ML20236T851
| ML20236T851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba, 05522234  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1998 |
| From: | Herring R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#398-19356 98-745-01-SP, 98-745-1-SP, SP, NUDOCS 9807290080 | |
| Download: ML20236T851 (3) | |
Text
c.
I
' DOCKETED USNRC BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER 16 JUL 27 P2 :26 OFFl0 ? JU L. M In the Matter of Docket No.
55-22234-SP RULE M P.
. ;O ADJUD:CWY b!AFF RANDALL L. HERRING-ASLBP No.
98-745-01-SP Operator License for Catawba Nuclear Station July 21, 1998 SPECIFICATION OF CLAIMS The Presiding Officers Memorandum and Order (Hearing File and Specification of Claims) served on June 30, 1998, states that a brief specification of claims is to be filed giving reasons why I believe the Staff erred'in grading of the exam.
Contention No. 3 on the request for an informal review by the NRC staff dealt with topic A.4 on the exam in which I received a grade of unsatisfactory.
Topic A.4 consisted of three questions dealing with Protective Action Reconunendations as determined during a General i
' Emergency-. Hy answers to' questions 1 and 3 were judged to be correct;
.however, the answer to~ question 2 was incorrect according to the NRC.
My claim is that there is no justification supporting the answer given as the " correct answer"~by the NRC to question 2 on topic A.4.
Procedure RP/0/A/5000/05 is given as the reference for the question,
but the procedure revision in effect at the time of the exam does not support the answer, nor do'any other documents available to the candidate support the answer, i
9907290090 990721 v
I l
PDR ADOCK 05000413l'
)
O PDR (
950 % I
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _,. _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - -. _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - _ Contention No. 4 on the request for an informal review by the NRC staff dealt with topic A.2 on the exam in which I received a grade of unsatisfactory.
The references used to support the correct answer as
.given by the NRC staff on the exam were the Catawba Nuclear Station Technical Specifications and the Design Basis Document for the Nuclear Service Water System. My claim is that the answer as given by me, the i
candidate on the exam, was correct when Technical Specifications are considered and when the Design Basis Document is considered in conjunction with Duke Power Nuclear System Directive (NSD) 203, Operability.
In addition, it can be shown that when an " operability evaluation' is done per NSD 203, the A loop of the Nuclear Service Water system is not inoperable as the NRC contended on the exam.
Resolu, tion of one or,poth of these issues in my favor should be enough to justify a passing grade on the exam in its entirety.
Respectfully submitted, Randall L. Herring i
l I
I L - - - -
_7,_.
t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-In the Matter of RANDALL L. HERRING Docket No.(s) 55-22234-SP (Denial of Reactor Operator's License i
Application).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing SPECIFICATION OF CLAIMS 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 Charles Bechhoefer Adjudication Presiding Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
. Washington, DC 20555 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Susan L. Uttal, Esq.
Special 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
- n U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Randall L. Herring 2148 Raven Drive Rock Hill, SC 29732 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 27 day of July 1998 Tce ofthe !ficretiry of the Commission i
o