IR 05000397/2009301
| ML091120827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/2009 |
| From: | Ryan Lantz Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Parrish J Energy Northwest |
| References | |
| 50-397/09-301 50-397/09-301 | |
| Download: ML091120827 (12) | |
Text
April 21, 2009
SUBJECT:
COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000397/2009301
Dear Mr. Parrish:
On March 20, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial license examination at Columbia Generating Station. The preliminary examination findings were briefed on March 20, 2009, with Messrs. Scott Oxenford, James Moon, Greg Cullen, Dale Atkinson, and other members of your staff. On April 9, 2009, the final results were telephonically provided to Mr. Ron Hayden, Senior Training Instructor.
The examination included the evaluation of four applicants for reactor operator licenses, four applicants for instant senior operator licenses, and three applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses. The written examinations and operating tests were developed using NUREG-1021,
"Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9, Supplement 1.
The license examiners determined that all 11 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/
Ryan E. Lantz, Chief Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R E GI ON I V 612 EAST LAMAR BLVD, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-4125
Energy Northwest
- 2 -
Docket: 50-397 License: NPF-21
Enclosure:
NRC Examination Report 05000397/2009301
REGION IV==
Dockets:
50-397 Licenses:
NPF-21 Report :
05000397/2009301 Licensee:
Energy Northwest Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Location:
P. O. Box 968(Mail Drop 1023)
Richland, WA 99352-0968 Dates:
March 13 - April 9, 2009 Inspectors:
S. Garchow, Chief Examiner, Operations Branch T. McKernon, Senior Operations Engineer K. Clayton, Senior Operations Engineer Approved By:
Ryan E. Lantz, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
- 2 -
Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000397/2009301; March 13 - April 9, 2009; Columbia Generating Station; Initial Operator
Licensing Examination Report.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of four applicants for reactor operator licenses, four applicants for instant senior operator licenses and three applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses at Columbia Generating Station. The licensee developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9,
Supplement 1. The written examination was administered by the licensee on March 13, 2009.
NRC examiners administered the operating tests on March 16 - 20, 2009. The examiners determined that all of the 11 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and the appropriate licenses have been issued.
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 NRC examiners reviewed all of the 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 five of the license applications in detail to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject 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 December 18, 2008, the licensee requested the initial licensed operator examination (originally scheduled to begin on January 12, 2009) be delayed. This request was due to the applicants spending a higher than expected amount of time working in an outage instead of participating in training. Licensee management felt that due to the missed training, the initial examination should be delayed. NRC rescheduled the examination as requested.
On March 13, 2009, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all 11 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 test to all 11 applicants on March 16 - 20, 2009. The four applicants for reactor operator licenses participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios, a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of 11 system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of 4 administrative tasks. The four applicants seeking an instant senior operator license participated in two 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 three 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
All of the applicants passed all parts of the operating test and written examination.
For the written examinations, the reactor operator applicants average score was 92.8 percent and ranged from 89 to 96 percent; the senior operator applicants average score was 85.7 percent and ranged from 81 to 95 percent. The overall written examination average was 88.4 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 conducted this performance analysis for seven questions that met this criterion and submitted the analysis to the chief examiner. This analysis concluded that five of the questions would be further evaluated in the initial operator license training program, and two of the questions were recommended for changes to the examination answer key. One additional question was recommended for a change to the answer key even though less than half of the applicants missed the question.
The licensees recommendations and the NRC responses follow:
Senior Reactor Operator Question #6
The licensee recommended accepting distractor "A" in addition to distractor "B". This question involved providing the applicant with a set of plant conditions including the declaration of a Site Area Emergency. The applicant was then asked the bases for the declaration of a Site Area Emergency. The original answer "B" is correct; the drywell pressure response is not consistent with what would be expected during a LOCA. This results in declaring a Site Area Emergency. Following the examination, it was discovered that if the conditions provided in the question were plotted on the pressure suppression pressure, the limit was exceeded. Exceeding the pressure suppression pressure with the other given conditions also results in a Site Area Emergency.
Therefore, distractor "A" is also correct.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the licensee's recommendation to accept both "A" and "B" as correct answers for Question #6. This is based on the conditions provided in the question stem that would result in the declaration of a Site Area Emergency for two different reasons. One Site Area Emergency would be declared based on the justification in distractor "A" and the second correct justification is contained in distractor "B".
Senior Reactor Operator Question #18
This question was focused on the technical specifications and the applicant was provided with information concerning the operability status of two trains of the Residual Heat Removal system. Based on the times given in the stem and with the provided applicable technical specifications limiting conditions of operation, the applicant was asked when the reactor was required to be in mode three. The facility believes the answer key is incorrect and recommends changing the correct answer from "D" to "C".
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the licensee's recommendation to change the correct answer from "D" to "C". If there is no extension of the original time clock, the reactor must be placed in mode three conditions within seven days and 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> of the initial entry into the limiting condition of operation, making distractor "C" correct. If an extension is applied to the limiting condition of operation, then the reactor must be in mode three by 2000 seven days from the time the second train was declared inoperable and not at 2400 as stated in distractor "D". This makes distractor "D" incorrect.
Distractor "C" is the only correct answer.
Senior Reactor Operator Question #20
This question involved a refueling activity where the Refueling Floor Supervisor observes a fuel assembly that is incorrectly orientated in the reactor. The applicant is then asked to identify the type of error and required follow-up actions. The licensee recommends distractor "D" be accepted as correct in addition to distractor "C". This recommendation stems from the assumption of when the misorientated fuel bundle was discovered. If the reactor was taken critical with a misorientated fuel bundle, then it is a fuel loading error making distractor "D" correct. If the reactor was not taken critical, then it is a reactivity event making distractor "C" correct.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the licensee's recommendation to accept both "C" and "D" as correct. When this question was reviewed and validated, everyone assumed the fuel shuffle referenced in the stem was following the outage and this would make distractor "C" correct since the reactor had not been taken critical. However, some of the applicants assumed the fuel shuffle occurred at the beginning of the outage and all the fuel in the reactor had been in the observed positions when the reactor was critical. This assumption would make distractor "D" correct.
.3 Initial Licensing Examination Development
a. Examination Scope
The 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 licensee submitted the outlines for the written examinations and operating tests on October 24, 2008. The NRC reviewed the outlines against the requirements and provided comments to the
licensee. The licensee submitted the draft examination package on November 11, 2008. The NRC reviewed the draft examination package against the requirements and provided comments to the licensee on December 2, 2008. The NRC examination team conducted an onsite validation of the operating test and provided further comments during the week of December 15, 2008. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution on January 20, 2009.
b. Findings
The NRC approved the initial examination outlines and advised the licensee to proceed with development of the written examinations and operating tests.
The examiners determined that the written examinations and operating tests 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 NRC 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 NRC examiners reviewed examination security for examination development during both the onsite preparation week and examination administration week for compliance with 10 CFR 55.49 and NUREG-1021. Plans for simulator security and applicant control were reviewed and discussed with licensee personnel.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
The chief examiner presented the examination results to Mr. Ron Hayden, Senior Training Instructor on April 9, 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. Moon, Training Manager
- R. Hayden, Senior Training Instructor
- D. Brown, Operations Manager
NRC Personnel
- R. Cohen, Senior Resident Inspector