOP 10 and that step basically says the plant shall be placed 21 in Mode 3 within an hour. It doesn't tell you anything to do. 1 22 I still had to do something. Can I submit AOP 10 as , I 23 an exhibit? 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Let's defer that for a moment, 25 because I would like to ask the staff witnesses at this point, , i C:) . , Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 l 1
36 (o) 1 is that your understanding? 2 Well, let me be more specific. Let me be more 3 specific and say would the operator reference AOP 10 only if , 4 something were happening which he would characterize as 5 erratic? 6 MR. NORRIS: I believe AOP 10 has two entry , 7 conditions -- erratic or drifting indication. 8 Mr. Morabito did not know which of his indications if 9 any were in fact accurate of plant conditions. A prudent 10 operator, if he is not sure of his indications, would try and 11 verify what in fact was the correct indication. There are 12 means of doing that, as in he could have performed a secondary 13 plant caliometric; he could have had his instrumentation people
}
14 perform a check of the instrumentation. 15 And the best time to do that would be to hold the 16 plant in a steady state condition. + 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Was this scenario designed with these 18 events in mind, that there would be the drifting indications 19 that would require the operator to refer to AOP 10? 20 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. The scenario was designed with 21 a dilution accident that would cause the temperature and power 22 to change and then it would be evaluating the board operators' 23 and the senior operators' ability to evaluate the problem and j 24 locate the malfunction, and then hopefully correct it. u 25 The reason the two power range instruments, and I l b l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
o 37 (--) 1 wanted to clarify that it wasn't the recorders that.we were 2 looking at. We were looking at the four power range meters on 3 the board. Two of the power range. indications were reading 4 differently than the other two. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: And this was unexpected? J 6 MR. NORRIS: It was unexpected by our part. But we. 7 expected the candidates to perform some kind of investigative 8 evaluation as to why they were different. 9 Now, Mr. Morabito says he thought it could have been 10 a stuck rod. They do have procedures for evaluating a stuck 11 rod. That was not utilized. : 12 If he thought his indications were not accurate, he 13 should have determinod which ones were not accurate. There , 14 could have just been a problem in the gain of the instruments - 15 was incorrect. ; 16 Instead he went in an unsafe direction of just ! 17 changing the plant conditions to see if things were consistent. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Why is that unsafe? - 19 MR. NORRIS: He did not know which instruments were - 20 reading wrong. If he was conscientiously going in the 21 direction of a plant shutdown, he should have,been informing 22 personnel, saying why he was going in that direction, in which 23 case he would have declared two of the power range instruments i 24 as inoperable. He never did that, 25 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand it was not characterized [
/T !
(_/' ' Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
38 (~ x - 1 as a shutdown. 2 MR. NORRIS: He was not characterizing a shutdown. 3 He was doing an investigative action on his part. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Is this an unreasonable way to 5 investigate? 6 MR. NORRIS: I consider it so, yes, sir. He has - 7 procedures to investigate which have been approved. ; 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito, the stuck rod 9 possibility was mentioned again. You said you thought of that 10 as a possible cause of this. 11 IiR . MORABITO: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: But you decided not to take action 13 according to a procedure telling you what to do in case of 14 stuck rod? 15 MR. MORABITO: We did take action. We verified our 16 rod positions against the position indicators in the control 17 room. We saw no indication of stuck rod. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: So that was quickly dismissed? 19 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE HETRICK: I see. 21 MR. MORABITO: We saw no jndication of a dropped rod. . 22 We saw no indication of any problem other than the fact that 23 our T-Average temperature was increasing. And there was not 24 time to call in instrument people or do an operating 25 surveillance test of anything like that. I had to take action Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i
73 39 1 to keep my highest power range indication from exceeding its 2 limits. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: When do you mean when you say there 4 was not time? Let me ask another hypothetical question here. 5 I understand the scenarios are designed to illustrate 6 a certain sequence of events. A simulator may not always do
-7 what is expected of it. In fact, this appears to be such a 8 case. Am I right? This was unexpected?
9 MR. NORRIS: It was unexpected on our part, yes, sir. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: So here is an unexpected situation 11 which could be diagnosed as safe or unsafe or at least unusual, 12 but to you it could have been a symptom of something that had 13 been planned in the scenario. Is that right? 14 MR. MORADITO: Yes, sir. l 15 JUDGE HETRICK: So I ask, what do you mean when you 10 say you had no time? Did it not occur to you that this was a 17 situation planned to investigate whether you would go into the 18 AOP 10 or not? 19 MR. MORABITO: No, it did not occur to me that it may i 20 have been a planned situation to force me into AOP 10. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: I see. Staff witness called your 22 action unsafe. What is your response to that? t 23 MR. MORABITO: Well, as I indicated, AOP 10 requires 24 that the plant be placed in Mode 3 within an hour if in fact 25 there are two power range nuclear instruments malfunctioning. i Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
t , 40 1 First off, I didn't know that there were two. But 2 there are at least two ways of achieving Mode 3 conditions. 3 One is by a slow, controlled reactivity -- a slow, 4 controlled shutdown and one is by a reactor trip. I elected to 5 cause a slow, controlled shutdown to occur, for two reasons. 6 One, because I knew that if in fact we had two power 7 range instruments malfunctioning we would have to be in Mode 3 8 within an hour. Certainly shutting down the reactor is not an 9 unsafe operation. 10 The second and major reason was to determine which of 11 my two power range nuclear instruments were in fact 12 malfunctioning. And I needed to do that by an operational g3 13 check, which is. permitted by station procedare. (J 14 I ordered specifically a 10 percent reduction in 15 power. I did not tell them to go any farther than that. And 16 as we commenced the shutdown, after about 5 percent, I observed 17 that all of the nuclear instruments responded accordingly. 18 Therefore, I did not have two failed power range 19 instruments and I did not have to achieve Mode 3 within an 20 hour. 21 Also, the operation of shutting down the reactor or 22 reducing power by 10 percent caused the reactor operator to add 23 boron to the core which also subsequently reduced the 24 temperature, the average temperature, which had been increasing 25 on us in response to the dilution. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
h 1 And so we regained all of our parameters to normal 2 control specifications. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: Is that boron addition automatic or a ' 1 4 manual action by an operator? 5 MR. MORABITO: It's a manual action on the part of 6 the operator. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: Something that is normal in a power 8 reduction? 9 MR. MORABITO: Yes, it is. l 10 JUDGE HETRICK: For what reason? Why is it done? 11 MR. MORABITO: To account for the excess reactivity ; 12 in the core that isn't controlled by the control rods. I 13 JUDGE HETRICK: And what is the source of that i 14 reactivity? ;
- 15 MR. MORABITO
- Well, it is the fuel that is built 16 into the core for extended power operation beyond initial 17 criticality.
18 JUDGE HETRICK: But what makes thr reactivity change 19 at this point? 20 MR. MORABITO: Various things. Temperature of the 21 moderator, temperature of the fuel. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: I think also the word reasonable, ; 23 maybe I suggested it -- staff witness called your action unsafe [ 24 and I think I asked him if it was reasonable or not. Is that 25 right? O ^ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ! l
1, e~ 42 ' (_)s I believe so, sir. 1 MR. NORRIS: 2 MR. MORABITO: I would at this poir.t like to submit a 3 page of the operating manual, Chapter 48, that describes 4 response to a non-normal instrument and control indication, 5 which in fact is what I had. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: I think we should have it. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Co you have copies for 8 everybody including the staff? 9 MR. MORABITO: Yes, I do. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And us? 11 MR. MORABITO: Well, I have six copies. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Normally you would move to have (} 13 this marked as Morabito Exhibit 4. 14 MR. MORABITO: I apologize for my lack of procedural 15 knowledge, 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I'm teaching you how to be a 17 lawyer. 18 Then, you have to give staff a chance to object while 19 it's marked for identification. 20 (Whereupon, the document 21 referred to was marked for 22 identification as Morabito 23 Exhibit 4.) 24 MR. MORABITO: I would like to call your attention -- 25 can I go on? ; ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
J,s 43 ; K) 1 -JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Then.we have to decide if we admit . i 2 it into evidence or not. 3 MR. MORABITO: Okay. .; 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Hold on. t 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was this AOP 10 or not? - 6 JUDGE HETRICK: I don't know. 7 (Remarks off the record) 8 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Bechhoefer? 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 10 MS, WOODHEAD: I believe the staff has objection to 11 this. There is no date on it and it is an incomplete document. 12 We don't know what the purpose of the submission of the ( 13 document is. But without a better identification for it I l 14 don't believe it would serve its purpose. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Horabito, could you identify j 16 where this is and when this -- its applicability date, that 17 kind of thing? , i 18 MR. MORABITO: This is'a page out of the Beaver 19 Valley Unit i Operating Manual, Chapter 48, Section 2. It is [ 20 marked as Issue 2, Revision 2, and I cannot specify the date. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was it in effect as of the date 22 you took your examination? ; t 23 MR. MORABITO: Since I -- 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Which is the relevant inquiry 25 here. , ( Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
44 O
'l 1 MR. MORABITO: I understand. I can't, I don't know 2 that any changes have occurred to this page or this chapter 3 since the time of my exams. This isn't something new but I 4 cannot swear that changes have not occurred, and that this was 5 the page that was in effect at the time of my exam. I don't 6 know. I would have to look at the manual page that lists the 7 effective date of the revision..
8 JUDGE HETRICK: Is this relevant to AOP 107 9 MR. MORABITO: Well, yes, I believe it is in a way 10 because AOP 10 says to try to achieve, or you shall achieve, 11 Mode 3 conditions within an hour. 12 This statement -- should I go on with it or are we 13 going to deal with the objection here? 14 JUDGE HETRICK: I think we're trying to identify it 15 as closely as we can. The objection is still pending, I guess. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Oh, yes. I haven't ruled on 17 it. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Right. 19 MR. MORABITO: Okay. Let me explain a little further 20 then why I've submitted it. 21 Item C(8) deals with the abnormal or non-normal 22 instrument in control indications. And basically it says that 23 if you can't identify what is going on, and you are approaching 24 a protective limit on some instrument, you let that protection 25 occur. Or if it is an instrument that does not have a
- Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
/R 45 L) 1 protective function associated with it, you respond to it with 2 conservative action.
3 Now, the indications that I had were of two, four 4 actually, power range indicators increasing beyond their 100 5 percent power capacity. 6 This was a non-normal response that required some 7 type of conservative reaction on my part. The most 8 conservative action that I came up with when you have a power 9 range indication increasing beyond 100 percent power is to 10 reduce power. And that is what I did. 11 (Remarks off the record) 12 JUDGE HETRICK: May I ask a question of staff () 13 witness, please? 14 Hr. Morabito has referred to conservative action. I 15 understand that you have characterized the same action as 16 unsafe. Is that correct? 17 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Then please resolve my confusion. 19 MR. NORRIS: We do not consider shutting the plant 20 down as an unsafe action. Completely the opposite. Shutting 21 down is almost always the safest action you can take. 22 What we were :riticizing Mr. Morabito for is his 23 determination that tw. 1.dications were different. Rather than 24 pursuing why they were different and which one was in fact the 25 correct indication if any of them, he started to shut the plant G V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
46 ! {} 1 down. . Now, I do not recall if in fact we were greater than 100 2 percent power because of the dilution accident. I do not 3 recall if we were or not. But if that was the case, he was 4 reducing power because we were greater than 100, it would be a 5 different evaluation than the reducing power because 6 indications were different. 7 The reason we were reducing power during the 8 scenario, listening to Mr. Morabito's directions to his 9 operators, was reduce power and we'll determine if we've got a 10 problem or if the indications do in fact track. At no time was 11 it said we're reaching a safety limit. At no time was it said 12 we've got a problem, we need to reduce power now. 13 His whole point was reduce power, indications are not 14 consistent. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: So then -- i 16 MR. NORRIS: So we faulted him for doing an { 17 unauthorized -- basically he was almost doing an unauthorized l' 18 surveillance . 19 JUDGE HETRICK: So then do I understand that what you 20 are characterizing as unsafe is the failure not to determine . 21 which instrument was reading incorrectly or erratically, is 22 that right? ! 23 MR. NORRIS: That is correct, in conjunction with not 24 making that determination in accordance with a procedure. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand. ! i ' O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; i i h
47 -/~)' (_ 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you clarify something? When 2 a person uses a procedure, and the procedure eventually calls 3 for reducing power, the person starts to reduce power, what 4 does one mean by using the procedure -- 5 MR. NORRIS: Using a procedure, air -- 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is that different from just 7 starting the action to reduce power? 8 MR. NORRIS: The number of procedures that a nuclear 9 power plant has is extensive. There are very small portions of 10 it that we expect memorized, nor does the facility in this 11 case, Duquesne Light, expect the procedure to be memorized. 12 There are certain emergency operating procedure () 13 actions that must be memorized and normal evolutions of the 14 normal operating procedure, if it is something they do 15 routinely and they are sure they can perform the task 16 flawlessly, they are allowed to perform it without actually 17 opening up the book and reading it. 18 An abnormal procedure that has no immediate action 19 associeted with it is not something you perform routinely, and 20 is not expected to be memorized actions. So we would expect if 21 he determines that he is going to shut down because he has 22 malfunctioning power range, then he should in fact open the 23 abnormal operating procedures, go to AOP 10 and read it prior 24 to taking any action and then it is verbatim compliance to that 25 procedure, step by step, in order. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. 48
\
(~l x- 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: If happens to know it, does he 2 have to go open the book anyway? 3 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I've cited a few cases that I know 5 pretty well without necessarily going to the book. 6 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, he is required by his 7 procedures, if it is not a normal evolution or a memorized 8 action, to have the book open in front of him. Now, he may I 9 open it, read it, then go do the action. But it is to be 10 opened prior to the action, and reviewed prior to the action. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So even though he may know it 12 cover to cover, he has to still open the book? 13 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. Those procedures may have r~) 14 changed since the last time he looked at it, i 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. 16 JUDGE HETRICK: Is that your understanding, Mr. ' 17 Morabito? ; 18 MR. MORABITO: Yes, it is. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me back up just a moment. You 20 said that when he decided to reduce power, he told the operator l I 21 that he was doing this for the purpose of seeing how the 22 instruments responded rather than doing it for the purpose of I 23 the safe shutdown. Did I understand you correctly? 24 MR. NOHRIS: Yes, sir, to the best of my knowledge. l 25 It may not have been those words but it was let's investigate Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l i
49 U'N 1 and see if these indications are in fact tracking. Discussion 2 to that effect. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: That is what Mr. Morabito earlier 4 referred to as a quote "operational check"7 5 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: That is how you understand it. I see. 7 And that action was a surprise to the examiners, is that right? 8 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, in that he did not use some 9 form of approved procedure to investigate this. He was not in 10 an emergency condition where he had to act immediately. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand. And that is why I 12 wrote a question earlier which said does the operator need to consult the procedure in order to make a small power reduction. (]) 13 14 MR. NORRIS: It's not that he was making a small 15 power reduction. If all his indications were in fact 16 consistent, and for some reason he wished to reduce power, 17 that's within his right as the supervisor. We didn't fault him 18 for not referring to a procedure for the power reduction. He 19 was now in the process of trying to alleviate inconsistencies 20 between his indications and that's what was done without a 21 procedure. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me quote from the examiner's 23 comment. 24 Compliance use of procedures, Comment Number 1: 25 "During first scenario, candidate did not consult any procedure O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
50 U' 1 when decreasing load..." and it goes on "...to check power 2 range indicator response." 3 So the fault is that the power reductions done for a 4 epecial reason, namely, confusion about the indications, the 5 fault is not the fact of the power reduction but the power 6 reduction for a particular reason. Is that correct? 7 MR. NORRIS: If I'm understanding, we're not faulting 8 him for doing the power reduction without procedure. It's for 9 ordering the power reduction before he referred to any other . 10 type of procedure. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito, did you understand that 12 as the reason for the comment? () 13 MR. MORABITO: I'm not sure that I understand what 14 Barry has just now said. JUDGE HETRICK: Well, let's make sure we do all - 15 16 understand. If you have a question, go ahead. 17 MR. MORABITO: Well, I have a couple comments. And 18 Larry Schad has asked if he can comment on this also. Is that 19 permissible. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: If I say it is, it will be. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Proceed. , 22 MR. MORABITO: Let me give my coraments, then. First 23 off, I have not agreed nor have we proven, nor do I believe we 24 have proven, that AOP 10 was the proper procedure to be in. [ 25 Even if you were in AOP 10, AOP 10 gives you no direction as to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a P 1 what to do, other than achieve Mode 3 conditions within an i 2 hour. 3 So it doesn't tell you how to go about it. You.would. 4- have to go about it by either doing a controlled shutdown or i 5 placing the reactor in a tripped condition. { 6 Either of those have their own particular procedures ! 7 to follow. If I were going to do a total controlled shutdown f 8 to achieve Mode 3 conditions, I would havo had to pull out the 9 appropriate operating procedure because there are several-10 things that happen as you go down through the power range. l I 11 I specifically limited the power reduction to 10 12 percent because there were no actions other than what was 13 (]) within the operator's normal operating capabilities to perform i 14 this power reduction. , 15 I would also like to state that this was not the 16 first time or the first indication to the operators that I said { 17 we should take, we should perform a power reduction. , t 18 Initially, when we observed our temperature, our 19 average temperature increasing, and these odd indications on ; 20 the power range instruments, and we checked the rod positions, [ r 21 we checked our axial flux deviations, we checked our power f I 22 range indications, everything that we could check we checked f 23 and could not come up with what was going on, and at that time, ! 24 I suggested, and I didn't order it, but I suggested to the j 25 operators, we should reduce power, to keep our temperature ! l !
) f Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 i l
52 ! O I within limits, j 2 Both operators at that time objected, saying if we ; I 3 reduce power, we're likely to make the situation worse, ! 4 because, as you reduce power, you gain reactivity from the ( 5 power defect. 2 hat's the cooling off of temperatures in the f 6 field. l 7 Consequently, I did not at that time order a power l
- I 8 reduction. We continued our investigation of indications and 9 so forth. Temperature continued to increase.
10 (Continued on Page 53) , 11 i 12 l 2 13 - 0 14 , i 15 i i : 16 l i j 17 18 19 i 20 i I 21 : 22 f 23 f 24 ! 25 [ t 1 0 Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 c l
53
-1 MR.EMORABITO: The rods continued to step in. The 2 -deviations in_the power range-indicators get_ worse. I then 3 turned around to_the operators and I said,. "I don't'know what .
4 is happening." 5 Just prior'to that the balance of plan operator had
~
6 suggested that perhaps there is a dilution occurring. The j 7 reactor operator looked at her fresh water integrator and the 8 position of the valves that control -- the automatic valves 9 .that control the addition of water to the reactor plant, and 10 from every indication she could see in.the control room on her 11 panel, there was no indication of a dilution occurring. 12 In fact, the dilution was occurring'because of a (} 13 problem in the manual _ valve in the plant that we would have had 14 to arrive at by checking schematic drawings once we [ 15 characterized that we had a dilution occurring. 16 So, the concept of a dilution was considered. We i I 17 couldn't see an indication of it from the_ control room. 18 I then turned to the operators and I said, I want to ; e 19 perform a 10 percent power reduction. I want to do it for two 20 reasons. One is to reduce temperature and gain our parameters
- 21 back within specs, and the other is to determine whether or not i
22 these power range channels are in fact acting erratically. [ 23 I said, now since we are going to do this reduction,
- 24 I want the operator to commence bore rating prior to taking the t
25 power reduction so that we would counter their concern about () l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(m 54 () 'l the effect of adding positive reactivity and making the 2 situation worse. 3 I believe that everything that we did was within my 4' purview as a supervisor, and within their operational 5 capabilities as operators. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did it require you to use any 7 particular procedure so that you would have to go open a book 8 and read it and all that kind of thing. 9 MR. MORABITO: No, sir, it did not. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Why was the temperature rising? 11 MR. MORABITO: Because of the dilution. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: 3hich was the intended scenario. 13 MR. MORABITO: Which was the intended scenario. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What you did, was that represented 15 by this Paragraph C8 on this sheet that you have given us? 16 MR. MORABITO: I believe that it was; yes, sir. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And is that the kind of procedure 18 you would have had to have turned to and look at first? 19 MR. MORABITO: No, this was the kind of thing that a 20 supervisor in a control room has in his mind. He knows that he 21 can do these kinds of things in operations. He would not have 22 to pull this procedure out and look at it and say, oh, yeah, I 23 can do this operational check. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: In terms of the date of this piece 25 of paper, is what is on this piece of paper equivalent enougn O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(f _ l' to what was on the paper when you took your exam, so that you 2 can say that this procedure, and I assume it's C8 that are 3 referring to, is what you actually did? 4 MR. MORABITO: I can't say that, sir. I don't have 5 any idea-what the date-on that paper is. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFERs, No, what I am saying is, is what 7 was in effect when you took your exam similar to this so that 8 this would describe -- I am trying to determine whether this is $- 9 relevant to your testimony. 10 MR. MORABITO: I understand. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And if it represents what you did, 12 and if that was what was more or less called for back when you {} 13 14 took your exam, then it could be relevant. But if we can't show -- I mean, if this was in effect in 1945, or whatever date
~
15 you want to pick, and no longer was in effect, it can't be very 16 useful. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me ask you it a little different 18 here. 19 To the best of your memory of, your training and your 20 preparing for this examination, does this Paragraph C8 21 represent what you would characterize as your probable response 22 and your thoughts about such a situation at the time? Is that 23 a fair question? 24 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir, it does. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: And it seems to me the relevant words O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
. 56 1 are, "The operator should believe the instrument and respond 2 conservatively."
3 Am I right? 4 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Did you response conservatively? 6 MR. MORABITO: I believe I did. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And what's the staff response to 8 that? 9 MR. NORRIS: If I could address that in two parts. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Please do. 11 MR. NORRIS: The first is whether this paragraph is 12 in effect at the time is probably not that important, because (} 13 the paragraph gives a relatively common sense direction to an 14 operator, as I believe your indications "act conservatively". 15 I've got no problem with what's in the paragraph. - 16 But you also should take into consideration the time 17 factor involved in taking this action, and in talking to the 18 other personnel as available on whether thin action is required 19 immediately. 20 That is, from our standpoint, the inajor concern is 21 that it was not an immediate action that had to be carried out 22 so fast that he d'on't have time to refer to all of his 23 appropriate procedures. 24 The plant was not going in an unsafe direction that 25 he had to respond immediately. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
57 I 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, that being the_ case, given 2 the fact that the approved procedure, I believe Mr. Morabito 3 stated it gave you an hour to do what you had to do. 4 Was it unreasonable for him to in effect test the 5 instruments using no procedure at all at that time without even 6 going into the procedure? 7 Why was it not reasonable to start out testing the 8 instruments? 9 MR. NORRIS: Again, he is performing a test that is 10 not authorized by procedures when there are already procedures 11 in effect that would accomplish the same final end. And he is 12 required by his administrative procedures to follow those other 13 approved procedures. O 14 JUDGE HETRICK: Would a plant have been in any danger 15 during this sequence as it actually happened? 16 Would there have been any danger to the plant? 17 MR. NORRIS: Due to Mr. Morabito's reducing power? 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, due to the whole sequence of 19 events that you have attributed to him. 20 MR. NORRIS: In this specific instance with him 21 reducing power, the actual reduction of power was not unsafe. 22 We did not cite him for -- 23 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand. 24 MR. NORRIS: Okay, the unsafe action. 25 JUDGE HSTRICK: I understand. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
58 p) n 1 Would it be fair to say then that.-- 2 MR. NORRIS: I'm sorry, sir, I couldn't hear you. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: Would it be fair to say then that
~4 your main objection to his actions is that he was -- he was
~5 being innovative in trying to find out whether instruments were 6 functioning properly or not? He invented his own procedure, 7 in other words.
8 Is that what you are saying? 9 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, in that he invented his own 10 procedure, to use your terminology, or innovative. He went in 11 a direction or performed a task that did not need to be 12 performed, and he was not into position when a necessity to {} 13 14 invent his own procedure. MR. HELD: Judge Bechhoefer, may I speak? May I add 15 something in here? 16 JUOGE BECHHOEFER: Sure. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: I would like to hear Mr. Morabito's 18 response to that. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 20 MR. MORABITO: Well, as I pointed out, there were two , 11 reasons for doing the power reduction. 22 We were approaching the temperature limit on T-ave. 23 Even though I didn't know that there was a dilution going on, 24 we were approaching the temperature limit. l I 25 I had suggested a power reduction before the A (/ l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 t
< 59
.(m)5 I temperature conditions were of an emergency type of condition,-
-2 and the operators had objected to that. And I stopped to 3 consider their objection.
4 Then as we failed to solve the problem, and 5 temperature continued to increase, I said, we have got to do 6 something. And I don't know of any procedure, and I would like 7 the examiners to tell me what procedure they thought other than 8 AOP-10. I understand they think I should have used AOP-10. 9 But what procedures do they think that I should have used to 10 check these four particular power range recorders. I don't 11 know of any, and I don't know of any that we could have done in 12 a short period of time. 13 And I am of the impression, Dr. Hetrick, that you 14 think that this was not a planned part of the scenario. In 15 fact, it was a valid response of the simulator to the scenario. 16 The examiners don't understand that, but this was a valid 17 indication. 18 I didn't understand it at the time either. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me ask, this behavior of the 20 power range channels is a normal response to the boring 21 dilution. Is that what you just said? 22 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. l I 23 JUDGE HETRICK: And I wanted to ask the staff witness 24 about the temperature here. 25 Mr. Morabito is now saying that, and at least an I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.s ^.. 60 ts e
~
1 important part of the decision for power ~ reduction has to do 2 with temperature. That is not mentioned in the comment at all. 3 And you have been giving'the impression, I think, that your 4 criticism of the power reduction has to do entirely with his 5 attempt to diagnose an instrument anomaly. 6 Could you clarify that for me? 7 MR. NORRIS: I'm not really sure I understand what 8 your question is, sir. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: I think I made it too complicated 10 there. I got lost. Let me try again. 11 I am hearing now that a major purpose for a power 12 reduction was temperature as well as the power range 13 indications. 14 But what would be your response to saying that the 15 reason for power reduction was, at least in part, temperature 16 rising? 17 MR. NORRIS: The concern about the temperature rising 18 should have been handled by the control rods. 19 When the scenario first started, they were in 20 automatic, which was an intentional set up of the scenario to 21 give this indication of the dilution. The rods in automatic 22 would have, or should have compensated for the temperature rise 23 if he had taken the rod control to manual. l 24 The reactor operator could have compensated for the 25 temperature rise. U(~T Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 l
, , _ .- r -
y , -- y n . -+. - - . . ~ , _ - - -
61 [^)1 1 If his only reason for reducing power was to maintain 2 his temperature, the control rods and the rod control system 3 are_ designed for that, to maintain temperature within limits 4 until the rods get down to a certain point. 5 He had, if I recall, a large amount of rod control, 6 or rod movement still available to him. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: I think I need to explore this 8 temperature question a little further, because, Mr. Morabito, 9 didn't you say that the temperature increase was one of the 10 major reasons?
-11 MR. MORABITO: Sir, in fact, the temperature was 12 increasing in spite of the control rods stepping in in 13 automatic.
{JT 14 JUDGE HETRICK: Was it still in automatic mode at 15 that time? 16 MR. MORABITO: As far as I know it was, yes. I don't 17 know -- you know, I gave no order to take it out of automatic. 18 MR. GUTIERREZ: Can I seek clarification? 19 I think I understand Mr. Morabito to now be saying 20 that the drifting indications at the time of the simulator exam 21 were not a source of confusion for him; that he had expected 22 them; and that the reduction in 10 percent was due for reasons 23 unrelated to the instrumentation drifting? Is that -- 24 MR. MORABITO: No, that's not correct. 25 What I said was I was confused about those O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(~3 62-
%/
1 ~ indications. But those indications were valid-for the 2 scenario. The examiners were also confused about it. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Were you saying that you reduced 4 power for two reasons: One, the fluctuations, but, two, the 5 approaching of temperature? 6 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So there were two factors that 8 caused you to reduce power? 9 MR. MORABITO: That, in fact, is correct. In fact, 10 the temperature reduction was probably the main reason at that 11 time that I ordered it, because that was the parameter that was 12 coming closest to its upper limit. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Let's clarify. 'You don't mean
- {)
14 temperature reduction do you? . 15 MR MORABITO: Well, the power reduction to cause a 16 reduction in T-ave. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: That causes reduction, okay. 18 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now would this rise in temperature 20 have caused you, or should you have used some other procedure 21 because of that, or was that an emergency that you just have to 22 act fast? 23 MR. MORABITO: Well, at the point that I ordered the 24 power reduction, it was, in my opinion, it required immediate 25 action, and that's why I ordered the power reduction. l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation l L (202) 628-4888 e v ,+ - , - . ,w-,. - - - - - - - . . - - n- ,
,c -
63 (1 \> 1 I am not familiar whether there may be some procedure 2 that covers this. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: I guess I need to know then, was the 4 power reduction primarily because of temperature that was not 5 being controlled automatically, and your observation of these 6 power range channels was a side effect, or was it the question 7 about power range channels that motivated the power reduction, 8 and the temperature reduction was the side effect? 9 Which was more important to you at the time? 10 MR. MORABITO: Well, at that point it was the 11- temperature, because I had suggested a power reduction earlier. 12 The operators had objected to it. And all of our parameters g 13 were still without bounds. So I did not order the power C 14 reduction at that point. 15 I went on to, and so did they, go on to try to 16 analyza the cause of the problem. 17 At the point that I directed the power reduction, the 18 temperature was on the verge of reaching its upper limit. And 19 so I ordered the power reduction to control temperature. 20 But 1 also ordered the power reduction to observe the 21 power range indications that I thought were reading 22 inconsistently. 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Now you have also said -- 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let me ask one thing in the 25 interim. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
64 7_s 1 JUDGE HETRICK: Go ahead. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFBR: When that temperature was rising 3 up to its limit, would that have brought _into play one of those 4 emergency operating procedures? And if so, did you follow 5 that, or were you following that mode of action? 6 Again, this is from someone who is not too familiar 7 technically with how these plants work. 8 MR. MORABITO: At this point today, Judge Bechhoefer, 9 I would have to say I don't know. I don't have all the 10 abnormal operating procedures memorized. I am not sure what 11 procedure we might have followed at that time. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: While we are on the subject, what 13 would have happened had you not reduced power, but simply .O' 14 watched the evolution? 15 MR. MORABITO: Well, we probably -- it is hard to say 16 what protective action might have occurred. He may have had e 17 trip on overpower. We may have found that our delta flux was , 18 out of spec. 19 At the point that we were in the proceduro, our delta 20 flux was still within the control band. 21 Delta flux, by the way, is the measure of the 22 difference between the detectors. 23 So as the power peak was forced closer to the bottom 24 detectors, and as the bottom detectors increased in their 25 indication, and the top detectors decreased in their O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
65
~s 1 indication, the difference between them, which we call the 2 delta flux, would have become larger, and eventually would have 3 gone out of its band.
4 JUDGE HETRICK: So there is a reactor trip on flux 5 tilt in effect is what you are saying, right? 6 Didn't I understand that's what you meant by -- 7 MR. MORABITO: That's an input into the over-8 temperature delta T trip though. That's one of the inputs into 9 a calculated or derived set point trip. 10 And so we may have ended up with an over-temperature 11 delta T trip. We may have ended upwith an overpower trip. Or, 12 if temperature had continued to increase and we didn't get any () 13 of those trips, we may have caused a steam generator code 14 safety valve to lift. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. I want to get back to the 16 other question I stated with a moment ago. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Sorry. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: That's all right. 19 Make sure I understood you correctly. This scenario 20 was initiated by boron dilution. 21 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: And you said that what appears to be 23 anomalous power channel readings are in fact a normal response 24 to this dilution accident, right? 25 MR. MORABITO: Yes. They are actually a normal n (_) i Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888
?r- 66 V
.1 response to the rod motion. And the rod motion was responding 2 to the --
3 JUDGE HETRICK: Was responding. Automatic rod motion 4 responding to the boron dilution. 5 And that should have been anticipated, but was not 6 anticipated -- was not expected by the examiner; is that what 7 you said? 8 MR. MORABITO: More by me. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand that. I am asking you 10 about what you said was that the examiner did not understand 11 that this was a normal response to this boron dilution 12 scenario, am I -- () 13 MR. MORABITO: Well, he stated that in his response 14 to Judge Bechhoefer's question that they didn't know why the 15 power range indications were reading the way they were. 16 MR. NORRIS: Excuse me. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, is there -- please. 18 MR. NORRIS: He is using different indications in 19 what we initially cited as -- we talked about the four meters 20 on the board. Two of those four were reading differently. l 21 Why those two were reading differently than the other 22 two, we do not know. 23 JUDGE HETRICK: You still do not know. 24 MR. NORRIS: We still do not know. l l 25 His statement about the flux differences, the upper l Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 l l [ l
r- .__ 67
\ 1 and lower detectors reading differently, that is an expected 2 revolution. That is something that realized. It was not 3 looked at during the scenario, nor is it looked at by the 4 candidates during the scenario.
5 The focused on the four board meters, not'the flux 6 indications. And that needs to be clarified, because they did 7 not look at the flux indications during the exam. They looked 8 at the four board meters. They were not concerned about the 9 delta flux during this scenario. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Should they, should they have been? 11 MR. NORRIS: Should they have been or not, I guess is 12 not the question. It would have been an indication to help , -s 13 evaluate the dilution. U 14 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. 15 MR. NORRIS: But what they initially looked at was 16 four power indications which is the summation. They were not 17 looking at the different upper and lower detectors. 1R What we said in our affidav'it to the questions was 19 that we did not know why two of the four were reading 20 differently. We did not say -- 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Two of the four? 22 MR. NORRIS: Power range indications, two of the four 23 meters. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Meters, yes, okay. 25 MR. NORRIS: We did not say, nor do we say now that
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l 68 n(-) I we do not, or did not expect the. upper and lower detectors to 2 change. 'That is a normal and expected change for a dilution 3 and the rod movement. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: The change in opposite directions? 5 MR. NORRIS: Yes. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. 7 MR. NORRIS: That would be expected, and we did -- 8 whether we considered it during the scenario, we did not -- we 9 didn't expect to get into that depth during the scenario. 10 But we did understand that happened, but we did not 11 look at those meters during the actual scenario. 12 MR. MORABITO: May I make a statement? (} 13 14 that, yes. JUDGE HETRICK: I would like to hear your response to 15 MR. MORABITO: If all four top detectors decreased by 16 approximately the sane amount, all four bottom four detectors 17 increased by approximately the same amount, the sum remained 18 the same. 19 There were not two power range meters on the board 20 indicating to the reactor operator that they were reading 21 differently. All four power range meters were reading 22 consistently. 23 MR. NORRIS: No, sir, that is not true. This is what 24 started the whole evolution was that the meters were reading 25 wrong. Excuse me, were reading differently. 4 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
EN 69 b ~ l JUDGE BECHHOEFER: In pairs or -- 2 MR. ~ NORRIS: I could not tell you which of the four 3 were reading differently at this time, but t:ro of the four were r 4 different. 5 MR. MORABITO: The reactor operator did not tell me 6 of any' problem with the power range meters. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Were you in a position where you 8 can read all these meters, or do you -- 9 MR. MORABITO: Sure, I was all over the control room 10 at that time. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And the operators were right in by 12 the meters. (} 13 14 MR. MORABITO: JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, they were. I see. And so you were inquiring ; 15 from them what the readings were, and they were telling you i 16 what the readings were? l . 17 MR. MORABITO: I asked the reactor operator if she , t 18 saw any anomalous indications on her instrumentation, and she - l l 19 did not. t 20 JUDGE BECHMOEFER: I see. , 1 21 (Pause.) 22 MR. SILKt Could I make a few comments? 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, we were debating whether we 24 wanted to take a short break and then come back. 25 MS. WOODHEAD: Before -- I'm sorry, go ahead. I < (:)
, Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 i f r
,,,,,,-,--r-, -v,n , n, -,- r --- ,- --m, .-,w, -
--w- , - - - _ , , - - , -w, - - - -n g ,,
r, 70 b 1 didn't mean to interrupt. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: Either, I suppose it the comment is I 3 just ---most recent statement. 4 Okay, I want to take a short break. 5 ~ JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, let him make his if it's on 6 the same subject. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. Why don't you make your 8 statement or addition? 9 MR. SILK: Based on the observations that I have 10 recorded, when I became aware of the discrepancy between the 11 recorder, or the indicators was when I was watching Mr. 12 Morabito. His observing it drew my attention to it. He was 13 aware of, that there were two indications on the front board
)
14 that were indicating differently. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: This is board meters you are talking 16 about. 17 MR. SILK: And also to clarify another fact. i 18 According to my notes, he reduced power not in , 19 response to T-ave, the high T-ave, but in response to the power 20 range reversing, to the discrepancy between them. 21 Because about a half an hour later, they received a 22 high T-ave alarm -- some sort of T-ave alarm, and this was a 23 half an hour after he started reducing power based on the NIs 24 reading differently. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER* Does his statement that he was O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
71
)
1 getting information from.the reactor operator, is that any 2 different from what you just said? 3 MR. SILK: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what he said. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, he'said he was given 5 indications of how the meters were reading from the reactor 6 operator. 7 Didn't you say that you told him that they were , 8 reading a certain way, or did I misunderstand? 9 MR. SILK: No, I observed him reading them 10 differently. He made the observation, and I was just following 11 him around. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, did he make the observation, (} 13 or did he ask the reactor operator, just to make consistent the 14 two bits of information that has come out in the last five 15 minutes? 16 MR. SILK My point was that he was aware of the 17 discrepancy on the board. That is the point I am trying to 18 make. And whether the board operator -- I'm sorry -- the i 19 indicators. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You are not trying to say he 21 necessarily read it. He may have gotten it from -- 22 MR. SILK: Right. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Why don't we take a short 24 break and be back in about a quarter of 12. i l 25 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) l (2) i Heritage Reporting Corporation , ! (202) 628-4888 l
, r's 72-Q 1- MR. NORRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like to make 2 one comment if I -- I'm sorry, I didn't know I cut you off.
3 MS. WOODHEAD: I would like.to point something out , 4 that is disturbing me. 5 It was my understanding that additional oral 6 testimony here would be limited to that which has already been 7 presented in writing, in terms of clarification of any written-8 testimony that has been presented previously. 9 Mr. Morabito, however, in response to questions has , 10 presented new testimony that has never been put in writing, and 11 in particular about the examiner's comment one and compliance 12 and procedures. 13 Mr. Morabito has had a year and a half to present
'{ } '
14 reasons for his actions on the simulator, and he has presented 15 a series of reasons in several written documents to the staff 16 before the hearing process started, and then has had_ ample 17 opportunity to expand and present additional reasons in writing a 18 since the appeal process ended, and the hearing process began. . r 19 20 I believe that it is inappropriate at this time to l 21 allow additional reasons to justify his actions of a year and a 22 half ago. 23 The difficulty here is that in a year and a half
- 24 various research and various amounts and kinds of new knowledge 25 may have been obtained, but the issue that we are here to l
, () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
i
73
't"' /
1 present and to be decided by you is what Mr. Morabito's 2 knowledge was in July of 1986, not what it might have developed 3 into a year and a half. , 4 That is why I feel it is very important to restrain 5 testimony to that which has already been presented in writing. 6 Secondly, I think there may be some misperception, 7 misunderstanding about the appropriateness of testimony by 8 other people. Mr. Morabito's exam is at issue, and only Mr. 9 Morabito can testify as to what his knowledge was and any 10 explanations that he might want to bring up as to his actions 11 during the simulator. 12 I feel it is highly improper for him to consult with 13 Mr. Schad. Mr. Schad is not -- we are not concerned with Mr. 14 Schad's knowledget only with Mr. Morabito's. 15 i think it might be helpful to clarify for the other 16 people in the room also that the only testimony -- the only 17 witnesses which have been identified prior to this hearing are 18 the three utaff witnesses and Mr. Morabito, and that other , 19 testimony would not be appropriate to present at this time, 20 testimony of other people. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I believe Mr. Morabito 22 identified three potential witnesses. 23 MS. WOODHEAD: I don't believe he presented -- I 24 don't believe he declared that he would present any witnesses 25 besides himself at this hearing. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i i
p 74
'( ' '
3 l- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He said he would present three 2 different people'for -- if necessary -- for corroboration on 3- 'various matters. 4 Let me turn to the piece of paper where that occurred 5 on. 6 MS. WOODHEAD: I recall the document that you are 7 referring to. It was my understanding that you had asked the 8 two parties to identify witnesses prior to the hearing. And in 9 this document Mr. Morabito did not identify them as witnesses. 10 He simply stated that certain individuals might attend and 11 might wish to speak. He did not identify them formally as 12 witnesses. g 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, that's the corroboration. (G He mentions hessrs. Schad, Crum and Held as -- he 14 15 said, "I request that subject to their concurrence, I would be 16 ready to call on them to corroborate my testimony or refute NRC 17 staff testimony." 18 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Bechhoefer, how is it possible 19 in an examination of a reactor operator candidate's knowledge 20 to include the testimony of other people? 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, to the extent relevant, we 22 think that how the elmulator works, for instance, which Mr. 23 Schad testified to, he does have that knowledge. That is what 24 he has testified to so far. So these were all three people 25 identified by Mr. Morabito. ( Heritage Roporting Corporation (201) 628-4888
,- 75
(_ 1 MS. WOODHEAD: I'm sorry, Judge Bechhoefer. I have 2 the January 28, 1988 letter to you. And it says very clearly, 3 "I do not plan to utilize any witnesses." He does mention 1 4 these three individuals, but he does not formally state that 5 they will be presented as witnesses and for what purpose. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, he listed the purposes. I 7 believe that given the fact that he is not a lawyer, and we 8 stated it was satisfactory to permit them to testify as to 9 certain matters, there are some matters to which Mr. Morabito 10 himself has to testify. 11 But certainly the matters that Mr. Schad testified to 12 thus far are within his expertise, and not unique to Mr. 13 Morabito. 14 So as the proceeding goes on, it will just depend on 15 what purpose they are offering him for, if any. 16 I think the last -- the Schad testimony was very ; 4 17 appropriate for what it was. ;
- 18 MS. WOODHEAD: Yes, sir. You must realize that we !
19 are in a very awkward position, because you are the questioners 20 unlike most of our hearings. We feel very strongly that the 21 testimony -- the questions should be limited to the written 22 presentation, written documents that have been presented 23 beforehand. 4 24 Additional testimony and entirely new explanations i 25 for actions a year and a half ago, I feel are very O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-- i 76 1 inappropriate at this time.
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, that is a different point 3 from the other witness point. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, it is. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And that point now, Mr. Morabito, 6 Ms. Woodhead does have a point that the staff has to be on 7 notice to what reasons are being given, and that you did have 8 enough occasions in the past. 9 Did you at any point raise this temperature question, 10 for instance, as undercutting the comment that we were 11 addressing, previous to today? 12 MR. MORABITO: Well, it was an obylous action in the 13 simulator exam that I am surprised to hear the examiners say 14 that they were unaware of that. I gave two specific -- well, I 15 gave one suggestion, and then followed it up with a specific 16 order when it was obvious that we had to take action, and that 17 reason for taking that action was because of the temperature 18 increasing. 19 You know, this just goes back to my point. They are 20 not qualified observers. They don't know what was going on. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, but did you state before 22 today that the temperature rise was one of the reasons you took 23 action, and therefore the comment was unwarranted 24 You gave a number of reasons why the comment was 25 unwarranted, in your view. Was that one of them in the many O. v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, 77 ~'
1 documents you filed to date? 2 MR. MORABITO: No, sir. No, it was not. 3 My understanding from your order setting up this oral 4 presentation was that if there were things to be presented at 5 the oral presentation that hadn't been served previously, that 6 provided I brought'along enough copies, I could make that 7 presentation, and that is what I have been doing. 8 I thought that I had an invitation from you to submit 9 additional information. 10 I also considered that this being an informal 11 hearing, that the strict rules of evidence don't apply, and 12 it's up to you to make a determination as to whether or not 13 something that I present, which I haven't presented previously, 14 should be included in the record. And I believe that's 15 consistent with the procedural guidelines that you are 16 following. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, that it is, but the other 18 party has to have had enough opportunity to respond, for 19 instance. 20 Do you wish to say something? 21 MR. NORRIS: Well, it's in a different area, about 22 what we were discussing prior to the break. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And we were going to get back to 24 that. 25 MR. NORRIS: Okay, I can wait until we get back to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
78 w/ 1 that. 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I think we will just proceed 3 as we were going to, but if information is really new 4 information of a type that could have been presented earlier, a 5 whole new reason for something, if it's something that is 6 supporting or corroborating or previously expressed reasons, , 7 that's a bit different. 8 If it's something completely different, there is a 9 problem of surprise because if the examiners didn't know 10 something, then they didn't have -- wouldn't have had an 11 opportunity to evaluate that previously. t 12 MR, MORABITO: But they had an opportunity to f 13 evaluate this temperature situation since the day they ( 14 conducted the examination. 15 I was not aware that it was a question in 16 controversy. I was not aware that they were not aware ao to 17 why we did the power range -- the power reduction. I knew that 4 18 they were hung up on these power range indicators being out of 19 cervice. And as I indicated to Dr. Hetrick somewhat earlier, 20 that was one of the reasons for the power reduction. 21 But why did I do it at that particular time? I did
- 22 it because temperature was reaching its limit. I had suggested 23 it earlier, and we didn't do it because the operators suggested 24 some reasoning that I had to consider, and there wasn't a major 25 problem at that time, and I thought we still had time to react.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/
{
,~x 79 i i 1 .At the time I ordered it, we hadn't come up with a 2 solution, temperature was near its top limit, and some action 3 had to be taken. I ordered the power reduction.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Were the examiners aware that you 5 did it for that reason? 6 MR. MORABITO: Apparently not. 7 MR. NORRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, if I may. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 9 MR. NORRIS: Just comment that temperatures reaching 10 its limit, if rod control was still in automatic, as he 11 believes and I also believe, the rod control system should have 12 been maintaining the temperature within its programmed band. 13 It should not have reached any limit. 14 The rod control system should have been responding to 15 the dilution to maintain temperature. And if it reached a 16 point where it could no longer do it, then he should have had a 17 whole different scenario to deal with other than power range 18 instruments. 19 A second point I would like to make is -- 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you saying he did not use a 21 scenario to deal with it, whatever that is? 22 MR. NORRIS: He is saying that the rods -- he had to 23 reduce power to maintain his temperature when in fact the rod 24 control system should have been doing it automatically. 25 But a second point is, going into great depth about O Heritage Rep >rting Corporation (204) 628-4888
i
,_ 80 1 why he made this decision to reduce power, when in fact what we 2 cite him for was not following procedures in a relatively 3 simple problem area. This was an audit of his knowledge, and 4 an audit of his ability to operate the plant in accordance with 5 Duquesne Light procedures.
6 He is licensed to operate the plant in accordance 7 with approved procedures. That is part of his license and part 8 of his requirements. He did not demonstrate that knowledge to 9 us, andsthat overall is what he was cited for. 10 (Pause.) 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Do you have any idea how far away the 12 reactor -- the rod system was from being unable to maintain 13 temperature control? f-) (/ i 14 MR. NORRIS: The rods should have been maintaining 15 temperature, if I recall, within plus or minus one degree 16 before it started rod motion. 17 After a certain difference of temperature, that rod 18 motion should increase in speed up to its maximum speed to move 19 the rods. 20 JUDGE HETRICK: All right, but this can't go on 21 forever. There is a limitation on how long this rod motion can 22 control the temperature. 23 There are limitations on rod motions, right? 24 MR. NORRIS: The limitations are until it reaches the 25 end of its travel. l (1) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 i l
81 k~# 1 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, and how far were you from that? 2 MR. NORRIS: I could not tell you that, but that is 3 not what -- he is not saying he could not move rods to maintain 4 his temperature. 5 He said he reduced power to maintain his temperature. 6 He was not relying on the rod control system as designed. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: And you had a second point. 8 MR. NORRIS: The second point was that we're going 9 into great depth about why he made the change, and what we 10 cited him for was that an audit of his knowledge, could he 11 operate in accordance to his procedures. No, he didn't. That 12 is why -- not so much why he changed power, but'that he didn't gs 13 do it using his procedures when he had that option. It's a d 14 very poor operating practice to be operating outside of i 15 procedure when you don't need to. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He seems to be saying he was using i 17 a different procedure, and that was what we were trying to 18 explore before lunch, or before our break. What I view perhaps 19 as an overlapping proce'ure. Now, the one that is represented 20 by this Exhibit 4 for identification, at least. < 21 That may not be the precise procedure. ( 22 MR. NORRIS: That's a general guidance to how he 23 should operate. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 25 MR. NORRIS: But it's a very generic guidance. He Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
f3 82 , 1 had other procedures that would have been more appropriate and 2 more specific to his condition. 3 Additionally, there might be lead in paragraphs to 4 this that would give us more clarification which we don't have 5 at the moment. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Would you -- 7 MR. NORRIS: A very small paragraph out of a very 8 thick procedure. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Could you cite again what -- you say 10 he had more specific procedures. The only one I see by number 11 is AOP-10. 12 What else are you referring to? 13 MR. NORRIS: AOP-10, if he had determined that two 14 instruments were malfunctioning. He could have used a 15 surveillance procedure t.o have the accuracy of the instruments 16 verified. He could have notified his instrument personnel, 17 have them come up and perform a check of the instrumentation 18 itself. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: He could have. 20 MR. NORRIS: He could have. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Could have, yes. ] 22 MR. NORRIS: It would have been appropriate in 23 accordance to procedures. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Is it mandated in company policy that : 25 he should have done this? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ! l i
i 1 'MR. NORRIS: He has approved precedures to do this ' 2 He is operating outside of what's already been approved. He 3 has basically, to use a colloquialism, flying by the seat of 4 his pants. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: I have got a problem with approved 6 procedures. I understand all of these procedures are approved. 7 But which ones are mandated? 8 MR. NORRIS: All the procedures, if they have been 9 approved for use, are mandatory to the appropriate department. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Mandatory in the sense that if a 11 certain situation occurs, then one must use such and such i 12 approved procedure. gs 13 MR. NORRIS: He was not in an emergency condition (- 14 where he had to deviate. He is not allowed to deviate from 15 procedures with the exception of an emergency condition where 16 personnel or equipment are in danger. He was not in that 17 condition. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Is there no room for discretion as to ' 19 whether a certain procedure ought to be followed or not? - 20 MR. NORRIS: He never went into a procedure to start 21 to determine whe' r or not he should have been in there. He 22 immediately went in another direction. - 23 JUDGE BECHH0EFER: So you are saying he had to go 24 into some procedures. . 25 MR. NORRIS: He should have started somewhere in his t ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
EE
.o j
l 1 investigation; yes, sir. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, is it not possible that the 3 generic guideline which says, "Believe.the instrument and 4 . respond conservative." 5 MR. NORRIS: Believe the instrument, if you have got 6 a single indication. He had four instruments that were not 7 consistent. Which one of those four should he believe? He was 8 not in such a critical condition that he had to reduce power 9 immediately to prevent violating safety limits or 10 administrative limits. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand that, and I guess what I 12 am really getting to is, at what point is one mandated to do a 13 surveillance procedure, or mandated to go into AOP-10. (~) If 14 there is not an emergency, there is time to try some other 15 diagnosis that might be covered by this, believe the instrument - 16 and respond conservatively, before entering a formal procedure 17 such as as surveillance -- 18 MR. NORRIS: He had an indication to enter AOP-10, 19 and the conditions are erratic or drifting indications. He had 20 two of four not consistent. That's erratic. The indications 21 are erratic amongst themselves as an entry condition for the Et3 22 procedure. It's mandated that you follow procedures, t4 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is that true if you decide that , 25 you have to follow a surveillance procedure first? Is that the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; i
=
T 35 ,.
?!iz:
Nsten , h- I same' kind of-procedure where you have to open the book to 2 follow the steps, or-is that'--
.MR. NORRIS: I don't understand your question,' sir.
4' ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if he~ decided that.something ., i
- 5. .may be wrong with the instruments and he wanted to use the- "
6 surveillance procedure, would he have to do anything for that?- 7 MR. NORRIS:- The surveillance - 8 ~ JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Other than merely reducing power. 9 in the test. 10 MR. NORRIS: If the surveillance procedure said 11 reduce power and follow indications, and.he had pulled that !
- 12 procedure out and verified it, this problem would not exist. l 1
t 13 He didn't.do that. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. So you are saying he had I
- 15. to use some procedure, i 16 MR. NORRIS: He is required to follow those 17 procedures and review them prior to taking action. He did not ,
e ; . 18 do that, sir. 'That is what the crux of our comment was. I 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. So that if he had done 20 surveillance procedure, for instance, whatever it might be, f l-l 21 whatever number it might be, and followed that form, you would [ t i 22 not have faulted him for using the wrong procedure? 23 MR. NORRIS: If he had pulled out a surveillance f 24 procedure which in fact was a proper procedure to use, and it ; 25 met the entry conditions, and he reviewed that procedure and } O ! Heritage Reporting Corporation fi (202) 628-4888 4 I
/^% 86 O
1 acted accordingly, this comment probably would not exist. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: Entry conditions, entry conditions 3 prescribe always a unique procedure to follow, or might there 4 be discretion about which procedure to follow given certain 5 conditions? 6 MR. NORRIS: There might be discretion where two or 7 three procedures might be appropriate, and 20/20 hindsight 8 might show you which one was the best one. 9 But some procedure should be used, and this gentleman 10 did not use a procedure in this case. And that, again, is where 11 we came from on this comment. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito, what is your response () 13 to the question about rods automatic control responding to the 14 temperature change, and that should have had nothing to do with 15 your choice about power reduction? ' 16 MR. MORABITO: Well, the rods were in fact 17 responding, and the temperature was in fact increasing. 18 Now where the temperature was in relation to where 19 the rods were, I don't remember at this point in time, but that 20 is what was going on. The temperature was increasing. 21 What else can I say? 22 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, what does that mean to you? 23 The situation was not a normal response to automatic control? I 24 MR. MORABITO: No, no. I believe that the automatic 25 control was functioning properly. () Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l l ! i
-3 87 1 JUDGE HETRICK: Then why was the temperature 2 increasing?
3 MR. MORABITO: Well, the temperature was increasing 4 because of the dilution. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand. And then the control 6 rod motion is to be -- 7 MR. MORABITO: Okay, let me try it this way. 8 The dilution effects cause temperature to increase. 9 The rod control system saw the temperature increase, and caused 10 some rod motion to occur. And then because the temperature 11 came back into the band, the control band, the rod motion 12 ceased. The dilution was still occurring because we hadn't 13 solve the problem. The temperature continued to increase. The 14 rods stepped in again. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: So it is a step-wise process? 16 MR. MORABITO: Yes. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 18 Okay, but you are now saying that the temperature 19 observation was an important reason for your decision for power 20 reduction? 21 MR. MORABITO: The continued increase in temperature, 22 yes, sir. 23 JUDGE HETRICK: And the examiner, I believe, 24 disagrees with you; is that what I heard? 25 MR. MORABITO: That's right. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
88 f-j V He did not make that statement during 1 MR. NORRIS: 2 the examination. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: Which brings me to another question. 4 Must every action be explained to the examiner?
- 5. MR. NORRIS: Every action they take need not be 6 explained, sir.
l 7 Soma of them are quite obvious to us. Some of them 8 we tell them up front during the exam to vocalize their 9 actions, to verbalize their thought process to help the 10 examination process. 11 If an action is taken that we don't understand, and 12 is not consistent with what we expected, we will follow it up 13 after the scenario with questioning.
-{ }
14 In this case, his actions and his verbalizations that 15 he made seemed quite obvious what was going on to us. 16 (Pause.) 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Morabito, just to finish up on 18 this general line of questioning, the staff has stated that a-19 basic tenet of safe reactor operations is to believe all 20 indications on various dials or gauges. 21 Were you aware of this, or were you taught this 22 particular tenet? 23 MR. MORABITO: I was aware of that for approximately 24 18 years, sir. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But were you believing all of the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a F -M, 89 ('~'s 1 gauges, or dials, or whatever they are? 2 MR. MORABITO: I believe the indications -- yes, I I 3 believed all the indications. I didn't know what the problem 4 was. I took' action conservatively in accordance with the 5 increasing power range indications. 6 I believe the scenario started out at 100 percent. 7 It didn't give us a lot of room to allow power to increase 8 beyond that. The trips at that point is what, 109 percent, 9 107? So it doesn't give you a lot of room. 10 (Pause.) 11 MR. SCHAD: 103. i 12 MR. MORABITO: 103. 13 MR. GUTIERREZ: Judge Bechhoefer, could the record O 14 reflect that in response to the question Mr. Morabito consulted. 15 with Mr. Schad. I thought you ruled earlier that that would be 16 inappropriate. 17 We are here to test Mr. Morabito's knowledge, and if 18 he is free to consult others in response to technical 19 questions, I don't know what kind of record is going to be 20 created upon which you are going to have to make a judgment as 21 to the man's technical and safety perspective. 22 MR. MORABITO: May I respond to that? 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. t 24 MR. MORABITO: We are not here today to test my [ t 25 knowledge, because my knowledge today is not what it was when I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 t
. - - , - . , , , - .s -
90 1 took that exam. And my reliance on Mr.Schad and Mr. Held is to 2 corroborate what I recall as being various procedures, set t 3 points, operating limits and so forth is totally proper today. 4 At the time I took that exam, I knew all of that 5 material, and, you know, we aren't examining me today. -Today 6- we are examining, or looking at, or judging the quality of the 7 exam that was given to me, and the truthful of the examiner's 8 comments. 9 MR. GUTIERREZ: The staff has consistently held that 10 that is not the purpose for this hearing. The purpose for this 11 hearing is to decide whether-Mr. Morabito demonstrated on the 12 day he was given to the test that he could be a competent and r 13 safe operator, 14 It's not the staff's burden to demonstrate that they i t 1 15 gave him a fair test. It's Mr. Morabito's burden to 16 de'monstrate that on that day he evidence that he was a 17 competent and safe operator. 18 MR. MORABITO: I am providing that evidence and I am L 19 prepared to provide as much evidence as you want. And I have 20 to challenge the quality of the exam. 21 What else is left to me if I can't challenge the 22 truthfulness of the -- or let me not say truthfulness, but the , 23 accuracy of an examiner's qualitative subjective comment. What 24 is there left for me to challenge with regard to the simulator 25 and my ability to act as a safe reactor operator? [ O Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 1 ,
o 91 t g3 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I think in the context of 2 the last question, I think the record may reflect that you ; 3 consulted Mr. Schad, but that doesn't preclude the answers from 4 coming in. You had testified generally that there was not much 5 leeway and you consulted with Mr. Schad to try to determine how 6 much. 7 So I think for that purpose your knowledge showed 8 through on that. I don't think it's a very significant point 9 whether it was 103 or 109 or 110 percent. So I think we can 10 probably just let it stand. 11 Mr. Schad. 12 MR. SCHAD: Yes, I wanted to say something on the 13 reason why I am here, if I may make that statement on why -- - 14 MR. NORRIS: Excuse me, I can't hear him. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, could you speak a little
- 16 louder.
17 MR. SCHAD: I'm sorry. 18 I wanted to make a statement on the reason of why I 19 am here, and the reason that I think I can confer with Mr. 20 Morabito, if you will let me make that statement. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 4 22 MR. SCHAD: Duquesne Light Company, I was transferred 23 into the simulator portion of training to give the simulator a 24 lot of real, true-to-life conditions, and I am responsible for 25 the training, that style of training to be done on our ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
92
.\~g]
1 simulator, because of my experience at the Beaver Valley Power 2 Station. 3 I was in the observation booth while Mr. Morabito was 4 the SRO, and when Mr. Morabito was the RO when he was 5 manipulating the controls, I was in fact his SRO. So I was 6 part of the exam process. 7 The other thing is that the training that Mr. 8 Morabito got on how to handle himself and how to supervise in 9 the control room at the simulator, I approved all those lesson 10 plans, and I personally observed Mr. Morabito and gave comment 11 to, and I testified whether or not I thought, in my opinion, 12 that Mr. Morabito was in fact prepared or ready to take the 13 licensing exam. 14 So, I believe that because of those conditions, I 15 should be allowed to be either a witness or collaborate his 16 testimony, or in fact be used to back up some of his 17 statements, because I was responsible for his training, and I 18 was his SRO during the exam process. 19 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Bechhoefer, if Mr. Schad is 20 allowed to present testimony on behalf of Mr. Morabito, I would 21 move that this oral presentation be adjourned now, and that Mr. 22 Schad do so in writing. 23 Secondly, I object to nis presenting testimony at all 24 at this late date. If Mr. Morabito wanted to present testimony 25 by Mr. Schad, he has had many months to do so in the several Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
g 93 4 4 1 written pleadings that have been presented to you by both 2 parties. 3 I feel that it is highly improper for Mr. Schad to 4 speak at all except perhaps to some mechanical construction of 5 the simulator which might be of interest to you and Dr. 6 Hetrick. But I do not believe that it would be within any 7 rules of evidence, or even any proper concept that Mr. Schad 8 could testify as to Mr. Morabito's knowledge. I just think 9 that it is highly improper and inappropriate. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I don't_think that Mr. Schad 11 is testifying as to Mr. Morabito's knowledge. He may or may 12 not be testifying as to some of the matters that happened 13 during the examination which he observed. 14 I don't know whether we will need his testimony or 15 whether Mr. Morabito will wish to use his testimony for that. ' 16 I think we will have to wait and see on each topic as it comes 17 up whether his testimony would be appropriate.- 18 We may well provide the staff an opportunity to i 19 respond to any new information in writing. I will have to see 20 what the situation is. I 21 I assume the staff does not wish to respond to Mr. ! 22 Schad's description of the simulator that we have inserted. If 23 you wish to do so, we vill permit you to, or I will permit you 24 to. But wb don't we wait until the end. The staff will be i 25 permitted to respond to any new information that it may want, , () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r,
,_ 94
I and a chance to respond to it before.
2 I do think it is important to get as much out as we 3 can today, because this proceeding has neen going on a long 4 time. But I also agree with you that the staff should have 5 every right to respond to new information presented. So let's 6 just see what happens. 7 Thus far I would think the information would not be 8 very significant. I would certainly permit you to respond, but 9 whether you will wish to do so, I would raise that question. 10 MR. GUTIERREZ: Judge Bechhoefer. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 12 MR. GUTIERREZ: Just to amplify Ms. Woodhead's 13 points. 14 It is not only the opportunity to respond to comments 15 Mr. Schad has. The concern I have is the kind of record that - 16 is going to be created and that you are going to be asked to 17 rely upon and make a decision on if Mr. Morabito and Mr. Schad 18 are allowed to consult. , 19 Admittedly, the point I raised may have been an 20 insignificant point, but I wanted to raise a concern for the 21 kind of record that is going to be created if it is going to be 22 anything but Mr. Morabito's recollection of what went on on the 23 day of the simulator exam. That was the genesis of my concern. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right, and I think the record in 25 each case should show when he must consult to answer a O Heritage Reporting Corporation r (202) 628-4888 l
j 95 6. 1 question. Or if he has to consult, the record should reflect : 2 that, I believe. 3- But then I will have to decide whether the 4 information is not Mr. Morabito's recollection today, or 5 whether that means he never was able to recollect. d 6 I believe that this last item was more or less a 7 peripheral point. And let the record again -- will reflect 8 that he consulted with Mr. Schad. , 9 Now, I think we are prepared to get on with the next f 10 comment. But with respect to Morabito Exhibit 4, I do not 11 believe that it has been adequately authenticated to be put 12 into evidence. 13 To the extent that the Commission may review the 14 record, exhibits that are rejected still will travel with the 15 record and the commission can look at what we -- the Commission 16 can look at it. I won't rely on this particular procedure for 17 anything. , 18 Mr. Morabito has said on the record what he did and i 19 why he did it. And there is a discussion of just general {
- 20 procedures to act conservatively. .
j 21 I think what's officially in the record will be 1 22 sufficient, and this document will not go in the record, but it 23 will -- copies will travel with the record if anybody has to 24 refer to this to see what we are talking about. 25 The Commission, I guess, would be the only body since o l{eritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l r i I
96 p 1 the Appeal Board isn't involved in this case, and it would be 2 purely the Commission, if it reviews it. They will have a copy 3 of this marked for identification which will travel with it. 4 (Pause.) 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I am just checking whether we 6 ought to break for an hour for lunch. 7 Does anyone know whether there are convenient lunch 8 places in the area 9 MR. MORABITO: There's a cafeteria on the second 3 10 floor. , 11 MR. GUTIERREZ: There's a cafeteria on the second 12 floor. {} 13 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: get served fairly quick. I see. So that means people could 1 15 You don't have to vouch for how good or bad it is. 16 If we break for an hour for lunch, is that enough, or not 17 MR. MORABITO: Whatever time is okay with me. ! 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Take an hour's break. 19 MR. VOLGER: There is a cafeteria on the second 20 floor. I had coffee this morning. I have never eaten there. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Why don't we break for an 22 hour for lunch and be back at 1:30. 23 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was recessed, 24 to resume at 1:30 p.m., this same day, Monday, February 23, , t 25 1988.) [ () Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 t l
i n 97 f) 1 AFTERNOON SESSION . 2 1:32 p.m. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 4 We are proceeding now to the second -- to Comment 2 5 on the first -- Comment 2 on candidate's use of procedures. 6 That is also a comment -- let's see -- on the supervisory 7 ability, the same action. They have commented on each one. 8 (Pause.) 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'll correct the record. It's 10 the second comment in candidate's use of procedures, and the 11 third comment in communications. 12 Now my question, and it is really a question of the , 13' staff, since Mr. Morabito did not actually proceed on the basis 14 of the incorrect information which he had stated, I guess, and 15 he waited to proceed until he got the right informatioe, why 16 should not the action be the kind that would be rated with an N 17 rather than unsatisfactory 18 Why would not this be an example of correcting 19 oneself? And I realized you stated earlier that actions 20 themselves aren't rated. But why would this even be 21 unsatisfactory if he did not proceed on the basis of incorrect 22 information? 23 MR. NORRIS: That could fall into a couple of areas. 24 As one, I did not recall how long from the time he 25 said yes to the board operator said no. I don't have that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
L 98 O 1 information anymore. 2 But by saying yes, he was telling himself, even 3 though he may not have had time to start, that he was to go 4 down a certain path. He was making an assumption based on his 5 evaluation of the conditions rather than doing as the procedure 6 directs is an indication greater than 395 degrees, and either 7 he should look at the indication or have one of his board 8 operators respond to him that a yes or no, rather than just 9 read it, make an assumption and then prepare to go down the 10 path associated with that assumption. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you have any reason to believe 12 that he would be prepared to do anything prior to hearing what , 13 the answer was, because he had a question? 14 MR. NORRIS: Based on him answering it to himself, , 15 yes, sir, I do have that. I have to infer that since he asked l 16 a question and then answered it himself, that he intends to act : 17 on that information. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, why would he ask the , i 19 question if he expected to answer it himself? 20 Why can't he -- 21 MR. NORRIS: Sir, I don't know that. You vould have 1 22 to ask Mr. Morabito why he answered it himself. I don't have l 1 23 that information. l 24 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Okay, Mr. Morabito, why did you , 25 repeat some information that I guess turned out to be I () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
o 99
~() 1 noncorrect?
- 2. MR. MORABITO: The procedure when you are going j 3 through emergency operating procedures-is for the SRO, which I i 4 was:in that scenario, to read the question to the operators.and
.5 expect response back from'the' operators. And that determines ,
6 the path that you take.. , 7 I read the question, and I expected a response back 8 from the operator. In fact, the question was to the operator, l 9 is the temperature ' ass then 395 degrees, t 10 Now, I waited for his response, but prior to him 11 giving me a response, I am thinking in my mind, well, on the f 12 basis of the shortnass of time that this thing has proceeded 13 and so forth, it.probably isn't. And I did answer yes to , 14 myself. It was, you know, thinking out loud. And it could have r 4 15 been yes if the same scenario had proceeded quicker. It was 16 no. I did not take any action based on what I thought it was. 7 s 17 I waited until the operator gave me the correct information, ; 18 and proceeded on. , 19 It was, you know, simply a matter of thinking out i 20 loud, answering the question incorrect for the situation at the f 21 time, but not taking any action on that until it was confirmed 22 by the operator. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would one ever take action -- , t 24 reading out a question like that, would you ever take action 25 before getting the answer? f Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 ; I
100 (- )
~
1 MR. MORABITO: No, no. The question is to the 2 operator, so the operator has to respond to it. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And having asked the question, you 4 would not act until you received the answer. 5 MR. MORABITO: That's correct, nor did I. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. 7 Now back to the staff. Given that, isn't merely 8 repeating some information, expectations unimportant when one 9 does not intend to act on it until you get the right answer? 10 What does it make if he repeated something? 11 MR. NORRIS: I have no indication at this time of 12 whether or not he intended to act on that, and whether or not 13 he realized in July of 1986 that he would require feedback from
)
14 his operator before he acted. That was 19~ months ago, and I 15 don't have that information anymore. 16 I based -- I have to go on the comment on a question
+
17 was asked, and rather than following the symptomatic procedures 18 where you a:' ior an indication and wait for that response, he 19 was trying to analyze the condition. He assumed the answer was 20 going to be one answer, when it was in fact the other. He was l 21 180 out from where he expected to be. l 22 JUDGE HETRICK: But he took no action until he 23 received the other answer, is that right? 24 MR. NORRIS: We don't know whether he was going to 25 take action as -- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
101 O* 1 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand that. 2 MR. NORRIS: -- there is good teamwork in that his 3 board operator turned around and said, no, that is incorrect. 4 If that board operator had not responded quickly enough, or if 5 Mr. Morabico's question had been so quiet that he read it and 6 answered it to himself since the examiners are almost on top of 7 the candidates, he may have taken iction. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: But he -- 9 MR. NORRIS: We don't know at this time and we have 10 no way of determining whether or not he would have taken action 11 based on that answer of yes. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: But the fact is he did not take 13 action. { 14 MR. NORRIS: That is true. But, again, I have to go 15 back to whst we wrote him up for la not whether or not he took 16 his action. It is his use of the procedures as they are 17 intended to be used, and that was the deficiency that we noted. 18 Under the competency of use of procedures, he did not properly 19 use the procedures. 20 JUDGE HETRICK: In what way was it improper? That he 21 spoke an answer out loud and it turned out to be the wrong 22 answer; is that -- 23 MR. NORRIS: He did not verify -- the question is, is 24 something -- are RSC hot shut temperatures greater than 395 25 degrees. The way you would answer that question is to look at ' () Horitage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 i l I i
102 O
\~# 1 the indication and have a yes or a no answer. He did not do 2 that. He.did not properly verify that before he gave himself 3 an answer.
4 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, was he supposed to verify this 5 by looking at a meter, or by getting an answer from an 6 operator? 7 MR. NORRIS: Either one would be acceptable. He did 8 neither action before he answered it. 9 MR. MORABITO: I challenge that statement, Judge. 10 The SRO is supposed to read the procedure. The 11 operator is supposed to read the meters, and answer the 12 questions, and that's the way I was conducting the ops. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Morabito was using that 14 procedure. Would it not expect that he would not take action 15 before getting some answer? In which case, it would be 16 irrelevant what he said. 17 MR. NORRIS: We have no way of knowing that, sir, 18 what action he would have taken at this time. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the fact that he didn't take 20 an action until he got answer would be some indication, would 21 it not, that he was waiting for an answer? 22 MR. NORRIS: No, sir, I can't agree with you there. 23 He -- we do not know whether or not he would have taken action 24 if the operator had not responded. 25 What we do know, by looking at the record, is that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 103 ' ( 1 the question was asked, he made an answer, and his operator , 2 corrected his knowledge. We do not know whether or not he 3 would have taken action based on his answer 19 months lator. 4 We don't know what he would have done in that case. ; 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think he answered that one very , 6 shortly after the test, At least in this first appeal. 7 MR. NORRIS: Again, that was not what he did. We had , 8 to go on what he did that day. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Earlier you called it an assumption. t 10 Now you called it knowledge. 11 MR. NORRIS: I'm sorry. I can't hear. I 12 JUDGE HETRICK: I say earlier you called it an 13 assumption, and then later you called it his knowledge. 14 MR. NORRIS: What are we referring to here, sir? 15 JUDGE HETRICK: I am referring to the answer, the 16 verbalized yes. And you characterized that first as an 17 assumption, and now you are characterizing it as false 18 knowledge. 19 How, they are somowhat different, aren't they? i 20 MR. NORRIS: I'm not sure that -- I would have to L 21 have back what I said was an assumption earlier. ( L 22 JUDGE HETRICK: To the best of my memory, and 23 according to the comment -- 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, the comment. l t 25 JUDGE HETRICK: The comment itself says, candidate l
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 ' i i m_.__
104
- did not wait for the response and assumed the answer to the 1
2 question was yes. And I think you yourself a moment ago used 3 the word "assumption" with regard to-that answer; is that 4 right? 5 MR.'NORRIS: Well, I believe what I said was an 6 assumption is I have to assume that because he answered yes to 7 himself, he was going to proceed in that direction until he was 8 corrected. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, now you are talking about -- 10 MR. NORRIS: By knowledge was that he did answer yes 11 and was correct. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: All right. Now you are talking about 13 an assumption you make; namely, that he would act in a certain 14 way unless something else happened. 15 Isn't this rather speculative? 16 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. The procedures are written to 17 be followed. Again, we have to go back to the competency or 18 evaluating in this case, which was use of procedure. The 19 procedures -- yes, sir. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It's two different competencies. 21 MR. NORRIS: Well, the comment was made in two 22 different places, and I am trying to address the one right now 23 on the competencies. 24 Was that the procedures were written to be 25 implemented in a relatively strict adherence mode. When you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I- , 105 O 1 are in the condition of an emergency, when everything is going 2 awry, you don't have the time to really think everything 3 through, these procedures have been written. They have 4 pervaded on a document produced by the Westinghouse Owners 5 Group, which is a conglomerate of utilities that have 6 Westinghouse reactors. They are reviewed in-house by Duquesne 7 Light and Beaver Valley, and they are run on the simulator to 8 see whether they are in fact adequate. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: All right, I understand all that. 10 Let me ask you what I think is the crucial question. It's 11 hypothetical. It's the following. 12 Suppc?.e that the entire scene had gone exactly as it {) 13 14 did except that he said yes to himself without verbalizing it. Would he then have been in compliance? 15 MR. NORRIS: Then I wouldn't have known that he was 16 in the wrong thought process, sir. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Thank you. 18 MR. NORRIS: I have to go on what he did in fact do. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if one assumes, which I 20 think is probably the assumption that you are making, that the 21 candidate did not intend to act at all until he received some 22 answer, and then he acted correctly. 23 Does this not fit this general description of what a 24 marginal evaluation is supposed to be? Cemes up with the wrong 25 answor first, then corrects himself based on information which O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
106 I he expects to get? 2 MR. NORRIS: There would be no way to follow up on 3 this one case whether or not he would have proceeded, because 4 he was corrected by one of his operators. ( 5 Again, we don't -- 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, let me ask you if he was 7
- 7 corrected. I don't think he was corrected. The operator gave 8 him the response that he had asked for. That's not a 9 correction to happen to be different from what he expected to 10 get. !
11 MR. NORRIS: Again -- ; , 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's a little bit different. {} MR. NORRIS: I 13 -- as you said, sir, we are speculating. 14 I don't know what would have happened during the rest of the i 15 scenario if the operator had not given the response of no. 16 If he had proceeded on -- if Mr. Morabito had 17 proceeded on his answer of yes, he would have gone in a l 18 different direction, not able to adequately work against the 19 accid 9nt that was in progress. He would not have been placing 20 the plant in the safest of conditions. 21 But we are going off in an area again where we are 22 trying to hypothesize what could have happened, when in fact ! 23 the whole result is ask the question of an indication, it's a I t 24 very easy response of either ask your operator, or look at it, t 25 depending on where that indication is. The SRO was not far i C:) ; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a
4 ,~v 107 1- away from the meter, but wait for that answer. He in fact 2 answered the wrong way. # 3 The hypothetical of what would have happened could go i i 4 many directions, but it doesn't address the point that he 5 answered incorrectly. 6 MR. MORABITO: Judge Bechhoefer. 7 The meter that you look at to get that indication is 8 on the vertical board down behind tlio control panel It causes 9 the operator to go behind the control panel and get his nose 10 right up to that meter to see the indications and read it. 11 There was no way that I could have read it myself , l 12 unless I had called it up on the computer screen. I don't 13 recall whether I called it up on the computer screen or not. 14 But the question, again, was to the operator. And my 15 action was to valt for his response. 16 JUDGE HETRICK: Do I understand then, Mr. Norris, i 17 that thinking out loud is okay if what you say is correct, but [ 18 not okay it it's wrong; is that it? ! i 19 MR. NORRIS: Thinking out loud is an indication of ; 20 your thought process in the middle of an accident. If your l 21 thought process is not correct, or in this case it could have f 22 been your thought process or the use of the procedure is not ( 23 correct. j 24 And, yes, sir, I agree with you, thinking out loud I 25 incorrectly is wrong. [ ( Heritage Reporting Corporation r (202) 628-4888 i
108 O 1 <eause > ' 2 MR. NORRIS: If I may, Judge Bechhoefer, you said } 3 also with respect to the. temperature, it was under interactions } 4 and communications. The same comment in that when asking a l 5 question, you should wait for the response rather than : 6 answering it yourself if the temperature that needed to be f 7 looked at was behind the panels, and I do not recall where they
)
8 are located. I haven't been to Beaver Valley in quite awhile. : 9 But if they are in fact that hard for the SRO to look at, and , 10 he has to wait for one of his board operators to look at it, t 11 then why is he vocalizing to himself, an indication that he has 12 no idea what it will be. ! 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Maybe I should ask him. 14 Mr. Morabito, why did you say yes aloud? l t 15 MR. MORABITO: I guess I would have been smarter if I 16 had just shut up. I 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, that may be, but I asked you why 18 you said it.
]
19 MR. MORABITO: I truthfully thought that at that 20 point in the progression of the scenario that the temperatures 21 probably were not less than 395 degrees. And I was surprised [ I 22 when the operator said that they were. { 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay, so you were guessing at what it l 24 might be. 25 MR. MORABITO: Exactly. O Heritage Reporting Corporation i 3 e (202) 628-488.8 { n
l l l
~.s 109 1 MR. NORRIS: I would like to clarify something.
2 The question is are temperatures greater than 395 3 degrees. He assumed they were. The correct answer from the 4 operator was no,.they were not. I think you had it reversed. 5 . JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, that may be. 6 MR. MORABITO: Okay. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: You are right. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Again I would ask why is this a 9 situation where a candidate initially provides the wrong answer 10 and recognizes the mistake with little prompting, and corrects 11 the answer? If a candidates gives an answer to a ques': ion with 12 only two possible answers, then corrects the answer, the 13 examiner should expand the questioning to ensure that the 14 candidate understands the system and has not yet -- 15 MR. NORRIS: You read an example of a marginal 16 evaluation. Is one where a candidate initially provides the 17 wrong answer, and then later recognizes the mistake with little 18 prompting. He was prompted by one of his operators, not only 19 prompted him. He turned around and gave him the correct 20 information. That's not -- a marginal would be one, sir, where 21 I asked you the question, you gave me an answer, and then you 22 turned around and said, no, wait a minute, let me correct that. l 23 That's where you may have had a false thought initially. You 24 corrected ourself. And now I am going to turn around and ask l 25 you another question in the same area to see whether you () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
110 g 1 weren't.sure or really you just were confused initially. 2 This is one where he was not -- did not correct 3 himself with a little prompting, but was told the correct 4 answer by another individual. That does not fall in the same 5 category. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, are you construing answers 7 to questions asked -- specific answers to questions previously 8 asked as prompting? 9 I don't equate giving an answer to a question you 10 have previously been asked as a prompt. That is not a prompt. 11 That's answering a previously asked question. 12 MR. NORRIS: I'm not sure if I realize -- I may say 13 something. I may be in another direction. 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I don't believe that responding -- 15 hearing a response to a question that he previously asked is 16 prompting. 17 MRs NORRIS: Again, remember, this is geared -- this 18 chapter in the standards is geared towards our examination of 19 an individual candidate where we are asking him questions. 20 This is a case where he was giving information to 21 himself, answering yes, and then somebody else gave him 22 different information. And again it's not -- it far outside of 23 the idea of me asking him a question and you him correcting 24 himself. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Excuse me. Is this paragraph we are
)
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
i
,-) 111 )
() 1 .looking at to be limited to the oral examination, or is it also
)
2 used as a guideline in the simulator? ; 3 MR. NORRIS: It is a guideline for the oral portion 4 and the simulator. But prompting is where he has corrected 5 bimself, or.possibly by further questioning from the examiner, 6 you know, will realize that he has gone off into a tangent by 7 himself, but to be given the correct answer outright from 8 another candidate, he has not had the chance to correct himself - 9 if he realized he was wrong. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Now what about this line, "The 11 exauiner should expand the questioning to ensure that the 12 candidate understand the system or event and is not guessing" 13 MR. NORRIS: There is nothing to expand in this
)
14 condition, sir. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: You are saying this is not relevant 16 to this -- 17 MR. NORRIS: In this case, no. Would he have gone 18 off in the other direction, that is one of those cases where no 19 matter what he said, in this case he went in the right 20 direction after his operator corrected him. 21 And myself, if I was in the examining technique and 22 realized I had made a mistake, I would be saying, no, I would 23 have waited for the response. 24 Again, I have to go in this case in the simulator 25 purely by observation. There was no follow-up question that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- 112 1 would have been appropriate, sir.
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Could you not have asked him would 3 he.have ever taken action before getting an answer 4 MR. NORRIS: Again, sir,~this -- 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Because he says no today, but -- 6 MR. NORRIS: This is an audit of his knowledge to -- 7 he realized at that point, or as an examiner he made an action 8 that I questioned. He was corrected before I could follow up 9 on it. 10 To ask him then would you ever take an action without 11 waiting for feedback from your operators is asking him a 12 question that's giving him the answer based on his action 13 earlier. 14 Again, I saw no reasonable follow-up questioning for , 15 this comment. ET4 16 (Continued on next page.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 -
i l
< 113 l
1 MR. GUTIERREZ: Excuse me, Judge Bechhoefer, I
- j. 2 wonder if I might, I don't know the procedures you want to l
l 3 follow, but a question comes to my mind that might clarify your 4 questioning that has just gone on. 5 And I wonder if I could pose it or suggest it to you? 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, of course you may. I 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 1 1 8 MR. GUTIERREZ: What I was wondering is, Mr. Norris, ) 9 when you heard M' Morabito's answer to the question he posed, 10 or Mr. Silk for *.nat matter, when you think back to the day of 11 the simulator, can you tell the panel any indication, anything 12 you recall that would have led you to believe Mr. Morabito was 13 about to act, based on that answer, prior to waiting for the 14 answer from the operator? j i 15 You portrayed a situation where the operator 1 16 interjected himself and corrected Mr. Morabito. The panel 17 seems to be confused why Mr. Morabito was simply not, although 18 stating an incorrect answer, he did not take any action until 19 he heard from the operator. 20 So, it leads me to ask, is there anything that you 21 can recall on the day of the simulator that would lead you to 22 believe and that you could share with the Board now, that would 23 leave you to believe that Mr. Morabito was about to act on his 24 verbal answer? 25 MR. SILK: Checking with my notes that he did not O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
114 0s .1 wait for an answer, that he went on ahead and read the 2 procedure that would have been -- the way he answered the 3 question, himself, he followed the pattern of procedure without 4 waiting for the correct answer from the operator. 5 MR. GUTIERREZ: Could you elaborate on what the 6 significance of what you just said is? You said, he went on to 7 the next step, what does that mean? 8 MR. SILK: To the best of my recollection, he went to 9 the right-hand column of procedure that is, the response not 10 obtained, and he was going to go down that path. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: When you say, went to the right, 12 what do you mean?
~
13 MR. SILK: There is a flow path for the procedures 14 that, based on the answers that he gets to the question -- in 15 this case, he was -- based on the wording of the question, 16 sometimes the logic is backwards, but if things are going, if 17 the accident is proceeding in a particular understood manner, 18 you will flow through these procedures, check different things 19 to resolve the problem. 20 But if something comes up where it is not a 21 parameter, or indication or pump or whatever is not functioning 22 properly, you sidestep and go to a response not obtained, and 23 that will give you some direction on how to deal with that 24 unexpected occurrence. 25 MR. NORRIS: What he is saying is, based on whether 3 (V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
115
~
1 the answer was yes, or no, he would go in one of two 2 directions. 3 His notes reflect that he answered yes, and he read 4 the next step under the yes section of that procedure. So, 5 that was information that I did not have, which answers, Dr. 6 Hetrick's question of, did he proceed based on his answer of 7 yes, and it sounds like he did.
'8 JUDGE HETRICK: But couldn't you explain that by 9 saying he was just curious what --
10 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: -- he might have to do -- 12 MR. NORRIS: No, sir, that is not true. If he starts 13 reading those procedural steps in the middle of an emergency, {~} 14 that is not the time to be curious about what the next step is. 15 If he wants to read it to himself for his 16 information, that would not be wrong. When to start reading 17 those procedures out loud in the middle of an emergency, that 18 is not good supervisory, that is not -- his operators are going 19 to hear a step of do this, and the operator should turn around 20 and do it. They don't know that he is reading for information, 21 not if it is out loud. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see, so that this was 23 sufficiently out loud so that other people in the room could 24 actually hear the reading from the following procedures? Hear 25 more, than just the word, yes? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,_ 116 1). . 1 MR. SILK: I don't recall.
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, did he read out any of the 3 procedures as such? 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Did he read out loud the wrong 5 procedure, or start to read out loud the wrong procedure? 6 MR. SILK: I don't recall, he just went ahead without 7 waiting for an answer. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Do you recall? 9 MR. MORABITO: I recall that I answered the question, 10 yes, to myself and I read on ahead to find out what I would be 11 doing next. 12 The important thing to understand is how the OP's are 13 operated. They are SRO-RO intensive. I can't do anything as (~)/ N-14 an SRO. It is the RO that takes the actions. I ask him the 15 question and he gives me the response. I tell him what the 16 next step is or what the next question is, or whatever. 17 And that is the process that we were in. Until he 18 gave me the response of no, I gave him no additional direction. 19 I did read on in the procedure to see what we would be doing, 20 when he gave me the response that I expected to come back, yes. 21 Instead it came back, no, and we went in that correct path. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: And when you got the yes, I am sorry, 23 when you got the, no, what was your next action? 24 MR. MORABITO: Well, when I got the, no, the next 25 action was to mcve over as has been explained to the response O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 l
f ,, 117
\]
1 not obtained column and you take the action that is in that 2 column, which is - -I don't have.these procedures memorized by 3 the way; I am responding on what I believe happened. 4 But we did react to the operator's response of, no. 5 That is the action that we took. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did you actually read out loud any 7 of the procedures which would have been followed, if the yes 8 was correct? 9 MR. MORABITO: No, again, you have to understand. 10 The operators, when you ask the operator a question, the 11 operator knows that we are not going to do anything else, until 12 he answers that. 13 I don't believe that I read the procedure out loud 14 while I was waiting for his response. I may have. I don't l- 15 know. It is, you know, it is not a big thing. I waited on his 16 response and we acted on his response. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, in the communication dated 18 February 4th, from Mr. Morabito, he had oosed an examination of 19 a Mr. Backing? 20 MR. MORABITO: Backing. l 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And there was a comment on that l 22 examination which I wanted to see if it is comparable or not. 23 It is on page ES-305, page 3, and it is under number 2. 24 MR. NORRIS: Can you tell me what the page starts out 25 at, sir? l Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888
118
.-(-)
~
1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I think at the top, it.says, 2 see form 309 and then this is -- 3 MR. NORRIS: Okay. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At the bottom under comments, 5 there are comments one and two and it is-comment two that I am-6 interested in, the comparability of the situation. 7 MR. NORRIS: It says that the setting, it was a 8 verification of a plant parameter, the comment is, setting 9 emergency boration would lower only temperature, correct itself 10 later. 11 This is a case where he, in fact, corrected himself. 9 12 I was not involved with this exam, but I can envision something 13 like where he said something, thought to himself and corrected 14' the statement to the examiner.
~
15 That is different from somebody else correcting his 16 information. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And this one, that person was 18 rated satisfactorily, actually. 19 MR. NORRIS: Tnat would be one comment to what could 20 be a large number of verifications. How much was involved? 21 With this examination, I don't know. The line of questioning 22 involved with this one, this section of the exam, I wouldn't 23 know. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, what I tried to bring out is 25 whether there was a differing treatment of comparable. O Heritage Reporting Corporation [ ! (202) 628-4888
119 () 1 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, this says, corrected himself, 2 as opposed to, corrected by somebody else. And that is where 3 the difference lies. He corrected it himself. He realized the 4 difference. It was not such a problem as someone else having 5 to correct him. 6 MR. GUTIERREZ: Judge Bechhoefer, just for 7 clarification, I am uncertain what you are reading from, but 8 was Mr. Norris at this exam? 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I do not know. 10 MR. GUTIERREZ: How can you be asked to compare and 11 contrast this situation to what he observed, when he did not 12 observe the second situation? r3 13 I am just -- U 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I am trying to -- and this 15 is an exam that was sent in by Mr. Morabito, several weeks ago 16 and I wanted to see whether there was any difference in 17 standard use of grades difference. 18 MR. GUTIERREZ: But what these exams do, Judge 19 Bech: toe f er, is document observations and if Mr. Norris was not 20 at this exam to observe, I just am uncertain what you are 21 asking here? i 22 How he can provide a useful comparison?x 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I think I got a useful 24 answer; I think my question was answered. 25 MR. MORABITO: Judge Bechhoefer, the exhibit that you O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
120 Os 1 were referring to, I~ don't believe has been entered into the 2 record,-yet. 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, it has not-been. I am not 4 sure it has to be, i 5 MR. MORABITO: Okay. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: There are differences and I am not 7 sure if it would be useful to put it in the record. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Let's move on to the next topic. j 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I don't think that the answers we i 10 get we need to put that in. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito, on the fourth comment, 12 under compliance, use of procedures, we raised a question suggesting that one interpretation might be that this was a {} 13 14 minor event which, in fact, was an illustration of good 15 teamwork. ( 16 And I noticed that on your subraission of January l 17 28th, which is Exhibit Number 3, your Exhibit Number 3, Page 18 12, seconc' line, you say, we do not test individual candidates 19 for sequential performance of all twenty steps as individuals. 20 That is relevant to some other comment. l 21 The point I want to call your attention to, s, nor 22 do we restrict them from helping each other. In fact, we 23 encourage it. 24 Io that a general rule in training and in preparation 25 for examinations? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_v 121 (# 1 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir, we do teach teamwork, 2 teamwork and diagnostic skills. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: What is the safety significance of 4 the step that was missed? By that, I mean, not checking if the 5 LH side pumps were running? 6 MR. MORABITO: If the low-head safety injection pumps 7 were not running and they were supposed to be, adequate cooling 8 flow to the reactor core may not occur. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: How close to a safety injection do 10 you think you were at that time, in this scenario? 11 MR. MORABITO: I think that we had a safety 12 injection. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Actually, it had been called for? 14 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: I see, so that this is a verification - 16 that injection has begun? 17 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. l 19 And in this case then, the person acting as SRO, 20 reminded you to make that check, right? 21 MR. MORABITO: Yes, he did. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: All right. 23 MR. MORABITO: I would like to make an additional l 24 comment to your question. 25 One of the practices that we teach, and in fact, are l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,j-q 122 ~
1 required by the EOP's, is that the SRO. start at step number one 2 of the immediate action steps, for eithe.- the reactor trip 3 procedure or for the loss of all AC power procedure. 4 And read each step out loud, requesting verification 5 from the operator, after the operator-has had a chance to 6- perform that step and it is, in many cases, depending on the 7 preference of the SRO, perhaps before the operator has even had 8 a chance to perform that step. 9 So, it is a requirement that the SRO review all the 10 steps, specifically'for the purpose of ensuring that the 11 operator has not missed one. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: In terms of safety significance, what 13 other verification is possible, whether safety injection has
) j 14 begun and the reason I ask that question is, it seems to me 15 possible that a pump could be running, but a valve could be 16 closed and you are getting pump action with no flow.
17 Isn't that possible? 18 MR. MORABITO: Yes, it is. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: So, are there other steps for 20 verification of the existence of flow? 21 MR. MORABITO: Yes, there are steps for verification l 22 of high head flow; there is steps for verification of valve 23 positions. There are many steps for verification of safety 24 injection. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Is there an independent step that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- 123 I measures the existence of flow, so that this particular check, 2 about whether the pump is running could be redundant?
3 Do you see what I am getting at? Could the flow be 4 observed even though that pump step got skipped? 5 MR. MORABITO: I don't recall right now. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 7 On one of the Staff Exhibits, I guess that would be 8 the submission of January 28th, no, I am sorry, January 29th, 9 on Page 16, Number 55, paragraph 55, and that is going to be 10 Staff Exhibit Number 3, okay? 11 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: Number 55 says, the omission of one 13 of the immediate action steps is generally not a major 14 deficiency by itself. 15 Any comments? 16 MR. NORRIS: I do not recall what the pressure of the 17 reactive cooling system was, at the time of Mr. Morabito's 18 verification of the pumps. Whether the low-head safety 19 injection pumps should have been injecting at this time, or 20 whether they were on recirculation, I don't know. But again, 21 the comment is to a competency, particularly to perform the 22 actions that are required of him to be memorized by the 23 emergency operating procedures. 24 He had already verified this section of the board, by 25 looking at his high-head safety injection pumps; he had not i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
124
~ #
1 ~ verified that the low-head safety injection pumps were running, 2 as required-3 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, there has been some talk about 4 memorization here. Is it required or isn't it? 5 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, in this case, it is one of the 6 very few cases where memorization of procedural steps is 7 required, and it is so stated in their emergency operating 8 procedures, at the very beginning of this procedure, E-0. It 9 is so stated in their administrative procedures which governs 10 their use of procedures. And it is also so stated in the NUREG 11 which governs the examiner's standards that emergency operating 12 procedures, immediate action steps, will be memorized. 13 There are roughly, I believe, Mr. Morabito, said, 20
)
14 steps in E-O that must be memorized in order to be performed in 15 sequence. 16 And this was an indication where he could not perform 17 all of the required steps, in this case, just a verification 18 step of an automatic action to ensure that it had happened. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: So, this is to be distinguished from 20 a number of other procedures where one has an opportunity to go
- 21 to the book and look them up and follow them step-by-step?
l l 22 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, there is a very great 23 distinction between the two. 4 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Do you have a comment? 25 MR. MORABITO: That is exactly correct, as Barry O Heritage Reporting Corporation * (202) 628-4888 . E
l n 125 k_)' 1 described it. The comment that I would make on it, though, is 2 that the pressure in this scenario, the reactive cooling system 3 pressure, that got me into trouble with something that we will 4 probably discuss later on, but it never got down below 1,600 5 pounds. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, this is one where I guess I 7 asked the question earlier, but when there is only one 8 immediate step or EOP that is missed, and it is such a crucial 9 part of an examination, should there not be some follow-up 10 questioning, not so much on the step, itself, but on whether i 11 the procedures are generally understood? 12 MR. NORRIS: This was a condition where we put him (} 13 14 into, could he perform a task? This is one of the few tasks where we expect it to be performed almost flawlessly. This is 15 the emergency procedure. This is a condition where the plant 16 is not in a safe condition. To protect the safety of the 17 public; to protect the core, itself, certain actions should 18 take place. Those actions are automatic and they should be 19 verified. He could not perform that. < 20 Now, this comment, in and of itself, as we stated in 21 our affidavit, would not warrant a failure. There is no 22 required follow-up discussion again, on this topic. It was an l 1 23 observation of his performance in the simulator, but it was 24 another comment under the competency of use of procedures, , 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: On this one, the, when the Staff l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
r ,, 126
')
~
1 answered my questions, they, you did say that the observation 2 was controlling but that the U-rating was based on four 3 deficiencies. 4 Did you, should that not have been three? 5 Because the way that I read it, Region I withdrew one 6 of the comments. 7 MR. NORRIS: Could you tell me where you are? 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, let me see if I can get the 9 reference here. 10 MR. NORRIS: I believe I found where you are looking, 11 sir, paragraph 64 on Page 20? 12 JUDGE BECUHOEFER: Yes, that is the one that I was 13 referring to. Shouldn't the word, four, be three? 14 MR. NORRIS: No, sir, the statement of unsatisfactory 15 in the area of use procedures was based on the four 16 competencies. The evaluation of an unsatisfactory when the 17 initial recommended failure was done, was four competencies. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, it says, the area of 19 compliance, use of procedures, that is one competency. And my 20 records show that it was based on now three deficiencies, 21 because one was withdrawn, three comments. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. 23 MR. NORRIS: My answer goes back to the original day. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, this specific -- l 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, but that is irrelevant. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
127
)
1 MR. NORRIS: No,-but I guess that-is the way I read 2 the question.- The rating of unsatisfactory was based on four 3 deficiencies. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But now, there are only three, is 5 that not correct? 6 JUDGE HETRICK: We are talking about -- 7 MR. NORRIS: I believe one was withdrawn, yes. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: We are talking about one competency 9 here, not four. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: One. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: We are talking about one area of 12 competency, four deficiencies, which is now three, isn't that 13 correct? 14 MR. NORRIS: Yes, I understand that. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, okay. 16 MR. MORABITO: To my own knowledge, now, I am not 17 .sure what just happened here. I believe that the examiners 18 were truthful when they said that their overall judgment of an 19 unsatisfactory performance was based on what they saw as four : 20 deficiencies. And in the process of this appeal, the Region 21 agreed that one of those deficiencies was no longer applicable, 22 so there are now only three. 23 And if they based their unsatisfactory rating on 24 four, what is it now that there are only three? 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think that is a reasonable ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 <
~- _ . . _ ,
128 q A_/ 1 question. 2 MR. NORRIS: Just a minute,'I am looking for 3 'something for a minute, please? 4 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Bechhoefer, could I point out, 5 that Mr. Silk and Mr. Norris can only testify to personal 6 knowledge from the rating that they did on the examination in 7 August, whenever, July or August, 1986. 8 To the extent that the Region or headquarters staff 9 changed the grading, any questions related to that, other than 10 the facts that are on record in a document, would have to be 11 directed to the NRC Staff who actually did it. 12 They can only speak to their own grading, from their 13 own knowledge. { 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I am asking them whether 15 they would grade Mr. Morabito unsatisfactory in this competency 16 with only the three that remain? 17 MR. NORRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, I will answer that in 18 two ways. To start out with, to the best of my knowledge, the 19 individual who did the regrade and determined that comment 20 number three should be deleted, still felt that a competency of 21 compliance use procedures should remain unsatisfactory. 22 Dave Silk and myself also feel that third comment is 23 the least significant of the three comments. One, two and four > 24 demonstrate a lack of the proper use of procedures, be they 7 25 abnormal procedures, emergency procedures and potentially . CE) ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886 i t
+w -
f r\ - 12? I surveillance procedures.
]
2 So we would still rate this competency as 3 unsatisfactory. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That is correct, thank you. 5 (The panel confers.) 6 MR. MORABITO: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like to make 7 a comment at this point. As Colleen pointed out, as Ms. 8 Woodhead pointed out, Mr. Norris and Mr. Silk can only comment 9 on the grading that they did. 10 So, for them to make the statement that the 11 headquarters person or that the regional person who deleted 12 this comment, would still grade me as unsatisfactory, I believe (} 13 14 is an unfounded comment and should be stricken from the record. JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think that they made the 15 statement with a three. 16 MR. MORABITO: They did make that statement but they 17 also said, that the person at the Region who deleted that third 18 comment, still considered the performance to be unsatisfactory. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think that is in the record, 20 though, however. My recollection is that when they regraded 21 them they still found an unsatisfactory. 22 MR. MORABITO: But they did not say that competency 23 was still an unsatisfactory. They agreed that one of the 24 comments should be deleted. They made no statement about how 25 it affected that competency. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,_q 130 1 MR. GUTIERREZ: Judge Bechhoefer?
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes? 3 MR. GUTIERREZ: I don't know how far back in time you 4 . want.to go, but in the course of the regrade process, in a 5 letter to Mr. Morabito, from William Kane, the Director of the 6 Regional Reactor Projects, dated November 12, 1986, which was, 7 to my understanding, was a regrade, he does state that no 8 adequate basis was found for reversing our original 9 determinations after that one comment is withdrawn. 10 And this was, I think, re-emphasized in a letter 11 dated February 1987, from Bill Russell to Mr. Morabito. 12 Which, again, was the result of headquarter's review. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, do you interpret that as
)
14 reversing our evaluation for this particular competency, or do 15 you read that as the overall examination evaluation? 16 MR. GUTIERREZ: To answer your question, Dr. Hetrick, 17 I believe that it goes to the overell evaluation. 18 To clarify my answer, the part I read from the cover 19 page, on the November 12, 1986 letter, does I think, in 20 fairness go to the overall evaluation, but as you go through 21 the attachment which critiques Mr. Morabito's arguments, they 1 22 do specifically address each of the comments with respect to 23 the simulator examinations, and state that they do not 24 challenge, they, Mr. Morabito's statements do not challenge the 25 validity of the observations of the examiner concerning the ' } Heritage Reportin " (202) 628-4888
L p 131 V 1 occurrence of the incorrect actions. 2 And from a quick reading, it.does seem to fall short 3 of the ultimate conclusion that, as-a result, iha competencies, 4 or the failures in~those competencies remain. I only can infer 5 that from reading this. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, turning to control-board 7 operations. And comment one, Mr. Morabito, offered a fairly 8 elaborate explanation in his responses to that question. 9 It is what is now Exhibit Number 3, Page 12. 10 And he claims that comment, at least, would satisfy. 11 the criterion for marginal evaluation. I would like to get the 12 Staff's comments on that, given the explanation here? Or you {} 13 14 could explain ' thy you disagree with the explanation that he provided. 15 MR. NORRIS: I think that we should read it. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, it starts on Page 12, and 17 carries over to Page 13. 18 MR. NORRIS: Can I have your question again, please, 19 sir? 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: My question was, is Mr. Morabito 21 right that what he did deserves no worse than a marginal 22 evaluation. 23 MR. NORRIS: Okay, that again, goes back to i 24 evaluating each indi.vidual deficiency that is noted, as opposed 25 to evaluating a competency. We have one deficiency, where we O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l t
132
.(~y
1 noted that he misread 1,600 pounds as 1,400 pounds, excuse me, 2 1,040 pounds. That, in and of itself, is a deficiency and then 3 he triggered the reactor cooling pumps based on his reading 4 indication incorrectly.
5 We don't evaluate an individual deficiency as M or U, 6 and we have never been in the direction of evaluating 7 individual deficiencies as M or U. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEPER: Well, he said he informed the 9 examiner that he prematurely tripped the pumps, with no 10 prompting. 11 Do you confirm that that is what he did? 12 MR. NORRIS: I could not remember back whether or not 13 he informed us or not, taking what he wroto as the truth, that 14 he did inform us, he found out what he did wrong and corrected l 15 himself. 16 That, in and of itself, is good. That I read 17 something wrong, by the way, and I did the wrong action. But j 18 this is one of thosa cases, where correcting yourself after the
- 19 fact, is kind of like saying I should have stepped on the brake 20 and I stepped on the gas. After I hit the tree, I stepped on 21 the wrong pedal. This is a case where he did something wrong, 22 did an action based on it, and then realized that he did the 23 wrong thing.
24 We expect the operators to be able to read the meters : 25 accurately and by reading 1,600 as 1,040, a significant error l ( l , Heritage Reporting Corporation [ ( 2')2 ) 628-4888 r I
<-- n-- , - -
133 (- ,> t 1 in his being able to read the meters. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: And as a result, he tripped both 3 cooling pumps? l 4 MR. NORRIS: As a result of meeting the criteria for 5 tripping reactor cooling pumps, based on his reading of the 6 indication, he tripped the pumps, yes. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: Was it two or -- 8 MR. NORRIS: Three. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: It is three, okay. 10 Mr. Morabito, you have said in your Exhibit Number 3, 11 Page 16, that the comment is actually incorrect. I did not 12 misread 1,600 as 1,040 psi. So you did not misread it, is that 13 right? 14 MR. MORABITO: I did not misread 1,600 as 1,040. I 15 did misread the gauge. I read -- it is very difficult to see 16 the small deviations. It is on the particle board behind the 17 control console and you are standing out in front of the 18 console, it is difficult to see the gauge, but I saw the major 19 indications and they are marked off, in 500-pound increments, I 20 believe is what they are. 21 I looked at the major indication for 1,500 pounds and 22 read that as 1,000. You know, I connected the circle all the 23 way around the five. I saw that as 1,000 pounds. The needle 24 was pointing to the small indication which is a 100-pound 25 increment above that. So, I stated that the -- and I believe O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l 134'
.,)
.1- .that'..I did this out loud -- that the reactive coolant system 2 pressure is 1,100 pounds and then we were in-a step that was 3 trying to de'c ermine whether or not the reactive coolant pumps 4 should be tripped.
5 I read 1,100 pounds, and I asked the. balance of plant 6 operator who was watching steam generator pressure, what his 7 pressure was, and he responded 1,040. 8 And we now had a 60-pound differential. The 9 requirement to trip the pump is for anything less than 145- l 10 pound differential. So, I announced to the SRO, we meet the 11 criteria for tripping the pump. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: 1,040 is the secondary pressure? 13 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. ! 14 JUDGE HETRICK: All right, but the original comment 15 said that you misread 1,600 as 1,040. You are now saying that, 16 to paraphrase it, you misread 1,600 as 1,100, would that be 17 fair? 18 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir, that is correct. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: The difference between 1,100 and i f 20 1,040 isn't that a minor discrepancy that is not very important 21 in terms of how you misread the primary pressuro? 22 MR. MORABITO: Would you ask that again, please? 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, let me start over. 24 The comment says that you misread 1,600 as 1,040, 25 when you actually misread 1,600 as 1,1007 , O Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 r
-c . .B ps 135 1 MR. MORABITO: That is right.
2 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay, therefore, you say the comment 3 is wrong. 4 MR. MORABITO: The comment that states'that I misread 5 the gauge as 1,040, yes, that is incorrect. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Isn't that a minor matter? 7 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 8 But it is still incorrect. It makes you wonder what 9 the examiners were listening to and watching? 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, let me ask the examiner or the 11 Staff, why does the comment say, 1,0407
*2
. MR. NORRIS: My notes from the day of the examination
{} 13 14 indicated that Mr. Morabito read the RCS pressure as 1,040. That is the best thing I could go on at this time. 15 JUDG5 HETRICK: Do you also have a note about what 16 the secondary pressure was? 17 MR. NORRIS: I don't believe that we have that 18 information. 19 We noted that he read he meter incorrectly and 20 because of that, tripped the reactive cooling pumps. We don't 21 have the other information. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, Mr. Morabito, whether, in fact, 23 you saw it as 1,040 or as 1,100, the fact is you did trip the 24 pumps? 25 MR. MORABITO: That is true. O Horitago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, . f., . 136 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would it have made any difference 2 to you, eitherlof you, if the 1,040 had said 1,100 and 3 everything else happened? 4 MR. NORRIS: Based o. what Mr. Morabito already said, 5 even if it had been 1,100, we still had the critoria based on 6 his reading of the RCS pressure to trip the reactive coolant 7 pumps, the reactive coolant pumps would have still been tripped 8 when they should not have been. So it.would make no difference 9 whether it was 1,100 or 1,040. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Because it would still be less than 11 the required differential? 12 MR. NORRIS: Correct. : 13 JUDGE HETRICK: What is the safety significance of
}
14 your action?- , 15 (Continued on the next page.) , 16 l 17 18 l 19 i 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-4888
137 1 'MR. MORABITO: Well, the safety analysis for the-2 plant, which'I believe I have submitted, and I have referred to 3 it, says that this particular accident is analyzed, including a 4
.4 . trip of the reactor coolant pumps.
5 So I did not put the plant in any type of an ! 6 unanalyzed situation by tripping the pumps. , 7- . JUDGE HETRICK: Same exhibit, same page. 8 "The SRO knew the scenario." First of all, what does > 9- that mean? He knows what the incident is and you don't? l t 10 MR. MORABITO: Yes. I ^ ' 11 JUDGE HETRICK: What do you mean by he knew the 12 scenario? {} 13 14 scenario were. MR. MORABITO: He knew what the plans for the l 15 JUDGE HETRICK: That means he was in on it with the f 16 examiners is what you are saying? ! 17 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. But he was restricted from , I 19 providing me with any help. Well, I guess so if he was part of !
~20 the examination.
21 MR. MORABITO: That's right. l 22 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. ; , t 23 MR. MORABITO: My point, Dr. Hetrick here is that a - 24 reactor operator would not make this decision himself. A [ l 25 reactor operator would be asked these questions -- again, this r () Heritage Reporting CJrporation (202) 628-4888 y I i
. , . ~ . _ _ .,.
. . _ _ _ - . . ~ . - _ . . _ , ._ __ - __ - .- - _ , - .
2 138 l
1 gets back to how we operate the ops. The SRO would ask the 2 . questions of th6 reactor operator. -
3 The reactor operator would respond to the question 4 and then take the action that the SRO directed. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Doesn't this mean that this scenario 6 then is rather unrealistic in terms of plant operation? 7 MR. NORRIS: If I may? Based on what Mr. Morabito 8 just said, the SRO would give direction and act on information 9 that he was provided by his operators. 10 Whether he had an instructor in the role of the SRO 11 or another candidate in the role of the SRO, based on what Mr. 12- Morabito just said, he would act on, given an RCS pressure of 13 1040 or 1100 pounds, he would have to include, based on that 14 information, that the criteria for tripping their reactor 15 coolant pumps was met. 16 So it makes no difference whether he had an 17 instructor or a candidate in the position of SRO. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand that. But who give the 19 order? 20 MR. NORRIS: The SRO gives the order. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Did he? 22 MR. NORRIS: I could not recall at this stage whether 23 he said trip the reactor coolant pumps or whether he said if we 24 meet the conditions trip the reactor coolant pumps. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Who tripped the purps, you or the CE) l Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888
-N ~ 139 , b 1 SRO?
-2 MR. MORABITO: I tripped the_ pumps.
3 JUDGE HETRICK: You did? P 4 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Isn't the SRO the one who says that? 6 MR. MORABITO: The SRO is here if you would like to 7' talk to him. Mr. Schad was the SRO. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, no, before we do that let me 9 ask from your knowledge, isn't it the SRO's responsibility to t 10 order the coolant pumps to be tripped or not? 11 MR. MORABITO: Yes. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: Did he, did he order you to? 13 MR. MORABITO: I believe his words were, if we meet j (]} 14 the criteria, trip the pumps. 15 JUDGE HETRICT e au then as operator followed 16 what you interpreted I guess as instructions, right? 17 MR. MORABITO: That is correct. ! 18 JUDGE HETRICK: So to go back to my previous 19 question, then, is this not a rather unrealistic situation? It 20 doesn't reflect what would happen in an emergency in a real 21 plant? l 22 MR. MORABITO: I believe that's true. Yes, sir. ! 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Any comments to that? ; 24 MR. NORRIS: No, sir, I don't feel it is unrealistic. 25 First of all, he is a candidate for a senior license. ; i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
P r 1 As a senior license candidate, he is expected to know what 2 those trip criteria are if he was in the position of the 3 supervisor. 4 Additionally, I would say that going on the direction 5 -that he was given from the SRO, if it was, if we meet-the i 6 condition trip the pumps, it still goes back to his reading the 7 meter, no matter who was the supervisor in this case, based on 8 the information that was provided as RCS pressure, the pumps 9 should have been tripped. 10 It would make no difference who was in which 11 position. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: I understand this is an SRO exam. {) 13 14 But in this particular scenario, this candidate is playing the operator role, not the senior operator role. Right? 15 MR. NORRIS: He tripped the pumps. That's true, sir.
- 16 He tripped the pumps because he believed the trip criteria were 17 met and he was given that authority by the supervisor to say if t
18 we meet the criteria, trip the pamps. l 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Is this delegating authority or is 20 this telling him to do something? ! 21 MR. NORRIS: The operators are responsible for j 22 maintaining their equipment and he does have that authority to 23 trip the pumpe -- 24 JUDGE !!ETRICK: I'm serious. 25 MR. NORRIS: -- and we would expect an operator to t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l - 141 O 1 know those trip criteria. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: Is the SRO delegating authority or is 3 he ordering him to do it? I think it's an important 4 distinction and I think I'd like to try to' clarify that. 5 MR. NORRIS: I don't see a distinction there myself, 6 sir. He gave him, if you have this condition, do this. I < 7 don't consider that delegation. I consider that an order. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: But in a realistic situation, would 9 not the SRO have taken steps to verify what the pressure is? 10 MR. NORRIS: No, sir, -- 11 JUDGE HETRICK: But I thought earlier -- 12 MR. NORRIS: The SRO will ask the board operators for 13 information and act upon that report. So no, the SRO would not 14 turn around and verify it. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: I thought you were criticizing a 16 candidate SRO earlier for not verifying something on the board. 17 Did I misunderstand? 18 MR. NORRIS: Are we talking about the RCS temperature 19 report? Is that what you're going back to, his verification? 20 JUDGE HETRICK: I believe so. 21 MR. NORRIS: What I said was he could either verify 22 himself or get reports from his operator. Mr. Morabito said 23 no, he should in fact work on reports back from his operators. 24 He should not be verifying himself. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: What about this phrase, he was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
~ ,_.s 142
(_) i restricted from providing me with any help. Is that not a i i 2 special situation because he is an examiner acting as an SRO? 3 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, that is a special case. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: 'And then does that not make it an 5 unrealistic situation? 6 MR. NORRIS: He will act as a very good senior 7 operator in a supervisory position allowing us to evaluate the 8 candidates on their ability to manipulate the control boards. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: It still seems to me it is a l 10 contrived situation which -- 11 MR. NORRIS: It is an unusual situation, I will not 12 disagree. It is a situation that has been used numerous times 13 at I would be willing to say every facility that has a 14 simulator and has been used with no problems consistent with 15 this previously. ; 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let me interrupt a bit -- 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Go ahead. : 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- and ask, would an SRO not l 19 connected with any examination or anything like that know that, 20 first, the RCS pressure was 1,600 PSIG? Or would he be solely 21 relying on the operator's observation? 22 MR. NORRIS: That would depend on the individual l 23 supervisor in the individual set of conditions that existed. I f 24 would like to go on what Mr. Morabito said, that the supervisor - 25 would rely on reports back from his operators. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888
,3 143 1 So if that is the case, the supervisor would not 2 reverify the indication. He would believe~his operators.
3 JUDGE HETRICK: But in this case the SRO knew it 4 because he's an examiner. 5 MR. NORRIS: Because he's part of the facility staff. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh. Wait a minute. 7 MR. NORRIS: Mr. Schad is part of the facility staff. 8 He was placed in the position of the supervisor for this one 9 scenario. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Right. 11 MR. NORRIS: It would not be appropriate for an 12 examiner to be placed in that position. We do not know the 13 level of detail of the plant as an operator would. 14 JUDGE HETRICK: I'm asking you to speculate now. If :
~
15 the person acting as SRO in this scenario had been himself a 16 candidate, would he have been responsible for personally 17 verifying this pressure? 18 MR. NORRIS: Ask that again, please? 19 JUDGE HETRICK: If the SRO, if the person acting as 20 SRO in this scenario had instead been himself a candidate for , 21 an SRO license, would he have been expected to know that the : 22 pressure was 1,6007 23 MR. NORRIS: Most likely not. Again, in a condition 24 of emergency procedures, when you are walking through them in a t 25 rather rapid fire type of atmosphere, he expects his operators ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
, 144 '~'
I to feed him accurate information. And he would ask for an 2 input. He would receive an answer to that input and he would
~
3 act accordingly. 4 Now, an operator may in fact know -- let me rephrase 5 that. He may in fact guess what the parameter may be and 6 question it if he feels it is not proper. But he will not 7 always do it. And the emergency operating procedures are based 8 on symptoms without having to know what the event is. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: So you are saying then that this was 10 a realistic test of the candidate? 11 MR. NORRIS: For the control board operators, yes, 12 sir, it was. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: On Page 13, Exhibit 3, the same (} 14 paragraph, Mr. Morabito says the scenario ended just then. I
~
15 then informed the examiner I had prematurely tripped the pumps. 16 This was with no prompting from the examiner. 17 Do you regard that as irrelevant to the particular 18 comments? 19 MR. NORRIS: In this case, yes, sir, I do. 20 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 21 (Remarks off the record) 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I want to go now to comment two 23 concerning control board operations. 24 And I am somewhat confused by statements saying that 25 I think two lights were on. This dual indication, which is l () Heritage Reporting Corporation 4 (202) 628-4888 ,
,- 145
; ).
1 explained by Mr. Morabito on Page 14 of his responses to my 2 questions, his Exhibit 3. 3 .(Pause. Remarks off the record.) 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I'm sorry. I have the wrong one. 5 Do we have any more on that B3Bl? I don't.think so.- 6 B3B2. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me begin by saying, the procedure 8 step required that the residual heat release valve is to be , 9 checked. So are we in the right place? 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: As I understand it, there are 12 indicator lights that give this information. It's not a moving 13 bar or a moving needle on a meter. Right? It uses colored 14 lights. Is that correct? MR. MORABITO: 15 you are talking about the residual 16 heat re' lease valve now? 17 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. , 18 MR. MORABITO: No, there are no light indications, 19 position indications on that, no. 4 20 JUDGE HETRICK: What is this indication lights for I 21 the valve referred to in the examiner's comment? 22 MR. MORABITO: That's an incorrect statement by the 23 examiner. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: How is the residual heat release i 25 valve information displayed to the operator? , Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888 ! e i
m 146 C' 1 MR. MORABITO: The only. indication on the residual 2 heat release valve is the demand indication on the position 3 indicator. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Where does that information come 5 .from, what part of the plant? 6 MR. MORABITO: That comes from the operating system 7 that tells you what amount of signal is being sent to the valve 8 positioner. It does not tell you necessarily what position the 9 valve is in. It just tells you -- 10 JUDGE HETRICK: It's a demand signal. Where doen 11 that signal come from? 12 MR. MORABITOs I believe that is a pneumatic signal 13 derived for the station service system. 14 JUDGE HETRICK: The comment says, candidate was 15 looking at the demand indicator. Manual control, residual heat 16 release valve. You agree with that? 17 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: And then it goes on, and not at the 19 indication lights for the valve. 20 MR. MORABITO: That Js correct. I was not looking at
- 21 the indication lights for the valve. There were no indication 22 lights for the valve.
23 JUDGE HETRICKt Then it says, the candidate appeared 24 confused until other operator came over and explained the 25 controls and indications to the candidate. Is that what l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
147-
"'n . (V 1 happened?
2 MR. MORABITO: The other operator came over and 3 discussed with_me the fact that the demand position indicator i 4 was the only indication we had in the control room for,the 5 position of that valve. [ 6 I looked down at the demand position indicator and it j 7 was telling me that the valve was closed. I didn't want to f 8 answer yes to the SRO's question because I know from 9 experience, and it is common in the industry, to not rely on a ; 10 demand positioner to confirm valve position. 11 So I looked at it and I saw the position indication. : 12 I didn't want to use it to verify the position of the valve, if i 13 there was some other way of doing it. ;
)
14 The other operator came over and agreed with me that I r i 15 there was no other indication in the control room that that - f f 16 valve was properly positioned. I i. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: .Is it proper to say then you looked 1 ;
- 18 at the demand indication and saw that the valve ought to be t 19 closed but you had no way of knowing whether it was closed or f i 20 not? Is that correct?
t 21 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: I have no further questions. ! 23 MR. NORRIS: I'd like to interject that I will agree [ 24 that we were wrong in citing indicator lights but as a board [ 25 operator, Mr. Marabito should have known that there was only i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 l t i
148 1 the demand indicator for that valve. 2 He should not have had to rely on another operator to 3 corroborate his verification of a step in the emergency 4 operating procedures. During his training he should have been 5 through these procedures and he should have been instructed on 6 the proper rate of verifying that step. 7 This shows an unfamiliarity with the indications and 8 controls on the control board in that he had to rely on another 9 operator. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: In what way did he rely on another 11 operator? 12 MR. NORRIS: As it states here, and as Mr. Morabito 13 said, he did not wish to state that the valve was closed. All 14 he had in front of him was demand indication. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: And that doesn't say whether the 16 valve is closed or not. 17 MR. NORRIS: I agree, sir. But it is the only 18 indication he had and as a board operator he should have known 19 that was the only indication he had. 20 JUDGE HETRICK: I thought he just told me he knew it 21 was the only indication he had. 22 MR. NORRIS: But then he said he would not tell the 23 SRO until the other board operator came over and confirmed hi: 24 thoughts that there is no other way to verify this. 25 So the comment is, as a board operator, he should be O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- 149 k _)s I able to handle and use the controls and indications available 2 to him without having to rely on another individual.
3 He was not able to do that to perform this 4 verification step. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: So it is the reliance on the other 6 individual that is the key? 7 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. Any comment? 9 MR. MORABITO: I knew, believed that that was the 10 only indication I had. I asked the other operator to-verify 11 it. He did. We responded properly to the question. That is 12 the situation. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Is there any reason for regarding
}
14 that as unusual behavior on the part of an operator? 15 MR. MORABITO: No. 16 JUDGE HETRICK: Wore things moving so rapidly that 17 you didn't really have time to get a second opinion? 18 MR. MORABITO: No. These were not immediate action 19 steps that we were into at this time. 20 JUDGE HETRICK: How serious is this, Mr. Norris? 21 MR. NORRIS: As far as how serious is his not being 22 able to verify the RHR valve closed, this is another case where 23 this one action in and of itself is not serious. 1 24 But it again indicates that he was not familiar 25 enough with the boards to be able to operate them in a safe and ( Heritage Reporting Corporation . I (202) 628-4888
L 150 0 1 competent manner. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: Wait a minute. I thought he said he !
~
3 looked at the demand' indicator valve and knew that there was no l 4 other way, no direct way to measure whether that valve was 5 closed or not but was able to verify that the demand indicator ! 6 said the valve should be closed. 7 MR. NORRIS: I don't know that, sir. What I know I 8 from observing that examination is that he stood there, he 9 looked at t.te demand indicator, and he called over the other l 10 board operator and required assistance to make a determination : 11 and be able to report the RHR valve indicates closed. 12 Whether he made that mental determination or not i 13 there is no way to determine just from watching him nor is l 14 there any way to determine after the fact of questioning. The 15 information has already been given to him. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did somebody ask him'any i-17 questions? , , 18 MR. NORRIS: Again, sir, this falls into one of those 19 categories where he's been given the correct answer. What 20 would I ask him that he hasn't already been told the correct 21 answer? 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, whether he knew beforehand. ; 23 MR. NORRIS: The answer to that is, anybody that's ; I 24 taking a test is, of course I knew the right answer. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me ask one other point here. i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , t ) i
P
- n ,
151 - 0 1 His need for verification, do you interpret that as not knowing 2 that this information was telling him something or was it a 3 question of he needed verification that this was the only 4 indication of this fact? , 5 I guess what I'm asking is did he know that that was l . 6 the right place to look-as opposed to did he get the right 7 information from him? 8 MR. NORRIS: I'm not sure I understand the question. 9 He stood in front of the proper valve. It appeared that he was 10 staring at the proper indication, the demand indicator. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 12 MR. NORRIS: Whether he understood that was the - 13 proper place to look since he asked for help, it would be too 14 late to follow that line of questioning up. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So you are saying he was looking 16 in the right place. r 17 MR. NORRIS: Yes. And we said that in the initial i ., 18 writeup. He was looking at the demand indicator. ! 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, but that sounds critical. 20 This says he was looking at the demand indicator but he should l 21 have been looking at the indication lights that weren't there. t 22 MR. NORRIS: As we said, it was a two-part initially. ! 23 That would be read as he was looking in the wrong place and l 24 then he required help. And agreed, part of the comment we { i 25 wrote up was incorrect, i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i t
h L 152 9
-[' ) 1 But he still required help before he would respond to 2 that verification step.
3 JUDGE HETRICK: In other words, you are begging to 4 rewrite your comment? 5 .MR. NORRIS: I'm admitting to making an error. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: I think the examiner was confused. 7 Am I wrong? 8 MR. NORRIS: The examiner who wrote up the comment 9 may have been confused on this. The examiner is not expected 10 to have the level of knowledge on that plant that the 11 candidates have. It is an audit of the candidates' knowledge 12 and ability. j 13 JUDGE HETRICK: That's right. But this is a critical 14 question I'm asking. Was he looking at the right thing? ; 15 MR. NORRIS: We said he was, sir. Our comment says l 16 he was looking at the right thing. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: You're saying, but, the comment says 18 he was looking at the right thing but -- four comment says he 19 was looking at one thing and not at the other thing, namely the . 20 indication lights. 21 How am I supposed to read that? It sounds like a 22 criticism that he's looking at the wrong thing. 7 23 MR. NORRIS: And I've tried to clarify that for you d l. 24 here, and we said it in all our affidavits, that the remark t 25 about the indicator lights was wrong. We've said that all O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; I
_ =__ f- 153 ( '/ - 1 along. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: Then it seems to me there is no basis 3 for keeping this comment in at all. 4 MR. NORRIS: Because, sir, again, it was a two-part 5 comment. We were mistaken in saying he was looking in the 6 wrong place. But he should have been able to give us the 7 response back -- excuse me -- give the response to the 8 supervisor -- that my valve indicates closed without having to 9 call over the other board operator. 10 The comment goes back to he couldn't do it by 11 himself. He is expected to be able to verify these steps by 12 himself. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. I have no more questions. 14 JUDGE BECHMOEFER: Going down to this Comment 3 where 15 Mr. Morabito, I guess you were supposed to stop two containment ' 16 sump pumps and you stopped one plus the incore instrument sump 17 pump. 18 Did you intend to shut down the incore instrument 19 sump pump? And if so, why? 20 MR. MORABITO: I did not intend to shut down the , 21 incore instrument sump pump. 22 And let me clarify something. We were not shutting 23 down any pumps. We were putting the switches in the off j 24 position instead of leaving them in the automatic position so f 25 that they wouldn't come on automatically when we reset the () Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888 i l i
I 154 ; 1 safety injection and CIA signals. We did not shut down any i 2 . pumps. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: -The comment-says candidate stopped 4 one containment' sump pump. ; 5 MR. MORABITO: We did not stop it. We put it in the 6 off position, put the control switch in the off -- I put the 7 control switch in the off position. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Go ahead. , 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: To follow up with the staff on 10 this, what does the comment mean when it says candidate stopped i 11 one containment sump pump and incore instrument sump pump? 12 What do you mean by stopping? 4 13 MR. NORRIS: Placing the position in the stop l {'). 14 position. You are placing the switch in the stop position, j 4
- 15 sir. f f
16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So you are affirming what he just j 17 said. l f 18 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. Putting the switch in a 19 position to prevent it from starting. It might be a case of i ] 20 semantics hero in that case. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: The word stop has different meanings. , 22 MR. NORRIS: I'd have to go back and look at exactly l 23 what the procedure says but it says to stop it or to mash the r 24 switch. 25 But the comment was that he should have taken Pump A CE) ! Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 i i t
. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . __. _ _ _ _ = _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
7,- . 155
\# 1 and B and instead he stopped pumps A and C. He stopped the 1
2 wrong pump, or placed the wrong switch in the stop position, f 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: How did you happen to do that? ; 4 MR. MORABITO: Oh, nervousness, excitement. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So that was a mistake? 6 MR. MORABITO: That was a mistake. I believe I , 7 indicated that there were four areas where I made an error in 8 my original specification of claims. I think that was one of ; 9 them. 10 (Remarks off the record)
- 11. JUDGE HETRICK: Well, I guess the only further 12 question I have on this was, you were talking about a place l
13 where another operator volunteered to show that this was the 14 wrong switch. He didn't ask help, the other operator came over l 15 and volunteered. , 16 The comment says, other operator came over to show ( 17 candidate where the other switch was located. i 18 Is that correct to the beet of your knowledge? This ! 19 was voluntary action on the part of another operator? : 20 NR. NORRIS: I have no reason to doubt what is 21 written here. 22 JUDG'. HETRICK: Could it have meant that the other 23 operator came over in response to a request for help? 24 MR. NORRIS: Just fron: what is w.Titten here, I don't i 25 know whether Mr. Morabito asked for assistance or the operator * () Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 t C r
w 156 3
'(V 1 just happened to by looking at the other side of the board 2 realize the wrong pump had been manipulated. ';
i 3 JUDGE HETRICK: Did you ask for help or was it 4 volunteered?
'S MR. MORABITO: I did not ask for help. It was 6 volunteered.
7 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 8 (Remarks off the record) 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Maybe this has been answered. But 10 perhaps we ought to ask, what is the safety significance of 11 this mistake? ! i 12 MR. MORABITO: I have made a filing indicating that ; 13 the safety significance is one of precaution rather than an 14 actual stopping of a discharge to the environment. 15 Even if the pump switch had not been placed in the 16 off position, had been left in the automatic position, there is . 17 no reason to believe that that pump would start when you reset 18 the CIA signal. l 19 On top of that, the procedure we were in was a tube ) 20 rupture which does not place water into the containment. So [ 21 again, the containment sumps would have no reason to have water I i 22 in it. [ 23 And I certainly was aware of the fact that we were in ! 24 the tubo rupture procedure. ; i I 25 JUDGE HETRICK: That brings another question to mind. i o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
- _ _ _ - _ _ __ _ a
m t 157 i
.(,,')
1 I understand what you just said to mean that you had ; 2 diagnosed a tube rupture correctly. You knew 1+. was a tube ! l 3 rupture. , 4 MR. 'It0RABITO: Yes. i 5 JUDGE HETRICK: But you had no way of knowing that 6 there might st.11 be another simulated failure that was yet to 7 come, right? 8 MR. MORABITO: True. ! 9 JUDGE HETRICK: That's possible? 10 MR. MORABITO: Yes. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: So you really can't judge the safety , 12 significance based on the diagnosis you had at that moment {} 13 14 because the scenario wasn't over yet, right? developing. It was still i 15 MR. MORABITO: That is true. The scenario was not 16 over. I had no idea what else was in store for me, f 17 I would like to point out though the fact that it is L l 18 still a precautionary step. The pump would not have started, : l 19 should not have started when we reset the signals and even if f 20 it had, there are valves, double valves in the discharge line, f 21 that were closed, that would have prevented that pump from ; l 22 discharging water outside of containment. i 23 I might also add that this is another step where the 24 SRO who is directing the operation should be watching what his l 25 operator is doing and had the SRO been a candidate with me at . (~>h
\- ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation : (202) 628-4888 i
s 158 1 the time he would have corrected my failure out rather than 2 having the operator come over to correct it. 3 MR. NORRIS: If I may, it is immaterial whether 4 another candidate would have corrected him. The other board 5 operator corrected him. 6 The point exists he had to be corrected. He 7 manipulated the wrong switch. The operators must know the 8 equipment on their control boards. He had to be corrected. 9 And it is immaterial who had to correct him. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: I forget. Is this one of the 11 comments where you said this alone would not have -- 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He said that for all of them. (} 13 14 JUDGE HETRICK: JUDGE BECHHOEFER:
-- been enough?
He said that for all of them. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: We didn't ask it for every question. 16 I just wanted to be sure this is one of them. 17 Was it one of the ones where you said it would not 18 alone be sufficient for an unsatisfactory? 19 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, you did ask about that. 20 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. So he made a mistake in the 21 switch. He admitted it. He didn't ask for help, help was 22 volunteered. 23 This alone would not be enough for unsatisfactory in 24 this category. How many mistakes liko that would be enough? 25 MR. NORRIS: Sir, it is a question that has no O Corporation Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888
m
, 159 i
( 1 qualitative answer to it. It is a subjective decision based on I 2 the candidate performance, based on the significance of what [ 3 happened-because of his performance. An action that in-this i 4 ' case he made a board manipulation that was incorrect.
~
5 No action that' was adverse to the environmant or to ,
- '6 the core occurred.
7 If he had made a single accident, excuse me,-a single 8 action on the boards which ended up in severe damage to the 9 core, severe damage to the environment, a large radioactive ; 10 release to the public, one comment may very well fail an f 11 individual. i 12 JUDGE HETRICK: 'So you do consider potential ; F 13 consequences? 14 MR. NORRIS: Oh, yes, sir, we do. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. That's what I thought. - ! 16 (Remarks off the record) ! 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Comment 4 on control board -!
- 18 operation.
19 We were a little confused as to what CIA and CIB f t
- 20 mean. ;
21 MR. NORRIS: CIA and CIB. CIA is containment phase j l 22 isolation signal A. CIB is containment isolation phase B. I i i 23 may have the order of the words for Beaver Valley specifically i 24 mixed up. But it's two steps in the isolation of the ! 25 containment. 1 ( l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 , [
- I
- - - - _. _ __ , - - - - - , - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ __ . _ _ . . - - _ _ _ ___ ______ _ _l
e - i i 160 < O 1 Phase A isolation, CIA, isolates most of the systems 2 and most of the piping that penetrates the containment wall. 3 There are still a few systems that continue to operate. 4 CI isolation Phaso B follows up all the signals. I j 5 don't believe there are any signals at Beaver Valley or any 6 systems, rather, that still flow back and forth through the 7 containment wall on a CIB. So it is different levels of isolation of the 8 9 containment. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. I went to a textbook for this 11 and it told me that it stood for containment isolation l 12 activation. 13 MR. NORRIS: That could be, some systems call it a I 14 CIAS, containment isolation activation signal. But that is 15 not a Westinghouse terminology. Westinghouse terminology is 16 CIA, CIB, relating to different levels of isolation of the l 17 containment. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Good. Thank you. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: My question of the staff here is, 20 does the unsatisfactory rating, does the listing of this, does 21 it result from pushing the wrong buttr>n or from later failing 22 to verify it or from both? 23 MR. NORRIS: Are you referring to the fourth comment, 24 sir? 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
rs 161 ('") 1 MR. NORRIS: There is not a reationable way of 2 verifying the CIA until you attempt to oporate the equipment. 3 The original comment was he should h ave reset both Train A and 4 Train B of the CIA signal. 5 In fact, he did the Train B of the CIA and the Train 6 A of the CIB. 7 In other words, he pushed one wrong button. If you 8 don't push both of the Train A buttons, to reset it, you won't 9 be able to operate the Train A equipment. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Excuse me. Let me understand. 11 He is supposed to operate the CIA Train A and Train B 12 buttons. Is that it?
~T 13 MR. NORRIS: That's what he should have depressed, (G
14 yes, sir. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: And so he got one out of two? 16 MR. NORRIS: That's correct. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: I see. 18 MR. NORRIS: I would have to check the Beaver Valley 19 specific system of whether both of them had to be depressed to 20 use any of the CIA systems or whether you could still use part 21 of the systems. 22 I believe, to the best of my recollection, both Train 23 A and Train B buttons would have to be depressed before any of 24 the systems could be unisolated. l 25 JUDGE HETRICK: So you have CIA Train A, CIA Train B, Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
r i 7, 162 t, b.- 1 CIB Train A, CIB Train B? b ) 2 MR. NORRIS: Correct, sir. ; t 3 JUDGE HETRICK: Marvelous. I 4 MR. NORRIS: It's just the redundant systems to : 5 ensure isolation. If.one system were to fall the other train 6 of the same system should ensure isolation. ; 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, on the lack of verification, 8 is that really a separate deficiency? Is that considered 9 separate from pushing the wrong button? 10 That is different, obviously. But'the last sentence ! 11 says candidate did not verify CIA was reset. j 12 MR. NOPRIS: As I said, I believe he wouldn't have 13 been able to verify resetting CIA until they went into trying 14 to operate some of the valves that were affected by the CIA 15 signal. i 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So to have avoided the last 17 sentence, what would he have had to have done? 18 MR. NORRIS: I'm not sure. But I believe the 19 scenario stops soon after that so we didn't get into the 20 condition of operating the valves. 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I just want to know if that 22 is a fair comment, then. 23 MR. NORRIS: I don't recall whether CIA is indicated. 24 I may not be thinking of the Beaver Valley plant specific. 25 There is a status board I believe above the emergency equipment O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
-163 i .(}
1 ~ of the difforent actuation signals, whether they have been l j 2 received and\or reset. - 3 I believe Beaver Valley has that indication but.if i 4 you could check with Mr. Schad or Mr. Morabito, they would tell . 5 me if that indication is on the control board. l 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, let's ask first from Mr. 7 Morabito, if-he can answer. ' 8 MR. MORABITO: There is no verification for CIA reset 9 in the control room, that an operator would use. ;
- 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER
- So when you are criticized for not .j 11 verifying the CIA was reset, --
l 12 MR. MORABITO: There was no way to do it. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: There is no way to do it? 14 MR. MORABITO: Other than operating the valveti. ; 15 Which we hadn't gotten to at that point in the procedure. I 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well let me ask the staff, then, 17 if that last sentence is a fair comment. The last sente/ ice ! 18 saying candidate did not verify CIA was reset. He said he f 19 couldn't. [ 20 MR. NORRIS: Very loosely, in that he did not verify j 21 that he in fact pressed the wrong buttons. That's about as far 22 as we could take it. I 23 JUDGE HETRICK: But he had no way to do that. Right? 24 MR. NORRIS: Looking -- each button is labeled. l i 25 Putting your fingers over the buttons and reading the labels on j O Heritage Reporting Corporation l i (202) 628-4888 l l f
f
- 164 1 them. He didn't do that. :
2 JUDGE HETRICK: That's the verification you are 3 talking about? 4 MR. NORRIS: I, again, going back 18 months or-19 5 months, what was meant when I wrote, or when Dave wrote that 6 sentence and I reviewed it with him, I do not recall. 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Dave, do you recall? 8 MR. SILK No, I don't recall. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: But what is says is, verify the CIA 10 was reset. That is a different thing from verifying that the 11 buttons were in the right place. 12 There are two different things semantically, right? 13 MR. NORRIS* Not necessarily. You could go on the 14 idea of reset it, push the buttons, assume it has been reset 15 until you have an indication of otherwise. You know, ageln, 16 going into semantics. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You said the scenario stopped 18 before he could have done that. 19 MR. NORRIS: We had enough indications from the 20 examiners watching both of the two candidates, that it was felt 21 a licensing decirion could be made. At which point there was 22 no need to belabor the scenario, i 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. But the thing that was 24 observed that caused the comment was the pushing of a wrong 25 button. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.fs 165 b 1 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE HETRICK: And the only way at that moment to 3 verify whether things were in the right condition was to look 4 at the buttons. Right? 5 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 6 MR. MORABITO: Well, looking at the buttone won't 7 tell you anything. The buttons are not stay put buttons. If 8 you press it, they pop back out. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh. 10 MR. MORABITO: After you've pressed it, you're not 11 going to know whether you pressed it or not. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh , I see. So the examiner sees 13 which button was pushed, but when he takes his finger off, he b'~% 14 can't tell that it was the one that was pushed. Right? Is l 15 -that correct? 16 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. It's a spring return button. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: It's a spring return button. , 18 So there is no way in the world of verifying it? 19 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir, there was. We turned the 20 simulator back on again, after this scenario was over, to l 21 follow up on this discussion, to see if Mr. Morabito realized 22 what had happened. 23 We tried to operate some of the valves in the CIA 24 system and they would not operate. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, this is new information to us, I l () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
166 1 think, right? l 2 MR.' MORABITO: No. I've submitted this information. [ 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This was supposed to be comments 4 at'the time of the exam. And that last sentence doesn't seem 5 to be a very fair comment. t j 6 7 8 , 9 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 4 20 , l 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
167 f__s '- 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Because the way that I understand 2 it, there's no way that he could have verified it in the 3 context of the. scenario. It stopped too quickly for him to do 4 so. So with that -- 5 MR. NORRIS: Again, other than ensuring that he 6 utilized the right buttons. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: All right. But now when you restart 8 for discuss -- excuse me. When you restart for discussion 9 purposes, is what happened during that session -- will that be , 10 reflected in the evaluation of the examination? 11 MR. NORRIS: Say again, sir. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: You stopped the scenario because you 13 -- I think you said you had enough information to make a 14 judgement. So you stopped the scenario. 15 MR. NORRIS: Correct
~
16 JUDGE HETRICK: Now you're telling me you restarted 17 it -- 18 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. We did not restart the 19 scenario. What we frequently do is if one of the examiners 20 wants to follow up a potential area of weakness in the 21 simulator, we'll have the simulator turned back on again to 22 finish an evolution, or sometimes do a completely different 23 evolution, just to use the machine. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Is this still part of the 25 examination? O Heritage Reporting Corporatic (202) 628-4888
- 168 1 MR. NORRIS: Oh, yes, sir.
2 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, okay. 3 MR. NORRIS: It is not part of the scenario; it's 4 part of the follow-up questioning, though. In this case -- 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, all right. 6 MR. NORRIS: -- as Judge Bechhoefer cited. I have no 7- further questioning. [ph] 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Ms. Morabito, where is it you 9 describe that? I'm looking at different exhibit -- 10 MS.-MORABITO: ---I don't know, probably. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Probably, probably initially in the 12 specification of Plaintiffs. {} 13 14 (Whispering away from microphone. JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I have that -- 15 JUDGE HETRICK: What is that -- - 16 MS. MORABITO: Page two -- 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- Take a break? 18 (Pause) 19 MR. MORABITO: You have my specification of claims 20 it's on page 20. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. I have it. That's Exhibit 1, 22 page 20. 23 (Pause) 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. We come to a phrase which says 25 -- near the bottom of page 20, it says, "in addition I further O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s
,._ 169-
' '# 1 demonstrated my ability to diagnose the fact that one train of 2 CIA had not been reset." 3 And it's this restart of the simulator. That's what 4 we're talking about. 5 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. Now did you then during that 7 situation diagnose, as you say, diagnose what had happened -- 8 correctly determine what to do and did it? 9 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Like to ask the staff to indicate 11 whether that's with the staff. 12 MR. NORRISt I cannot recall that, to the best of my 13 -- recall, we asked him to attempt to open one of the valves. 14 That should have been -- 15 MR. MORABITO: No, I challenge that statement. 16 MR. NORRIS: If I may finish, please. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, let him finish first. 18 MR. NORRIS: To the best of my knowledge, we asked 19 him to open a valve; and when it wouldn't work, we asked him 20 what would prevent that valve from opening. 21 If he's got further information -- again, this was 22 going back quite a while. I do not recall exactly the line of 23 questiening. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, are you saying that was the end 25 of it? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 S
-e
170 7._
') .'#~
1 MR. NORRIS: No, what we asked him -- we realized CIA 2 wasn't reset. We went back in; started up the simulator again 3 to see if he could determine on his own that CIA was not in 4 fact reset after he reported back to the SRO that it had been 5 before we stopped the scenario. 6 We attempted to open a valve, if I recall. It would 7 not open. What would prevent it from opening, we talked about 8 it -- CIA may not have reset -- pushed the appropriate buttons 9 at this point, and was able to operate the valves. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, are you saying that you asked 11 him what's wrong with the valve, and he correctly diagnosed why 12 it wouldn't work. 13 MR. NORRIS: -- Yes. 14 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 15 MR. NORRIS: I believe that's -- 16 JUDGE HETRICK: So you're agreeing with what he said 17 in this specification. 18 MR. NORRIS: I would say, sir. l 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 20 MR. NORRIS: Whether there's an immediate recognition 21 or not I could not state how long it took for him to figure it 22 out. l 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, in his exhibit 3, as I l 24 recognize the problem that would have prompted him from the 25 examiner -- directly performed the reset action in front of O Heritage Reporting Corporation l l (202) 628-4888
171 () k-1 him. 2 But that's after the restart of the simulator? t 3 MR. MORABITO: That's correct. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 5 MR. MORABITO: I would like to clarify what Mr. 6 Norris stated earlier. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: Sure. 8 MR. MORABITO: The examiner that was questioning me 9 on this was Mr. Silk, not Mr. Norris. 10 Mr. Silk asked me, "How would you verify that CIA had 11 been reset?" 12 I told him at that point, "There's no way to verify 13 it in the control room other than by operating the valves." 14 He said, "Well, would you operate the valves?" So I l 15 reached over and I grabbed -- now I forget which trein was - 16 reset, and so forth, but I grabbed one of the trains and opened 17 the sample valves -- one set of the sample valves. And it came 18 open. 19 And I was very proud of myself. I turned around and t 20 said, "See, they came open." Now he's dumfounded. He doesn't 21 know why they came open at that point. 22 But he's trying to figure out how he can ask me the l
- 23 question to get me to respond that the second train wasn't 24 reset.
25 While he's trying to figure out how to ask me the , Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l L
172
# 1 question, I reached over in front of him and turned the valves 2 through the second set.
3 They didn't come open.' Soon as that happened, I 4- realized that I had not reset the second train; reached over, 5 hit the reset button; grabbed the switch; opened.the valves. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Silk, could you respond to that, 7 please? 8 MR.' SILK: I don't exactly recall the exact kind of 9 questioning, but the point is that he had to be prompted to do 10 an action that he had failed to do the first time. 11 And had it not been brought to his attention he 12 wouldn't have noticed. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, did the scenario finish b(~s 14 before he could have done it the first time? 15 MR. SILK: I believe it did. 16 MR. NORRIS: I disagree. The verification may have 17 ended before that point. The evaluation of could he reset CIA 18 properly had been accomplished and he could not do that action. 19 You have to realize that we could take any one 20 scenario and run it on for many hours to some point where we 21 beat it to death, then you've got enough information where you 22 feel you can make a determination on that scenario is when you 23 stop it. I 24 If we took all of the postulated scenarios and let 25 the actions run to the point of steady safe conditions, in ! ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
-- w r y--y _ _ . _ _ _ _.-a- _ _ ___-__ - ___.__-a_ *__ *__a
.,q
, 173 t s-1 accordance with the IPEM procedures, you could run 24 or 36 2 hours before you finally got down to a stable condition.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think before we get to the next 4 supervisory ability -- before we get to that let's take about a 5 10 minute break. 6 What's your estimate about -- 7 (Off the record.) 8 (Back on the record.) 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. We turn now 10 to the supervisory ability competency. And -- 11 JUDGE HETRICK: I got -- 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- this is the one that I 13 mistakenly started to get into earlier. But this is the one 14 where there's a description of our mismatch. 15 This 10 the one that there was a description of two 16 lights being on simultaneously, if I understand it correctly. 17 And this is the ene that starts at page 14 of Mr. Morabito's 18 exhibit 3 -- page 14 and 15. 19 My question is -- is this, or was there a mismatch; 20 cn: is it a normal situation for, the way I understand it, 21 between 10 percent and 90 percent -- both lights are on. 22 That's what this description seems to say to me. And then, so, 23 I really would like a little more understanding of what's going 24 on on these particular indicator lights. 25 And is Mr. Morabito being faulted for failing to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
- 174 (s\
\l 1 notice that-one light goes out after -- when both have been-on 2 for some time --- this is absent an alarm, cause this is the one 3' where no alarm went off. 4 MR. NORRIS: No alarm came in on this.. If I -- 5 correct me if I'm wrong, please. I heard -- one' question is, 6 is it normal that two lights would be on -- 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At the same time. 8 MR. NORRIS: -- at the same one. Yes, it is. If 9 both lights are on, it indicates that a valve is in some 10 intermediate position -- it's not fully open; it's not fully 11 closed. 12 And they normally have some lee-way of five or ten , f3 13 percent on there to allow for that. So it la a normal 'w) indication, yes, for both lights to be on. 15 If I recall correctly, we took the by-pass valve, 16 however, to the fully open position. 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So did that mean that one light 18 went off at that state, when it got to be more than 90 percent 19 open? 20 MR. NORRIS: When it got fully open, the green light 21 should have gone off to indicate -- 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And is that -- and the red one, 23 was the other one staying on? 24 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So he did not notice that one of O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-r-- -y -
-, ,w +-
,s 175
\
'/
'- 1 those two lights went off.
2 MR. NORRIS: We did not fault.him, if I recall, for 3 not noticing initially that the valves -- the by-pass valve was 4 -open. 5 As was -- it is appropriate that his operator should 6 notice _it before he does. His operator did notice there was a 7 problem in tha feed system.
- 8. It was caught over; he was caught over. And the 9 other operator also came over, and they stood and looked at the 10 feed system to determine what the problem was.
11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, that does not appear in the 12 comments. The comment says one sentence. Under Supervisory 13 Responsibility, the first comment. 14 MR. NORRIS: Understood. He said the comment was he
-15 did not notice the feedway by-pass valve indicator was 16 indicating that valve was open during diagnosis of unusual feed 17 reg valve movement.
l 18 He should have -- the comment is a very brief l l 19 synopsis of what should have happened as a supervisor. If 20 there is a problem indicated and that feed reg valve was not in 21 the position that it should have been opened, and it was closed l 22 more than it should have been, the comment, since it is under 23 the Supervisory Ability is that he did not pursue why the feed 24 valve was not in the appropriate position; and part of that 25 pursuing the solution to that problem would have been noticing ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
,. 176 1 that a by-pass valve was in fact fully open.
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So he would have to have seen 3 that light go out -- the one of the two 1.ghts., 4 MR. NORRIS: He would not have had to have been there 5 when the light went out, no, sir. He would have realized that, 6 rather than having both lights on. As his affidavit states, 7 there is only the one light on. 8 I believe, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, there 9 is also a demand meter for che feed reg by pass valve. That 10 would state that the valve was receiving a demand to be fully 11 opened. 12 What I faulted him for was his ability to investigate
, 13 and correct a problem.
14 JUDGE HETRICK: I don't understand. The comment says i 15 he did not notice that the valve indicator was indicating. l 16 That's all it says. l 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Says nothing about follow through i l' 18 or anything else. l-19 MR. NORRIS: You have to consider the competency that 20 it's under is Supervisory Ability. He did not notice it was l-21 open during diagnosis of unusual feed reg valve movement. 22 In other words, the problem was the by-pass valve was 23 open; he did not realize that. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: I thought you said earlier that's not 25 normally his responsibility; that somebody else would see it ( l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
177 1 first. Didn't I see it right? 2 MR. NORRIS: Yes,-sir. I am not saying -- I'm not 3 faulting him, nor Dave, for not seeing the light go out. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: I1didn't ask you that. 5 MR. NORRIS: And I would not expect him to see, or be 6 the first to see your regular movement of the feed reg valve. 7 He was faulted for his inability to diagnose why the feed reg 8 valve was operating incorrectly. That was due to the by-pass 9 valve being fully open. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Wait a minute. Hold it. 11 Did you say operating irregularly, or something like 12 that? 13 MR. NORRIS: I might have used those woede. I can't 14 recall the exact word I just used. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: Is there any way to know information 16 about this by-pass valve other than these two indicator lights? l 17 MR. NORRIS: You can correct ma if I'm wrong. I l l 18 believe there's a demand meter on the valve which would also l 19 indicate the position of the by-pass valve. Mr. Morabito shook 20 his head yes. l 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Where does that demand signal come l 22 from? 23 MR. NORRIS: It comes from the -- it'd probably be 24 best for Mr. Morabito to -- be his system. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Excuse me. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
178
<) - 1 MR. MORABITO: Oh, I'm sorry.
2 JUDGE HETRICK: I was asking about -- other 3 information about the by-pass valve. And "denand signal"'was 4 mentioned. Where does that demand signal come from? 5 MR. MORABITO: That's a contro) air signal also, I 6 believe. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: But what is it indicating? What 8 physical situation? 9 MR. MORABITO: It's indicating the percent open of 10 the valve. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: No, it's a demand signal. 12 MR. MORABITO: Well, it's indicating the -- what's
~
13 called for on the valve to be open. 14 JUDGE HETRICK: All right. But called for from 15 where? 16 MR. MORABITOs From the control cystem. g 17 JUDGE H"fC.TCK: And what information is the control 18 system acting on? 19 MR. MORABITO: In this case it was acting on a 20 malfunction. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: A malfunction? 22 MR. MORABITO: This was a malfunction that the 23 examiners asserted into the scenario. So they set the scenario 24 in; it was a malfunction on the feed reg by-pas valve to go 25 fully open over some small period of time. O G Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
179 i'~'i 1 Normally it would respond to steam generator level. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: What does all this have to do with 3 mismatch? Somewhere, someone's talking about a mismatch 4 signal. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He's the expert. 6 MR. NORRIS: I believe the mismatch signal is what 7 initially cued the operator into the problem in his feed 8 system. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Mismatch between what? 10 MR. NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. Mismatch between steam 11 flow signal and feedflow signal for that steam generator -- 12 JUDGE HETRICK: All right. 13 MR. NORRIS: -- which should normally track 14 consistently, and almost equal. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: And so it's this mismatch that's the 16 source of the demand signal? 17 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. You'll use the by-pass valve , 18 at one point in the start-up of your plant. It's a very small i 19 valve compared to the feed reg valve, which is a very big one. 20 The by-pass valve is only good for ubcut 15 or 20 21 percent power. After you start-up the plant and you've placed 22 your turbon (ph) on line, you'll go through the process of 23 shifting from your by-pass, opening your main valve, and 24 closing down your by-pass till eventually you're controlling j 25 completely on the main feed reg valve, at which case you O Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 i l l l l 1
1 normally place your by-pass valve in some position just off 2 it's closed seat. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: But I still don't know what the 4 demand signal is coming from. 5 MR. NORRIS: The demand signal -- if you have the by-6 pass valve in automatic, and its demand will come off the steam 7 generator level. Then you place the feed reg valve in 8 automatic -- the main feed reg valve; and your by-pass valve is 9 normally placed in manual and closed to its almost closed 10 position. 11 So the malfunction was ready -- by-pass valve, 12 received an error signal telling it to open. So it's basically tw 13 failed open. L) i 14 JUDGE HETRICK: And that signal came from steam 15 generator one. 16 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. That was a computer generated 17 malfunction, I believe, that feed reg by-pass valve fail to 18 open. So why it went open was not so much to the point as it 19 was open. 20 And what we were testing was his ability to diagnose 21 the problem that the valve was open. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: So the valve received a spurious 23 demand signal, is that what you're saying? 24 MR. NORRIS: The by-pass valve, yes, sir. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. The demand signal normally O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
l 181 ! n/
'- 1 steam generator water level but in this case it was a spurious 2 signal', is that right?
3 MR. NORRIS: It would normally be the water level if 4 it was in automatic, yes. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: That's what I'm asking, yes. 6 So in this case it was an artificial signal that was 7 part of the scenario, right? 8 (Pause) 9 JUDGE HETRICK: So let me ask you one more thing, Mr. 10 Norris. 11 If I understand you right, the important thing is 12 that the candidate did not notice the valve indication once a 13 discussion or the diagnosis had begun, is that the point.? 14 MR. NORRIS: That is correct. He or one of his , 15 op9rators under his direction during the diagnosis and trouble-16 shooting of the problem should have realized that the by-pass-17 valve was open. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: And since nobody else realized that 19 it was his responsibility to do so -- is that -- 20 MR. NORRIS: It was his responsibility to attempt to 21 define the problem with the feed reg valve. As he stated, Mr. 22 Morabito stated in one of his later affidavits that he l 23 attributed the problem with the feed reg valve due to a 24 simulator malfunction. 25 And he had specifically directed before all scenarios i ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
i i
,._ s 182 1 that -- to take all conditions-in the simulator, treat them as 2 if they are actual plant conditions. Don't attempt to 3 attribute what you perceive to be a similar malfunction to the 4 simulator.
5 JUDGE HETRICK: What would have been a reasonable.- 6 time during this diagnosis process before it would be noticed, 7 do you think? 8 Some he should have been seen right away once the 9 process began, is my question. 10 MR. NORRIS: I'm not sure I understand your question, 11 sir. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: We're saying he didn't notice -- we 13 indicated during the diagnosis -- should he have seen it right O' 14 away? If not, how long. 15 MR. NORRIS: As I said earlier, the three operators, 16 or the two operators in the control room and the supervisor 17 were standing at the panel. None saw it. 18 It's a relatively easy indication to see. However, I l 19 will agree there are a number of lights and valves on that 20 section of the panel. 21 He was not faulted specifically for not seeing the , 22 indications when he stood thore. But he was faulted for never 23 realizing that a by-pass valve was open during the whole 24 diagnosis process. 25 He did not see it, nor did any of the operators see O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i e -
183 f-s,
%A 1 Lt.
2 JUDGE HETRICK: But he was the one being examined, is 3 that the point? 4 MR. NORRIS: Well, there were three individuals being 5 examined. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: 'There were three. 7 MR. NORRIS: Dave Silk and I were only concerned with i 8 Mr. Morabito's actions. 9 Other examiners had the other candidates. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: I see. 11 Was he acting as SRO or RO at this time? 12 MR. NORRIS: I believe he was the Supervisor at this 13 time, sir. 14 He was the Supervisor, yes. f 15 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. It isn't the category 16 Supervisory -- and that's why it's relevant, right? 17 I'm sorry -- 18 (Whispering away from microphone.) 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito, did you at any time 20 know this valve was open? Did the scenario end before you -- 21 MR. MORABITO: No, we did determine that the valve 22 was open prior to the end of the scenario. As we got into the 23 reactor trip procedure and feed water 1 solation, all of the 24 valves which the by-pass are a part of on the feed water 25 isolation signal went closed, except the one that had the C) ' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
s 184 1 malfunction in it to open. 2 Now I can look at the panel and I can see one red 3 indication versus all the green indications for the feedwater 4 isolation valves that went closed. 5 And I immediately picked that out; pointed it out to 6 the reactor operator that we had a stuck open by-pass valve. 7 She tried to close it manually; couldn't close it manually; and 8 I directed her to get an outside operator to go and physically, . 9 manually close the valve, which they did. And the valve went 10 closed. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: But there was a change in status 12 which allowed this indication to be more noticeable. w 13 MR. MORABITO: Yes. (J 14 JUDGE HETRICK: And what scenario was the second one? 15 What was the incident? What was the second scenario? 16 MR. MORABITO: The second scenario -- l MR. NORRIS: 17 You're asking as to what evolutions took 18 place? 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, what was the -- I can look it up l 20 here some where. i 21 MR. NORRIS: Started out with one of the freshwater l 22 [ph) stray valves failed close; an input to the steam dump 23 system was failed low; and they were pretty inserted into the 24 scenario. 25 The first evolution then that took place was the feed Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , l
t
, . _ 185 1 reg valve by-pass valve failing open. .That happened 2 approximately five minutes after the scenario started.
3 . JUDGE HETRICK: What's the safety significance of-4 that valve failing open? 5 (Pause) 6 MR. NORRIS: As far as that individual valve -- we 7 expected that individual valve failing open, I can certainly 8 think of no safety significance associated with that valve with 9 possible -- no possible significance -- significant evolutions 10 down the load. 11 If he hadn't noticed it open on the reactor trip they 12 could have over-filled the generator. That could give them 13 more cooling than they desire -- an over-cooling condition. 14 JUDGE HETRICK: But doesn't the feedwater pump trip 15 in that case anyway? 16 MR. NORRIS: If they have isolation signal, yes, it 17 would. 18 But again, it was under his -- the reason the comment 19 was made, and remarks made (ph] on his supervisory ability was ; 20 his diagnosis of the problem. 21 I could step out back one further, and if he had been ' 22 on the Board, that same comment would have been under the 23 Control Board operations. 24 Well, if you notice we did not put under control 25 board. We did not hold them responsible for seeing the lights, O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
. 186 4/' 1 Lbut more from diagnosing the' problem.
2 -(Pause)
'3 (Whispering) 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito your comments -- your.
~
5 response is comment; and I guess I'm looking at your exhibit 3. 6 now. 7 You say the comment is irrelevant -- supervisory 8 ability competency -- and it is misleading. 9 MR. MORABITO: What page are you on, Doctor? 10 JUDGE HETRICK: You're on page 14. 11 MR. MORABITO: Yes. 12 (Pause) . fg 13 JUDGE HETRICK: First of all, why is it irrelevant,
\,)
14 the supervisory ability? 15 MR. MORABITO: I was referring to the comment as - 16 written. And the comment as written indicates that I did not s 17 notice -- says "In the second scenario the candidates did not 18 notice that the feed reg by-pass valve indication was - 19 indicating that the valve was open during diagnosis of unusual 20 feed reg valve movement." 21 As Mr. Norris has stated, it's not my primary 22 responsibility to notice the open indication. Secondly, the , 23 open indication was open at the start of the scenario. 24 The only indication that was available for me to see 25 was the closed indication extinguishing. And you know, that is , O Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888 i
~n m- ,
- ~ , _ . . . _ . _ , , -,--...,.,,.4-
187
'l)
4-' - 1-
.not'a-way.of verifying that.you have a failed open valve.
2 In addition,'the demand indication signal, 't'is'the i
~3 left'of the - :or to the right of the position indication. -And 4 I had no reason to look at that.
5 Also, the demand positioner for the feed-reg valve is~ 6 down below on the panel, which I had no reason to look at that;, - 7 and that I couldn't see because of the balance plant operator-8 standing right there at_the panel. 9 Her~ comment to me was, we have another spike on the 10 feed water reporters. Now this was the very first occurrence 4
~
11 after a scenario in which we had had considerable spiking on 12 the indicators and reporters. 13 And when we came back in to start this scenario I 14 asked the examiners, "What was all that about" because we 15 thought we were having a problem -- I mean a real plant 16 problem. 17 And they assured me that that was just a problem in . 18 the simulator. 19 So when this occurred it was a natural assumption for , 20 the operator to assume that it was a continuation of the , 21 simulator malfunction. l 22 But we didn't stop at that point. 4 23 I did call for MCR support to go and check the : 24 positioner at that valve. Now if the examiners had wanted to 25 continue this thing on through to a logical progression, I t ( ! l Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 j i
188 7, 1 would haveHat some point gotten a call back from these MCRs 2 saying, "Hey, it's a'real signal." And then I would have 3 started looking to see. 5at the problem was. 4 I never got any feedback from this MCR that I sent 5 out into the plant to investigate the problem. I asked-the 6 operator if here parameters were returning to normal. She said 7 they were. 8 We never got an alarm to indicate that I had a real 9 problem. And I didn't dismiss it as a simulator malfunction, 10 but I certainly had suspicions that that's what was happening. 11 She asked if she could take manual control of it to 12 ensure that if we -- for whatever reason that it was in manual (~S 13 rather than automatic. V 14 I concurred with that. She took manual control of 15 it. And we brought the steam generator levels back to normal. 16 I did not ignore the situation. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: How do you respond to the staff 18 Exhibit 3, page 22, bottom of the page? - 19 "SRO is responsible for knowing the status of all 20 plant equipment. If a condition arises that is not explained 21 then the Supervisor must attempt to find out why that problem ; 22 exists. 23 MR. MORABITO: I respond by saying that I agree that 24 that is a responsibility of the senior reactor operator. And ! 25 in this case, I did take action to try to find out what the ; ( l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1
e 189=
-t 4
\ 1- problem was.
.2 JUDGE HETRICK: Did any action you-took jeopardize
.3 the plant in any way?
4 MR. MORABITO: No. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Something was said about an alarm 6 that was supposed to be part of the scenario but wasn't?, 7 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Could you explain that? 9 MR. NORRIS: Now as we said, in the affidavit,.when 10 we initially developed the scenario away from the site, we 11 expected an alarm to come in based on the by.-pass valve opening 12 consistent with the feed reg valve opening -- or the feed reg 13 valve already being open. 14 When we ran the scenario, no alarm came in. When we 15 thought about this afterwards we realized an alarm shouldn't 16 have come in. 17 As the by-pass valve opened, the main valve should go 18 closed to maintain steam generator level on program A. (ph)
- 19 JUDGE HETRICK
- And where would that alarm have come 20 from?
l 21 MR. NORRIS: The alarm we expected was a steam 22 generator high level. I 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Level -- okay. But you didn't get it 24 because the main feed flow was reduced. 25 MR. NORRIS: The main feed reg valve? O l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
190
'l JUDGE HETRICK: Reg valve was closed.
.2 MR. NORRIS: That's correct. Main feed reg valve 3 cloged automatically to compensate for the by-pass valve.
4 JUDGE HETRICK: So it was not a malfunction of an 5 alarm that was supposed to work. 6 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: It was -- an alarm didn't work and 8 was not supposed to, okay. That's what you mean by automatic 9 controls mitigated and masked the failure, is that right, on 10 your page 237 11 (Pause) 12 JUDGE HETRICK: On your Exhibit 3, page 23, this is 13 the response to the question, was an alarm intended. 14 MR. NORRIS: Oh, yes, sir. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 16 So there was a simulator malfunction but not 17 connected with the alarm. 18 MR. NORRIS: That's correct, sir. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. 20 MR. NORRIS: If I may -- 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. 22 MR. NORRIS: Simulator malfunction, as I recall, was 23 electrical spiking on the recorders for the steam generators. 24 Recorders record level, steam flow and feed flow. 25 And what we were seeing was an electrical spike, O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
191
'- 1~ basically where the. meter would just -- where tina quarter pin 2 (ph) would just jump and then come right back down again.
3 That was not the condition that existed during this 4 evolution. Feed flow and fact reduced to a lower level and 5 stayed at that lower level. 6 There was no spiking involved. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, you say he considered the 8 malfunction to be a simulator problem, and did not readily 9 pursue a resolution. 10 MR. NORRIS: Correct. He assumed that the simulator 11 was still causing a problem, when in fact the only problem that
'12 arose from the simulator malfunction was spiking of the. meters.
13 But they -- excuse me, that would be the quarters. 14 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. 15 MR. NORRIS: But they returned to their original 16 values quickly. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: But I understood him to say that he 18 did not proceed as though it were a simulator malfunction. 19 MR. NORRIS: In one of his affidavits, if I can have 20 time to look, he did say he thought it was one of the -- he 21 thought it was another malfunction and be attributed it to 22 such. 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, but then he said he responded 24 anyway -- page 15 of his Morabito exhibit 3. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Fifth line -- in spite of that you O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 F y
..-4_ _
_r- - ,_ _
_ 192-
'/
~ 1 didn't just write it off as a simul'ator problem.
'2 MR. NORRIS: It was earlier where he said that he did 3 in fact consider it just a_ malfunction of the simulator.
4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, but.then he said in spite.of 5 that he didn't react. 6 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. What I'm saying is, an earlier 7 affidavit he'd said that he considered it just a malfunction. 8 I'm trying to find them for you. p 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Can you help us find it? 10 MR. MORABITO: I'm not sure where he's getting at. 11 But you have to look-at the facts in the situation. I did send 12 an instrument repairman to the valve positioner. So that tells 13 you right there that I did react to it as though it were a real 14 problem, and didn't just conclude that it was a simulator 15 malfunction. 16 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Silk, do you concur that -- do 17 you agree that he did -- 12 18 MR. SILK I'm sorry -- 19 JUDGE HETRICK: -- send for instrument support? 20 l'R . SILK: I believe someone else said I believed 21 that's correc t. (ph) 22 (Pause) 23 (Whispering) 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Perhaps I should follow that up, Mr. 25 Silk and Mr. Norris. Was that a proper reaction after having - O Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
--- .J
Y mg 193 3-'
'l reserved the spike on the recorder?
2 He says you followed it up; was that a proper follow-3 up? 4 MR. NORRIS: My follow-up -- I was trying to find r 5 something initially -- you mean to have the maintenance repair , 6 personnel -- 7 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. ; 8 MR. NORRIS: -- go look at a valve? That is a proper 9 response. I'm not sure -- again, it's been e long time since 10 this exam took place, but I believe he was given back that the 11 valve was operating properly. 12 Again, that could be another examination. That was 13 quite a while ago. 14 (Pause) 15 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Norris, in view of the last few 16 questions and answers do you need to find this other reference? , 17 MR. NORRIS: If I can find it, sir, because when I 18 was reading his latest -- his submittal on the 20th of January, I 19 I recall seeing it. That was not consistent with something l 20 that he had said earlier. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: I see. l. l 22 MR. NORRIS: And that's why it stuck in my mind and 23 I'm trying to find it. 24 (Pause) 2S MR. NORRIS: Sir, if I can find that comment, can I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 194 O'. 1 _ provide that reference to you at a later time?_ 2 JUDGE'BECHHOEFER: It would be better_if you could i 3 find it now. -
.i 4 'MR. NORRIS: Understood. But I'm trying - Lif I
~
[ 5 _st' art doing in now I'm not paying attention-to the discussion 6- that's going on.
- _ 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER
- Right. Right. And I do have some 8 other questions, too.
4 . 9 Would it help you to have a short recess to look for 10 it or not? , 11 MR. NORRIS: It's your choice, i 12 (Whispering) ! 13 MR. NORRIS: Mr. Gutierrez, I'd recommend that we 14 take the recess; give me a chance to look for it. ! i 15 MR. GUTIERREZ: If he thinks he can find it. , 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, if you can do it relatively 17 in a short period of time. ! 18 MR. NORRIS: I'll try. l 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFEn: Why don't you do that. ! t 20 MR. NORRIS: Okay. q I 21 (Off the record.) 22 (Back on the record.) f 23 MR. NORRIS: Okay, sir. I go back to my -- can I j , 24 walk you through this in some semblance of order? In part ( ,. 25 specification January 29th, paragraph 82, you asked if there . CE) ! Heritage Reporting Corpore n ! (202) 628-4888 ( 5 x _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.____M
> \ I' 195
' (s x- I was a simulator malfunction. 2 We said yes there was, the electrical spiking 3 problem. And I's say electrical spike -- it's just -- it's , 4 like a very steep increase in the recorder pin with a just a 5 rapid decrease. It's almost an instantaneous change on a 6 meter. 7 Then it turns back to its original value. We said 8 that we had instructed the candidates prior to the start of , 9 scenarios to consider all problems as real problems, not 10 attribute them to the simuletor. 11 Going back to Mr. tiorabito's original specification, 12 that's Mr. Moiabito's Exhibit i dated 31 July '87. I take you 13 to page ' 5 . the bottom paragraph. O. 14 Okay. I start about a third of the way up in that 15 paragraph. In addition to the above comments I call attention. 16 to Exhibit Z, page 3, statement 43 in which the NRC 17 acknowledges that candidates were distracted by -- electrical 18 spikes in megawod steam flow and feed flow recorders. 19 Those spikes again were very -- an instantaneous 20 change. 21 What examiner didn't realize was that the distraction 22 was so thorough that even when the spike was at the start of it 23 real transient, the temptation was to just write it off as a 24 continuation of the previous anomaly. 25 In other words, he was tempted to say, I've just got O . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
rn 4 i 196 [)L- 1 another simulator problem here. That is not consistent with 2 what he said earlier, that he ignored it as a simulator -- ; 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Was tempted to say. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: But on page 21 of the same document 5 he says after calling for maintenance support to check the 6 problem. 7 MR. NORRIS: I understand, sir. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: So he's admitting to a temptation, is 9 that what you're saying? 10 MR. NORRIS: The way I was reading that was that he 11 was attributing it to a simulator malfunction based on his 12 submittals rather than trying to pursue the problem which he 13 did not do to determine the resolution of it. O 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, wasn't this calling for 15 maintenance support to check the problem? Isn't that pursuing 16 it? 17 MR. NORRIS: That's pursuing -- he was not -- to use 18 the term, aggressively pursuing the resolution. Said yes, 19 let's call maintenance as they had done during the first 20 scenario. But they did not do it in a strong manner. They 21 just -- yes, we'll get maintenance, and we'll come down, and 22 we'll look at it again. But it's the simulator, don't worry 23 about it. 24 They did not pursue it aggressively. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: I think what he said in page 26 was l (Q Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
197
-- 1 he was -- there was a temptation -- was a temptation not to 2 pursue it readily. He'll_say he didn't pursue it, right?
3 MR. NORRIS: As we've said earlier, he did not pursue 4 it in an aggressive manner. He sent someone down to look at it 5 and then kind of left it on back side. [ph) 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, didn't you say earlier that 7 that was the proper method to respond? i 8 MR. NORRIS: It is the proper method insofar as it 9 went. But he did not carry the process through to a 10 resolution. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: What did he fail to do, specifically? 12 MR. NORRIS: He never diagnosed what the problem was. 13 He never found the open by-pass valve until after the reactor (~)' 14 trip. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, but what did he fail to do 16 specifically with regard to the simulator malfunction? t 17 MR. NORRIS: He sent somebody from maintenance down , 18 to look at the valve, and stopped at that point. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: As opposed to what? 20 MR. NORRIS: Looking at the rest of his indications; 21 following why feed flow had dropped significantly off. If feed 22 flow had dropped off significantly why was steam generator 23 level not also decreasing? 24 He had an anomaly in his indications that he was not 25 pursuing. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
198 (~h.
\l 1 JUDGE HETRICK: 1 understand that he had also a 2 distraction which turned out to be a malfunction -- simulator 3 malfunction.
4 MR. NORRIS: This distraction that he's talking about 5 was not the same as distractions we had all during the first 6 scenario. 7 The type of change -- and I'll draw it on the Board 8 if you'd like -- was significantly different from what we saw 9 on the first scenario. 10 JUDGE HETRTCK: But it was nevertheless a simulator 11 malfunction. 12 (Pause) 13 JUDGE HETRICK: It was a simulator malfunction -- 14 MR. NORRIS: There was a malfunction with respect to , 15 -- yes, there were electrical spikes. 16 JUDGE HETRICK: Are you saying -- but it was of a 17 different nature from the ones that had been seen in another 18 scenario. 19 MR. NORRIS: Which they had seen previously during 20 training also. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: What was he supposed to do about it 22 other than what he did, namely, consult maintenance? ! 23 MR. NORRIS: If he continued with that thought 24 process it would not have been incorrect. He made a very -- I 25 would say superfluous of a -- well, would do something and let i C:) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r_7 -. - 199 m kJ 1 it go -- let's go on to the next one. 2 He cannot consider it a problem -- 3 MR. MORABITO: I object to that characterization. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You'lliget a chance to -- respond. 5 MR. NORRIS: That was where the comment came from is, 6 he did not aggressively pursue, I've got a problem. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: The feed fell motion. 8 MR. NORRIS: The feed problem, correct. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You want to hear from Mr. 11 'Morabito? 12 Mr. Morabito, would you like to comment now? 13 MR. MORABITO: I think if you look at all of my 14 filings in this procedure you'll see that I consistently stated. - 15 that yes, we did think that this might be a continuation of the 16 simulator problem; no we did not verbalize that it was - 17 simulator problem; we followed through with calling for 18 maintenance, t 19 There was nothing superfluous about it. It was an . 20 aggressive approach. I used the telephone; called the 21 maintenance department; told them the situation; and asked that 22 they send a repairman out to check the valve positioner. 23 And I then turned to the operator; told her what I 24 had done. She asked if she could take manual control of it 25 because she didn't know what this guy out there would do to (
- Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 i
200 7r k- 1 her, you know, manipulating the positioner controls and so 2 forth could have caused her to have unwarranted valve motion. 3 And she was also concerned about whether or not if 4 there really was a simulator malfunction going on it was going 5 to continue and give us additional unwarranted valve motion. 6 She asked if she could take the valve -- the main 7 valve to manual control, and I concurred with that; and she 8 did. 9 Now there's two specific-actions that we took to 10 control that malfunction. Even while se were thinking in our 11 minds this may be a continuation of the problem that we had in 12 the first scenario. 13 (Whispering) 14 MR. NORRIS: Add one more thing in -- just occurred
~
15 to me. When we were receiving the electrical spikes, all the 16 indications that had been affected by the spikes would respond 17 -- steam flow, feed flow, I believe the steam generator level, 18 the megawods, all of them did the electrical spike at the same 19 time. 20 When the feed flow indication changed, as in the -- 21 it decreased due to the by-pass valve opening, it was the only 22 indication that changed. The others did not. 23 JUDGE HETRICK: The level did not -- 24 MR. NORRIS: The level did not significantly change, 25 nor did the steam flow. That is why they could determine there j l Heritage Reporting Corporation * (202) 628-4888
I was a steam flow feed flow mismatch. 2 And I think it would help you if I could draw 3' something on the board for you. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I. guess you can. We can't 5 record it for the record very well if we have to. 6 MR. NORRIS: Well, I can draw it on a piece of paper 7 and provide it to you. 8 MR. MORABITO: If it makes any difference, I agree
- 9 that what Mr. Norris is saying, that these spikes, as they 10 turned out, were not the same as the spikes that occurred the 11' first time.
12 But you know, what we were told was the spiking in r 13 the first scenario was a simulator malfunction. And I don't () 14 know the characteristics of the simulator malfunctions; and I 15 don't know that in this particular case it couldn't have been a 16 continuation, even though some of the other indications were 4 17 not spiking. 18 But that almost -- I don't know what the definition 19 of the term immaterial is, but it almost becomes in my mind 20 immaterial for this case because we followed through with good 21 aggressive pursuit of the problem, even thinking that it was a 22 possible simulator malfunction. What more can I say? P 23 In the plant today, if this malfunction occurs -- and - 24 on the simulator -- you will get an alarm. 25 In two minutes after the failure occurs, an alarm l - i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
202 , 1 comes in. I believe that was true for the plant at the time of 2 the exams. It was not true for the simulator because the model 3 wasn't perfected. 4 Had we gotten an alarm that would have given me an 5 indication that there was a real problem; and it would have 6 probably directed me to some procedural follow-up for it. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: We've had an explanation about the 8 missing alarm. Do you agree with that explanation? 9 MR. MORABITO: The missing alarm -- 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes. 11 MR. MORABITO: -- did not occur because the model was 12 not perfected. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Do you agree with that? ' O 14 MR. MORABITO: Is that right? 15 MR. NORRIS: Mr. Schad is shaking his head no. 16 MR. MORABITO: May I ask Mr. Schad to -- g 17 (Whispering) 18 MR. MORABITO: Okay. The alarm that comes in two 19 minutes after the feed flow, or after the feed valve failure, " t 20 is the steam flow feed flow mismatch; and that alarm does occur , 1 21 when the by-pass valve fails full of (ph] that did not occur on 22 the steam generator -- I mean on the simulator. 23 JUDGE HETRICK: I -- correct me -- I thought the 24 alarm we were talking about was steam generator water level.
- 25 MR. MORABITO
- You know --
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 , f i
203 C's
\/ 1 JUDGE HETRICK: But resulting from mismatch, okay?
2 MR. MORABITO: You could get several alarms.. The 3 alarm that you do get today, both in the plant and on the-4 simulator is the steam flow feed flow mismatch alarm. 5 MR. NORRIS: Was that alarm -- may I? Was that alarm 6 in the simulator at the time of the exam? 7 MR. SCHAD: It was functional but -- can I respond to 8 his question? 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Please. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 11 MR. SCHAD: It was functional. The alarm was 12 functional but the model -- we've made enhancements since the 13 exam and improved our steam generator model. 14 And at the time of the exam the feed rag valve acted 15 very, very quickly. It's seen a level change, and it was 16 rapid. 17 In real life it's not -- you know, it's a little 18 sluggish. So we put dampeners in it; and now you see the level 19 responding higher. You get the alarm now. 20 MR. NORRIS: So at the time of the exam it was not an 21 expected alarm. 22 MR. SCHAD: We did not get the alarm. That's 23 correct. 24 MR. NORRIS: Would it have been expected at the day 25 of the exam? It was not -- I do not be.lieve it was in the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l i l l
-204 1 malfunction book.
2 MR. SCHAD: No, I'm not sure whether it was in the 3 malfunction book; and I don't think we expected it until we 4 started modeling the reg valve -- - 5 MR. NORRIS: After the fact. 6 MR. SCHAD: -- a little bit better; after the fact. 7 MR. NORRIS: So the only alarm that was initially 8 expected was the high level alarm; and in fact it didn't come 9 in. And 20\20 hindsight it shouldn't have come in. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: Do you agree with that? That it 11 shouldn't have been expected? 12 MR. MORABITO: That's right. l f- 13 JUDGE HETRICK: The level alarm. Yes, okay. , (_ 14 (Pause) I 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I guess we don't need the 16 pictures. Be difficult to review our looking at pictures as 17 well -- although I've done it in other cases. 18 (Pause) 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The question I raised about
- 20 whether Mr. Morabito's view of the valve position indicator was 21 blocked by the balance plant operator, Mr. Morabito said he ;
22 didn't recall. The staff said that his view was not blocked. , 23 Did the staff rely on any particuler notes to justify i 24 that because Mr. Morabito said that the Staff may have had 25 better notes than he had on that. .- J ! Heritage Reporting Corporation !' (202) 628-4888 \ 4 5
205
- (]
\- 1 MR. NORRIS: Give me one minute. I'll check my 2 notes, sir.
3 (Pause) 4 MR. NORRIS: As we wrote up in our December 21st 5 affidavit, paragraph 38 -- and this is to the best of our 6 recollection -- when the by-pass valve first opened, and the 7 feed flow steam flow mismatch was first discovered by the board 8 operator, there were no competing events on-going. And both 9 Mr. Morabito and the two board operators went over and stood in 10 front of the panel and looked at the indications, trying to , 11 determine -- yes, there is a problem, and what is the problem. 12 So to the best of our recollection, no, Mr. 13 Morabito's view was not blocked. And that was initially O 14 discovered. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now Mr. Morabito claims that 16 there's one error there in that there was some -- it was phrase 17 -- it's a built in pre-existing problems -- trying to see what 18 -- 19 (Pause) 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, yes. He criticizes at - 21 paragraph 38 -- he says the by-pass valve failure was the first 22 malfunction to become active. l 23 But the plant was under the influence of several 24 serious control malfunctions that were active at the start of 25 the scenario, and which amounted to distractions, the way I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , l
1 ! 206 l Q v 1 read it. l 2 MR. NORRIS: As I said earlier -- I'm sorry, sir. Go 3 ahead. 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I just wondered whether that was 5 consistent with the statement you made in paragraph 38 of your 6 December 21 -- 7 MR. NORRIS: As I said earlier, there were two 8 evolutions that had been preinserted prior to the start of the 9 scenario. 10 One is a stray valve and pressurizer failed to close, 11 which would not greatly effect, if at all, what was going on in 12 the plant at that time. 13 Another one was an input to the steam dump system O 14 failed low. I believe I could, without going back and talking 15 to Mr. Schad, I believe both of those items -- excuse me -- I 16 believe the second item, the T-Ave input might have been a 17 turnover item to them. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Excuse me, what does that mean? 19 MR. NORRIS: Say it again? 20 JUDGE HETRICK: Turnover? What does that mean? 21 MR. NORRIS: Oh, when you commend to take -- when A 22 scenario starts, just as in the actual come out when you come 23 in to take a shift, you're given a turnover of what are the 24 plant conditions; what evolutions are on-going. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 m
207 (~Jh x.- 1 MR..NORRIS: If we want to put certain equipment out 2 of service ahead of time to simulate real conditions, we'll tag 3 them out; put a tag on the piece of equipment; and we'll turn 4 it over to thom as a component out of service. 5 But to the best of my recollection there were no on-6 going events to draw Mr. Morabito's attention away from the : 7 feed reg valve problem. 8 (Pause) 9 (Whispering) 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Morabito, you made one l 11 statement that I'd like you to explain a little bit. Says by 12 BVPS administrative procedures, a reactor operator is 13 responsible for operating or being aware of the operation of O 14 any controls which can affect the reactivity of the reactor., 15 This includes the feed water controin. Then you add 16 a failure to recognize the failed by-pass valve were serious ! 17 enough to generate comments leading to an unsatisfactory rating 18 for both myself and the BOP operator -- why was there no 19 comment generated against the reactor operator? 20 What does that come from? Are you saying that the 21 reactor operator was responsible and had no adverse comments i 22 made? 23 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. And that was what that l 24 comment said. 25 Only I am not using that as a complaint against the ! C^) ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m 208
- 1 reactor operator. I'm just pointing out the fact that here's 2 an entire crew investigating a problem -- three pairs of eyes 3 looking to see what the situation was.
4 Nobody noticed this failed open by-pass. Why? Well, 5 the reason is that the only indication that was really obvious 6 was the green light extinguished. And it's very difficult to 7 pick -- the green lights are not real bright to begin with; and 8 it's difficult to pick a dark green out of a series of three 9 normc11y relatively dull green lights. 10 So I'm pointing out that the reactor operator didn't 11 catch the malfunction, the BOP operator didn't catch the 12 malfunction; and I didn't catch the malfunction. 13 The reactor operator was being examined by a 14 different examiner. And that examiner, apparently -- I haven't 15 seen the reactor -- the comments on the reactor operator. 16 I'm assuming that that examiner did not make comment 17 against the reactor operator for that situation. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, whether you did or not, I could 19 ask the question, what do you mean by saying the reactor 20 operator is responsible? l 21 MR. MORABITO: As a reactor operator he is i 22 responsible for being aware of the operation of any controls 23 that can effect the reactivity of tr.' ter.ctor. Feed water 24 controls are such controls. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: How does that differ from the Senior O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
209 I d' 1 Reactor operator's responsibility -- as a senior operator 7 2 MR. MORABITO: The Senior operator has to be -- well, 3 the Senior operator can't be aware of the nitty-gritties of the 4 controls. But the Senior operator has overall responsibility. , 5 _And I accept that I have -- that I had overall 6 responsibility in this situation. And I agree that I did not 7 catch the failed open by-pass. 8 My disagreement is the fact that we did not -- I take 9 issue with the examiner's comments that we did not aggressively 10 pursue the problem. We did pursue it; and we did control it. 11 We didn't come up with exactly the correct. answer, : 12 but we controlled it. They stated there was no safety 13 significance to this situation. There wasn't. What more could - O 14 I do? If I had sent the INC technician out; and he looked at ,
~
15 the valve positioner; and he had called back and said, "There's 16 no problem out here. You do have a valve -- the valve is 17 moving," then we would have had to stand back and look and say 18 "Okay, what's going on here?" 19 We did not get any call back from this technician 20 that we sent out to investigate the problem. And we did ; 21 control the situation by taking manual control. ; 22 (Pause) : 23 JUDGE BEClil10EFER: I have a question for the Staff I 24 relating to the second comment under Supervisory Ability. 25 Do each one of the comments under procedure -- use of O Ileritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888 i. [
. 210 [
1 procedures and crew interaction relate to supervisory ability? 2 All the comments, do they relate -- 3 MR.-NORRIS: I'm going to restate the question, and I 4 'tell me if I'm correct. 5 Under Use of Procedures and Crew Intreraction you want 6 to know if all of those -- , 7 JUDGE BEChHOEFER: Every'one of them. ! 8 MR. NORRIS: -- of each individual one ir, an l T 9 indication of poor supervisory ability? l 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 1 11 MR. NORRIS: Okay. Under Compliance Use of j 12 Procedures, I would say yes, all four of thsm are indicative of ! t 13 poor supervisory ability. , 14 (Pause) l 15 MR. NORRIS: Okay. Let me correct myself. Mr. Silk k i 16 just -- I didn't read these as carefully as I should of, i 17 He was only in a supervisory position, I believe, for 4 18 the first two scenarios,-which would be the first two comments. [ 19 On the second two comments, he was the Board 20 operator; and he was not on a supervisory position at that ! 21 time. 22 (Pause) l T 23 MR. NORRIS: With respect to the three comments under 24 Communication to Crew Interactions, although we haven't I 25 discussed those yet in any detail -- Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 , t i
V d7 /7 %~
- l* 5 ;
, c hu . 211 gf^
li s- l' ' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We'll got there, t 2- MR. NORRIS: But to answer your question, whether ;
- 3 they. support the comments under supervisory -- the first one. I 4 .goes to he again made a decision without having all the inputs 5 'for emergency operating procedures.-
6 The second one talks about the use ofLfingers to.give < t 7 back a verification comment from one of his operators.
~
8 He, as a supervisor, should not have allowed that type of 9 communications. f q 10 The third comsent which we have discussed as far as 11 his answering himself, again, is an indication of poor 12 supervisory ability in that he was preparing to go forward , 13 based on his assumption to the situation rather than waiting [ 4 ( 14 for his operators to give them the input that as required. ! , 15 So I would say yes. All the applicable comments l 16 under procedures, which are the first two, and under , 17 communications support the comment under Supervisory Ability ; i i 18 that it was ttnsatisfactory use of procedures and unsatisfactory l 19 crew interaction on his part. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the fact that two of the [ ] 21 ones under use of procedures are not applicable brings to light f ]' 22 my next question. j 23 Does comment two under Supervisory Ability comply 24 with -- there's a requirement in NUREG 10-21 ES303B at page 2 ; i 25 and I'll quote the relevant part. l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 ; T I
212 O
\/ 1 It says, "All unsatisfactory evaluation shall be 2 supported by detailed" -- shall underlined, I guess - "shall 3 be supported by detailed notes stating the particular action or 4 response that resulted in the unsatisfactory evaluation.
5 The supporting notes should be as specific as 6 possible. Use of general statements should be awarded. 7 Justification should be explicit in what action was 8 unsatisfactory and why. 9 Now the second comment to me appears a little -- not 10 as precise as it might be. Do you -- can you :omment on that? 11 MR. NORRIS: I -- 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Given the -- 13 MR. NORRISt Part of it might bo the familiarity that O 14 the examiners have . tith the process, and the facilities staff l 15 should also have with the process. 16 They should look under procedures and crew 17 interaction to determine which of those in any way could be 18 relevant to supervisory ability, and take the comment as it 19 stands. 20 Another way, if I could have just repeated those five 21 comments, or Mr. Silk could have, repeated those five comments 22 a second time under supervisory ability. 23 I myself do not look at that as confusing -- possibly 24 because I'm so close to the write-up. 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, what I'm trying to figure O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 026-4888
213 (. '/ 1 out is if it complies with what were the governing guidelines 2 at the time. 3 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir -- 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And I'm not sure it does my own 5 self since two of them -- 6 MR. NORRIS: If I turned around, and just recopied 7 the comments, would that have satisfied the requirement? 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It clear -- assuming we agree that 9 it all related to supervisory ability -- assuming -- yes, it 10 would have. 11 MR. NORRIS: So I'm just referring to a previous 12 paragraph -- this is what I did. I referred to earlier 7- 13 paragraphs. (3
) 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's correct, but not the 15 specific comments under the paragraphs.
16 MR. NORRIS: The spetafic comments related to 17 supervisory ability. When he was on the control board, it 18 should be those -- be the third and fourth comments under use 19 of procedures. 20 Since he was not in a supervisory position they - 21 should not be developed into that comment. 22 Only the portions of the comments that are applied 23 when he was in the supervisor's position. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, well, I suppose it should 25 have at least said tn the extent applicable to supervisory b(m Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
214 \ 1 Positions. 2 Ideally it should have said that -- something like 3 that. 4 (Pause) 5 MR. NORRIS: I'd like to -- I guess -- I'm sorry,
- 6. when Mr. Morabito submitted his initial specification, which 7 would be his Exhibit 1, page 21 and 22, he did not suggest to 8 us that he did not understand which comments we were referring 9 to.
10 He said he took issue with many of the comments, but 11 he did not say he was confused as to which comments we were 12 referring to. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I'm not sure he's ever said 3
~
14 that. 15 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But my question as a lawyer, 17 really, I have to make sure that those guidelines are complied 18 with. 19 (Pause) 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: At the moment we're going to go to 21 communications through interactions, although one of these 22 relates back to supervisory ability -- the hand signals. We'll 23 ask those questions together. 24 (Pause) 25 JUDGE HETRICK: Okay. This is in reference to the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
215 (- ,
\- 1~ first scenario following loss of off-cite power where it says 2 the Candidate should have relied upon verification emergency 3 buses from his operating.
4 (Pause) ! 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Mr. Morabito, is this a situation in 6 which you perhaps acted prematurely in going to the EC4 7 procedure? 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: ECO. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: EC -- l 10 MR. MORABITO: ECA. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: ECA. 12 MR. MORABITO: ECA0.0. j 13 JUDGE HETRICK: ECA0.0. O 14 MR. MORABITO: No, this was not a premature reaction. 15 as I've indicated in previous filings, the EOPs are symptoms - 16 based. And when you see the symptoms you implement the EOPs. l 17 Now there cannot be a prematurity to this. I saw [ t 18 symptoms that directed me to ECA00. I should not have then L 19 stood back and said, "Well, let me wait a second or two'and see f 20 if those symptoms are going to go away." I 21 I saw the symptoms; I reacted to pull out the correct 22 EOP. 23 JUDGE HETRICK: Did you then follow any of the ; t 24 instructions there? For example, starting a generator. 25 MR. MORABITO: We followed the steps in ECA00 right ( Heritage Reporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888 i l t i
r 216
~ x/ 1 through to the step that asks the operator to verify that the o 2 emergency buses are in fact the energizer -- however the ,
3 statement is. 4 And when the operator checked, he saw that one 5 emergency' bus was now energized. He reported that. That 6 surprised me. 7 It really did catch me by surprise. But I reacted to
-8 that in accordance with the procedure. It says if you have a
-9 bus energized at this point, you go back to the reactor trip 10 procedure step 1 and you start there.
11 And we did that. ; 12 JUDGE HETRICK: So am I right there was no diesel 13- power generator was started? I ( 14 MR. MORABITO: There was a diesel power generator l 15 started, yes. 16 JUDGE HETRICK: Automatically or manually? 17 MR. MORABITO: It started automatically. j 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, okay. , i 19 MR. MORABITO: The symptoms that I saw were loss of ! 20 normal control room lighting. Both emergency buses de-21 energized. { 22 Even if I had noticed that the diesel generator was l 23 starting, that combined with the emergency buses de-energized , 24 is another symptom for ECA00. ; 25 I went into the correct procedure, t ( ! Heritage 3eporting Corporation [ (202) 628-4888 I i t
?
4 217 I 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: . Well, should you have checked 2 that the emergency buses were do-energized before entering that 3 procedure?. ; 4 MR. MORABITO: I did. I looked at the emergency , 5 -buses and they were de-energized.
- 6 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, in the Staff's Exhibit Number !
j 7 3, January 29, Page 25, paragraph 92. r 8 Okay, ECAOO, is the procedure for loss of all 9 electrical power, right? 10 MR. MORABITO: Right. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Including for emergency equipment. I 12 In fact, one of the emergency buses was energized, and why, . 13 because a diesel started automatically? - 14 MR. MORABITO: Yes, but the bus was not energized , 15 when I looked at it. - 16 JUDGE HETRICK: How long does it take between
- 17 starting the diesel engine and energizing the buses? ,
18 MR. MORABITO Only a matter of seconds. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: How far did you go with what they i 20 call the incorrect procedure, namely, the ECAOO, did you do any 21 actions? [ l 22 MR. MORABITO: Yes, we did. !
- 23 Tha Tc* ions are consistently with the reactor trip !
24 procedure, except for a couple of differences with regard to I i-25 the reactor cooling system and in step eight of that procedure, ! l () Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l l l i I
.I
l 1 ( 218
- 1 it asks for verification that the emergency buses are de-2 energized. l 3 I asked that question of the operator and the 4 operator looked at the emergency buses and now they were 5 energized. One was energized because of one diesel generator 6 had started automatically, come up to speed and loaded on the 7 bus.
8 He said it was energized, and that throws you into 9 the response not obtained column, I believe, is where the 10 direction is. And that says, go to EO which is the reactor 11 trip procedure, step one. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: Forgive me for repeating, but I want 13 to establish thic point. That procedure contains in it 14 automatic provision for aborting the procedures once you 15 realize that there is a bus energized. 16 MR. MORABITO: That is correct. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: That la all I have. 18 (Panel confers.) 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Perhaps, the Staff would like to 20 respond to this? 21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, the Staff states that Mr. 22 Morabito should have confirmed with the board operator that the 23 emergency buses were de-energized, before, or prior to entering 24 procedure ECAOO. And he says he looked himself, and is that l 25 wrong? ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-488B
5 219 l
,rq
(_) 1 MR. NORRIS: This can go back to what he said 2 earlier, should he verify it, or should he have his board 3 operators verify a step? 4 He, the SRO typically stands in the middle of the 5 control room and on'a loss of off-site power, it is going to 6 take some finite amount of time for the diesel generator to 7 come up to speed and load on to the bus, as Mr. Horabito said. 8 That is anywhere from about eight to 10 seconds, for 9 that evolution to happen. To the best of my recall and Mr. 10 Silk says that he does not recall, that bus was energized by 11 the time that Mr. Morabito got the books open. , 12 He looked over, and saw that the buses were not de-13 energized, and tried to get into ECADO without ever asking his .
\ ') 14 operator, is the diesel generator -- and I believe it should ,
15 have been 1-B diesel generator -- started and coming up to 16 speed? l 17 In other words, though the attempt of this step be 18 met, -- i 19 JUDGE HETRICK: This is not harmless in view of the ! 20 fact that that procedure contains an automatic check point? l 21 MR. NORRIS: The immediate actions that the operator 22 is going to take are different depending on whether they enter l l 23 ECAOO, which is a loss of all AC power, or they enter EO, which 24 is the reactor trip and that assumes that they have some of 25 their emergency core coring equipment available to them. (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 . b
220 (/ ? JUDGE HETRICE: Now, I asked Mr. Morabito if he 2 acted prematurely and he said, no. 3 Apparently you disagree? 4 MR. NORRIS: I do disagree, sir. 5 MR. MORABITO: Could I offer a correction here? 6 You recall at the start of the scenario, we had a 7 diesel- generator out of service, and so, that left me wJth one 8 operable diesel generator. Now, in anticipation of what we 9 were finally going to end up with, I assumed that we were 10 probably going to end up in a loss of all AC power. And that 11 thought is in my mind and we are going through several 12 malfunctions that occur throughout the scenario. 13 At the point where we could no longer control the (E) 14 turbine load and we had the problem in the reactor side of the 15 undiagnosed dilution, with parameters changing that we were , 16 having difficulty controlling, I ordered a reactor trip and 17 when I ordered the reactor trip, I looked over at the AE&DF 18 buses to what had happened? 19 This was before I went to get the book out or 20 anything else. When I saw the symptoms that I mentioned 21 earlier, I said this out loud, in the middle of the control 22 room, started to go into the books, immediate actions for 23 ECAOO. 24 I told that to both operators and both operators went 25 into the immediate actions, while I got the book out. I then CE) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 . i
J
^ 4 f
221
%/ 1 .ran through the immediate actions in the book and got to step 2 eight, and' asked the operator to verify that there were no 3 energized emergency buses. And he said, that -- I forget which 4 one -- that the DF bus is energized and that kicked me out to 5 EO, step one and we went that way.
6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So, is that checking part of the 7 procedure, itself? If it is, why would one do it before? 8 JUDGE HETRICK: Ask Mr. Norris. 9 JUDGE DECHHOEFER: Mr. Norris, if checking is a step 10 in the procedure, itself, why would one do it first? You would 11 not want to just look at it, itself? If checking about the 12 whether the buses were energized is part of the procedure, I 10 think he said step eight in the procedure, why would one do it 14 first? 15 MR. NORRIS: There are also -- 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is there any -- 17 MR. NORRIS: There are also entry conditions to the 18 procedures, I believe, for ECAOO, entry conditions are loss of 19 off-site power, and no emergency buses energized. 20 As I said earlier, I seem to recall that the one bus i 21 was already energized before he entered ECAOO. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: If there is a time, maybe five to 10 23 seconds, when it was not energized? 24 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE HETRICK: And that is where you say he acted ! Heritaga Reporting Corporation l 202) 628-4888
'W 222
,7- \ 1 prematurely, he should have waited to find out that that would 2 become energized, that that was energized? 3 MR. NORRIS: Again, going back 19 months, I seem to 4 recall that the bus, itself, in fact, was energized before he 5 announced to go into ECAOO. 6 JUDGE HETRICK: But how can we remember if that was 7 by one second or two seconds? 8 MR. NORRIS: You would know if the equipment had 9 started coming on. So if you saw the diesel tied on to the 10 bus, you saw the breaker lights indicating that the breaker was 11 shut, you would know then that the diesel was on the bus. 12 MR. MORABITO: May I respond to that?
,7~ 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.
g 14 MR. MORABITO: At the end of the scenario, Mr. Silk 15 asked me why I went into ECAOO? And I pointed to the AE&DF 16 buses and I said because they were de-energized. And he said, 17 why didn't you look down at the diesel' generator? Which the 18 automatic start lights were indicating, the RPM meter needle 19 was showing an increasing trend, meaning that the generator had 20 started. 21 Mr. Silk was aware that I looked at the AE&DF buses 22 and saw that they were de-energized. Mr. Norris is not stating 23 true fact. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me ask this, if that is true, 25 even if that is true, a precondition for entering this ECAOO Ov Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.i 223
- 1 procedure is both buses de-energized. Now, if the illumination 2 goes out in the control room, is the SRO supposed to sit around
-3 and wait until one bus gets energized before he goes into this 4 emergency procedure, especially since that procedure contains 5 an automatic way out'of'itself, anyway?
6 Hou long is he supposed to wait for the energizing of
-7 a bus after the lights go out?
8 MR. NORRIS: I don't believe the lights to out at 9 Beaver Valley. 10 MR. MORABITO: Yes, they do. 11 If they went out, the normal would be they would go 12 on to the emergency lighting. MR. NORRIS: Okay. O 14 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, that is what I meant. 15 MR. NORRIS: Well, not all plants do that. Some 16 plants do not lose lighting. That is why I asked. 17 JUDGE HETRICK: I see. 18 MR. NORRIS: He should realized or he should have 19 anticipated, he knew that he had one diesel generator out of 20 service, and the other one, as far as he knew, was operable. 21 He should have waited those few seconds to determine 22 whether he was going to have power or not to that bus. 23 JUDGE HETRICK: In other words, it was part of his 24 training should include knowledge of how long it takes for that 25 generator to get up to power and energize the bus. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 224 f~) (_/ MR. NORRIS: 1 It is a normal surveillance that they 2 do to determine the start time of the diesel generator and it' 3 is usually a 10-second limit. 4 JUDGE HETRICK: Then he should be expected to give it 5 time? 6 MR. NORRIS: He should be expected to be able to 7 determine that the bus will become energized. Is the diesel 8 generator coming up to speed? Yes, it is. I have got a good 9 feeling that the bus will become energized. 10 All steps in the operating procedures do not have to 11 be complete before you can proceed on with the next step in 12 that procedure, if you have indication that a step will be s 13 completed correctly. 14 That is part of the basic understanding of how to use ( 15 the emergency operating procedures. 16 JUDGE HETRICK: Where is it written that it is a pre-17 condition for ECAOO that the buses not be energized? 18 You said it is a pre-condition, right? A pre-19 condition for entering ECAOO is emergency buses not energized. 20 MR. NORRIS: If there was any question that should be 21 in the entry conditions of ECAOO. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, where is that written? 23 MR. MORABITO: I have that here, if you would permit 24 me to enter it or give it to you just for your own information? 25 JUDGE HETRICK: What I want to know is, is that pre Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i M l n 225 r's ) (2' 1 condition for'the procedure part of the procedure in the sense 2 that it is in the front of the procedure? l 3 Or is it something that you are supposed to know 4 because you are the senior operator? 5 MR. MORABITO: Well, I should know the symptoms for 6 entry to the procedure, because I am the senior operator and it 7 is also written on the symptoms for entry into the procedure. 8 JUDGE HETRICK: So, when you'have an idea you-should 9 go to that procedure, the first thing you do is to. check the 10 pre-conditions, right? 11 MR. MORABITO: Check for the symptoms, yes. 12 JUDGE HETRICK: And -- 13 MR. MORABITO: The EOP's are symptomatic based, when O 14 you see the symptoms, you go to the EOP's. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: All right, is there a checklist there 16 that says -- 17 MR. MORABITO: No. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: -- these are the pre-conditions, l 19 check these first before you do something? 20 MR. MORABITO: No, you are expected to know that -- 21 JUDGE HETRICK: That is what I wanted to understand. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would it be useful to have this 23 procedure, you think, the one we are working on? 24 MR. MORABITO: I don't have the procedure, I just l l 25 have the entry conditions. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
i< 226 1 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, I guess before we do something 2 with it, ' want to make sure how important it.is? 3 The entry conditions are not, again, part of the 4 procedure that -- it is a checklist that you go through for 5 entry? 6 MR. MORABITO: No, you don't run a checklist on them. 7 JUDGE HETRICK: For doing the first action, it is a 8 pre-condition that is part of every. day operation, you are 9 supposed to know this ahead of time? 10 MR. MORABITO: That is correct. 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Part of your training. 12 (Panel confers.) 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Where do these pre-conditions come 14 from? Is it, again, part of an operating manual? l 15 MR. MORABITO: They come out of the emergency 16 operating procedures, the first page to ECAOO. 17 Is that what you were asking me, or did I 18 misunderstand your question? 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Yes, is this part of an operating 20 manual or is it part of the emergency procedure? 21 MR. MORABITO: Well, when we say the operating 22 manual, we mean that all inclusive to include the emergency 23 operating procedures. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Does each procedure have a 25 separate entry condition which is essentially a part of the O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
227 .I kl 1 procedure? 2 How does this work? 3 MR. MORABITO: For the emergency operating 4 procedures, there are only two ways of entering those 5 procedures:-either from a reactor trip or from a loss of all AC 6 power. 7 You either go into EO or you go into ECAOO. I have 8 the symptoms for loss of all AC power and I went to ECAOO. 9 JUDGE HETRICK: All right, but there are pre-10 conditions, I am still trying to establish, are they a part of 11 the procedure, the emergency procedure, or are they somehow 12 separate from it? 13 Pardon my ignorance here. I really wanted to
'O 14 establish this point. Are the preconditions a checklist that 15 you go through before you do the first action in the emergency
~
16 procedure, and you said, no. 17 MR. MORABITO: No, they are not. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: That is all that I needed to know. 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, do we have to get the 20 Staff's view on that last question? 21 JUDGE HETRICK: If you like? 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would the Staff like to comment on 23 Mr. Morabito's last answer about the pre-conditions? 24 MR. NORRIS: No, sir. 25 (Panel confers.) O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
i 228 ; (_) 1 JUDGE HETRICK: I have a question for Staff at this 2 point. Exhibit Number 3, January 29, Page 26, Paragraph 94, as 3' the supervisor of the SRO should not be involv6d with the board 4 operations, but must maintain the overall plant conditions in a 5 safe manner. 6 And that was in response to a question, would the 7 candidate normally be expected to communicate with the operator 8 before acting? And by acting we mean entering the emergency 9 procedures. 10 And how does this reflect on some of the other 11 comments we have been discussing, where it seemed to me you 12 were saying that the SRO failed his responsibility a few times 13 because he did not check things on the board. 14 And here you are saying he should not be involved 15 with the board operations. Isn't that a contradiction? 16 MR. NORRIS: I would have to ask you to give me some 17 examples of the former. The only one I can think of is the 18 feed reg bypass valve and again, we did not fault him for not 19 seeing the lights as such. We faulted him for his diagnostic 20 abilities. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Example, well, one example I had in 22 mind was the control board operation's comments to,o about the 23 residual heat release valve was to be checked. 24 MR. NORRIS: He was not in the supervisory capacity 25 at that time, sir, he was as an operator on the boards. Under Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l h 229
%) -1 control board operations all four of those comments are as a 2 board operator not as a supervisor.
3 _ JUDGE HETRICKt So these are all third scenario? 4 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Thank you. 6 Do you have any relevant comments? 7 MR. MORABITO: Again, as an SRO, it is my 8 responsibility to react as quickly as possible to problems that 9 I perceive occurring in the plant. I directed that quick 10 reaction and the operators responded properly and in subsequent 11 questioning they gave indication that caused me to kick out to 12 EO procedures. We did that properly and there is very little 13 difference between the two procedures. 14 There was no harm brought to the plant in doing the 15 ECAOO steps, twice the EO steps especially when we kicked out 16 and went through and did the EO steps also. 17 I reacted to the symptoms in accordance with the 18 proper implementation of the EOP's. 19 (Panel confers.) 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Concerning the comment on use of 21 hand signals, which I guess is second comment on communications 22 crew interactions, first the Staff has said there is no 23 specific rules against it, but essentially it is not a good 24 idea. 25 They also, the Staff has said that they did not give O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
230
/-
ky) 1 any specific instructions concerning the use of hand signals. 2 And did -- my-question is, the Staff said that they did not 3 know that Duquesne Light discussed that matter, the training 4 department of Duquesne Light. 5 Did they before you took the exam, did they discuss 6 using hand signals as being inappropriate or inadvisable? 7 In any part of your training, have you been told that 8 it was not a good idea to use hand signals or to permit use of 9 hand signals, by people serving under you? 10 MR. MORABITO: No, not that I can recall, no. 11 MR. NORRIS: May I ask, Judges, had he ever used hand' 12 signals during any of his training time in the simulator and 13 got feedback on that, from instructors? O' 14 JUDGE HETRICK: Could you answer that question? 15 MR. MORABITO: If I ever used hand signals during 16 simulator training? 17 JUDGE HETRICK: And, gotten feedback from 18 instructors? 19 MR. MORABITO: No, we never used hand signals. 20 I never used hand signals. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, why did you use them during the 22 exam? 23 MR. MORABITO: I didn't, the operator did. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: Oh, I see. 25 MR. MORABITO: She gave me a communication, it was a O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
231 k/ 1 . verbal communication, her hand signal was only to characterize Io 2 -the amount above an orange background mark that a particular 3 radiation meter was reading. 4 Her, you know, her holding.her fingers that far 5 apart, was how she characterized that this needle was reading 6 that far above the orange mark. 7 And, you know, I understood what she was saying. I 8 did not immediately assume to myself that the correct 9nswer 9 was that the radiation meters were reading consistent. I first 10 asked a couple of questions as to whether or not there was 11 indications of a tube rupture, which, if I had characterized 12 her hand signal as being, no, it is not consistent and then I 13 had gotten positive indications from the reactor operator that () 7_s 14 he had additional symptoms of a tube rupture, the kick-out of 15 that procedure would have been to go to E3. 16 I asked the questions of the reactor operator whether 17 there were any indications of a tube rupture, and he said, no. 18 And I then determined that her characterization to me of that 19 much of a reading above the background mark on the radiation 20 meter was consistent with pre-event values. 21 That is my decision to make, the step says, are the 22 radiation meter indications consistent with pre-event values. 23 It does not tell you, are they, do they read exactly or do they 24 read 10 times the amount or anything else. It simply says, are 25 they consistent? (' V) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
^
1 232 l' That is a decision that the SRO has to make. She 2 gave me an indication that this one particular meter was 3 reading slightly above the orange background mark. That could 4 have been an inconsistency or it could have been consistent, 5 depending upon my follow-up questions. 6 The follow-up questions I asked were directed toward 7 determining whether there was a steam generator tube rupture? 8 There was none and I stated that we will not kick out to E3, we 9 will go on with the procedure, the radiation, I didLnot say 10 this now, but the conclusion in my mind was that the radiation 11 meter indications were consistent with pre-event values. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Now, this was checking a procedure 13 for checking secondary radiation levels? 14 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did you admit, after the scenario 16 that you misunderstood the operator's report and assumed there 17 was no reason to go to E3? 18 This is what the Staff's comment says. 19 MR. MORABITO: Yes, I know. I did not. 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, what went on? I mean, how 21 if any way could you be construed as admitting that you 22 misunderstood? 23 MR. MORABITO: I have to assume that that was a 24 little bit of confusion on Mr. Silk's part. What happened 25 after the scenario ended I went back with Mr. Silk and Mr. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
233 (-) 1
~
Norris to the panels that held the radiation meters. And he 2 was asking me about that particular communication. 3 There are three meters that you check during that 4 step. I could not recall, you know, by now, the scenario is 5 over_and a lot of things have gone on -- I could'not recall-6 exactly which one the operator had told me was reading above 7 the orange mark. 8 So, I began to the radiation meter that I was 9 standing in front of, which was the middle one of the three, I 10 believe, and explaining to him how, by her characterization of 11 the meter being that much above the orange mark, it showed on 12 the meter reading that it was a variation of maybe 30 to 60 13 counts per minute, or counts per second, whatever the scale 14 reads out in. 15 And then I am not sure how it all evolved at that 16 point, but at this, you know, the scenario ended. Now, in our 17 training, whenever you end a scenario, you freeze the 18 simulator, so I assumed that the simulator was frozen. We were 19 there talking about what was going on, and I assumed the l 20 simulator was done. 21 So, it happened that the meter that I was looking at 22 was not the one that the operator had told me about. But I did 23 not know right then. When, under additional questioning and I 24 don't recall the sequence, I came to realize that the simulator 25 was still running, they had not stopped the simulator which O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
234-1 told me that-the meter that she looked at should.still be i 2 reading that little bit above background. ,
.3 -And that is'when I told them,fI misunderstood what.
4- you asked me or1I misunderstood what - .I don't-remember which 5 one she'was~ showing me but I can-show you now, because the 6 ~ simulator, you kept it running and I can show you which one it' 7 was. 8 And I took them to the meter for the steam generator 9 blow-down sample and I showed him how the meter indication was 10 reading that far above the orange mark. 11 ' JUDGE HETRICK: So you did not misunderstand -her I 12- signal, you misunderstood the question asked to you later on? 13 MR. MORABITO: Based on the fact that I did not l , 14 realize that the simulator was still running and if-I had i 15 looked at all-three of the indications, I would have seen the 16 one reading what the reactor or the balance of plan operator 17 had told me, was reading below the orange mark. l- 18 JUDGE HETRICK: The Staff's comment says, step 6, of I i-19 E-I calls for checking secondary radiation levels. An operator 20 checked the monitors and said, one. Now, was that in response i 21 to a question that you asked of the operator? : 22 MR. MORABITO: I have that page if, again, if I can . , 23 give it to you for reference or submit it to you as an Exhibit? ! 24 JUDGE HETRICK: No, I don't want to see the i 25 procedure. O Corporation Heritage Reporting i (202) 628-4888 1 1 .
'i b 235
,3
(_) 1 MR. MORABITO:' Okay, the step said check the
'2 radiation levels are consistent with pre-event values and it 3 listed the three that you were to check and I gave that 4 direction to the balance plan operator. She went and checked 5 it, came back and said, you know, one is reading that far above 6 the orange mark.
7 JUDGE HETRICK: So the one refers to one of the three 8 meters? 9 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE HETRICK: And the hand signal says, a little 11 bit, that is what it means? 12 MR. MORABITO: Yes. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Were you at any time confused about O 14 the meaning of that signal? 15 MR. MORABITO: No, not at all. 16 MR. NORRIS: If I may now? 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, please. 18 MR. NORRIS: There are three points that I would-like 19 to work on at this point, the follow-up questioning on whether 20 or not he understood what the operator meant when she held her 21 fingers, half an inch apart, although I don't remember the 22 exact wording, it was relatively clear to the effect of what 23 does this mean? 24 And he could not give us a clear understanding of 25 what this meant. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 236
-'s 1 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, what do you mean? You asked 2 'him how many counts per minute this meant?
3 MR. NORRIS: We asked him, what indication this would 4 give him of whether they were consistent or not. And if you 5 give me a minute, I think you will understand where I am coming 6 from. 7 I will make my third point, before I make my second 8 point. On Mr. Morabito's middle, I think it is his November 7 i submittal, I think it is Exhibit Number 2, on Page 11, he talks-10 about how potentially dangerous it is for an operator to try 11 and extract a numerical reading and that they could end up 12 choosing the wrong integer, the wrong exponent of 10 or a 13 parallex. O 14 And well, first of all, the operators are expected to 15 be able to accurately read those meters. So that argument is 16 relatively immaterial. As to whether or not the operator would , 17 be able to read it correctly. 18 Secondly, he asked the question asked, are the 19 readings consistent with pre-event readings, and the response 20 from the operator of, they are just slightly higher, would be 21 more acceptable than saying so much with your fingers, without 22 realizing how so much is. 23 And is that five times a factor of 10, is that a 24 factor of 10? Unless he has the scale of all of those meters l 25 memorized. O Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 i
. .- m ,
237 1 The third point.I-would like to bring out is that he 2 says he talked to.the RO, to-confirm his understanding that 3 there was not a steam generator tube' rupture. Neither Mr.-Silk
- .4 or myself recall any discussions between him and'the RO about , S confirming the secondary radiation levels based on primary ,
r 6 parameters. 7 And it is our underttanding that he did not 8 understand what was going on, and he did not go into the wrong 9 procedure strictly by luck. 10 MR. MORABITO: May I comment? 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you through first? 12 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You may comment. O 14 MR. MORABITO: As I was explaining to Mr. Silk, the ; 15 variations on the meters, I said to him, did we have a tube 16 rupture in the scenario and he said, no. 17 I knew that we did not, I was asking him the question 18 and he responded, yes, no you did not have one. 19 And I said, why do you think I would have gone to i 20 that procedure? I was certainly aware of'what we were doing. 21 The fact that Mr. Norris and Mr. Silk don't remember l l 22 me asking the reactor operator any of these questions is hardly 23 an admissible fact here. They are, you know, I have questions ! 24 concerning their qualifications to even conduct this exam, let ; l t 25 alone say that they don't remember things that happened. - () Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 t f l,
,- _-, .- ,. .,,m. , . mm_ _ _ _ . . - . _ _ , . . - . _ _ . .,m., ., -_., _ . . _ , , . _ . , . - . . - . . , , , _ . . - - _
238
) 1 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me ask Mr. Norris?
2 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir.
~3 JUDGE HETRICK: Do you see a substantial difference 4 between a verbal response slightly higher as compared to that 5 hand signal?
6 MR. NORRIS: When asked is one indication consistent 7 with a pre-event, as Mr. Morabito said, consistent could be 8 exactly what it was before or slightly higher. If it were 9 slightly higher, I would be drawn to ask,-how much higher? Is , 10 it just one or two times higher, is it a factor of 10 higher or 11 is it a factor of this much higher? 12 In operating a nuclear power plant and having a safe _ 13 attitude towards it, this does not mean anything to me.
#' 14 JUDGE HETRICK: But the word, slightly, does --
15 MR. NORRIS: I would not accept slightly, I would 16 pursue it further. If I got a response of it is slightly 17 higher, how much higher? 18 Holding your fingers half an inch apart, conveys no 19 information to me at all, other than my finger is half an inch
- 20 apart.
21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, wouldn't that give rise to 22 the same questions that slightly would give rise to? 23 MR. NORRIS: Yes, and if she had turned around and 24 said, it is about this much and he had said, how much is that, , 25 this comment would have never been made because his supervisory O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
239 (/ 1 ability would have been demonstrated by not allowing that type 2 of communication. 3 What he was faulted for was allowing that type of 4 communication, this much. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, for allowing it or for not 6 following it up? 7 MR. NORRIS: If he had followed it up, he would not 8 have allowed it. He would have said, well, how much is this? 9 By just taking this information and proceeding with 10 it, without getting additional information -- 11 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, forgive me, I want to 12 understand what you meant by allowed, and you answered. 13 MR. MORABITO: I would like to make some additional O 14 comments. 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Go ahead. 16 MR. MORABITO: I object to the characterization of l l 17 the reactor operator's fingers as being a half an inch apart. 18 Mr. Silk and Mr. Norris have no way of measuring how far apart 19 they were. They were that much apart. I don't know if that is 20 half an inch or not. 21 MR. NORRIS: I am going on what is written up in the 22 comments that said that the fingers were about a half an inch 23 to one inch apart. 24 MR. MORABITO: Whose comments were those? 25 MR. NORRIS: Those were Mr. Silk's comments, based on 1 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
240 f).
'n./ 1 his observation of --
2 MR. MORABITO: That is what I am saying, that Mr. 3 Silk is not qualified to judge that distance. 4 MR. NORRIS: If I may, it is immaterial how far apart 5 the fingers'were. The point is the type of communication, a 6 non-verbal communication of holding your fingers apart, being a 7 half an inch or six inches. 8 MR. MORABITO: Let's follow-up on that point. 9 She said it was that far apart and I asked the 10 reactor operator do you have any indications of a tube rupture? 11 That is increasing steam generator level and he said,
,12 no. Have you had any reports of increasing radiation levels 13 out in the plant? He said, no, and those were the two O. 14 questions I asked.
15 Mr. Norris and Mr. Silk either don't remember it or 16 don't want to remember it. I said, we have no indications of a 17 tube rupture, the meter readings are consistent with the pre-18 event values and we will stay in this procedure and we will not 19 go to E3. 20 Those were my words to the operating crew. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Let me ask the decision not to go 22 into E-3 was a correct decision? 23 MR. MORABITO: That is correct. 24 JUDGE HETRICK: For whatever your interpretation of 25 the hand signal is, it was orrect decision? l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 , t
241 k/ 1 MR. MORABITO: That is correct, it was a correct 2 decision. 3- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, at some level, would you-4 have had to go into E-37 5 MR. MORABITO: No. 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I mean if the radiation were high 7 enough? 8 MR. MORABITO: Oh, I am sorry, yes, if I had asked 9 .him for indicationc of a tube rupture and he said the steam 10 generator levels are increasing or I had reports from the-11 radiation technicians that radiation levels in the plant are 12 increasing, that is a kick out to E-3. 13 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, let's establish for certain, O 14 the second scenario did not include a tube rupture? 15 MR. NORRIS: That is correct, sir. 16 If I can ask a question, with respect to verifying 17 whether or not there was a tube rupture, is that you have to 18 meet all three indications in your procedure, or is any one of 19 those three indications, indications of a tube rupture or a 20 tube leak? 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Well, excuse me, you are talking 22 about the three radiation meters? 23 MR. NORRIS: The reason I am asking is, that he was 24 told by E-I to verify what a check for secondary radiation. 25 He then says he talked to his operator about checking CE) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
242 r~% k-) 1 other radiation meters and steam generator levels and I am 2 asking whether he would have made that transition to procedure 3 E-3, based on any one indication or if it took two or three of 4 those indications? 5 The reason that I ask this is that if any one of 6 those indications would have you transitioned, then you still 7 by your own statement only have two indications because you 8 said that you did not know how much that was. 9 You said it supported the other one, but you did not 10 know whether you had secondary radiation levels consistent. So 11 I would like to know how many of those three indications are 12 required before you transition? 13 MR. MORABITO: I believe there is a fold-out page on O 14 that that gives you the criteria for transitioning to E-3. I 15 don't know what those are. When we are going through that 16 procedure that is open to us and we can refer to it. 17 So I cannot answer your question specifically, but 18 what I can say is, had the operator said, we have increasing l 19 steam generator levels, I probably would have said that that 20 radiation indication level that the balance plant operator gave 21 to me meant that it was not consistent with pre-event values. 22 And I would have had two indications and I would have 23 kicked out to E-3. Or, if the reactor operator had said, the 24 radiation technicians have indicated that there is increasing 25 radiation in the steam lines, that along with, that much on the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
243 (_/ 1 meter would have been consistent with the tube rupture and we 2 would have kicked out. 3 I had neither of those two. I only had that much on 4 the steam generator blow-down meter and I answered the question 5 properly that the radiation level, the radiation meter 6 indications were consistent with pre-even values. 7 MR. NORRIS: If I may then, it appears that this.was 8 based on what he got back on his steam generator levels and 9 other radiations. 10 I just heard him say that if the level had been 11 increasing, then he would have realized that this meant that he 12 had hign secondary radiation or if he had radiation in other _ 13 areas, the fingers being held apart, would have been an 14 indication that he had steam generator radiation. 15 Since he had neither a high steam generator level nor 16 radiation in the other two, then obviously this must have meant 17 he did not have secondary radiation, which means thia could 18 have meant one of two things to him. 19 He used his other two indications to determine what 20 the fingers being held apart meant. 21 JUDGE HETRICK: Is that a fair description of your 22 thought processes? 23 MR. MORABITO: I don't know if I understood it all 24 exactly, but yes, I asked additional questions to verify that l 25 this meant that the radiation levels were consistent with the ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
+
. . ~ . , . . . . . . . -.. .. . , . - . . . . . ~ .
. - - - . . - , - . - - . ~ - . - _ .
+
, j _) -- (i
- i -
p
+
p, 4:
. 244' b;.'
- t
~- . ~, .: ' ,
b } -l1. : pre-event.yalues.- i
- a. ',1
$. t 4 [' 2- :(Continued on the'next page.). - (. ; . .
- p. 3 n .
- c4: .:
't
{- ! i- 5 ' I
^
l'. 6 l
.i
- 7. 1 8 t j'; ;
- 9.. :
I. > i: 10 l i
- - 11' ;
- ~ , -
12 -3 E - 13-14 t> .; i- ', i 15-16' , j ; J. t L 17 i , ,, 18 i- ., [ F 19 .I 4 I { .- 20 .' i' l l 1 21 i e ; 1 , 22 ; i 23 i + 1 24 . c t
- 25 1 1 I
j- Heritage Reporting Corporation g L 4 (202) 628-4888 j, i I _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._ __ _ __._,_ __ , ._._ _ _ . m ._,,.. -
l s 245
) 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We've covered all the specific 2 questions we have onsthe,various comments.- Mr. Brown, you 3 indicated that you may have had some.other questions to ask in 4 general. I guess this will be your only op;ortunity. . If you 5- think further questions need to be asked on the simulated-6 portion of the exam. You mentioned generally.and you can 7 either ask the questions and ask me and I can indicate whether 8 the area is permissible.
9 I'm referring to the general statement you made in 10 your document of February 4, I think it is. 11 MR. MORABITO: Yes, I understand what you're asking. 12 Several of the questions that I had intended to ask deal with 13 the written examination. If you'll permit me to ask them? O 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, not on the written exam. I 15 don't think we should do that. 16 MR. MORABITO: You understand that I've indicated 17 that part of my defense is to question the qualifications of 18 the examiners. And that if I can question their ability to 19 adequately judge the objectivity of the written exam and prove 20 that they -- well, I think we've already proved that since I 21 have gotten to the point where the NRC has indicated that I 22 passed the written exam, then that throws questions into their 23 ability to make a subjective decision with regard to my 24 simulator performance. 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
246 m ( l' 1 (Pause) 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I don't think I would need to ask 3 for Staff comments on that. I don't think we can hear those 4 questions. I'm assuming-the Staff would say we should not hear 5 those questions. -I personally don't think I should hear them 6 because of the fact that one of the written exam, questions on 7 the written exam are moot insofar they go to that exam because 8 you've passed that. 9 But too, I'm not sure that we can rate the overall 10 competence of the examiners. I think that we can just 11 determine that they may or may not have made mistakes and we're 12 going to be going over that very carefully. But I think once 13 they're certified by the Commission, I don't have any authority O 14 to say they're not qualified. I do have authority to say they 15 made mistakes on the questions at issue. 16 So in terms of just authority for me to go into that, 17 I think it would be really out of my jurisdiction. 18 MR. MORABITO: Well, you do have the authority to 19 request additional procedures. If I can, by you hearing these 20 questions, cause enough question to be raised in your mind 21 about the practice of qualifying examiners, and in particular, 22 Mr. Norris and Mr. Silk, then I would hope that you, as a 23 member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel would 24 take that to the Commission and say, hey, we better look into 25 this a little further. And what procedures do we need to do O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
247 9)
-( - 1 that.
2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I don't think I can really. 3 do that. I don't think it's within the scope of my authority 4 to do that. I think-I can evaluate whether you were 5 competently graded on questions'you missed or questions or 6 scenarios or various comments. I don't think it's within my 7 aut hority to go broader than that. 8 MR. MORABITO: What about in the comment that the 9 examiners make in their submittal of January 29th, paragraph 35 10 on page 11, which states, "the examiner is ultimately ; 11 responsible for making a professional subjective judgment on , 12 whether_a candidate should pass or fail this segment of the 13 examination." O 14 If they are permitted to rely on their 15 professionalism to back up their subjective judgment that I 16 have failed the simulator exam, then I should be able to . 17 question that professionalism to prove that they cannot come to 18 a professional subjective judgment. , 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I think we've been engaged ; 20 .in that process to some degree insofar as it bears on the 21 actual questions at issue. I don't think necessarily their 22 across the board competence as reflected in the written exam is 23 pertinent to -- well, it may be pertinent to a general 24 discussion, but I think that what I have to do is decide 25 whether they graded you correctly on the particular elements () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
248 k_,) ' 1- where you were downgraded. 2 MR. MORABITO: How can you arrive at that decision 3 with regard, for example, to their comment on supervisory 4 ability, which is a general corment, the second comment, that 5 says, you know, based on'these other comments that we've made, - 6 his overall supervisory judgment is rated as unsatisfactory. 7 Now, how can you look at that and come to some conclusive ' 8 decision when in fact the examiners have no training, or very 9 little training in actually deterraining and measuring what 10 those competencies involve? 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I will have to decide, with 12 Dr. Hetrick's help, thank heavens, whether the particular 13 comments that are incorporated by reference there have any O 14 bearing on superv.- y r ability, and will be making the 15 decision. So 1 don-t think questioning of the Staff examiners 16 could lead to a different result. 17 We're going to look over the record and determine if 18 those comments were relevant. And as a matter of fact, I'm 19 going to determine whether they were adequately set forth with 20 enough specificity to comply with the guidelines. Those are 21 all issues which I will resolve. 22 But I don *t see how questioning them on the written 23 exam would change things. 24 MR. MORABITO: Well, all right, would you permit me 25 to question them on their qualification to be certified ( i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 249 (O s- 1 examiners? 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, because that also is not 3 within my jurisdiction. They received a certification and as 4 long as they did that, that's all the rules require. There may 5 be a problem with the Staff certification process, but that is 6 not within my authority. All I can determine is whether they 7 graded you correctly or incorrectly on the particular_ items for 8 which you were downgraded. 9 And I will have to do that based on -- we've got a 10 lot of information in the record now on each of those matters. 11 I don't think I skipped any. So your questions would have to , 12 relate to something that you didn't get to ask in connection 13 with the specific simulator exam.
) 14 MR. MORABITO: Let me ask this question, then.
15 On page 24 of the January 29th submittal, paragraph ' 16 84, Staff response: "As in the plant where malfunctions occur 17 without warning, the simulator may also cause unexpected 18 malfunctions of equipment and indications. The Chief ~ Examiner l 19 will discuss any malfunctions with the other examiners and the 20 simulator instructors to determine if, 1) it is ctill possible 21 to continue with the scenario as written or with minor changes; 22 and 2) the ability of the examiners to evaluate their 23 candidates is not impaired, then the scenario will continue. 24 If either of the above conditions does not exist, the scenario 25 will be stopped and either the scenario will continue after the f O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s
. 250
.(")/
\_ 1 malfunction-has been corrected, or a new scenario will be ,
2 started." 3 . I would like to ask if that discussion took place and ! 4 is there any documentation that it took place, and what is the 5 documentation of the results of that discussion? - 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That question I do believe is 7 relevant, and to the extent they can, I invite an answer to 8 that one. 9 MR. NORRIS: I can answer that question only partly. 10 I was not the Chief Examiner for this examination. Another ; 11 individual was. But I was in part of the conversations when 12 the spiking of the simulator was first noted. We discussed it , 13 with all the simulator instructors'that were available () 14 including Mr. Schad as to whether he felt the simulator would 15 continue to operate adequately enough for examination purposes. 16 Mr. Schad's response was to the effect of, yes, we've 17 had this problem for a while and we can continue to operate 4 18 with it. The personnel that were present for that conversation 19 from the NRC Staff were the Section Chief, Bob Keller, the Chief Examiner, Scott Barber, myself, and I don't know how many 20 21 other people from both Dufuesne Light and the NRC Staff. 22 They determined that simulator malfunctions, 23 specifically electrical spiking, were not significant enough to t 24 cancel or postpone the exams. , 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did you also determine that it # O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 F
251 g) (_ I would not affect the ability of the examiner to e :1uate the 2 particular candidate? 3 MR. NORRIS: That is part of the same discussion, 4 sir, is will we be able to conduct exams. And that includes 5 both the scenarios running would not be adversely affected and 6 the examiner's ability to evaluate the candidates during those 7 scenarios. And after the fact, we determined that the 8 malfunction of the simulator, although it is distracting and it 9 is difficult on the candidates, it did not detract from our 10 ability to evaluate them or should have detracted from their 11 ability to operate the simulator. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Schad, would. you hava anything 13 to add to that since you wern present at that same discussion? O 14 I mean, is there anything -- 15 MR. SCHAD: -- is correct, Mr. Norris. I know we did 16 discuss it. I'm not sure of everybody that was there. I know 17 Mr. Keller was there. I don't know if the Chief Examiner, Mr. 18 Barber, was there or not. At one time, they were all there, 19 but I don't know if everybody was there at that particular 20 time. I know Mr. Keller and I did discuss the spiking and in 21 fact, and I don't even know if Mr. Silk or Mr. Norris would 22 have been aware of the conversation that Mr. Keller and I had. 23 But we did talk about the feed bypass valve spiking. And Mr. 24 Keller agreed with me that it would give them problems in 25 proper diagnosis of the bypass valve. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 252 (~) (/ 1 Now, I don't know if they were aware of that 2 conversation nr not. But Mr. Keller and I did have that 3 conversation up in the booth while that scenario was on-going. 4 So_they are correct in the front end. Yes, we did have the , 5 conversation. And we felt because of the electric storm the 6 previous evening, usually the first hour or two -- it takes 7 about an hour or so for the simulator to calm down'or get the 8 voltage problems over with. And I think Mr. Keller even wrote 9 a comment in the examiner review to that effect. 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Morabito, do you have any 11 further questions based on the simulator exam? 12 MR. MORABITO: I have about twenty examples of lack 13 of professionalism. I assume you won't let me introduce those, () 7 ,s 14 either? 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, not unless they relate to 16 the simulator specifically, or to the particular comments on 17 the simulator. 18 JUDGE HETRICK: I have one question that's been 19 partly resolved before, but I want to make sure that now that 20 we've finished going through all the specific comments that I'm 21 correct in understanding that had any of this been a real 22 scenario in an operating plant, that plant was never in danger 23 at any time because of actions by the candidate. 24 Is that correct? 25 MR. NORRIS: I'm sorry, sir. I was talking to Mr. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 253 :l
- 1. Gutierrez. I didnt hear it all.
2 JUDGE HETRICK - If_this had been a real plant and , 3 -these were real events, is it true that a plant wouldJnot:have 4 been endangered by any of the candidate's actions. 5 MR..NORRIS: I'm going to have to go back and-look at l 6' the comments again before I can say an unequivocal yes or not j
.i'
.7 on that.
8 JUDGE HETRICK: Please. 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: This is restricted to the comments l 10 on the simulator. 4 11 MR. NORRIS: Understood, sir. 12 On a first glance, and Mr. Silk will correct me if he
- 13. disagrees, I do not believe that any of-the indications that we O: 14 received or any of the deficiencies that we noted would have 15 placed the plant in an unsafe condition, seeing as how many of- :
16 them were stopped before they were carried through to { 17 completion. ! 18 However, what we were citing during the examination 19 process is the candidate's ability to safely and competently 20 operate the plant in accordance with approved procedures, and (i 21 using an understanding of the Beaver Valley Unit One Plant. So j 22 although he may not have in fact put the plant in an unsafe ;
; 23 condition at any point, his indications of how he used his l t
24 available material gives an indication that he might at another i 25 time put the plant in an unsafe condition. And the examiner l Heritage Reporting Corporation ; i (202) 628-4888 , J t
254 () 1 process is an audit of the candidat'e's understanding of how his 2 system should work. It's an audit of his knowledge. 3 JUDGE HETRICK: When you say, operate the plant in 4 accordance with procedures, though, that would include 5 allowances for team work and assistance of other people in 6 arriving at the right decision, is that correct? 7 MR. NORRIS: When a decision is required to be made, 8 and if time allows, we do not at all and I don't think I've 9 ever stated that team work is not something we like to see. 10 Team work is helpful and it's safe for the plant. But as we 11 cited frequently in the write-up of Mr. Morabito on his Form 12 157, reliance on another individual, as opposed to being able 13 to help another individual is not an indication of a safe and O 14 competent operator. 15 And I think there's a significant difference there 16 between team work and reliance. 17 , JUDGE HETRICK: And I'd like to ask Mr. Morabito if 18 he'has a response to that question and answer? 19 MR. MORABITO: As the examiners have indicated, none 20 of my actions placed the plant in an unsafe condition, nor , 21 jeopardized the health and safety of the public, nor 22 jeopardized the health and safety of the people at the plant. 23 None of my actions placed the plant in an unanalyzed 24 condition nor caused any safety limits to be exceeded, nor 25 caused any defective actions to occur that weren't expected in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I i
l l 255 1 1 the plant. All of my actions contributed to a controlled 2 situation including those conditions where I failed to diagnose 3 the problem. I still managed to control the parameters with 4 the actions that I took. 5 I believe that that indicates a very safe and 6 conservative operating posture and it speaks very highly of my 7 ability to supervise the operators under my supervision. 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, that's all'the questions we 9 have now. And unless somebody has other things that you think 10 we should go in to, and I'm not counting now the written exam 11 questions, unless there's something we forgot, we're about to 12 close down for the day. 13 I do want to ask the parties what they would wish in
) 14 terms of filing in a formal proceeding, it's proposed findings 15 of fact and conclusions of law. In a proceeding like this,
- 16 maybe it's a little less formal, but I do think parties have a 17 right to file what their position should be, based on the 18 record. And normally, we would require citations to the 19 record, plus to the various exhibits that have been put in. So 20 that candidates can establish their final position on the 21 questions at issue, questions or scenarios or comments.
22 Have the parties discussed at all whether they would 23 wish to file proposed findings? Because normally, parties do. 24 You'll take the evidence in the record and tell me how you 25 think I should come out on it. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
256 f) (._/ 1 MR. MORABITO: If I may initiate the discussion here, 2 I would move, if the Staff will'go along with me, that we 3 dispense with the filing of proposed findings and rely on the 4 decision of the Administrative Law Judge presiding officer. 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It makes it hardor for us if we 6 don't have citations to go from, but we only have one day of 7 hearings so it's not impossible. 8 MS. WOODHEAD: The Staff doesn't feel strongly one 9 way or the other. If Mr. Morabito would prefer not to, it 10 certainly would not be fair for us to file findings. So I'll 11 accede to your choice. 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It would be up to you. If you 13 file proposed findings, you would have a certain number of O' 14 days. I think in the general rules it's thirty days, I guess. 15 And you'd have to look at the transcript and a copy will be 16 placed in both the public document room and the local public 17 document room, so you could refer to that. But it may take a 18 little while to get the local public document room. 19 I understand by the way that a room has been set up. 20 MR. MORABITO: I understood from your Order that it 21 was going to be and from Ms. Woodhead's memo to Theresa Lipton 22 that the room would be set up. I don't know that it has or 23 where it is. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I got another memo from the 25 public document branch that says it's going to be in the same Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
+
257 (): 1 place'the~ Beaver Valley room is. . There will not be a permanent 2 -file thore but it will be kept at.least while this proceeding 3 is on going. 4 MR.' MORABITO: I understand, and-thank everybody 5 that's' involved.in that for doing that. 3 \;
'6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You do not wish to file proposed 7 findings, still? Normally, you would file them in maybe 30 8 days from now, but even that could vary. The Staff would get 9 some' time to respond, two or three weeks, and you would get 10 time to file.a reply to the Staff, usually a much shorter time.
11 MR. MORABITO: I'm anxious to bring these proceedings 12 to an end. It's been a long time and it's cost me a fair ! 13 amount of money in certified filings and I don't know what's to \ f 14 be gained by continual rehash of all this. I have to rely on 15 your ebility to come to a reasonable conclusion. 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if you don't wish that and 17 the Staff says they don't object to not doing it, we could just 18 say that there won't be proposed findings, and we will issue 19 our decision as soon as we can. As I say, as of now you could 20 be considered as passing the written exam. But I can't tell 21 you how long it'll take us. 22 It'll take us several days to get the transcripts, 23 and since Dr. Hetrick and I are in different cities, it'll take 24 us a little while to work out how we're going to come out on 25 various matters. So no promises as to dates. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
258
) -1 MS. WOODHEAD: Judge Bechhoefer, were you going to 2 allow staff some time for possible questions?
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, yes, I was. I'm sorry. 4 I had thought I indicated both parties and you-never 5 spoke-up, I_ guess. 6 MS. WOODHEAD: You started talking about filing 7 findings. 8 Just as a matter of curiosity and for the record, I 9 would like to know whether Mr. Schad was involved in any way in 10 Mr. Morabito's examination? 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: He testified that he observed it, 12 or he was in the room, the simulator room.
. 13 MS. WOODHEAD: Could you respond to that, Mr. Schad?
14 Were you involved, associated with Mr. Morabito's examination 15 in any way? 16 MR. SCHAD: When he was the Board operator, I was 17 directly involved as the SRO, and -- 18 JUDGE HETRICK: Excuse me. As an examiner? SRO, or 19 as a candidate? 20 MR. SCHAD: Neither. I was a -- 21 MR. MORABITO: Facilitator. 22 MR. SCHAD: Yes, I guess facilitator -- is that a 23 good word. 24 MR. NORRIS: It's an instructor standing in to fill a
^
25 position that we would preferably have filled by a candidate. t Heritage Reporting Corporation : (202) 628-4888
259 (~) (_/ 1 He was filling _the role'of the supervisor. 2 JUDGE HETRICK: Was he aware of.the scenario? I 3 MR. SCHAD: Yes. 4 MR. NORRIS: Yes, he was aware of the scenario.- 5 JUDGE HETRICK: That's what I meant by -- 6 MR. NORRIS: But he was not asking_ questions as an 7 examiner would. ' 8 JUDGE HETRICK: What I meant by examiner was was he 9 aware of the scenario, as a candidate would not have been. 10 Excuse me. 11 MR. SCHAD: And I believe when Al was the SRO, I was 12 acting in the role of the -- 13 MR. NORRIS: S.T.A. O 14 MR. SCHAD: -- S.T.A. They would have to request my 15 presence for me to become involved in the scenarios. I did not 16 arbitrarily become part of it. Al had to request my presence. 17 MS. WOODHEAD: This is a question for Staff. 18 Was Mr. Schad aware of the scenarios before the 19 simulator exam was given and participate in establishing the 20 scenarios in any way? 21 MR. NORRIS: Yes, he was familiar with the scenarios. 22 He had to be to be able to perform both as the simulator 23 instructor during the first two scenarios, and as the SRO 24 during the third scenario so that he would not in fact start 25 solving the problems. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
260 m, . .
/ 1 MS. WOODHEAD: Is it true that you would consider him 2 more as a part of the NRC examining team then as just a 3 bystander of the. utility?
4 MR. NORRIS: I don't know if you'd call him part of 5 the team, but he was.part of the utility that was involved with 6 the process. And it is a common practice to use a staff
~
7 _ instructor.from the facility to fill in positions that don't 8 have enough candidates for it. 9' MS. WOODHEAD: All right. 10 Mr. Morabito, could I ask you if Mr. Schad has given 11 you assistance in developing any of your appeals with the 12 informal with the Region and NRR of your exam? 13 MR. MORABITO: Yes, he has given me assistance.. O 14 MS. WOODHEAD: And has he assisted you in writing the 15 documents that you filed in this proceeding before the Judge? 16 MR. MORABITO: No. 17 MS. WOODHEAD: I would like to ask the Staff if they 18 have any questions for Mr. Morabito? 19 MR. NORRIS: No, I don't. 20 MS. WOODHEAD: No? Then I think that's all the 21 questions we have. 22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay, I'm sorry I didn't ask you 23 -- 24 MS. WOODHEAD: That's all right.
- 25 MR. MORABITO: I still have one observation. We did i
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
261 /'T (/ 1 not get my last submittal into the record, my February 4th 2 submittal. This givas an indication of comments both good and 3 bad and moderate on a simulator performance. It shows more 4 than one unit being recorded for what can be related to 5 competencies and it shows examples of a successful candidate 6 answering questions wrong to himself and being hesitant to-7 perform immediate action procedures and so forth. 8 And I think that it has to be compared against 9 comments generated on my exam for consistency in determining 10 whether or not I passed the exam. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you moving that this be 12 admitted as an exhibit? 13 MR. MORABITO: Yes, sir. O' 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: What would the Staff have to say 15 about that? - 16 MS. WOODHEAD: We object to it as being irrelevant to 17 the issues before you, primarily because he is offering 18 unidentified parts of other peoples' examiliations, of which no 19 one has any knowledge except the candidate and the examiner. 20 Therefore, they are not only irrelevant to Mr. Morabito's 21 examination and the particular actions he took on his 22 examination, they offer nothing of any information concerning 23 Mr. Morabito's examination. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I asked one question about one 25 aspect of one of the attached exam, and it did not appear that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r j 262
'( ; I we could establish any -- well, the examiners were not 2 personally familiar with this. They:did reach an answer,which. ;
3 distinguished that from'what I was inquiring about. The 4- discussion of -- I would have to ask a few questions concerning 5 the discussion about that statistical base, because having 6 looked at'the exam submitted, I see that there are occasional 7 . favorable comments. But I think for the comments to'be part of 8 the statistical base, they would have to be routinely done. 9 I could ask the Staff does the circumstance that, 10 there are some favorable comments how a candidate deals with a 11 emergency procedures you.could use comments generally as a 12 statistical base for saying how frequently missing one or two 13 emergency steps was counted as unsatisfactory or satisfactory? () 14 MR. NORRIS: No, sir, I don't believe there is any 15 statistical basis that we could come up with. If we had a very c 16 good candidate and the only thing that that candidate did wrong , 17 during the whole day was to miss one emergency step and it did [ 18 not in fact affect that scenario, the examiner may not make any 19 comments at all. So we're saying that the only time he must 20 make comments is for an ansatisfactory or marginal. He is not 21 required to make comments for a satisfactory grade and I would i
; 22 probably say that most examiners do not make complimentary -
l l 23 comments during the examination process to support a 24 satisfactory rating. , 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, his exam then was forwarded ', 1 i ($) ! Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888 : b I
J f P r b
, gy. .263 along with Mr. Morabito's-February 4, 1988 submission-is not 1
2 necessarily representative of. practices generally, although I' suppose we could assume that in some cases,-examiners do raake. 3 : 4 comments of this type. 5 MR.~NORRIS: If there's been a candidate that was 6 exceptionally outstanding, the examiner may. feel that to give ,
- .7 the candidate basically congratulations but it is not required, 8 and it is not routinely done.
J i 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Morabito, that being the case,- 10' I'm not sure that we could make much point of your statistical I 11 argument. 12 MR. MORABITO: Well, excuse me. The statistical : 13 argument was only to support your request that they perform t () 14 such an analysis, the reason for entering this into evidence. [ 15' First off, it is defined and identified as a
- 16 March 21, 1986, letter to Mr. Bakken from Harry G. Keister.
17 And if you look at the sign off pages following that cover i ; i 18 letter, there are the names of examiners on there, D.H. Coe and : 19 S. Barber and R. Keller and it's signed by H.G. Keister. ; 20 And down at the bottom, any one of those people ought 21 to be able to verify the validity of this particular piece of 22 evidence. Also, it ought to be in the Region One files. , 1 23 And what it does is show an example of an examination f 24 which, if you compare my examination against it, I think you'll l t 25 como to the conclusion that certainly my performance was no ; (:) Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 - r
-264
) I worse than what is contained in this passing examination. I 2 think it bears directly on the case.
3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Wood' head, do you have any 4 further response to that? 5 MS. WOODHEAD: I do. And that is to point out that 6 it is absolutely impossible to look at the document 6 that Mr. 7 Morabito is proposing to be put in the record and understand 8 what the examination was and what the candidate did. 9 All we have in the simulator exam records is the 10 examiner's comments, some few of which may be positive but for 11 the most part they indicate a dissatisfactory performance. It 12 is absolutely impossible to look at these documents and equate 13 them or compare them in any way whatsoever with Mr. Morabito's 14 examination. They simply do not contain enough information. 15 JUDGE HETRICK: There's no description of what were 16 the scenarios in the examination. 17 MS WOODHEAD: Exactly, exactly. The comparison is 18 impossible. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Also the format is quite different. 20 Is that because there was a change in format between these two 21 exams? 22 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. There was a different 23 simulator exam report form came out between these exams, and 24 the new form was used on Mr. Morabito's exam. 25 MR. MORABITO: I would like to point out on the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.a. ;
265 1 third from'the last page, the simulator exam, the paper bears l 2 the signature of Norris\Dudley. ; 3 MR. NORRIS: That is not my signature.- My name is , l 4 =there. That's not'my signature. ; 5 .MR.'MORABITO: Okay, it bears your name. It- l
. . :i 6 indicates, I believe, that you were involved in this exam?
t
.7 MR. NORRIS: It' indicates that I was involved in'the-i 8 examination of another individual on this day. I have got no :
9 knowledge of why these comments were made, and the only way you. 7 l 10 could verify those comments is to go back to the original i t 11 examiner who wrote them, and question him. i I 12 MR. MORABITO: You could do that, though, right? 13 MR. NORRIS: It is not within my realm of () 14 responsibility or authority to question why he made these , 15 comments.. ' E 16 MR. MORABITO: If you were so directed by the i 17 Administrative Law Judge, Bob Barber still works for the NRC, 18 and you could do that, is that correct? ; 19 MR. NORRIS: You would need, that would go through f i i 20 the chain of command, and I don't believe I have that j l 21 authority. That is something that the lawyers should discuss. I 22 MR. MORABITO: Also, the scenarios are defined. If i 23 you look across the top, it indicates the position the f r 3 24 candidate was in and the particular malfunction that occurred [ l l
- 25 at each time. t
! ( l Heritage Reporting Corporation ! l (202) 628-4888 t i i L i L
. , , - _ . , _ _ . . , . - - . . . -i
9
, i 266 i
1 MR. NORRIS: That is not an all' inclusive scenario. 2 MR. MORABITO: It is as inclusive as any of the ' 3 malfunctions. listed on the scenario packets for my examination. 4 MR. NORRIS: That's not a correct statement, sir. 5 JUDGE HETRICK: Where is this, Mr. Morabito?- i
'6 MR. MORABITO: The third page from the end. See ;
7 where it has for the first three, he was acting as the plant
- 8. operator, and underneath the plant operator, you have a steam 9 generator level high in column A. In column B, it's a CIA. In 10 column _C, it's an anticipated transient without scram. In !
11 column D, he was functioning from there through H as the . 12 station foreman and he experienced an SIS accumulator leak, a i 13 failed load, unit station service transformer 1-C failure,
.O 14 looks like tab exchanger, and a total loss of feed water.
15 MR. NORRIS: That would not be an all inclusive 16 scenario, that would only be the specific events that this ! 17 individual was associated with, it would also not include any j 18 malfunctions that had been preinserted or turnover items. It 19 is not a complete scenario. ! 20 JUDGE HETRICK: Certainly not a complete scenario. f 21 MR. NORRIS: No, sir, it is not. 22 JUDGE HETRICK: You'd have to agree with that. 23 MR. NORRIS: But to take any one form without having i 24 the examiner of record present to explain it is not a fair i 25 review of the form, especially when trying to compare it to a ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; i
267 : w/ 1 different day, a different exam, and a different set of 2 candidates. 3~ MR. MORABITO: Well, if I can't attack the written , 4 exam,~and I-can't attack professional qualifications, and if I 5 can't show you an examination where it is inconsistent with the 6 results that they came up with on my exam, I really feel like 7 you're severely limiting my ability to challenge these 8 proceedings.
- 9 JUDGE HETRICK: Could I ask you a question, Mr.
10 Norris? 11 MR. NORRIS: Of course. , 12 JUDGE HETRICK: Along with the change in format of l 13 the simulator exam and reporting, was there a change in
- ,t_
14 procedure, a change in overall evaluation procedure? 15 It seems to me that here we are seeing more l l 16 competency categories and that's the number of rows in this l l 17 form, and seven events which represent the columns, and there's 18 a rating in each one of these squares here. ! 19 MR. NORRIS: Yes, sir. That's a two-part question. ! 20 There were more competencies that we evaluated in, 21 none of which all fell into in the new form into one. For 22 example, immediate actions, automatic actions, use of 23 procedures. Three competencies on this old form fell into one 24 new form. So you lump them together like that and headquarters 25 made that determination to do it. Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
R~ ' m J j' 268- j
) 1 The new form also had the Staff evaluating each :
2 competency overall, rather than evaluating each individual - i 3' . evolution and then assigning a grade to that.- So this one. 4 graded each evolution but didn't give an overall rating. The- ! 5~ new form gave an overall rating, e i JUDGE HETRICK: 6 That's what I wanted. Thank you. 7 ' JUDGE BFCHHOEFER: Mr. Morabito, these exams, the way I 8 .they are graded particularly, don't seem to be comparable. ; 9 That being so, I'm not sure.we could consider this as relevant 10- to your exam, because they used a different system here. 11 MR. MORABITO: One dying gasp? ! 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You're welcome to respond. That's f i 13 my thoughts, at least. r l k- 14 MR. MORABITO: Since, again, this is an informal-15 proceeding, can I at least ask you to accept them and in the 16 process of arriving at your decision, give whatever weight to f L 17 them you feel they are worth. And if you feel they are worth ; 4 18 no weight or no consideration, then you can certainly make that , 19 determination. t i i 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I suppose we could do that. ! ! 21 Would the Staff have any objection to our doing that? { 22 MS. WOODHEAD: I think Judge Bechhoefer, it's either r i i 23 in the record as evidence or it's not. I don't think you can I r j 24 admit it for the purpose of disregarding it. j r 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, we could let it be put in i ! Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
- (202) 628-4888 i f
P
- . _ _ _ _ , - = . .--
L ii 4 269 g/ (_ 1 for identification and let it travel with the record. We could 2 do that. ! 3 I guess what we can do is allow it to travel as an 4 exhibit for identification and I won't rely on this, but I 5 don't see very much that's relevant. I even asked a question 1 6 which I tried to attach some relevance to it, and it didn't 7 appear to be. So given the differences, I probably couldn't 8 rely on it. 9 But if you would like to offer it, put an exhibit s 10 number on it, it'll travel with the record. It won't bo ' 11 admitted into evidence, however. It will be treated just the 7 12 same as number 4, to be marked as number 5 and just -- Morabito i 13 Exhibit 4 was treated the same way. It'll travel with the 14 record. And I can't officially rely on that but if it ever 15 gets reviewed by the Commission, the Commission could look at 16 it, I suppose , 17 MR MORABITO: If that's the best I.can do, I will f 18 accept that. ! 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. You have to give three , 20 copics to the Reporter. The Reporter can mark it Morabito 21 Exhibit 5 for identification, and you can also mark it as not 22 being admitted. r 23 , 24 i i 25 L
!!eritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 620-4888 } l i I }
270 (') (_f 1 (The document referred to was 2 marked for identification as 3 Morabito Exhibit No. 5, and 4 was not received in evidence.) 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is there anything else before we 6 adjourn? 7 MS. WOODHEAD: I don't believe the Staff has anything 8 else? 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Morabito? 10 MR. MORABITO: No, sir. 11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, we will get a' decision to-12 you as soon as we can. It may take a little while. But we 13 enjoyed being here, and I hope we haven't fouled up all your 14 schedules by asking so many questions. We've kept you here a 15 long time. It's almost 7:00 o' clock. 16 MR. MORABITO: Well, it's nice that we don't have to 17 continue it to another date. 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. 19 JUDGE HETRICK: Appreciate your help. i 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So the proceeding is adjourned. i l 21 (Whereupon, at 6:50 p.m., the hearing in this matter l 22 was concluded.) 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m i CERTIFICATE r 2 O' 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: 5 Name: ALFRED J. MORABITO ' 6 7 Docket Number: 55-6075 ASLPB 87-551-02-SP 8 Places pittsburgh, Pennslyvania p. 9 Date: February 22, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction ' i 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. 16 /S/ ) 1E W , 1)d 17 (Signature typed): ANDREW M. EMERSON 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 , 23 ' 24 25 : () Huritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
.}}