IR 05000336/2009301
| ML091390160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/2009 |
| From: | Hansell S Operations Branch I |
| To: | Christian D Dominion Resources |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082600232 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2011-0115 | |
| Download: ML091390160 (17) | |
Text
SUBJECT:
MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT 2 - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT NO.
Dear Mr. Christian:
On February 24, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an examination at Millstone Unit 2. The enclosed report documents the examination findings, which were discussed on April 17, 2009, with Mr. Michael Cote.
The examination included the evaluation of two applicants for reactor operator licenses, two applicants for instant senior operator licenses and six 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 four of the ten applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. Four of the six applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses passed their exams but their licenses are being held until you certify in writing that they have acquired all of the training and experience for which they were previously granted a waiver. The remaining two applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses failed the written portion of their exams and were denied a license.
No findings of significance were identified during this examination. However, the NRC determined that the written portion of the initial examination submittal was outside the acceptable quality range expected by the NRC and future examination submittals should incorporate any lessons learned from this effort.
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 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).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Samuel L. Hansell, Jr., Chief
SUBJECT:
MILLSTONE POWER STATION, UNIT 2 - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT NO.
Dear Mr. Christian:
On February 24, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an examination at Millstone Unit 2. The enclosed report documents the examination findings, which were discussed on April 17, 2009, with Mr. Michael Cote.
The examination included the evaluation of two applicants for reactor operator licenses, two applicants for instant senior operator licenses and six 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 four of the ten applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. Four of the six applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses passed their exams but their licenses are being held until you certify in writing that they have acquired all of the training and experience for which they were previously granted a waiver. The remaining two applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses failed the written portion of their exams and were denied a license.
No findings of significance were identified during this examination. However, the NRC determined that the written portion of the initial examination submittal was outside the acceptable quality range expected by the NRC and future examination submittals should incorporate any lessons learned from this effort.
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 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).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Samuel L. Hansell, Jr., Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUNSI Review Complete: JGC (Reviewers Initials)
ADAMS PKG: ML082600232 ADAMS ACC#ML091390160 DOCUMENT NAME: T:\DRS\Operations Branch\CARUSO\Exam 09-MS2 Feb 09 (U01634)\EXAM REPORT.doc After declaring this document An Official Agency Record it will be released to the Public.
OFFICE RI/DRS RI/DRS RI/DRS NAME CBixler/DS/CB JCaruso/JC SHansell/SLH DATE 05/15/09 05/15/09 05/18/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Mr. Enclosure; NRC Examination Report 05000336/2009301 cc w/encl:
J. Price, Vice President, Engineering, Dominion Fleet A. Jordan, Site Vice President, Millstone Station C. Funderburk, Director, Nuclear Licensing and Operations Support L. Morris, Plant Manager, Millstone Station W. Bartron, Supervisor, Station Licensing J. Spence, Manager Nuclear Training L. Cuoco, Senior Counsel C. Brinkman, Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations J. Roy, Director of Operations, Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company First Selectmen, Town of Waterford B. Sheehan, Chair, NEAC P. Rathbun, Vice-Chair, NEAC E. Wilds, Jr., Ph.D, Director, State of Connecticut SLO Designee J. Buckingham, Department of Public Utility Control C. Meek-Gallagher, Commissioner, Suffolk County, Department of Environment and Energy V. Minei, P.E., Director, Suffolk County Health Department, Division of Environmental Quality R. Shadis, New England Coalition Staff S. Comley, We The People D. Katz, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN)
R. Bassilakis, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN)
P. Eddy, Electric Division, Department of Public Service, State of New York F. Murray, President and CEO, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority A. Peterson, SLO Designee, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority N. Burton, Esq.
Mr. Distribution w/encl: via email S. Collins, RA M. Dapas, DRA D. Roberts, DRS P. Wilson, DRS K. Gruss, DRS S. Hansell, DRS J. Caruso, DRS D. Lew, DRP J. Clifford, DRP R. Bellamy, DRP S. Barber, DRP C. Newport, DRP S. Shaffer, SRI B. Haagensen, RI J. Krafty, RI C. Kowalyshyn, OA S. Campbell, RI OEDO M. Kowal, NRR R. Nelson, NRR C. Sanders, NRR, PM ROPreports@nrc.gov Region I Docket Room (with concurrence)
Distribution w/encl:
DRS Master Exam File (C. Bixler) (w/concurrences)
DRS File
EXAMINATION REPORT U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Docket: 50-336 Licenses: DPR-65 Report : 05000336/2009301 Licensee: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Facility: Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 Location: P. O. Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385 Dates: January 26-30, 2009 (Operating Test Administration)
February 24, 2009 (Written Examination Administration)
March 23, 2009 (Licensee Submitted Post Exam Package)
March 31, 2009 (Licensee Submitted Revised Post Exam Package)
April 15, 2009 (Licensee Withdrew One Post Exam Comment)
February 2 - April 16, 2009 (NRC Examination Grading)
Inspectors: John Caruso, Chief Examiner, Operations Branch Brian Haagensen, Operations Engineer Peter Presby, Operations Engineer Approved By: Samuel L. Hansell, Jr., Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000336/2009301; January 26 - February 24, 2009; Millstone Power Station, Unit 2; Initial
Operator Licensing Examination Report.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of two applicants for reactor operator licenses, two applicants for instant senior operator licenses and six applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses at Millstone Power Station, Units 2. 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 January 26-30, 2009. The written examination was administered by the facility on February 24, 2009. The license examiners determined that four of the ten applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. Four of the six applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses passed their exams but their licenses are being held until the licensee certifies in writing that they have acquired all of the training and experience for which they were previously granted a waiver. The remaining two applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses failed the written portion of their exams and were denied a license.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
Licensee-Identified Violations
None.
REPORT DETAILS
OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA5 Other Activities (Initial Operator License Examination)
.1 License Applications
a. Scope
The examiners reviewed all ten 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 applicants qualifications. This audit focused on the applicants experience and on-the-job training, including control manipulations that provided significant reactivity changes.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Operator Knowledge and Performance
a. Examination Scope
On February 24, 2009, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all ten applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on March 23, 2009.
The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to all ten applicants on January 26-30, 2009. The two applicants for reactor operator licenses participated in three dynamic simulator scenarios, in a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of eleven system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of four administrative tasks. The two applicants seeking an instant senior operator license participated in three dynamic simulator scenarios, a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of ten system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of five administrative tasks. The six applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios, a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of five system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of five administrative tasks.
b. Findings
All ten of the applicants passed all parts of the operating test. Two upgrade senior operator applicants failed the written examination. For the written examinations, the reactor operator (RO) applicants average score was 83.9 percent and ranged from 81.3 to 86.6 percent, the senior operator applicants average score was 85.7 percent and ranged from 79.1 to 91.6 percent. The overall written examination average was 85.3 percent. The text of the examination questions, the licensees examination analysis, and the licensees post-examination comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment.
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 graded the examination on February 24, 2009, and subsequently conducted this performance analysis for twelve questions that met these criteria and submitted the analysis to the chief examiner. This analysis concluded that nine of the questions were technically valid as administered. The licensee submitted three post-examination question comments on March 23, 2009. On April 15, 2009, the licensee submitted a letter retracting one of the three comments. The results of the NRCs review of the stations comments are documented in Attachment 3, Post Examination Comments and Resolutions.
.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 on a security agreement. The facility licensee submitted both the written and operating examination outlines on October 30, 2008. The chief examiner reviewed the outlines against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, and provided comments to the licensee. The facility licensee submitted the draft examination package between November 14-25, 2009.
The chief examiner reviewed the draft examination package against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, and provided comments to the licensee on the examination on December 8, 2008. The NRC conducted an onsite validation of the operating examinations and provided further comments during the week of December 15, 2009. The license satisfactorily completed comment resolution for the operating examination on January 20, 2009 and for the written examination on February 23, 2009.
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 both the RO and SRO examinations were assessed separately and required replacement or significant modification. The affected questions (i.e., RO questions 1, 8, 10, 14, 22, 25, 28, 32, 36, 39, 42, 44, 45, 67, 71, 74 and SRO questions 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 86, 88, 95, 96, 99 and 100) contained various psychometric flaws including: more than one implausible distractor, knowledge and ability statement mismatches, low level of difficulty, direct look-up and some of the SRO questions were not written at the SRO level.
.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
No findings of significance were identified.
.5 Examination Security
a. Examination Scope
The examiners reviewed examination security for examination development, 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
There was one issue associated with examination security identified by the licensee following the administration of the operating examination. On February 1, 2009, a Millstone Unit 2 Shift Manager (SM) found a stack of six plant photos and a single copy of the Job Performance Measures (JPMs) outline for the Control Room/In-plant JPMs.
The material was left out on a cart in the turbine building near the auxiliary feedwater system. The SM identified the outline as potential initial NRC exam information and notified the training department. Representatives of the training department called the Chief Examiner, on February 3, 2009, and notified him of this issue. The NRC examiners administering the in-plant JPMs inadvertently left the photos and outline adrift in the plant. The photos were not used during the exam and were provided just in case the SM did not provide permission to open electrical panels during exam administration.
The six upgrade senior operator applicants had completed the walkthrough portion of their exams on January 26, 2009. The six upgrade senior operator applicants were in the presence of one of the three examiners or appropriately sequestered that entire day so there was no chance of exam compromise for those six applicants. The two instant senior operator applicants had four remaining simulator JPMs each and the two ROs had five remaining simulator JPMs each that were administered between January 27-29, 2009. These four applicants were also in the presence of one of the three examiners or appropriately sequestered that entire period. In addition, a review of plant access records confirmed that these individuals did not re-enter the protected area at any time during the period January 27-29, 2009 (i.e, after their in-plant JPMs were administered on January 26, 2009).
Two Millstone Training Supervisors interviewed all four applicants and verified that they had no prior knowledge regarding the JPM outline or any portion of the exam. The exam team concluded there was no evidence that an actual exam compromise occurred based on the above stated facts and based on the performance of the applicants some of whom exhibited weaknesses during exam administration. In addition, the NRC will conduct a self assessment in this area and assign appropriate corrective actions to prevent recurrence.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
The chief examiner presented the examination results to Mr. Michael Cote, Unit 2 Requalification Program Supervisor on April 18, 2009. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The licensee did not identify any information or materials used during the examination as proprietary.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
- J. Spence, Nuclear Training Manager
- M. Cote, Unit 2 Requalification Program Supervisor
- T. Horner, Initial Operator Training Supervisor
- R. Cimmino, Nuclear Training Instructor
- D. Ashey, Nuclear Training Instructor
NRC Personnel
- S. Shaffer, Senior Resident Inspector
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
NONE
Closed
NONE
Discussed
NONE