IR 05000286/2003301
| ML031340496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/2003 |
| From: | Conte R NRC/RGN-I/DRS/OSB |
| To: | Dacimo F Entergy Operations |
| Shared Package | |
| ML023010488 | List: |
| References | |
| IR-03-301 | |
| Download: ML031340496 (10) | |
Text
SUBJECT:
INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 3 OPERATOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-286/03-301
Dear Mr. Dacimo:
This report transmits the results of the reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO)
licensing examinations the NRC conducted during the period of March 10 through 21, 2003.
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 8, Supplement 1).
The results of the examination are all ten applicants (2 ROs and 8 SROs) passed all portions of the examination. Examination results indicated that generally the applicants were well prepared for the examination. On April 24, the NRC provided final examination results, including individual license numbers, during a telephone call between Mr. R. Conte and Mr. L. Cortopassi and others of your staff. No findings of significance were identified.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 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 (RO/SRO Written-Accession Number ML031210745; RO/SRO Operating Section A-Accession Number ML031210750; RO/SRO Operating Section B-Accession Number ML031210765; and RO/SRO Operating Section C-Accession Number ML031210780). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ADAMS.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Mr. Fred Dacimo 2 Should you have any questions regarding this examination, please contact me at (610) 337-5183, or by E-mail at RJC@NRC.GOV.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Richard J. Conte, Chief Operational Safety Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-286 License No. DPR-64
Enclosure:
Initial Examination Report No. 50-286/03-301
REGION I==
Docket No: 50-286 License No: DPR-64 Report No: 03-301 Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Northeast Facility: Indian Point Station, Unit 3 Dates: March 10 - 13, 2003 (Operating Test Administration)
March 21, 2003 (Written Examination Administration)
March 21 - April 4, 2003 (Examination Grading)
Examiners: T. Fish, Senior Operations Engineer (Chief Examiner)
J. DAntonio, Operations Engineer P. Bonnett, Operations Engineer Approved by: Richard J. Conte, Chief Operational Safety Branch Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS IR 05000286/03-301; March 10 - 21, 2003; Indian Point Station, Unit 3; Initial Operator License Examination. Ten of ten applicants (2 ROs, 4 SRO instants, and 4 SRO upgrades) passed the examination.
The written examinations were administered by the facility and the operating tests were administered by three region-based examiners.
A. Inspector Identified Findings No findings of significance were identified.
B. Licensee Identified Findings No findings of significance were identified.
ii
Report Details 1. REACTOR SAFETY Mitigating Systems - Reactor Operator (RO) and Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) Initial License Examinations a. Scope of Review The licensee examination team developed the written and operating initial examinations and together with NRC personnel, verified or ensured, as applicable, the following:
- The examination was prepared and developed in accordance with the guidelines of Revision 8, Supplement 1 of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors and it met the overall quality goals (range of acceptability) of these standards. The review was conducted both in the Region I office and at the Indian Point Station and training facility. Final resolution of comments and incorporation of test revisions was conducted during and following the onsite preparation week.
- Simulation facility operation was proper.
- Facility licensee completed a test item analysis on the written examination for feedback into the systems approach to training program.
- Examination security requirements were met. However, the licensee reported to the NRC per telephone conversation, before the written examination was approved by the NRC for administration, that it was their intention to replace the first 25 questions on the written exam. The licensee took this action because they had terminated the employment of an individual who had previously reviewed and had knowledge of the first 20-22 questions on the proposed written examination. The facility recommended replacement of the first 25 questions on the written exam as a conservative measure to ensure exam security would not be compromised. The NRC concurred with the facilitys recommendation to replace these questions prior to exam administration.
- NRC examiners administered the operating portion of the examination from March 10 to 13, 2003. Indian Point training staff administered the written examination on March 21, 2003.
b. Findings Grading and Results All applicants (2 ROs and 8 SROs) passed all portions of the initial licensing examination.
Enclosure
The licensee submitted one post-examination comment on the operating exam. The comment addressed a test item in the Administrative Topics portion of the SRO exam and is included as Attachment 2 to this report. NRC staff accepted the comment.
Examination Preparation and Quality The quality of the draft examinations was within acceptable range.
Examination Administration and Performance NRC examiners did not note generic performance errors by the applicants during examination administration.
4. OTHER ACTIVITIES 4OA6 Meetings, including Exit On April 24, 2003, the NRC provided conclusions and examination results to Mr. L.
Cortopassi, IPEC Training Manager, via telephone. License numbers for eight of the ten applicants were also provided during this call. License numbers for the remaining two applicants were withheld pending completion of eligibility requirements. Mr. Cortopassi was informed that when the NRC is notified, in writing, that these two individuals have completed the eligibility requirements, their licenses would be issued.
The NRC also expressed appreciation for the cooperation and assistance the licensees training staff provided during the preparation and administration of the examination.
Enclosure
ATTACHMENT 1 KEY POINTS OF CONTACT L. Cortopassi Manager, Training, Indian Point Station F. Wilson Superintendent, Operations Training W. Altic Supervisor, Licensed Operator Training Unit 2 S. Joubert Supervisor, Licensed Operator Training Unit 3 LIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED None.
ATTACHMENT 2 LICENSEE EXAM COMMENT AND NRC RESOLUTION Administrative JPM, A.4 SRO, Perform Event Classification Comment: This JPM was designed to provide initial conditions such that the applicants would have determined that the RCS Barrier had been lost (LOCA in progress), Fuel Barrier had a potential loss (degraded core cooling FR-C.2 has been entered and exited), and the Containment Barrier had failed (Containment pressure has increased to 2.8 psig and has stabilized) resulting in a General Emergency classification. However, when considering the Containment Barrier integrity based on 25-40 minutes into the accident sequence, with equipment functioning as specified in the JPM conditions, containment pressure will be single digits. Two correct answers are recommended for this JPM either a Site Area Emergency (i.e.,
Loss or potential loss of 2 barriers) or General Area Emergency (i.e., Loss or potential loss of 3 barriers).
NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted. Two correct answers were accepted. In order for the applicants to assess failure or potential failure of the Containment Barrier, they needed information that was not provided in the initial conditions regarding core spray system operation and containment pressures reached during the accident. Depending on the applicants analysis of the initial conditions and assumptions, the applicants may have determined that either the Containment Barrier had failed (i.e., a loss of all 3 barriers) or that the Containment Barrier had never been challenged (i.e., a loss of only 2 barriers) .