ML20195H417
| ML20195H417 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05532443 |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1999 |
| From: | Moore T Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#299-20534 99-755-01-SP, 99-755-1-SP, SP, NUDOCS 9906170039 | |
| Download: ML20195H417 (5) | |
Text
r:
.,.,653f 3
DOCKETED USHRC o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?) JlN 16 P3 :04 l
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFP rF RL;s.
Before Administrative Judges:
ADJLC -
- F Thomas S. Moore, Presiding Officer I
Dr. Charles N. Kelber, Special. Assistant SERVED JUN 161m Docket No. 55-32443-SP In-the Matter'of-MICHEL A.
PHILIPPON ASLBP No. 99-755-01-SP 4
(Denial of. Senior Operator License Application)
June 16, 1999 i
ORDER Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.1233(a), the Presiding Officer directs that the NRC Staff. answer the additional follow-up
. questions set forth below concerning competency C.8.c, Scenario 2, Event 3.
In answering these questions, the Staff should follow the' directions contained in the Presiding Officer's order accompanying the initial questions for the parties.
The answers
~
of~the Staff shall be filed on or before June 30, 1999.
On or before July'7, 1999, Michel A.
Philippon may fi3e a written i
response, under oath or affirmation, to the Staff's answers, 9906170039 990616 7
L
'O' 4 1.
Follow up to initial questions 42 and 43: In the circumstances presented, was Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3.1 more limiting than TS 3.0.3?
(a) If yes (and putting aside any purported. notification or reporting requirement) was compliance with TS 3.0.3 automatic because there was no further action to be taken?
(b) If the answer is no, please fully explain and state what assumptions, if any, were used to arrive at that answer.
(c) In responding to initial questions 42 and 43, Mr. Philippon challenges a number of statements in Mr. Peterson's answers to questions 42 and 43.
Which, if any, of the challenged statements in Mr. Peterson's answers affect the determination whether TS 3.8.3.1 is more limiting than TS 3.0.3?
Please explain fully.
j 2.
With respect to the operating test given to Mr.
Philippon, was there a test instruction or some other requirement that SRO' applicants must announce or record every relevant TS, i
whether or not limiting?
If so, please identify the instruction and provide a copy.
3.
At the time Mr. Philippon took the operating test, were there Fermi Unit 2 technical specifications dealing generally or specifically with operational events requiring notifications or 4
reports to the NRC?
(a) If so, please identify and describe them
.and, if not unduly long, provide copies.
(b) If not, please explain how the Fermi Unit 2 technical specifications comply with 10 CFR S 50,36 (c) (5), which provides that facility technical specifications include administrative controls covering, inter alia, reporting requirements.
(c) Is the "GRRR" referred to in initial question 45(a) (and in Mr. Philippon's answer to that question) a technical specification or is it cross-referenced in the technical specifications?
4.
At the time,Mr. Philippon took the operating test, were there Fermi Unit 2 plant procedures, in contrast to technical specifications, dealing generally or specifically with
' operational events requiring notifications or reports to the NRC?
(a) If soi please identify'and describe them and, if not unduly long, provide cop.'es.
(b) Is the "GRRR" referred to in initial question'45(a) (and in Mr. Philippon's answer to that question) a plant procedure or is it cross-referenced in the plant procedures?
5.
On page 35, paragraph 50, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit states that the competency associated with Mr.
Philippon's contention 10 is C.8.c.
The affidavit thra quotes from NUREG-1021, Form ES-303-4 (Hearing File Item 59), the title of the competency, ' COMPLY WITH AND USE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS," and the description of the rating factor, j
c.
I 1' " Ensure correct COMPLIANCE with TS and LCO action statements."
For Scenario 2, Event 3, was Mr. Philippon also graded for C.8.a,
" RECOGNIZE when conditions were covered by technical specifications" or C.8 b,
" LOCATE the appropriate TS quickly and efficiently."?
(a)'If yes (i.e.,
in Scenario 2, Event 3, Mr.
I Philippon was graded for C.8.a and/or C 8.b), what rating did Mr.
Philippon receive on C.8.a and/or C.8.b for Scenario 2 Event 3, and why were those scores not recorded on Form ES-303-1 for Mr.
Philippon?
(b) If not (i.e.,
in Scenario 2, Event 3, Mr.
Philippon was not graded for C.8.a or C.8.b), was Mr. Philippon graded on C.8.c solely on his failure to make a one-hour notification or report to the NRC?
(c) If, in Scenario 2, Event 3, Mr. Philippon was graded fo: C.8.c on his failure to make a one-hour notification or report to the NRC, please identify the provisions of technical specification 3.0.3 or another TS, and the limiting conditions for operation (LCO) action statements or their bases that set forth that notification requirement.
(d) If the notification requirement on which Mr. Philippon was graded for C.8.c is not contained in the text of TS 3.0.3 or another TS, and the LCO action statements or their bases, please explain the rationale for grading Mr. Philippon in Scenario 2, Event 3 on a competency dealing with technical specifications in which the prescribed rating factor states that the applicant is to " ensure correct compliance with TS and LCO action statements" when there is no notice requirement set forth in any applicable TS and action statements.
(e) If the notification requirement on which Mr. Philippon was graded for C.8.c is not contained in the text of TS 3.0.3 or another TS, and the LCO action statements or their bases, but rather is somehow considered implicit in the responsibilities of an SRO, please provide the operating test instructions indicating that SRO applicants will be graded on such implicit functions and identify the provisions in NUREG-1021 that similarly deal with this matter.
(f) If the notification requirement on which Mr. Philippon was graded for C.8.c is not contained in the text of TS 3.0.3 or another TS, and the LCO action statements or their bases but rather is contained in a plant procedure, please explain why competency C.4 is not the appropriate competency to test for compliance with the notification requirement.
6.
Assuming the basis for grading Mr. Philippon is found to be in error because, contrary to the explicit language of the rating factor for C.8.c, there were no technical specifications and LCO action statements requiring notification to the NRC, is the appropriate remedy to change the grade for the rating factor or to invalidate C.8.c and, if the latter, what are the consequences of that action with resptet to the remaining validity of the operating test.
a
r
.s
_4_
It is so ORDERED.
Presiding Officer i
ft. yyj (w.v o 3 yri cM Thomas S. Moore ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland June 16, 1999 1
G t
h
n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of MICHEL A. PHILIPP0N Docket No.(s) 55-32443-SP (Denial of Senior Reactor Operator's License)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB ORDER RE ADDIT'L QUESTIONS 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 Commission Appellate Thomas S. Moore Adjudication Presiding Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel j
Washington, DC 20555 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Charles N. Kelber Steven R. Hom, Esq.
Specid Assistant Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop 15 B18 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Michel A. Philippon 13871 Capernall Rd.
Carleton, MI 48117 Dated at Rockville, Md. this y
16 day of June 1999
/
/
OfficeoftheSecretaryofthefoamission 1
__.a