ML20238D559

Memorandum & Order (Need for Further Info & Requirement for Oral Presentation).* Order LBP-87-31 Requesting Addl Info Re Aj Morabito Senior Operator License Exam by 871221.Oral Presentation Will Be Held in Jan 1988.Served on 871125

ML20238D559
Person / Time
Site:	05560755
Issue date:	11/24/1987
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	MORABITO, A.J., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#188-5197 87-551-02-SP, 87-551-2-SP, SP, NUDOCS 8801040310
Download: ML20238D559 (13)

Text

- - ____ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

6 p-519 1 00CKETED USNRC LBP-87-31 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 MN 25 P12:25 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PAgF Q y g c ;r<

DOCKE W M ^ M L Before Administrative Judge: EU O Charles Bechhoefer SERVD NOV 2 S 1987

)

In the Matter of Docket No. 55-60755 -SP ALFRED J. MORABITO ) ASLBP No. 87-551-02'SP

)

Senior Operator License for )

Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 November 24, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Need For Further Information and Requirement for Oral Presentation)

I have reviewed the claims set forth in Mr. Morabito's Specification of Claims, dated July 31, 1987, including the attached 1

i appendices; the response of the NRC Staff, dated October 9,1987 and Mr.

Morabito's reply, dated November 7,1987. In response to the Staff's l Motion for Opportunity to Respond to Rebuttal Filed by Mr. Morabito, dated November 19, 1987, and in accord with my Order of October 23, 1987, the Staff may respond to new information submitted by Mr. Morabito in his reply, on the schedule set forth herein.

I have also ascertained that there are several areas (set forth in the Attachment hereto) as to which I will require information beyond that already submitted by the parties, in order to reach a determination whether Mr. Morabito passed both the written and the simulator segments of his senior operator license examination. Because of the already bh0y o jo g73,p4 55 05560755 PDR OW2-

t, -

2 extended length of time which has elapsed since Mr. Morabito initiated his appeal, and because answers and further information which I have requested will likely provoke follow-up inquiries, I have also detennined that an oral presentation should be held. As direct testimony for that oral presentation I will consider (1) both parties' responses to the inquiries set forth in the Attachment; (2) the Staff's response to Mr. Morabito's reply; (3) the Specification of Claims (to the extent it relates to Mr. Morabito's examination), the Staff response thereto, and Mr. Morabito's reply (all previously filed).

This oral presentation is being scheduled because of my need for further information or clarification of information, not because of Mr.

Morabito's request for an oral presentation "as a platform for initiating national debate" on the operator license examination process (SpecificationofClaims,atp.32). Matters considered will be limited to the specific items identified herein, unless otherwise requested by a party and approved by me. At the oral presentation, I will pose questions on the matters to be considered. Dr. David L. Hetrick, the technical interrogator, may also question the parties. Although cross-examination by the parties will not be permitted as a matter of right (see proposed 10 C.F.R. 5 2.1235(a)) I will permit parties to pose questions or lines of questions to the other party, subject to my approval.

As contemplated by proposed 10 C.F.R. 6 2.1235(b), all direct testimony and responses to oral questioning are to be given under oath or affirmation. At the oral presentation, I intend to have the parties,

4 3

to the extent they have not already done so, swear or affirm to the direct testimony referenced above. Parties should thus be prepared to identify any necessary changes or corrections to the documents previously submitted.

The parties' responses (direct testimony) should be filed (mailed) by December 21, 1987. The oral presentation will be held during January 1988, at a place and time to be announced (in the vicinity of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or the Beaver Valley facility). At the oral presentation, I will entertain oral limited appearance statements, as permitted by proposed 10 C.F.R. 6 2.1211(a) and as announced in the Notice of Hearing dated July 15, 1987 (52 Fed. Reg. 27485, July 21, 1987).

PRESIDING OFFICER 24 & le &

Charles Bechhoefer ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

/

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of November, 1987.

i ATTACHMENT Additional Information Required To the extent applicable, each party should provide additional information in the following areas:

A. Written examination

1. Question 6.03b

a. This question asked for three design features of the component cooling water system which minimize the effects of a rupture of the RCP thermal barrier. One of Mr. Morabito's answers which was judged incorrect was " Ability to manually isolate the thermal barriers."

The Staff explains (affidavit, 1 10) that "[a] containment entry, which is a lengthy and involved process, would be required to isolate the component and would not provide immediate reduction in the severity of the rupture" (emphasis added). The Staff goes on to state (affidavit, 1 11) that isolation valves are "normally designed to allow maintenance

• *

• and not to minimize the effects of a component failure" (emphasis added). In view of the fact that the question made no reference to the timing of the minimization of the effects of a rupture and no reference to any " normal" design feature to accomplish that purpose, is not Mr.

Morabito's answer technically correct? In any event, does not the ambiguous scope of the question as described herein warrant the deletion of question 6.03b?

b. In an examination question of this type (requesting a specified number of answers), has the Staff invariably used the method of grading described in 115 of its affidavit? (Mr. Morabito, in his reply (at p.12) claims othentise. Mr. Morabito should provide

I I

2 j

additional specificity, if he can do so, with respect to the two written l examinations he references. For its part, the Staff should explain what j is meant by the word " routinely" set forth in 1 15, line 9, of its  !

affidavit.) , ,

c. Were candidates advised not to supply more than the 1

requested number of answers to questions such as question 6.03b? ,  ;

l d. Werecandidatesadvisedofpenalties(eitherdiscretionary or mandatory) for a wrong answer accompanied by a sufficient number of correct answers? Were they informed, prior to or at the time of the written examination, of the method of grading which the Staff is now utilizing--i.e., that they would be given credit only for the percentage of correct / incorrect answers where more than three answers were supplied (Staff affidavit, f 15)?

(i) If so, why was Mr. Morabito initially given 1/3 credit (0.5 points) when only one of the four answers supplied was considered correct? If the Staff were utilizing the grading method described in 115 of its affidavit, should not Mr. Morabito initially have been given only 1/4 credit (0.375 points)?

(ii) If Mr. Morabito was not informed of the grading system, should he not either be given credit for at least 2 correct ,

answers out of 3 (1.0 points) or, alternatively, should not the question have been deleted?

2. Question 6.06a

a. Does the phrase " cold solid plant operations" in examination question 6.06a refer only to standby conditions, or could it j i

l

4 3 .

refer to a stage during plant startup?

b. Is the overpressure protection system ever used "during cold solid plant operations"? If so, explain.

3. Question 6.06b Assuming that some points should have been deducted for Mr.

Morabito's acknowledged listing of an incorrect setpoint, would not a deduction of 0.1 points (rather than 0.2 points) have been more appropriate, given the nature and significance of the mistake? Please explain.

4. Question 6.07a Mr. Morabito stated that the steam generator code safety valves provide the "first" means of protection for Tavg increases. The l

Staff suggests another " normal first response." The Staff also indicates that the steam generator safety valves provide a " secondary or tertiary protection for T average in a limited range of power levels."

Because the question asked for the importance of steam generator code l safety valves, without specifying whether primary, secondary or tertiary protection was sought, should not Mr. Morabito have been given at least partial credit for his answer?

5. Question 6.07b

a. What is the purpose of the parenthetical phrase "(NOT CONDITIONS)"inexaminationquestion6.07b? i

b. The question asks for two reasons why the MSIV's are required to close during a main steam line rupture. Mr. Morabito's references to pages 10.3-2 and 10.3-5 of the FSAR appear to provide

1 .'

~

f 4

i different reasons why the MSIV shuts--i.e., as the primary isolator of a leak or as the backup to a non-return valve. Was not Region I correct in stating that the " facility literature provides many varied reasons for closing the MSIVs" and thus that "there is no definitive answer to the question" and that the question should be deleted (letter. dated November 12, 1986 toMr.Morabito, Attachment 1)? ,

B. Simulator Examination

1. General

a. Under NUREG-1021 (Rev. 2), the Operator Licensing Examiner Standards in effect at the time of Mr. Morabito's examination, a " rating of U [ unsatisfactory] on any one competency may be considered an adequate basis for failure of the examination." ES-302, F.3 (emphasis supplied).

(1) Which, if any, of the four ratings of U in this examination would be considered adequate for failure of the examination in the event that it became the only competency so rated?

(ii) May a candidate pass the examination with ratings of U in two of the eight competencies? l

b. The Standards further provide that "the assignment of an overall rating must be based on the specific circumstances of candidate's perfonnance during the examination." ES-302, F.3 (emphasis supplied). How did the Staff develop the overall rating for Mr.

Morabito?

5

c. Was any attempt made at quantitative evaluation of performance? For example, one could count the number of improper decisions, weigh them according to the degree of undesirable consequences, and. compare with the number of correct decisions.

d. Is it appropriate for a single observation or comment by an examiner to be used as a basis for a "U" rating in more than one competency? If so, what effect would such multiple use of a single observation or coment have on a candidate's overall rating?

e. The candidate's Specification of Claims (July 31,1987) includes eight items (pp. 13-17) which address either ES-301 or ES-305 of the examination report. Only one of these items (5.2.A on page 6 of ES-305) is related to coments in the simulator examination sumary sheet (ES-302-11 and attachments). The Staff response (October 9, 1987) addresses the candidate's claims concerning ES-302-11, including the subject matter of 5.2. A. but does not address the other seven claims.1 (1) What is the relevance of the eight comments in ES-301 and ES-305 (other than 5.2. A) to the simulator examination?

(ii) What is the significance of the circled letters A and E in the column headings of ES-305, page 67 1

Specifically, the Staff failed to address comments 2.5.H (ES-301,

p. 5); 5.1.C (ES-305, p. 6); 2.5.E (ES-305, p. 8); 7.1 (ES-305, p.

8); 6.A.7 (ES-305, p. 10a); 8.B.4 (ES-305, p. 10a); and 8.C.2 (ES-305, p. 10a).

____-____-____________A

O i

f. Were the procedures of NUREG-1021 (Rev. 2), ES-301, E followed with respect to the orientation of the examiners who administered Mr. Morabito's simulator examination? Provide details.

2. Compliance /Use of Procedures (ES-302-11-1/4)

a. Comment 1 (1) Why were two power range instruments giving ,

indications different from the other two?

(ii) Is a procedure required for every small power reduction, regardless of the reason? ,

e (iii) What is a surveillance procedure (Staff affidavit, page 14, 1 41)?

(iv) What is the meaning of the phrase "believe all indications" in Staff affidavit, page 14, f 41, in the event of inconsistent indications?

(v) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for this competency?

b. Comment 2 (i) What is the relevance of the examiner's comment to the " Compliance /Use of Procedures" competency?

c. Coment 4 i

(1) Why is this not a minor event that also illustrates good teamwork?

N (ii) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency?

.s 7

(iii) Was Mr. Morabito informed prior to the examination that he would be responsible for knowing from memory the imediate actions of emergency procedures? If so, when or how? (SeeNUREG-1021 (Rev.2),ES-301,.H.)

(iv) How would the Staff respond to the four rhetorical questions posed by Mr. Morabito in his reply (112a-d, at pp. 8-9)? ,

Answers should be provided for all simulator examinations for Beaver Valley, Unit 1.

(v) The Staff concedes (affidavit 1 50) that "this was the only evaluation made of the candidate's ability to properly perform the required immediate actions of the emergency procedures as a control board operator." In view of the significance of this single evaluation, did the Staff perform follow-up questioning as suggested by NUREG-1021 (Rev. 2), ES-303, B, to determine whether a rating of "M" or "S" would have been more appropriate? If so, please provide details. If not, please explain.

3. Control Board Operations (ES-302-11-2/4)

a. Comment 1 (i) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency?

b. Comment 2 (i) Why is this not a minor event that also illustrates good teamwork?

(ii) Why not delete this coment in view of the examiner's confusion about indicator lights?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _D

.C l

8

, c. Coment 3 (i) Why is this not a minor event that also illustrates good teamwork?

(ii.) Would this coment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency?  !

d. Comment 4 ,

(1) Would this coment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency?

4. _ Supervisory Ability (ES-302-11-3/4)

a. Coment 1

_(1) What is the relevance of the examiner's coment to the " Supervisory Ability" competency?

(ii) Was an alarm intended to be part of the scenario in question?

(iii) Was there a simulator malfunction?

(iv) How do examiners allow for simulator malfunctions in making their evaluations?

(v) Was Mr. Morabito's view of the valve position I

indicator blocked by the balance-of-plant operator? If so, how could l l

Mr. Morabito have perceived the incorrectly positioned valve?

b. Coment 2 l

(1) Why does the examiner's comment include no specific citations?

(ii) How does the use of hand signals in the circumstance cited bear on the " Supervisory Ability" competency? (See Staff affidavit. 1 71.) See also 5.b below.

9

5. Connunications/ Crew Interactions (ES-302-11-4/4)

a. Comment 1 (1) What is the relevance of the examiner's comment to the " Communications / Crew Interactions" competency?

(ii) Would the candidate normally be expected to communicate with the operator before acting in this situation? ,

(iii) Were the symptoms of the emergency sufficiently understood by the candidate?

(iv) How much immediate diagnosis is required in this particular situation?

(v) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency?

b. Comment 2 (1) Are there rules or standards which preclude the use of hand signals?

(ii) Was Mr. Morabito instructed concerning the inappropriateness of using hand signals?

(iii) Is there any way to resolve the controversy about whether the candidate understood this particular hand signal?

(iv) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency (or for the " Supervisory Ability" competency)?

c. Comment 3 (1) Are there rules or standards against " thinking out loud"?

t ,n -

10 (ii) -If the candidate's action here were judged as merely

" thinking out loud," would that by itself justify an unfavorable comment in this competency?

(11.1) Is Mr. Morabito's first verbalization properly characterized as an " incorrect analysis" (Staff affidavit,180)?

(iv) Was anyone mislead by Mr. Morabito's initial ,

verba11zation?

-(v) Would this comment by itself justify a grade of U for the competency?

i

)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i