IR 05000413/2006301

Examination Report 05000413-06-301 and 05000414-06-301

ML070300009
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	01/29/2007
From:	Haag R NRC/RGN-II/DRS/OLB
To:	Morris J Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Power Co
References
IR-06-301
Download: ML070300009 (11)

Text

ary 29, 2007

SUBJECT:

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000413/2006301 AND 05000414/2006301

Dear Mr. Morris:

During the period of December 4 - 7, 2006, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

administered operating examinations to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Catawba 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 December 12, 2006.

One Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the written examination and operating test. One RO applicant failed the written examination.

There was one post examination comment submitted. The NRC resolution to the post examination comment is included in this report as 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). 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 Nos.: 50-413, 50-414 License Nos.: NPF-35, NPF-52

DPC 2

Enclosures:

1. Report Details 2. NRC Resolution to the Catawba Post Examination Comment 3. Simulation Facility Report

REGION II==

Docket Nos.: 50-413, 50-414 License Nos.: NPF-35, NPF-52 Report No.: 05000413/2006301 and 05000414/2006301 Licensee: Duke Power Company, LLC Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: York, SC 29745 Dates: Operating Tests - December 4 - 7, 2006 Written Examination - December 12, 2006 Examiners: E. Lea, Chief, Senior Operations Examiner G. Laska, Senior Operations Engineer F. Ehrhardt, Operations Engineer Approved by: Robert C. Haag, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosure 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ER 05000413/2006301 and 05000414/2006301; 12/4 - 7/2006, and 12/12/2006; Catawba 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 December 4 - 7, 2006.

Members of the Catawba Nuclear Station training staff administered the written examination on December 12, 2006. The written examinations and the operating tests were developed by the Catawba Nuclear Station training staff.

One Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) passed both the written examination and operating test. One RO applicant failed the written examination. The NRC issued a denial letter to the RO applicant who failed the written examination. The NRC was informed in a letter dated January 18, 2007, from the RO applicant who failed the written examination, that the denial issued by the NRC as a result of the written examination failure would not be appealed. Therefore, based on the fact that the applicant would not appeal the denial of a license, each applicant who passed both the written examination and the operating test was issued an operator license commensurate with the level of examination administered.

There was one post examination comment.

No findings of significance were identified.

Enclosure 1

Report Details 4. OTHER ACTIVITIES 4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations a. Inspection Scope The Catawba training staff developed the written examinations and the operating tests in accordance with NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 9. The NRC examination team reviewed the proposed written examinations and operating tests. 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 two RO and five SRO applicants who were being assessed under the guidelines specified in NUREG-1021. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period of December 4 - 7, 2006. Members of the Catawba Nuclear Station training staff administered the written examinations on December 12, 2006. The evaluations of the applicants and review of documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Catawba Nuclear Station, met requirements specified in 10 CFR 55, Operators Licenses.

b. Findings No findings of significance were identified.

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.

One RO and five SROs passed both the written examination and operating test. One RO applicant failed the written examination. The NRC issued a denial letter to the RO applicant who failed the written examination. The NRC was informed in a letter dated January 18, 2007, from the RO applicant who failed the written examination, that the denial issued by the NRC as a result of the written examination failure would not be appealed. Therefore, based on the fact that the applicant would not appeal the denial of a license, each applicant who passed both the written examination and the operating test was issued an operator license commensurate with the level of examination administered.

The written examinations, with knowledge and abilities (K/As), question references/answers, and examination references, may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML070290028 and ML070290013).

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 December 7, 2006, the examination team discussed generic issues with Mr. J. R.

Morris and members of his 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. Morris, Site Vice President B. Pitesa, Nuclear Station Manager E. Brewer, Operations Training Manager S. Coy, Operations Training Liaison H. Dameron, Initial Training Program Supervisor G. Hamilton, Site Training Manager J. McConnell, Shift Operations Manager G. Strickland, Licensing Engineer C. Trezise, Superintendent of Operations S. Tripi, Nuclear Station Instructor NRC Personnel A. Sabisch, Senior Resident Inspector Enclosure 1

NRC RESOLUTION TO THE CATAWBA POST EXAMINATION COMMENT A complete text of licensees post exam comment can be found in ADAMS under Accession Number ML070230104.

RO QUESTION # 23 Comment: The question asks the applicant to identify how the Auxiliary Building Ventilation System (VA) would respond to a failure of an isolation valve in the Waste Gas System (WG)

which resulted in an unintentional release of radioactive gas into the Auxiliary Building. The question also asked the applicant to identify the basis for the expected VA alignment. The plant parameters affected by the unintentional release of radioactive gas were identified in the question. The licensee recommends taking A as the only correct answer instead of C. The licensee contend A is the only correct answer because a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA)

was not in progress and the design basis, for the given conditions (alignment identified) was to prevent a release from the auxiliary building.

NRC RESOLUTION: Recommendation accepted. A is selected as the correct answer because information provided in the stem did not indicate that a LOCA was in progress.

Enclosure 2

SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Catawba Nuclear Station Facility Docket Nos.: 05000413/05000414 Operating Tests Administered: December 4 - 7, 2006 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