IR 05000259/2015302
| ML16014A118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/13/2016 |
| From: | Gerald Mccoy Division of Reactor Safety II |
| To: | James Shea Tennessee Valley Authority |
| References | |
| IR 2015302 | |
| Download: ML16014A118 (12) | |
Text
UNITED STATES ary 13, 2016
SUBJECT:
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000259/2015302, 05000260/2015302, 05000296/2015302
Dear Mr. Shea:
During the period November 16 - 19, 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
administered operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. At the conclusion of the tests, the examiners discussed preliminary findings related to the operating tests and the written examination submittal with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on November 24, 2015.
All the applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. There were three post-administration comments concerning the operating test. These comments, and the NRC resolution of these comments, are summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.
The initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. All examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and your staff were made according to NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 10.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 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 the NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 997-4551.
Sincerely,
/RA: Eugene F. Guthrie for:/
Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos: 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License Nos: DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68
Enclosures:
1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report
REGION II==
Docket No.: 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 License No.: DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68 Report No.: 05000259/2015302, 05000260/2015302, 05000296/2015302 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), LLC Facility: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 Location: Athens, AL 35611 Dates: Operating Test - November 16-19, 2015 Written Examination - November 24, 2015 Examiners: P. Capehart, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer M. Emrich, Senior Reactor Technology Instructor J. Viera, Operations Engineer Approved by: Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1
SUMMARY
ER 05000259/2015302, 05000260/2015302, 05000296/2015302; operating test November 16 -
19, 2015 & written exam November 24, 2015; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant; Operator License Examinations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners conducted an initial examination in accordance with the guidelines in Revision 10, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors." This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements identified in 10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and §55.45, as applicable.
Members of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The initial operating test, written Reactor Operator (RO) examination, and written Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) examination submittals met the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period November 16 - 19, 2015. Members of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on November 24, 2015. All six RO and two SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. All eight applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered.
There were three post-examination comments related to the operating examination.
No findings were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations
a. Inspection Scope
The NRC evaluated the submitted operating test by combining the scenario events and JPMs in order to determine the percentage of submitted test items that required replacement or significant modification. The NRC also evaluated the submitted written examination questions (RO and SRO questions considered separately) in order to determine the percentage of submitted questions that required replacement or significant modification, or that clearly did not conform with the intent of the approved knowledge and ability (K/A) statement. Any questions that were deleted during the grading process, or for which the answer key had to be changed, were also included in the count of unacceptable questions. The percentage of submitted test items that were unacceptable was compared to the acceptance criteria of NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Standards for Power Reactors.
The NRC reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing and administering the examinations in order to ensure compliance with 10 CFR §55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period November 16 - 19, 2015.
The NRC examiners evaluated six RO and two SRO applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. Members of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on November 24, 2015. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses.
The NRC evaluated the performance or fidelity of the simulation facility during the preparation and conduct of the operating tests.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
The NRC developed the written examination sample plan outline. Members of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant training staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. All examination material was developed in accordance with the guidelines contained in Revision 10 of NUREG-1021. The NRC examination team reviewed the proposed examination. Examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee were made per NUREG-1021 and incorporated into the final version of the examination materials.
The NRC determined, using NUREG-1021, that the licensees initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
No issues related to examination security were identified during preparation and administration of the examination.
All applicants passed both the operating test and written examination and were issued licenses. Six RO applicants and two SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination.
Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility Training Manager for evaluation of weaknesses and determination of appropriate remedial training.
The licensee submitted three post-examination comments concerning the operating test. A copy of the final written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, may be accessed not earlier than November 24, 2017, and a copy of the licensees post-examination comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML15342A368, ML15342A373 and ML15351A118).
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
Exit Meeting Summary
On November 19, 2015 the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with Steve Bono, Site Vice President, and members of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel Steve Bono, Site Vice President Denny Campbell, Superintendent, Nuclear Operations Chris L. Vaughn, Manager Nuclear Operations Training Donald C. Binkley, Supervisor, Nuclear Operations Training Michael Barton, Exam Developer Keith Nichols, Operations Exam Representative Michael Schulte, Nuclear Operations Training Russell Joplin, Corporate Exam Program Manager Eric Bates, Site Licensing Todd Anderson, Quality Assurance NRC personnel Thomas Stephen, Resident Inspector
FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENTS AND NRC RESOLUTIONS
A complete text of the licensees post-examination comments can be found in ADAMS under
Accession Number ML15351A118.
Item #1: Administrative Job Performance Measure (JPM) EP, JPM 679, Upgrade PAR on wind
shift
Post-Examination Comment
The licensee contended that the standard for JPM Step 2, associated with completion of
Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure (EPIP) - 5, Appendix F, General Emergency Follow-
Up Information Form, was incorrect. The licensee contended that the Critical Step standard for
JPM Step 2 should be revised to include applicant identification of Shelter sector A5 only.
They also contended that applicant identification of Shelter sectors B5 and E5 should be
revised to not be included in the JPM Step 2 Critical Step standard.
NRC Resolution
The licensees recommendation was not accepted.
During the JPM, applicants were expected to conclude that completion of EPIP-5, Appendix F,
was required. As part of the given information for this JPM, applicants were supplied with
information that outlined the classification of a General Emergency (GE) and prior state
notification of an initial Protective Action Recommendation (PAR) (which affected sectors B5
and E5) with new meteorological data (which affected sectors A5 and B5). To complete the
JPM, applicants were expected to complete Appendix F in accordance with the JPM Step 2
standard, a Critical Step.
The original version of the task standard for JPM Step 2 required that the applicant identify the
following 5 mile Shelter sectors on Appendix F:
Following administration of this JPM, both SRO applicants identified on their respective
Appendix F forms that the sectors requiring Shelter were A5 and B5 only. The basis for this
determination was the change in meteorological data provided during performance of this JPM
(new wind direction of 280o vs. initial wind direction of 323o).
In Post Operating Exam Comment #1, the licensee recommended adoption of new JPM Step 2
acceptance criteria requiring applicant identification of only Shelter sector A5 as the Critical
Step portion. This recommendation was submitted based on licensee conclusion that EPIP-5
Appendix F does not address the use of previously identified PAR sectors in subsequent
reporting. Additionally, the licensee contended that EPIP-5, Appendix J, Upgrade - Protective
Action Recommendation, was not referenced for use within the body of EPIP-5. Based on the
issues presented by the licensee, CR 1106129 and CR 1112692 were generated.
Based on the guidance provided in NUREG-0654, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power
Plants, the original version of the task standard for JPM Step 2 was confirmed to comply with
the NRCs guidance concerning the reporting of initial PAR sectors in subsequent PAR
notifications. Additionally, EPIP-5 Appendix F, procedurally directs the identification of Affected
Sectors when completing Step 9 as indicated below.
Therefore, the required Shelter PAR sectors acceptable as the standard for JPM Step 2 will
consist of the sectors identified in the original task standard, identification of Shelter sectors
A5, B5, and E5 with identification of all three sectors as the Critical Step portion of the task
standard.
Item #2: Control Room JPM g, JPM 631, Restore Offsite Power to 4 Kilovolt (KV) shutdown
board at PNL 9-23
Comment
The licensee contended that an applicant error performed during JPM Step 10, matching of
Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) A voltage with offsite system voltage, did not result in the
creation of a Critical Task. JPM Step 10 was not designated as a Critical Step in the original
task standard.
NRC Resolution
The licensees recommendation was not accepted.
During the JPM, applicants were expected to match the incoming offsite Alternating Current
(AC) source voltage with the running EDG A AC source voltage prior to paralleling these
sources in accordance with 0-OI-82, Standby Diesel Generator System, Section 8.3, Restoring
Offsite Power to 4-kV Shutdown Board at Panel 9-23, Step [10]. This step corresponds to JPM
Step 10 in the task standard used during JPM performance. Upon arriving at Section 8.3, Step
[10], EDG A was the sole AC source tied to 4-kV Shutdown Board A. During performance of
Section 8.3, Step [10], one SRO applicant lowered EDG A below the minimum output voltage
required to cause receipt of two annunciators after a time delay (~ 3920 Volts lowering after ~
4.3 second delay):
- Panel 0-9-23-7 Window 28, 4160V SD BD A DEGRADED VOLTAGE and
The following is an excerpt of 0-OI-82, Section 8.3, Step [10]:
In the Post Operating Exam Exit Comment, the licensee concluded by simulator testing that
amperage limits to running safety-related AC components supplied by 4-kV Shutdown Board A
would not be reached unless bus voltage had been further lowered to ~ 3350 Volts. The
licensee initiated CR 1112700 to address the need for a JPM 631 degraded voltage
contingency.
The approximate amperage limit voltage of 3350 Volts was far below the value experienced
during the errant performance of Section 8.3, Step [10]. Additionally, prior to receipt of the
degraded voltage annunciators, the SRO applicant had concluded that EDG A output voltage
was adjusted incorrectly and had taken positive action to restore EDG A output voltage to
comply with Section 8.3, Step [10].
While the Post Operating Exam Exit Comment specified that no new critical tasks were created
by the error, usage of the term Critical Task is uniquely specified to describe objective
measures by which to perform applicant competency evaluations on the Simulator portion of the
Operating Test as delineated by NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for
Power Reactors, Appendix D, Simulator Testing Guidelines. This term is not consistent with
applicant JPM performance evaluation and cannot be created during applicant performance of a
JP
- M.
Additionally, since JPM Step 10 contained a procedural step that the examinee must perform
correctly to accomplish the task standard in accordance with NUREG-1021 Appendix C, Job
Performance Measure Guidelines, this step should have been categorized as a JPM Critical
Step on the original task standard.
Therefore, since amperage limits for running safety significant loads were not exceeded and
positive applicant corrective action was in progress during receipt of the degraded voltage
annunciators, the applicant successfully completed JPM Step 10, a re-characterized Critical
Step.
Item #3: In-Plant JPM k, JPM 307, Startup and Synchronize Unit 3 Preferred MMG Set
Comment
The licensee contended that the performance of JPM Step 8 should not have been marked as a
Critical Step. JPM Step 8 was designated as a Critical Step in the original task standard.
NRC Resolution
The licensees recommendation was accepted.
During the JPM, applicants were expected to verify proper operation of the recently onlined Unit
Motor-Motor Generator (MMG) in accordance with 0-OI-57C, 208V/120V AC Electrical
System, Section 5.5, Unit Preferred MMG Set Startup and Synchronization, Step [22]. This was
accomplished by performing a check of amperage values obtained at the local control panel.
The following is an excerpt of 0-OI-57C, Section 5.5, Step [22]:
Following administration of this JPM, one SRO applicant did not perform JPM Step 8 in
accordance with 0-OI-57C, Section 5.5, Step [22]. However, the applicant was able to
successfully accomplish the JPM directed task.
In the Post Operating Exam Clarification, the licensee concluded that accomplishment of JPM
Step 8 was not required to successfully perform the task due to being comprised solely of a
local ammeter check to verify proper operation of the running MMG Set. The licensee has
initiated CR 1112686 to address the post exam identification of JPM 307 Critical Step
misclassification.
The Critical Step classification conclusion reached by the licensee is consistent with NUREG-
21, Appendix C, Section B.3, which states, in part:
Since the accomplishment of JPM Step 8 was not required to successfully complete the JPM
directed task and since it consisted solely of a local ammeter check to verify proper MMG Set
operation, JPM Step 8 was not a Critical Step.
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT
Facility Licensee: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Facility Docket No.: 50-259, 260, and 296
Operating Test Administered: November 16 - 19, 2015
This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit
or inspection findings and, without further verification and review in accordance with Inspection
Procedure 71111.11 are not indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.46. No licensee
action is required in response to these observations.
No simulator fidelity or configuration issues were identified.
3