ML20245D703

NRC Staff Response to Spec of Claims.* Administrative Judge Should Sustain Determination of Appeal Panel That Ellingwood Score on Exam Considered as Failing Grade Since Grade Is Less than Required 80%

ML20245D703
Person / Time
Site:	05520449
Issue date:	06/15/1989
From:	Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20245D679	List: ML20245D677 ML20245D703 ML20245D773
References
NUDOCS 8906270204
Download: ML20245D703 (7)

Text

h

~

. Qt t '

LTf. KE TE D '

June 15, 1989 W'M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-U BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE $[f In the Matter of_ )

)

ROGER W. ELLINGWOOD ) Docket No.: 55-20449

)

(SeniorOperatorLicense )

forCatawbaNuclearStation)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SPECIFICATION OF CLAIMS I

1. Introduction By Memorendum and Order dated April 27, 1989, the Presiding' Officer in this proceeding directed Mr. E11ingwood to file a detailed description of any deficiency or omission which he believes NRC staff (Staff) made in the denial of an SR0 license to Mr. Ellingwood. The Staff received an undated'and untitled submittal from Mr. E111ngwood on May 30, 1989, which for designation purpose, I the Staff refers to herein as a " Specification of Claims" or " Specification". ,

i The Staff hereby responds to the specification of claims made by Mr. l E111ngwood.

II. Background Rodger W. Ellingwood was examined by Staff examiners for a Senior Reactor l 1

Operator license for the Catawba Nuclear Station on September 26, 1988, along i with other license candidates. The examination consitted of a written examination in four sections or categories, an oral examination during a

" walk-through" of the plant, and a simulator examination. Mr. Ellingwood passed the oral and simulator examinations but failed the written examination ,

8906270204 890615 '

SECY LIC55 05320449 PDR ,

2 with an overall score of 75.1%. 1/ nA overall score of 80% is required for passing. 5/ Mr. Ellingwood asked for an informal Staff review of his examination and submitted arguments and supporting documentation contesting his grade on sixteen answers. A three member appeal panel was appointed from the Staff. After consideration of Mr. E111ngwood's submittals, the appeal panel determined that some examination questions should be deleted for vagueness, some of the grading of Mr. E11ingwood's answers should be changed, and some of the grades challenged should be retained. The appeal panel concluded that Mr.

Ellingwood's overall grade should be raised to 78.6%. After being informed of l

this decision, on March 16, 1989 Mr. Ellingwood filed a timely request for hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.103(b)(2) and an Administrative Judge was appointed to preside over the proceeding. An additional Administrative Judge was appointed to assist the presiding officer. Mr. Ellingwood's undated submittal specifying his claims was received by Staff on May 30, 1989.

III. Discussion Mr. Ellingwood's Specification essentially repeats arguments previously submitteG and rejected by the Staff during the informal review. In fact, a comparison of the two submittals will show that no new arguments are presented and, with the exception of two answers for which a different number of documents is provided, the arguments and supporting documents are identical.

~

1/ By letter dated May 10, 1989, Staff Counsel filed a copy of Mr.

Ellingwood's written examination and answers with the Administrative Judges. The grade sheet on the examination indicates both the original grades and the appeal panel grades written above the original.

2/ Operator Licensing Examiner Standard ES-403E, NUREG-1021, Rev. 4.

, However, Mr. E111ngwood now only contests six of the sixteen grades previously reviewed by the appeal panel. Mr. Ellingwood asks that three questions rhich were deleted for vagueness by the appeal panel, be reinstated and that his answers to those questions be deemed correct on the same basis as previously provided to the appeal panel. (Questions 5.10,7.07,and8.18). For two questions Mr. Ellingwood resubmits the identical argument and basis previously rejected by the Staff during the informal process and asks the Presiding Officer for full credit for those answers. (Questions 8.02 and 8.20). For one I answer given partial credit by the appeal panel, Mr. Ellingwood asks for full credit on the same basis as argued to the appeal panel. (Question 6.09). Mr.

Ellingwood states that he does not wish to make an oral presentation.

As set out in the attached affidavit of the appeal panel, (Messrs. Cooley, Burdick, and Kennedy) Mr. Ellingwood has submitted no new information in the Specification and the conclusions of the appeal panel remain the same. The affidavit contains an explanation for each determination of the appeal panel challenged by Mr. Ellingwood and concludes that no change from the prior conclusion is justified. The individual questions are discussed below.

Question 5.10 (a): Mr. Ellingwood's answer was marked wrong and 0.5 point was deducted by the examiner. The appeal panel deleted the question for <

vagueness and deducted 0.5 point from the examination points. The Specification states that the appeal panel should not have deleted the question since Mr. Ellingwood had to devote time to answer the question, diverting time from other questions. Specification, p.1. Mr. Ellingwood states he should receive full credit for the answer marked incorrect because he wrote the I formula he used for his answer on the exam. Id. Mr. Ellingwood states that the l

s j . -4 formula he used to answer part a) of this question makes the answer true, as he answered, rather than false, as stated in the answer key. Specification, p. 4 However, the Staff points out that there was no supporting documentation with this question to demonstrate the underlying assumptions necessary to the question, so tha't the question could reasonably be interpreted with contrary assumptions. Affidavit, t 12. For this reason, the Staff believed it more fair to eliminate the question and to give credit to Mr. Ellingwood for the deletion of a wrong answer from his score. Id. Furthermore, the use of the formula indicated on Mr. Ellingwood's examination does not demonstrate that his answer was correct since the formula would have been used in any assumption,

p. Consequently, the Specification does not support the answer in 5.10 a),

and reinstatement of the question with the wrong answer would result in a lower score.

Question 6.09 (a): Mr. Ellingwood's grade on this answer was reduced initially by 0.1 point because he used the word " current" rather than

" voltage", and 0.2 point was deducted because he did not discuss the difference in gamma generation in the inner and outer chamhers. The Specification states that although he was given additional credit c/ 0.1 by the appeal panel, no explantion was given as to why full credit was not received and that the answer is fully correct according to the answer key. Specification, pp. 1,4 The Staff explains that although Mr. Ellingwood incorrectly used the word " current" rather than " voltage", the Staff added 0.1 point because of the similarity of the terms. Affidavit,T 18. However, since Mr. Ellingwood did not discuss the operation of the detector in regard to the inner and outer chambers, he did not answer one part of the question as explicitly set out in the answer key. Id.

l

]

Since no additional information or explanation is provided in the Specification, the Staff's conclusion remains the same. Id.

l Question 7.07 Mr. Ellingwood's grade was reduced by 1.0 point for the I wrong answer to this question. The appeal panel deleted the question from Mr. )

i Ellingwood's examination after considering his argument .ind concluding that the question was vague. The Specification states that the question should be reinstated since it required time to answer; that the question was not deleted from another candidate's (Mike Ferguson) examination after appeal panel review; and that full credit should be given since the question required an assumption and the assumption is indicated in the answer. Specification, p. 1. The prior argument and a procedure for loss of CF supply to S/G are attached. ,

Specification, pp. 4, 5. The Staff explains that the question was deleted because the question failed to locate the line break and thus created three correct answers in the four multiple choice answers. Affidavit, t 24 In fairness the question was deleted from Mr. Ellingwood's examination. & The question was not deleted from Mr. Ferguson's examination because he did not contest this question. Id. However, the argument and document supplied by Mr.

Ellingwood do not support Mr. E111ngwood's answer and there is no reason to change the grade. Id.

Question 8.02: On this question Mr. Ellingwood's answer was initially marked incorrect and his grade was reduced by 1.0. The appeal panel rejected Mr. Ellingwood's argument and did not change the original grade. The Specification argues that the situation described in the question would not be routine and that Mr. Ellingwood's interpretation of the attached technical specification requirements for unusual circumstances is correct.

Specification, pp. 1, 4-7. The Staff explains that the question clearly states that the circumstances are normal and even Mr. E111ngwood's answer indicated he understood the situation was routine maintenance. Affidavit, 1 30. Therefore, the Specification presents no new arguments but simply repeats the argument provided previously and the Staff's determination is the same. Id.

Question 8.18: Mr. E111ngwood's grade was reduced 1.0 point for the wrong answer to this question. The appeal panel eliminated this question after considering Mr. E111ngwood's argument and deducted 1.0 point from the examination. .The Specification states the question should not have been deleted; that it was not deleted from Mr. Ferguson's examination after appeal panel review; and that full credit should be given for a right answer for the same reason as provided to the appeal panel. Specification, p. 1. The Staff points out that it is to Mr. Ellingwood's benefit to have the question deleted and that Mr. Ellingwood failed to discuss the failure of the surveillance procedure to meet acceptance criteria in his answer so that the answer is not correct. Affidavit, T 36. Moreover, Mr. Ferguson did not appeal this question in informal review. Id. No new information or argument is provided with the Specification and thus, no basis is given for a change in grade Id.

Question 8.20: Mr. E111ngwood's grade was reduced 0.5 point for failure to indicate implementation of a technical specification in his answer. The appeal panel did not change the original grade after considering Mr. Ellingwood's argument. The Specification states that Mr. Ellingwood's answer indicated that the FPC0 (Fire Panel Console Operator) was notified of the plant condition and that it is the FPC0's responsibility to implement the technical specification.

Specification, p. 1. The Staff points out that the question indicated that the

_____-____a

candidate is the Shift Supervisor and it is the Shift Supervisor's responsibility to implement the technical specifications. Affidavit, t 42. No new information is provided in the Specification and there is no basis for a change of the grade. Id.

IV. Conclusion In sungnary, since Mr. Ellingwood has provided no information to support a change in the appeal panel's decision concerning Mr. Ellingwood's examination, the failing grade should be sustained. In addition, it is the Staff's opinion that Mr. Ellingwood's argument and the Staff response are clearly set out in the documents so that no oral presentation is necessary.

For the reasons stated above and in the attached affidavit, the Administrative Judge should sustain the determination of the appeal panel that Mr. Ellingwood's score on the written examination is less than the required 80%

and thus a failing grade.

Respectfully submitted, Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of June, 1989.