IR 05000282/2012301
| ML12170A878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/2012 |
| From: | Tamara Bloomer Operations Branch III |
| To: | Molden J Northern States Power Co |
| References | |
| 50-282/12-301, 50-306/12-301 | |
| Download: ML12170A878 (17) | |
Text
UNITED STATES une 15, 2012
SUBJECT:
PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT; NRC INITIAL LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000282/2012301; 05000306/2012301
Dear Mr. Molden:
On May 30, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed the initial operator licensing examination process for license applicants employed at your Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. The enclosed report documents the results of those examinations.
Preliminary observations noted during the examination process were discussed on May 22, 2012, with you and other members of your staff. An exit meeting was conducted by telephone on June 5, 2012, between Mr. T. Ouret, General Superintendent, Operations Training, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, and Mr. D. McNeil, Senior Operations Engineer, to review the proposed final grading of the written examination for the license applicants. During the telephone conversation, NRC resolutions of the station=s post-examination comments, initially received by the NRC on May 30, 2012, were discussed.
The NRC examiners administered an initial license examination operating test during the weeks of May 14 and May 21, 2012. The written examination was administered by NRC examiners and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant training department personnel on May 22, 2012.
Five Senior Reactor Operator and seven Reactor Operator applicants were administered license examinations. The results of the examinations were finalized on June 13, 2012.
One applicant failed the written examination and was issued a proposed license denial letter.
Eleven applicants passed all sections of their respective examinations. Five applicants were issued senior operator licenses and five were issued operator licenses. One applicants operator license is being withheld pending resolution of a medical issue and the results of any possible written examination appeal.
In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2.390, 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 System System (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Tamara E. Bloomer, Acting Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 License Nos. DPR-42; DPR-60
Enclosures:
1. Operator Licensing Examination Report 05000282/2012301(DRS);
w/Attachment: Supplemental Information 2. Simulation Facility Report 3. Written Examination and Answer Key (RO/SRO)
4. Written Examination Post-Examination Comments and Resolutions
REGION III==
Docket Nos. 50-282, 50-306 License Nos. DPR-42, DPR-60 Report No: 05000282/2012301(DRS); 05000306/2012301(DRS)
Licensee: Northern States Power Company, Minnesota Facility: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Location: Welch, MN Dates: May 14, 2012 - May 30, 2012 Inspectors: D. McNeil, Senior Operations Engineer M. Bielby, Senior Operations Engineer D. Reeser, Operations Engineer R. Baker, Operations Engineer D. Oliver, Operations Engineer Approved by: T. Bloomer, Acting Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 1 Enclosure 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000282/2012301(DRS); 05000306/2012301(DRS); 5/14/2012 - 5/30/2012;
Northern States Power Company, Minnesota; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant;
Initial License Examination Report.
The announced initial operator licensing examination was conducted by regional U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission examiners in accordance with the guidance of NUREG-1021,
AOperator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,@ Revision 9, Supplement 1.
Examination Summary:
Eleven of twelve applicants passed all sections of their respective examinations. Five applicants were issued senior operator licenses and five applicants were issued operator licenses. One applicant failed the written examination and was issued a proposed license denial. One other applicants license is being withheld and may be issued pending the outcome of any written examination appeal and a resolution of a medical condition. (Section 4OA5.1).
REPORT DETAILS
4OA5 Other Activities
.1 Initial Licensing Examinations
a. Examination Scope
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners and members of the facility licensees staff used the guidance prescribed in NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 9-Supplement 1, to develop, validate, administer, and grade the written examination and operating test. The NRC examiners prepared the outline and developed the written examination and operating test with the assistance of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) training staff. The NRC examiners validated the proposed examination during the week of April 16, 2012, with the assistance of members of the facility licensees staff. During the on-site validation week, the examiners audited two license applications for accuracy.
The NRC examiners, with the assistance of members of the facility licensees staff, administered the operating test, consisting of job performance measures and dynamic simulator scenarios, during the period of May 14 through May 21, 2012. The facility licensee and the NRC examiners administered the written examination on May 22, 2012.
b. Findings
- (1) Written Examination During the validation of the written examination, several questions were modified or replaced. Changes made to the written examination were documented on Form ES-401-9, AWritten Examination Review Worksheet, which is available electronically in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under ADAMS Accession Number ML12165A137.
On May 30, 2012, post-examination comments for the written examination were hand-delivered to the chief examiner at the Region III office. Three post-examination comments were provided for consideration by the NRC examiners when grading the written examination. The written examination post-examination comments and the NRC resolution for the post-examination comments are available in Enclosure 4 of this report.
The administered written examination and answer key are available electronically in the NRC Public Document Room or in ADAMS under ADAMS Accession Number ML12165A126.
The NRC examiners graded the written examination on June 8, 2012, and conducted a review of each missed question to determine the accuracy and validity of the examination questions.
- (2) Operating Test During validation of the proposed operating test, several Job Performance Measures (JPMs) were modified or replaced, and some modifications were made to the dynamic simulator scenarios. Some JPMs were replaced because the simulator did not support the proposed JPM, or the JPM was too time-consuming to be used. Some changes were made to the proposed simulator scenarios, but most changes were cosmetic in nature, requiring more explanation or correcting typographical errors. Changes made to the operating test, documented in a document titled, AOperating Test Comments,@ as well as the administered dynamic simulator scenarios and JPMs, are available electronically in ADAMS.
The NRC examiners completed operating test grading on June 8, 2012.
- (3) Examination Results Five applicants at the Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) level and seven applicants at the Reactor Operator (RO) level were administered written examinations and operating tests. Ten applicants passed all portions of their examinations and were issued their respective operating licenses. One RO applicant failed the written examination and was issued a proposed license denial. One other RO applicant passed all portions of the license examination, but received a written test grade below 83 percent. In accordance with NRC policy, the applicant=s license will be withheld until any written examination appeal possibilities by other applicants have been resolved. If the applicant=s grade is still equal to or greater than 80 percent after any appeal resolution, the applicant will be issued an operating license. If the applicant=s grade has declined below 80 percent, the applicant will be issued a proposed license denial letter and offered the opportunity to appeal any questions the applicant feels were graded incorrectly. That applicants license is also being withheld pending resolution of a medical issue.
.2 Examination Security
a. Scope
The NRC examiners reviewed and observed the licensee's implementation of examination security requirements during the examination validation and administration to assure compliance with 10 CFR 55.49, AIntegrity of Examinations and Tests.@
The examiners used the guidelines provided in NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,@ to determine acceptability of the licensee=s examination security activities.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were observed.
4OA6 Meetings
.1 Debrief
The chief examiner presented the examination team preliminary observations and findings on May 22, 2012, to Mr. J. Molden, Site Vice President, and other members of the PINGP Operations and Training Department staff. The examiners asked the licensee whether any of the material used to develop or administer the examination should be considered proprietary. No proprietary or sensitive information was identified during the examination or debrief/exit meetings.
.2 Exit Meeting
The chief examiner conducted an exit meeting on June 5, 2012, with T. Ouret, General Superintendent, Operations Training, by telephone. The NRC=s final disposition of the station=s post-examination comments were disclosed and discussed with Mr. Ouret during the telephone discussion.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Enclosure 1
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee
- J. Molden, Site Vice President
- J. Anderson, Regulatory Affairs Manager
- T. Bacon, Assistant Operations Manager
- K. Davison, Director, Station Operations
- M. Fish, Supervisor, Operations Training
- J. Loesch, Supervisor, Continuing Training
- T. Ouret, General Superintendent, Operations Training
- M. Peterson, Fleet Superintendent, NRC Exams
- A. Pullam, Training Manager
- J. Ruttar, Operations Manager
- S. Sharp, Assistant Plant Manager
- J. Sorensen, Vice President Nuclear Operations Support
- J. Sternisha, General Manager - Nuclear Training
NRC
- P. Zurawski, Resident Inspector
- D. McNeil, Senior Operations Engineer
- M. Bielby, Senior Operations Engineer
- D. Reeser, Operations Engineer
- R. Baker, Operations Engineer
- D. Oliver, Operations Engineer
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened, Closed, and Discussed
None
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED
ADAMS Agencywide Document Access and Management System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DRS Division of Reactor Safety
ER Examination Report
ES Examiner Standards
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
PARS Publicly Available Records System
PINGP Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant
RO Reactor Operator
SRO Senior Reactor Operator
Attachment 1
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
Facility Licensee: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant
Facility Docket Nos: 50-282; 50-306
Operating Tests Administered: May 14 - May 21, 2012
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
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 administration of the examination, some crews were not able to
Makeup Totalizers
add borated water to the reactor coolant system. Software engineers
traced the problem to the totalizers in the CVCS.
Enclosure 2
WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND ANSWER KEY (RO/SRO)
The 2012 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Initial License Examination Administered
Written Examination: ADAMS Accession No. ML12165A126.
Enclosure 3
Written Examination Post-Examination Comments and Resolutions
RO QUESTION No. 18
Given the following conditions:
- Both Units were operating at 100% power.
- 2RX transformer was taken out of service due to an oil leak.
- C20.3 AOP4, Electrical Power System Operating Restrictions and Limitations Loss of
2RX Transformer, actions for removing 2RX from service are complete.
- Unit 1 trips.
Which of the following correctly shows the power supplies to the listed buses?
Bus 11 Bus 12 Bus 21 Bus 22
a. 1RX 1RX 2M 2M
b. de-energized de-energized 2M 2M
c. 1RY 1RY 2RY 2RY
d. de-energized de-energized 1RX 1RX
ANSWER
a.
The following student contention and facility contention are copied directly from the
post-examination comment submission.
Applicant Contention:
Both answers a and b of question 18 could be correct, since they are both allowed line ups in
C20.3AOP4 and 2C20.5. Both C20.3AOP4 and 2C20.5 require action be taken in accordance
with Attachment 1 of each procedure to prevent overloading 1R transformer when it is supplying
bus 21 and 22. Attachment 1 of both procedures allows disabling the M to R transfer.
of 2C20.5 (which is directed by C20.3AOP4) gives specific instructions about how
to disable the M to R transfer. Not only is disabling the M to R transfer allowed, but this is how
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) implements the Attachment. On July 1, 2011,
bus 11 was de-energized following a Unit 1 reactor trip since the M to R transfer had been
disabled due to 1R transformer being lined up to supply Unit 2 buses. There is nothing in
PINGP procedures that would allow distinguishing between answer a or b being correct,
since both are allowed line ups.
Facility Contention:
Agree with student comment. Recommend accepting A and B as correct answers. Review of
procedures determined that procedurally there is no preference in the line up of the 1RX
transformer during the performance of this procedure. Stem of the question does not imply a
line up or preference as to buses to remain powered.
Enclosure 4
Written Examination Post-Examination Comments and Resolutions
NRC Resolution:
The Region III examiners do not agree that both answers are correct answers. The Region III
examiners have determined that an assumption must be made to make answer (b.) a correct
answer. The applicant contends in his explanation that both C20.3AOP4 and 2C20.5 require
action be taken in accordance with Attachment 1 of each procedure to prevent overloading 1R
transformer when it is supplying bus 21 and 22. In 2C20.5, Section 4 (Limitations), Step 4.4,
it states: Both the bus ducts that connect the 1RX, 1RY, 2RX and 2RY transformer windings to
the plant electrical system and the associated windings are rated at 3000 amps maximum
current. In the case where any of these sources are out of service, we must cross tie from the
opposite unit via the 4kV bus ties using the 12RXBT and 12RYBT tie breakers. The use of
these cross ties can potentially cause the bus duct to exceed the maximum current rating.
Follow guidance in Attachment 1 to this procedure to minimize any overloading. Completion of
C20.3 AOP4, as stated in this question, stem requires breaker 12RXBT be shut. However, the
question stem states that the steps of C20.3AOP4 were completed, but does not specify that
any portion of Attachment 1 was performed. With the completion of C20.3 AOP4, without
executing any steps of Attachment 1, distractor (a.) is correct as written. In order for distractor
b. to be correct, an applicant would have to not only assume that Attachment 1 was executed,
but must assume specific steps in Attachment 1 to block the M to R automatic transfer for the
Unit 1 buses were completed.
Rule No. 7 for taking the written examination was read to the applicants immediately prior to
beginning the written examination. Rule No. 7 states: If you have any questions concerning
the intent or the initial conditions of a question, do not hesitate to ask them before answering the
question. Note that questions asked during the examination are taken into consideration during
the grading process and when reviewing applicant appeals. Ask questions of the NRC
examiner or the designated facility instructor only. A dictionary is available if you need it.
When answering a question, do not make assumptions regarding conditions that are not
specified in the question unless they occur as a consequence of other conditions that are stated
in the question. For example, you should not assume that any alarm has activated unless the
question so states or the alarm is expected to activate as a result of the conditions that are
stated in the question. Similarly, you should assume that no operator actions have been taken,
unless the stem of the question or the answer choices specifically state otherwise. Finally,
answer all questions based on actual plant operation, procedures, and references. If you
believe that the answer would be different based on simulator operation or training references,
you should answer the question based on the actual plant.
The applicant did not ask any questions concerning the use of Attachment 1 during
administration of the examination. After completion of the steps in C20.3 AOP4, distractor (a.)
is correct without assumption. Absent a statement in the stem of the question or in the
distractors that Attachment 1 was executed and the M to R transfer was blocked, the applicant
must answer the question based on the information provided, which leaves only distractor (a.)
as a correct answer. The applicant referred to an occurrence when Attachment 1 was invoked
by the plant. Again, during that occurrence, Attachment 1 was executed based on a decision by
supervision. Supervision had to decide which steps in the Attachment were to be used, and if
the M to R transfer was to be blocked. The decision to execute steps in Attachment 1 was not a
requirement of the procedure (C20.3 AOP4). In accordance with Rule No. 7, read to the
applicants immediately before administration of the written examination, an applicant must
assume that no operator actions have been taken, unless the stem of the question or the
answer choices specifically state otherwise. Therefore, distractor (b.) cannot be correct as it
Enclosure 4
Written Examination Post-Examination Comments and Resolutions
requires an assumption be made that additional operator actions have been executed beyond
that provided in the stem of the question.
In summary, the NRC believes the original question was a technically accurate question with
only one correct answer. The examination answer key was not altered for this question.
The only correct answer to Question No. 18 is distractor (a.).
Enclosure 4
Written Examination Post-Examination Comments and Resolutions
RO Question No. 54
Given the following conditions:
- There is a leak on Unit 2 Instrument Air to Containment.
- A Instrument Air Header Pressure dropped to 73 psig.
- B Instrument Air Header Pressure dropped to 74 psig.
- Unit 2 Instrument Air pressure continues to lower.
- Unit 1 Instrument Air pressure is rising.
A one-line diagram of the station air system was provided on the examination.
Which of the following could jeopardize the UNIT 1 instrument air supply?
a. Opening MV-32321, 11/21 INSTR AIR HDR ISOL VLV
b. Opening MV-32314, INSTR AIR HDR ISOL VLV
- A.
c. Opening MV-32315, INSTR AIR HDR ISOL VLV
- B.
d. Closing CP-40-7, STATION AIR RECEIVE X-CONN TO INSTRUMENT AIR.
ANSWER
a.
The following student contention and facility contention are directly copied from the
post-examination comment submission.
Applicant Contention:
MV-32314 & MV-32315 close at 80No. in their respective air receivers (121 and 123), 121 an
2 Air compressors are normally running, with 123 in standby. Without knowing receiver
pressures, it is reasonable to assume that 123 receiver lowered below 80No. before 121
receiver, closing MV-32315, isolating the leak and allowing 121 receiver pressure to recover
before dropping below 80No. If this is the case, answer (c.) is also correct.
Facility Contention:
Disagree with student comment. Stem of the question clearly indicates a header pressure on
both Instrument Air headers that would result in their associated isolation valves closing.
NRC Resolution:
The NRC agrees with the facility position that adequate information concerning air header, and,
therefore, receiver pressures was provided in the stem of the question for an applicant to arrive
at the correct answer without making any assumptions. Rule No. 7, read to the applicants
immediately before beginning the written examination states, in part, that, When answering a
question, do not make assumptions regarding conditions that are not specified in the question
unless they occur as a consequence of other conditions that are stated in the question.
Without assumption, the only correct answer is (a.) See the following contention for final
resolution for question No. 54.
Enclosure 4
Written Examination Post-Examination Comments and Resolutions
RO Question No. 54
See previous contention for the text of this question.
The following student contention and facility contention are directly copied from the
post-examination comment submission.
Applicant Contention:
MV-32314 is and has been a valve open breaker motor valve for some time. Therefore, per
the question, by MV-32315 opening would also be a correct answer. Recommend accepting
correct answers.
Facility Contention:
Agree with student comment. Recommend accepting A and C as correct answers. Multiple
unique circumstances led to this recommendation:
1) MV-32314 has been Valve Open Breaker Open since August of 2010 (almost 2 years).
2) During the performance of the exam, the candidate submitting the feedback asked if
their response to a question should be based on theory or how the plant would actually
react. The response given was to refer the candidate to the rules read at the beginning
of the exam. Specifically the following passage:
Finally, answer all questions based on actual plant operation, procedures, and
references. If you believe that the answer would be different based on simulator
operation or training references, you should answer the question based on the actual
plant.
3) Interview with candidate indicates choice of Distractor C was based on these
considerations.
With these extenuating circumstances, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant believes it is
appropriate to accept A and C as correct answers in this instance.
NRC Resolution:
The NRC agrees with the applicant and the facility that distractor (c.) is a second correct
answer. In light of the new information provided by the applicant and the facility, the opening of
MV-32315 would put the Unit 1 air system at risk as it would re-connect Unit 1s air system with
the postulated leak on Unit 2. This information was not provided to the exam author during
formulation of the question and was not detected by the facility validators during their review of
the question.
In summary, the examination answer key was modified as a result of this post examination
comment with accompanying new information. Question No. 54 was assigned two correct
answers (a. and c.) on the answer key.
Enclosure 4
J. Molden -2-
(PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Tamara
- E. Bloomer, Acting Chief
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306
Enclosures:
1. Operator Licensing Examination Report 05000282/2012301(DRS);
w/Attachment: Supplemental Information
2. Simulation Facility Report
3. Written Examination and Answer Key (RO/SRO)
4. Written Examination Post-Examination Comments and Resolutions
cc w/encls: Distribution via ListServ'