IR 05000348/2011301
| ML111890568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/2011 |
| From: | Mark Franke NRC/RGN-II/DRS/OLB |
| To: | Stinson L Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| 50-348/11-301, 50-364/11-301 | |
| Preceding documents: |
|
| Download: ML111890568 (13) | |
Text
July 7, 2011
SUBJECT:
FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT-NRC OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT 05000348/2011301, AND 05000364/2011301
Dear Mr. Stinson:
During the period May 10 - 19, 2011, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Farley Nuclear Plant. At the conclusion of the tests, the examiners discussed preliminary findings related to the operating tests and the written examination submittal with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on May 24, 2011.
Five Reactor Operator (RO) and eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO and two SRO applicants took retake examinations on the written only. All three retake applicants passed the written examination.
There was one post-examination comment. The NRC resolution to this comment is summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity 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 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).
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 997-4436.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Mark E. Franke, Chief
Operations Branch 2
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket Nos.: 50-348, 50-364 License Nos.: NPF -2 and NPF-8
Enclosures:
1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report
REGION II==
Docket Nos.:
05000348, 05000364
License Nos.:
Report No.:
05000348/2011301 AND 05000364/2011301
Licensee:
Southern Nuclear Company (SNC), LLC
Facility:
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Location:
Columbia, AL
Dates:
Operating Tests - May 10 - 19, 2011
Written Examination - May 24, 2011
Examiners:
R. Aiello, Chief, Senior Operations Engineer RII M. Riches, Operations Engineer RII G. Johnson, Operations Engineer RII J. Tomlinson, Operations Engineer RI
Approved by:
Mark E. Franke, Chief
Operations Branch 2
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000348/2011301 and 05000364/2011301; 05/10/2011 - 05/19/2011; Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Operator License Examinations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners conducted an initial examination in accordance with the guidelines in Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors. This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements identified in 10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and §55.45, as applicable.
Members of the Farley Nuclear Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination.
Five Reactor Operator (RO) and eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO and two SRO applicants took retake examinations on the written only. All three retake applicants passed the written examination.
16 applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered.
There was one post-examination comment. The NRC resolution to this comment is summarized in Enclosure 2.
No findings of significance were identified.
Enclosure 1 Report Details
4.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA2 Problem Identification and Resolution
Annual Sample Review
1. a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors selected Condition Report (CR) 2011106766 for a detailed review. The CR was initiated because the inspector identified several applicant weaknesses during NRC Exam 2011-301 that need to be incorporated into the continuing training program.
The facility has committed to reviewing their Technical Specifications and procedure usage fundamentals to better clarify the applicant weaknesses in question. The inspectors checked that this issue had been completely and accurately identified in the licensees Corrective Action Program (CAP) and properly classified and prioritized for resolution. Corrective actions have not been verified complete.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
2. a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors selected Condition Report (CR) 2011106657 for a detailed review. The CR was initiated because the inspector identified a potential examination compromise issue during the exam administration process. The inspector realized that one student had not been exposed to one In-plant Job Performance Measure (JPM) and was pre-briefing a simulator scenario in a briefing room without a proctor present. One of the three applicants was potentially exposed to this specific JPM prior to admission.
Subsequently, the JPM was potentially compromised. A new JPM was written, validated, and administered for this particular applicant. The inspectors checked that this issue had been completely and accurately identified in the licensees Corrective Action Program (CAP) and properly classified and prioritized for resolution. Corrective actions have not been verified complete.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations
a. Inspection Scope
Members of the Farley Nuclear Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. All examination material was developed in accordance with the guidelines contained in Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing
Enclosure1
Examination Standards for Power Reactors." The NRC examination team reviewed the proposed examination. Examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee were made per NUREG-1021 and incorporated into the final version of the examination materials.
The NRC reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing and administering the examinations in order to ensure compliance with 10 CFR §55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.
The NRC examiners evaluated six Reactor Operator (RO) and ten Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. Five Reactor Operator (RO) and eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants took both the operating test and written examination. One RO and two SRO applicants took retake examinations on the written only. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period of May 10 - 19, 2011. Members of the Farley Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on May 24, 2011. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Farley Nuclear Plant, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses.
b.
Findings
No findings of significance were identified. The NRC determined, using NUREG-1021, that the licensees examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
Five RO and eight SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO applicant and two SRO applicants passed a written retake examination.
Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility Training Manager for evaluation of weaknesses and determination of appropriate remedial training.
There was one post-examination comment. The NRC resolution to this comment is summarized in Enclosure 2. A copy of the final written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, and post exam comments may be accessed not earlier than July 6, 2013, in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Number ML111750171, ML111750167, and ML111750176).
4OA6 Meetings
Exit Meeting Summary
On May 19, 2011, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with Mr. Stinson, Site Vice President, and members of his staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary.
Question 98 was identified as sensitive or otherwise protected information.
Subsequently, it will be withheld from public disclosure.
Enclosure 1
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee personnel
D. Christianson, Training Manager H. Fitzwater, Training Instructor D. Hall, Operations Training Supervisor J. Horn, Site Support Manager G. Ohmstede, Lead Exam Developer D. Reed, Operations Superintendent - Support L. Stinson, Site Vice President B. Thornton, Training Instructor T. Youngblood, Plant Manager
NRC personnel
E. Crowe, Senior Resident Inspector
Enclosure 2
NRC Disposition of Farley 2011-301 Post Examination Comments:
One post exam comment was submitted on the written examination.
COMMENT:
This question listed a set of initial conditions with respect to Reactor Coolant System (RCS)
temperature and pressure, Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs), and the status of the alignments of Trains A and B of the Residual Heat removal (RHR) system. The applicant was required to determine which RHR systems were operable and if a mode change from 4 to 3 was allowed with respect to startup of unit from Cold Shutdown to Hot Standby.
The facility contends that the stem of the question did not provide all the necessary information in that it did not bound the question to a specific Technical Specification (TS). Furthermore the stem was unclear in the intention of the question and required the applicant to know what TS to evaluate. As a result this caused five (5) students to incorrectly diagnose the questions intent.
The applicants stated, during the exam review, that they did not ask any questions about question 77 because when they read the stem they either focused on TS 3.4.6 or TS 3.5.3 due to the wording in the stem that captured their attention.
If the applicant focused on the wording Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) alignment and assumed the ECCS alignment was being examined, then they chose ONLY the 1A RHR system is OPERABLE choice since TS 3.5.3 and the Notes and Cautions of UOP-1.1 say that the associated train of ECCS is inoperable if any RHR pump is operated with RCS temperatures greater 225°F.
If the applicant focused on the wording RHR system(s) and looked at the stem information and saw two Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs) running, then they chose BOTH RHR systems are OPERABLE since TS 3.4.6 says the RHR systems are operable if they are capable of providing forced flow to an OPERABLE RHR heat exchanger. Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCPs)
and RHR pumps are OPERABLE if they are capable of being powered and are able to provide forced flow if required.
The RHR system has several functions. It is used to remove heat (either decay heat or RCP heat) from the RCS. It can procedurally be started and increased to 350°F but is typically secured prior to 225°F to ensure the ECCS trains are operable. The RHR system is also referred to as Low Head safety injection and is part of the ECCS system. TS bases refers to RHR as the residual heat removal (RHR)(low head) system. Because there are two TS that involve the RHR system when in MODE 4, the system can be OPERABLE for one function and INOPERABLE for the other function, as is the case in this question. Depending on which TS is evaluated and which function the RHR system is being evaluated for, either answer of BOTH or ONLY 1A is correct.
Enclosure 2
RECOMMENDATION:
The stem of the question does not provide enough information to allow the applicant to properly evaluate the RHR system. In one specified system function the RHR system is OPERABLE and in the other specified system function the RHR system is INOPERABLE. The recommendation is to delete the question.
NRC Resolution:
During the exam review, the TS reference that bounded the question was removed from the which one of the following statement because it complicated the stem. The suggestion was to put it in the stem as a bullet if it was needed. The facility determined that it was not needed and completely removed it. As a result, it yielded two different viewpoints which turned out to be diametrically opposed and contain conflicting information as described in NUREG-1021, ES-403 page 3 and 4 of 6, section D.1.c. Therefore, this question will be deleted from the exam.
Enclosure 3
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT
Facility Licensee: Farley Nuclear Plant
Facility Docket No.: 05000348/2011301 AND 05000364/2011301
Operating Test Administered: May 10 - 19, 2011
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 Inspection Procedure 71111.11 are not indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.46. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
While conducting the simulator portion of the operating test, examiners observed no simulator fidelity or configuration issues.