ML20151Y060
| ML20151Y060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba, 05522234  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1998 |
| From: | Payne D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151Y053 | List: |
| References | |
| 98-745-01-SP, 98-745-1-SP, SP, NUDOCS 9809180083 | |
| Download: ML20151Y060 (36) | |
Text
USNRC DGC/RDMIN TEL:301-tB15-2960 Sefi4'9'8~ ~53f1T so~.00Ti>.02
~
l September 11.,1998 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NLM RBOULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER Befose Arl=inierrative Judge:
Chadas hehhaefar (Dr. Richard F. Cole, Special Assistant)
In the Matterof
)
)
Dockst No. 55-22234-3P RANDALLL.HERRINO
)
)
ASLBP No.98-745 41-SP (Denial of Apatia=+(aa for Senior
)
ReactorOperatorIJoense)
)
AFFIDAVrr OF D. CHADI M PAYNE I, D. Chades Payne, having first been duly sworn, do bareby stata a, follows:
1.
My name is D. Charles Payne. I am employed as a Reactorh-i-in the Operaurr w, and Hanan Perfar==nce Branch, Division of Reactor Safety, NRC Region II, in Atlanta, Georgia. I adminimered the operating test to Mr. % at the Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba) on December 2-5,1997 and hee =hre 1618,1997.
I was also the NRC chief amaminar in charge of the F-iag +===tanda== at Catawba. A statement of my professional q'=1 Mons is attached hereto.
2.
This Af5 davit is subcuned by the NRC staff (Staff)in response to the written p+ a :'= dated August 13,1998, mihmW by Mr. Randmit L. Herring (PWaa),
in support of his request fbr a headng on the NRC Staffs propoemd deidal afhis applicados for a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)1icense for use at the Chtawba NaclearStation, Units 1 and 2, apa=H by Duke Energy Ce;- =!= (DEC).
9909180083 9809 6 hDR ADOCK 05000413 POR
n 2
3.
W Presentation includes the sworn wrinen argumcats of Mr. Harring and twelve supporting documents, nine [ Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,10,11, and 12] not already containedin the HearingE.'
4.
On July 23,1998, the Staff tr==minad he E=dag Pile to the Psesiding t
Officer and Mr. H=ing. along with a munhemi index theseto.8 Items caatained in the Ha ing File are herein referred to by their desid=*ad "Itam" numher, as set ibrth in abe M*=dng File index.
5.
Mr. Herring does not cunently hold an NRC operating license and his position at Catawba at the time oflicense apphanna was as staff enginaar.
6.
On November 6,1997, Mr. Herring and his employer, DEC, =hia-d a
" Personal Q alihadaa Semammt. Licensee" (NRC Form 398) (Hasting & Inom 1),
requestag that Mr. Herring be *ini===l an e===ia=rinn for an SROlicense. The NRC l
Region'II Offica, Atlanta, Georgia, received the application on Nevernher 12,1997. I reviewedandappmvedMr. Herring'smaalt-ionasmeanngNRCeg 7andeducaton t
requhements to bc -d=inta-red an SRO H-=ing examinare= on Navn=h=r 13,1991.
- The Pr*== Man notes that Waring File items 11 and 12 are alightfy diffinent from those identified in Hearing Fde Items 13 and 14. Mr. Harring's statement is correct in thatItems 11 and 12 refleet the original DBC Catawba draR
..L 1.
unhmirtal to the NRC staffin Region H of the admini=maive topic A.4 test questions. hoe anstgn==rta==
were revised dndng the course of eraminar review of the draR submittal to that shown in Items 13 and 14. To avoid confusion, the final NRC-approved version of the ch's copy and examinar's answer key for Adminierrative Set 4, topic A.4, Questions 1-3 are enhmined as au attachment to this affidavit and under separate cover as updman an the headng f!)e.
2 An opasse to the nearing m, along with an apa d ina.x,ia d.ing --
on *;,-- 411,1998 under si9 erase cover.
3
.z.
7.
I began myiew of the draft --d-daa prepared by the Catawba statfin the Region IIoffice on October 31,1997. On Noh 17,1997, two otherNRC eraminars and Itraveled so the Catawba site to ccdnue review of the draft -.. J.. andtovalidate theoperatingtestitems.8 Validation included stepping through(a dry-sun by the examiners) all events for each simulator scenario on the Catawba =ia=1*iaa facility. Five of tbs Category Bjob g== = measures (JPMs) were also stepped A'aaf on the einmistar while the maining five system ',rWs were walked down in the plant. In additica, this validation included a detailed review of the Category A JPMs and gr ennne as well as the I
followup questions for all een Category B JPMs. Validazion was done in order to check for errors and to familiarize the examiners with all aspects of the opccating test. Dunng this week on site, the er==iners met as a group with all the applicants to discuss the NRC's bcense eram'matian process and to answerany speciSc questions asked by the =pai" During the meeting,Ilas the chief eraminar, read the policies and guidelines fortaking the NRC erammation verbatim from App-adi= E, " Policies and nmMiaan forTaking NRC Examfnatinns "InterimRevision 8 ofNUREG-1021 (NUREG-1011),"Operatori Lu- :--g Fuamfr'arion Standards for Power Reactors." (Hearing File Item 17). Sdhfly, both of the following paragraphs were read to cach applicant. 1) Appendix E Part C, paragraph I which states: "[I]f you are asked a g-@n or di.c.ed to perform a task that is uncicar,
' 'Ihe exarnination, including the minmfator + wing test, was rW by DEC pursuant to a pilot program in which the NRC is evaluating the fe=ethliiy of revising 10 C.F.R. Part 55 to require facility lice==**< to write the W-E-----% aramimmiano DEC,.,4 the operating test to the same Whdons that the NRC Staff would have applied. The Staff reviewed the operating test in detail, made revisions as necessary, and l
eJ the fins 1 product before it was ad=iai=e-ed.
-yr
you should not hesitase to askfor clariW " 2) AppendixE, Part C, paragraph 3 which I
The operating test is==U==3 'open reference.' The reference material
. that is normany available to operators in the facility and in the contralsocan M-#=5 calibration curves, previous log m'eim, piping and instrewnantarina Ahorame, calentwina sheets, and pracadama) is also available to you during the operating test. However, you should know front mamary cannin anomanc meriaan set points, inradacks, operating chamenarinries, and the immadvara actions of emergency and other pr " m as wvyr-m to the facihty. If you desire to use a reiksence, you should ask the ernmlaer if it is =: yd.le to do ao for the task or question under enmideration.
Havingd-+-
la-1 hatMr.Herringmetthealigihitityrecpa---- a-totake 8.
t the namkaeian NRC Region H, dunng the weeks of Decernber2,1997, and n nw 15, 1997, =d=68a-od opensarlicensing szandons to Mr. Hening and thirteen aberlicense i
applicants at the Catawba facility. I adminierered the test to Mr. Heering and one other applicant. The written ernmination was adrninterered by DEC-Catawbaon December 12, 1997 to all founeen candidar=
9.
Prior to 1-?^g Mr. Herring's operating test, I reminded him of the policies and g"id ti== the were read to him previously, (see paragraph 7 above), and gave him another #renity to ask for claancarian or to discuss any other issues related to the test. I do not recall Mr. narring having any questions, canaar== or ~
associated with the policies and guidelines of Ac='N E.
Additionally, dming Mr. Herring's walk 4 rough ersminariaa, I did not deny use of any reference materials r===aead by the =:' di~=*
10.
Mr. Herdag's lia=a=iae esaminarian canalerad of a 10011uestion wrinen
- =mi==traa and an operating test, which included an Individual plant walk 4 rough test
(Categories A and B) and a crew-based, integrated plant operations WK - - test on a dynamic aimniarar (Category C). A=1femnts are required to pass both the wdnen examination and the apar=*ing test, including Categories A, B and C,in order to receive a license. The P-=ia: naminarian was prepared in accordance with the instructions of NUREG-1021.
11.
Mr. Herringi individud plant walk 4hrough test (Caengedes A and B af the operating test), which was ad-tai =*emi over the course of three days hhar 16-18, 1997, eaanie*~1 of DEC-Catawba developed and NRC 3ppe.J naministrative JPM and question Set No. 4 (Category A) and Control Room Systems and Facilky Walk-through JPM Set No. 4 (Cacgory B). Per ES-}01.D.2 of NL1tEG-1021, Category A of the operating test consists of four =dmiai*ative topic areas in which a license applicant must demonstrate d ' = y knowledge and abaity. (Hearing File Bom 34). De four topic areas are A.1 - Conduct of Operations, A.2 Epp== Comrol, A.3 - Padiadaa Comrol, and A.4 - Eir r,.ecy Plan. Per ES-303.D.2 of NUREG-1021, an r==:d --=-7 grade in any one topic area is vM=nt to warrant an overall grade of nadd-v-y for Category A cf the v;m Lg test dapending on the ircportance of the WntifleA h"M- =-7. C'-
- . g File Irem 19). Category B of the operating test enntiers of tan JPMs and===anistat foDow-up questions to evaluate the applicant's control roomTm-plant systemwelated knowledge and =hi1W A =d+ : :y grade on fewer than 80 percent of the systems willresultin ~an overd grade of unsatisfactory for Category B of the operating test.
i 12.
Mr. 5 tarring failed to achieve a satisfactory grade for both Category A and Casesory B of his opensing test. This resulted in an overall grade of nn=artefacemy for his
6 wslsg test and his"~ada* *== min = nan. Mr. Herring % "Opentar f i~a== Examination Report" (Form ES-303-1) is included in the Ma=_ ring Fde as lasca 2. In ps-1,
Mr.Heningreceivedanunsatisfactorygradeon d='aierativetopicareasA.1,A.2,A.4and control room 4n-plant syneem JPMs B.I.4, B.2.2 and B.2.3. Adia-ty, on January 20, y
)
l 1998 NRC Region II heense *==minars signed Ferm ES-305-1 and W that i
Mr.HerringtapplicationforanSROlicenseshouldbedenied,noteAh* adia;thefactthat he had -emny passed the written e-==tantion and the *==-
-1 plant operations portion (Category C) of the op.raisg test. The Region II Chief of the Operatorrs~aa.3 f
and Human Performanm Branch (OLAHPB) hA,=
ntly reviewed and concuuud with this zocor-aA=h on January 2.1,1998:
13.
In a lance dated January 27,1998 (Hearing File Iram 22), Mr. Thomas A.
Peebles, Chief, OLAHPB, NRC Region II, infonned Mr. Herring that the Staffproposed to deny'his application for an SRO licensa due to his having faBed the operating test.
Mr. Herring was advised that he could reque at an infonnal NRC staff review or a hearmg within 20 days. H be requested e infonnal teview, he was to indicane which answers he believed were iscesdy graded and provide the basis with e#as mmwnrari,= for a
his contentions. Upon receipt of that request and supponing iniW==h. the Staff would l
seview his m'-h reconsider its grading and inform him of the results. Ifhe sti11 failed the *== min = nan, Mr. Herring could then request a hearing pursuant to 10 C.FA i 2.103(b)(2). ("=
- ..g File item 22).
14.
On hj 11,1998, Mr. Herring responded to the NRC Staffs leaer of January 27,1998, and zequested an informal review of his operating test We- (Hearing
m M
SGV~M"EM DMWVE3%nG9@
File Itcan 23). In particular, Mr. Hening ige =-j the Staff so review the grading of his answers to three a' '=..ive topic areas (A.1, A.2, and A.4) and one control room /in-plant sprem (B.I.4) 'We to being graded h.dy or possibly too severely." The Staff l
acknowledgedMr. Herring's request for informa1rmiew in alaaer datad February 18,1998.
(Hearing FIIe hem 24).
l 15.
An informal review ofMr. Hemng's contentes was then undertaken by the Staffin NRC Region H in E.wal :s with the procedures found in Framinaritm Standard l
(ES) 502, " Processing Requests for Admmisrrative Reviews and MMn=< After Initial i
t l
License Denial," of NUREG-1021. (Hearing File Item 21). h Staff considered the i
1
{
info'==ian supplied by Mr. Herring during the informa1 review phase of his appeal which 1
1 resulted in a conection to the DEC-Catawba developed answer keys for topic A.1 and j
Question 2 of system JPM B.1.4. The revised ansaw keys supported the applicant's I
original answer and the g admg of topic A.1 and Q-tie 2 ofJPfd B.I.4 was changed to t
l satisfactory. The impact of this regrading on Mr. Hemng's Lw: da intan resuhad in sustaining the overall unsatisfactory grade for Category A but zwulted in an overall l
satisfactory grade for Category B.* Cwdy, on March 2,1998, the Region H Staff i
1=c =-N eontinued denial of Mr. st-ing's applicanon for an SRO license ro the Chief of the Operator LM* and Human Perfonnance Branch (HOHB), OfEce of Nuclear Reactor Rgialaa (NRR). (Hearing File hem 25). On March 13,1998, Mr. John Mumo of HOHB, NRR, requessed addnional detail regarding the basis for the r*=_- Inade in the
- 'Ihe grading of Mr. Herring's answers in Catasary B 5 act in er===daa and will not be addressed further in this affidavit.
i i
i i
gradmg of the two hans discussed above and for those koms sustaining the *Ia*I l
==M= =y grading. L-=pandad to thisrequest sia v.uule mailand sent a su t
l to the March 2,1998, marnorandan with =Mirian=1 detail. (F=das Pile Dem 26).
i 16.
Following Region H's infannal review, again in acconlance with ES.502.D e
of NUREG-1011 (Hearing File Item 21), a.:.+wn appeal board was seiscend imm
{
otherzogional offices to aaeddar the remaining two test iteins in contention by Mr. Harring.
In w rf, the appeal board did not find merit in Mr. Herringi e=taariaae as to topics l
A.2 and A.4, and agreed with the eraminer's evainarian of the applicant's.h. but disagreed that Mr. Hernng's performance in administrative topic A.4 should result in an unsansfactorygrade. As7!hd in ES-502.D.2.f. the appeal board chairperson discussed the board's proposed findings with me. On March 26, 1998, I y../M mMirianal is- - =d= to the Chief, OUkHPB, Region H, who, following review, forwarded it to the t
appea16oard forcanad-ation. Gharing Pik Inom 27). In summary,Ihad with the appeal board's pavposed recommendation to overtum the grading of adminierative topic A.4. My =epaa= to the appeal board provided additional detail reganting the potential siri&*at public health and safety impact resdting from the
-p" ---i's error as well as i
l addidonal basis for why this was sufficient to assign a grade of na - th y based on missing only one out of three questions. On April 10,1998, the appeal board cr=====ir me=1 l
I I
its heap to the Chiefof HOHB, NRR, and m= ended hat the denial of Mr. Herring's t
1 l
license app-d-be m ed. (Hearing Pile Item 28). This =raa=naadati= was based on changing the grading of admizdstrative topic A.4 to *sstishy with =n==nt" and the ennelnetaa that the==talaad grade of "unsatidmetery" for adminiarmeive topic A.2 did not i
l i
---,,e
9 i
I wammt an overall grade of unsadafa: tory fw the AL:=:44veTopics area (Category A).
The appeal board conchdad that the applicant's incorrect answer for administrative topic A.4 was not of such safety sigaW-to wammt a failure for the topic and referenced the ES-303 gradia: erinaria for Category B as * -=:-t:=
17.
The HOHB Staffreviewed the appeal board'su:= and====-admin==
r as well as the adderianal information I provided to the board. In a May 16,1998.
rnemorandurn to the Director of the Division of Reactor Controls and Hutnan Factors (DRCH), NRR. the HOHB staff concluded that the applicant's,El== in adr*ier=We topic A.4 was na**i+-- - y and recomm= tad that the denial of Mr. Harring's license application be enemi-i (Hearing % bem 30). NHOHB stafI l
also concluded that the appeal board's reference to the ES-303 grading eriencia of Caengary B for grading Category A topics was inooneet. On May 18,1998, the Staff transmi'ead a letter to* Mr. Erringcin which it infhrmed him that it had reviewed the grading of his operating test in light of the information he =_==W (Hearing & hem 31). The Staff l
concluded that he had passed Categwy B and reacived a satiefnetary grade for i
ad=iate eive topic A.1,but that he still did not pass the A Amiai=*rative Topics (Cassgery A) of the operating tosc. The Staff concluded that Mr. Harring's arrers in adminierative topics A.2 and A.4 were significant and representative ofi=W=r*=y performanos as defined in ES-303. Accordingly, the Staff determinad that the proposed denial of Mr. Harring's SRO hennee apphearinn should be =n_e=M and advised him of his right to request a bondag in connection with the proposed denist %s Staff also advised Mr. Hardag that, if he acospeed the proposed denial, he could reapply thr a licamme two
- 10 moods from the dae of the Isuer and that he could request a waiver of the wrnamn n=ninninn 18.
On June "I,1998, Mr. Harring flJed a request fbr heerfog in ennaarrine with the proposed denial of his SRO licanas application. (!W PDs Den 32). In that Mr. Estring samed he dise,J with the NRC analysis and conclusions om h===nt erwnentions 3 and 4 of his mquest for infonnal review, and he did not accept the proposed denial. (33 Mag File Item 23).
19.
The Staff's eg"~< spdhig SRO =d=iai*ative knowledge, in general, and as they relate to M. Herringi walk-through ep4 test, are set forth in the following parammahn e
20.
In accordance with 10 CJ.R. I 55.45(a), the opemeing test, to the extant applicable, will require the applicant to da==arrats an uhadia: of and the ahuity to pufornf the actions 7 +y to accomplish a v=ive sample from among the 13 kems apa ihd therein. In pardcular, Item (11) requires that applicants be able to
- [d)=aa_ create knowledge of the emergency plan for the facility,i-1=Eg. as appropriate, the c,= a 's or senvx operator's responsibility to decide whether the plan should be eva ntad and the duties under the plan assigned." Additionally, Insa (12) Inquires that appn~~ be able io -[djemonstrate the knowledas and ability as appropdate to the assigned position to assume the e,-WUties==acimal with the safe operation ofibe facilhy."
21.
Piusuant to 10 CE.R. f 55.45(a), the StafIhas established detailed etMa for the desisa of the walk-duough portion of operating tests in BS-301, "Propering Initial Operadag Tears," ofNUREG-1021. ES-301 requires Category Ato coverimmowledge and
Q
. l I
abilities,
Ily **maciarad with the Maintrative control of the plant. The caengory is divided into four administrative topics as described in 111 above and each is evaluated by
-: - :+6g JPMs or asking sp6 questions. The depth of coverage rW for each topic is based on the applicant's lianse level.
ES-303, "P-:
- '- = and Grading Initial Operating Tests," of NURIiG-1021,(Haaring File Item 19), includes **'- for "hy" and "aaer :'- --T par *wmance as ws!!
as pre category A and B grading erinaria.
I 22.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 55.53(d), "[t]he [ senior operator] license is subject to, and the L%e shall observe, all applicable rules, reg =1da==, and ordses of the Comminaian " Further, f 55.53(1) requires *[t]he [ senior operator] liemaaan sha!! connply with any other - -:- 'Mee: that the Cammisalem may impose to protect health or to miniml=
dacgertolifeorrwiy." The Staff expects the SRO's to possess adequate knowledge and to be co'tapetent in each topic of r**:=ry A. NUREG-1021,ES-301 at 2. (Hearing Fils hem 34). Applicants for SRO i m are W to be carniwaar to sdely operate the A
(neinry. ES-301 at 6. They are also y 4 to be able to evaluate plant,1== and make operationaljt-ts and have a thorough knowledge of " facility adminierrative controls and rw_hade, iachding h ::=:=5 W by the regulations and the fhcDi'y's w-hnical g+ :I ::-me and their bases." ES-301 at 7.
23.
The Stafrs exp~+=*== for followmg and complying with the fadhty's es are +-
=11y stated in the licenses it issues to SROs pursuant to e
1 10 C.F.R. I 55.51, Each license r@w the holder "to observe the- =- :--g r--: " =
i and other==dh specified in the facility license ^^g opwation of the facility."
l l
24.
Mr. Hemng was asked two questions to measum his competency in admmierranve topic A.2 (EqQ+== Contml). These quescons were asked in the C$tawba main control room. His failing grade was based on his verba1 response to Question 1 mgarding a;-hili y of the Nuclearservice Water system (designated as the RN symem by t
DEC. catawba), given a p+ set ofinhialannethinas Ad=Ini=rrationof this topic area l
during the==mia=rian was biM to ask and confirm the =p;38 aar's response to l
Question 1 prior to addressing Qwert= 2. This was done because the==d q=ri "What configuration control requir-m-ate are required to maintain both trains of RN operable?" - was leading and could assist the applicant in M-y answering the first question. (Hearing File Items 3 and 4).
25.
I =Saialerated the enmin= tion as designed by h=adia: Mr. Herring his copy of Question 1 only. (Hearing File Item 3). In response to Question 1, Mr. Herring verbally stated that the RN system was " operable because the other valve in sedes workad 'OK'.
%dum, you) can isolate the lake." ("%g File Item 6). After con 5rming that Mr. Harring considered the RN system to be opemble, I handed him a copy of Qnaarian 2.
(Hearing File Item 4). I graded his asponse to Question I as==:-'- + -f ecause the RN b
system is actually inw-sk under the question conditions, as definert by Catawba Technen! S,M8% (CTS), (Hearing Pile hem 9), and the RN system design basis "Et (W ing File Inam 10).
-e 26.
As docm-tart in my rough notes, (Hearing PHe ham 6), Mr. mrria: did not addron RN system operability in Question 2 (nor did be attempt to chssige his mespanas to Question 1). However, he did provide the correct response for M 2 mgarding RN i
3 system-:-- ' ----4= conaol for the given condition. I graded his response to W. 2 as - hf=-y, despite his k-x-- = Cs-- hg of the RN system's operability, becanse propersystemwun A controlwasgrahhahad s
1 27.
Mr. Herring did not provide a writsen response to chher Question I er 2, nor did he use orrequest use of any reference materials beyond those available in the Catswba main manol zwm. I did not limit Mr. Harring's access to any safenszos.
l 28.
I graded Mr. Herring's overall performance in topic A.2 as imaatidaerary because he i
,..y y ev=hiaead the operational status of a safety-related pisos of equipawnt and demonstrated a significant !acic of under**adia
- ofTachaie=15- - M=:c-s (TS) on=hilhy. Bara= he considem4 the RN System to be operable, the Catawba facility's =dmiale= rive controls for dealing withTS issues, including M== of f i= Mas e'anditionsforOpendonandwiw ing--=Mi yevaluatians asdamerthadinOperadcas t
M===g--* Procedine (OMP) 2-29, "Tachnical S +4"--#+ Action Iman 143,"
i (n- - =% Exhibit 13), could have been cimumvented. b NRC relies on SROs properly ' -
- ia TS system operability and ceswdy irnplementing appropdate l
adminierative process controls. As a result, greater 4w was assigned to Question I over Question 2. This conclusion is also supponed by the I-pas ratings assigned to these imowledge and ahmries (K/As) in " Knowledge and Abilides Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 0-m -Pressurized Water R-*'= " (NUREG-1122). 08--d=g PBe ham 35).
29.
Mr. hdng was asked duce questions to messac his competency in i
ad=iaiserative topic A.4 (Emstgency Plan). These questions were asind in the Camwbst i
1 j
_._._._____._._____.__________.____.____..__.._._.__.m_
i l '
I main control room. His failing grade was based on his written response to Qasstion 2 regardmgProtective ActionRammmandatinnt(FARs)followingachangsinshscondidcas froa those given in his answer to Question 1.
30.
Mr. Hening was handed his copy of =d=iniaa=ive topic A.4 Qasstions 1, 2 and 3, and he wrote his responses to each on the paperjust below the respesive question.
l
(>+g Pile ttem I4). Ph-h I.%,observedhisuseoftheL
, _yPlanwhDs he answered each questian, no explanarian was given by Mr. Harring soganting how abe answers were obtained nor did he make any manrian of any dif5cultiesencountered in usmg the ymc J However, during the time he was worices on Question 2. I roccDect observing him use Enciosure 4.2. page 3,of 3, of Catawba Procedure RPMA/5000/005, "Naar=T E-gy," (RP/05), (Hearing File Item 15), instead of page 2 of 3 as W, I
and as would have been appropriate for the site conditices given.
31.
Mr. Herring's response to Question 1 czactly matched tbs answer ksy and 7
I graded this question as satisfactory.
32.
Mr. Herring's response to Qamanan 2 was sign *=a:y different freen the i
answer key though areas ofovedap were noted. Mr. Herring's wrinen answer listed twelve Protective Action Zones (PAZs) requiring evacuation and cluso PAZs requiring in. place
=M*+g. Knowing the @
- used Procedure RPM, Enclosus 4.2, page 3 of 3 (ase 130), I ms d that table and found the applicant's response exactly matched the PAZs of Enclosme 4.2, page 3 of 3, for the given site conditions. I then researched the procedure f
to determine how the applicant could havoused page 3 of Enclosmo 4.2 in place of page 2.
I noted that both pages 2 and 3 ef Enclosme 4.2 had almnar appear =aaan and respdred came 4
4
C
- 15 in assuring tbc proper table was being used. According to Section 3.0, Subsequent Actions.
of Procedure RPK)5, the Dowchart on Pacin=ne 4.3, pge 1 af 3, should be used in answering Question 2. Using this flowchart,Inoced that Enclosure 4.2, pese 3 of 3, abonid be only usad ifplant canditinas exist where "large fission product inventory greetsrthen gap activity [is] in eaarala===*
- Since neitbar tbc inhial plant aaaded-aar the =M '
canditions met this airnarian, I concluded that either the g~ irnproperiy used the flowchart (i.e., believed the cont =iament had a large fission product inventory) or be was careless in his use of Enclosure 4.2. Either way, the applicant exhibited poor nadarenanding 1
and Wuse of tbc emergency response rh.
33.
I also noted during gradingpf Mr. Harring's answer that the answer key for Question 2 c=hd with the PARS given in response to QW 1. h answer key for Question 2 indicated that zoces C1 and D1 should be recommandad forin9 ace awMg 1
However, as part of the PAR for Question 1, zones C1 and D1 were aheady =rammandad fbeevacuation. The Staffwould not expect a li-to recommand in-place sheltering for a PAZwhich had been previously raenmmandad fbr evacuation,during an event where plant conditions were not stable. Therefore, following discussion with the Catswba statfand with the approval of the Chief OL&HPB, Region H, I mnMiad he answer key to accept t
-iMg evacuation of zones C1 and D1 instead of in place shehering as a correct respones. As a result of this change, Mr. Harring was favorably Braded for rp, reco-- = hg evicuation of all required nones (a total of seven were accepted),but graded lower for in.yrvehtely r t---
M-; the evacuation of five===Nead zones. In summary, a correct answer W evacuanon of only seven PAZs while the
applicant's answer dad evacuation ~of twelve PAZs. A total of 15 PAZs me designated at Catawba. I paded the W
's response to Question 2 as unsatisfactory.
34.
The Staffexpects the SRO to follow the emergency response W=. to exercise goodyt-and to make approprime protective acdon==-mtarinns to the State. The Staff does not consider a facility licensee secr=
d=*iaa to evacante unaffoceed PAZs based on improper use of plaat procedmes to be conacevative, in good l
j't-maat or in the istarost of public health and safety. The Staff considers unnecessary I
evacuation of the general public to be -- 3 Els. (Hearing Pile leem 29).
f 35.
Also.the Staff subapts that $m NRC operatorney.minanam process I
seeks to determine an applicant's level of knowledge, sidll and ability, and then evalame whetherthislevelzneetsthatneededforamini==Hysafeandcampstemtopuntor. Assuch, the nmininarian is MM to have one correct answer for each gosseios. Responses that display a lack of knowledge, understanding, or Famihity with procedmes win be graded as==ri%. mun. FileItem 19).
36.
Mr. Herring's response to Question 3 exactly==* had he answer key and t
l I graded this question as satisfactory.
1 37.
Inoted that tbc level of dihky for Quesdon 3 was low since only two she l
evacuadon tar =d== exist for Catawba, basically Northeast and Southwest of the slee.
(Homing Fde Item 16). Once the wind direction and spood are known (given in the question),dstormination oftbc appropriate sits evacuation locationis ratherstraightforwad.
ni s---i s - " low di rimi-ado., v.io. for.v.1=. sins sao -ui.i-by l
6 1
9
agr7 stew svarvar.younran:,
i
==+ 1-only tin ability to find the comet informarian in the facihty pr wm C=M~ly, I gave relatively low impostance to a correct or inconect asponse to Quescon 3, as % ito Questions 1 and 2, which were raaeidared ofequal hi,--
l 38.
Even though Mr. Herring wu.cdy determined the first PAR in Question 1 and correctly determined the proper sine evacuation location in Quesden 3,the consequenons of4vr lyknplernentingtheEs, ;yPlan,particuladyforaGeneral"=-- _ 7as pF=d in M= 2, would have a =i--Waat hupact on the public, the facdity E =,
and I.acal, State, and Federal ernergency response actions. Gross arms in judgment or actions cannot be tolerated. I graded the applicant's overall,'=r8ar---in topic A.4 as une rs w roywe.-Im.y.,od his demonstrated n=h=m-iry with,andimproperuse of,the r=-;- -y Plan to outweigh the other two correct zeeponses he psovided.s 39.
To date, the following NRC Staff memu have evatussed Mr. Herring's s
pf weiesin AdminiarrativeTopics A.2and A.4andconcludadthalitwasm itr-i.
Myself, Mr. D. Charles Payne, the NRC examiner who adminimesed de Opw. lug test on Neemher 16-18,1997, observed Mr. Hening's responses, and tummenendewt he original operating test faihne by signing Poern ES-t s
I ndminicamvl that same adminierative questions to one other SRO license applicant during this same Catawtat --nimarina This individual provided the correct responses to both adminiettative topic A.2 W< and the firsttwo admlaterrative topic A.4 queciaan Ido not tocall, and made no note of, this individnal having any difEcohy in using or h=Py ths Enclosures ofPH-RPM)5 dming his responses to Queadoes I and 2 of =Aminierefve topic A.4.
- 18 o 4
1 FileItem2)onJammy 20,1998. IwasalsotheNRCchief 30bt("
5 av miner for the Catawba initial license,.minarinne
[
Another NRC chief er=minar, Mr. Mich=al Essess, who i='-;='-- dy concased with the operating test failms by signing Form ES-303-1 on I
January 20,1998. Mr. Ernstes did not observe Mr. Hesring's perfatmance nor was he personally involved in any other aspect of the Catawba initial license examinatio=s. Mr. Ernstes provkled the chief examiner review because the Catawba chief e== miner (myself) was also the aumminar of record. ES-501, " Initial Post Exammarion Activities," of h1TREG-1021 I
(Hearing File ttem 20) requiros adifferent ev ammarprovide the indapaarlaat review under those circumstances.
Mr. Ernstes' aaaa3amiaa and raer_tamenderinn. for Hemnea danini were based on the darmneatarl results ge on Mr. Herring's Form ES-303-1. Giearing File Item 2).
j Mr. 'Ihornas Peebles, the Chief of the Operater i!==== and Human Performance Branch, charged with snaking E=*=: daciniaae in NRC, r
Region H, concuned with the er aminars' menmmendations by signing Form ES-303-1 on January 21,1998, and issuing the ari i=11icense denialletter on January 27,1998. (Hearing File Item 22). He reevaluated his position in response to Mr. Hemng's informal request for a regrade Qicaring File Item 23), found basis to sevise the original grade for only adminierative topic A.1 and control room system B.1.4, but retrarmed his ennchnelan that S
i
~ i cn January 27,1998. (Hearing File Item 22). He rosvalasted his position in respouse to Mr. Harrirq(s informal request ihr a regrade G' ----: 5 File Item 23), found basis to revise the original grade fbr only adminierr=tive topic A.1 and control room system B.I.4, but miterat=1 his canel== inn that l
. Mr. ILuQ had failed the operating tes'.in a mamarmaann dated March 2, 1998. (Hearing File Item 25). This memnrandum was - -d=--- -s with my additional information on March 13,1998. (53% HleInom 26).
Mr. John Munro, an examfare from HOHD, NRR disrged with f
ina, pena.nriy reviewing, assessing and reww4Hne the _."=='s mm'-dons, the Region II, informal review results, and the appeal board's results. He found the appeal board had used incorrect grading critaria in its evaluation of the applicant's responses to.Aminimerative topic A.4 (see117) and rh--RAM that tbs original e= miner grading ofn==*i.r=ceary for r-'MAandfailureofthegei=%testbe=maM (!! MFileItem 30).
Mr. Lawrence K. Cohen, Senior F=gs.cy " =i * ^r Spaal-H* in the Emergencynwh and Radiation Protection _M,NRR, reviewed Mr. Herring's responses to Questions I and 2 of=dmini=r=tive topic AA and 1
the < h[uacy of Procedure RP/05 in answering these questions.
Mr. Cohen's conclusions are da-a-M in a mamaranA== dated May 15, 1998. (Henring FileItem 29).
e l
l I
l Mr. Robert Gallo, the Chief of the HOHB, NRR, ch d with== Mas the final m===-ad= don to the Director of DRCH,NRR r,Lg thc outcome l
ofthe~ for-a!appealprocess,adwi:hoverulingtheappos! board's l
sc-== = wand ibund no bsais to change tho grading of Cm A er l
theoveraIIw.iiogtestin am a danedMay 16,1998. (Hearing 1
Pile h30).
Mr. l.se Spessard, Director of DRCH, N"4R, charged with== Mar ti- - -- 'g dadahe during the enmfandon appeal process, e: = =- ' with EOHB's j
t reco==aad=' ion to sustain tbs operating test failme in a 1stner to Mr. Hening dated May 18,1998. (Hearms File Item 31).
I 40.
TbsfollowingNRCStaffmembersevaluatedMr.M 's5-f- -==in
=Aministrative topics A.2 and A.4 but eaael* that, overall, it was mariafectary. Thema conclusions were overruled during subsequent Staff review (see139):
Mr. Malvyn Izach, the Chief of tbc CW L"=ia Branch in NRC, Region III, was charged with eh=idag an appeal board that * '-;- - '
- y reviewed Mr. Herring's mquest fx an infonnal mgrada He foundno basis l
to change the c'=Ns grading of the =paTMPs individual question i
W l
AAwastooharshandmmandadchangingthegradeto
~J r-ywith 1
comment-As a result, Mr. Leach recommandad changing the overall c=*== =y A grade to andhmy and overturning the inhial licensing
===In=rk dochion. (Hearing Pile Itan 28). This hath wm 1
l I
. 4 evaluated and omd by HOHB staff in light of the grading criana of ES-303 and the applicant's " lack of *= ding ofthe undedying concept of PARS as well as a poor woridag knowledge of the prW== * (Headag PileItem 30)(sec117).
Mr. Larry Briggs, an avaminar horn NRC, Region I, and Mr. James E!!is, an aramirm from NRC, Region III, were the other members of the appeal board. 'Ibey supponed Mr.14ach's review and condusions stated above.
(W=dag File Item 28).
l 41.
'Ibe Staff disagrees with the Presentation (Ana-Portaining to Contcution #3) regarding the proper W.har action to be taken for the second step of Procedure RPMS, Section 3.0, Subsequent Aedens. The stop disoces the operator to evaluate specific plant anadirlaan and other portinsat information, and assess the need to updans the PrAdvs Action Reconnnendation (PAR) r.My mada. Racania site nwranrological
- x. f*-w were changed si_enibly in Question 2 from those given in Qocation 1. an update of the previous PAR per this step was the correct action to take. Also, plant accident conditions had not chaa=ad: therefore the Staff believes a knowti-ble applicant would have e-ce A a PAR determination similar in extent to that oMinad in Question 1 but affecting different PAZs due to the change in wind dirmedan The Staff agrees that the subsequent action step of Section 3.0 directs the operator to the flowchart on Enclosure 4.3, page 1 of 3. The v.a. should estar the flowchart at the " Start" block, proceed through the chart answering each decision block in turn based on plant and site ^_=, and perterm an medons as directed. De appticant states tbs Bowchm's Uggg
(
22 -
blocks mm.W to the immediare Action step of Sectica 2.0 of PW-BPM 5.
(18-dng File Inom 15). Since !=d"- Acdon h2 been pfwsj in nsponse to Question 1, he then per d~i o the next block (i.e., no updansd PAR was made as a rceult t
of the Uqtant block). While the DEC-Catawba staff generally %s this view in the affidavitofE. Thomas Beadle, submined herewith as put af the Staff's Response, the Staff su'ornits that no prmedural yM-~ or step in FMme RP/05 directs the q =- - to skip portions of the flowchart. Nor did the apphcant or the DECistawba staff provide any appmved facility procedure or sa-gf plan " user's guide" which sanedoned such an action or omission. Tbc Staff acknowledges that the wording of the llaggblock's actions parallels the guidance from the Procedurc RPM 5 Immediate Action s'eps,but the applicant provided no basis for him not perfonning the lltsag block ar.: ions as directed. Indeed, the nanative portion of the applicable Peh RPM 5 Subsequent Actions step required the s
atsestnwar of the need to update PAR det< ions. (Henring File Item 15, General Eirmgy,page 3 of 4).'
42.
Ibc Pr-=% states that the applicant prw fromthelaststepofthe flowchart to Enclosurs 4.3, page 3 of 3, of Procedure RPM 5 where the PAR is to "RW evacuation of affected zones and shelter the raramindar of the EPZ not ev
-' " The Staff agrees that this n=naldon was correct and spees that se applicant The applicant's rationale for passing through the block because immediate Actions were E-eim is Illogical. Using that line of rwing n=ans that the only thno meteorological conditions become a factor in the decision-inding proccas as, is if the wind speed drops to or below 5 mph. The Staff also notes that had the guldsp;* Aom the
.12tssa block for wind speed greater than 5 miles per hour been followed, the applicant would have been Wa-Ey directed to the proper enclosure required hQ ans wer Questica2.
1
.n.
identified the proper PAR guid== on that page. Houever, the Pr==entmeian staeas that the applicant then pW_ to Enclosure 4.2, page 3 of 3, to determine the affected PAZs. The '
5tatt enhmite that the Wte-at has provided no.uwvig evifance or explanadon which justifies his use of MacIname 4.2, page 3 of 3. The DEC-Catawba staffs viewis that, with only two tables provided in Proceduas RP/05 to make PARS, Enclosure 4.2, page 2 of 3, is the only applicable table for the question's conditions - Enclosme 4.2, page 3 of 3, is 1"
" "- ' since there is no large fission product inventory greater than gap activhy in containment. (Beadle afBdavit, paragraph 19). The Presearatian fhrther argues that the NRC analysis with regard to the==fi~s use of the flowchart is incorrect since the actions==Wd in the Lgant blocks spre aheady perfonned.in accetdance whh the rmmeAinte Actions section of Procedure RP/05. Even F- +p g Mr.mnlafs argument in this regard - notwithstanding the fact that the applicant has not provided any ames 1.
approve'dpre:+i _ Idaenmeamtiontosupportthisassertson(ase142)-theactionsisquired to d***r=I* the correct PARS are IAa *:a-1. in this case, to thoes defineated in the Ugggg block. Given the above, the Staff subinets that only m'ene* of the Dowchart and/or
'=hniliarity with Procedure RP/05 could result in an operator using Enclosure 4.2, page 3 of 3, under the conditions of O* 2. Indood, Staff believes air--, =';- "= and w 4-- ' operator, who understood the underlying purposes and uses of the two PAZ r- = !==% Tables in Procedure RPMS,would have q=aeriaand why so many additional PAZs should be W for evacuation with only a change in wind speed and direedon. %. ihe nr:n
's assertion regarding the acomacy of the Staffs etatsmant, detailed in Hearing Pile item 29, for rhe change in plant raadih from W
e I to 2 is rot supp'nted by the lainal P ant = dent supplied to the applicant for all three l
of the acimink' >uive topic A.4 quesdons. The fourth inidal condidon suced that "[a]t 1300, dose assessment crews project a dose at the site boundary of 1.2 rem TEDE." In this case.
this information has no effect on the ** tar *ian of which PAZ Tahic to use for "ev= nadan of affacted zones," acceeding to Enclosure 4.3, page 3 of 3.
43.
M Presentation also contends that Pracadnve RPM 5 provides no W guid=w in Enclosure 4.3, page 3 of 3, regarding which enclosure should be used at that point to deterrnine afferted zones. During the av emmation, Mr. Herring did not infonn the es nor did he indicate any eaa Aylaa regardmg how eraminerof a problem with thes to proceed in a proper PAZ deterrnination.l As part of the Cata=ba SRO training g%
Mr. Herring was trained and gnafi&d in the use of the subject A pior to his licensing eramin = dan, including the use ofthe PAZ Determinaden Tables (Beadle.flid.di, paragraph 20). Therefors, be should have been know!4 kt-of how to handle the decision block on Enclosure 4.3, page 3 of 3.
Mr. Hernng is also
- wad to be know!ad==hla igstaeg the actions to take if a pocedure is found to be m" aug or in enor. TheStaffdoesnotexpectlicensedop-=*mtofollowpt-+: mtheybelievetobe inerrorwithou:addressingtheissuewithficanna inanagemear IfMr.M=inghadnW the coacInsion that the subject pA was confusing, orin error, during his n===ia=da=
the proper action would have been to rain the issue with the examiner. m =ami rsting as the Oc.:ks. ShiA Manapr (OSM) having tasked Mr. Herring to mL.the PAR, would have then -*-M to moolve the issue before praeaadiag ibsthee. No such aaben was taken erindicarwm rnade in this regard by Mr. Hamns. The Staff acknowledges s
mwsweuer-w w--
w -g w--mmarww.wncv.w-- ---
that Enclosure 4.3, page 3 of 3, does not provide wi5c dd-for the subsequent evaluationandthatsomeimprovanentscouldaakaaec g=i--usability.ButboththeStaff and the facility licensee (DEC-Catawba) believe the y, +=i. as written at the time of the
=aminadan, was adequate for the applicant to make a proper updated PAR determinmeiaa (Beadle 4dsvi:, paragraph 21). Also, both the Staff and the fhcility fir=== haliave a
--; =-t and k- ;edy ble operator would recognize that (1) only two pages of Eart-e 4.2 (page 2 of 3 and page 3 of 3) contain any guidance fbr snakfng PAZ recom d='iar = and (2) that page 3 of 3 is only used in specific fission product release conditions. (Beadic affidavit, paragraphs 18,19). These were asthe e-W+s described in Question 2 of adminierrative topic A.4.,' Consequently, only page 2 of3 abould be used.
The Staff maintains that Mr. Herring's =rfar=*ae was and sti!Iis=='# :- i.
44.
The Preseats* ion argues that there is no guidance in Procedute RPM 5 to d.* which page of Enclosure 4.2 to use and that the procedute is thus " faulty." The Presentation states this argument is supported by d!-ions with Mr. Steve Naahar, SupervisorofhgaryPlanning and by -# =q=i revision of tbe g---+E- ' The Staff notes that Mr. N='Ws opinions are not shared by Catawba management, (Beadle affidavit, y..y.yh 21), or the NRC staff.
Further, Mr. Md=t-f -- has offered inconsistent - : !=: en this issue as evidenced in Hearing File Inem 33(b) and Pr==a'=riaa Item 4. First, on Lg 5,1998, Mr. N=i-/-- stated in an intammi DEC Catawba
'Also, the Staff notes that Revision 33 to F.es RP/05 was not issued solely in response to Mr. ung's concern, On October 28,1997, well before the applicant's
=-== dam Mr. r%i@ iait;=a-A a "10 C.F.R. 50.59 Eval==riaa Scenening Jueririr.ein Ave.ehmaar" for Revision 33 to Procedure RPMS which provided foem improv*remate and other editorial changes to the Fm L = (Hearing File Item 33.A).
26 -
PROFS note (electronic mail) to Mr. Scotry Bradshaw, Operations Training Sv /a, ".
.. the ph could be enhanced o improve human factors pn=== " 'Ihe Star t
enhmire that procedure *- sM is not equivalent to pse inadequacy. Then on August 5,1998, Mr. net er raapaadad o four written questions fkom Mr. Hening h
t (E - - c-4 File Item 4). In response to Question 2 regarding whether Enclosure 4.3, page 3 of 3,provided =di'ea r'id-as to which zones to evacuase, Mr. N=W wrote ~(t]hearrangementoftheg&smadethisd;:. a=daaextremelydihitifant
=,aaa Ma Again based on our review of RP45 following this exam Won, RP45 was revised." As stoned above, Mr. News conclusion regarding the adequacy of the procedureisnotenyrecedbyCatawbaplant==a yt,(Beadleaf5 davit, paragraph 21),
or the questioc validation promss implemenwd by Catawba during ernmin=rian development. During Carawba's validarian the questions were given to active lieseasd c--x=% to c.v4.
the w, !a-of the subject question and to confirm the cosrect answer. Then each question was reviewed and approved by a memheraf==nagement fkom the Catawba @> group (Beadle affidavit, paragraph 11). AMiriaantly, as noted above (see foomote 5), one other applicant, trained and qualined in the same mannar as the applicant, was adminiered the same operating test. The ex aminer has stated that this asber applicant ahihir d none of the dMw nhiaa er problems cited by Mr. Herzing in his Presentation. In aMitian, the Catawba staEhes stmed that "the revisions made were human factors enhanemmanra and did n0C invalidate QDestion 2, as origita:Ily writteIL." (Beadle affidavit, paragraph 21). The Stas notes that licensee procedures ars =n===rly being reviewed, swvised and :
cad as evidenced by the fact that the subject & is
\\
27 -
i cumatly on Revision 34. A less than <=d==1 but accurare, r A does not cacuse poor
--i =
f - =-- orlack of knerledge. Likewise, the fact that a procedme has basa l
revised does not mean it was not useable or that other future improvements won't be made.
1 i
i 45.
Maally wkh regard to
<=*==ri<= #3 of the Pr==-at=riaa the Staffdisagrees r
j with the suggestion that Question 2 not be enne edin the overaH grading of topic A.4 1
because the <=== dan did not have a path to success due to a fauhy procedars. The Staff i
submhs that a path to success did exist with the procedure available at the time of the l
cuminatian and this path was efYcctively followed by other Catawba,--Y and another 1
l applicant. The Staff continues to find that the applicant's failure to L 2 this success 7
t l
path demanarraces an unfamiliarity with the ; ~= Awe and improper use of Pariaames 4.2 1
]
and 4.3 of P:newime RPMS. In -insion, the Staff believes Procedure RPM was l
adequatetoanswerQuesdon2andtherufbrethegoesdonshouldbe2 tai =d Also,theStaff believes that the deman=uased lack of th=~Ua: of Proceda:e RPM by Mr. E-ing 2
l as wsH as the mi ni&== of his incorrect answer to Question 2jrMfics not only a grade l
l ofv=d%forthequestion,but:--- <='=i-y forad=inierneive topic AA asawhole.
This view is aaani rent with stm ES-303 grading crkans for Category A topics. (Hearing i
m hems 19,30).
46.
The Ptamentation (Argmnants Pertaining to enntratine #4) states that l
Mr. Herring told Ine that IRN-1A needed to be kept ciceed with power removed in his
)
l answer to Q-+iaa 1 af Topic A.2. As I wrote in my tesponse to his request forinfbrmal
)
NRC seview, GE *- - Pue ltem 26), this infhr==d,= was pswidedia napouss eo Quesrien i
i
}
j e
23 -
- 2. Mr. Harri= only provided this infarmarian after I had nanfirmed that ha caneidsred the RN synem to be -,-#E and after I considered Question I to be complese. Iinve n zecolt-*ia= and ths== min =rinn notas do not suppc-t, (" - L g P9e hem 6), that Mr. Harring indicaand that power should be removed from valve IRN-1A no make ths RN System operable. Indood, the Ptweentation sistas "IM-_-L-thatIsaid the RN syseum was
-p=Ma and Idid not and still do not canaiderzamoving power from IRN[-]IA a condhion of apa ab1h." This samaa===t %s my grading of applicant's suspense to Question 1 of topic A.?. My ramthan is that applicant's discussion regardag power rernoval from
)
1RN-1A was solely related to being aroutine flacility admiaiermrive practice and agt related at all to being needed from a CTS put,y pnpoedvs. My coatsznporansous noems, i
(Hearing & hem 6), do not indicate that such a comment was made by the applicant during his response to Quaarian 1 but ratbar during his response to Question 2.
47.
The Staff 4w with the Presentanon that temoving power fkom 1RN-1A isnotaconditionofoperabdzty. Ibeheanmaa(Catawba)expectsbenedoperatorstomake system operability wnerions using OMP 2-29 (FE=2 :na =MMr 13). Nuclear System Directive (NSD) 203, " Operability," (Pr
"% cxidtit 9), Catawba Technical Og-!& Mons (CTS) (W-ing File Inom 9), and the Design Basis Document (DBD) for the l.
affected system (s). (m-ing File Bema 10; Bead]s afEdavit, paragraphs 5-9; I. mach affidavit). OMP 2-29 and NSD 203 are guidance documents which provids generic insight andg.y.cdvse==!= operability,whereastheCTSandDBDaresystemspoeificwith detailed rep eseats and action =raramam, As such, the facility licenses has saastad that given the situation presented in Questions 1 and 2 of admialarmrive topic A.2, the proper
Tw peratoraction is to apply TS 3.7.4 and refer to the RN System DBD forev=1==rina o
ofvalve IRN-2B. (Beadle afBdavit. paragraphs 7,9). C=P y, the "A" loop ofthe RN l
System should be declared inoperabic per TS 3.7.4 based on valve IRN-2B not being capable to position the RN System to the Standby Nuclear Service Water Pond. De Staff also notes that even though the applicant was aupa-M and permheed to noe references to respond to Question 1, this ;-'Jaa can be answered without references because alicensed w.h. Is *=pa~ad to know, and be able to gpty apply, the TS d*Hairian of
" operability" as well as know that the RN System is a TS system.
48.
The Prerarion also argues that the DBD recommendad action statements should not be considered equivalent tots action statements and as such should not be relied upon solely as the basis for restoring the RN system to caer*Wmy. he Staff agrees that after pfwie.ing the DBD specified action to close and zemove power frotn IRN-1A, a
- n?--
oper=Mii'y evaluation should be performed and reviewed by Ma management prior to exrtmg the TS 3.7.4 action stasement and M=ine the RN W again. However, that situation was not geme*mred in these two questiostr. This lia aah*
j e> =minarian serves to assure that =g:~* for an SRO license are familiar with and will operate the plant in accordance with the facility's license ig-b- =- C~u-Technical Swh ), plant ar===1
=hi. and emergency operating p="-
and 3
mrnagement's admini=rvative gn-. The Catawba staff has stated that " operations management expects the tw~t operaser to foHow this guidance [RN Design Basis Sgu
=:a hetian 20.4.2.1 Power Operated Valves] and declare the 'A' loop bap--+ m-m.amdsvic, paragraph 7). Mr.nerring's answerduringhis.. 2.
t..
. ~ -. - - - -.
.M.
as wetl as his
=- = during the infonnaireview and in the Prannararian demonstrate he does not meet these - ;- -
_-.s 49.
Tbs Presentauon argues that the avaminerinn answer key was bued solely on the Recommandad Action Srmramant of the DBD and thus manienu with the sacral SnM-- of the Design Basis Sp-i% (DBS) and OMP 2-29. The Staffdisagrees with l
this conclusion. The answer to the configuration control requiremanes question fbr the conditions presented in adminierrative topic A.2 (Question 2) was based on the DBD.
However, the answer to the operability quesden (Question I) was based on the CTS definition of operabdity (also defined in NSD 203) and its.ryne bilky to CTS 3.7.4.
i 50.
The Presantation also argus l$ that "ICTS] 3.7.4 does not require that the RN system be capahie of automatically aligning to the pond, just that it be capable of being
)
mamully aligned to the SNSWP" The applicant cc6My states the defiL%.2 of operablkoperabihty in his Prwa. L.~, his interpretation of how to apply this definition to the CTS is flawed. Per the d,Mnirinn found in NSD 203, "[a] sysem, subsystem, train, a-.i===. or device shall be OPERABLE arhave OPERABILITY when it f- @le ofperforming its specified T -- - 's)...." (7c =f = exhibit 9). One af j
the safety futettons of the RN system is the --hnity to a'*-94 sway from Ladoc Wylie to the Standby Nuclear Service Water Pood (SNSWP) upon receipt of an emergency i
l l
Iow pit level signal (e.g., loss of Lake Wylie dam er a sueden line break). (Pramantattaa 1
(
exhibits 5,6). Valve IRN-2B is one of two remdant isolation valves in tbs sootion line 1
j fromLake Wylie to the RN Panp Pit fbrloop "A." This valve receives a close signal fkosa the EngE - --.4 Safety Features Ar+n=daa System (ESFAS) to entamaticany irh the RN
emn#xm9wsw rwsmetareFzcwo sworurw r2mFWGA%GQfo Pump Pit from the Lake as part of the swap to the SNSWP. Valve IRN-2B is a em-wsi of the RN System which must be capable of automatically closing as part of the mimamarie swap ovw safety fuocdvs of the RN system. When IRN-2B would not close in the initial coadMaam of the question, the RN system did not meet the operability requirements as 3R necessaryarrandantcomponentswerenotcapableofperformingtheirrelatedW and j
thus the "A" loop of the RN System was jaoperable.
t j
51.
Also, the Presentation argues that CTS 3.3.2 (Table 3.3.3,"2p=-A Safety i
j Esamtes Aemation Syseem Instrumentarirm, F. --T-:+=1 Unit 14.g)pmvides the %
~ arar 1
l for the RN System to be capable of miigalae automatically (from Lake Wylie to the l
SNSWP). This is incorrect. CatawbaTS 3.3.2 states the ymty requir=mante for the l
EEFASinst ta'ian The ESFAS insu --- =-% provides seven separate neart and/or realignment signals to the RN System when specific conditions are snet., C(- +;E-1y,
{
CTS 3.3.2 relates only to ESFAS operability for the various 'mitiatian signals sent to the RN System while CTS 3.7.4 relates to RN System operability in its @y to respond to the l
initiation signals received from ESFAS. SMP=lly, Fe=1 Unit 14.g provides that i
i low water level in the RN Pump Pit (e.g., the dam for Lake Wylie breaks or the suction line breaks) will result in an ESFA5 signal to sway the RN System tom the Lake to the SNSWP. 'Ibe failure of IRN-2B to close has no impact on the RN Pump Pit level instrtunentation; tLJ=, ESFAS operability per CTS 3.3.2 is not affected. The Staff submits that these tenimmaare from the,=aalht fbrther demonstrate that the applicantlacks a fLndamenrat imaarcranding of the terms " operable" and "ap-1=541!ty" as they relate to
n
..y
.n.
T-++=i s; e'c=:ans in addition to not beins able to Pmperly M which TS me 3
g.,."--;=%.
52.
'!he Psmanarina furtherargues that with the IRN-1A closed (per the initial r=tMane of the quesdon) and since the valvo does not receive any [mataawM open signals, the applicant was cornet in ev=1aada-the RN System as opoesbia. The Staff agress that the raa%=nration pr===ntai in administrative topics A.2 initial conditions aligned the I
RN Pump Pit to the $NSWP and isolated Lake Wylie from the pit (except fbr valve 1RN-I 2B). However, the Staff asserts that in this =11*ameat the RN System was fhnctional(La capable of sustaining adequate nuclear service water flow to the plant) but NGL operable per CTS h==- valve IRN-2B was not capable of manually or matonwimHy -1W Tbc Staff also notes that facility operators are routinely presented with siendaan where a pisec l
of equipment (e.g, a Safety Injection pump) is available for use if W. and thorsfare Ewal. but per Tachnient SMI dx+ the eqvh-.=^ was still inoperable because some===v'= tai instrnn=nt or bacicup power supply (e.g., the same train Emeracacy Diesel cenerator) was out of service.
53.
The Presentation also cites NSD 203, "O"li'y," A, E= A, page A-203-28 [Section 2.b.1
' ? suppotting the applicant's paeMan that with valve IRN-1 A being aheedy closed (per the inidal oneditions), the RN System was aheedy placed in an aligenent that allowed a determination thatthe system was - g=
- The Staffnotes l
' Additionally, the Pr -*=He states that the applicant comp 1H an "ap-=h!11'y ev=Taadaa" perNSD 203 which supports his conclusion that the RN Systra was ap-=ht-and that the answer key was incorrect. I did not receive such an evatnatian during Mr.
Escring's response to sicher 7% of et= wave topic A.2, nor did Mr. Harring request to perform such an evaluadca. It was also not provided &eing the =apih's faitial l
l r
I i
that NSD 203 is a DEC corporate level policy document applicable to all three of DEC's nnelear sites. Secsion 203.1, " Purpose" ofNSb 203 states the directive provides "g-ida-for (facility] development and use of mmpana=rary measures." (Pr==-ar=% exhibit 9).
That is, each slas may develop facility -Me compensatory actions that fa!! within the boundsof the5=id-- Therefore,facilitydi;;M.. F- :. i actionsmaybeequal to sg snore tim % than described in the NSD. The Staff also notes that closer readmg of the NSD section zufenesced by the Pr=aanenrian reveals a subtle aspect of the NSD policy.
1 Spde="y, NSD 203 states that "... the o ";===rory maamue is to placeIhrJahn
[ emphasis added]in its ESF position." The " valve" in this situationis 1RN-2B, not IRN-1 A. Since it is known that valve 1RN-2B will not close, and its ESFpositionis closed, tbs
)
cv+2-==M action described in the yf*c.re's cited reference cannotbe
- JM I
The Staff agrees that having IRN-1 A in the claamd position has the equivalent offeet on that portion bf the RN suction piping,but NSD 203 does not +,=' - -liy address this mndirian However, as W = ' by NSD 203, this situation h sp+ 'r=Hy addressed in the RN System DBD. (Hearing File Item 10). C~aa~~1y,the rags.4 campana=rary action in l
this cast is to close IRN-1A and remove power from the valve. The StafPs cr=rir=ina on i
this operability determination is supported by the facility licanema (Beadle af5 davit, Paragraphs 7-9).
J 4
request for informal review of his examinatino grading. Such an @7ity evaluation is 3
done only after the initial inoPerability decision has been made by the SRO and it is i
generally done by other fic* nae
- per= =al R is, therefore, irrelevant to the issue under 1
considecarica.
i 6
4 i
i
34
~
54.
Purther, the Pr=amaterian also states that "[pjer NSD-203, it would be permis==Ne to place an operations inforrnation sticker on the valvecontrolstation to psevent 4==_= in valve aaMa= " The staff submits this assertion is bralsvant since the applicant made no such manament during the===i==laa 55.
Finally, the Presentation argues that "... a==d=bnary rating on one or both of the contentions being argued here is enough to give an overau==rief=nenry rating and to grant alicense." ' Ibis=='am*at is incorrect. peres.303.DhofNUREG-1021,(F-i=-
File Item 19), only a vadsheary rating an lggh contentions guarantees an overa!!
srk'- ixy grade for Category A. If the =palie*
- is graded as urdr-.-y in only one adminteative topic, the ernminer may fail the =pab=at in Category A AnnanAs== on the Q-c.e of the inkntiffarf defkisocy. (Henring Pile hem 19). Tbc Staffbclieves that both of the dehi-ar ies W in the applicant's Operator T "-8== R==mia= dan Repost (Hearin's Pile Item 2), and argued herein are sigd'=t ; *-- - --. but has made no determinarian agarding the applicant's overall grade for Category A should the grading for one of the testitems be overturned.
56.
The Staff determinart Mr. Herdng's overall grade for the Adadnie= rive Topics (Category A) using the cria:ria of ES-303.D.2.a from NUREG-1021 which states, in part, "... if the spal%* has a 'U' la two or more of the administrative topics, the n==iner umst assign a grade of 'U' fbr Category A." Mr. Rarelags j f..=== in admi iatredve topic areas A.2 and A.4 does not meet the passing threshold of the Rmaminer Stes4 1.,and tbe Staff does not find adequatep dh= don for A=_=i== this grading based on information supplied in the Ps*=-a***iaa or in Mr. Herring's afMrtsvir.
m
wumrvaowmam assmw-enrexwe ewosurw szmnrwarnwvvare
- 4
SUMMARY
OFNRC REVIEW
$7.
In unmmary, the NRC Staff has concluded the following based upon its svicw of all relevant darnmen4 iache the Presentation and Mr. !!
~--g's af5 davit:
s Contrary to the NRCis and DEiC"s requirements and eans Mr. :=.g faBed to propedy apply Procedure RPMN5000005, *0enmal hgf." during his response to Question 2 of adni ntermive topic AA,in that i
he iw.-4 used Enclosure 4.2, page 343, rather than the appropriate pass 2 of
- 3. His resulted in the incorrect renamamadarian to evacusts five addidonal PAZs beyond those required per the re-d"+ guidance. De action was unwarranted based on the plant and I-e-- Mogical conditions of the questions In additica, the risk to pahlic health and safety was increased by the inappropriate evacuation offive protective action zones during ssvere weather condidens.
Contrary to the NRC's and DEC's r+r * ---- e and expectations, l
Mr.Meingfailedtoproperlyassesstheoperabilitystatusofasafety relatedsystem coveredby Catawba Tarbie=1 S;-- *'- dons in Questico 1 of=dminie=tive topic A.4. Even though the applicant subsequendy stated ~=M:nr*% control actions which were directed t the Design Basis and would have made the RN System
/
operable, his inizial detereinaden that the RN System was aa===hl* as weR as his subsequent arguments in his request for infonnal review and this W darnaneatesasignificantlackof*=adingofTachalem1S
=- = system i
" operability,"andthe proper: ?=
- 'on of Catawba's W=Imative eaaneda J
i e
Contrary to the Pr-tah's assertion, the NRC Staffdoes not believe that
' s grading ofMr. Herring was ' amwnee or too severe, nor does the StafYbelieve t
m that the NRC's grading standards have been iq% y appliad.
i 58.
Based upon the above,the Staffhas e-luded that Mr. Herring's final grade fbradrninistrative topics A.2, Wi.n=2 Control" and A.4," Emergency of =_::-f--ic 7 i
Plan," munains below the udnimum passing grade. 'Iberefore, Mr. IL4 has fehl the operating test and the E--==% evn= Man. b NRC Staffs denial of Mr. Hening's application for an SRO li==e should be sustained.
59.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of nay knowledge, information, and belief.
N O'
, I kL2-7 /df4d d
/.Wn Payne, Senior g.E._.. i.g D
rf SA2,.id and swom to before me thisdday of 9peamM 1998.
CA CA)
Notary Public My Fa--- Asianexpires:
(
.