ML040150509
| ML040150509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/2004 |
| From: | Ernstes M Division of Reactor Safety II |
| To: | Stall J Florida Power & Light Co |
| References | |
| 50-250/03-301, 50-251/03-301 | |
| Download: ML040150509 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000250/2003301
Text
January 15, 2004
Florida Power and Light Company
ATTN: Mr. J. A. Stall, Senior Vice President
Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer
P. O. Box 14000
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420
SUBJECT: TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT
05000250/2003301 AND 05000251/2003301
Dear Mr. Stall:
During the period December 3-11, 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
administered operating examinations to employees of your company who had applied for
licenses to operate the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. 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 December 15, 2003.
Nine Senior Reactor Operator applicants passed both the written and operating examinations.
One Senior Reactor Operator applicant failed the overall portion of the written exam. There
were three post examination comments submitted. The NRC post examination comment
resolutions are 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).
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. 50-250, 50-251
Enclosures: (See page 2)
FP&L 2
Enclosures: 1. Report Details
2. NRC Resolutions to Turkey Points Initial SRO Post Exam Comments
cc w/encls:
T. O. Jones Linda Tudor
Site Vice President Document Control Supervisor
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power & Light Company
Florida Power and Light Company Electronic Mail Distribution
Electronic Mail Distribution
Attorney General
Walter Parker Department of Legal Affairs
Licensing Manager The Capitol
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Tallahassee, FL 32304
Florida Power and Light Company
Electronic Mail Distribution William A. Passetti
Bureau of Radiation Control
Michael O. Pearce Department of Health
Plant General Manager Electronic Mail Distribution
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
Florida Power and Light Company County Manager
Electronic Mail Distribution Metropolitan Dade County
Electronic Mail Distribution
Don Mothena, Manager
Nuclear Plant Support Services Craig Fugate, Director
Florida Power & Light Company Division of Emergency Preparedness
Electronic Mail Distribution Department of Community Affairs
Electronic Mail Distribution
Rajiv S. Kundalkar
Vice President - Nuclear Engineering Curtis Ivy
Florida Power & Light Company City Manager of Homestead
Electronic Mail Distribution Electronic Mail Distribution
M. S. Ross, Attorney Mr. McHenry Cornel
Florida Power & Light Company Training Manager
Electronic Mail Distribution Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
9760 SW 344th Street
Florida City, FL 33035
Distribution w/encl:
E. Brown, NRR
C. Evans (Part 72 Only)
L. Slack, RII EICS
RIDSNRRDIPMLIPB
PUBLIC
OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRP
SIGNATURE /RA By T. Kolb for/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/
NAME RAiello:pmd TKolb RBaldwin MErnstes JMunday
DATE 1/13/04 1/13/04 1/14/04 1/15/04 1/15/04 1/ /2004 1/ /2004
E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
PUBLIC DOCUMENT YES NO
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML040150509.wpd
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket Nos.: 50-250, 50-251
Report Nos.: 05000250/2003301, 05000251/2003301
Licensee: Florida Power & Light Company
Facility: Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4
Location: 9762 S. W. 344th Street
Florida City, FL 33035
Dates: Operating Tests - December 3-11, 2003
Written Examination - December 15, 2003
Examiners: R. Aiello, Senior Operations Engineer
R. Baldwin, Senior Operations Engineer
T. Kolb, Operations Engineer
Approved by: M. Ernstes, Chief
Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000250/2003-301, 05000251/2003-301; 12/3-15/2003; Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units
3 & 4; Licensed Operator Examinations.
The NRC examiners conducted operator licensing initial examinations in accordance with the
guidance of NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for
Power Reactors. This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements identified
in 10 CFR §55.43 and §55.45.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period of December 3-11, 2003 to ten
applicants. Members of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written
examination on December 15, 2003. The operator licensing initial written examination was
developed by the NRC. The operating tests and outlines were developed by the Turkey Point
training staff. Nine Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed the operating and written
examinations. Four of these applicants were issued SRO licenses, the other five will be issued
SRO licenses when the NRC is notified that their requirements for time-on-site are met. One
SRO applicant passed the operating examination but failed the overall portion of the written
examination.
No significant issues were identified.
Report Details
4. OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations
a. Inspection Scope
The NRC and the licensee developed written and operating examinations respectively in
accordance with the guidelines specified in 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 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 ten 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 December 3-11, 2003. Members
of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on
December 15, 2003. The evaluations of the applicants and review of documentation
were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licensees to operate the
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.
The licensees operating examination submittal was within the range of acceptability
expected for a proposed examination. Nine SROs passed both the operating and
written examinations. One SRO applicant passed the operating examination, but failed
the overall portion of the initial written examination. The licensee submitted three post
examination comments concerning the written examination. The written examination
and answer key, licensees post examination comments, and the NRC post examination
comment resolutions, may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession
Numbers, ML040120613, ML040130215).
2
4OA6 Meetings
Exit Meeting Summary
On December 11, 2003, the examination team discussed generic issues with Mr. Terry
Jones 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
R. Bretton, Operations Continuing Training Supervisor
M. Cornell, Training Manager
T. Jones, Site Vice President
M. Lacal, Operations Manager
G. Laughlin, Operations Training Manager
B. Stamp, Operations Supervisor
G. Warriner, Site Quality Manager
NRC Resolutions to Turkey Points Initial SRO Post Exam Comments
1. Question #1
Facility Comment: The licensee requests that either "B" or "C" response be accepted
as correct. "C" is correct per the answer key and is documented in BD-ONOP-003.6,
Loss of 120V Vital Instrument Panel *P06, Page 6. The licensee contends that "B" is
also correct based on a CAUTION on page 22 of 3-ONOP-003.6, Loss of 120V Vital
Instrument Panel 3P06, which states "Pressurizer level should be monitored closely on
the operable instrumentation during performance of the following steps to avoid
uncovering the pressurizer heaters or causing a high level trip." The licensee states that
the "following steps" referred to in the CAUTION are associated with maintaining
pressurizer level and pressure. Finally, either event (PORV cycling or reactor trip on
high level) is undesirable and the procedure gives guidance to minimize charging flow to
preclude both.
NRC Resolution: Recommendation is not accepted. Response "C" is the only correct
answer. This answer is supported by the basis document BD-ONOP-003.6, which
states for step 3.a (reducing charging flow): "Minimizing the fill rate of the pressurizer
will extend the time frame for recovery without lifting a PZR PORV due to compressing
the bubble."
Response "B" is incorrect because it is not the basis for reducing charging flow.
3-ONOP-003.6 step 3.a is used to "Control Pressurizer Pressure" by reducing charging
flow to minimum. This is the only place in the procedure that gives direction for reducing
charging flow. Although answer "B" is an effect of reducing charging flow, reducing
charging flow is not directed by the procedure to control pressurizer level, but to control
pressurizer pressure. The chart submitted by the licensee (IC 6, Loss of 3P06) shows
that the immediate concern is pressurizer pressure (PORV lifts 3 or more times prior to
PZR level reaching the reactor trip setpoint) with the pressurizer level a concern much
later in the scenario. Therefore, reducing charging flow has the immediate effect of
extending the time before the pressurizer PORV lifts due to compressing the bubble.
Regarding the CAUTION mentioned by the licensee (3-ONOP-003.6, Attachment 4,
page 22), this CAUTION applies to the steps following it (restore pressurizer heaters,
restore letdown) and there is nothing in these follow-on steps that directs reducing
charging flow. This CAUTION does not apply to step 3.a in the main body of the
procedure.
2. Question #33
Facility Comment: The licensee proposes that the one applicants answer key be
changed to the answer choice that he circled on his exam question page, vice the
answer that he filled in on his answer sheet. The licensee has maintained positive
control of the original exam question page from the time that the applicant turned in his
exam and states that the individual applicant hasnt had access to the original exam
question page.
Enclosure 2
2
NRC Resolution: Recommendation is not accepted. During Prep week (Nov. 5, 2003)
the Chief Examiner and Chief Examiner Under Instruction met with the applicants and
members of the training center that were involved with the exam and covered the items
in NUREG-1021, Appendix E, Policies and Guidelines for Taking NRC Examinations
verbatim. Specifically, Part B, item 6, states "Mark your answers on the answer sheet
provided and do not leave any question blank." We gave an example that "E" had been
marked in the past when the individual meant to mark "D". (Note: each answer on the
answer sheet has the letter choice inside a "bubble", which should aid the applicants in
ensuring that their filled in answer choices on the answer sheet coincide with their
intended correct answer selection.)
We re-iterated to the applicants to pay attention to detail and that if time was available,
to verify that his intended correct answer choices were properly filled in on his answer
sheet. The individual applicant who is the subject of this post-examination comment
turned in his exam with approximately 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> left to finish the exam. This indicates that
there was ample time for this applicant to ensure that he properly filled in the answer
sheet consistent with his intended correct answer choices.
However, in consideration of the licensee s post-examination comment, the NRC
reviewed for consistency how the applicant marked up ALL of the questions on his
original exam question pages versus how the applicant filled in his ENTIRE original
answer sheet. What was found was a lack of consistency:
- 2 questions had no answers circled on his exam question pages, but one answer
for each question was filled in on his answer sheet;
- 4 questions had two answers circled on his exam question pages with no
indication of which answer the applicant preferred, but only one answer was filled
in for each question on his answer sheet; and
- 2 questions had the correct answer circled on his exam question pages, but
another answer was filled in for each question on his answer sheet.
These inconsistencies serve as further justification for not re-grading the applicants
examination based on how the applicant marked up his exam question pages in lieu of
the official filled in answer sheet of record as required by ES-403 of NUREG-1021. This
applicants exam will therefore be graded only based on his filled-in answer sheet of
record in accordance with NUREG-1021.
6. Question #46
Facility Comment: The licensee requests that either "C" or "D" response be accepted
as correct. The licensee states that ONOP-050, Loss of RHR, establishes conditions for
natural circulation and that these same actions also remove the last restriction for
starting a Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP). They also state that natural circulation is the
preferred method of heat removal until the process of starting an RCP is complete.
Then the preferred method will be forced circulation via the running RCP.
3
NRC Resolution: Recommendation is not accepted. The stem states that RCS
temperatures are increasing and that the secondary water temperatures are 20oF
higher than RCS cold leg temperatures. Per ONOP-050, Loss of RHR, step 22, you
establish conditions for natural circulation which can be done based upon the conditions
given in the stem of the question. Later in the procedure (step 27) there is direction to
check if an RCP can be started. Per the conditions in the stem the conditions for
starting an RCP cannot be met so this option is not available. Note that the stem of this
question specifically asks: "...preferred method for heat removal under these
conditions..." (emphasis added).
The licensee stated in the post exam comments that "Natural Circulation is the preferred
method of heat removal" until an RCP can be started, which cannot be done until any
S/G secondary water temperature is < 10o F above any RCS cold leg temperature.
Since the stem states "B and C S/G secondary water temperatures are 20oF higher
than RCS cold leg temperatures" that leaves the only correct answer as "C".