IR 05000443/2009301
| ML092370542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/2009 |
| From: | Hansell S Operations Branch I |
| To: | O'Keefe M, St.Pierre G NextEra Energy Seabrook |
| References | |
| 50-443/09-301 | |
| Download: ML092370542 (30) | |
Text
August 25, 2009
SUBJECT:
SEABROOK STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000443/2009301
Dear Mr. St. Pierre:
On July 19, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an examination at Seabrook Station. The enclosed report documents the examination findings, which were discussed on August 12, 2009, with Mr. Kerry Wright of your staff.
The examination included the evaluation of four applicants for reactor operator licenses, seven applicants for instant senior operator licenses and two applicants for upgrade senior operator licenses. The written and operating examinations were developed using NUREG-1021,
"Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9, Supplement 1.
The license examiners determined that five of the thirteen applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses were issued on July 31, 2009.
Two applicants for instant senior operator licenses passed their exams but their licenses are being held based on their written exam grades. Licenses for applicants with written exam passing grades of 82 percent or below are normally held for review until those applicants who failed the examination have had an opportunity to appeal their license denials. Also, one of these two instant senior operator license applicants will not be issued a license until you certify in writing that he has acquired all of the training and experience for which he was previously granted a waiver. The remaining six applicants (one reactor operator applicant, four instant senior operator applicants and one upgrade senior operator applicant) failed the written portion of their exams and were denied a license.
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
Mr. G. S 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/
Samuel L. Hansell, Jr., Chief Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure:
NRC Examination Report 05000443/2009301
Mr.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000443/2009301; June 12-19, 2009; Seabrook Station; Initial Operator Licensing
Examination Report.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of four applicants for reactor operator (RO) licenses, seven applicants for instant senior reactor operator (SROI) licenses and two applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator (SROU) licenses at Seabrook Station. The facility 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 facility on June 12, 2009. NRC examiners administered the operating tests on June 15 - 19, 2009. The license examiners determined that three RO license applicants, one SROI license applicant and one SROU license applicant satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued.
Two SROI license applicants passed their exams but their licenses are being held based on their written exam grades. Licenses for applicants with written exam passing grades of 82 percent or below are normally held for review until those applicants who failed the examination have had an opportunity to appeal their license denials. Also, one of these two SROI license applicants will not be issued a license until the facility certifies in writing that the applicant has acquired all of the training and experience for which he was previously granted a waiver. The remaining six applicants (one RO, four SROI and one SROU) failed the written portion of their exams and were denied a license.
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 examiners reviewed all thirteen 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 three 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 June 12, 2009, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all thirteen applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on July 17, 2009.
The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to all thirteen applicants on June 15-19, 2009. Three RO license applicants participated in three dynamic simulator scenarios and the fourth RO applicant participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios. All four RO applicants also participated in a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of eleven system tasks and an administrative test consisting of four administrative tasks. Five SROI license applicants participated in three dynamic simulator scenarios and two SROI applicants participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios. All seven SROI license applicants also participated in a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of ten system tasks and an administrative test consisting of five administrative tasks. One of the two SROU license applicants participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios and the other SROU applicant participated in one dynamic simulator scenario. Both of the SROU license applicants also participated in a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of five system tasks and an administrative test consisting of five administrative tasks.
b. Findings
All thirteen of the applicants passed all parts of the operating test. Six applicants (one reactor operator license applicant, four instant senior operator license applicants and one upgrade senior operator license applicant) failed the written examination. For the written examinations, the reactor operator applicants average score was 83.78 percent and ranged from 77.02 to 90.54 percent, the senior operator applicants average score was 72.88 percent and ranged from 64.00 to 84.00 percent. The overall written examination average was 82.65 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 thirteen questions that met these criteria and submitted the analysis to the chief examiner. This analysis concluded that eight of the thirteen questions were technically valid as administered.
The licensee submitted five post-examination question comments on July 17, 2009.
The NRC reviewed the facilitys post-exam comment submittal package and accepted the facility recommendations on three of the five questions. One question was deleted from both the reactor operator and senior reactor operator written exams. The senior reactor operator written exam key was also modified to accept two correct answers on two questions. The remaining two questions with post-exam comments were left unchanged on the answer key. The post-exam comments, including NRC responses, are included in an attachment to this report.
Seabrook Station is performing a root cause analysis to determine the cause of the examination results. Seabrook Station is adopting a newly developed fleet standard exam development procedure. This procedure will be updated based on the lessons learned from the root cause analysis. This written exam performance issue has been captured in the site corrective action program under Condition Report 00199879.
.3 Initial Licensing Examination Development
a. Examination Scope
The facility 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 listed on a security agreement. The facility licensee submitted both the written and operating examination outlines on March 31, 2009. The chief examiner reviewed the outlines against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, and provided comments to the licensee. The facility licensee submitted the draft examination package on May 4, 2009. The chief examiner reviewed the draft examination package against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, and provided comments to the licensee on the examination on May 11, 2009. The NRC conducted an onsite validation of the operating examinations and provided further comments during the week of May 14, 2009. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution on June 8, 2009.
b. Findings
The NRC approved the initial examination outline and advised the licensee to proceed with the operating examination development.
The examiners determined that the written and operating examinations 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 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 examiners reviewed examination security for examination development and during both the onsite preparation week and examination administration week for compliance with NUREG-1021 requirements. 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. Kerry Wright on August 12, 2009. The licensee acknowledged the results.
The licensee did not identify any information or materials used during the examination as proprietary.
4OA7 Licensee-Identified Violations
No findings of significance were identified.
ATTACHMENTS:
1, Supplemental Information 2, Written Examination Post-Exam Submittal
ATTACHMENT 1
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
- K. Wright, Training Manager
- K. Browne, Assistant Operations Manager
- T. Cassidy, Simulator Support Section Leader
- P. Leary, Nuclear Training Instructor - Exam Developer
NRC Personnel
- W. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector
- J. Johnson, Resident Inspector
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Opened
None
Opened and Closed
None
Closed
None
Discussed
None