IR 05000317/2010301

Er 05000317-10-301 and 05000318-10-301, on August 02-11, 2010; Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 & 2, Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report

ML102770266
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	10/04/2010
From:	Hansell S Operations Branch I
To:	George Gellrich Calvert Cliffs, Constellation Energy Nuclear Group
Shared Package
ML100560028	List: IR 05000317/2010301 ML102070208 ML102670378 ML102670380 ML102670391 ML102670392 ML102670396 ML102670401 ML102670495 ML102670496 ML102670508 ML102670524 ML111670753
References
50-317/10-301, 50-318/10-301, TAC U01770
Download: ML102770266 (11)

Text

ctober 4, 2010

SUBJECT:

CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000317/2010301 and 05000318/2010301

Dear Mr. Gellrich:

On August 11,2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an examination at Calvert Cliffs. The enclosed report documents the examination findings, which were discussed on September 20, 2010, with Mr. Chris Jones of your staff.

The examination included the evaluation of five applicants for reactor operator licenses, four applicants for instant senior operator licenses, and five applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses. The written and operating examinations were developed using NUREG-1021 ,

"Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9, Supplement 1.

The license examiners determined that 11 of the 14 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses were issued on September 20, 2010.

One applicant for an instant senior reactor operator license failed the operating portion of his exam and was denied a license. One applicant for an upgrade senior operator license failed the written portion of his exam and was denied a license. One applicant for a reactor operator license passed his exam but his license is being held based on his written exam grade.

Licenses for applicants with written exam passing grades of 82 percent or below are normally held for review until those applicants who failed the examination have had an opportunity to appeal their license denials.

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 NRC's 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).

Samuel L. Hansell, Jr., Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure:

NRC Examination Report 05000317/2010301 and 05000318/2010301 Docket Nos. 50-317 50-318 License Nos. DPR-53 DPR-69 cc w/encl: Distribution via ListServ

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000317/2010301 and 05000318/2010301; August 02-11,2010; Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 & 2;

Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report.

NRC examiners evaluated the competency of five applicants for reactor operator (RO) licenses, four applicants for instant senior reactor operator (SROI) licenses, and five applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator (SROU) licenses at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The facility licensee developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9, Supplement 1. NRC examiners administered the operating tests on August 02 - 06, 2010. The written examination was administered by the facility on August 11, 2010. The license examiners determined that four RO license applicants, three SROI license applicants and four SROU license applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued.

One applicant for an instant SRO license failed the operating portion of his exam and was denied a license. One applicant for an SROU license failed the written portion of his exam and was denied a license. One RO license applicant passed his exam but his license is being held based on his written exam grade. Licenses for applicants with written exam passing grades of 82 percent or below are normally held for review until those applicants who failed the examination have had an opportunity to appeal their license denials.

NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings

None.

Licensee-Identified Violations

One violation of very low safety significance, which was identified by the licensee, has been reviewed by the inspectors. This violation and the licensee's corrective action program tracking number are listed in Section 40A7 of this report.

ii

REPORT DETAILS

OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)

40A5 Other Activities (Initial Operator License Examination)

.1 License Applications

a. Scope

The examiners reviewed all 14 license applications submitted by the licensee to ensure the applications reflected that each applicant satisfied relevant license eligibility requirements. The applications were submitted on NRC Form 398, "Personal Qualification Statement," and NRC Form 396, "Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee." The examiners also audited three of the license applications in detail to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject applicant's qualifications. This audit focused on the applicant's experience and on-the-job training, including control manipulations that provided significant reactivity changes.

b. Findings

No findings were identified .

.2 Operator Knowledge and Performance

a. Examination Scope

The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to all 14 applicants on August 02 - 06, 2010. Four RO license applicants participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios and the fifth RO applicant participated in three dynamic simulator scenarios. All five RO applicants also participated in a control room and facilities walkthrough test conSisting of 11 system tasks and an administrative test consisting of four administrative tasks. All four SROI license applicants participated in two dynamic simUlator scenarios. All four SROI license applicants also participated in a control room and facilities walkthrough test conSisting of ten system tasks and an administrative test conSisting of five administrative tasks. Three of the SROU license applicants participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios and the other two SROU applicants each partiCipated in one dynamiC simulator scenario. All five of the SROU license applicants also participated in a control room and facilities walkthrough test conSisting of five system tasks and an administrative test consisting of five administrative tasks.

On August 11, 2010, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all 14 applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on August 30,2010.

b. Findings

Thirteen of the 14 applicants passed all parts of the operating test. One instant SRO applicant failed the walkthrough portion of the operating test. Thirteen of the 14 applicants passed the written exam. One SROU applicant failed the written examination. For the written examinations, the RO applicants' average score was 87.54 percent and ranged from 81.08 to 95.94 percent, the SRO applicants' average score was 86.64 percent and ranged from 77.77 to 92.92 percent. The overall written examination average was 86.87 percent.

Chapter ES-403 and Form ES-403-1 of NUREG 1021 require the licensee to analyze the validity of any written examination questions that were missed by half or more of the applicants. The licensee conducted this performance analysis for nine questions that met these criteria and submitted the analysis to the chief examiner. This analysis concluded that all nine of the questions missed by half or more of the applicants were technically valid as administered. The licensee submitted four post-examination question comments on August 30, 2010. The NRC reviewed the facility's post-exam comment submittal package and accepted facility recommendations on two of the four questions. The key answer was changed on Question 38 from 'A' to 'C'. The NRC did not accept Choice A as a second correct answer for Question 38. Question 74 was deleted from both the RO and SRO written exams. Two other questions with post-exam comments (Questions 89 and 91), both on the SRO exam, were left unchanged on the answer key.

The text of the examination questions, the licensee's examination analysis, and the licensee's post-examination comments with NRC resolutions may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment.

.3 Initial licensing Examination Development

a. Examination Scope

The facility licensee developed the examinations in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1. All licensee facility training and operations staff involved in examination preparation and validation were listed on a security agreement. The facility licensee submitted both the written and operating examination outlines on May 6, 2010.

The chief examiner reviewed the outlines against the requirements of NUREG-1 021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, and provided comments to the licensee. The facility licensee submitted the draft examination package on June 7,2010. The chief examiner reviewed the draft examination package against the requirements of NUREG-1 021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, and provided comments to the licensee on the examination on June 18, 2010. The NRC conducted an onsite validation of the operating examinations and provided further comments during the week of June 28, 2010. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution on July 25, 2010.

b. Findings

The NRC approved the initial examination outline and advised the licensee to proceed with the operating examination development.

The examiners determined that the operating examination initially submitted by the licensee was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.

However, more than 20 percent of the initially submitted written exam test items were unacceptable. The RO written exam was 34.7 percent unacceptable (26 of 75 questions). The SRO-only written exam was 24 percent unacceptable (6 of 25 questions). The overall submittal was outside the acceptable quality range expected by the NRC. Future exam submittals should include any lessons learned from this effort.

.4 Simulation Facility Performance

a. Examination Scope

The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to plant fidelity during the examination validation and administration.

b. Findings

One violation of very low safety significance was identified by the licensee and is discussed in Section 40A7 of this report .

.5 Examination Security

a. Examination Scope

The examiners reviewed examination security for examination development and during both the onsite preparation week and examination administration week for compliance with NUREG-1021 requirements. Plans for simulator security and applicant control were reviewed and discussed with licensee personnel.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

40A6 Meetings, Including Exit The chief examiner presented the examination results to Mr. Chris Jones on September 20, 2010. The licensee acknowledged the results.

The licensee did not identify any information or materials used during the examination as proprietary.

40A7 Licensee-Identified Violations The following violation of very low safety significance (Green) was identified by the licensee and is a violation of NRC requirements which meets the criteria of the NRC Enforcement Policy, for being dispositioned as a Non-Cited Violation.

During development of the Calvert Cliffs 2010 initial license exam, Constellation observed the simulator modeling required almost full closure of high pressure safety injection (HPSI) header isolation valves by operators to establish flow rate below the maximum limit following recirculation actuation. They noted the same valves in the plant control room must be throttled almost fully open by operators under the same conditions. This issue is a violation of 10CFR55.46, "Simulation Facilities," because Constellation did not maintain the simulator such that it would demonstrate the expected plant response to accident conditions as designed. The finding is of very low safety significance (Green) because the discrepancy did not have an adverse impact on operator actions such that safety related equipment was made inoperable during normal operations or in response to an actual plant transient. Constellation entered this issue into their corrective action program as CR 2010-009686.

ATTACHMENTS:

1, Supplemental Information 2, Simulator Fidelity Report ATTACHMENT 1

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee Personnel

C. Jones, General Supervisor, Operations Training

M. Wasem, Supervisor, Initial License Training

D. Lavato, Exam Developer

J. Heiska, Exam Developer

NRC Personnel

S. Kennedy, Senior Resident Inspector

M. Osborn, Resident Inspector

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

None Opened and CloseCl None

Closed

None

Discussed

None