ML20199D318
| ML20199D318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05532442 |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1999 |
| From: | Uttal S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199D323 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#199-19913 99-753-01-SP, 99-753-1-SP, SP, NUDOCS 9901200068 | |
| Download: ML20199D318 (13) | |
Text
January 19,1999 a
g DOCKETED c,
USMRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-op 19 P5 :08 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a':
AD{u,
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 55-32442-SP SHAUN P. O'HERN
)
)
ASLBP No. 99-753-01-SP (Denial of Reactor Operator License)
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF'S RESI'ONSE TO SHAUN P. O'HERN'S WRITTEN PRESENTATION INTRODUCTION This matter concerns the denial of a reactor operator license and is governed by the informal hearing procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.1201(a)(2).
On September 22,1998, Shaun P. O'Hern, an applicant for a reactor operator license at Enrico Fermi Unit 2 Nuclear Station, filed a request for hearing, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
f 2.103(b)(2), to contest the NRC staff's (Staff) denial of his license application. Mr. O'Hern's 1
request was granted, and pursuant to 10 C.F.R. f 2.1231 the Staff submitted the Hearing File on November 20, 1998.
The Hearing File con *.ains copies of all correspondence between Mr. O'Hern and the Staff, and other relevant documents pertaining to the written reactor operator test taken by Mr. O'Hern and the grading of the test.1 By letter dated December 7,1998, Mr. O'Hern filed his written presentation, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.1233. In accordance with l
As part of its written presentation, the Staff is filing 11 exhibits, numbered 1 to 11, including the affidavits of NRC employees, Hironori Peterson and John Munro.
9901200068 990119 l
99012N$s N7 pop i
' 4 the schedule established by the Presiding Officer, as modified, the Staff hereby files its response to Mr. O'Hern's written presentation, consisting of the within brief, exhibits and affidavits.2 BACKGROUND The written examination portion of the reactor operator (RO) license examination was administered to Mr. O'Hern on April 6,1998. Mr. O'Hern performed unsatisfactorily on the written examination and achieved a grade lower that the minimum passing grade of 80%.8 See Hearing File Item 3. Based upon the unsatisfactory performance, the NRC, in a letter dated j
May 20,1998, informed Mr. O'Hern that the NRC proposed to deny his application for an RO license. See Hearing File Item 4. On the written examination, Mr. O'Hern correctly answered 76 of 100 multiple choice questions, for a score of 76%. See Hearing File Item 3.
On May 29,1998, Mr. O'Hern requested an informal staff review of the proposed denial of the license, challenging the grading on ten specific questions.' See Hearing File Item 5.
The initial review of Mr. O'Hern's May 29,1998 letter was performed by NRC Region III t
1 personnel, who concluded that Mr. O'Hern's failing grade for the written examination should be sustained. See Hearing File Item 7. Thereafter, an appeal panel / review board (hereinafter
" appeal panel") was established which also concluded that Mr. O'Hern's failing grade on the 2 On December 17,1998, the Presiding Officer granted the S:aff's motion for extension of time to January 15,1999 to file its written presentation. On January 15,1999, the Presiding Officer granted the Staff's telephonic request for an extension of time to January 19,1999,due to a malfunction of the computer system in the Office of the General Counsel prevented the retrieval and final editing of the Staff's written presentation and supporting documents.
' Mr. O'Hern also took the operating test, parts A, B and C (simulator and walk-through),
and received satisfactory grades on those portions of the examination.
- The specific questions were: 2, 7,17, 25, 34, 38, 45, 54, 59 and 87.
i-1
.v..
I 3-i s
written examination should be sustained. See Hearing File Item 9; Exhibit 3.5 However, the appeal panel arrived at their conclusion after deleting several of the contested questions (17, 38, 56 and 71), agreeing with Region III that the answers were incorrect on several of the questions (2, 7, 25, 34, 45, 54 and 59) and changing one question from incorrect to correct (87).' See Exhibit 3; Munro Affidavit 17.
The Staff of the Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch (HOHB), Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors (DRCH), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR, adopted the appeal panel's recommendations as to questions 2, 7, 17, 34, 38, 45, 54, 56, 59 and 71. Hearing File Item 10 at 10. The HOHB Staff deleted question 25 and agreed with the Region that Mr. O'Hern's answer to question 87 was incorrect. Id. The informal staff review resulted in a decision to sustain the proposed denial of the RO license based upon an unsatisfactory grade of 78.9% (75/95) on the written examination. The Staff's decision was communicated to Mr. O'Hern by letter dated September 7,1998, from R. Lee Spessard, Director, DRCH. See Hearing File Item 10 at 1. On September 22,1998, Mr. O'Hern filed a request for a hearing on the proposed denial of his RO license, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.1205, contesting the grading of four questions: 7,54,59 and 87. See Hearing File items 11 and 13. On December 7,1998, Mr. O'Hern submitted his written presentation. This brief, the attached affidavits of Hironori 8 Exhibit 3 is a complete version of the appeal board's analysis and recommendation relating to Mr. O'Hern's written examination. Hearing File Item 9 is a redacted version of the same document.
' Questions 35,56 and 71 were challenged by other candidates. In addition, as more fully explained in the attached affidavit of John Munro, the conclusion of the appeal panel's recommendation contains several inadvertent transposition or administrative mistakes. Munro Affidavit T 7; Exhibit 3 at 12.
l-I Peterson' and John Munro, and the attached exhibits are subinitted by the staff in response to Mr O'Hern's written presentation.
~
l DISCUSSION L
12nal Backaround i
Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA),42 U.S.C. I 2137, requires the NRC to
)
determine the qualifications of individuals applying for a reactor operator license, and authorizes the NRC to promulgate such regulations as are necessary to establish uniform conditions for licensing such individuals. The NRC regulations implementing Section 107 of the AEA are found l
in 10 C.F.R. Part 55. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. i 55.4, a reactor " operator" is defined as "any individual licensed under this part to manipulate a control of a facility."
The Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. i 55.33 require that applicants for RO licenses pass both a written examination and an operating test' in order to " determine whether the applicant
... has learned to operate a facility competently and safely." 10 C.F.R. i 55.33(a)(2). The i
content of the written examination is governed by 10 C.F.R. I 55.41, entitled " Written examination: Operators." Written examination questions are intended to test "the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform licensed operator duties." 10 C.F.R. i 55.41(a). In l
l addition to information contained in a facility's training program, knowledge of "information in the Final Safety Analysis Report, system description manuals and operating procedures, facility 7
Please note that the affidavit contains a facsimile signature page. The affidavit containing an original signature will be filed upon receipt by overnight mail from Region III.
The operating test consists of a plant walk-through and a dynamic simulator evaluation during which various plant tasks, scenarios and questions are presented to the applicants, who are graded on their actions and answers in response. See 10 C.F.R. I 55.45.
5-license and license amendments, Licensee Event Reports, and other materials requested from the facility licensee by the Commission" may properly be tested. Id. The regulations further provide that written examinations are to include a representative sample of questions from among 14 specific subject areas. See 10 C.F.R. I 55.41(b)(1)-(14). The subject areas include " general design features of the core",10 C.F.R. I 55.41(b)(2), " facility operating characteristics during I
L steady state and transient conditions",10 C.F.R. I 55.41(b)(5), " design, components, and functions of control and safety systems",10 C.F.R. I 55.41(b)(7), and " administrative, normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures",10 C.F.R. I 55.41(b)(10).
To promote equitable and consistent administration of operator licensing examinations taken at different nuclear facilities, the Staff has published Interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021,
" Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," (NUREG-1021), which contains specific instructions and guidelines for developing, administering, and grading every aspect of the l
licensing examination. NUREG-1021, encourages licensees to develop licensing examinations for their own Reactor Operators, to be approved and administered by the NRC, under a pilot l
program designed to determine whether 10 C.F.R. Part 55 should be amended to require licensees to develop their own licensing examinations. Fermi developed the licensing examination 1
administered to Mr. O'Hern.
As set forth in NUREG-1021, the written examination consists of 100, one point, multiple l
choice questions. Hearing File Item 14 at 3. Applicants must receiv: a grade of 80% or greater i-on the written examination. Hearing File Item 17 at 1. Mr. O'Hern's test for a Reactor Operator license was conducted within the regulatory framework set fonh above.
l.
l l l,
l Mr. O'Hern's Written Examination The Staff submits that Mr. O'Hern has failed to meet his burden of showing that the Staff incorrectly scored the written examination. See e.g. Frank J. Calabrese, Jr. (Denial of Senior Reactor Operator License), LBP-97-16,46 NRC 66,68 (1997). "The NRC helps to ensure the health and safety of the public by requiring reactor operators to successfully demonstrate their knowledge of nuclear power plant operation before they are licensed." Emerick S. McDaniel
)
(Denial of Application for Reactor Operator License), LBP-%-17, 44 NRC 79, 80 (1996) i (citations omitted). Mr. O'Hern failed to successfully demonstrate his knowledge. As more fully l
described in the affidavits of Hironori Peterson and John Munro, attached hereto, Mr. O'Hern l
incorrectly answered the four questions in issue. Therefore, the Staff was correct in finding that he had performed unsatisfactorily on the written examination and the denial of the RO license should be sustained. Moreover, the Staff concluded that Mr. O'Hern's December 7,1998 l
l submittal does not establish good cause to change the grading of written examination questions 7, l
54,59 and 87.
l The attached affidavits of Hironori Peterson and John Munro contain, in great detail, Staff's response to Mr. O'Hern's written presentation, including the process and methods employed in reviewing the written test prepared by the facility licensee, the administration of the test, the instructions given to Mr. O'Hern and the other candidates and the implementation of the requirements of NUREG-1021 and the Commission's regulations. The affidavits also delineate
=
the expectations of the NRC regarding the RO candidate's knowledge, competence and compliance with the facility's procedures, provide details regarding the grading of Mr. O'Hern's written examination, and explain the process and results of the informal staff review requested by 1
e
' I r,
Mr. O'Hern. The affidavit of Hironori Peterson discusses each of the questions placed in l
1 l
contention by Mr. O'Hern, the correct answers, Mr. O'Hern's answers and his arguments in support of those answers.
The following discussion contains a brief summary of the Staff's position with regard to l
each question. A full discussion is contained in the attached affidavits which are hereby incorporated by reference herein.
RO Ouestion #7. From full power operation, a transient has occurred. The following annunciators were received:
l 3D73, Trip Actuators A1/A2 Tripped 3D74, Trip Actuators B1/B2 Tripped l
3D99, APRM [ Average Power Range Monitor] Upscale Neutron / Thermal Trip l
Immediately after receipt of these annunciators, the following parameters were reported to the NASS [ Nuclear Assistant Shift Supervisor]:
l l
Reactor Power 48% and stable RPV [ Reactor Pressure Vessel] Level 164 inches, decreasing slowly Reactor Pressure 1085 psig, increasing slowly With these plant conditions, what is the first action that must be performed, and which indications must be observed to verify proper response?
(a)
Manually operate SRVs [ Safety Relief Valves] to stabilize pressure
(
at less than 1050 psig; observe Div 1 and 2 post-accident recorders.
(b)
Place the SVLCV Bypass Valve Mode Switch in STARTUP, and verify Reactor Pressure Vessel level is not increasing.
(c)
Initiate Alternate Rod Insertion; perform OD-7 option 2.
(d)
Place the Reactor Mode switch in SHUTDOWN; verify blue group scram lights are Off.
The question asks for the first action that must be perfonned, and which indication must be l
l observed to verify proper response, following a transient from full power operation. The correct answer is (d): " Place the Reactor Mode switch in SHUTDOWN; verify blue group scram lights i
l 1
are Off." Mr. O'Hern selected (a) and, therefore, failed to properly identify the correct action.
The operator action to place the reactor mode switch in shutdown is the first operator action necessary to mitigate the consequences of the event described in the question.
RO Ouestion #54. Heavy thunderstormsjust caused a load-reject from 100% power.
The reactor conditions are:
APRM Power stable at 20%
No indications of control rod position
[ Recirculation] pumps tripped All Main Steam Isolation Valves [MSIVs] are open Reactor I.evel being maintained by feedwater Reactor Pressure being maintained through Turbine Bypass Valves Mode switch in SHUTDOWN The NSOs [ Nuclear Supervising Operator'] first actions should be:
(a)
Initiate Automatic Depressurization System [ ADS]
(b)
Initiate Alternate Rod Insertion [ARI]
(c)
Inject Standby Liquid Control [SLC}
(d)
Drive Control rods in The question asks for the first action that must be performed by the NSO following a load reject from 100 percent power. The correct answer is (b): " Initiate Alternate Rod Insertion."
Mr. O'Hern chose answer (c) and, therefore, failed to properly identify the correct action.
Mr. O'Hern asserted that verifying the trip of the recirculation pumps verified the initiation of alternate rod insertion. That assumption is incorrect. Again, the operator action to initiate alternate rod insertion is the first operator action necessary to mitigate the consequences of the event described in the question.
RO Ouestion #59. If the Reactor Mode switch is in START [UP]/ HOT STANDBY, which one of the following instruments is NOT required to be operable?
a.
Reactor Vessel I.evel 1
for Automatic
' " Nuclear Supervising Operator" is the equivalent of " Reactor Operator".
Depressurization System [ ADS]
b.
Reactor Vessel Pressure High for Alternate Rod Insertion [ARI) c.
Reactor Vessel Pressure for High Pressure Scram d.
Reactor Vessel level 2 Reactor Water Cleanup System Isolation The question asks which instmment is not required to be operable with the Reactor Mode switch in START [UP]/ HOT STANDBY or Operational Condition 2 - STARTUP. (Hearing File Item 30). The correct answer is (b), " Reactor Vessel Pressure High for Alternate Rod Insertion."
Mr. O'Hern chose (a) and, therefore, failed to properly identify the correct eactor vessel instrumentation requirements. The question was selected by the licensee based on a valid learning objective for reactor operators and required general application of operational system and procedural knowledge required to recognize system functions for applicable technical specifications operational conditions.
RO Ouestion 87. The plant is operating at 96% power with the following indications on the A Recirculation Pump seal:
Seal #1 Pressure 980 psig Seal #2 Pressure 10 psig Annunciator 3D123, RECIRC PMP STAGING SEAL FLOW HIGH/ LOW is alarming Flow indication indicates 0.4 gpm Which one of the following seal conditions exist?
a.
Seal #1 has failed b.
Seal #2 has failed c.
- 1 Seal Labyrinth is plugged d.
- 2 Seal Labyrinth is plugged The question asks the candidate to diagnose the seal conditions for a reactor recirculation pump. The correct answer is (c), "# 1 Seal Labyrinth is plugged." Mr. O'Hern chose (b) and, therefore, failed to properly diagnose the proper condition for a recirculation pump seal. The
question conformed with the conditions described in the licensee's student text and provided i
sufficient information for Mr. O'Hern to perform the proper diagnosis.
In failing to provide the correct answers to these questions, Mr. O'Hern demonstrated a lack i
of understanding of appropriate operator actions for emergency plant conditions and that he does not possess the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform as a licensed operator.
1 Regarding questions 54 and 59, Mr. O'Hern asserts that he was being tested at an inappropriate and/or senior reactor operator level instead of a reactor operator level, because he l
was being required to " memorize all of the steps of the EOP's," (Presentation, RO Question 54; Hearing File Item 10, page 7; Peterson Affidavit 143), and was being tested on technical specifications (Presentation, RO Question 59; Peterson Affidavit 149). Mr. O'Hern is mistaken, inasmuch as the information required to answer the questions is within the knowledge which reactor operator applicants are expected to have, and is within the body ofinformation as to which Mr. O'Hern received training. See generally Hearing File Items 35-43; Peterson Affidavit 11 43,49; Exhibit 11. As discussed supra at 4, subject areas to be tested in a written examination may include " design, components, and functions of control and safety systems" (10 C.F.R.
i 55.41(b)(7)), and " administrative, normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures" (10 C.F.R. i 55.41(b)(10)).
Mr. O'Hern alleged, in his request for staff review, that question 7 was ambiguous in that it did not assign a specific position in the control room. See Hearing File Item 5, RO Question 7.
In addition, Mr. O'Hern argues that question 87 should have contained information that alarm 3D121, "Recire Pmp A Outer Seal I.eakage High," was not activated. See Presentation, RO Question 87 at 1. Both of these arguments contend that certain information omitted from the
questions renders them ambiguous or incomplete. Yet, Mr. O'Hern did not raise either point with 1
the proctor. See Exhibit 4 (list of questions asked by the candidates during administration of the written examination on April 6,1998); Peterson Affidavit 118,29, 59. If Mr. O'Hern had felt that there was a problem with the question, he should have raised it with the proctor. See McDaniel, LBP-96-17,44 NRC at 81-82 (ambiguity of test question alleged should be ra}ised with examiner). Prior to beginning the examination, Mr. O'Hern was instructed to raise questions regarding the intent of any question with the NRC examiner or facility instructor. See Peterson l
Affidavit 118, 59. See also Exhibit 5, NUREG-1021, Appendix E, Part A. 2 ("If you have any questions concerning the administration of any part of the examination, do not hesitate asking l
them before starting that part of the test") and Part B.7 ("If the intent of a question is unclear, ask
(
questions of the NRC examiner or the designated facility instructor only.").
An applicant must have the knowledge and understanding required to safely operate a facility in order for a license to be issued. Mr. O'Hern's failure to provide sufficient correct answers to achieve a grade of 80% or better on the written examination indicates a lack of knowledge and understanding of the plant procedures and systems which were the subjects of the questions. His inability to apply basic concepts, such as the appropriate actions to be taken after a transient from full power (Question 7) or the appropriate action to be taken after a load reject at full power (Question 54), further demonstrates this lack of knowledge and understanding.
It is impossible to test each license applicant for every situation to which he or she might j
have to respond as a reactor operator. The applicants are tested using questions containing a cross-l l-section of situations, a representative sampling, that enables the Staff to draw inferences regarding 1
i l
the applicant's knowledge, ability and competence to safely operate the facility in accordance with l
the licensee's procedures, license and amendments. Failure to achieve a grade of 80% or better i
on the written examination leads to the inference that an applicant does not possess the knowledge, ability and competence required to perform the tasks required of a reactor operator.
l The Staff has concluded that Mr. O'Hern's submittals do not establish good cause to change the grading of the four written examination questions. The Staff evaluated Mr. O'Hern's written l
l examination appropriately and applied the NRC's grading standards properly. Mr. O'Hern's score l
of 78.9% is below the minimum passing grade of 80%. The Staff has, therefore, determined that he failed the written examination. For these reasons, as more fully set forth in the attached affidavits, the Staff properly denied Mr. O'Hern's RO license application.
CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Staff submits that the denial of Mr. O'Hern's reactor operator license should be sustained.
Respec lly submitted,
/ }l1 l
l l
Susan L. Uttal Counsel for NRC Staff 1
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19* day of January 1999 9
~ _ _. --
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER USNRC In the Matter of
)
99 JAN 19 P5:08
)
SHAUN P. O'HERN
)
Docket No. 55-32442-Sg,
(Denial of Reactor Operator's License
)
ASLBP No.99-753 a ib d.bF Application)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF'S WRITTEN PRESENTATION" in the above-captioned proceeding has been served on the following by U.S. Mail first class, or as indicated by a single asterisk by hand delivery, or as indicated by double asterisks through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system on this 19th day of January 1999:
Administrative Judge Adjudicatory File (2)"
Peter B. Bloch**
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Presiding Officer Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, D. C. 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board FAX: 301-415-5595 Panel ** -
Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Administrative Judge US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard F. Cole" Washington, D. C. 20555 Special Assistant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Shaun P. O'Hern Mail Stop: T-3 F23 3504 Iroquois US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monroe, Michigan 48162 Washington, D. C. 20555 Secretary * (2)
Office of Commission Appellate Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudication" Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: OWFN-16 C-1 Mail Stop: OWFN-16 C1 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 1,.
/
Susan L. Uttal
' Counsel for NRC Staff
.