ML20238D252
| ML20238D252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05560755 |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1987 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238D254 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5188 SP, NUDOCS 8801040172 | |
| Download: ML20238D252 (25) | |
Text
I. S/88 g _
3 ,
l NW Oct r g87p j 37 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION prlCE F SECAl:fMT 50CKElliiG A d. W CIi
! BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BRMS in the Matter of )
)
ALFRED J. MORABITO ) Docket No. 55-60755
)
(Senior Operator License for )
Beaver Valley Nuclear Power )
Station, Unit 1) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFICATION OF CLAIMS
- 1. INTRODUCTION By Memorandum and Order (Order) dated July 15, 1987, the Presid-ing Officer in this proceeding requested Mr. Morabito to particularize his claims of error in the NRC staff's (Staff) denial of his application for senior reactor operator (SRO) license. The Order also requested the parties to indicate their views on the necessity or desirability of oral pre-sentations. On July 31, 1987, Mr. Morabito submitted a specification of claims of error in the grading of his examination answers (Specification) and supporting exhibits. Additionally, Mr. Morabito stated that oral pre-sentations would be necessary only if there is no agreement to revise the operator examination process. The Staff hereby responds to the claims of error in the Staff's grading of Mr. Morabito's examinations for SRO li- l cense and states its opinion that oral presentations are unnecessary. I h t_
- - - -- - ao1 - - - ---- A
y
( II. BACKGROUND On July 22 and 23, 1986, Mr. Morabito took written and operating (oral and simulator) examinations administered by NRC Region i examin-l ers. Five applicants for SRO license for the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power i
Station , Unit 1 were examined. O Of the five applicants for SRO license, three passed and two failed the examinations. - By letter dated August 27, 1986, Mr. Morabito was notified that he had failed the written and simulator examinations and his application for 1.3 cense was denied.
Mr. Morabito failed only one section of the written examination (Section 6:
" Plant systems design, control, and instrumentation") with a grade below the 70% required for each of the four sections. See: grade sheet, at-tached. For the simulator examination, Mr. Morabito received four unsat-isfactory and four satisfactory grades for the eight competencies required to be evaluated. The four competencies evaluated as unsatisfactory were (l) compliance /use of procedures; (ii) control board operations:-
(iii) supervisory ability; and (iv) communications / crew interactions. A rating of unsatisfactory in any one competency may be the basis for fail-ure of the simulator examination.
As provided by NRC procedures, Mr. Morabito appealed the falling grade on his examination first to Region I, and then to NRR. Upon re-view of the examinations and consideration of Mr. Morabito's comments by 1/ Three were initial candidates. Two were retaking part or all of the examinations previously failed. See: NRC Region i Examination Report No. 50-334/ 86-16 (O L) , September 23, 1986. (Exhibit Z in support of Specification of Claims).
~~2/ Two candidates who passed were retaking the examinations and one who passed was taking it for the first time.
.__-___________a
y Region i personnel, Mr. Morabito's grade for Section 6 was increased somewhat but remained below the required 70%, and the unsatisfactory
- ratings of the simulator examination were affirmed. 3/ Further review by the Division of Human Factors, NRR, also confirmed the failing grades. S After these reviews, Mr. Morabito repeated his request for hearing, originally sut,mitted by letter dated September 11, 1986. The Commission directed that an informal hearing be held by Order dated July 1,1987.
i Ill. DISCUSSION A. The Specification of Claims in his specification of claims, Mr. Morabito sets out ' four general issues, namely, whether he passed (1) the written- and (2) the simulator examinations, and if so, whether (3) the Staff review process and -1 l (4) examination process are valid. Specification at 1-2. In support of these issues each written and _ simulator examination answer which J
~ Mr. Morabito believes to have been erroneously graded is explained and defended. Specification at 3-24. Mr. Morabito challenges the grading in I I
i the sections of the written examination which he passed, as well as the oral examination which he also passed. Specification at 3-5;10-17. For Section 6 of the written examination, the one section he failed, Mr. Morabito takes issue with only five of the eighteen answers graded as
-3/ See: letter dated November 12, 1986, and attachments from W. Kane to A. Morabito, previously provided to the Presiding Officer, also Exhibit L to Specification.
4/ '
See: Letter and attachments froin W. Russell to A. Morabito dated Fe'6ruary 2, 1987, previously provided; also Exhibit Q to j Specification.
l j
1
I 1 s ]
l w
_4_
incorrect. O Of the five answers raised as issues, only two were I appealed for NRR review. (Questions 6.03b and 6.07b.) In addition to claims regarding the original grading of his examination, Mr. Morabito submitted challenges to comments of the reviewers of his simulator exami-1 nation. Specification at 24-29. For his assertions, Mr. Morabito refers <
to supporting documents submitted with the specification. Exhibits A-Z;
)
AA-BB. In conclusion, Mr. Morabito states that if it is decided that he I i
did in fact pass the written and simulator examinations, a serious ques-tion will be raised as to the review and examination process. Specifica-l tion at 30-31. Mr. Morabito states that he does not view oral l presentation to be necessary if agreement to revise the license examina-tion process can be reached as a result of this proceeding, and regard- l less of whether or not he proves all his claims. Specification at 32.
B. The Staff Response to the Specification
)
The Staff has not addressed the claims submitted for those parts of J J
the examination which Mr. Morabito passed. There is no issue raised ;
regarding Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the written examination or the oral por-tion of the operating examination since the Staff agrees that Mr. Morabito '
passed those parts of the examination. Only two issues are raised by i
Mr. Morabito for adjudication. Issues one and two concern the examina-tion itself. Issues three and four, pertaining to examination procedures, l are contingent upon proof of issues one and two. However, the Presiding i
)
-5/ The following answers were graded as partially or wholly incorrect:
6.01b, 6.03b, 6.04c, 6.06a & b, 6.07a-c, 6.08a-c. 6.09a-d, 6.10a-c. j Mr. Morabito challenges the grading only on 6.03b, 6.06asb, 6.07e, ;
and 6.09a.
i l
i
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . I
1
= <
l Officer has previously ruled that his jurisdiction in this proceeding does I not include revision to the operator licensing process. Memorandum and Order (Ruling en Various Motions), August 25,1987, at 5.
The two issues raised which are within the confines of this proceeding are (1) whether Mr. Morabito passed Section 6 of the written examination and (2) whether he passed four parts of the simulator exami- )
I nation. No issue is raised as to whether a higher grade should have !
been granted for the portions of the examinations Mr. Morabito passed, j i
Therefore, the Staff has addressed only the specification of claims which concern those portions of the written and simulator examinations which the Staff asserts that Mr. Morabito failed and which Mr. Morabito asserts '
that he passed.
Barry S. Norris and David M. Silk, the Staff examiners who {
administered Mr. Morabito's examination, explain in the attached affidavit l
(Affidavit) that Mr. Morabito's assertions of errors in grading are j i
incorrect in all respects except for a partial answer in Question 6.03b, discussed below. The Specification of issues concerning the five answers j in Section 6 of the written examination and the four sections of the simulator examination and the Staff's response to the Specification are as follows:
(1) The Written Examination, Section 6 Question 6.03b: Mr. Morabito provided four answers for this question which asked for three design features of the component cooling water system which minimize the effects of a rupture of the RCP thermal barri-er. The point value of the question was 1.5. Affidavit 117-8. The I
_ s
e- ;
first answer was graded as correct even though it was partially incorrect.
Affidavit 1 9. The other three answers were graded incorrect.
Mr. Morabito defends his answers 2) and 4) on the basis that they are among several correct answers but that the examiners' key listed only three. Specification at 5-6.
Staff Response: In the present review, the fourth answer has been de-termined to be correct due to the Staff's extensive inquiries, including l
the Westinghouse Company. Affidavit TV 13-14. Consequently, additional points for the fourth answer have been added to Mr. Morabito's previous score. Affidavit 1 15. Flowever, the second answer does not respond to the question since it describes a design feature to be used during main-tenance of the component cooling water system. Affidavit TV 10-11.
Therefore, Mr. Morabito's fcurth answer to Question 6.03b is correct but the second answer is clearly incorrect. Tne adjusted point value for this question is 0.75 out of the possible 1.5 and his previous grade is in- !
creased to 15.65 total points out of a possiblo 22.6 for Section 6, or 69.2%. Affidavit 11 15,36.
Question 6.06a: Mr. Morabito's response to this question as to what is used to control RCS pressure during cold solid plant operations was the 1
overpressure protection system. Affidavit if 16-17. Mr. Morabito argues that the question did not ask. for " normal control" of RCS pressure but only for " control" and also that the word "what" in the question is very ambiguous. He asserts that his answer is correct. Specification at 6.
e .
d l
l Staff Response: The correct answer to this question is the letdown pressure control valve whereas Mr. Morabito's answer is not relevant to pressure contr'di, but rather, overpressure protection. Affidavit i 18.
Mr. Morabito's argument as to the wording of the question is without mer-it as . It would be understood by those who distinguish between control
- systems and protection systems. Affidavit i 19. Thus, Mr. Morabito's answer to Question 6.06a is clearly incorrect and his arguments in sup-port of his answer provide no basis for a grade change.
Question 6.06b: In response to this question of what three plant condi-I tions provide inputs to the interlocks associated with RHR suction valve MOV-RH-701, Mr. Morabito answered correctly except for describing the pressurizer temperature as less than 470, rather than 475 degrees. Affi-davit 1120-21. The examiner wrote in the correct setpoint number (475) but did not delete points. The regrader deleted 0.2 points for the incorrect number. Affidavit 121. Mr. Morabito argues this was invaild because the examiner did not deduct points and the 0.2 points should be reinstated. Specification at 6-7.
Staff Response: While it may appear that the 5 degree difference is not significant, an incorrect setpoint could lead to incorrect activation of the interlock and inappropriate valve positioning. Affidavit 122. Moreover, during the appeal of an examination, the reviewers' objective is to ensure that the grading was both fair and correct. ,i d_. Since the pressurizer temperature stated in the answer was' incorrect, there is no reason to award the 0.2 points asked by Mr. Morabito.
Question 6.07a: In answer to this question of the importance of the steam generator code safety valves during power operation, Mr. Morabito described the ' valves as the first means of protection for Tavg (tempera-ture average) increases above program to prevent vlotating the safety limit curve. Affidavit 11 23-24. Mr. Morabito asserts his answer is cor-rect based on Exhibit K to his Specification (Duquesne Light Company Nuclear Division Trhining Manual), p. 2514 and Attachment 1.
Staff Response: The answer provided is incorrect because the first re-sponse to a high T average is control rod motion. Affidavit i 25. In addition, the Exhibit K reference does not support the answer since it describes design features which provide T average protection prior to operation of the steam generator valves and states that the valves provide this type of protection only at low power levels. Id. Mr. Morabito has not shown that his answer is correct and no basis is provided for a change in grade.
Question 6.07b: This question asked for two reasons why the MSIV's are required to close during a steam line rupture. Affidavit i 27. Mr.
Morabito's answer was 1)to isolate the faulted steam generator: 2) to pre-vent blowdown of the non-faulted steam generators through the break. 1 Affidavit 128. Mr. Morabito aFgues that, contrary to the Staff's assess-ment, his answers are not redundant, and refers to Exhibit M (BVPS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report) as support. lie also describes an j accident in which one main steam header ruptures between the main steam
-g-isolation valve and the non-return valve to demonstrate that his two I answers are different ones. Specification at 7-8.
Staff Response: Mr. Morabito is incorrect in believing that he provided two different answers. Both answers describe valve closing to isolate a leak. Affidavit 130. .No basis for a higher grade on this question has been provided.
Question 6.09a: This question asked what two simultaneous conditions cause the quench spray flow cut-back valves to close. The answer key listed (a) associated quench spray pump running and (b) RWST (refueling water storage tank) low low level. Affidavit 131. However, Mr. Morabito answered (1) One hour running time elapsed, (2) RWST level at setpoint. Affidavit i 32. Mr. Morabito asserts that the NRC answer to this question is incorrect and that the proof that his answer is correct is shown by Exhibit N. Specification at 8-10.
Staff Response: The NRC answer key was taken from the Beaver Valley Operating Manual Chapter, whereas Exhibit N does not address the inter-locks on the cut-back valves, nor does Mr. Morabito's answer address conditions in which the cut-back valves close. Affidavit i 34.
Therefore, no support has been provided for Mr. Morabito's assertion that his answer is correct. Accordingly, the grade should not be changed.
Summary Concerning the Written Examination
~As demonstrated by the above discussion, the arguments and evidence in the Specification of Clairns concerning five answers for Section 6 are not sufficient to support Mr. Morabito's assertion that his answers were correct. The Staff has on its own, obtained information to support one part of one answer (6.03b) and added the appropriate num-ber of points for the correct answer. However, the increase in grade point does not result in the 70% required to pass Section 6. In sum, Mr. Morabito has not demonstrated that the answers defended in the Specification are correct nor that he should have received a passing -
grade whereas the explanations 'provided by the Staff show that the fali-ing grade Mr. Morabito received for the written examination was correct.
- 2. The Simulator Examination Mr. Morabito received an unsatisfactory rating in the following cate- :
gories of competency during the simulator examination: q (i) Compilance/Use of Procedures; (ii) Control Board Operations; (iii) Supervisory ability; (iv) Communications / Crew Interactions The three simulator scenarios on which Mr. Morabito was tested for eight types of competency were a series of simulated events as follows:
Scenario # 1: Boron dilution accident; vacuum breaker leak; pressurizer reference signal failure; erratic governor valve control; station blackout.
L Scenario # 2: B spray valve falls closed; Tave (temperature average) input to steam dumps failed low: B loop FRV r
(feedwater regulating valve) bypass falls open; loop 3 Th (hot leg temperature) falls high; turbine governor valves fall closed; fall PORV block valve open for 455D (537) due to a l l
breaker problem; fall Pzr (pressurizer) PORV 455D open.
Scenario # 3: PRNi (power range nuclear instrument) (44) falls high; S/G (steam generator) tube leak developing into rupture; fall pzr level high; FWP-1 A (feedwater pump) trip from 75% power, power reduction: "A" HHSI (high head safety injection) pump falls to auto start on low pressure Si, 6/
The four sections of the simulator examination which Mr. Morabito failed, the examiner's comments explaining his evaluation, 1 Mr. Morabito's answers to the examiner's comments, and the Staff responses to Mr. Morabito's claims are set out below.
(i) Compliance /Use of Procedures:
Examiner's comment #1: The examiner noted Mr. Morabito's failure to consult any procedure when decreasing load to check power range indica- ,
tor response during the first scenario. Affidavit 139. Mr. Morabito asserts that no procedure is required for the 10% power decrease which he ordered to determine whether the instruments were faulty. He points
]
out that once he determined the instruments were not faulty, even though l l
i
~6/ See: USNRC Senior Operator Examination Report, Docket No. )
W 60755, Al Morabito, July 22-23, 1986. ( Also Exhibit J to '
Specification) .
-7/ lbid.
1
\
l 1
they initially did not provide correct information, he halted the power
- reduction after a 5% decrease. Specification at 13-14; Exhibit S, Attach-ment B , p. 4.
Staff Response: Mr. Morabito's assertion is not correct. To perform a test of instrument accuracy, either an abnormal operating procedure or a-surveillance procedure should be used. Affidavit 1 41. Moreover, Mr. Morabito failed to identify the dilution accident in the scenario through his failure to use the appropriate procedure to verify the instru-mentation. The load reduction masked the Indications of -the dilution -
accident which was creating an unsafe reactivity condition. Affidavit
~
if 41-42. Therefore, Mr. Morabito's failure to follow procedures had significant safety implications and was not the minor error he asserts.
Mr. Morabito's argument provides no justification for his unsatisfactory performance in omitting required procedures as described in the. examiner's first comment, and no reason is given for a grade change.
I Examiner's comment #2: During the second scenario the examiner re-marked that Mr. Morabito asked an operator about the RCS hot leg - tem-peratures but did not wait for the operator's response and answered the question aloud to himself. The operator then indicated a different an- J swer. Affidavit 143. Mr. Morabito asserts that the action he took was ;
1 correct and his remark prior to the operator's answer is insignificant. i Specification at 17-18; Exhibit B, Attachment B, p.9.
1
)
.1
-__-_ _ - \
Staff Response: Mr. Morabito did not take the correct action in that he incorrectly analyzed effects of the transient in the scenario and improper-ly attempted _ analysis instead of a symptomatic approach provided in the emergency. procedures.' Affidavit 145. Thus, his argument that his peremptory assumption was not significant since his actions were proper is not an accurate assessment of his performance in the second scenario.
when he again failed to use the procedure properly. Mr. Morabito's argument does not affect the second adverse comment by the examiner concerning use of procedures and provides no reason for a grade change.
It,is not clear why Mr. Morabito raises this com-
~
Examiner's comment #3:
ment as an issue since he Indicates the comment was deleted during the regrade / review process. Specification at 18. No Staff response is pro-vided since no adverse comment remains for dispute. Affidavit 11 46-47.
Examiner's comment #4: The examiner stated that during the third sce-nario, Mr. Morabito did not perform an immediate action step of a proce-dure to determine whether the LHSI pumps were running , . and Mr. Morabito was reminded of this requirement by another operator. Affi-davit 148. Mr. Morabito agrees with the examiner's comment but argues that it does not support a grade of unsatisfactory for competency in compliance /use of procedures. Specification at 18.
Staff Response: Mr. Morabito's failure to perform an immediate action step of the emergency operating procedures is a significant omission since the immediate action steps are required to be committed to memory and e-___________ . _ _ _ .
the third scenario provided the only evaluation of his ability to perform the immediate action steps. Affidavit 150. Consequently, the inadequate knowledge snd use of emergency procedures by Mr. Morabito in the third scenario demonstrates a significant deficiency in compliance with and use of procedures and confirms the fourth comment. No reason for a grade change has been provided, especially since the comment is not challenged.
in summary, Mr. Morabito's failure to use prescribed procedures during the simulator examination resulted in (1) a power reduction which masked Indications of the baron dilution accident, (2) incorrect analysis of a transient based on an incorrect assumption, and (3) overlooking the operation of the LHSI pumps after reactor trip and Si actuation. These .
actions show quite clearly unsatisfactory performance in compliance with and use of procedures. Mr. Morabito has not provided any valid reason to question the level of performance recorded by the examiner or the grade for this competency.
(ii) Control Board Operations (Tested during the third scenario)
Examiner's comment #1: The examiner noted unsatisfactory performance in this competency when Mr. Morabito misread the RCS wide range pres-sure indication after Si actuation and incorrectly tripped the reactor cool- I ant pumps. Affidavit 151. Mr. Morabito attempts to reiute this comment by stating that his actions did not threaten the plant safety limits and his performance of the procedure for securing the reactor coolant pumps was flawless. Specification at 18-19; Exhibit S, Attachment B, p. 10.
l l
l .
l l
1 l Staff Response: The fact that Mr. Morabito correctly performed an l
l inappropriate action does not obviate the fact that during a test of his 1
ability to read ' process instrumentation, he demonstrated his inability to correctly read the instrumentation. Affidavit V 53. Mr. Morabito's argument that he maintained plant safety limits after taking incorrect action does not mitigate the fact that he failed to correctly read the instrument important to the scenario and consequently failed to take proper action for the scenario. The assertions made do not affect the validity of the first comment concerning unsatisfactory control board operation.
Examiner's comment #2: The examiner commented that when procedures called for checking the residual heat release valve,'Mr. Morabito looked at the demand indicator for the manual control of the valve rather than the indication lights for the valve and appeared hesitant and confused until another operator explained the controls. Affidavit 154. Mr. Morabito denies any confusion and explains that his hesitation was based on his 1 1
reluctance to accept the position of the valve solely on the basis of the demand indication, but he acknowledges the assistance of the other opera-tor. He complains that the examiner was incorrect in stating that there were position indicating ilghts on the control board. Specification at 19; Exhibit S, Attachment B, p.10 Staff Response: Contrary to Mr. Morabito's assertions, the fact that he had to be instructed in control board operation and component verification i
by another operator demonstrates insufficient. knowledge of the i
\
/
I t
instrumentation. Affidavit if 56-57. Moreover, the examiner's mistaken belief about the presence of Indicator lights does not affect the fact that in this situation, Mr. Morabito did not understand the control board;, & 1 Thus, no reason has been provided to alter the second comment of . '
/
u unsatisfactory performance at the control board.
i Examiner's comment #3: The examiner noted that at a time in the scenat -
lo when the two containment sump pumps were to be stopped, Mr. Morabito mistakenly stopped the incore instrument sump pump and only one containment pump, and did not recognize his mistake until shown by another operator. Affidavit 7 58. Mr. Morabito argues that he could have discovered his mistake without assistance, and attempts to justify his action by stating it was reasonable to stop the incore instrument sump pump. In addition, he refers to Exhibit U as evidence that he omitted j only one of eight required actions. Specification at 20; Exhibit S, At-tachment B, p.11.
I, Staff Response: Mr. Morabito has not offered any explanation to justify !
his failure to stop both containment sump pumps or his mistake in operat-Ing an incorrect switch, which required another operator to intervene.
Affidavit i 60. Similarly, contrary to Mr. Morabito's view, the omission .
l l
of a step in a procedure conducted from memory without reference to the l l
written procedure demonstrates unsatisfactory performance at the control l board. Affidavit i 61. Mr. Morabito's arguments do not refute the ex-I f: aminer's third adverse comment concerning control board operation.
i
, l It (,n' l
. t ,
~
? "
s.
1 hxaminer's comment #4: In this comment the examiner <lqdicated that Mr. Morabito attempted to reset tile CIA by depressing the CIA Train B
\
,34ttun and the CIB Train A button but the CIA did bot reset, and he did not verify CI A reset.. Affidav8t i 62. Mr. Morabito asser ts that he war eventually sut.cessful in the CIA reset, but that he was hampered by
- tha la'ck of Indication' of CIA resM in the control rocm, and that, in any ' '
l
\ ~; \; , y l event, failure to reset CIA is tsat safety significant. Sper:ification at 21;
/
p g t x ,
/' t
] ,f Exhiblij S, Attachment B, p.{ . ]
' s j
Staff Respanse: Mr.\Morabito's argument does not affect the fact tpat he ,
failed to properly reset the CIA or provide excuse for his inabillW to '
8 ,
adequately operate the corite#Goard in this respect. Affidavit Y 6f,7 t+0 i
i evidence has bedi provided to refute the adverse information in comment
\
number 4 concerning control board operations.
s in summary, the unsatisfactory rating for Mr. Morabito's competency in x
control board operation' is sustained by his (1)' misreading RCS pressure and tripping the RCPs, (2) unfamiliarity with operation of the residual heat release v lve; (3) stopping the wrong sump pump, and (4) failure to festt - Die CI A. Mr.< Morabite has presented nok evidence or argument in i s t the Specification to demonstrate that the unsatisfactory rating is
'- incorrect. , .
(ill) Supervisory Ability Examiner's comment #1: The examiner hoied that Mr. Morabito failed to
\ x recognize that the feedwater regulating bypass valve was open while s
$ (
i l'
. y ,
ti l
l diagnosing unusual valve movement in the second scenarlo. Affidavit f 65. In response to this comment, Mr. Morabito asserts he .nrticed the cpen valve but' the lack of an starm and a simulator malfunction hindered his recognition of the problem, yet he me!ntainted control of the B steam generatur level. Specification at 21; E M lbit S , Attachment S, p . 11.
Staff [tasppose: The failure to ascertain the cause of the simulated pmb-lem is the significant het in an evaluation of the competency of a candl- 3 1 date who must be able to interpret abnormal parameter readings.
Affidavit 1 67. Not all p t Mems at nuclear power plants initiate an ala rm. Id. Additionally, candidates are instructed to resi,and to all indications from the simulator. Affidavit V 68. Mr. Morabito's explana-tions do not address the fact that he failed to recognize an important component failure in the scenario which would have indicated the proper solution to the prc6lem presented. Mr. Morabito's argument does not i
show that the examiner's first comment was not a valid assessment.
'ixaminer's comment #2,' The eyaminer's sect,nd comment states that j i
Mr. Morabito's generally unsatisfactory use of procedures and crew inter-action . Indicates unsatisfactory supervisory ability. Affidavit Y 69.
it.i'. Morabito counters this statement by claiming it is unsupported. He r.t ferences Exhibits B-i; V-X, concerning his employment at the I Shippingport Atomic Power Station tc, demonstrate his competency as a j s superv!sor. Specification at 21 -22; Exhibit S, Attachment D, p. 11. l 1
1
T +
Staff Response:- Mr. Morabito's failure to use ' proper procedures, his deficiencies in communication and crew interactions, (discussed infra) and his failure to -assist the reactor operators during the scenarios demon-strate his lack of supervisory competency. Affidavit 1 71.
Mr. Morabito's performance at another plant is not evidence related to his performance at the Beaver Valley plant during his examination. The ex-aminer's second comment is well supported by the deficiencies noted in Mr. Morabito's actions during the three scenarios.
In sum, Mr. Morabito's (1) failure to discover the source of the problem during' the second scenario (2) failure to follow procedures, as discussed previously, (3) lack of knowledge of the control board, discussed previously, and (4) lnadequate communications and interactions with the reactor operators, discussed below , supports the examiner's unsatis-factory rating for supervisory ability.
(iv) Communications / Crew Interactions )
Examiner's comment #1: The examiner stated that in the first scenario
[ after the loss of offsite power, Mr. Morabito failed to wait for verification J
from the operator that emergency buses were energized, and took inap-propriate action on the basis of his mistaken assessment that all AC power was lost. Affidavit Y 72. Mr. Morabito objects to this comment and s tates he observed no energized AC buses when he assessed the situation, and that only after he had decided on action did the diesel generator load. Because of this he argues that his use of the procedure for loss of all AC power was appropriate until he received correct
Information from the operator and directed transition to the proper procedure. Specification at 22-23; Exhibit S, Attachment B, p.12.
Staff Response: Mr. Morabito's explanation does not address the fact that he did not recognize that the diesel generator does not load immediately after loss of offsite power so that his action was not based on a correct assessment of plant conditions. Affidavit 174. Furthermore, Mr. Morabito failed to ask the operator about the AC buses and consequently failed to use available information prior to taking action.
,l d,. The failure to communicate with the operator prior to taking action on an incorrect understanding of plant conditions demonstrates defi-ciencies as a senior operator. Id. Therefore, Mr. Morabito's argument is not supportable since not only did he fall to communicate properly with the operator to obtain necessary information, he also indicated his lack of knowledge of the characteristics of a transition to emergency power.
The examiner's comment concerning inadequate communication and crew in-teractions is well founded.
Examiner's comment #2: The examiner's second comment concerns a hand signal from an operator who held two fingers slightly apart to indicate the monitor recording of secondary radiation levels and Mr. Morabito's admission after the scenario ended that he did not understand that communication. Affidavit 175. Mr. Morabito asserts he did understand the operator's hand signal and that he used no hand signals himself. He claims the Staff's position against hand signals is "blased, that his action based on the hand signal was correct and the examiner's statement about
his understanding of the hand signal is incorrect. Exhibit Y is referenced as evidence that the operator believed Mr. Morabito understood the hand signal. Specification at 23; Exhibit S, Attachment B, p.12.
Staff Response: In the Staff's view it is self-evident that hand signals are not reliable means of communication in the control room of a nuclear power plant nor a valid means of deciding proper actions for plant con-trol. Affidavit 177. Mr. Morabito's arguments do not refute the examin-er's second comment regarding a clearly inadequate method of transmitting technical information. Moreover, Exhibit Y, an affidavit from the operator describing what the operator believed about Mr. Morabito's understanding, is not evidence about Mr. Morabito's understanding but
( evidence of the operator's belief. Thus, Exhibit Y does not support Mr. Morabito's assertion. No reason has been provided to alter the adverse comment since hand signals are not accurate means of communication and whether or not Mr. Morabito understood the particular one in question is not relevant to the examiner's comment concerning i
inadequate communication.
1 Examiner's comment #3: The third comment by the examiner notes the inadequate communication between Mr. Morabito and an operator concern-l ing RCS hot leg temperatures (previously described in comment #2 l
concerning compliance /use of procedures). Affidavit V 78. Mr. Morabito repeats his prior argument that he should be evaluated only on his ac-tions but not on thinking aloud. He insists his actions were proper and
that he did not act on his assumption. Specification at 24; Exhibit S, Attachment B, p.13.
1 Staff Response: Mr. Morabito not only failed to await the correct infor-mation from the operator initially, he also incorrectly analyzed the effects of the transient in progress and improperly anticipated plant parameters.
Affidavit f 80. The examiner's third comment concerning communications with the control room crew accurately reflects Mr. Morabito's lack of care in communicating and interacting with other operators. Mr. Morabito has provided no evidence to refute the comment.
In sum, Mr. Morabito's (1) failure to ask the operator for verification of the status of the emergency busses during the first scenario, (2) reliance-on a hand signal during the second scenario, and (3) assumption about RCS hot leg temperatures during the second scenario, support the overall rating of unsatisfactory performance in the area of communications / crew interactions during the simulator examination. Mr. Morabito's arguments and explanations do not demonstrate that this rating is incorrect. There-fore, no reason has been provided which challenges the unsatisfactory evaluation.
Specification Comments on NRR Review At pp. 24-29 of the Specification, Mr. Morabito sets out arguments against the written comments by the Division of Human Factors concerning the review of his examination (Exhibit L) during his appeal of his failing {
grade. Since these arguments simply repeat those made regarding each
- 23 '-
of the examiner's Comments discussed above, no further Staff response was deemed necessary. Affidavit i 81. However, it should be noted that in this part of' the Specification Mr. Morabito admits the following errors during the simulator examination: 1) Did not properly diagnose a dilution condition; 2) Tripped the reactor coolant pumps unnecessarily; 3) Did not place a containment sump pump switch in the off position; 4) Did not properly reset CIA. Specification at 30. These admissions support the Staff's adverse assessment of Mr. Morabito's competency in the four areas found unsatisfactory.
C. Summary Mr. Morabito has provided no reason to change the falling grade he received on Section 6 of the written examination. For the most part, his arguments are simply assertions without supporting evidence, since the many exhibits submitted do not support his arguments. However, the Staff has shown that Mr. Morabito's answers in Section 6 were and are incorrect, except for one part-answer. Moreover, even with the additional points given for one answer to Question 6.03b, the overall grade for Section 6 remains below the 70% required to aass. Mr. Morabito has not shown that any answer he asserts is correct is, in fact, correct.
Simliarly, Mr. Morabito has not demonstrated that he should have received a passing grade on the simulator examination. To the contrary, Mr. Morabito admits that he made four significant mistakes as described by the examiner. He has presented no convincing explanation for his improper and/or inappropriate actions in three simulated events during the examination. His attempts to minimize the significance of his mistakes give further support to the examiner's falling grade. Most importantly,
I l
I the Specification - does not contain evidence sufficient to meet Mr. Morabito's burden of proof in this proceeding that he actually passed 1
the written and simulator examinations and was erroneously denied an SRO license. On the other hand, the Staff has shown that Mr. Morabito's i
I written answers and operator actions were not sufficient to receive a passing grade and consequently, an SRO license. Therefore, Mr. Morabito's claims should be dismissed and the denial of license l affirmed.
Finally, in Staff's view, the issues of whether or not Mr. Morabito f passed his written and simulator examinations have been thoroughly ex-l plained by the pleadings provided so that no oral presentations are necessary.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set out in the attached affidavit and discussed above, the failing grades on Mr. Morabito's written and simulator exami-nations and the Staff's denial of a Senior Operator license to Mr. Morabito should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
/
Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of October,1987
- f. . xp so9, U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION j FACILITY: BEAVER VALLEY 112 REACTOR TYPE: PWR-WEC3
, DATE ADMINISTERED: 86/07/22 EXAMINER: SILK, D.
- APPLICANT: _ _ gh[r_ <
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: ,
Uso separate paper for the answers. Write answers on one side only.
Staple question sheet on top of the answer sheets. Points for each question are indicated in parentheses after the question. The passing grade requires at least 70% in each category and a final grade of at locct 80%. Examination papers will be picked up six (6) hours after th9 e:: amination starts.
% OF CATEGORY % OF APPLICANT'S CATEGORY VALUE TOTAL SCORE VALUE CATEGORY
._bIbb__ __!Ibb _2$ka ____ _db((e__5. THEORY OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATION, FLUIDS, AND THERMODYNAMICS
. I_ _ *. __! *_ ____ _
- 6. PLANT SYSTEMS DESIGNr CONTROL, AND INSTRUMENTATION 74 5
_ 1 _h_ki _h___ __h b__ 7. PROCEDURES - NORMAL, ABNORMAL, EMERGENCY AND RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL
. I I__ _ Ibb
- _ ___ __h:__8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
.00.00 100.00 TOTALS FINAL GRADE _____ _______%
ill work. done on this examination is my own. I have neithor liven not received aid.
AP P LIC A- 4 T ' S IGNATURE
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _