IR 05000440/2010301
| ML102230509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/2010 |
| From: | Hironori Peterson Operations Branch III |
| To: | Bezilla M FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| 50-440/10-301 50-440/10-301 | |
| Download: ML102230509 (16) | |
Text
ust 10, 2010
SUBJECT:
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 NRC INITIAL LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000440/2010301(DRS)
Dear Mr. Bezilla:
On June 30, 2010, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners completed initial operator licensing examinations at your Perry Nuclear Power Plant. The enclosed report documents the results of the examination which were discussed on June 18, 2010, with Mr. K. Krueger, Plant General Manger, and other members of your staff. An exit meeting was conducted by telephone on July 12, 2010, between Mr. A. Mueller, Jr., of your staff and Mr. D. McNeil, Senior Operations Engineer, to review the resolution of the station=s post examination comments and the proposed final grading of the written examination for the license applicants.
The NRC examiners administered an initial license examination operating test during the week of June 14 - 18, 2010. The written examination was administered by Perry Nuclear Power Plant training department personnel on June 21, 2010. License examinations were administered to ten Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants and to one Reactor Operator (RO) applicant. The NRC received the facilitys written post-examination comments on June 30, 2010. The results of the examinations were finalized on July 23, 2010. One SRO applicant failed the written examination and one SRO applicant failed the operating test. Each was issued a proposed license denial letter. Eight SRO applicants passed all sections of their examinations and were issued SRO licenses. One RO applicant passed all portions of his examination and was issued an RO license.
Nineteen questions in the proposed examination were determined to be unsatisfactory and required re-work or replacement. Nine of the unsatisfactory questions were contained in the SRO portion of the examination. This means that 36 percent of the questions submitted for the SRO portion of the written examination did not meet NRC expectations. The NRC expects less than 20 percent of the proposed questions be categorized as unsatisfactory. Therefore, additional attention in the area of the development of SRO-level questions is warranted.
The remainder of the written examination and the operating test met NRC expectations. 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 NRC's document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this examination.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-440 License Nos. NPF-58
Enclosures:
1. Operator Licensing Examination Report 05000440/2010301(DRS)
w/Attachment: Supplemental Information 2. Simulation Facility Report 3. Post Examination Comments w/NRC Resolution 4. Written Examinations and Answer Keys (RO/SRO)
REGION III==
Docket No: 50-440 License No: NPF-58 Report No: 05000440/2010301(DRS)
Licensee: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC)
Facility: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Location: Perry, OH Dates: June 14 - 30, 2010 Examiners: D. McNeil, Senior Operations Engineer M. Bielby, Senior Operations Engineer C. Zoia, Operations Engineer Approved by: Hironori Peterson, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000440/2010301(DRS); 06/14/2010 - 06/30/2010; FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company (FENOC), Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1. Initial License Examination Report.
The announced initial operator licensing examination was conducted by regional Nuclear Regulatory Commission examiners in accordance with the guidance of NUREG-1021,
AOperator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,@ Revision 9, Supplement 1.
A. Examination Summary:
- One applicant failed the written examination and was issued a proposed license denial. One applicant failed the operating test and was issued a proposed license denial. Nine of 11 applicants passed all sections of their respective examinations. Eight applicants were issued Senior Reactor Operator licenses and one applicant was issued a Reactor Operator license. The number of licenses issued may change pending the outcome of any written examination or operating test appeal. (Section 4OA5.1).
- The SRO portion of the written examination did not meet NRC expectations.
Thirty-six percent of the proposed questions were considered unsatisfactory.
(Section 4OA5.1.b)
Licensee-Identified Violations
None
REPORT DETAILS
OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA5 Other
.1 Initial Licensing Examinations
a. Examination Scope
The Perry Nuclear Power Station trainers prepared the examination outline and developed the written examination and operating test. The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners validated the proposed examination during the week of May 24, 2010, at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Training Building with the assistance of embers of the licensee training staff. During the on-site validation week on May 25, 2010, the examiners audited two license applications for accuracy. The NRC examiners conducted the operating portion of the initial license examination during the week of June 14, 2010. The Perry Nuclear Power Plant training department staff administered the written examination on June 21, 2010. The NRC examiners used the guidance established in NUREG-1021, AOperator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,@ Revision 9, Supplement 1, to prepare, validate, revise, administer, and grade the examination.
b. Findings
Written Examination During the review and validation of the written examination several questions were modified or replaced. Nineteen questions in the proposed examination were determined to be unsatisfactory and required re-work or replacement. Nine of the unsatisfactory questions were contained in the Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) portion of the examination. This means that 36 percent of the SRO questions submitted for the SRO examination did not meet the expectations of the NRC. The current expectation of the NRC is that the submitted examinations contain less than 20 percent unsatisfactory submitted questions. Therefore, additional attention in this area is warranted. The remainder of the written examination and the operating test met NRC expectations.
Changes made to the written examination were documented on Form ES-401-9, AWritten Examination Review Worksheet@ which is available electronically in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). The licensee submitted two written examination post-examination comments for consideration by the NRC examiners when grading the written examination. The written examination post-examination comments were received by the NRC on June 30, 2010. The post-examination comments and the NRC resolution for the post-examination comments are contained in Enclosure 3, APost Examination Comments and Resolutions.@ The NRC examiners graded the written examination on July 12, 2010, and conducted a review of each missed question to determine the accuracy and validity of the examination questions.
Operating Test In general, the operating test submitted by the faculty met the NRC expectations; however, one Job Performance Measure (JPM) was replaced prior to examination validation. The JPM would have duplicated a task that might have been performed during Scenario 3 in the major transient. During the validation of the operating test, one JPM test item was changed from alternate path to a normal JPM. The JPM did not meet the definition of an alternate path JPM. Several minor modifications were made to the dynamic simulator scenarios; mostly correction of typographical errors. One dynamic simulator scenario was removed from the examination when it was discovered that a loud speaker was operating in a telephone equipment room adjacent to the simulator.
Scenario specific information could be heard in the rest rooms adjacent to the telephone equipment room via the speaker during validation of the scenario. This was considered to be an examination security issue.
Examination Results Ten applicants at the SRO level and one applicant at the Reactor Operator (RO) level were administered written and operating tests. One of the SRO applicants was currently licensed as an RO at Perry Nuclear Power Plant and took an SRO Upgrade examination. One SRO applicant failed the written examination and was issued a proposed license denial. One SRO applicant failed the operating test (dynamic simulator scenario portion) and was issued a proposed license denial. Nine applicants passed all portions of their examinations and were issued appropriate operating licenses.
.2 Examination Security
a. Scope
The NRC examiners reviewed and observed the licensee's implementation of examination security requirements during the examination validation and administration to assure compliance with 10 CFR 55.49, AIntegrity of Examinations and Tests.@ The examiners used the guidelines provided in NUREG 1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,@ Revision 1, Supplement 2, to determine acceptability of the licensee=s examination security activities.
b. Findings
Two examples of exam security concerns were discovered during the process of validating and administering the examination. The first example occurred when an uncontrolled speaker in a communications room adjacent to the simulator was discovered broadcasting simulator radio transmissions during validation of the operating test. The radio transmissions from the speaker could be heard in an adjacent restroom and in the hallway outside the communications room. The chief examiner determined that no examination compromise occurred for this event because the scenario material that was broadcast and that would have revealed the major transient was replaced with the spare scenario. The other scenarios had only minor non-specific information broadcast on the simulated radio that would not have revealed specific events or the major transient.
The second example of an exam security issue occurred when the written examination was being copied by the examination author on Saturday, June 19, 2010, prior to examination administration on Monday, June 21, 2010. A paper jam occurred while the written examination was being copied. The examination author cleared the paper jam and the copier instrument panel indicated the copier was ready to copy. The examination author successfully copied the remainder of the examination (approximately 500 more pages) and performed post-copying activities to delete any photo memory in the copier. This entailed running additional papers through the copier. At no time was another paper jam indicated on the control panel, nor were any pages missing from the copies made by the exam author. However, it was later discovered that a copy of one page of the examination was stuck in a concealed location within the copier. On Monday, June 21, 2010, after the initial license written examination had commenced, station chemistry trainers tried to copy some of their training material and another copier jam occurred. While clearing the copier jam, the chemistry trainers discovered the initial license training examination page stuck in the copier along with their training material.
The page was immediately identified as examination material because the question page was on pink paper and was controlled by an operations trainer on the stations examination security agreement and who was in the copy room when the examination page was discovered. The licensees investigation into these events is documented in a letter dated July 10, 2010 (L-10-224). The examination author contacted the copy machine manufacturer who verified that paper can get into a position where it is not seen by the copier and may have to be removed by a technician. The chief examiner believes there was no exam compromise in this case because there was no indication of a paper jam on the copier control panel when the chemists began their copying, and the pink exam paper was mixed in with the chemists papers, indicating it was in the machine when the copying started and became mixed in with the chemists papers resulting in a paper jam. Because the unblocking of the paper jam released the exam pink page while the exam was being administered, none of the applicants had an opportunity to view the page; therefore the chief examiner concluded that no compromise to the examination occurred, and no changes were made to the written examination.
4OA6 Meetings
Debrief The chief examiner presented the examination team's preliminary observations and findings on June 18, 2010, to Mr. K. Krueger, Plant General Manager, and other members of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Training Department staff.
Exit Meeting The chief examiner conducted an exit meeting on July 12, 2010, with Mr. A. Mueller, Jr.,
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Training Manager, by telephone. The NRC=s final disposition of the station=s post-examination comments were disclosed and revised preliminary written examination results were provided to Mr. Mueller during the telephone discussion.
The examiners asked the licensee whether any of the material used to develop or administer the examination should be considered proprietary. No proprietary or sensitive information was identified during the examination or debrief/exit meetings.
ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee
- K. Krueger, Plant General Manager
- R. Coad, Regulatory Compliance Manager
- H. Hanson, Performance Improvement Director
- A. Jardine, Operations Manager
- D. Johnson, Training
- J. Kelly, Initial License Training Supervisor
- T. Morse, Operations Superintendent
- A. Mueller, Jr., Training Manager
- D. ODonnell, Operations/Training
- R. Torres, Examination Author
- R. Strohl, Operations Training Supervisor
NRC
- D. McNeil, Senior Operations Engineer
- M. Bielby, Senior Operations Engineer
- C. Zoia, Operations Engineer
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened, Closed, and Discussed
None