IR 05000219/2006301

IR 05000219/2006-301; October 2-9, 2006; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Initial Operator Licensing Examination

ML063170324
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	11/13/2006
From:	Marvin Sykes Operations Branch I
To:	Crane C AmerGen Energy Co
References
50-219/06-301
Download: ML063170324 (10)

Text

ber 13, 2006

SUBJECT:

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION REACTOR OPERATOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATION REPORT NO.

05000219/2006-301

Dear Mr. Crane:

This report transmits the results of the Reactor Operator (RO) and Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) licensing examination conducted by the NRC during the period of October 2 to October 9, 2006. This examination addressed areas important to public health and safety and was developed and administered using the guidelines of the Examination Standards for Power Reactors (NUREG-1021, Revision 9).

Based on the results of the examination, four of five Senior Reactor Operator and two of two Reactor Operator applicants passed all portions of the examination. One Senior Reactor Operator applicant failed the simulator portion of the examination. The seven applicants included two ROs, three instant SROs and two upgrade SROs. The NRC exam team discussed performance insights observed during the examination with training department personnel on October 6, 2006 after completion of the operating examinations. On October 30, 2006, final examination results, including individual license numbers, were given during a telephone call between Mr. Joseph DAntonio and Mr. Greg Young of your training department.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS). These records include the final examination and are available in ADAMS (Master File - Accession Number ML05220410; RO and SRO Written - Accession Number ML063070432; RO and SRO Operating Section A - Accession Number ML063070441; RO and SRO Operating Section B - Accession Number ML063070449; and RO and SRO Operating Section C - Accession Number ML063070472). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Mr. Christopher Should you have any questions regarding this examination, please contact me at (610) 337-5046, or by E-mail at MDS1@NRC.GOV.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Marvin D. Sykes, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No: 05000219 License No: DPR-16 Enclosure: Initial Examination Report No. 05000219/2006-301 cc w/encl:

Chief Operating Officer, AmerGen Site Vice President, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, AmerGen Plant Manager, Oyster Creek Generating Station, AmerGen Regulatory Assurance Manager, Oyster Creek, AmerGen Senior Vice President - Nuclear Services, AmerGen Vice President - Mid-Atlantic Operations, AmerGen Vice President - Operations Support, AmerGen Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, AmerGen Director Licensing, AmerGen Manager Licensing - Oyster Creek, AmerGen Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, AmerGen T. ONeill, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company J. Fewell, Assistant General Counsel, Exelon Nuclear Correspondence Control Desk, AmerGen J. Matthews, Esquire, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Mayor of Lacey Township K. Tosch, Chief, Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection R. Shadis, New England Coalition Staff N. Cohen, Coordinator - Unplug Salem Campaign W. Costanzo, Technical Advisor - Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch E. Gbur, Chairwoman - Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch E. Zobian, Coordinator - Jersey Shore Anti Nuclear Alliance P. Baldauf, Assistant Director, Radiation Protection and Release Prevention, State of NJ Director of Training - Oyster Creek, AmerGen

Mr. Christopher

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000219/2006-301; October 2-9, 2006; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Initial

Operator Licensing Examination. Six of seven applicants passed the examination (two of two reactor operators, three of three senior reactor operator (SRO) instants , and one of two SRO upgrades).

The written examinations were administered by the facility and the operating tests were administered by three NRC region-based examiners. There were no inspection findings of significance associated with the examinations.

ii

REPORT DETAILS

REACTOR SAFETY

Mitigating Systems - Reactor Operator (RO) and Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) Initial License Examination

a. Scope

of Review The NRC examination team reviewed the written and operating initial examination developed by Oyster Creek Training and Operations personnel and verified or ensured, as applicable, the following:

• The examination was prepared and developed in accordance with the guidelines of Revision 9 of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors. A review was conducted both in the Region I office and at the Oyster Creek plant and training facility. Final resolution of comments and incorporation of test revisions were conducted during and following the onsite preparation week.

• Simulation facility operation was proper.

• A test item analysis was completed on the written examination for feedback into the systems approach to training program.

• Examination security requirements were met.

The NRC examiners administered the operating portion of the examination to all applicants from October 2 to October 6, 2006. The written examination was administered by the Oyster Creek training staff on October 9, 2006.

b. Findings

Grading and Results Six of seven applicants (four of five SROs and two of two ROs) passed all portions of the initial licensing examination.

The licensee provided three post exam comments on the written examination. NRC resolution of these comments is attached.

Examination Administration and Performance No findings of significance were identified.

4OA6 Exit Meeting Summary

On October 30, 2006 the NRC provided conclusions and examination results to Oyster Creek management representatives via telephone. License numbers for five of six applicants passing all portions of the exam were provided during this time. The license number for the remaining applicant was withheld pending completion of experience requirements. The facility was informed that when the NRC is notified, in writing, that all required experience has been completed by this individual, the license would be issued.

The NRC expressed appreciation for the cooperation and assistance that was provided during the preparation and administration of the examination by the licensees training staff.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

ATTACHMENT 1

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee Personnel

Julius Vaccaro Director of Training

Greg Young Supervisor, Initial Operator Training

NRC

Joseph DAntonio Senior Operations Engineer

NRC Resolution of Facility Comments

The facility requested answer key changes for three questions. The NRC agreed with one of

the requested changes. The facility submittal is attached. The facilitys comments are

summarized below with the NRC resolution.

SRO Question 18

This question asks how Reactor Building Ventilation (RBVS) and the Standby Gas Treatment

System (SGTS) should be operated under specified conditions involving a refueling accident.

Facility Comment:

From the conditions in the question, it can be inferred that RBVS is shutdown and the SGTS

has started and should remain running. Change correct answer to b.

NRC Resolution:

No change to the question. The question stem asks how the RBVS and SGTS should be

operated during this event; the answer to that question is provided by Support Procedure 50

from which the original correct answer was determined.

SRO Question 20

This question requires the applicant to diagnose a leaking safety valve and identify the required

actions.

Facility Comment:

The original correct answer, d, would apply for any leaking safety valve regardless of leakrate.

In addition, the stem conditions state that the leakrate from the open safety is enough for a

slight decrease in generator MW output to be seen. Even a 2 MWe reduction corresponds to a

gpm leakrate, which would require a shutdown per Technical Specifications. Accept answer

c, which calls for an immediate shutdown, as a second correct answer.

NRC Resolution:

Accept two correct answers, c and d. The inspector reviewed the facility Conduct of

Operations procedure, Technical Specifications, and the calculation of the leakrate

corresponding to a 2 Mwe load reduction. These documents support the action of commencing

an immediate shutdown for a leak exceeding Technical Specification limits when no corrective

action is apparent. The question stem does not provide quantitative information concerning the

leakrate. Based on the provided calculation, the examiner agrees that it is a reasonable

conclusion that any leak big enough to see as a drop in generator load probably exceeds the 25

gpm TS unidentified leakrate criteria.

RO Question 31

This question asks about plant response to a spurious high drywell pressure signal.

Facility Comment:

The question was intended to provide indications for a primary containment isolation, however

wording of the stem ...a spurious high drywell pressure signal implies only a single channel

signal, and therefore no primary containment isolation. This changes the correct answer to a.

NRC Resolution:

No change to the question. The question stem states that the spurious signal initiated the

SGT

S. The facility stated verbally that this requires two channels, and this was why the

applicant was expected to deduce a primary containment isolation as well. The facility did not

describe a plausible spurious signal which would start the SGTS without also initiating primary

containment isolation as well.

Attachment