ML032200480
| ML032200480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Mcguire, McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/2003 |
| From: | Ernstes M NRC/RGN-II |
| To: | Gordon Peterson Duke Energy Corp |
| References | |
| 50-369/03-301, 50-370/03-301 50-369/03-301, 50-370/03-301 | |
| Download: ML032200480 (12) | |
See also: IR 05000369/2003301
Text
August 7, 2003
Duke Energy Corporation
ATTN: Mr. G. R. Peterson
Vice President
McGuire Nuclear Station
12700 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078-8985
Duke Energy Corporation
SUBJECT: MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT
05000369/2003301 AND 05000370/2003301
Dear Mr. Peterson:
During the period June 16-25, 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered
operating examinations to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate
the McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. At the conclusion of the examination, the
examiners discussed the examination questions and preliminary findings with those members
of your staff identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by
your staff on June 30, 2003.
Five Reactor Operator (RO) applicants and three Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants
passed both the written and operating examinations. Two SRO applicants passed the
operating test but, failed the written examination. The NRC resolution of five post examination
comments is included in this report as Enclosure 2.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and its
enclosures 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).
No findings of significance were identified.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 562-4638.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Michael E. Ernstes, Chief
Operator Licensing and
Human Performance Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370
Enclosures: (See page 2)
DEC 2
Enclosures: 1. Report Details
2. NRC Resolution of McGuire Post Exam Comments
cc w/encls:
C. J. Thomas
Regulatory Compliance Manager (MNS)
Duke Energy Corporation
Electronic Mail Distribution
M. T. Cash, Manager
Regulatory Issues & Affairs
Duke Energy Corporation
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28201-0006
Lisa Vaughn
Legal Department (EC11X)
Duke Energy Corporation
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Anne Cottingham
Winston and Strawn
Electronic Mail Distribution
Beverly Hall, Acting Director
Division of Radiation Protection
N. C. Department of Environmental
Health & Natural Resources
Electronic Mail Distribution
County Manager of Mecklenburg County
720 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Peggy Force
Assistant Attorney General
N. C. Department of Justice
Electronic Mail Distribution
John W. Boyle, McGuire Training Manager
Maintenance Training Center
Courier Mail Code MG03MT
12700 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28037
DEC 3
Distribution w/encls:
B. Martin, NRR
C. Evans (Part 72 Only)
L. Slack, RII EICS
RIDSNRRDIPMLIPB
PUBLIC
OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRP
SIGNATURE /RA/ /RA/ /RA By G. Hopper for/ /RA/
NAME RBaldwin:pmd BMonk MErnstes RHaag
DATE 7/31/2003 7/31/2003 8/4/2003 8/6/2003
E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
PUBLIC DOCUMENT YES NO
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML032200480.wpd
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket Nos.: 05000369, 05000370
Report Nos.: 05000369/2003301 and 05000370/2003301
Licensee: Duke Energy Corporation (DEC)
Facility: McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
Location: 12700 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
Dates: Operating Tests - June 16-25, 2003
Written Examination - June 30, 2003
Examiners: R. Baldwin, Chief, Senior Operations Engineer
E. Lea, Senior Operations Engineer
R. Monk, Operations Engineer
Approved by: M. Ernstes, Chief
Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000369/2003301, ER 05000370/2003301; 6/16-25/2003; Duke Energy Corporation;
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2 Licensed Operator Examinations.
The NRC examiners conducted operator licensing initial examinations in accordance with the
guidance in NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for
Power Reactors. This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements of
10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and §55.45.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period June 16 -25, 2003. Members of
the McGuire Nuclear Station training staff administered the written examination on June 30,
2003. The written examinations and the operating tests were developed by the McGuire
Nuclear Station training staff. Five Reactor Operators (RO) and three Senior Reactor
Operators (SRO) passed both the operating and written examinations. Two SRO applicants
passed the operating examination, but failed the written examination. The five RO applicants
who passed both the operating and written examinations were issued RO licenses. The three
SRO applicants who passed both the operating and the written examinations were not issued
licenses pending resolution of potential examination appeals.
No significant issues were identified.
Enclosure 1
Report Details
4. OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations
a. Inspection Scope
The McGuire Nuclear Station developed operating tests and written examinations in
accordance with NUREG 1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power
Reactors, Draft Revision 9. The NRC examination team reviewed the proposed
examination. Examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee
were made according to NUREG-1021 and incorporated into the final version of the
examination materials.
The Licensees examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for
a proposed examination. The examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and
the facility were made according to NUREG-1021.
The examiners reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing
and administering the examinations to ensure examination security and integrity
complied with 10 CFR 55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.
The examiners evaluated five Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operator
(SRO) applicants who were being assessed under the guidelines specified in NUREG-
1021. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period of June 16 - 25,
2003. Members of the McGuire Nuclear Station training staff administered the written
examination on June 30, 2003. The evaluations of the applicants and review of
documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licensees
to operate the McGuire Nuclear Station, met requirements specified in
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
Five Reactor Operators (RO) and three Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) passed both
the operating and written examinations. Two SRO applicants passed the operating
examination, but failed the initial written examination. The licensee submitted five post
examination comments concerning the written examination. The RO and SRO written
examinations and answer keys, licensees post examination comments, and combined
RO/SRO examination and examination references may be accessed in the ADAMS
system (ADAMS Accession Numbers, ML0321000227, ML032100224, ML032100229,
and ML032110332).
Enclosure 1
2
4OA6 Meetings
Exit Meeting Summary
On June 25, 2003, the examination team discussed generic issues with Mr. D. Jamil and
members of his staff. The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials
examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary
information was identified.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee personnel
J. Boyle, Training Manager
S. Bradshaw, Superintendent of Operations
K. Crane, Technical Specialist - Regulatory Compliance
B. Dolan, Safety Assurance Manager
T. Harrall, Station Manager
D. Jamil, McGuire Site Vice President
A. Orton, Manager Operator Training
B. Peele, Engineering Manager
E. Roberts, Supervisor, Initial Operator Training
C. Thomas, Manager, Regulatory Compliance
NRC personnel
S. Shaeffer, Senior Resident Inspector
Enclosure 1
NRC RESOLUTION OF McGUIRE POST EXAM COMMENTS
SRO QUESTION # 3, (BANK 207.1)
Licensee Comment: The examination answer key erroneously lists C as the correct
answer. The facility makes a recommendation that the answer
key be revised to list B as the correct answer to the question.
NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted. The answer key was changed to
reflect that answer B is the only correct answer.
SRO QUESTION # 15, (BANK 1053)
Licensee Comment: The plant conditions stated in the question do not provide the
candidate enough information to accurately determine the initial
plant conditions at the time of Safety Injection (SI) actuation. The
plant conditions given in the question are possible whether SI
occurred at 2000 psig or 1700 psig. This information is important
because the proper operator response is dependent upon the
plant conditions at the time SI occurred. In addition, the different
grammatical tense of the verbs (both present and past tense)
used in the description of plant conditions contributed to the
different interpretations of the question by the candidates.
The facility recommends that answers A and D both be
accepted as the correct answer to the question.
NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted. The NRC agrees the initial
conditions listed in the stem of the question could be viewed
differently by each applicant based on grammatical tense. The
NRC reviewed OMP 4-3, Use of Abnormal and Emergency
Procedures, to determine what actions would/could be necessary
based on the provided initial conditions. OMP 4-3, provides
specific guidance to operators based on plant conditions and
addresses this very situation. It pinpoints whether an SI has or
has not occurred. Based on this evaluation, the NRC determined
that there could be more than one answer.
In conclusion, the answer key was changed to reflect D as an
additional correct answer.
Enclosure 2
2
SRO QUESTION # 16, (BANK 1054)
Licensee Comment: The question accurately determines a senior operators ability to
analyze plant conditions and apply the appropriate Technical
Specification. By the literal interpretation of the Technical
Specification, answer C is the correct answer, and the operator
is not required to take any action to address the high containment
temperature.
However, the operational philosophy at McGuire Nuclear Station
(MNS) is to take conservative action to ensure the plant is
operated well within the Technical Specifications Limiting
Conditions for Operation and other plant operating documents.
As such, answer B would be conservative, expected action
taken at MNS to ensure containment temperature is maintained
within allowable guidelines.
NRC Resolution: Comment not accepted. The licensees justification argues the
philosophy of conservative action, however, it does not address
the fact that the question stem asks ...the required Technical
Specification actions... Since the question does not address
what conservative actions MNS would take to address this
situation, the NRC determined that this does not answer the
question. Additionally, the NRC reviewed Technical Specification 3.6.5, Note 2, to determine applicability. The NRC determined if
the plant had just entered the requirement of temperature greater
than 125 degrees then Technical Specification Action A would
have to be entered and would have to restore containment
average temperature to within limits within 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />.
In conclusion, the answer key will remain unchanged.
Enclosure 2
3
SRO QUESTION # 24, (BANK 1072)
Licensee Comment: The question as written does not provide the candidate with
enough information to adequately discern either A or B as the
more correct answer. The McGuire Nuclear Station ALARA
program provides guidance that will allow either situation to be
selected dependent upon a closer evaluation of the situation,
including additional data not provided in the question. The
licensee justifies answer A as supporting the ALARA goal of
maintaining a low collective dose for the station and justifies
answer B because an extension to exceed an administrative
dose limit is not required for this situation and additionally this
answer supports the ALARA goal of maintaining a low individual
dose.
The licensee recommends that both answer A and B be
accepted as a correct answer to the question.
NRC Resolution: Comment not accepted. The NRC disagrees with the licensees
comment, the question as written does not provide the candidate
with enough information to adequately discern between either A
or B as the correct answer. In their comment, the licensee did
not identify what additional information was necessary to answer
the question.
The NRC requested additional reference materials from the
licensee to further understand the licensees ALARA program.
The additional materials provided were, The Systems ALARA
Manual, and NSD 507, Nuclear Policy Manual. The Systems
ALARA Manual,Section II, page 2 of 5 states, For an effective
ALARA program it is not sufficient to merely control the maximum
dose to individuals; the collective dose of the group (measured in
person-rem) must also be maintained ALARA. The manual
continues to state It would be inappropriate to restrict dose to
individuals to a fraction of the specified limit if this action resulted
in the exposure of more persons to radiation and increased the
total collective dose.
The two distractors in question concern themselves with this very
issue, individual dose verses collective dose. Distractor A is
concerned with an operator who has attained an Alert level (80%
of 2000 mrem or 1600 mrem) and is going to add an additional
500 mrem. This additional dose would increase the operator to
2100 mrem, 100 mrem above the Maximum Allowable Exposure
(MAE) and would require an extension.
Enclosure 2
4
SRO QUESTION # 24, (BANK 1072) (continued)
Distractor B is concerned with two operators receiving 750 mrem
between the two of them, thus, reducing the amount an individual
operator would receive (375 mrem verses 500 in distractor A),
however, an overall increase of plant ALARA would occur.
Distractor B would not be in accordance with the Systems ALARA
Manual. The manual specifically discourages expending plant
total dose while keeping an individual dose lower.
In conclusion, the original answer A was accepted as the only
correct answer.
RO QUESTION # 45, (BANK 1029)
Licensee Comment: Answer D is based on the Reactor Engineering Analysis &
Computer Tools (REACT) software application, which reflects a
reactivity penalty for the dropped rod and reduction (decrease) in
shutdown margin (SDM). This is a conservative adjustment to the
calculation of SDM that is specific to MNS. The question did not
specifically state that the applicants were to determine the effect
of a dropped rod on SDM as defined by REACT software. The
licensee stated that according to the classical definition SDM is
unaffected by a dropped control rod and that interviews with the
applicant revealed that they had interpreted the question to be
based on the classical definition.
The licensee recommends the answer to this question be
changed from D to B.
NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted. Since the question does not define
which definition for SDM is required, the classical definition should
be used.
In conclusion, the answer key was changed to reflect B as the
only correct answer.
Enclosure 2