IR 05000254/2002301

Er 05000254-02-301(DRS), 05000265-02-301(DRS); Exelon Company; on 12/02-12/12/02; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. Initial License Examination Report

ML030370119
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	02/04/2003
From:	Lanksbury R NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB
To:	Skolds J Exelon Generation Co
References
IR-02-301
Download: ML030370119 (15)

Text

ary 4, 2003

SUBJECT:

QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION NRC INITIAL LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 50-254/02-301(DRS);

50-265/02-301(DRS)

Dear Mr. Skolds:

On December 12, 2002, NRC examiners completed initial operator licensing examinations at your Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. The enclosed report presents the results of the examination.

The NRC examiners administered an initial license examination operating test during the weeks of December 2 and December 9, 2002. A written examination was administered by Quad Cities Station training personnel on December 12, 2002. Four Reactor Operator (RO) and seven Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants were administered license examinations. The results of the examinations were finalized on January 27, 2002. Ten applicants passed all sections of their respective examinations and were issued applicable operator licenses. One RO applicant failed the operating examination and will not be issued a reactor operator license.

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 2.790 of the NRCs "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosures 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). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this examination.

Sincerely,

/RA by H. Peterson Acting For/

Roger D. Lanksbury, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 License Nos. DPR-29; DPR-30

Enclosures:

1. Operator Licensing Examination Report 50-254/02-301(DRS); 50-265/02-301(DRS)

2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolutions 3. Simulation Facility Report 4. Written Examinations and Answer Keys (RO & SRO)

REGION III==

Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 License Nos. DPR-29; DPR-30 Report No: 50-254/02-301(DRS); 50-265/02-301(DRS)

Licensee: Exelon Nuclear Facility: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: 22710 206th Avenue North Cordova, IL 61242 Dates: December 2 through December 6, 2002 December 9 through December 12, 2002 Examiners: H. Peterson, Chief Examiner C. Phillips, Examiner P. T. Young, Examiner C. Zoia, Examiner-in-Training (Observer)

Approved by: Roger D. Lanksbury, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ER 05000254-02-301(DRS), 05000265-02-301(DRS); Exelon Company; on 12/02-12/12/02; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. Initial License Examination Report.

The announced operator licensing initial examination was conducted by regional NRC examiners in accordance with the guidance of NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 8, Supplement 1.

Examination Summary:

• Ten applicants passed all sections of their respective examinations and were issued applicable operator licenses. One Reactor Operator applicant failed the operating examination and was not issued a Reactor Operator license (Section 4OA5.1).

Report Details 4. OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)

4OA5 Other

.1 Initial Licensing Examinations a. Examination Scope The NRC examiners conducted an announced operator licensing initial examination during the weeks of December 2 and December 9, 2002. The facilitys training staff used the guidance established in NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 8, Supplement 1, to prepare the examination outline and to develop the written examination and operating test. The NRC examiners administered the operating test during the weeks of December 2 and December 9, 2002. Quad Cities Station training staff members administered the written examination on December 12, 2002. Four Reactor Operator and seven Senior Reactor Operator applicants were examined.

b. Findings Written Examination The licensee developed the written examination. During their initial review, the examiners determined that the examination, as submitted by the licensee, was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. During examination validation the week of November 12, 2002, examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee were incorporated according to the guidance contained in NUREG-1021.

The licensee had one post examination comment on the written examination. The post examination comment and NRC resolution is documented in enclosure 2.

Operating Test The NRC examiners determined that the operating test, as originally submitted by the licensee, was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.

Examination changes, agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee, were made during the validation week in accordance with NUREG-1021 guidance.

Examination Results Four Reactor Operator applicants and seven Senior Reactor Operator applicants were administered written examinations and operating tests for initial operator licensing. Ten applicants passed all sections of their respective examinations and were issued applicable operator licenses. One Reactor Operator applicant failed the operating examination and was not issued a Reactor Operator license.

.2 Examination Security a. Scope The NRC examiners briefed the facility contact on the NRCs requirements and guidelines related to examination physical security (e.g., access restrictions and simulator considerations) and integrity (e.g., predictability and bias). The examiners also reviewed the facility licensees examination security procedure, the corrective actions related to any past examination security problems at the facility, and the implementation of security and integrity measures (e.g., security agreements, sampling criteria, bank use, and test item repetition) throughout the examination process.

b. Findings The NRC examiners determined that the licensees examination security practices associated with the development and administration of these operator license examinations were satisfactory.

4OA6 Meeting(s)

Exit Meeting The chief examiner presented the examination team's preliminary observations and findings on December 12, 2002, to Mr. Gideon and members of the Operations and Training Department staff. The licensee acknowledged the observations and findings presented. No proprietary information was identified during the examination or the exit meeting.

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee R. Gideon, Acting Plant Manager R. Armitage, Training Manager W. Beck, Regulatory Assurance Manager M. Perito, Operations Manager M. Snow, Nuclear Oversight Manager J. Bartlett, Operations Training Manager J. Ferdinand, Initial License Training Lead D. Snook, Licensed Operator Requalification Training Lead S. Russell, Corporate Examination Coordinator K. Moreland, Initial Examination Author G. Thennes, Initial Examination Co-Author M. Swegle, Unit Supervisor, Facility Representative NRC K. Stoedter, Senior Resident Inspector M. Kurth, Resident Inspector ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED Opened None Closed None Discussed None LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ADAMS Agency-Wide Document Access and Management System DRS Division of Reactor Safety NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission PARS Publicly Available Records RO Reactor Operator SRO Senior Reactor Operator

Enclosure 2 Facility Comments and NRC Resolutions Written Examination Record Number 79 (RO Examination Question Number 79):

Given a set of plant parameters describing the condition of an Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) with certain equipment out-of-service (OOS), the applicant was asked to determine the expected response when an operator takes action to place the Standby Liquid Control (SBLC) initiation switch to the SYS 1 & 2 position.

Facility Comment:

The facility licensee commented that the RO examination question 79 asked for the expected response when taking the initiation switch to the SYS 1 & 2 position with the 2A SBLC pump breaker OOS. The facility indicated that when the applicants training class was originally taught SBLC, the squib valves were powered from their respective SBLC pump breaker.

However, during the recent 2002 refuel outage on Unit 2, a modification was installed to power the squib valve from a separate breaker other than the 2A SBLC pump breaker. Subsequently, the applicants training class was taught all of the modifications that had been installed during the time they were in the training program. Therefore, all the applicants were presented with this updated information about the SBLC squib valve power supply being separate from the 2A SBLC pump breaker.

The facility licensee recommended, based on the new information of updated modification on Unit 2, that the correct answer for RO question 79 be changed to reflect the modification.

Therefore, the original answer choice b should be changed to the correct answer choice d on the master exam (the combined RO and SRO written examination questions as enclosed in this report) and c on the RO only examination (the as administered separate RO examination).

[Note: the different answer choice is due to the licensees examination development computer program that automatically and randomly mixes the four multiple choice selections every time an examination package is printed.]

NRC Resolution:

Based on the review of the licensees revised lesson plan with respect to Quad Cities Modification information, Mods & LL 2002-02, pages 1 & 2, the licensees justification and associated references clearly indicates the change in power supply to the 2A SBLC squib valve.

Engineering design change EC 335593, Reconfigure 2A SBLC Pump Motor Control Circuit, describes the design change to reconfigure the 120 VAC control circuit associated with the 2A SBLC pump motor. The control power for the relay, local start switch contact, and Squib valve circuit was now being fed from a different source other than the pump breaker. Therefore, the correct answer associated with the actions required by procedure QCOP 1100-02, Rev. 8, Injection of Standby Liquid Control, would coincide with the licensees recommended change.

The licensees recommendation was accepted. The answer to RO question 79 was updated to reflect the change. The correct answer is now d on the master exam, as enclosed in this report, and c for the applicants as administered RO only examination.

Enclosure 3 Simulation Facility Report Facility Licensee: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Facility Docket No.: 50-254; 50-265 Operating Tests Administered: Weeks of December 2 and December 9, 2002 The following documents observations made by the NRC examination team during the initial operator license examination. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of non-compliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information which may be used in future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.

During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed:

ITEM DESCRIPTION During normal operations, the narrow range reactor water level 1-263-100A instrument would sporadically oscillate from + 30 to +48 inches. This Narrow Range oscillation caused annunciator 901-6, F-11, to actuate. The new digital Reactor Water feedwater (DFW) screen/system appeared not to indicate this level Level Meter oscillation. Simulator work request # 3759.

(Yarway)

1-263-100A During normal operations, the narrow range reactor water level Narrow Range instrument unexpectedly dropped low causing a half reactor scram Reactor Water signal. Simulator work request # 4298.

Level Meter (Yarway)

During normal and transient operations, the Rod Worth Minimizer kept alarming with a message noting, Block echo signal mismatch. The Rod Worth alarm actuates for no apparent reason. Based on the simulator setup Minimizer and condition, this alarm was not expected to actuate during normal operations. Simulator work request # 3483.

Enclosure 4 WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS AND ANSWER KEYS (RO/SRO)

RO/SRO Initial Examination ADAMS Accession # ML030350594