IR 05000458/2003301
| ML030660636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/2003 |
| From: | Gody A Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Hinnenkamp P Entergy Operations |
| References | |
| 50-458/03-301 50-458/03-301 | |
| Download: ML030660636 (11) | |
Text
March 7, 2003
SUBJECT:
RIVER BEND STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 50-458/03-301
Dear Mr. Hinnenkamp:
On February 14, the NRC completed an examination at your River Bend Station. The enclosed report documents the examination findings, which were discussed on February 13, 2003, with Mr. Russ Godwin and other members of your staff.
The examination included the evaluation of four applicants for reactor operator licenses, four applicants for instant upgrade and four applicants for senior operator licenses. We determined that all applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRCs "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/
Anthony T. Gody, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket: 50-458 License: NPF-47
Entergy Operations, Inc.
-2-
Enclosure:
NRC Examination Report 50-458/03-301
REGION IV==
Docket:
Docket: 50-458 License:
License: NPF-47 Report No.:
50-313/02-302 Licensee:
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Facility:
River Bend Station Location:
5485 U.S. Highway 61 St. Francisville, Louisiana Dates:
February 10-14, 2003 Examiners:
M. Murphy, Senior Operations Engineer, Operations Branch T. Stetka, Senior Operations Engineer, Operations Branch T. McKernon, Senior Operations Engineer, Operations Branch G. Werner, Senior Operations Engineer, Operations Branch Approved By:
Anthony T. Gody, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
-2-SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ER 50-458/03-301; February 10-14, 2003; Entergy Operations, Inc.; River Bend Station; Initial Operator Licensing Examinations.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of four applicants for reactor operator licenses, four applicants for instant upgrades, and four applicants for senior operator licenses at River Bend Station. The licensee developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 8, Supplement 1. The written examination was administered by the facility to the applicants on February 7, 2003. The NRC examiners administered the operating tests on February 10-14, 2003.
Cornerstone: Human Performance No findings of significance were identified (Section 40A4.1).
Report Details 4.
OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA4 Initial Operator License Examination
.1 Operator Knowledge and Performance a.
Examination Scope On February 7, 2003, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examination to all twelve applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on February 14, 2003.
The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to the applicants on February 10-14, 2003. All 12 applicants participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios, the 4 applicants for reactor operator and the 4 applicants for senior reactor operator (Instant) participated in a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of ten system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of five administrative tasks. The 4 applicants for upgrade to senior reactor operator 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 12 of the applicants passed all parts of the examinations. The applicants demonstrated good 3-way communications, alarm response, and peer checking.
For the written examinations, the reactor operator applicants average score was 87 percent and ranged from 80.0 to 90.0 percent, the senior reactor operator applicants average score was 90.8 and ranged from 87.0 to 94 percent. The overall written examination average was 89.5 percent. The text of the examination questions may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment.
The licensee conducted a performance analysis for the written examinations, submitting them to the chief examiner on February 19, 2003. Two questions were missed by 50 percent or more of the applicants. The analysis identified no common knowledge deficiency. No remediation training was determined to be necessary following the examinations. The licensee also submitted a post examination comment on one question, and requested that two answers be accepted as correct. The licensees rationale and the NRC resolution are contained in the attachment.
No findings of significance were identified.
.2 Initial Licensing Examination Development The licensee developed the examinations in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1. Licensee facility training and operations staff involved in examination development were on a security agreement.
-2-
.2.1 Examination Outline and Examination Package a.
Examination Scope The facility licensee submitted the operating examination outlines on October 11, 2003.
Examiners reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1. There were no comments. The facility licensee submitted the draft examination package on December 12, 2003. Examiners reviewed the draft submittals against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1 and provided comments to the licensee on December 12, 2003. The chief examiner conducted an onsite validation of the examinations and provided further comments during the week of January 21, 2003. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution on February 5, 2003.
b.
Findings Examiners approved the initial examination outline and advised the licensee to proceed with the operating examination development.
The chief examiner determined that the operating examinations initially submitted by the licensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination and were satisfactory.
No findings of significance were identified.
.3 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.
.4 Examination Security a.
Examination Scope The examiners reviewed examination security both during 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.
-3-4OA5 Management Meeting
.1 Exit Meetings The chief examiner presented the examination results to Mr. Russ Godwin, Training Manager, and other members of the licensees management staff on February 13, 2003.
The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined during the examination.
ATTACHMENT KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee M. Cantrell, Operations Training Supervisor - Simulator J. Clark, Assistant Operations Manager R. Godwin, Training Manager M. Wagner, Operations Training Supervisor - Classroom ADAMS DOCUMENTS REFERENCED Accession No. ML:030640621 Written examination for reactor and senior reactor operators POST EXAMINATION COMMENT Question #49 Comment: The question asks that for the situations provided, which one requires Emergency Depressurization. The facility recommends acceptance of an additional answer - 180F and slowly rising, Containment Unit Coolers CANNOT be restored - since it states that containment temperature is slowly rising and approaching 185 degrees with the Containment Unit Coolers unavailable to turn containment temperature. The operator would then make the conservative decision to implement the required action of emergency depressurization based on the given conditions. Implementing the action emergency depressurization is justified based on the given conditions and the definition of "cannot be maintained below". The definition, contained in EPSTG*0002, Definitions/Usage of Key Words/Phrases, states "... depending upon plant conditions, the action may be taken as soon as it is determined that the limit will ultimately be exceeded..."
NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted; the question has two correct answers (A and D).
Procedure EOP-2 stipulates that "When Containment Temperature Cannot be Maintained Below 185F - Emergency Depressurization is Required" and the licensees training provides the accepted definition of "cannot be maintained below," which is promulgated in EPSTG*0002.