ML090780292

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Initial Exam 2008-301 General Correspondence
ML090780292
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/21/2008
From:
NRC/RGN-II
To:
References
Download: ML090780292 (8)
v • d • e


Text

Florida Power & Light Company, 6505 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957 772-465-3550 I=PL June 4, 2008 Mr. Rick Baldwin USNRC Chief Examiner, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-3415

Subject:

Reactor and Senior Reactor Operation Examinations Docket No. 50-335 & 50-389 License No. DPR-67 & NPF-16 St. Lucie Nuclear Station Enclosed, please find the proposed examinations.

Specific items provided are:

  • Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3
  • Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4
  • Revised Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-1
  • Revised Control Room / In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2
  • Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6
  • Copy of updated Security Agreement Form ES-201-3 Hard Copies of o SRO and RO written exam and references o Administrative JPM's and references o Simulator Scenarios and references o In-Plant and Simulator JPM's and references
  • CD's to include References and Examinations Questions or comments should be directed to Joe Milligan at (772) 467-7106 or Larry Rich at (772) 465-3550 x3339.

t Please withhold the outlines from public disclosure until after the examinations are complete.

~

Sincerely"

.... (\~ 0--

th uston Training Manager, St. 1; cie Nucle Power Station an FPl Group company

Florida Power & Light Company, 6505 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957 772-465-3550 May 13,2008 Mr. Rick Baldwin USNRC Chief Examiner, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-3415

Subject:

Reactor and Senior Reactor Operation Examinations Docket No. 50-335 & 50-389 License No. DPR-67 & NPF-16 St. Lucie Nuclear Station Enclosed, please find the revised outlines as discussed per our telephone conversation of Friday May 9,2008.

Specific items provided are:

  • Examination Security Agreement ES-20 1-3
  • Administrative Topics, Form 301-1
  • Control Room Systems and Walk-Through, Form ES-301-2
  • Scenario Outline, Form ES-D-l
  • Examination Outline Quality Checklist, Form ES-201-2
  • Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline, Form ES-40 1-3
  • Transient and event check list ES-301-5 Questions or comments should be directed to Joe Milligan at (772) 467-71 06 or Larry Rich at (772) 465-3550 x3339.

Please withhold the outlines from public disclosure until after the examinations are complete.

Seth ust n

'r~~~-

Training Manager, St. Lucie Nuclear Power Statio

.J .

~--

(

an FPl Group company

Florida Power & Light Company, 6505 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957 772-465-3550 April 25, 2008 Mr. Rick Baldwin USNRC Chief Examiner, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-3415

Subject:

Reactor and Senior Reactor Operation Examinations Docket No. 50-335 & 50-389 License No. DPR-67 & NPF-16 St. Lucie Nuclear Station The enclosed information is provided in accordance with the requirements ofNUREG 1021, Rev. 9 (Sup. 1) 75 days prior to our July 21,2008 NRC exams.

Specific items provided in response to this requirement are:

  • Examination Security Agreement ES-201-3 ,/
  • Administrative Topics, Form 301-1 j
  • Control Room Systems and Walk-Through, Form ES-301-2 \I
  • Scenario Outline, Form ES-D-1 J
  • Examination Outline Quality Checklist, Form ES-201-2 J
  • Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline, Form ES-401-3

Questions or comments should be directed to Joe Milligan at (772) 467-7106 or Larry Rich at (772) 465-3550 x3339.

Please withhold the outlines from public disclosure until after the examinations are complete.

~

Seth Duston Training Manager, St. Lucie Nuclear Power Station an FPl Group company

Florida Power & Light Company, 6505 S. Ocean Dr., Jensen Beach, FL 34957 772-465-3550 May 13,2008 Mr. Rick Baldwin USNRC Chief Examiner, Region II U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-3415

Subject:

Reactor and Senior Reactor Operation Examinations Docket No. 50-335 & 50-389 License No. DPR-67 & NPF-16 St. Lucie Nuclear Station Enclosed, please find the revised outlines as discussed per our telephone conversation of Friday May 9, 2008.

Specific items provided are:

  • Administrative Topics, Form 301 .. 1
  • Control Room Systems and Walk-Through, Form ES-301-2
  • Scenario Outline, Form ES-D-l
  • Examination Outline Quality Checklist, Form ES-201-2
  • Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline, Form ES-401-3
  • Transient and event check list ES-30 1-5 Questions or comments should be directed to Joe Milligan at (772) 467-7106 or Larry Rich at (772) 465-3550 x3339.

Please withhold the outlines from public disclosure until after the examinations are complete.

an FPL Group company

Response to NRC Sample Plan Outlines comments for HLC-18 July 2008 Examination

1. COMMENT: Examination Security Agreement Fonn ES-201-3 had signatures where the printed name is required.
a. RESPONSE/ACTION: Names will be printed as required.
2. COMMENT: Wrong revision ofFonn ES-401-2 Page 21 was submitted.
a. RESPONSE: This examination is being developed in accordance with NuReg 1021 Revision 9 supplement 1. An earlier electronic version of this specific page was inadvertently filled out and submitted.
b. ACTION: The correct revision was downloaded from the NRC web page and filled out for re-submittal.
3. COMMENT: The NRC Lead Examiner under instruction (UI) suggested that the initial conditions for the two 100% and two 45% scenarios be all the same to avoid additional stress on the candidates.
a. ACTION: For the two 100% power scenarios, the initial conditions for Scenario 3 will be modified to look similar to Scenario 1.
t. Initial Conditions Scenario #1:

100% power, 2B AFW OOS, 2C CCP OOS, SJAE Rad Monitor OOS ii. Initial Conditions Scenario #3:

100% power, 2A EDG OOS, 2C CCP OOS

b. ACTION: Scenario 4 (45%), we will add 2B AFW PP OOS to match Scenario 5.
4. COMMENT: The NRC Lead Examiner UI stated that the submitted in-plant JPM P-2 Restoration of Electrical Room Ventilation Unit 1 did not satisfy Safety Function 6 requirements. The examiner requested it to be AC, DC or EDG.
a. RESPONSE: This JPM is written to test EOP-09 Loss of Offsite Power, which directs EOP-99 Appendix Q, Restoration of Electrical Equipment Room Ventilation. This is identified as a St Lucie PSA for operator/recovery actions needed to be perfonned within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> to ensure maintenance of safety functions as defined in PSA.
b. ACTION: This submitted JPM has been replaced with the following:
  • Disconnect IB Instrument Inverter from Service Unit 1
5. COMMENT: More clarification is needed for the Reason for Rejection as listed on Fonn ES-401-4 Record of Rejected KIA's.
a. RESPONSE: As stated in the Sample Plan Development 2.Individual Topics, once a category was selected, any topics that were not applicable to St Lucie were deselected prior to selection.
b. ACTION: Corrected the typographical error on 111 (008) versus (006).
c. ACTION: The Reason for Rejection column on Fonn ES-401-4 will have the actual K&A listed with Not Applicable to St Lucie.

Response to NRC Sample Plan outrt f:ti,," '~:~

"meffls

"'r f6r HLC-18 July 2008 Examination

6. COMMENT: The Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 does not match events as listed for the 5 submitted scenarios on the Scenario Outline form ES-D-l.
a. RESPONSE: The NRC Lead Examiner UI recommended that a good practice would be to have at least 2 instrument/component malfunctions per position (ATC and BOP) per each scenario; this would help to ensure candidates get the required number of events without having to run another scenario.
b. The submitted checklist was developed taking credit for only ATC component/instrument malfunctions.
c. ACTION: BOP events were added to Form ES-301-5 for all Direct SRO's and the TOTALS were recalculated.
7. COMMENT: The Lead Examiner UI stated that Administrative JPM for Equipment Control, Perform Verification of Shutdown Margin Verification Surveillance was satisfactory as written for the RO candidate. However, the Lead Examiner UI wants the SDM calculation to be out of specifications, requiring the SRO to recognize Technical Specification actions are required.
a. RESPONSE: The JPM as submitted will remain as is for the RO candidate.
b. ACTION: A new JPM for SRO's, based on the RO JPM, will be developed to incorporate the examiner's comment.
8. COMMENT: The Lead Examiner UI stated that he wanted the Administrative JPM for Emergency Plan (SRO Only) to be rewritten to have the SRO candidates make a declaration versus determining that NO Emergency Plan was required.
a. RESPONSE: This new JPM is designed for the candidate to evaluate the emergency plan procedures. At St Lucie, NRC resident inspectors have commented to Operator Training that it is just as important to evaluate the E plan to determine that a NO call exists as it is to make an E plan call. It has been stressed to St Lucie that overclassificationlmisclassification is non-conservative.

This is the basis for our JPM as written and submitted.

b. ACTION: The JPM will be changed per the lead examiner UI's request to classify the event.
9. COMMENT: The Lead Examiner UI requests an explanation for Tier 2 Group 1 K4 having 5 items selected.
a. RESPONSE: The individual who developed this portion of the sample plan stated that he did it exactly like the other tiers and as stated in the submitted Sample Plan Development sheet. By random sampling, five (5) K4 K&A's were selected.

NOTE: These five (5) Tier 2 Group 1 K4 K&A's required 5 new written questions to address the selected K&A's.

Response to NRC Sample Plan Outlines comments for HLC-18 July 2008 Examination

10. COMMENT: The Lead Examiner UI commented that Scenario 3 Event 7 may not have verifiable RO actions that can be evaluated.
a. RESPONSE: This event will require the Reactor Operator to determine that he has a failed Pressurizer level transmitter and take the appropriate actions as directed by the Unit Supervisor. This malfunction requires the ATC to take actions in responding to changing pressurizer level and pressure conditions. In addition, this scenario has an instrument and a component failure for the ATC to diagnose and take verifiable operator actions. This scenario now has three IIC malfunctions for ATC evaluation.
11. COMMENT: The Lead Examiner UI commented that Scenario 4 Event 6 may not have verifiable RO actions that can be evaluated.
a. RESPONSE: The component malfunction (loss of MCC 2A2) will affect the operation of CVCS (CVCS isolates). This event will require the Reactor Operator ATC to recognize the isolation has occurred and take action (stop all operating charging pumps).
12. COMMENT: The Lead Examiner UI commented that Scenario 5 Event 4 may not have verifiable RO actions that can be evaluated.
a. RESPONSE: This component malfunction will result in a loss of "A" side Pressurizer heaters. This event is developed for the second SRO Technical Specification evaluation. This event does not have any verifiable actions for the BOP, however, it will require the ATC to take operator action(s) to control pressurizer pressure using additional "B" side heaters to maintain Pressurizer pressure> DNBR (Technical Specification limit 2225 PSIA)
b. ACTION: The Event type for Scenario 5 Event 4 will have Event Type credited to C/RO.

NOTE: This scenario is the spare and already has at least 1 Component/Instrument failure for both the ATC and BOP.

13. COMMENT: The lead Examiner UI requested that St Lucie determine which JPM's are applicable to the Upgrade SRO's, and assign JPM's S-1, S-2, S-3, P-1 and P-2 to be applicable to all candidates.
a. ACTION: Completed.

ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 7/21/08 Exam Level: RO -Y SRO -Y Initial Item Description a b*

1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility.
2. a. NRC KlAs are referenced for all questions.
b. Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.
3. SRO questions are appropriate in accordance with Section D.2.d of ES-401
4. The sampling process was random and systematic (If more than 4 RO or 2 SRO questions were repeated from the last 2 NRC licensing exams, consult the NRR OL program office).
5. Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled as indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:

_ the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or

.t£ the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or

_ the examinations were developed independently; or

_ the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or

_ other (explain)

I

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New from the bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest new or modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only 10/ 1 4/2 61/22 ~o/

question distribution(s) at right.

I

7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO Memory CIA exam are written at the comprehension/ analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly 30/8 45/17 selected KlAs support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual RO / SRO question distribution(s) at right.
8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of distractors.
9. Question content conforms with specific KIA statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified.
10. Question psychometric quality and format meet the guidelines in ES Appendix B.
11. The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with the value on the cover sheet.

Printed Name / Signatlfre ./'J d Date

a. Author ~~.-ey /?c// ~~ ~~

b.

c.

Facility Reviewer (*)

NRC Chief Examiner (#)

C#JI11V

d. NRC Regional Supervisor Note:
  • The facility reviewer's initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.
  1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column HC"; chief examiner concurrence required.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML090780292&oldid=2564406"