IR 05000361/2006301
| ML063310504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/2006 |
| From: | Nease R Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Rosenblum R Southern California Edison Co |
| References | |
| Download: ML063310504 (11) | |
Text
ber 21, 2006
SUBJECT:
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000361/2006301; 05000362/2006301
Dear Mr. Rosenblum:
On November 1, 2006, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an examination at your San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 facilities. The enclosed report documents the examination findings, which were discussed on November 2, 2006, with Messrs. Kurt Rauch, Dennis Wilcockson, and other members of your staff.
The examination included the evaluation of 8 applicants for reactor operator licenses, 3 applicants for instant senior operator licenses and 4 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. The license examiners determined that 12 of the 15 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued.
No findings of significance were identified during this examination.
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/
Rebecca Nease, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
Southern California Edison Company -2-Dockets: 50-361; 50-362 Licenses: NPF-10; NPF-15
Enclosure:
NRC Examination Report 05000361/2006301; 05000362/2006301
REGION IV==
Dockets: 50-361; 50-362 Licenses: NPF-10; NPF-15 Report : 05000361/2006-301; 05000362/2006-301 Licensee: Southern California Edison Co.
Facility: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 Location: 5000 S. Pacific Coast Hwy.
San Clemente, California Dates: October 23 through November 3, 2006 Inspectors: K. D. Clayton, Chief Examiner, Operations Branch P. Gage, Senior Operations Engineer T. McKernon, Senior Operations Engineer S. Garchow, Operations Engineer Approved By: Rebecca Nease, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety-1- Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000361/2006-301; 05000362/2006-301; 10/23-11/03/2006; San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Initial Operator Licensing Examinations.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of 8 applicants for reactor operator licenses, applicants for an instant senior operator licenses and 4 applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 The facility licensee developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9. The written examination was administered by the facility on November 3, 2006. NRC examiners administered the operating tests on October 23 -
November 1, 2006. The license examiners determined that 12 of the 15 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued.
No findings of significance were identified.
REPORT DETAILS
OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA5 Other Activities (Initial Operator License Examination)
1. License Applications
a. Scope
The examiners reviewed the 15 applications submitted by the licensee for each of the license applicants. 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 3 license applications to confirm accurate documentation of the subject applicants qualifications. This satisfies the 10 percent audit requirement that focuses on the applicants experience and on-the-job training, including control manipulations that provided significant reactivity changes. All control manipulations were performed in the plant.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
2. Operator Knowledge and Performance
a. Examination Scope
On November 3, 2006, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all 15 applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on November 13, 2006.
The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to all 15 applicants on October 23 through November 1, 2006. The 8 applicants for reactor operator licenses participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios, in a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of 11 system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of 4 administrative tasks. The 3 applicants seeking instant senior operator license participated in three dynamic simulator scenarios, a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of 10 system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of 5 administrative tasks. The 4 applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios, a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of 5 system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of 5 administrative tasks.
b. Findings
Twelve of the 15 applicants passed all parts of the examinations. One senior reactor operator applicant failed the operating examination. There were nine identified generic weaknesses on the operating examination. The licensee entered these items into their corrective action program as Action Request 061100775 and 061100777.
Two reactor operator applicants failed the written examination. For the written examinations, the reactor operator applicants average score was 87.5 percent and ranged from 76 to 97.3 percent, and the senior operator applicants average score on the senior operator only portion of the exam was 83.4 percent and ranged from 76 to 92 percent. The overall written examination average was 86.6 percent and ranged from 76 to 97.3 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 the five questions that met this criteria and submitted the analysis to the chief examiner on November 13, 2006. This analysis concluded that all five questions (3, 38, 70, 79, and 96) were technically accurate and required no post-examination changes. The licensee concluded in their analysis that the failures were due to training deficiencies and entered these items into their corrective action program as Action Request 061100554.
3. Initial Licensing Examination Development
a. Examination Scope
The licensee developed the examinations in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 9.
All licensee facility training and operations staff involved in examination preparation and validation were on a security agreement. The facility licensee submitted the integrated examination outlines on August 9, 2006. The chief examiner reviewed the outlines against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 9, and provided comments to the licensee. The facility licensee submitted the draft examination package on September 8, 2006. The chief examiner reviewed the draft examination package against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 9, and provided comments to the licensee on the examination on September 26, 2006. The NRC conducted an onsite validation of the operating examinations and provided further comments during the week of October 9, 2006. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution on October 12, 2006.
b. Findings
Examiners approved the initial examination outline with minor comments and advised the licensee to proceed with the written and operating examination development.
The examiners considered the written examination to be adequate and noted that the number of unacceptable questions in the overall submittal was inside the acceptable quality range of less than or equal to 20 percent expected by the NRC, with 17 questions requiring significant modification or replacement (17 percent). However,
the senior reactor operator portion of the exam exceeded the 20 percent threshold because 7 questions out of 25 required replacement or significant modification (28 percent). The reactor operator portion of the exam required replacement or modification for 10 of the 75 reactor operator questions. The majority of questions on the reactor operator examination that required replacement or significant modification (7 questions) involved a subject mismatch between the knowledge and abilities catalog and the examination questions. The majority of questions on the senior operator examination that required replacement or significant modification (4 questions) involved a failure to develop an "SRO Only" question. These results were discussed with licensee representatives.
The chief examiner determined that the operating examinations initially submitted by the licensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
No findings of significance were identified.
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 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
A minor examination security violation occurred during the draft outline submittal process. The draft outlines were submitted via regular mail to the NRC regional office on August 9, 2006, in a single bound envelope. In NUREG-1021, Revision 9, page 16 of ES-201, Attachment 1, the requirements for mailing exam material to the NRC are specified to include using double bound envelopes. The licensee sent the outlines via regular mail in a single bound envelope. Prior to receiving the envelope, the licensee called the chief examiner about the potential security issue with the outlines. The chief examiner consulted NRR and their position was that the violation would be more than minor if the single bound envelope had damage or marks indicating someone had tried to open it in transit. When the single envelope arrived in the regional office, the chief examiner inspected it and determined that no compromise of the outlines had occurred.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
On November 1, 2006, the examiners presented examination results to Mr. Kurt Rauch and other members of his staff. The examiners confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the examination process.
4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violations
No findings of significance were identified.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
Kurt Rauch, Operations Training Manager
Dennis Wilcockson, Plant Operations Manager
Theodore
- L. Vogt, Operations Manager
Al Hagemeyer, Operator Licensing Supervisor
Clay Williams, Compliance Manager
Robert Hampton, Nuclear Training Department
George Marengo, Nuclear Training Department
NRC Personnel
- C. Osterholtz, Senior Resident Inspector