Text

Joint Affidavit of RA Cooley,T Burdick & K Kennedy.* Concludes That RW Ellingwood Answers to Written Exam Are Not Sufficient to Receive Passing Grade.W/Prof Qualifications & Svc List
	ML20245D773
Person / Time
Site:	05520449
Issue date:	06/15/1989
From:	Burdick T, Cooley R, Kennedy K; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20245D679	List: ML20245D677; ML20245D703; ML20245D773;
References
	89-588-01-SP, 89-588-1-SP, NUDOCS 8906270227
	Download: ML20245D773 (24)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:. June 15, 1989 l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE In the Matter of ROGER W. ELLINGWOOD ) Docket No.: 55-20449' (SeniorOperatorLicense

for Catawba Nuclecr Station)

JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF RALPH A. COOLEY, THOMAS BURDICK AND KRISS KENNEDY l Ralph A. Cooley, Thomas Burdick and Kriss Kennedy do depose and say:

1. I, Ralph A. Cooley, am a Section Chief, Regional Support and Oversight, Operator Licensing Branch,-Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I acted as Chairman of the Appeal Panel who reviewed Rodger Ellingwood's request for staff review of his written SR0 examination at the Catawba Nuclear Station on September 26, 1988.-

The results of the appeal panel review were forwarded to Mr. Ellingwood on March 1, 1989. My professional qualifications are attached.

2. I, Thomas Burdick, am a Section Chief in the Operator Licensing Section of the Division of Reactor Safety, at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III. I was a member of the appeal panel who reviewed Mr. Ellingwood's September 26, 1988 written examination. My professional qualifications are attached.

l ti C -

h I l . l I, Kriss Kennedy am employed in the Operator Licensing Section of the

3. i Division of Reactor Safety, as an examiner, at the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV. I was a member of the appeal panel who reviewed Mr.-E111ngwood's September 16,~1988 written )

I examination for SR0 license. My professional qualifications are attached. 4, The NRC examination for operator candidates under 10 C.F.R., Part 55, consists of a written examination, a simulator examination, and an oral examination. Written examinations are prepared by an NRC examiner in accordance with NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," and NUREG-1122, "Knowledges and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators," and based upon facility licensee reference material. Each of the written examination questions administered to candidates at the Catawba Nuclear Station on September 26, 1988, were reviewed by a second examiner and the Section Chief for technical accuracy, adequate subject coverage, relevance to safe operation of a nuclear power plant, content validity, and to ensure regulatory requirements are satisfied. After 1 the administration of the examination, the facility licensee reviewed the examination for technical accuracy and recommended changes or additions to the answer key based upon the plant-specific features of the facility. These comments were resolved to the mutual understanding of the NRC and facility licensee. The grading of the set of examinations was checked by a second examiner and the Section Chief to ensure consistency and accuracy in grading. To receive a passing grade, the candidate must attain an overall score of 80%, and l

1 receive at least a 70% in each of the four sections of the written examination,inaccordwithexaminerstandard(ES-403E)(Operator LicensingExaminerStandards,NUREG-1021,Rev.4). Mr. Ellingwood received an overall score of 75.1% on the written examination and i more than 70% on three of the four sections of the examination, and l l 1ess than 70% on one section. 4 In addition to the written phase, the examination consists of an oral walk-through of the plant with the candidate and a simulator examination. Mr. Ellingwood passed the oral walk-through and the simulator examination.

5. On December 20, 1988 Mr. Ellingwood requested informal NRC staff review of the grading of his written examination and provided supporting documentation. -The appeal panel met in mid-January,1989 to consicer Mr. Ellingwood's arguments. Our conclusions were forwarded to Mr. Ellingwood by letter dated March 1, 1989 from the Director of the Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, NRR. We concluded that Mr. Ellingwood's overall score was 78.6% for the reasons stated in the appeal panel response.

6. The appeal panel only analyzed Mr. Ellingwood's arguments concerning the specific questions and answers which he challenged. The appeal panel has reviewed the specification of claims filed by Mr.

E11ingwood on May 30, 1989. The question, answer key, candidate

response, appeal panel comments, Mr. Ellingwood's present 4

specification and staff evaluation follow: i i i

Mr. Ellingwood's Specification of Claims Question 5.10 (1.50)

7. THREE (3) percent of' tubes in the "A" S/G are plugged.

All tubes in the "B", "C" & "D" S/G's are operable. TRUE OR FALSE Due to the reduction in the number of tubes available in the "A" S/G: l a) The total heat transfer RATE of the "A" S/G will be less than that of the "B", "C" or "D" S/G's.- h) Total plant power output (MW) is REDUCED because of-the "A" S/G output pressure reduction, dT increase, and the subsequent _ effects to Psat versus Tsat. c) The Heat Transfer Coefficient ("U") will increase in the "A" S/G and decrease in the other S/G's'.

8. ANSWER KEY a) FALSE (0.5) b) FALSE (0.5) c) FALSE (0.5)

9. CANDIDATE'S ANSWER a) TRUE -a b) FALSE c) FALSE Grade: 1.0/1.5 !

10. Appeal. Panel resolution Question 5.10a: Comment accepted with condition. Since the question !

is not clear anc there is'not enough information to answer the questions without making assumptions, the question was deleted from the exam. The overall value of this category will be reduced to reflect this change, 0.5 will be deducted. I a_-_-_____ 1

11. Specification (Part a) of this glestion claims that 3% of one S/G's tubes plugged will still not result in a reduction in heat transfer from that S/G.

My response was bar;ed on formula written on my test, Q = UA (Tave - Tstm). If 3% of the tubes are plugged in a S/G, then A has decreased, causing Q to decretse, making Part a) TRUE. You may say that Tave will go up to compensate, but if it does power will drop in that quadrant, lowering the Q for that quadrant and therefore A-S/G also, making Part a) still TRUE. I request .5 points tack for Part a).

12. Staff Response The panel deleted this question due to no documentation existing to support either a True or False answer. Depending on the assumptions-made with regard to the status of the plant (is Tavg constant, is MWe constant, etc.) a case could be made for either answer. Therefore, due to the ambigous nature of the question, it was deleted. The only additional information provided by the candidate from his initial appeal is that writing down the formula he applied to determine his response constitutes making an assumption about the plant conditions.

However, the formula used by Mr. Ellingwood would be applicable no matter what assumptions were made. Deletion of the question was deemed appropriate due to the lack of clear answer / reference to support either a True or False answer. The deletion of the question-is a benefit to the candidate, because it reduces the possible points in this section of the examination and eliminates a negative value from the overall score.

i

13. Question 6.09 (1.50)

Concerning Intermediate Range (IR) Nuclear Inst. a) What is "over-compensation", and describe the detector operation in this condition. b) If an IR Detector is "over-compensated", would indicated power be (higher or lower) than actual power? 14 Answer Key a) "Over-compensation" is the condition in which too much gamma ! compensation voltage is applied. (0.4) The gamma signal from the inner chamber is greater than the gamma signal from the outer volume (0.2) such that some of the neutron signal is cancelled along with the gamma signal from the outer chamber. (.4) b) Lower (0,5)

15. Candidate's Answer a) Compensation is the adjust.nent of IR current to cancel'out the current from gammas such that the detector output is seeing .

neutrons, over compensation is when this current is too l high/such that all gamma current is being cancelled out/ causing detector to be reading lower than it should be, b) lower Grade: 1.2/1.5

16. Appeal Panel resolution 1 l

Question 6.09: Comment accepted for pcrtial credit. Additional l credit of 0.1 allowed to more equitably reflect the candidates response for use of current in lieu of voltage. 1

17. Specification My answer to 6.09 Part a) is more than adequate. By saying that overcompensation is when this current is too high is the same thing as having voltage too high, for high voltage results in high current, which results in all gamma current being cancelled out and some

neutron. I feel my response conforms to your answer key. Reference i BASIC NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, pages 131 and 132. I request full credit of .3 points back.

18. Staff Response The panel allotted the candidate an additional +0.1 pts due to the closereiationshipbetweenvoltageincreasingandcurrent-increasing I

                      '(though the candidate is not correct in stating that current and i

It is actually the applied voltage that is voltage are the same. changed to adjust the compensation). The question specifically asked for description of the operation of the detector in this situation, which the candidate did not provide. The candidate does not refer to I the generation of current in the inner chamber vs. the generation of current in the outer chamber, which would indicate knowledge of how the detector operated in a combined neutron and gamma radiation field. His answer was not considered to be of sufficient detail to deserve full credit. No additional information was provided by the candidate beyond that provided to the Appeal Panel. Therefore our opinion is the same.

19. Question 7.07 (1.00)

I SCENARIO: A trip to CFPT "A" and the inability to start CFPT "B", while at 1 45 percent power, has resulted in a Rx trip. Upon auto start of the CA pumps, water hammer effects have ; caused a loss of CA pump B and apparent rupturing of CA pump B ! discharge to the associated steam generator supply lines. i Even with the turbine driven CA pump in operation, MAXIMUM CA Flow to all S/G's is LESS THAN 400 GPM.

In order to meet " intended" AP/1/A/5500/06 immediate actions; " Loss of CF Supply to S/G's", the operator shall first " Check Reactor power less than FIVE (5) percent, THEN: a) Align valves to isolate feed to S/G's "A" and "B" -verify total flow to S/G's "C" & "D" is greater then 450 GPM - verify W/R levels are increasing b) Align turbine driven pump to provide feed to S/G's "C" and "D"'- verify total CA flow to S/G's is greater than 450 GPM c) Align valves to isolate feed to S/G's "C" and "D" -verify-total CA flow to S/G's "A" and "B" is greater than 450 GPM - verify W/R levels increasing d) Align turbine driven pump to provide feed to S/G's "A" and "B" - verify total CA flow to S/G's is greater than 450 GPM 20 Answer Key c)

21. Candidate's Answer b)

Grade: 0/1.0

22. Appeal Panel Resolution Question 7.07: Comment accepted with condition. Since the question is not clear and the location of the break is not identified, the question is deleted from the exam. The overall value of this category will be reduced to reflect this change, -1.0 will be deducted.

23. Specification This question should not be deleted. It was not deleted from Mr. Mike Ferguson's exam during informal review. This question asks for the conditions given, what the operator action is after he checks Reactor Power 5%. As the attached shows, if CA flow

 .                                                                                 .g.

l is 450 gpm, he will " manually align valves or start pumps, as required". That means anything he can do to get 450 gpm to ] i intact S/G's is acceptable. -{ l 4 l' An immediate action an operator would have to assume is that the' Turbine Driven Feedpump Discharge lines are intact. Based on my assumption, per enclosure, nty selection would be a correct answer.

24. Staff Response This question was deleted because the location of the break'would have an impact on what valves could be manipulated, and thus more than one of the possible answers (a)-(d) could be correct. A key l response that the question tried to elicit was that the operator needs to verify that levels in the SG are increasing as well as having sufficient Auxiliary Feedwater flow. This is part of the immediate actions in step 2 of AP/1/5500/06. Only choices (a) and (c) included this action, of which (c) is the correct response. The Appeal Panel concluded that the question was not clearly stated and that there could be three possible correct answers based on what assumption was made with regard to the break. As this made the question a poor test of knowledge, it was deleted on the candidate's exam. The procedural document submitted by the candidate did not provide any clarifying information concerning the question and l possible answers. The question was not deleted on Mr. Ferguson's examination as he did not appeal the grading of this question.

Deletion of this question was to the benefit of the candidate, as previously explained. The candidate asserts the same argument and provides the same documentation as submitted to the Appeal Panel so

   - - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ - _ _                                                                      .l

that no new information is provided. No reason to change the grade is provided.

25. Question 8.02 (1.00) l The plant is at 100% Power and "A" NI pump is tagged out of service due to mechanical problems. Routine maintenance on the drain _line between the KC inlet and outlet isolation to the "B" ND Heat Exchanger requires the KC to be isolated to the "B" ND Heat Exchanger.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the allowances and limitation imposed by Technical Specifications. NOTE: Applicable T.S.s are provided, a) Return the N1 pump to operable status within 72 hours or be in at least Hot Stand By within the next 6 hours and-in Hot Shut Down within the following 6 hours, b) Return the NI pump and KC System to operable status within 72 hours. c) Complete a Non Conformance report, notify the NRC and continue operation with increased surveillance per Technical Specification. d) Start a plant shut down within.one hour.

26. Answer Key d)

27. Candidate's Answer a)

Grade: 0/1.0

28. Appeal Panel Resolution Question 8.02: Comment not accepted. The candidates submitted documentation excludes the application of candidates choice. It clearly does not allow cross train substitution for normal

maintenance. The question premise involves routine (normal) maintenance. Grading stands as originally graded.

29. Specification Reference Technical Sptc' fr:ation Interpretation 3.5.2 (enclosed).

This allows any combination of cross-train components and support systems must be capable of carrying out all the required functions of any one train of ECCS component. If these are the plant conditions, technical specification interpretations will cover this situation. I request 'A' as correct answer and to receive 1 point back.

30. Staff Response By the letter of the TS provided by the candidate there are two ECCS sub-systems out of service and the answer key as written would apply.

Based on the TS interpretation, the candidate's answer could be correct only if the two sub-systems were out of service due to unusual circumstances. However the question clearly states that one of the systems is tagged out due to normal maintenance. The Appeal Panel considered the candidate's answer based on the normal situation described in the question, which precluded assuming a condition of an abnormal cross-train lineup. Therefore, the candidate did not answer the question, i.e., which answer "...most accurately describes the allowances and limitations imposed by TS." The candidate states that he would not allow this maintenance to occur based on the TS and its interpretation, but by his answer the candidate does acknowledge that the question describes a situation which involves routine maintenance on an ECCS sub-system in a train opposite the train in which a safety

(

 .                                     - 12 '

injection pump is out of service.; The. candidate has provided no new information and there is no_ reason to change the grade.

31. Question 8.18 (1.00)

During the performance of PT/2/A/4200/11 " Emergency Beration Flow Rate verification", The acceptance criteria could not be determined-due to a broken gauge. I&C installed a temporary gauge that could be used for'the test. As a Shift Supervisor WHAT would be your administrative actions?

32. Answer Key Fillouta*ProcedureDiscrepanciesProcessRecord"per(Station Directive 4.2.1Section12)

                                                                                                           'i r   33. Candidate's Answer Ensure brown tag and NSM is properly verified, ensure gauge'is qualified for use in test. Ensure W/R written for broken . gauge.

Grade: 0/1.0 'k

34. Appeal Panel Resolution Question 8.18: Comment accepted with condition. The question was very vague with regards to what administrative aspects of this problem need to be addressed. The question was deleted and the overall value of this category was reduced by -1.0 points.

35. Specification The question should be reinstated. It was not deleted from Mr.

ferguson's exam. The Shift Supervisor reviews all PT's for completeness and approves them. The Procedure Discrepancies Process Record will be a part of that PT, per Acceptance Criteria 11.3. The Shift Supervisor would review procedure discrepancies process record completed by operator and determine correct actinn. The Shift

l

           ,                                                                                                                                                                 \

Supervisor in relation to the temporary gauge would see that l corrective action is taken. My response covers some required actica, I 1e. work request, and some action required _for documenting the i temporary gauge. My reference to brown tag would take care of this 1 per TSM procedure (Station Directive 4.4.5) enclosed. My reference to NSM would evaluate the need for permanent modification (Station Directive 4.4.4, enclosed). My reference to ensure gauge is qualified is intended to ensure the gauge is an approved substitute. I feel I have completely answered Question 8.18 and request full credit of 1 point back.

36. Staff Response The Appeal Panel determined that the question was too vague because it did not identify the administrative actions necessary to resolve the problem. Therefore the question was deleted. The candidate does give information that is correct with respect to the broken gauge, but does not give any information regarding the failure of the surveillance procedure to meet acceptance criteria. It was to the candidate's benefit to delete the question, as previously explained.

This question was not deleted from Mr. Ferguson's exam as it did not appear on his examination appeal. The candidate provided no information in addition to that submitted for his original examination appeal. Therefore no reason to change the Appeal Panel's i decision is provided. l

37. Question 8.20 (1.00)

Your (sic) the Shift Supervisor and the Electrical Group is replacing a damaged electrical cable that extends from a motor operated valve in the Aux Feed pump room, to its power source at IEMXA.

The electrical group informs you that the cable penetration in the north wall of the Aux Feed pump room has been damaged and cannot be secured. What action, if any, must you taken concerning this penetration?

38. Answer Key a) Enter Tech. Spec. 3.7.11 Fire Barriers (0.5 pt) b) Station a Fire watch. (0.5pt)

39. Candidate's Answer

1. Ensure FPC0 is aware of situation.

2. Notify security.

3. Ensure FPC0 fills out fire impairment report and required fire rounds are made.

Grade: 0.5/1.0

40. Appeal Panel Resolution Question 8.20: Comment not accepted. Part of the action that should be taken is enter Technical Specification 3.7.11 Fire Barriers, since this was not part of your answer, the grading on this question remains as it was originally graded.

41. Specification Per the attached, it can be seen that ensuring the FPC0 is aware of the situation is all the Shift Supervisor need do. My answer goes even further to ensure some of the FPC0 actions are taken.

I request full credit, .5 points back.

42. Staff Response The Shift Supervisor is ultimately responsible for the operation and knowledge of the status of all TS related equipment, even though the FPC0 (Fire Panel Console Operator) is assigned the responsibility for

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _ . - _5

filling out the. log on this particular piece of equipment. .The question states that the Shift Supervisor'and not the FPC0 receives the report, therefore awareness of TS' requirements is the responsibility of the Shift Supervisor. The candidate submitted the same TS for both the Appeal Panel review and this specification. The document does not address the above explanation. , (

43. Summary l We have reviewed all arguments.and supporting documents submitted by I

Mr. Ellingwood in the Specification of claims and find no new i information provided which would change our determinations during our informal Staff review. Therefore our opinion on each grade. questioned is the same as previously stated. It is our opinion that Mr. Ellingwood's answers to the written examination are not J d l sufficient to receive a passing grade, l I

We hereby attest that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief. 1 , Ralph [A. Cooley Y V l Thomas Burdick Kriss Kennedy Subscribed and sworn to before me this /M of A.w ,1989, ao N MV4 A .Cecce9 o=3 9A( E Ndu Y /NF A w J'b Notary Public My Commission expires: n// /'70 il l l i I

We hereby attest that the foregoir;g~ is true and accurate to the best of' our knowledge and belief. Ralph A. Cooley Thomas Burdick Kud Kriss_ Kennedy / Subsr.ribed bad sw tre this Mof horn n yt , to before 1989. ! nue 713 TtE12% hptary kFhe My Commission expires: 7/4/ J i I i,

                                                                                        ,i I

i

,l

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS LIST Ralph A. Cooley

        . Education i

August 1950 B. S. Math and Physics East Texas State University 24 Hours MBA University of Idaho 1953 U. S. Navy Westinghouse - Nuclear Power School Work Experience Proto-Type-Submarine Thermal Reactor ' NRTS January 1954 Idaho Falls, Idaho thru May 1955 j I USS Nautilus (SSN 571)

New London, Conn. June 1955 to Jan.1957 f Designated " Qualified in January 1956 Nuclear Submarines" Navy Nuclear Power School Instructor January 1957 - January 1958 { Honorable Discharge January 10, 1958 Shift Supervisor, Atomics International at the Organic Moderated Reactor Experimental Plant in Idaho Falls, Idaho - January 1958 thru April 1961. Start-up Engineer for Atomics International at the Piqua Nuclear Power Facility in Piqua, Ohio from April 1961 to May 1964 l Senior Test Engineer for Atomics International at the Sodium Component Test . I Installation in Canoga Park, Calif. from May 1964 to May 1967. l ! Shift Supervisor at EBR-II for Argonne National Laboratory from May of 1967 to November of 1968. Training Supervisor at EBR-11 from November 1968 to October 1972. P.eactor Engineer in Operator Licensing Branch (OLB) - from October 1972 to July 1980 Administer licensing examinations to nuclear power plant and l research reactor personnel. Senior Reactor Engineer, OLB, July 1980 - November 1981 Examiner, Acting Section Chief from April 1981 to November 1981. Section Chief from November 1981 - February 1982.

Engineering Manager, NUTECH Engineers, from February 1982 - April 1983 - Bethesda, MD t 'tober 1984 - Region IV Reactor Engineer - Lead Examiner, from April 1983 l Senior Reactor Engineer, Chief, Operator. Licensing Section, from October 1984

                         - October 1987 - Region IV Senior Reactor Engineer, Staff, OLB Headquarters, from October 1987 - July 1988 -

White Flint, Rockville, MD Senior Reactor Engineer, Chief, Regional Support and Oversight Section, from July 1988 - present - OLB Headquarters LICENSES HELD Reactor Operator, Piqua, Ohio 1961 Senior Reactor Operator, Piqua, Ohio 1963 e I e 1

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS THOMAS BURDICK 1968 - 1976 Performed nuclear plant operations and operator training for the US Navy. 1976 - 1983 Obtained an R0 and SRO license at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant. Provided the operations department with support in the control room as a relief shift supervisor as needed. Developed and/or conducted various training programs for the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant. Reactor Operator training. Entry level operator training. Engineer systems training. Revised training materials. Developed the entry level operator qualification standard. Researched post TMI modifications for requalification training lesson plan development. General employee training such as first aid, fire fighting, security and radiation protection. Coordinated and monitored the activities of contract personnel related to training matters. Reactor Operator classroom and simulator training. Fire Brigade training. Visual training aid development. Assisted in training budget projections. Produced numerous video tape training films for general employee training. 1983 - 1986 US NRC RIII license examiner Certified as a Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering and research reactor examiner. Have written and administered numerous examinations of both the R0 and SR0 types for Westinghouse, CE and research reactors. Develop and conduct simulator examinations for same. Conduct plant walk-through examinations for same. Develop and conduct examinations for licensed operator requalification programs. Coordinate examination schedules with the licensee and contract examiners.

Act as chief examiner during site visits.' Evaluate and certify new license examiners. Perform duties. of acting section chief as. assigned. Conduct detailed inspections of licensee training programs to verify compliance with-licensee commitments or NRC requirements. 1985 - 1989 US NRC RIII Operator Licensing Section Chief Supervise,- recruit and certify examiners in GG grades 11 through 14. Schedule and audit NRC examinators at Region III PWR, BWR and test /research reactor sites. Actively participate in Region III emergency response organization as a Region Duty Officer and in various base team and site team incident response roles such as reactor safety, government liaison and think. tank. Perform as group leader /or operational / training team inpections. Participate in NRC policy and planning for Operator Licensing program matters with counter parts from other regions and headquarters. EDUCATION AND TRAINING-LakeshoreTechnicalInstitute(1978-1980) 27 semester hours in management supervision. NortheasternWisconsinTechnicalInstitute(1981) 40 classroom hours in lesson development and instruction techniques. Combustion Engineering Systems Course (1985) 80 hours of classroom and simulator. Westinghouse Startup Certification and Requalification Refresher Greater than 200 classroom and simulator hours from 1977 to 1982. Navy Nuclear Power School (1969) Highschool (1967)

i PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR KRISS M. KENNEDY REACTOR ENGINEER (EXAMINER) Experience U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV, Arlington, Texas April 1988 - Present Administer written and operating license examinations to applicants and requalification examinations to holders of NRC operator and senior operator licenses. Review examinations, recommendations for approval or denial of license, and supporting documentation prepared by other examiners. Audit facility licensed operator requalification training programs and examinations administered to trainees at training centers operated by training organizations and utilities. Review license applications to ensure eligibility requirements are met. Review Commission and industry codes and standards to determine applicability to the operator licensing program. Certified as an NRC examiner on Westinghouse Technology. November 1985 - April 1988 Nuclear Programs Officer, Nuclear Recruitment, U.S. Navy, Area 7, Dallas, Texas May 1983 - October 1985 USS James K. Polk (SSBN 645 Gold) Charleston, 5.C. Stood watch as Engineering Officer of the Watch during operating and shutdown conditions on a shipboard reactor plant. Served as Damage Control Assistant / Auxiliary Division Officer, Electrical Division Officer, and Chemistry / Radiological Controls Assistant. Responsible for the operation and maintenance of shipboard systems assigned to my division. Responsible for the training and watch station qualifications of those personnel in my division. Qualified as Engineer Officer of a Nuclear Propulsion Plant. January 1982 - April 1983 Naval Nuclear Power Program Training

q

             .                                                                                                                                                                    Education and Training 1988                      U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Westinghouse Technology Series (200 hours classroom and 48 hours simulator)-

January 1982 - April-1983 U.S. Navy Naval Nuclear Power School - 6 months Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit - 6 months Submarine Officer Basic Course - 3 months. July 1977 - May 1981 United. States Naval Acadeny - B.S. i

                                                                                                                                                   .I i

i

l

".[

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '89 M 21 PS :29 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRA11VE JUDGE ij'g , , , ;. g E m" In the Matter of ROGER W. ELLINGWOOD ) Docket No.: 55-20449 (Senior Operator License ASLE.P No. 89-588-01-SP for Catawba Nuclear Station) ) I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFICATION OF CLAIMS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following

,     by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an l     asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal i      mail system, this 15th day of June,1989:

l l John H. Frye, III* Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (1)* , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, DC 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l l Frederick J. Shon* Adjudicatory File

i Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 B. Paul Cotter, Jr.*

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Chief Administrative Judge Panel (5) Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Rodger W. Ellingwood Docketing and Service Section* 4461 Summerlin Place Office of the Secretary Rock 11111, S.C. 29730 0.5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Kenneth E. Brockman, Chief Operator Licensing Section 2 Richard J. Goddard Region II Regional Counsel, Region II 101 Marietta St., N.W. 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30323 Atlanta, GA 30323 L . Colleen F. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff

  -                     - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}

ML20245D773

Text

Navigation menu

Search