IR 05000395/2007301
| ML072050192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/2007 |
| From: | Haag R Division of Reactor Safety II |
| To: | Archie J South Carolina Electric & Gas Co |
| References | |
| IR-07-301 | |
| Download: ML072050192 (8) | |
Text
July 24, 2007
SUBJECT:
VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000395/2007301
Dear Mr. Archie:
During the period of June 4 - 7, 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered operating examinations to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station. 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 June 13, 2007.
Three Reactor Operator (RO) and four Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the written examination and operating test. There were no post examination comments submitted. A Simulation Facility Report is included in this report as Enclosure 2.
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). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 562-4607.
Sincerely,
\\\\RA\\\\
Robert C. Haag, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-395 License No. NPF-12
Enclosures:
1. Report Details 2. Simulator Fidelity Report
SCE&G
REGION II==
Docket No.:
50-395 License No.:
NPF-12 Report No.:
05000395/2007301 Licensee:
South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Company Facility:
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Location:
P. O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 Date:
Operating Tests - June 4 - 7, 2007 Written Examination - June 13, 2007 Examiners:
G. Laska, Chief, Senior Operations Examiner R. Baldwin, Senior Operations Engineer R. Aiello, Senior Operations Engineer C. Kontz, Operations Examiner Trainee P. Capehart, Operations Examiner Trainee Approved by:
Robert C. Haag, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ER 05000395/2007301; 06/04-06/07/2007 and 06/13/2007; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station; Licensed Operator Examinations.
The NRC examiners conducted operator licensing initial examinations in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1021, Revision 9, 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 June 4 - 7, 2007. Members of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station training staff administered the written examination on June 13, 2007. The written examination and the operating tests were developed by the V. C.
Summer Nuclear Station training staff. Three Reactor Operators (ROs) and four Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) passed both the written examination and operating tests. All applicants were issued an operator license commensurate with the level of examination administered. There were no post examination comments on the written exam.
The initial written examination submittal was determined to be outside of the acceptable quality range as outlined in NUREG-1021. Seventeen out of 75 questions on the RO examination were significantly modified or replaced and 13 out of 25 questions on the SRO examination were significantly modified or replaced as a result of the NRCs review of the submittal.
Question flaws, which caused questions to be rated as unsatisfactory, included non-plausible distractors, questions not testing knowledge required by the selected topic, and SRO questions not written to test knowledge that is unique to the SRO position. Future examination submittals should incorporate lessons learned from this effort.
Enclosure 1 Enclosure 1 Report Details 4.
OTHER ACTIVITIES 4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations
a.
Inspection Scope The licensee developed the operating tests and written examinations. The NRC examination team reviewed the proposed material to determine whether it was developed in accordance with NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 9. 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 material.
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 three RO and four SRO applicants who were being assessed under the guidelines specified in NUREG-1021. Members of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station training staff administered the written examination on June 13, 2007.
The evaluations of the applicants and review of documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, met requirements specified in 10 CFR 55, Operators Licenses.
b.
Findings The initial written examination submittal was determined to be outside of the acceptable quality range as outlined in NUREG-1021. Seventeen out of 75 questions on the RO examination were significantly modified or replaced and 13 out of 25 questions on the SRO examination were significantly modified or replaced as a result of the NRCs review of the submittal. Question flaws, which caused questions to be rated as unsatisfactory, included non-plausible distractors, questions not testing knowledge required by the selected topic, and SRO questions not written to test knowledge that is unique to the SRO position. Future examination submittals should incorporate lessons learned from this effort. The written examination was delayed one day, due to the revisions that were required due to the examination submittal being outside the acceptable quality range as outlined in NUREG-1021.
The combined RO and SRO written examinations with knowledge and abilities (K/As)
question references/answers, examination references, and licensees letter stating they had no post examination comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers, ML071930562, ML071930529 and ML01930537).
Enclosure 1 4OA6 Meetings Exit Meeting Summary On June 07, 2007, the examiner discussed the examination and preliminary findings with Mr. Shaun Zarandi, General Manager Nuclear Support Services, and members of his staff. The examiner asked the licensee whether any materials reviewed during the examination should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee personnel S. Zarandi, General Manager, Nuclear Support Services D. Lavigne, General Manager, Organization Effectivness G. Lippard, Manager, Operations B. Thompson, Manage, Nuclear Licensing D. Railey, Nuclear Licensing Technician M. Browne, Manager, Quality Systems B. Waselus, Manager, Business services G. Moffatt, Manager, Nuclear Training A. Koon, Operations Training Supervisor T. Howell, Supervisor, Simulator Operations W. Quick, Supervisor, Initial Training Programs NRC personnel J. Zeiler, Senior Resident Inspector
Enclosure 2 SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Facility Docket Nos.: 05000395 Operating Tests Administered: June 4 - 7, 2007 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.
Observations:
- Simulator exhibited several glitches with the safety system computer linking with the simulator at the start of a scenario.
- Different conditions in the performance of the simulator or the setup of the Job Performance Measures (JPM) caused possible cue issues. During one JPM when the simulator was placed in run, the control rods stepped cuing the applicant that something that involved control rods was about to occur. This did not happen on the first performance of the JPM, but occurred on all remaining performances of this JPM.