IR 05000348/2008301

IR 05000348-08-301, 05000364-08-301, on October 27-November 7, 2008, November 10, 2008, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Reactor and Senior Reactor Operator Initial Examinations

ML083530778
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	12/18/2008
From:	Widmann M Division of Reactor Safety II
To:	Jerrica Johnson Southern Nuclear Operating Co
References
IR-08-301
Download: ML083530778 (12)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ember 18, 2008

SUBJECT:

REACTOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATIONS -

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 05000348/2008301 AND 05000364/2008301

Dear Mr. Johnson:

During the period of October 27 - November 07, 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered operating examinations to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Farley Nuclear Plant. At the conclusion of the examination, the examiners discussed the examination questions and preliminary findings with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on November 10, 2008.

Eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants and three Reactor Operator (RO) applicants passed both the written and operating examinations. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant took only the written examination and both passed. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant failed the written examination. There were two post examination comments. These comments and the NRC resolution of these comments are summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulation Facility Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter ber 18, 2008

SUBJECT:

REACTOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATIONS -

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 05000348/2008301 AND 05000364/2008301

Dear Mr. Johnson:

During the period of October 27 - November 07, 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered operating examinations to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Farley Nuclear Plant. At the conclusion of the examination, the examiners discussed the examination questions and preliminary findings with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on November 10, 2008.

Eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants and three Reactor Operator (RO) applicants passed both the written and operating examinations. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant took only the written examination and both passed. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant failed the written examination. There were two post examination comments. These comments and the NRC resolution of these comments are summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulation Facility Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "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 NRC's document system (ADAMS).

_________________________ XG SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS SIGNATURE /RA/ FEhrhardt /ra/for NAME MBates MWidmann DATE 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/ /2008 12/ /2008 12/ /2008 12/ /2008 12/ /2008 E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

SNC 3 cc w/encl:

Angela Thornhill Moanica Caston Managing Attorney and Compliance Officer Vice President and General Counsel Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution Electronic Mail Distribution B. D. McKinney Dr. D. E. Williamson Licensing Services Manager State Health Officer B-031 Alabama Dept. of Public Health Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Electronic Mail Distribution Electronic Mail Distribution Mr. Mark Culver Jeffrey T. Gasser Chairman Executive Vice President Houston County Commission Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. P. O. Box 6406 Electronic Mail Distribution Dothan, AL 36302 William D. Oldfield Jim Sommerville Quality Assurance Supervisor (Acting) Chief Southern Nuclear Operating Company Environmental Protection Division Electronic Mail Distribution Department of Natural Resources Electronic Mail Distribution L. Mike Stinson Vice President Senior Resident Inspector Fleet Operations Support Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Electronic Mail Distribution U.S. NRC 7388 N. State Highway 95 David H. Jones Columbia, AL 36319 Vice President Engineering Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. ATTN: Mr. John G. Horn, Plant Training &

Electronic Mail Distribution Emergency Preparedness Manager Farley Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 470 Ashford, AL 36312

SNC 4 Letter to J. Randy Johnson from Malcolm T. Widmann dated December 18, 2008 SUBJECT: REACTOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATIONS -

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 05000348/2008301 AND 05000364/2008301 Distribution w/encl:

RIDSNRRDIRS PUBLIC R. Martin, NRR (PM: HAT, SUM)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

Docket No.: 50-348, 50-364 License No.: NPF-2, NPF-8 Report No.: 05000348/2008301, 05000364/2008301 Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Facility: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Location: Columbia, AL 36319 Dates: Operating Test - October 27 - November 7, 2008 Written Examination - November 10, 2008 Examiners: M. Bates, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer J. Hopkins, Reactor Technology Instructor C. Kontz, Operations Engineer Approved by: Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ER 05000348/2008301, 05000364/2008301, 10/27-11/7/2008 and 11/10/2008; Farley Nuclear Plant; Licensed Operator Examinations.

The NRC examiners conducted operator licensing initial examinations in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors. This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and §55.45.

The NRC administered the operating tests during the period of October 27 - November 7, 2008.

Members of the Farley Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on November 10, 2008. The written examinations and the operating tests were developed by the Farley Nuclear Plant training staff.

Eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants and three Reactor Operator (RO) applicants passed both the written and operating examinations. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant took only the written examination and both passed. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant failed the written examination. Eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and three Reactor Operator (RO) applicants were issued operating licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant were issued letters stating that they passed both the written and operating examinations and that their licenses will not be issued until the conclusion of any pending appeals.

There were two post examination comments.

Enclosure 1

REPORT DETAILS 2. OTHER ACTIVITIES 4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations a. Inspection Scope The Farley Nuclear Plant training staff developed the operating tests and written examinations. NRC regional examiners reviewed the proposed examination material to determine whether it was developed in accordance with NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 9, Supplement 1.

Examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee were made according to NUREG-1021 and incorporated into the final version of the examination materials.

The examiners reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing and administering the examinations to ensure examination security and integrity complied with 10 CFR 55.49, Integrity of Examinations and Tests.

The examiners evaluated 10 SRO applicants and five RO applicants who were being assessed under the guidelines specified in NUREG-1021. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period of October 27 - November 7, 2008. Members of the Farley Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on November 10, 2008. The evaluations of the applicants and review of documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Farley Nuclear Plant, met requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses.

b. Findings The initial written examination submittal was determined to be within the acceptable quality range as outlined in NUREG-1021.

The NRC determined that the details provided by the licensee for the walkthrough and simulator tests were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.

Eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants and three Reactor Operator (RO)

applicants passed both the written and operating examinations. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant took only the written examination and both passed. One SRO applicant and one RO applicant failed the written examination.

The final RO and SRO written examinations with knowledge and abilities (K/As) question references/answers, examination references, and licensees post examination comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers, ML083510509, and ML083510513).

Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility Training Manager for evaluation and determination of appropriate remedial training.

Enclosure 1

4OA6 Meetings Exit Meeting Summary On November 7, 2008, the examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with Mr. Randy Johnson, and members of the Farley Nuclear Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee personnel J. Johnson, Site Vice President R. Wells, Operations Manager J. Horn, Training Manager T. Blindauer, Initial License Training Supervisor D. Christiansen, Nuclear Operations Training Supervisor C. Richter, Plant Instructor - Nuclear G. Ohmstede, Plant Instructor - Nuclear NRC personnel S. Shaeffer, Chief, Branch 2 Division of Reactor Projects E. Crowe, Senior Resident Inspector S. Sandal, Resident Inspector M. Bates, Senior Operations Engineer J. Hopkins, Reactor Technology Instructor C. Kontz, Operations Engineer Enclosure 1

NRC RESOLUTION TO THE FARLEY POST EXAMINATION COMMENT(S)

WRITTEN EXAMINATION - QUESTION 7 Licensee Comment:

(Submitted Licensee Comments May Be Located in ADAMS at ML083510513)

The stem of the question stated that the demineralizer was vented but did not specify if the demineralizer was drained. Some applicants made an assumption that the demineralizer was voided and this assumption would make the answer and one of the distractors both possible correct answers and both should be taken as correct.

Furthermore, the licensee states that the question statement did not ask for the answers to be based on the conditions provided in the stem of the question. Rather the licensee claims that the question statement was asking an open-ended question, which could apply to any incorrect method of placing the demineralizer in service.

NRC Resolution:

The licensees recommendation to accept two correct answers was not accepted.

The recommendation stated that 9 out of 15 applicants made an assumption that there was voiding of the demineralizers during the time they were vented. This is contrary to the directions given to the applicant in NUREG 1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, Appendix E, Part B.7, which states:

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.

Based on the above guidance, it would be incorrect for the applicants to make an assumption that the demineralizers had been voided. The question did not state that the demineralizer had been voided, nor could voiding have occurred as a result of other conditions that were provided.

Also, the licensee claims that the question statement did not ask for the answers to be based on the conditions provided in the stem of the question. Rather the licensee claims that the question statement was asking an open-ended question, which could apply to any incorrect method of placing the demineralizer in service. The NRC disagrees with this argument. The conditions listed in the stem are relevant to the question being asked. This would be the only logical reason for supplying these conditions. It is true that the question statement does not contain the words, Based on the above conditions, which one of the following , but it is generally understood in the question construction that these conditions are relevant to the question that is being presented. Therefore, the applicant would have to incorrectly assume that the demineralizer had been voided, which would be contrary to the above stated NUREG-1021 instructions for taking the exam.

Enclosure 2

Lastly, the licensees request to accept two correct answers is not supported by the documentation provided. The examples, that provided similar plant conditions as given in the stem of the question, were not linked to gas binding of the charging pumps and did not cause pressure drops greater than those in the system operating procedures Precautions and Limitations. One example was linked to charging pump gas binding, but the gas binding was not due to filling a voided demineralizer, rather the voiding was due to multiple large pressure transients caused by venting of the VCT to reduce pressure. Therefore, the provided examples do not support charging pump suction voiding being a potential concern.

WRITTEN EXAMINATION - QUESTION 56 Licensee Comment:

(Submitted Licensee Comments May Be Located in ADAMS at ML083510513)

The stem of the question is not specific as to the exact step in the procedure from which the question is being asked. This ambiguity requires the applicant to make an assumption on the status of the heat exchangers. The status of the heat exchangers will determined whether CCW temperature will increase or decrease, which would then make either A or B correct, based on the assumption that the applicant was required to make. Therefore, the licensee is recommending that both answer choices A and B be considered as correct answer choices.

NRC Resolution:

The licensees recommendation to accept two correct answers was not accepted.

The NRC agrees with the licensees argument that the applicants were required to make an assumption, which ultimately would determine whether a boration or dilution was correct.

Therefore, the licensees basis for either a boration or dilution is accepted; however, these portions of answer choices A and B contain conflicting information (I.E. boration and dilution are opposite effects and therefore conflicting). NUREG 1021 Revision 9, Supplement 1, ES-403, Section D.1.c states, If, however, both answers contain conflicting information, the question will likely be deleted. Therefore, applying this guidance, this question will be deleted from the exam.

Enclosure 2

SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Farley Nuclear Plant Facility Docket Nos.: 05000348/05000364 Operating Tests Administered on: October 27 - November 7, 2008 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 IP 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 items were identified.

Enclosure 3