IR 05000498/2016301
| ML16153A104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/2016 |
| From: | Vincent Gaddy Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Koehl D South Texas |
| References | |
| 50-498/OL-16, 50-499/OL-16 | |
| Download: ML16153A104 (17) | |
Text
UNITED STATES May 31, 2016
SUBJECT:
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, NRC RETAKE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000498/2016301; 05000499/2016301
Dear Mr. Koehl:
On May 4, 2016, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial operator license retake examination at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station. The enclosed report documents the examination results and licensing decisions. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on May 16, 2016, with Mr. G. Janak, Training Manager, Operations, who was also provided with the NRC licensing decisions.
The examination included the evaluation of two applicants for reactor operator licenses and one applicant for an upgrade senior reactor operator license. The license examiners determined that all three of the applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and the appropriate licenses have been issued. There were three post-examination comments submitted by your staff. Enclosure 1 contains details of this report and Enclosure 2 summarizes post-examination comment resolution.
No findings were identified during this examination.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice and Procedure," 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 Agencywide Documents Access and Management 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/
Vincent G. Gaddy, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499 License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80
Enclosures:
1. Examination Report 05000498/2016301; 05000499/2016301 w/Attachment:
Supplemental Information 2. NRC Review of South Texas Project Written Post-Examination Comments
REGION IV==
Dockets: 05000498, 05000499 Licenses: NPF-76, NPF-80 Report: 05000498/2016301; 05000499/2016301 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 77483 Dates: March 7 - May 16, 2016 Inspectors: K. Clayton, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer Approved By: Vincent G. Gaddy Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1
SUMMARY
ER 05000498/2016301; 05000499/2016301; 03/07/2016 - 05/16/2016; South Texas Project
Electric Generating Station; Retake Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of two applicants for reactor operator licenses and one applicant for an upgrade senior reactor operator license at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station.
The licensee and the NRC developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 10. The written examination was administered by the licensee on May 4, 2016. The operating test was waived because the three applicants had previously passed an operating test in September of 2015.
The examiners determined that all three of the applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and the appropriate licenses have been issued.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
None
Licensee-Identified Violations
None
REPORT DETAILS
OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA5 Other Activities (Initial Operator License Examination)
.1 License Applications
a. Scope
The NRC examiners reviewed all license applications submitted to ensure each applicant satisfied relevant license eligibility requirements. Examiners also reviewed all three of the license applications to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject applicants qualifications. This audit focused on the applicants experience and on-the-job training, control manipulations, remediation plans, and weekly assessments that were done because of weaknesses identified on the previously failed written examinations in September of 2015.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Examination Development
a. Scope
The NRC examiners reviewed integrated examination outlines and draft examinations submitted by the licensee against the requirements of NUREG-1021. The operating test was waived for these three applicants because all three passed the operating test portion of the NRC examination administered in September of 2015 at South Texas Project.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
c. Other Observations The NRC examiners provided outline, draft examination, and post-validation comments to the licensee. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution prior to examination administration.
The NRC examiners determined the written examinations initially submitted by the licensee were not within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
The NUREG-1021 standard for an unsatisfactory submittal requires that 20 percent or more of the written examination questions must be classified as unsatisfactory based on criteria in Section ES-401 and this criterion applies for the reactor operator portion, the senior reactor operator portion, or both. However, because this was the first submittal for a new exam development team at South Texas Project, the submittal is considered satisfactory as long as all comments are resolved prior to administration (as discussed on page 10 of Section ES-501 of NUREG-1021). All future exam submittals that are unsatisfactory may be rescheduled or cancelled as directed in NUREG-1021. It also requires that all future submittals should incorporate any lessons learned from this effort. The licensee wrote Condition Report CR-2016-5726 to address these issues.
.3 Operator Knowledge and Performance
a. Scope
On May 4, 2016, the licensee proctored the administration of the retake written examinations to the three applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on May 9, 2016.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
All three applicants passed the written retake examination. The final written examinations and the post-examination analysis and comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in Enclosure 2. The licensee requested and received approval by the NRC to withhold the written examinations from the public document room for 2 years.
The licensee noted the following generic weaknesses during the written examination reviews with the applicants:
1. Component cooling water (CCW) alarm set points (Q21)2. Interface between the reactor coolant pumps and CCW (Q31)3. Activation of emergency communications systems (Q34)4. Emergency procedure step reasons/bases for a tube rupture event (Q35)5. Normal and emergency trips for an emergency diesel generator (Q43)6. Fuel handling building radiation monitors (Q44)7. Rod worth versus reactor coolant parameters (Q51)8. Cooling water pH/boron during loss of coolant accident (Q57)9. Procedure usage and transitions for steam line rupture (Q77)10. Emergency procedure hierarchy with critical safety functions (Q80)11. Technical Specification requirements for nuclear instruments (Q81)12. Procedure usage and transitions for anticipated transient without trip (Q87)
The licensee wrote Condition Report CR-2016-6611 to address all written examination generic weaknesses.
Also, there were two procedures that may need enhancements for clarity based on interpretation issues identified during this process. The first procedure that may need an enhancement was identified during the free review period for a written question on control room evacuation. For Off-Normal Procedure 0POP04-ZO-0001, Control Room Evacuation, Revision 39, the procedure depends on an interlock between the main turbine and the reactor to trip the main turbine when evacuating the control room instead of ensuring that both are tripped prior to exiting the control room.
The licensee is evaluating this procedure with Condition Report CR-2016-6505. The second procedure that may need enhancement was discovered prior to the exam by a licensed operator crew and during the post-exam review process. For Off-Normal Procedure 0POP04-CR-0001, Loss of Condenser Vacuum, Revision 22, step 6, is confusing and overly complex. This is based on 1) licensed crew performance with this procedure at this step, 2) the written exam author for this retake examination, and 3) the chief examiner during exam reviews. Each example involves the decision of when to perform a rapid load reduction versus performing an immediate reactor/turbine trip. The licensee is evaluating this procedure with Condition Report CR-2016-6463.
Additionally, the licensee submitted three post-examination comments (Q36, Q63, and Q90) that required review and disposition by the chief examiner. The Region IV Operations Branch Chief assigned a panel of examiners that were not part of the examination team effort at South Texas Project to review the question challenges. The panel reviewed the questions and recommended accepting all three post exam comments and requested key changes by the licensee. The chief examiner and Region IV Operations Branch Chief agreed with the panels recommendations. As a result of the panels recommendations, one additional applicant passed the written examination. More details are included in Enclosure 2 of this report and the entire licensees post-examination comments and analysis can be found in ADAMS using Accession Number ML16138A092. Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility training manager for evaluation and determination of appropriate remedial training. The licensee also submitted one comment with a request to consider question 27 as an SRO-only question for future exams. This question and NRC resolution are in Enclosure 2 of this report.
.4 Simulation Facility Performance
a. Scope
The simulator was not used for this examination.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.5 Examination Security
a. Scope
The NRC examiners reviewed examination security for examination development and examination administration week for compliance with 10 CFR 55.49 and NUREG-1021.
b. Findings
/Observations No findings were identified.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
Exit Meeting Summary
The chief examiner presented the license decisions and examination results to Mr. G. Janak, Training Manager, Operations, and other members of the staff on May 16, 2016.
The licensee did not identify any information or materials used during the examination as proprietary.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
- G. Janak, Training Manager, Operations
- T. Hurley, Supervisor, Simulator Support
- S. Mason, SRO-Licensed Training Instructor
- M. Ripple, SRO-Licensed Training Instructor
NRC Personnel
- A. Sanchez, Senior Resident Inspector
- N. Hernandez, Resident Inspector