ML20204C483
| ML20204C483 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05532443 |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1999 |
| From: | Moore T Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#199-20115 99-755-01-SP, 99-755-1-SP, SP, NUDOCS 9903230111 | |
| Download: ML20204C483 (13) | |
Text
ao ;2 0//JT e
.e
,3- 1 4 d
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'99 M.m 19 P 3 :21 ;
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l Before Administrative Judges .,.
ACJ Thomas S. Moore, Presiding Officer ;
Dr. Charles N. Kelber, Special Assistant l Docket No. 55-32443-SP In the Matter of I i
MICHEL A. PHILIPPON ASLBP No. 99-755-01-SP (Denial of Senior Operator l License Applicati.on) March 19, 1999 i i
l
$ $,D !! C B H R 1 ^ 'te:
ORDER Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.1233(a), the Presiding Officer directs that the parties to this proceeding answer the questions set forth in the Appendix to this order. For each numbered question and/or alphanumeric subpart, the party or parties designated shall fully and completely answer the question in writing, under oath or affirmation, with appropriate supporting documentary data, informational material, or other written evidence. Tne questions should be answered sequentially and all i
answers should be numbered so as to conform to the numbering scheme of the questions. Each party also may answer the questions directed to the other party but is under no obligation :
l to do so. In answering the questions, all citations to material 1 9903230111 990319 n/ !
\
l
in the Correspondence and Hearing File and exhibits to affidavits shall be cited to a page and paragraph and/or line of the referenced document.
The answers of the NRC Staff and Michel A. Philippon shall l be filed on or'before April 2, 1999. Each party may then file a I
written response, under oath or affirmation, to the answers of-the other party. Such responses shall be filed on or before April 9, 1999. Each party's submissions shall be served on the Presiding Officer, the Special-Assistant, and the opposing party by facsimile transmission, e-mail, or other means that will ensure receipt by close of business on the day of filing. Any motion for an extension of time shall be filed with the Presiding Officer so'that it is in his hands'at least three business days l before the due date of the submission for which the extension is sought.
It is so ORDERED.
Presiding Officer
- ("
J / ; M Th'omas S. Moore' ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland March 19, 1999 i
4
-A.'
APPENDIX NRC Staff:
- 1. Did Hironori Peic son (the NRC senior operator licensing examiner who administered che operating test to Mr. Philippon) or any other NRC examiner, or any other person involved with administerina or takina the test, make any contemporaneous notes or other writings regarding Scenario 2, Events 3, 7, 8 and 9, and Scenario 3, Events 5 and 6, of the_ operating test given to Mr. Philippon and the two other reactor operator license applicants on April 15-16, 1998? Ege, g2g2, Hearing File Item 59, NUREG-1021 at.3. (a) If so, please identify the author, provide any appropriate explanation of the materials, and submit a copy of the original notes or writings. If such materials are handwritten, please submit a typewritten transcription of the
- originals in the same line-by-line format as the originals. (b) If such notes or other writings were created but the NRC Staff no longer
- has them in its possession, please explain what happened to these materials. (c) Does NUREG-1029 provide that the NRC Staff should retain any notes or other writings made during the operating test?
9-
- 2. Did Mr. Peterson write Correspondence File Item 10, the May 18, 1998, Operator License Examination Report?
- 3. Excluding only the Operator License Examination Report already in the Correspondence File but including any other such reports, did Mr. Peterson or any other NRC license examiner, or other persons involved with the initial administration of the operating test, make any subsequent, non-contemporaneous notes, other writings, or reports about Scenario 2, Events 3, 7, 8 and 9, and Scenario 3, Events 5 and 6, of the operating test given to Mr. Philippon and the' two other reactor operator license applicants on April 15-16, 1998?
-(a) If so, please identify the author, provide any appropriate explanation of the' materials, and submit a copy of the original notes,
' writings or reports. If such materials are handwritten, please submit a typewritten transcription of the originals in the same line-by-line format as the originals. (b) If such notes or other writings were created but the Staff no longer has them in its possession, please i explain what happened to.these materials.
- 4. Was a video or audio recording made of the participants' communications regarding Competencies C.4 and C.8 of the operating ,
If so, please submit it and a l test given to Mr. Philippon?
. typewritten transcription of the audio portion of the participants' communications regarding these competencies.
- 5. During the portion of the operating test on Competencies C.4 and C.8, were~all members of the operating shift crew able to hear all ,
communications between the Nuclear Assistant Shift Supervisor (NASS) and the other crew members? (a) Were all members of the operating crew able to hear all the communications between the NASS and Mr.
Peterson? (b) Please provide a rough aketch of the physical layout of
l 2
the simulator facility and please describe the location of all participants (including Mr. Peterson and any other persons involved in administering the operator test) during Competencies C.4 and C 8.
- 6. Exhibit 6 to Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit is a four-page handwritten document entitled " Scenario No. 2 Crew Communications Log." What member or members of the " crew" (or other individuals) kept the log and explain what function those individuals performed during the operating test. If Exhibit 6 is not the entire Scenario 2 log, please submit the entire log. In either case, please submit a typewritten transcription of the original in the same line-by-line format as the original. (a) What is the function of the log and what standards govern the way in which it is kept? (For example, is the log intended to record all operating communications between crew members or only record those communications arising to some predefined level of importance?) (b) Was the log kept properly for Scenario 2? (c) Was a communications log kept for Scenario 3? If so, please submit it along with a typewritten transcription of the original in the same line-by-line format as the original. (d) What member or members of the " crew" (or other individuals) kept the Scenario 3 log and explain what function those individuals performed during the operating test. (e) Was the log kept properly for Scenario 3?
- 7. When and how are student texts, such as Exhibits 5 and 7 to Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit, used? (a) Were these j materials available for ready reference during the operating test given to Mr. Philippon? (b) Are operators required to know the content of these texts?
- 8. If there is an acronym definition list for the acronyms used in the procedures for Enrico Fermi Nuclear Station, Unit 2, please submit it. If there is no such definition list, please define the acronyms used in EOP 29.100.01.
Mr. Philiocon:
- 9. Did you make any contemporaneous notes or other writings during the operating test regarding Scenario 2, Events 3, 7, 8 and 9 and Scenario 3, Events 5 and 6? (a) If you took notes or made other writings but you no longer have those materials in your possession, please explain what happened to them. (b) If you have such materials, please submit a copy of the original notes or writings. If such materials are handwritten, please submit a typewritten transcription of the originals in the same line-by-line format as the originals.
F l .
3 The following questions concern Competency C.4.b., Scenario 3, Events 5 and 6.
1 Mr. Philipoon: )
- 10. On page 3, lines 18-21, of your March 4, 1999 reply affidavit you state that "[ alt Fermi 2, with all rods in and water L level below the top of active fuel, the EOP's [ sic] direct the operators to aggressively recover water level to a level above the top of active fuel, not slowly inject. . . . " What EOP directs the operators "to aggressively recover water level" and precisely where in the applicable EOP are such directions found? (a) What is the precise sequence of steps identified in the applicable EOP-(starting with the action of emergency depressuration) to get to the direction "to aggressively recover water level?"
Mr. Philiocon and NRC Staff:
- 11. What does " SLOWLY RAISE INJ" mean as used in Hearing File Item 25, EOP 29.100.01 SH 1A Steps FSL-10, 11, 13, 15, and 18? (For example, does it refer to the rate of injection or the rate at which the water level is increased?)
- 12. Did the failed open SRV remain that way throughout Scenario 2, Events 5 and 6? (a) If so, does the condition at FSL-23 in Hearing
' File Item 25, EOP 29.100.01 SH 1A ever apply? (b) If the condition in FSL-23 does not apply, how is the appropriate procedure determined and what are the steps of that procedure?
The following questions concern Competency C.4.c, Scenario 2, Events 8 and 9.
NRC Staff:
- 13. On page 29, lines S-8, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit states that "(a]pproximately 4 minutes before the loss of offsite power occurred, the P603 operator along with the BOP operator attempted to isolate the source of the Torus leak. The source was determined to be from the RHR system out was potentially determined to l be an unisolable leak." What is the basis for this statement? (a) If there are notes, logs, or other writings substantiating or contradicting this statement, please identify them. (b) If there are no such materials, does the BOP operator agree with the quoted statement? (c) If not, what does the BOP operator assert? (d) Does )
the P603' operator agree with the quoted statement? (e) If not, what !
does the P603 operator assert? (f) What does the phrase "potentially l
' determined to be an unisolable leak" mean? (g) How was the location of the leak determined? ;
)
i I
4
- 14. On page 4, lines 14-16, Mr. Philippon's March 4, 1999 reply affidavit challenges Mr. Peterson's assertion and states that "neither the RHR nor the Core Spray suction valve had been closed in an attempt to isolate the leak, therefore the location of the leak could not have been determined." Is Mr. Philippon correct that neither the RHR valve nor the core Spray suction valve had been closed? (a) Does Mr.
Philippon's conclusion follow from his factual premise? (b) What steps should be used to locate a Torus leak? (c) What steps were in fact taken to locate the Torus leak and by whom?
- 15. At several places on page 29, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit uses the terms " isolate ... the Torus leak" and
" mitigate the Torus leak." Are the meanings of those terms intended to be synonymous or are they intended to describe two different and distinct actions? (a) If the latter, please describe what actions were performed by the P603 operator and what actions by the BOP operator. (b) If the former, how is the statement on page 29, lines 16-18, of Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit that "the P603 operator performed actions for the reactor scram and subsequently continued to perform the steps to mitigate the Torus leak" consistent with the statement quoted in question 13?
- 16. On page 29, lines 18-20, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit states that "Mr. Philippon's statement that he redirected the control room operator (the BOP operator) to attempt to isolate the Torus leak following the loss of offsite power is incorrect since the action had already been performed." What precise " action" is Mr.
Peterson referring to? (a) If the terms ' isolate the Torus leak" and
" mitigate the Torus leak" are intended to be synonymous, how is Mr.
Peterson's conclusion consistent with his earlier statement that the leak "was potentially determined to be an unisolable leak"? (b) If the terms are intended to be synonymous, how is Mr. Peterson's conclusion consistent with the next statement in his affidavit on pages 29-30 that "the P603 operator had already performed most of the actions to mitigate the Torus leak by the time the BOP operator was ordered to stop performing the loss of offsite power procedure"?
- 17. On page 30, lines 5-7, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999
. affidavit states that "[i}n fact, when Mr. Philippon redirected the BOP-operator, he gave the BOP operator strict directions to monitor and keep him updated on the Torus water level, and not the directions to attempt to isolate the Torus leak." What is the basis for the statement that Mr. Philippon did not issue directions to attempt to isolate the Torus leak? (a) If there are notes, logs, writings, or other material substantiating or contradicting this statement, please identify them. (b) If there are no such materials, does the BOP operator agree with the quoted statement? (c) If not, what does the BOP operator' assert? (d) If there are no such materials, does the P603 operator agree with the quoted statement? (e) If not, what does the P603 operator assert?
l .
5 I
- 18. On page 30, lines 9-12, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 f affidavit states that "Mr. Philippon in anticipation of an RPV l
emergency deprescuration according to EOP 29.100.01 Sheet 2, due to the continued lowering of the Torus water level, decided to perform the EOP 29.100.01 Sheet 1, RPV Pressure P-OR1 Second override statement .... " What is the basis for this statement? (a) What actions, if any, did Mr. Philippon take that led Mr. Peterson to conclude that Mr. Philippon decided to perform the EOP 29.1000.01 Sheet 1, RPV Pressure P-OR1 Second override statement? (b) Did Mr.
Philippon announce his intention to take this action? (c) If there are notes, logs, or other writings substantiating or contradicting this statement, please identify them.
l
- 19. On page 5, lines 5-8, Mr. Philippon's March 4, 1999 reply affidavit states that "I even explained to Mr. Peterson at the conclusion of the scenario that I could not use this override [EOP 29.100.01 Sheet 1, RPV Pressure P-OR1 Second override statement] due to the fact that the loss of power had rendered the bypass valves inoperable. I explained to him that I recognized that I was going to have to ED due to the lowering Torus water level, and my intention was to ED from a lower initial pressure." At the conclusion of Scenario 2, did Mr. Philippon have a conversation with Mr. Peterson? (a) If so, what was the substance of that conversation? (b) If there are any notes or other writings substantiating or contradicting Mr.
Philippon's statement, please identify them. (c) Identify any individuals who witnessed Mr. Philippon and Mr. Peterson conversing and state what each such individual asserts regarding the substance of that conversation.
- 20. Recognizing that the procedure is silent on the timing between steps, after completing AOP 20.300.03 step 3 (Hearing File Item 21), does the procedure require immediate execution of the next steps regardless of the state of readiness of the CTG 11-1? Please explain your answer.
- 21. On page 16, the Operator License Examination Report (Correspondence File Item 8) states that "[t]he SRO directed the BOP to perform AOP 20.300.03. Although the BOP started to perform the procedure, the BOP only performed a small portion of the procedure before giving up and informing the SRO that the procedure was too long and detailed (cumbersome) to be completed in a timely manner. The BOP appeared only to complete the procedure up to step 3." What did the author of the Examination Report understand was meant by the phrase "in a ilmely manner?" (a) If the phrase was intended to mean that the AOP 20.300.03 procedure could not be completed before the need for emergency depressurization, what is the rationale for nevertheless proceeding instead of completing the action after emergency depressuration?
- 22. On page 16, the Operator License Examination Report (Correspondence File Item 8) states that "[r]ather than directing the l
BOP to expedite and perform the loss of off-site power procedure, the
6 SRO told the BOP to forget the procedure .... " What did the author of the Examination Report understand was meant by the phrase ' forget the procedure"? (a) By that phrase, did the author of the Examination Report understand that the procedure was to be forever abandoned or did he understand the phrase to mean that the procedure was to be put aside temporarily and then returned to later?
- 23. In resolving contention 7 involving Competency C.4.c of Mr.
Philippon's informal appeal, the Appeal Panel on page 10, lines 27-28, of its decision (Correspondence file Item 4) states that Mr. Philippon
- disputes abandoning the loss of offsite power procedure, but included ,
it in the list of items that needed to be addressed as soon as )
resources became available." Does any other person administering or j taking the operating test dispute Mr. Philippon's assertion to the Appeal Panel that he placed the loss of offsite power procedure on a list of items to be addressed as soon as resources became available?
(a) If the Staff has a copy of such a list, please identify the author. (b) If such a list was created but the Staff no longer has it in its possession, please explain what happened to it. (c) At what point did Scenario 2, Events 8 and 9 end and how was the operating crew informed that the scenario had concluded? (d) If such a list z with this item on it was created, was there an opportunity for Mr. !
Philippon and/or the BOP operator and/or the P603 operator to return to this item on the list before Scenario 2, Events 8 and 9 ended?
- 24. In resolving contention 7 involving Competency C.4.c. of Mr.
Philippon's informal appeal, the Appeal Panel, on page 11, lines 6-7, of its decision (Correspondence File Item 4) concludes that Mr.
Philippen ' allow (ed) a lapse in implementation of a procedure." What I precisely does the Staff mean by the term " lapse"? If, as the Appeal 1 Panel states, the subsequent actions of AOP 20.300.03 were not immediate and there were no immediate actions to be performed by the operators, how does the postponement of the remaining loss of offsite power procedures constitute a lapse?
- 25. On page 6, lines 7-8, Mr. Philippon's March 4, 1999 reply affidavit states that the 'RCIC might have been useful in stabilizing reactor pressure, but certainly would not have been effective in lowering reactor pressure." What would have been the effect on Torus temperature and Torus pressure of using the RCIC?
- 26. On page 33, lines 15-16, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit states that 'Mr. Philippon directed action which were contrary to the EOPs." Which EOPs and which precise steps of those EOPs is Mr. Peterson referring to?
- 27. Competency C.4.c and Competency C.7.b both involve Scenario 2, Events 8 and 9. (a) Please contrast the Appeal Panel's " Analyses and Conclusion" for Competency C.7.b, pages 12-13 (Correspondence File Item 4) with the analysis in paragraphs 45-46 on pages 29-32 and the conclusion in paragraph 48 on page 33 of Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit for Competency C.4.c. (b) Please explain how, on the
I 7
l one hand, the Staff can award the highest rating of 3 to Mr. {
Philippon's actions in Scenario 2, Events 8 and 9, for Competency C.7.b (Directing Operations, Safe Directions), including action taken I in accordance with EOP 20.100.01 Sheet 1, Step P-3 Table 4 and, on the I other hand, describe Mr. Philippon's actions as " contrary to the EOPs" and "not in compliance with procedures" on page'13, line 15-16, of Mr.
Peterson's affidavit for Competency C.4.c involving the same scenario and events?
- 28. Please explain how EOP 29.100.01 Sheet 1 Step P-4 should have been executed?
- 29. On page 34, lines 1-4, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit states that *(t]he other crew that performed the same scenario did not perform the unnecessary and significant rapid RPV I depressurization prior to reaching the condition that required i emergency depressurization." What were the quantitative differences i in stresses on the primary system between the two crews' approaches to RPV depressurization (i.e., compare APs and ATs)?
- 30. If Mr. Philippon had successfully isolated and arrested the RHR leak, could emergency depressurization have been avoided and if so, what guidance exists for assigning priorities to crew actions?
- 31. On page 34, lines 12-13, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit states that "[t]he anchor description for the rating of '2' states, ' Crew occasionally had to question SRO regarding status; allowed lapses in implementation by crew.'" Can the rating of 2 properly be sustained if only one of the two anchor elements is met?
If not, what is the appropriate higher rating when only one of the two anchor elements is met?
Mr. Philinnon:
- 32. On page 4, lines 15 and 17, of your March 4, 1999 reply affidavit, you use the terms
- isolate the leak" and " leak mitigation."
Similarly, on page 10, line 17 and page 11, lines 6 and 15, of your December 30, 1998 affidavit you use similar terms. Are the meaning of those terms intended to be synonymous or are they intended to describe two different and distinct actions?
- 33. On page 5, line 19, of your March 4, 1999 reply affidavit, you state that Mr. Peterson "is in error" in stating that your directions to open 2 SRVs caused RPV level and pressure transients in an otherwise stable reactor. Please explain how Mr. Peterson erred in so concluding.
- 34. When you entered AOP 20.300.03, what considerations led you to exercise your discretion in such a way as not to perform the steps of the procedure simultaneously as allowed by that procedure?
l i
I L
f; l
8
- 35. In resolving contention 7 involving Competency C.4.c of your informal appeal, the Appeal Panel on page 10, lines 27-28, of its decision (correspondence Item 4) states that you " dispute () abandoning the loss of offsite power procedure, but included it in the list of items that needed to be addressed as soon as resources became available." Did you, in fact, make such a list? (a) If you made such a list but no longer have possession of it, please explain what happened to it and identify any individual who saw you make such a list or make an entry on such list? (b) If you did not make a list, identify any individual who made such a list?
l
- 36. At what point did you return to the list of items referenced I in question 35, including continuing AOP 20.300.03 and, if you did not i return to the items on the list, why not?
- 37. On page 4, lines'16-19 of your March 4, 1999 reply affidavit, you state that "(m]y intention when I redirected the BOP l
operator from the Loss of Offsite Power procedure to the Torus level leak mitigation was to sequentially close RHR and Core Spray suction valves in an attempt to locate / isolate the leak." Did you, in fact,
' direct the BOP to perform those precise actions? (a) Identify any logs or other writings substantiating or contradicting your statement that you redirected the BOP operator to sequentially close the RHR j valves'and core spray suction valves. (b) What actions, if any, did i the BOP operator actually perform after discontinuing the AOP i 20.300.03 procedure? (c) Identify any logs or other writings l indicating what actions the BOP operator performed after discontinuing the AOP 20.300.03 procedure.
- 38. On page 6, lines 7-8, of your_ March 4, 1999 reply affidavit, you state that the "RCIC might have been useful in stabilizing reactor pressure, but certainly would not have been effective in lowering reactor pressure." Please explain why the RCIC would not have been effective in lowering reactor pressure?
i Mr. Philiopon and NRC Staff:
- 39. On page 34, lines 6-9, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit states: "Therefore, the other crew (of license applicants}
was able'to perform more of the loss of offset power procedure, closer to restoring power to the main turbine bypass valves and the SBFW pump, before RPV emergency depressurization was required." What is your best estimate of the percentage of regular licensed crews at Detroit Edison Company's Enrico Fermi Nuclear Station, Unit 2, that would be able to avoid emergency depressurization in the identical l
circumstances of Scenario 2, Events 8 and 9?
t
I 9
~
The followirp questions concern Competency C.8.c, Scenario 2, Event 3.
Staff:
- 40. The handwritten entry on page 1, lines 8-9, of Exhibit 6 (Scenario 2 Crew Communications Log) to Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit for the time of 1702 appears to state "Brief on RCIC -
make reports for reportability." Identify the individual who made the entry and have'that individual explain which reports he was referring to in the entry.
- 41. On page 39, lines 10-11, Mr. Peterson's March 4, 1999 affidavit states that "(i]n fact, Mr. Philippon was informed that TS 3.0.3 applied when he was corrected by the RO, approximately 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> later during another shift brief." What is the bases for this statement? (a) Is this communication noted in the crew communications log for Scenario 2? (b) If'there are notes, other writings, or other material substantiating or contradicting this statement, please identify them. (c) Does the BOP operator substantiate this statement?
(d) If not what does the BOP operator assert? (e) Does the P603 operator suu tantiate this statement? (f) If not, what does the P603 operator assert?
- 42. On page 39 paragraph 56 et sea., Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit' references TS 3.8.3.1. At what time did the plant enter into TS 3.8.3.1? (a) When Mr. Philippon's shift started, how much time was left under TS 3.8.3.1 to reach HOT SHUTDOWN? (b) How far into Mr. Philippon's shift did the spurious initiation of the RCIC occur?
- 43. On page 40, lines 21-22, Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit states "[hlowever, with a plant shutdown already in progress the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> time period to take action to shutdown the plant per TS 3.0.3 was not applicable ...." What is the basis for this statement?
Mr. Philiocon:
- 44. On page 7, lines 19-20, of your March 4, 1999 reply affidavit, you state that you " disagree with Mr. Peterson's statement that a crew member informed me of the T.S. 3.0.3 entry." If there are logs,. notes, or other writings substantiating or contradicting your disagreement with Mr. Peterson's statement. please identify them. (a)
Does the BOP operator substantiate or contradict Mr. Peterson's statement? (b).Does'the P603 operator substantiate or contradict Mr.
Peterson's statement?
- 45. On page 7, lines 12-15, of your March 4, 1999 reply
~a ffidavit, you state that "I do not understand how the reference to the notification of T.S. 3.5.lg got into the communication log, since I specifically told the communicator : hat the notification was not required because RCIC was not an ECCS system." Please explain what I
F 1
\
10 you believe the entry for the time of 1720 means. (a) What does the acronym "GRRR" represent and what is the "GRRR"? (b) Identify the
" communicator" and describe his position and function during the operating test. (c) Does the "communicutor" to whom you gave instructions regarding the entry for the time of 1720 in the Scenario No. 2 Communications Log (Exhibit 6 to Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit) now concede he erred in making the entry? (d) Does the "commun'cator" agree with your statement that you specifically j told him that the notification was not required because the RCIC was j not an ECCS system? (e) Does the BOP operator agree with your statement that you specifically told the " communicator" that the notification was not required because the RCIC was not an ECCS system?
(f) If not, what does the BOP operator assert? (g) Does the P603 operator agree with your statement that you specifically told the
" communicator" that the notification was not required because the RCIC was not an ECCS system? (h) If not, what does the P603 operator assert? (i) If there are notes or other writings substantiating or contradicting the entry for the time of 1720, please identify them.
- 46. On page 39 paragraph 56 et sec., Mr. Peterson's February 11, 1999 affidavit references TS 3.8.3.1. At what time did the plant enter into TS 3.E.3.1? (a) When your shift started, how much time was left under TS 3.8.3.1 to reach HOT SHUTDOWN? (b) How far into your i shift did the spurious initiation of the RCIC occur? !
- 47. On page 16, lines 8-10, of your December 30, 1998 affidavit, 1 you state that "[c]ontrary to the Staff reviewer's statement [in the decision of the Appeal Panel), an operability review was performed, and I determined that the RCIC system was inoperable." When was the operability review performed? (a) Who performed the operability review? (b) If there are logs, notes, or other writings substantiating or contradicting this statement, please identify them.
The following question concerns Competency C.8.a., Scenario 2, l Event 7.
Staff:
- 48. On page 4(, lines 9-12, Mr. Peterson's affidavit states that
"[tlechnical specificatians are entered when the plant does not meet l the specific Limiting Conditions for Operation (LUC). Any allowable l delay time does not preclude entry into the technical specification, but only allows a delay in performing the required LCO actions once the technical specification LCO action statement is entered." What is ,
meant by the phrase "[alny allowable delay time does not preclude l entry into the technical specification"? (a) Does the phrase mean that there is a requirement mandating immediate entry into a technical '
j specification when the plant does not meet an LCO? (b) If so, what is
' the basis for the statement and what regulation, policy, technical specification, procedur, or other direction contains such a i I
requirement?
l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of MICHEL A. PHILIPP0N Docket No.(s) 55-32443-SP (Denial of Senior Reactor Operator's License) :
I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereb; certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSES have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Administrative Judge Office of Comission Appellate Thomas S. Moore Adjudication Presiding Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge ;
Charles N. Kelber Steven R. Hom, Esq. l Special Assistant Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop 15 B18 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Michel A. Philippon 13871 Capernall Rd.
Carleton, MI 48117 Dated at Rockville, Md. this /
19 day of March 1999
[
Office of the scretary of the Comission