IR 05000424/1998302
| ML20236V503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1998 |
| From: | Mellen L, Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236V498 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-98-302, 50-425-98-302, NUDOCS 9808030287 | |
| Download: ML20236V503 (5) | |
Text
_
. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
~
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION II
Docket Nos.-
50-424, 50-425 License Nos..
NPF-68 NPF-81 Report Nos.*
50-424/98-302, 50-425/98-302 Licensee:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc.
Facility:
Vogtle Nuclear Plant Location:
Waynesboro, GA Dates:
July 21, 1998 Examiners:
I d
bo (LJrryQMellen, Chief License Examiner Approved by:
Thomas /A.'Peebles, Chief Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure
f 9808030287 980728
!
PDR ADOCK 05000424 V
!
I L
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _.
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vogtle Nuclear Plant NRC Examination Report No. 50-424/98-302. 50-425/98-302 On July 21, 1998. The NRC conducted an announced operator licensing Administrative portion of the Operating Examination in accordance with the guidance of Examiner Standards. NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8.
These examinations implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR 555.43 and 55.45.
Doerations One SRO-U candidate received the Administrative ]ortion of the Operating
.
Examination.
This examination was administered ]y the NRC on July 21, 1998.
Candidate Pass / Fail
.
.
,
SR0 R0 Total Percent Pass
0
100%
Fail
0
0%
The examiner concluded that the candidates' performance on the
.
Administrative portion of the Operating Examination was satisfactory.
(Section 05.3).
i
!
!
L
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
...
Reoort Details
~ Summary of Plant Status
'
.During the period of the examination, both Units were in Mode-1.
1. Doerations 05-Operator' Training and Qualifications
,
05.1 General-Comments The facility-(under the guidance of the NRC) developed an operator
-
licensing Administrative Portion of_the Operating Examination.
It was-
to be administered by the NRC under the requirements of an NRC' security agreement, in accordance with the guidelines of the Examiner Standards-l (ES). NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8.
One SR0 upgrade re-take applicant received and passed the Administrative portion of the Operating Examination.
05.2 P_re and Post-Examination Activities a.
Scope The NRC chief examiner reviewed the licensee's examination submittal using the criteria s]ecified for examination development contained in NUREG 1021'. Interim levision 8.
b.
Observations and Findinas'
The licensee develobed the SR0 Administrative portion of the Operating Examination-The clief erminer reviewed, mo<iified, and approved the
.
examination prior to administration.
The NRC conducted in-office and onsite preparation prior to examination administration. The revised examination met the criteria set forth in NUREG 1021, Interim
. Revision 8.
,
During the review the NRC noted that one JPM required the candidate to interpret Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4.
This required the operator to determine if a rod was "untrippable" to determine if entry
-
into an LCO was required.
The term "untrippable" was not defined in the-LTechnical Specifications. 'in training or in any procedures. - During the performance of JPM RQ-JP-63508-NRC, the training staff expected the l --
operator to determine that a rod was "untrippable:~ however, the
'
_ candidate did not believe that it was based on his interpretation of the
.
term. This was identified before the examination, but was maintained as L
a non-critical-step.
Following further review by the training staff and discussions with training management, it was determined that the
- operators' decision was justified.
_ _ - - _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
._
___
-_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
.
c.
Conclusion i
The NRC concluded that the facility had placed emphasis on ensuring that
the examination was technically accurate and discriminating.
During i
the exit meeting the examiner stressed that it was important to define the term "untrippable" to ensure the actions associated with TS 3.1.4 were appropriately understtod and implemented.
05.3 Examination Results and Related Findinas. Observations. and Conclusions a.
Scoce The chief examiner reviewed the results of the Administrative portion of the Operating Examination.
b.
Observations and Findinas.
The overall performance of the candidate was considered satisfactory.
c.
Conclusion The chief examiner identified no discrepancies.
V. Manaaement Meetinas XI. Exit Meeting Summary On July 21, 1998, the chief examiner discussed the examination results with the Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
No proprietary information was identified, i
l l
l
_ - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _
-. - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
._ _ _.
,c.
.
'
,
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee-
- Robert Brown. Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager
- Leon Ray. Operations Training Supervisor
- Thad Thomson, Licensed Operator Instructor William Evans, Reactor Operator NRC
,
- J. Zeiler Senior Resident Inspector
- * Attended the Exit Interview
,
ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED I
Doened None Closed None Discussed None
>
l I
i j '
L.
I