ML20148G707

Memorandum & Order (Questions Relevant to Remand).* Rl Tetrick May Respond to Questions W/Filing Served Pursuant to Procedural Regulations W/Notarized Statement to Be Received by 970617.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 970527

ML20148G707
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point, 05520726
Issue date:	05/27/1997
From:	Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
CON-#297-18334 96-721-01-SP, 96-721-1-SP, CLI-97-05, CLI-97-5, SP, NUDOCS 9706060086
Download: ML20148G707 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ ... _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . .

? Jr3M -

.f e DOCKETED j USHRC i May 27, 1997 l 97 MAY 27 P 3 ;32 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFICE OF Sf.CRETARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKEi'u 1 7~N .

3 . ,KM j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL s

Before Administrative. Judges: i Peter B. Bloch, Presiding' Officer  ;

Peter Lam, Special Assistant  !

SEavED MAY 2 7 1997 t

In the matter of Docket No. 55-20726-SP RALPH L. TETRICK Re: Operator License  !

i (Denial of Application for Reactor-Operator Licenseh ASLBP No. 96-721-01-SP i

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Questions Relevant to Remand) ,

On May 20, 1997, the Commission issued CLI-97-5, 44 NRC- -

-(1997). In that decision, the Commission charged me with determining the correctness of Mr. Tetrick's answer to Question  !

i 63 on his examination, in light of a letter of May 1, 1997 from j i

R.J. Hovey, Vice President of the Turkey Point Plant.1 This letter was submitted by the NRC Staff to the Commission as an attachment to a Staff brief filed on May 2, 1997.

l l

" 1~In this remand case, filings before the Commission are i considered to be a part of the record.  !

9706060086 970527 W

j. PDR ADOCK 05000250 l O PDR .

DSow

O

(

To help me to resolve the remanded question, I seek answere, in affidavit form, to all of the following questions:

1. Question 63 asks, in part, "Which ONE of the following is the required IMMEDIATE ACTION in response to these [ plant and alarm)_ conditions [ defined above] ?" [ Emphasis in the original question.] It would appear that Mr. Tetrick's discussion of his answer is addressed not to the proper "IMMEDIATE ACTION" -- a term defined in the plant procedures -- but to an action he says he would take before taking the IMMEDIATE ACTION set forth in 3-ONOP-033.1. As I understand it, Mr. Tetrick's answer is that he would respond in a way that is not defined in the procedures as an IMMEDIATE ACTION and is not, in my opinion, responsive to a question that asks for an IMMEDIATE ACTION. Is there any -

provision of the. procedures or any aspect of the examination question that casts doubt on this train of reasoning?

2. Mr. Tetrick has stated that he would spend 10 to 20 seconds "to verify the alarm." Is there any provision of plant procedures that would permit that action once the conditions for entering 3-ONOP-033.1 are met? What precisely would he do during these 20 seconds? What evidence might he find that would persuade him not to take the re quired IMMEDIATE ACTION af ter he

took steps to verify the alarm? If he thought the IMMEDIATE ACTION was not needed, what supervisory approvals, if any, would i

he seek, and what records would he create?

3. Are there changes needed in order to clarify existing plant procedures with respect to IMMEDIATE ACTIONS? What i 1

principles govern whether or not an operator should immediately .

1 effectuate "IMMEDIATE ACTIONS"?

This Memorandum and Order shall be served by express mail.

Mr. Tetrick may respond to each of these questions with a filing

. 1 served pursuant to the procedural regulations, including a j notarized statement, that is received by all necessary l

recipients on or before 4 :30 p.m. on Monday, June 9, 1997. The l Staff may respond with a filing, including a notarized l

a etatement, received by all necessary recipients on or before l 1 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 17, 1997.

I In' addition to responding to all of my questions, filings may include further explanatory material.

It is so ORDERED.

1 Peter B. 'Bloch, Presiding Officer  ;

Administrative Judge Rockville, Maryland i

).* .

t-

o t

! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

j 'In the Matter of RALPH L. TETRICK Docket No.(s) 55-20726-SP (Denial of Senior Reactor Operator's  ;

. License) '

5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i-f '

I I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB M&O--QUESTIONS RELEVANT...

have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except i- as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

l, Administrative Judge j- Office of Commission Appellate Peter B. Bloch, Presid'g Ofer i Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 j Washington,.DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

Peter S. Lam Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Special Assistant Office of the General' Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop 15 B18 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-Washington, DC 20555 .

Ralph L.' Tetrick 18990 SW 270 Street Homestead, FL' 33031 Dated ht Rockville, Md. this 27 day of May 1997 Office of the Secretary of the Commission

.