ML20151K680
| ML20151K680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05561425 |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1997 |
| From: | Bollwerk G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Calabrese F AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| CON-#397-18412 97-725-02-SP, 97-725-2-SP, SP, NUDOCS 9708060143 | |
| Download: ML20151K680 (8) | |
Text
. . ... .. . - - . - - - . - - - - - .. .. . . -
i
, s lWlD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED ggggg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL W AL 23 P1 :55 Before Presiding Officer:
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Administrative Ju&~-ifE OF SECREIARY DOCKETIM; & SEgyicE Special Assistant: BPl.NCH Thomas D. Murphy, Administrative Judge In the Matter of Docket No. 55-61425-SP ;
FRANK J. CALABRESE JR. ASLBP No. 97-725-02-SP l
(Denial of Senior Reactor July 23, 1997 Operator's License)
SERVED JUL 23 $97 i MJZORANDUM AND ORDER (Presiding Officer Questions) j l After reviewing the June 4'and 30, 1997 written j i presentations of applicant Frank J. Calabrese Jr. and the l
NRC staff, respectively, and the July 16, 1997 reply j presentation of applicant Calabrese, in accordance with l
l 10 C.F.R. S 2.1233 (a) , the Presiding Officer requests that the staff address the following questions, in writing, under oath or affirmation, with appropriate supporting documentary data, informational material, or other written evidence:
l A. Regarding the staff's June 19, 1997 joint affidavit:
- 1. The affidavit indicates that each of the affiants sponsored a portion of paragraph 1 and Mr. Sisco only 1 sponsored paragraphs 50-51. Egg Staff hunporce to Mr.
Calabrese's Written Presentation in the Form of an Affidavit i 9700060143 970723 PDR MISC 9700060143 PDR @$gg,
l.
by Siegfried Guenther, John G. Caruso, Tracy E. Walker, and j Carl E. Sisco (June 19, 1997) at 1-2, 29 [ hereinafter Staff Affidavit]. Did each of the other three affiants sponsor each of the other paragraphs in the affidavit in toto? If i
not, please indicate which affiants did not sponsor which particular paragraphs of that affidavit.
1
- 2. In contrast to Mr. Caruso, Ms. Walker, and Mr.
Sisco, the affidavit does not explain Mr. Guenther's
]
involvement in the staff review of Mr. Calabrese's application. What was Mr. Guenther's role in this regard?
B. The staff has indicated that examiner Carl Sisco has no notes regarding the simulator exercises in which Mr.
Calabrese and applicant Arnold J. Avary, whom Mr. Sisco was observing, participated. Egg Staff Affidavit at 28. Did Mr. Sisco create any contemporaneous notes regarding the l
simulator test in which Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Avery were
[ participated? If so, please explain when and why those
! i notes were destroyed.
C. Mr. Calabrese maintains that initially he had 1
difficulty locating the procedure board for EO-100-112. Egg Presentation on Behalf of Frank J. Calabrese Jr. (June 4, 1997) at 8-9 [ hereinafter Calabrese Presentation]. The staff declares that staff examiner Caruso, who was
- evaluating Mr. Calabrese's performance, did not observe Mr.
Calabrese having any difficulty finding the procedure board i for EO-100-112 and Mr. Calabrese did not mention any l
. difficulty finding the board in response to a post-exercise question from Mr. Caruso about his use of the procedure.
Egg Staff Affidavit at 13-14. The staff also asserts that looking for the procedures would not be sufficient to justify a satisfactory grade. Ege id. at 19.
Nonetheless, if staff examiners (1) had observed Mr.
Calabrese having difficulty finding the procedure board for EO-100-112, and/or (2) if Mr. Calabrese had indicated to staff examiners after the simulator exercise that initially he was unable to locate the procedure board for EO-100-112, would that information have affected the scoring of his test? If that information would not have affected Mr.
Calabrese's score, please explain in detail why not. If that information would have affected his score, please explain in detail how and why.
D. Applicant Calabrese asserts he held a "tailboard" i
discussion with the other two simulator operators to go over ;
his decision to depressurize the reactor while the staff maintains that staff examiners Caruso, Walker, and Sisco observed no such gathering. .Comoare Calabrese Presentation at 9 with Staff Affidavit at 15, 28-29.
- 1. In scoring a simulator exam, would staff examiners normally make an effort to listen in on a tailboard discussion and take that discussion into account in l
assigning an examination score? If not, please explain in detail why not.
I
l I
-4 - '
l l
1
- 2. If the answer to question D.1. is yes, assuming the l l
r.ailboard discussion between Mr. Calabrese, Mr. Gordon Robinson, and Mr. Avery occurred as it ie described in Mr.
Calabrese's May 30, 1997 affidavit and the July 11, 1997 affidavits of Mr. Calabrese, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Avery, and the staff was cognizant of the substance of that discussion, would that discussion have affected the scoring of Mr. Calabrese's test? If staff knowledge of the discussion as described in the affidavits would not affect Mr. Calabrese's score, please explain in detail why not. If staff knowledge of the discussion as described in the affidavits would have affected Mr. Calabrese's score, please explain in detail how and why.
E. The July 11, 1997 affidavits of Mr. Calabrese, Mr.
Robinson, and Mr. Avery suggest that low pressure injection did not take place as a result of the actions taken in response to Mr. Calabrese's direction to open the automatic depressurization system valves before preventing low pressure injection. Egg Reply Presentation on Behalf of Frank J. Calabrese Jr. (July 16, 1997) at 13 [ hereinafter Calabrese Reply Presentation). The staff has asserted that, based on the statements of Mr. Robinson in his role as the balance of plant (BOP) operator, injection did occur. See Staff Affidavit at 24. However, a three-member staff panel l that was part of the staff's informal appeal process indicated it was " unable to independently affirm or deny
i
[.r.
M Calabrere's] claim that Low Pressure Injection did not occur" because the simulator chart recordings, which "could {
have added critical information in determining the safety impact of the candidate's performance" were not retained.
Hearing File (May 8, 1997) Item 12, attach. at 4-5.
- 1. Relative to the simulator recordings, Mr. Calabrese has pointed out that Examiner Standard (ES)-302 provides that *' parameter readings should be collected at meaningful intervals'" and that the chief examiner "'should retain the recordings as backup demonstration to augment the notes taken by examiners during the simulator test.'" Calabrese Reply Presentation at 12 (quoting Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, NUREG-1021, ES-302, at 5 of 11 (rev. 7 Jan. 1993 & Supp. 1 June 1994) [ hereinafter NUREG-1021]). Further under ES-302, if an applicant does not perform as expected, the chief examiner is to "ask the simulator operator to provide copies of the logs, charts, and other material thar. may be required to evaluate and document the applicants' performance after leaving the facility," which are to be retained until a proposed license denial becomes final or an operator license is issued.
NUREG-1021, ES-302, at 8 of 11. Also, the chief examiner is to ask the simulator operator to retain copies of these materials until all applicants' appeals are settled, as
_ . . _ . -- _ . ~ - . . _ _ ~ - _ .___ . . _ - _ . _ . - . _ _ . _ - __ _ _ _ _
. suggested in a sample corporate notification letter shown in I
- a. Was a corporate notification letter (such as the sample in ES-201, attachment 1) sent to the licensee of the i Susquehanna Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, asking that it i
i
' retain simulator materials relative to the simulator tests i beirg given to Mr. Calabrese and others in October 1996?
a If so, when was it sent?
j b. What further efforts, if any, did the chief
?
cxaminer make after the simulator test given to Mr.
Calabrese to obtain any relevant simulator recordings i relative to Mr. Calabrese's performance on that test?
Assuming low pressure injection did not take place, 2.
a i
would that affect the staff's scoring of Mr. Calabrese's
)
simulator test? If low pressure injection not occurring i would affect Mr. Calabrese's score, please explain in detail j how and why. If low pressure injection not occurring would J
not affect Mr. Calabrese's score, please explain in detail I
why, and, in doing so, please address why this result is i l
consistent with the principle outlined in the ES-303 l
_ provision regarding the Category B " Control Room )
Systems / Facility Walk-through" portion of an operator's license examination that states "[i] f the applicant missed a !
critical step but later performed it correctly and accomplished the task standard without degrading the ,
condition of the system or the plant, the applicant's
i . .
performance on that (job periormance measure (JPM)] should be graded as satisfactory." NUREG-1021, ES-303, at 4 of 27.
- The staff's answers to these questions shall~be filed 1
on or before Monday, Auaust 4. 1997. Any response Mr.
j Calabrese may have to the staff's answers to these questions
! shall be filed on or before Thursday. Aucust 14. 1997. The
) party submissions permitted by this memorandum and crder
- shall be served on the Presiding Officer, the Special l
a Assistant, and opposing counsel by facsimile transmission, k e-mail, or other means that will ensure receipt by close of i
l business on the day of filing. Egg Presiding Officer Memorandum and Order (Initial Order) (Mar. 27, 1997) at 2-5.
f It is so ORDERED.*
4 i --
A i /J. M ['
G. Paul Bollwerk, III b t1 l ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland l July 23, 1997
- Copies of this memorandum and order were sent this day by Internet e-mail transmission to counsel for applicant ~
Calabrese and to staff counsel by e-mail transmission through the agency's wide area network system.
i l
. \
UNI ~iED STATES OF AMERICA !
, NUCL2AR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the hatter of FRANK J. CALABRESE JR. Docket No.(s) 55-61425-SP J
(Denial of Senior Reactor Operator's License)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB M&O (PRESIDING OFFICER...)
have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Administrative Judge
, Office of Comission Appellate G. Paul Bo11werk III Adjudication Presiding Officer
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 <
Administrative Judge Thomas D. Murphy Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Special Assistant Office of the Seneral Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 15 B18 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Alvin H. Gutterman, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Frank J. Calabrese Jr.
1800 M Street, NW 698 S. Kennedy Drive Washington, DC 20036 McAdoo, PA 18237 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 23 day of July 1997 Office of the Secretary 6f the Comission