IR 05000498/1997301
| ML20197B179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197B127 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-97-301, 50-499-97-301, NUDOCS 9712230308 | |
| Download: ML20197B179 (24) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ . _ . .. ._- _.- . - - . . . _ ..
...
..
ERCLOSURE 2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket Nos.: 50-498;50-499 License Nos.: NPF-76; NPF-80 Report No.: 50-498/97-301; 50-499/97-301 Licensee: STP Nuclear Operating Company Facility: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: FM 521 - 8 miles west of Wadsworth '
Wadsworth, Texas Dates: October 20 to December 5,1997 Inspectors: H. Bundy, Chief Examiner, Operations Branch R. Lantz, Examiner, Operations Branch M. Murphy, Senior Examiner, Operations Branch Accompanying K. Erickson, Examiner, Battelle Pacific NW Laborateries Personnel: R. Pugh, Examiner, Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories J. Nickolaus, Examiner Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories Approved By: J. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety .
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Supplementaiinformation Attachment 2: Simulation Facility Report Attachment 3: Facility Initial License Written Examination Comments
- Attachment 4: Final Written Examination and Answer Key
!
9712230308 971218 PDR ADOCK 05000498 G PDR
._ -
.. . .. .
. .. . . - - - -- . . _ . . - . -.. . -.- .-.
-
..
,.
3-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2_
NRC Inspection Report 50-498/97-301; 50-499/97 301
- NRC examiners evaluated the competency of 6 reactor operator and 8 senior operator applicants for issuance of operating licenses at the South Texas Project facility.' The licensee developed the initial license examinations using NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination .
Standards for Power Reactors," Interim Revision 8. NRC examiners reviewed, approved, and administered the examinations, The initial written examinations were administered to all 14 applicants on October 17,1997, by facihty proctors in accordance with instructions provided by the chief examiner. The NRC examiners administered the operating tests on December 1-5,199 Ooerations
- All six applicants for reactor operator licenses and all eight applicants for senior operator licenses displayed the requisite knowledge and skills to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and were issued the appropriate licenses (Sections 04.1,04.2).
'
. Overall, the operator license applicants demonstrated good crew dynamics and communications. Individual self verification was consistently good during control panel and equipment manipulations (Section 04.2).
- The licensee initially failed to submit an acceptable examination for administration to operator license applicants for the control room systems and facility walkthrough portion of the examination. Several revisions by the licensee were required to produce a product which satisfied examination standards. This resulted in delaying administration of the operating test portion of the examination (Section 05.1).
- A violation involving the granting of examination exemptions to two individuals, contrary to the regulations, was identified by the NRC. Because the licensee had completed itt assessment and revised its procedure to prohibit exemptions and ensure that all licensed operators meet the requirements, no response was requested (Section 08.1).
_
.
er -
sp +.-ea -ve, ,r- +w-.;m'-
.
-4 ,
Reoort Details Summarv of Plant Status
..Both units operated at essentially 100 percent power for the duration of this inspectio '
L_Q9ffADDL 04 Operator Knowledge and Performance 0 Initial Written Examination l_nsocction Scong On October 17,1997, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examination approved by the NRC to six individuals who had applied for initial reactor operator licenses and eight individuals who had applied for initial senior operator licenses. The licensee graded the written examinations and its staff reviewed the result The licensee also performed a post-examination question analysis, which was reviewed by the examiner Observations and Findinos The minimum passing score was 80 percent. All applicants for reactor operator licenses passed with scores langing from 81 to 91 percent. All appi; cants for senior operator licenses passed with scores ranging from 81.8 to 94.9 percent. The average score for reactor operator applicants was 86.8 percent and the average score for senior operator applicants was 88.9 percen The above grades reflected the results after examination changes recommended by the
- licensee as a result of post-examination question analysis were incorporated. The examiners reviewed and ac;epted these recommendations based on the technical merits of each recommendation. As a result of this analysis, two answers were accepted for Questions 54 and 59, which were common te both examinations. Also, two answers were accepted for Question 95 on the reactor operator examination. Question 15 on the senior operator examination had no correct answer and was delete The chief examiner reviewed the licensee's question analysis with particular attention to those questions which were missed by more than half the applicants. Only questions 86 and 96, which were common to both examinations, were in that category. Reasons for missed questions appeared related to isolated training weaknesses. The chief examiner determined that there were no significant interrelationships to indicate genenc weaknesses in knowledge or abilit .
.
5 Conclusions All applicants passed the written examinatio '04.2 initial Ooeratina Test Insoection Scope The examination team administe ed the various portiorss of the operating test to the 14 applicants on December 14,1997. Each applicant oarticipated in one to three dynamic simulator scenarios. Each also received a walkthrough test which consisted of ten system tasks tog " er with two followup questions for each system, except for four applicants who were upgrading their reactor operator to senior operator licenses and were each administered five system tasks with followup questions. Five subjects in four administrative areas were covered by administrative tasks for all applicant Observations and Findinos All applicants passed all sections of the operating test. Generally good crew dynamics and ,ommunications were observed. One exception was noted during one scenario when confusion arose concerning the implications of certain plant indications. The panel operators became very concerned about their individual panel indications and manipulations and declined to support periodic briefings by the control room superviso Also, because of their preoccupation with their panels, the supervisor had to repeat several of his directives. The examiners obscrved good plant awareness, ownership, and application of principles for self-verification of individual performance by the applicants throughout the examination. The application of management expectations for peer checking by the applicants ranged from outstanding to nonexistent, depending on the crew being observe Conclusions All aoplicants passed all sections of the operating test. Overall, the operator license apphcants demonstrated good crew dynamics and communications. Individual self-verification was consistently good during control panel and equipment manipulation Operator Training and Qualification 05.1 initial Licensina Examination Develooment The licensee developed the initial licensing examination in accordance with guidance provided ir NUREG-1021.
L
. -~ .- . . . -
.
.
6-
'05. ~ Examination Outling
-
,
a- Insoection Scooe The licensee submitted the initial examination outline on August 19,1997. The examiners reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG-102 Observations and Findinos -
The chief examiner provided several enhancement suggestions related to examination integrity and responsiveness to NUREG 1021 requirements, which were incorporated by the licensee in the written examination outline. There appeared to be excessive day to-day overlap of subject material on the administrative portion of the examination The final outlines included more differences in subject matter from day-to-day. Also, unique discriminatory tasks were developed in several instances in which the same subjects were covered from day-to-da The licensee incorporated a number of enhancement suggestions for the walkthrough task outline. Several of the changes related to providing the recommended coverage of safety functions, engineered safety features, and radiological controlled area entr Other comments related to expected examination difficulty and administration efficienc The licensee acknowledged these comments for consideration in developing the final test item Also, the licensce incorporated a number of enhancement suggestions for the dynamic scenario outline.' The licensee did not have a clear understanding of what constituted a normal event for examination purposes. It subsequently replaced some events to clearly satisfy NUREG 102 After consideration of NRC comments on both the original outline and test items, the licensee submitted an acceptable final outline on October 29,199 Conclusions
- After incorporation of several enhancement suggestions provided by the examiners, the
- licensee submitted an acceptable final outline.
.
J & 4
, .. - -- - . - -. -
.
, sm ,
, -
. g _- l l
. .
.
u l
. .i d
. ~ 05.1.2 L Exam: nation Packaoe
' Insoection Scong:
iThe licensee submitted the initial examination package on September 19,1997 The -
chief examiner reviewed the submittal ag& inst the requirements of NUREG-102 ;
' Because of extensive NRC comments on the initial submittal, the licensee submitted a
. revised operating test package on October 29,1997dollowing onsite review by
. examiners during the week of October 20,1997,
, Observations and Findings ,
,
The licensee submitted 124 draft written examination questions, of which 76 were designated to be common to both the reactor operator and senior operator examination The licensee subsequently submitted an additional question during the initial review to satisfy the NUREG-1021 requirement for having 25 unique questions on the senior
- operator examination. The chief examiner provided comments or questions on'15
- questions on the reactor operator examination and 10 questions on the senior operator .
examination, In resolving these questions and comments, the licensee modified or replaced 7 questions which were common to both examinations,4 questions which appeared only on the reactor operator examination, and 3 questions which appeared only on the senior operator examinatiort Additionally, as a result of further internal review, the licensee modified or replaced 5 questions common to both examinations,
!
3 questions which appeared only on the reactor operator examination, and 1 question '
which appeared only on the senior operator examination. As discussed ;n Section O4.1, following post-examination review, credit was given for two answers for 3 questions on the reactor operator examination and 2 questions on the senior operatoi examination in addition,1 question, which had no correct answer, was deleted on the senior operator examination. Although failure to make the above changes would not have invalidated the examinations, it would have seriously degraded their discriminatory value. The examinations were considered marginally adequate for administration as submitted,
^
based on the pre- and post-examination change The hcensee submitted six dynamic scenarios, including one backup scenario, which was not used during the examination. The submitted scenarios were adequate for administration. Howevet, the expected operator action forms did not meet the quality
,
requirements discussed in NUREG-1021. Also, the quality assurance forms did not accurately reflect what was included in the scenarios in all instances. The licensee
- subsequently incorporated several enhancemer,t suggestions provided by the NRC examiners as a result of a table top review and onsite evaluatio The licensee submitted four sets of job performance measures to cover the
? administrative section of the examination. One set was designed for the reactor operator
'
- applicants and three sets were designed for senior operat_or applicants. Although some of the attachments were not included in the initial submittal, the job performance
-- > . _ , - -, ., . . - . -. - . . ,
. . _ . _
.
..
8-measures were adequate for administration with suitable attachments. The licensee provided the proper attachments and incorporated several chief examiner enhancement suggestions in the as-given administrative section of the examination To support the control room systems and facility walkthrough section of the operating test, the licensee provided 25 job performance measures developed to evaluate selected operator tasks. They were arranged in four sets to administer to the various spplicant There was no day-to-day overlap of specific tcsks in the sets. Although individual job performance measures were generally acceptable for administration as submitted, the combinations identified for individual sets did not discriminate at the required level for certain groups of applicants. For example, one set of five job perfonnance measures for two upgrade applicants contained only one .iob performance measure that had more than minimal discriminatory value and one was considered too simple in that it only required the applicant to identify the failure position of three valves on a drawing for a passing grad Similarly, the facility walkthrough subsection of the examination for all the instant senior operator and reactcr operator applicants did not discriminate at the required levelin that only one of the job performance measures displayed more than minimal discriminatory value and one was considered too simple in that the only action required for a satisfactory grade was to reset the mechanical overspeed trip device on the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump. Although this is an important action, it was difficult to demonstrate that the required skill would be discriminator As a result of the above comments, the licensee resubmitted the walkthrough job performance measures prior to an onsite review by NRC examiners. The resubmitted job performance measures were acceptable for administration. Also, the licensee incorporated several examiner suggestions to enhance the overall quality of the examination. For example, after reconsideration, the examiners determined that an additional job performance measure was too simple, in that, it required manipulation of only one component. The licensee replaced it with a more complex task. Also, an appropriate starting point was not identified for a job performance measure and procedure ana job performance measure performance steps were in conflict. The licensee made appropriate changes to that job performance measur The licensee was also required to submit 2 or more followup questions associated with each walkthrough task. Only 1 followup question was provided for four of the tasks in the initial submittal For some tasks,3 questions were submitted without instructions on how they were to be used. The licensee failed to follow guidance provided in NUREG-1021, Appendix C, Section 6, for construction of the followup questions. The majordy of the questions were considered direct lookup, which are to be avoided in accordance with Appendix C. Also, most of the questions testeo at the memorization and recalllevel, which is disecuraged in Appendix C. Overall, the task followup questions did not discnminate at a high enough level and were considered inadequate for administratio In response to the above comments, the licensee resubmitted the followup question . _
m . . ._ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . . - _ _ _ _. _
l
.
l
-
.
. 1 9-l
The chief examiner noted improvement in question quality. However, more information was required on a significant number of the 50 questions to allow the chief examiner to venfy that the provided solutions were correct. Three of the questions did not satisfy the I
guidelines in the examiner standards and were rewritten or replaced. Also,2 other
- questions wete deemed to have been adequately covered in other parts of the examination and were replaced by the license l The job performance measure followup questions were resubmitted by the licensee a
- second time as a result of the further comments. The operations branch chief and chief examiner determined that 0 of the resubmitted questions could be considered direct lookup. Also, the region provided comments on question construction or outline
~ descriptions for 11 other questions. In addition, the licensee rewrote 1 closed reference
. question as an open-reference question to increase the percentage of open-reference questions on the examinations for certain applicants. The licensee made appropriate revisions to the followup questions to address the above comments and the examiners considered the final product acceptable, The number of iterations required for the licensee to upgrade the systems and facility walkthrough part of the examination to satisfy NUREG-1021 requirements resulted in delaying the administration of the operating test part of the examination from October 20 to Det, amber 1,1997, Conclusions The licensee initially failed to submit an acceptable examination for administration to -
operator license applicants for the control room systems and facility walkthrough part of the examination. Several revisions were required by the licensee to produce a product which satisfied examiner standards. . This resulted in delaying administration of the operating test part of the examiaatio .2 Simulation Facility Performance Ingoection Scoce
- The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to fidelity during the examination validation and administratio Observations and Findinas The simulation facility supported examination administration well, but, as described in Attachment 2, minor simulator performance problems were experienced during
,
- . , , , . < m , -- e
_ _ _
.
,
,10-examination preparation and administration. These deficiencies had only minor effects on examination validation and administration. Several problems with rod control and position indication systems were noteworthy because similar problems have occurred during previous examinations at this facility, Conclusions The simulation facility supported examination administration well. Recurring problems with rod control and position indicating systems had minor effects on examination administration and validatio .3 bamination Securily r Scope The examiners ieviewed examination secunty both during onsite preparation week and examination administration week for compliance with NUREG-1021 requirement Observations and Findirios During onsite preparation during the week of October 20.1997, the examiners observed that examination security was generally good. However, some of the controls t. vere not clearly defined. In one instance an individual not on the examination security agreement walked through two doors posted "Do Not Enter" to enter the simulator instructor booth during the examination validation activities. He was challenged after a few seconds and placed on the examination security agreement. No examination compromise occurre Pnor to examination administration week, new locksets were installed on all doors leading to the simulator, Keys for these locksets were controlled by the simulator support cupervisor and security and issued only to personnel on the security agreemen Also, yellow arm bands with the words "NRC EXAM TEAM" were issued to examination team members to make it clear who was authorized to be in the examination area. This system worked wel Conclusions After a potential examination compromise incident during the onsite examination preparation week, the licensee implemented an examination security plan which was effectiv . _ - - . - - -- .. - - - . .
,
.._
"'
!
.08 luiscellaneous Operations issues -
08.1 Closed Unresolved issue _59-498 499/9720-01: Administrative Procedurt: OPGP03-ZT-0132, " Licensed Operator Reaualification," allowed an ex6mption from the biennial written and annual operating tests for licensed personnel assigned to .
the examination development tea ,
The licensee determined that this allowance was incorporated in the procedure in late
'
1994 or early 1995. The licensee also confirmed that no licensed personnel actively performing licensed duties had been granted an exemption and that only two licensed, but inactive, operators had been granted this exemption. The licensee had revised the procedure to remove the exemption and ensured that all licensed operators met the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(4). However, for the period of October 31,1994 until August 12,1997, the licensee had granted two individuals examination exemptions .
_
contrary to the regulctions, which constituted a violation of 10 CFR 50.54(i-1) ,
(50-498;-499/97301-01).
V. Management Meetings X1 Exit Meeting Summary The examiners presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on December 5,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined during the inspectio l
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
.. . ~ . . . . .- . .. - - - - . - - . ~ . -
4-
.
^
ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licenste P Arrington, Associate Licensing Specialist, J. Calvert, Operations Training Manager
-
- G. Chitwood, Supervising Instructor
_
W. Cottle, President and Chief Executive Officer M. DeFrees; Lead Instructor, Licensed Operator Training B. Dowdy, Unit 2 Operations Manager J. Lovell, Operations Support Manager
.
F. Mangan, Vice President, Plant Services K. Struble, Supervising instructor K.Taplett, Licensing Engineer
- NBC D, Loveless, Senior Resident inspector ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED ,
Opened 50-498; 499/97301 01 NOV Failure to ensure alllicensed operators were examined (Section 08.1)
ClDied 50-498;-499/9720-01 URI Review of procedure guidance that provided for the exemption from taking a biennial written and an annual operating examination (Sectiore 08.1)
50-498;-499/97301 01 NOV _ Failure to ensure alllicensed operators were examined (Section 08.1)
r:
'
- _ _ __
.- - - .. . - -- - . . - . . - . - . . _ -
,
C-
'
.
ATTACHMENT 2 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
'
Facility Licensee:? STP Nuclear Operating Company -
- Facility Dochet: 50-498;50-499 Operating Examinations Administered at: South Texas Project
- Operating Examinations Administered on: December 15,1997 These observations do not constitute audit or inspection fin (ngs and are not, without further
'
venfication and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do riot affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility, o;her than to provide information, which may be used in future evaluations.- No licensee action is required in response to these obseivation Deficiencies identified During Examination Preoaration
- Rods would not move when attempting to recover a dropped rod. This was an initial condition setup proble ,
- When attempting to withdraw a Bank D control rod, the step counter did not cour,; .
. This prrblem was corrected prior to examination administration wee * When loading equipment onto 4,16kV Bus E1 A, when the control switch was takan from -
Pull to Lock to AUTO, the breaker for Component Ccoling Water Pump 1 A c'osed and then immediately tripped and could not be reclosed following the trip. To ensure that this problem did not interfere with the examination, Component Cooling Water Pump 1 A was tagged out-of-service during the scenari Deficiencies identified Durina Examination Administration
- When recovering a Bank D control rod, the digital rod position indication system did not '
reflect the rod being withdrawn. The examiners had to cue the outward movement of the rod and the increasing reactor coolant temperatur .- : While loading an emergency bus, EAB Supply and Return Fans 11 A immediately started
-
and theMr(nped when taking the control switch from Pull-to-Lock to AUTO.' The examinus had to cue the applicants that the fans remained runnin "
-
_______________._________i___
--
, .
'
ATTACHMENT 3 i j
FACILITY INITIAL LICENSE EXAMINATION COMMENTS l l
l l
l
,
.
. SOUTil TEXAS PROJECT
'
(Exam Date Octo 17,1997)
-
Question Analysis RO/SRO #2 miss rate - 50% : Knowledge d:Sciency conceming calculation of subcooling RO/SRO #16 miss rate - 36% : Knowledge de6ciency concerning actions to restore IA to containment following a loss of powe RO/SRO #22 miss rate - 43% : Knowledge de6ciency conceming Si system design basi RO/SRO #24 miss rate - 36% : Integrated plant knowledge deficiency conceming a pressur;zer pressure channel failur RO/SRO #31 miss rate - 50% : Knowledge deficiency concerning operation of the N 16 monitor RO/SRO #38 miss rate - 36% : Knowledge deficiency conceming auto start signals to the CCW pump RO/SRO #40 mirs rate 43% : Knowledge deficiency concerning when an ALARA hold is implemente RO #41 miss rate - 50% : Knowledge deficiency concerning conditions necessary to start a reactor coolant pump per the POP 0 RO #50 miss rate - 33% : Knowledge deficiency conceming RIIR temperature control during a loss ofinstrument ai RO/SRO #54 miss rate - 64% : Question deficiency (see Applicant comments)
RO/SRO #68 miss rate - 43% : Knowledge deficiency conceming the loss of power to DP 120 RO/SRO #79 miss rate - 43% : Knowledge deficiency conceming the basis for entering ES12 from E01 RO/SRO #86 miss rate - 71% : Knowledge deficiency conceming steam generator tube leakage Action Level RO/SRO #92 miss rate - 43% : Knowledge deficiency concerning pressurizer level control input failure RO #95 miss rate - 33% : Question deficiency (see Applicant comments).
RO/SRO #96 miss rate - 64% : Knowledge deficiency conceming LCO time requirement RO #98 miss rate - 33% : Knowledge defiaiency concerning the P-13 (P-7) interloc Page 1 of 2
, . . . __ _ . ._. _ - _ ._ . _ __ . _ .
'
-* ' -
' SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT t
'
I (Exam Date Oct.17,1997)
.
'
_ Question Analysis;
'
. RO #99 ' miss rate - 33% : Knowledge deficiency concermng the conditions necessary to open the feedwater isolation valve .
~
918d#15 miss rarte s 50%: Question deficiency (see Applicant comments)
SRO #97 miss rate - 50% : Knowledge deficiency conceming the CCW LCO action time ,
P
-
'
,
.
Page 2 of 2
, . . - - , , w -s - , wy c
SU U 111 i LAA6 l'RUJ EL 1
'. , (Enm Date Oct. 17,1997)'
, Question I3rcakdown i
Exam Applicant Choice Ques RO- SRO Ans A B i
C D Miss
- Key Rate %
'
l- X X- C 4 10 29 2 X X- D 4 2 1 7 50 3 X X- C 14 0 4 X X A 14 0 5 X X B 14 0 6 X X D 2 12 14 7- X X B 14 0 8 X X A 14 0
_ X -X A 14 0 10 X X C 14 0 11 X X D 14 0 12 X X C 14 0 13 X X C 14 0 14 X X D 14 0 15 X C 6 0 15 X C 3 5 38 16 X X A 9 1 2 2 36 17 X D 6 0 17 X C 1 7 13 18 X B 6 0 18 X B 6 2 25 14 X X A 14 0 20 X X B 3 11 21 21 X X C 14 0 22 -X X C 4 8 2 43 23 X X D 1 13 7 24 X X D 2 3 9 36 25 X X B 14 0 26 X X D 3 11 21 27 X X C 14 0 28 X X A 14 0 29 X X B 1 13 7 30 X X D 1 1 2 10 29 31 X X A 7 2 3 2 50 32 X X D 14 0 Pageiof4
_
- _ __. -
SOUTil TEXAS PROJECT
.
(Exam' D:te Oct. 17,1997)
,. Question Breakdown Exam Applicant Choice Ques RO SRO - Ans A B C D Miss
- Key R' ate %
33 X A 12 2 14 34 X X D 14 0 35 X X A 14- 0 36 X X C 14 0 37 X X C 1 10 3 29 38 X X C 1 4 9 .36 39 X X D 4 10 29 40 X X C 1 4 8 1 43 41 X A 3 2 1 50 41 X A 8 0 42 X D 6 0 42 X n 8 0 43 X C 5 1 17 43 X D 8 0 44 X B 6 0 44 X B 8 0 45 X C 6 0 45 X D 1 7 13 46 X X C ' 14 0 47 X D 6 0 47 X C 7 1 13 48 X A 6 0 48 X A 7 1 13 49 X B 6 0 49 X D 8 0 50 X C 4 2 33, 50 .X B 8 0 51 X D 6 0 51 X B 8 0'
52 X X B 14 0 53 X X B 2 11 1 21 54 X X C 8 1 5 64 55 X X A 13 1 7 56 X X D 1 13 7 57 X X B 14 0 58 X X B 13 1 7 Page 2 of 4
_ _
SOUTli TEXAS PROJECT
. (Exam Date Oct. 17,1997)
, Question Breakdown
_ _ _ _ _
Exam Applicant Choice -
- Key Rite %
59 X X -B 11 3 21 60 X B 13 1 7 61 X D 6 0 61 X D 3 0 _
62 X X D 2 12 14 63 X X- C 2 .2
14 64 X X A 10 3 1 29 65 X X C 13 1 7 66 X X D 1 13 7 67 X X D ' 13 7 68 X X A 8 3 3 43 69 X X B 14 0 70 X X C 2 10 2 14 71 X X B 12 1 1 14 72 X X B 14 0 73 X X C 14 0 74 X X D 2 1 11 21 75 X X B 13 1 7
'
76 X B 6 <
76 X D 2 6 25 77 X X B 14 0 78 X X B 14 0 79 X X A 8 6 43 80 X D 8 0 80 X B 2 6 25 81 X X A 14 0, 82 X X B 14 0 ,
83 X D 1 5 17 83 -X D 8 0 84 X X D 1 13 7 85 X C 6 0 85 X C 8 0 06 X X A 4 5 1 4 71 87 X X C- 1 13 7 88 X X C 14 0 89 X X D 14 0 Page 3 of 4
,
SU U i 11 1 LAAd l'KUJ LL i
.
(Exem D:te Oct. 17,1997)
, Question Breakdown Exam- Applicant Choice Ques RO SRO Ans A B C D Miss
- - Key Rate %
90 X C _
6 0 90 X A 8 0 91 X X C 14 0
'
92 X X C 4 8 1 43 93 X D 8 0 93 X C 6 0 94 X X- D'~ l 1 12 14 95 X B 4 2 33 95- X C 8 0 96 X X B 7 5 1 1 64 97 X A 6 0 _ _
97 X B 2 4 1 1 50 98 X A 4 2 33 98 X C 8 0 99 X B 2 4 33-99 X D 1 1 6 25 100 X B 1 5 17 100 X D 8 0 t
s Page 4 of 4 l
l
. - SObTiI TEXAS PRbJECT L' (Exdm Date Oct.17,1997)
-, APPLICANT COMMENTS RO/SRO #16 Answer: A References: POP 04-DJ 0001 Rev 6 Loss of Class 1E 125 VDC Power (Pg 24)
Corament: Lead to believe power was restored, so an operator wotild not be required.'
Also leaned this way since the Shift Supervisor directed and the stem didn't say locall Resolution: Comment rejected. Actions clearly stated in the precedur RO/SRO #24 Answer D References: POPO4-RP-0001, Loss of Automatic Pressurizer Pressure Control I .OT 201.14 Rev 7, Pressurizer Pressure and Level Control Comment: SI Signal will cause Phase A isolation , isolating Iristrument Air to containment and closing the spray valves. Heater groups D and E will stay on to raise pressure to the PORV interlock setpoint. Applicant felt that not enough information was given to unequivocally answer the questio Resolution: Comment rejected. Question stem stated "no operator action", therefore
. cooldown from maximum Aux Feedwater flow will result in answer D -
being correc RO/SRO #26 Answer D References: POP 02-ZA-0018 Rev 9, Emergency Operating Procedure User's Ouide
,
Comment: Verify P-4 circuitry and question technically correc Resolution: Editorial comment accepted. Answer D is correct provided the initiating signal is no longer present. Question will be revised prior to next use. No changes for this exa Additional references: SSPS drawings 387-0100491WN,492WN,435WN and 436WN RO!SRO #30 Answer D References: POP 05-EO-E030, Steam Generato Tube Rupture
' Comment: Should stay in E030 right after PORV identified and continue o Resolution: - Comment rejected. Cooldown to Cold Shutdown is not performed in POP 05 EO-E030
Page I of 5 i
. - p -
. - .- - - . . .. - - ....-
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT
= (Exam D:te Oct.17,1997)
... APPLICANT COMMENTS RO/SRO #31 Answer A-References: PGP03 ZO 0041 Rev 2, Action for Monitoring Primary to Secondary Leakag .
Comment: - Applicant felt that the N 16 monitors function at this power leve Monitors are not very accurate, but they are sensitiv . Resolution: Comment rejected. Per the system engineer, the N-16 monitors will not indicate locally or in the Control Room at this power leve o RO/SRO #39 - Answer D References: LOT 202.09 Rev 9, Steam Dump-Comment: Believe steam dump load rejection controller will reduce Tave to no-loa Resolution: Comment rejected. System circuitry will not allow steam dumps to reduce Tave to Tref as a 3' F deadband exists in the load rejection controlle RO #41 Answer A References: POP 02 RC-0004 Rev 9, Operation of Reactor Coolant Pump (Pg 10)
Comment: Applicant felt distractor C is also correct since steam generator temperatures are colde Resolution: Comment rejected. Procedure cicarly supports only answer A to be correc RO #45 Answer C References: POP 09 AN-06M3 Rev 6, Annunciator Lampbox 6M03 Response Instructions (Pg 22) -
LOT 202.28 Rev 4, Auxiliary Feedwater System (Pg 43)
Comment: Actuation could be reset and runout conditions established manuall Resolution: . Comment rejected. This condition was riot provided as an option for answering the questio Page 2 of 5
SOUTil TEXAS PROJECT
- (Exam Date Oct. 17,1997)
. APPLICANT COMMENTS RO/SRO #54 Answer C References: POPO4 RS 0001 Rev 9, Control Rod Malfunction (Pg 101I)
TS 3/4.1.3.1, Group lleight -
Cornment: During dropped rod recovery, RCS temperatare adjustments may be made by boration and/or turbine load change Resolution: Comment accepted. Accept A and C as correct. Procedure clearly states both methods are acceptable (Addenhn 1, step 10.0). Tech Specs allow a power inctcase to 75%.
RO/SRO #59 Answer 11 References: POP 05-EO ES03, Natural Circulation Cooldown with Steam Void in Vessel Comment: Step 1 of ES03 (start a reactor coolant pump), is a continuous action step, therefore answer C should be accepte Resolution: Comment accepted. Accept 11 and C as correct. Establishing conditions to start a reactor coolant pump (step 1) includes verification / establishment of proper dea T between RCS cold legs and SG temperature (i.e.10' F).
RO/SRO #70 Answer C References: LOT 504.04 Rev 6, Introduction to Emergency Opcrating Procedures POP 01 ZA-0018 Rev 9, Emergency Operating Procedure User's Guide POP 05 EO FR$1 Rev 7 Response to Nuclear Power Generation ATWS (CIP)
POP 05 EO FRCl Rev 6, Response to inadequate Core Cooling (CIP)
POP 05-EO-E030 Rev 8, Steam Generator Tube Rupture (CIP)
POP 05 EO-ES12 Rev 12, Post LOCA Cooldown and Depressurization (CIP)
Comment: Clarify in answer C where in ES12 you are (specific step)
Resolution: Editorial comment accepted. Question will be revised prior to next us No changes for this exa Page 3 of 5
_ _ _ - _
. -_ . _ . - . . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
t
- SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT
- (Exam D:le Oct, 17.1997) l
\
' * -
APPLICANT COMMENTS RO/SRO #79 Answer A l References: POP 05 EO EOl0 Rev 7. Loss of Reactor Secondary Coolant WOO Background Document, E l. LP version .
!
Comment: Break size is determined by physical size and not LilSI pump flow in either the ERO or the FSAR. Applicant felt there was not a correct answer
- :
availabic.
J Conunent rejected. EROS discuss LilSI pump flow to determine optirnal j Resolution:
i procedure re:overy path (ES12 vs. EO10),
i u
RO #83 Answer D ;
,
References: POP 05 EO ES13 Rev 5. Transfer to Cold Leg Recirculation .
LOT 201.10 Rev 7. Emergency Core Cooling System l Comment: 'C is also correct since you would check other trains and then come back and perform answer Resolution: Comment rejected. Per the EOP User's Guide,if the Action / Expected
. Response is not obtained, ther. the actions in the associated Response Not
,
Obtained column are perfonned.
,
'
RO #95 Answer B References: TS 3/4.9.2. Instrumentation TS 3/4.9.5. Communications TS 3/4.9.8.1, Residual lleat Removal and Coolant Circulation, liigh Water
,
Level :
t TS 3/4.9.9, Containment Ventilation Isolation l
Comment: Check that D is not technically correc ;
Resolutior Comment accepted. Accept B ard D as correct. During shutdown conditions, supplementary containment purge is normally in service with the purge valves open. TS 3/4.9.4, Containment Building Penetrations,
requires that core alterations be immediately suspended if the penetration
,
is not capable of being closed by an automatic containment purge valve.-
Question stem does not indicate the condition of the purge valve l Page 4 of 5
. - .. , _ ..._.-.._...... _ .._ _ ,.,.__._.-_ . _ ,, _ ,_, - _
SOUTil TEXAS PROJECT
(Exam Date Oct. 17.1997)
- APPLICANT COMMENTS SRO #15 Answer C References: TS 3. PGP03.ZO-0039 Rev 9, Operations Configuration Management Comment: 3.0.6 does not apply since it does not say you can't make a pump operabl Resolution: Comment accepted. Delete question. The situation described by answer C I
is not a viciation of TS 3.0.6, therefore no correct answer exist SRO #48 Answer A References: POP 03 EO E030 Rev 8. Steam Generator Tube Rupture Comment: Prr :. dure says RCS pressure less than ruptured steam generator pressure and the conditions in the question are RCS and ruptured steam Benerator pressure are qua Resolution: Editorial comment accepted. Question will be revised prior to next us No changes for this exa SRO #99 Answer D References: POP 01.ZQ-0022 Rev i1, Plant Operations Shift Routine Comment: D should be incorrect as well since this afTects methodology and would not be allowed under a field chang Resolution: Comment rejected. Correc. ion of a technical error does not affect the a
methodolog i Page 5 of 5 l