ML20238D256
| ML20238D256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05560402 |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1987 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238D258 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5143 SP, NUDOCS 8801040173 | |
| Download: ML20238D256 (15) | |
Text
$7N
.((
,y ps-
'y
- g p
' }e, 1
00LHETEC'
- ,g; USHRC i
s 4
t
. December 11,1987 '87 EC 16 P4 :07 m
I o
y UNITED STATES OF A6* ERICA e
NGCLEAR REGULATORY C6MMISSION OFFICE Of SEURt IAH 4
(
'3
,.3 00CKETING & SERVIC
~i.
. 3 E,IFOR.E THE ADMINISTRATE JUDGE BRANCH t --
y 7
4( ?, A ',
c r
'g.
In the Matter of
,' l -,
')
.r y
)
(Docnt No. 55-60402 Cf DAVID W. HVLD i
)
C (Senior Operator License for
)
e Station, Unit I)1
.it
/-
Beaver Valley t'octear Power
)
i i
a
.s N
N NRC STYF Rd",PhNSE TO SPECIFiCATIGMOF CLAIMS r,.
?
' I.
INTRODUCTION v,
By Memorandum 'and Order (Order) ddtes August 19, 1987, the Pre-siding Officer in this proceeding directuk Mr. Held to particularize his 3
.s N
claims of, error in the NRC staff's (Staff) denial of his application for
-s n,
I ) senior resetdr ope ~rNor (SRO) license. On October 3,1987 Mr. Held sub-1Q t.
mitted a specific.rpon of claims of error in the grading of his simulator T
(Spd$qicetion).
Mr. Heid filed no supporting exhibits. The examination.
Staff hNeNh resperids to Mr. Held's claims of error in the Staff's grading
't-
,q N,s y
h/4r. Hsfd's r85ulator examination for.5R'Oillcense.
\\
- r u
s '
k,,
g
(
'6
.(
ll.
BACKGROUND David W. Held possesses :n reactor operator licens<i.for Unit 1 of the n
Ql Beaver Valley bluclear Power Sjation (Beaver sV. alley);,
in July, 198E i
Mr. Held took written and opdrating (oral and simu{ator) examinations a administered by NRC Region
,1 examiners ts 5 five appfkadt's for SRO 880.1040173 g7thig'
~)
95()1 SECY LIC55 05560402
\\
c m
s J
T' 4
s /
e.
e license for Beaver Valley Unit 1.
Of the five applicants for SRO license, three passed and two failed the examinations.
By letter dated September 3,1986, Mr. Held was notified that he had passed the written examination and oral portion of the operating examination but had failed the simulator examination and his application for SRO license was denied.
Mr. Held received a grade of " unsatisfactory" in two of the seven areas of competency tested during the simulator examination.
These are (1)
"Compilance/Use of Technical Specifications" and (2) Compliance /Use of Procedures". See:
Examination Report and Simulator Examination Summa-ry Sheet, attached.
In accord with the Staff's appeal procedures for operator examina-tions, Mr. Held requesteu and obtained review of the simulator examina-tion results and Mr. Held's comments by Region i personnel who affirmed the failing grade.
Thereafter, at Mr. Held's request, the Division of Human Factors, NRR, reviewed the examination results and Mr. Held's further comments, and also confirmed the unsatisfactory grades in the two competencies.
By letter dated March 6, 1987, Mr. Held reaffirmed his request for a hearing, originally submitted by letter cated September 16, 1986.
Subsequently, in June,1987 Mr. Held met with representatives of NRC Region I management to discuss the grading of his examination and to present additional information.
Region I management determined that Mr. Held had not provided sufficient basis to change his examination grade.
Since his 1986 examination for SRO license for Unit 1, Mr. Held has passed an examination for Unit 2 and received an SRO license for f
Beaver Valley, Unit 2 on June 24, 1987.
Mr. Held is presently employed at Unit 2.
j
111.
DISCUSSION A.
The Specification of Claims in his specification of claims, Mr. Held sets out arguments which appear to be limited to three of six examiner's comments about Mr. Held's performance in two competencies during the simulator examination.
Al-though Mr. Held has not idcntified the particular examiner's comments which he challenges in his Specification, the Staff believes that it is clear by the subject matter discussed in the various paragraphs therein that on pages 1-2 of the Specification, Mr.. Held is referring to the examiner's comment 1.a.
(concerning Compliance /Use of Procedures); the first two paragraphs on page 3 of the Specification refer to examiner's comment 2.a (concerning Compliance /Use of Technical Specifications), and the third paragraph on page 3 refers to examiner's comment 1.c. (concerning Compliance /Use of Procedures).
The Staff has addressed its response to Mr. Held's Specification in accord with this understanding. II B.
The Staff Response to the Specification (1)
Compliance /Use of Procedures One area of competency tested during simulator examinations is the license candidate's knowledge and use of appropriate procedures.
In this area of competency the examiner graded Mr. Held's performance as 1/-
The simulator examination scenarios, the appropriate actions expected
~
by the Staff, the examiner's comments on Mr. Heid's performance, and the simulator examination report were provided to the Adminis-trative Judge as attachments to a letter from William F.
Kane to Mr. Held, dated November 10, 1986, along with other documente in the file of this proceeding by letter from Staff Counsel dated August 221, 1987.
l unsatisfactory on the basis of four actions which the examiner judged to be incorrect or inadequate.
The examiner recorded his comments describ-ing the incorrect use of procedures by Mr. Held and the correct proce-dure which should have been used, in an attachment to the simulator grade sheet. The examiner's comments which are challerged by the Spec-ification, Mr. Held's argument, and the examiner's rebuttal contained in the attached Affidavit of Barry S.
Norris ( Affidavit) are summarized below.
Examiner's Comment 1.a:
As a general comment, the examiner recorded his view that Mr. Held consistently neglected to use abncrmal procedures and alarm response procedures during casualty conditions on the simula-tor.
Specifically, during the first scenario at the simulator, the examiner noted that when an alarm sounded in the control room indicating failure of the letdown backpressure regulator valve, Mr. Held isolated the failed valve and ordered maintainance of backpressure by throttling on the man-ual bypass valve.
The examiner stated that Mr. Held should have at-tempted to reestablish normal charging and letdown of the regulator valve l
by resetting the valve at the control board, but if not possible, to shift i
to the procedure for excess letdown which is done from the control room.
Because of Mr. Held's improper action, the examiner noted, it was neces-I sary for an auxiliary operator to enter a radiation area to manually throt-tie the bypass valve and the reactor operator had to focus his attention on the CVCS system (charging and volume control) rather than monitoring the control panel.
Affidavit, 5 7.
I
Specification:
Mr. Held argues that his use of the manual bypass valve was consistent with the facility's approved procedures and was the best choice "...given this] experience level, knowledge, training, awareness of the plant operating philosophy and the then current plant conditions."
Specification at 1.
Mr. Held also argues that the plant was stable, with the letdown isolated and sufficient time was available to troubleshoot and l
establish excess letdown if no solution was found.
Id.
He states that the alarms warranted his order for operator entry into a radiation area to inspect the valve and that the alarm response procedure does not pre-clude the use of manual bypass valves.
Id.
Mr. Held also states that OM (operations manual) procedure 48 and the SAP (site administrative procedure) allow use of the manual bypass valve which is commonly used at Beaver Valley under various circumstances and Is emphasized during simulator training.
Specification at 1-2.
Mr. Held states that the actions he took were consistent with the abnormal operating procedure 16 and the alarm response procedures. Specification at 2.
I
Response
Mr. Held's statement, that use of the manual bypass valve is 1
i common under various situations at Beaver Valley is not supported by any reference to any Beaver Valley procedure and the Site Administrative Procedure (SAP-4-01.0) precludes the use of a method other than an ap-proved procedure.
In addition, his statement that his action was war-ranted because of the alarm, falls to acknowledge the advantage of use of established procedures for mitigating the problem caused by the failed regulator valve, and the unnecessary consequences of his use of the by-pass valve,
i.e.,
unnecessary radiation exposure for the auxillary
l '
operator whom Mr. Held directed to enter a radiation area to manually open the bypass valve.
In addition, the reactor operator's attention was diverted from the control board to balancing the CVCS by communication with the operator at the bypass valve and modifying the system at the control board.
Affidavit i 7.
Further, Mr. Held's statement that his action was proper for his level of knowledge and experience does not jus-tify issuance of an SRO but shows that during the simulator examination he did not demonstrate knowledge sufficient for the position of Senior Reactor Operator, Finally, his statement that his action was consistent with abnormal and alarm response procedures is an unsupported allegation since he did not provide the procedures to support his claims.
Conse-quently, his statements in regard to the examiner's comment la are un-supported assertions.
Mr. Held attempts to justify use of a method (manual valve bypass) other than an spproved procedure to correct a plant problem.
- However, the method he chose did not correct the problem and unnecessarily ex-posed an operator to radiation and created an unnecessary task for the control board operator which hampered his ability to monitor the control board.
Affidavit 1 11.
In sum _, Mr. Held has not justified his action in using manual valve bypass rather than established control board proco-dures for restoring charging and letdown and excess letdown heat ex-changer operation.
Consequently, he has failed to refute the examiner's adverse comment about Mr. Heid's competency in use of procedures.
Examiner's Comment 1.c:
The examiner noted that during the second scenario, a simulator malfunction caused an undervoltage condition which
in turn, caused the number 2 diesel generator to start.
Due to the balance-of-plant operator incorrectly trying to reconnect the system with offsite power as instructed by Mr. Held, the diesel breaker opened, thereby deenergizing the bus.
Mr. Held used an emergency operating procedure for recovery of the bus rather than the operations manual (OM 36.4.Q.8) which gives step-by-step directions on now to return the bus to normal power supply.
The examiner stated that Mr. Held's use of an inappropriate procedure caused the loss of the bus.
Affidavit, 1 18.
Specification:
Mr. Held states that after its review of his examination, Region i personnel agreed that Mr. Held did follow the correct procedure (OM 36.4.Q.8) but he did not appropriately deal with breaker / bus inter-lock.
Specification at 3.
Mr. Held explains in defense of his actions, that during the 11-12 minutes that the bus was deenergized, other alarms were occurring, an operator was sent to find the cause of the diesel gen-erator trip, and to establish normal standby conditions.
He also states that the redundant train was available to all but the aux feed pump, and the tech specs allow eight hours to restore the DF bus when all compo-nents on the opposite train are operable, but that a one hour time con-straint occurred under the tech specs due to loss of two aux feed pumps.
Id.
Mr. Held states his view that with other events ongoing and "no clear cut procedure available" for the situation, the 12 minutes necessary to restore power, using an emergency operating procedure for guidance was reasonable.
Specification at 3-4.
Mr. Held concludes that the diffi-culty in restoring power to the DF bus was due to the simulator malfunc-tion. Specification at 4.
Response
At the same time that Mr. Held states that there is no clear cut procedure available for the situation he claims that he was in fact utilizing the procedure believed appropriate by the examiners, OM-1 3 6.4Q. B.
It is clear, on the other hand, that he started using the wrong procedure.
Affidavit 12. The fact that he believed that the sim-ulator malfunction was responsible in some way for his use of the wrong 1
procedure and the time consumed in locating the cause of the diesel gen-erator trip does not solve Mr. Held's problem.
However, it was Mr. Held's responsibility as Senior Reactor Operator to assure that the connection with offsite power was made correctly as described in OM 36.4.Q. B.
His use of the wrong procedure caused loss of the bus and consequent loss of power to a second auxilliary feedwater pump.
Affida-vit 123.
Mr. Held's argument that several events occupied his attention so that his use of an incorrect procedure and delay in restoring power was reasonable is entirely insupportable.
Senior operators are responsi-ble for managing plant operation in all situations by sufficient knowledge of the procedures developed to mitigate various plant problems.
Mr. Held does not yet acknowledge that OM 36.4.Q.8 contains the detailed instruc-tions for restoring power by proper manipulation of the interlocks.
Again, Mr. Held has failed to offer any justification for his use of an improper procedure or to show that he demonstrated sufficient knowledge of procedures during the simulator examination to receive a passing grade.
Mr. Held did not contest examiner's comments 1.b and 1.d concern-ing inadequate use of procedures.
Examiner's comment 1.b states that Mr. Held failed to use the correct procedure for decreasing pressure
l,
after tripping the bistables.
Examiner's comment 1.d states that Mr. Held might have averted turbine trip had he used the appropriate procedure to mitigate a problem caused by failure of the steam generator level and feed flow indicators.
In sum, Mr. Held has not provided any evidence by way of explana-tion or documents to refute the examiner's grade of unsatisfactory for Mr. Held's competency in use of procedures during four simulator prob-lems.
Mr. Held has failed to justify (1) his use of the manual bypass valve rather than procedures for restoring charging and letdown and ex-cess letdown, (2) his failure to to use procedures for decreasing pressure after tripping the bistables, (3) his use of an inappropriate emergency procedure for restoring power to the bus rather than the procedure with specific instructions for managing the breaker interlocks, and (4) failure to use the correct procedure to avoid turbine trip when steam generator level and feed flow problems developed. In short, Mr. Held's challenge to his grade in competency in use of procedures is not supported by credi-ble evidence.
(2)
Compliance /Use of Technical Specifications Examiner's Comment 2.a:
The examiner stated that in general, on compo-nent failures, Mr. Held neglected to refer to the Technical Specifications (Tech Spec) for any follow-up action and/or any limiting conditions of operation ( LCO's ).
Specifically, the examiner noted that on the loss of power to the DF bus, Mr. Held did not refer to the Tech Spec for an I
LCO even though an auxill!ary feedwater (AFW) pump was out of service at the beginning of the scenario.
The examiner stated that due to the 1
Inoperable AFW pumps a one hour action statement for plant shutdown in Tech Spec 3.0.3. was applicable but Mr. Held was not aware of it. Affi-davit, 1 27.
Specification:
Mr. Held states that although he may not have consulted Tech Spec.*!.0.3 during the scenario, he did discuss it with the examiner during the post scenario. Specification at 3.
Response
Mr. Held asserts that he discussed Tech Spech 3.0.3 with the examiner after the scenario ended, but he. foes not assert that he dis-cussed the LCO and demonstrated his knowledge of the one hour action statement in the Tech Spec.
Thus, although he states that the examin-er's comment is mistaken, there is no dispute that he did not consider the LCO during the simulation.
In the second scenario, the loss of power to the DF bus resulted in loss of power to an auxilliary feedwater pump. Since one feedwater pump was out of service at the start of the scenario, the loss of the second pump triggered the applicability of Tech. Spec. 3.0.3 which requires steps to shutdown the plant when two AFW pumps are Inoperable.
Affi-davit i 29.
Thus, it is significant that Mr. Held did not indicate his understanding that during the scenario, the plant was in a situation re-quiring shutdown.
Although Mr. Held asserts that the examiner's notes indicated Mr. Held discussed Tech. Spec. 3.0.3, it appears that Mr. Held interpreted the examiner's note which actually indicated a deficiency, to mean the Tech. Spec. was discussed.
Affidavit, 1 30.
In any event, Mr. Held does not even claim that he indicated to the examiner that he
was aware that that plant was in a condition requiring shutdown at the J
l end of the scenario due to loss of two AFW pumps.
Thus, Mr. Held has not demonstrated that the examiner's adverse comment in this regard was w rong.
Examiner's Comment 2.b, uncontested by Mr. Held, states that dur-ing one scenario, Mr. Held took the appropriate action using the proper procedure (tripped the appropriate bistables) but did not refer to the Tech. Specs. for any subsequent action, and might have been in violation of an action statement.
In summary, Mr. Held's unsatisfactory knowledge of Technical Speci-fications was demonstrated by his (1) failure to identify the fact that Tech. Spec. 3.0.3 required steps for plant shutdown durina the scenario due to loss of two AFW pumps, and (2) failure to identify an action state-ment in the Tech. Specs. after tripping the bistables.
Thus, Mr. Held's failure to refer to Tech. Specs. In two scenarios at the simulator demon-strates his deficiency in use and knowledge of Tech. Specs.
Mr. Held's argument does not even claim that he knew the requirements of the par-ticular Tech. Specs. were applicable in the two scenarios.
- Thus, Mr. Held has provided no evidence to refute the examiner's grade of un-satisfactory competency in this area.
The objective of the simulator examination is to evaluate license can-didates' knowledge and proficiency in reactor operation in eight catego-ries.
Grading is based on the examiner's objective and subjective evaluations of the candidate's actions during simulated reactor problems, as satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory.
Affidavit 1 4.
Mr. Held received a " marginal" grade in two competencies and " unsatisfactory" In W--.___--.-._
the two competencies discussed herein, for the reasons explained.
l Mr. Held has provided nothing more than unsupported arguments to de-I fend his actions during three simulator scenarios.
Since Mr. Held is the applicant for-'a senior operator ilcense, the burden is on him to prove that he is entitled to the license by demon-strating compliance with the requirements concerning senior operator 11-censes in 10 C.F.R. Part 55.
In an NRC licensing. proceeding the burden of proof lies on the applicant for the license.
Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-123, 6 AEC 331, 345 (1973).
Al-though this proceeding is not being conducted pursuant to Subpart G, the Staff believes that the Commission's views on burden of proof in a formal licensing proceeding also provide guidance for this proceeding.
Section 2.732 of the Commission's regulations states:
Unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer, the appil-cant or the proponent of an order has the burden of proof.
However, the Staff acknowledges that even though the burden of proof lies on the applicant for a license, the burden of going forward with evi-dence is on the Staff if Mr. Held establishes a prima facie case that he should be issued an SRO license.
- See, e.g.
General Public Utlittles Nuclear Corporation (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station), CLl-86-9, 23 NRC 465, 472 (1986); Metropolitan Edison Company et al.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), A LA B-772, 19 NRC 1193, 1245 (1984).
As indicated herein, the Staff does not view Mr. Held's Specification as estabilshing a prima facie case.
Nevertheless, the Staff's response ex-plains the significance of Mr. Held's inadequate use and knowledge of procedures and technical specifications and demonstrates that an
unsatisfactory grade in these two competencies was justified and that Mr. Held did not show sufficient knowledge in these areas for an SRO license.
In short, Mr. Held has failed to meet his burden of proof in this proceeding and his falling grade on the simulator examination should be affirmed.
IV.
CONCLUSION l
For the reasons explained above and set out in the attached Affida-vit, the unsatisfactory grades for Mr. Held's competency in use and knowledge of Technical Specifications and Procedures should be affirmed.
Consequently, for the reasons stated above and explained in the attached Affidavit, Mr. Held's falling grade on the simulator examination should be a ffirmed.
Respect ful ly sutml t ted,
_i/e Colleen P. Woodhead Counsei for PRC Sta f f Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 11th day of December,1987
.g anC e.- we ree. i ES 301 vs aucteam atoutafoav couuission pocasi=uusen SENIOR OPERATOR UPGRADE 55- /oM02 t9 84:
EXAMINATION REPORT TYPE OF REACTOR TYPE OF EXAM
'b INSTRUCTIONS: Provide all the information requested for Power end Non-power Reectors.
Screened items do not apply to Non power Reactors.
NON POWER RETAKE Ca40soof48NAMt asACton LOCAf toss N'
OWf O
lf" f$$! ff ff NY f
e WRITTEN EXAMINATION aowe=rstgago se oAft l
/[
Mk 4/
- AtVIO SINIC A OPE R ATOA Gaaosoav Gaapt EVALUATION
/[
h,h ISecten 53221 PASSE D c vioon, e Y(/. 2
- le ya y
- I
- 2G. /
- i i YR h * /
le g
lJ g
lK g
lL l FAILED GaAoi N
g g
OPERATING TEST aowenistsaso or oATE WAlvfD
&Cf
'l l tsorten 55.22) g i
L.,d- ) IcoLa '
$4MULATOA TEST (Not appaceNo fo hacmser Aapetosul >
Aonsamastenso a 6 g
- Daft,
gArygD '.
fct&J O'$El I'***" "
~
COMME N TS M
b&
w:
A4"A 15e JtAVtf so Q /124 h
&Adk skva Me Afd iI na. s AJL4LJB A LJ Al
/AR ska].
A
~
~
- [t'#1Q t 0}W/5 0 a as t:
- > A llo 2 4 0/
<( z s It d n
c - NoA,,oN y-b
/h N e-
-. a (h
oviYoa SIN,on ticsNs M
-L...
io...
- o.. v. _.
,s
~
dgg k
YJ M L ubt\\
. s,.
ATTACHMENT 11 EXAMINATION
SUMMARY
SHEET Date: 2f y, fy 56 Facility / Simulator 4 t/-/
Candidate //e// D.20 Examiner A)o, -/f 8. g.
Type of Exam: SRO Instant SR0 Upgrade /
R0 RATING (Circleoneforeachcompetency) hM U
Understanding / Interpretation of Annunciators /Alann Signals hM U
Diagnosis of Events / Conditions hM U
Understanding of Instrument / System Response M h Compliance /Use of Technical Specifications S
ne Cx& w.
Z.-
l Q
1 M h Compliance /Use of Procedures S
at 6W w.
/
l S M U Control Board Operations (R0 & SRO Instant) l Nb l
~
l ShU S ervis ry Abili (SRO) l h&4 cm 2*At a A N N A A ot i) as n
e w.wa n a e,w.
ShU Communications / Crew Interactions Cuk2alz
_et tu,s 4 L / ~. J.n L - -
-thi du,o % nth ~t.Asi euk coru ~4%s. GewA?
2Ad1 3 As m y m JD _laudluAokneu.*
'el Aw e u' fars V 1 m An M <d d A A M -At % ) /2ct*l Recommendations: Pass Fail V Signat Y
4 d,<E76 g
Examiner Standards 27 of 33