ML102030206
| ML102030206 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/2010 |
| From: | Widmann M Division of Reactor Safety II |
| To: | Krich R Tennessee Valley Authority |
| References | |
| Download: ML102030206 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000259/2010301
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
245 PEACHTREE CENTER AVENUE NE, SUITE 1200
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-1257
July 22, 2010
Mr. R. M. Krich
Vice President, Nuclear Licensing
Tennessee Valley Authority
3R Lookout Place
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
SUBJECT: BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE
EXAMINATION REPORT 05000259/2010301, 05000260/2010301, AND
Dear Mr. Krich:
During the period June 7 - 14, 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered
operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. At the conclusion of the tests, the examiners discussed
preliminary findings related to the operating tests with those members of your staff identified in
the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on June 17, 2010.
Of the twelve applicants who applied for licensees, three Reactor Operator (RO) and seven
Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written
examination. One RO applicant passed a written retake exam (the operating test for this
individual has been waived.) One SRO applicant failed the written examination. There were
three administration comments concerning the written examination. These comments and the
NRC resolution of these comments are summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity Report
is included in this report as Enclosure 3.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 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 the NRCs document
system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm.adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). If you have any questions concerning
this letter, please contact me at (404) 997-4550.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket Nos.: 50-259, 50-260, 50-296
License Nos.: DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68
Enclosures: 1. Report Details
2. NRC Post Examination Comment Resolution
3. Simulator Fidelity Report
cc w/encl: (See page 2)
__ G SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE
OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRP RII:DRS
SIGNATURE Via email EFG /RA/ MTW /RA/
NAME P CAPEHART E GUTHRIE M WIDMANN
DATE 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 07/22/2009 07/ /2009 07/ /2009
E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
TVA 2
cc w/encl: Jeff D. Morris
K. J. Polson Training Manager
Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority Electronic Mail Distribution
P.O. Box 2000
Decatur, AL 35609
J.J. Randich
General Manager
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Decatur, AL 35609
F.R. Godwin
Manager, Licensing and Industry Affairs
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Tennessee Valley Authority
P.O. Box 2000
Decatur, AL 35609
E. J. Vigluicci
Assistant General Counsel
Tennessee Valley Authority
6A West Tower
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, TN 37902
State Health Officer
Alabama Dept. of Public Health
RSA Tower - Administration
Suite 1552
P.O. Box 30317
Montgomery, AL 36130-3017
Chairman
Limestone County Commission
310 West Washington Street
Athens, AL 35611
James L. McNees, CHP
Director
Office of Radiation Control
Alabama Dept. of Public Health
P. O. Box 303017
Montgomery, AL 36130-3017
TVA 4
Letter to Mr. Krich from Malcolm T. Widmann dated July 22, 2010
SUBJECT: BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE
EXAMINATION REPORT 05000259/2010301, 05000260/2010301, AND
Distribution w/encl:
C. Evans, RII
L. Slack, RII
OE Mail
RIDSNRRDIRS
PUBLIC
RidsNrrPMBrownsFerry Resource
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket No.: 50-259, 50-260, 50-296
License No.: DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68
Report Nos.: 05000259/2010301, 05000260/2010301, 05000296/2010301
Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Facility: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 & 3
Location: Corner of Shaw and Nuclear Plant Roads
Athens, AL 35611
Dates: Operating Test - June 7 - 14, 2010
Written Examination - June 17, 2010
Examiners: Phillip G. Capehart, Chief Examiner, Operations Engineer
Gerard W. Laska, Senior Operations Engineer
Kenneth D. Schaaf, Operations Engineer
Approved by: Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000259/2010301, 05000260/2010301, 05000296/2010301, 06/7-14/2010 & 06/17/2010;
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant; Operator License Examinations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners conducted an initial examination in
accordance with the guidelines in Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator
Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors." This examination implemented the
operator licensing requirements identified in 10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and §55.45, as applicable.
Members of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant training staff developed both the operating tests and
the written examination.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period June 7 - 14, 2010. Members of the
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on June 17,
2010. Three Reactor Operator (RO) and seven Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants
passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO applicant passed a written
retake exam. One SRO applicant failed the written examination. Nine applicants were issued
licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered. Due to their written exam
scores, two applicants licenses will be held in abeyance for a minimum of 20 days to account
for any possible appeals due to the one written exam failure.
There were three post-examination comments.
No findings of significance were identified.
Enclosure 1
REPORT DETAILS
4. OTHER ACTIVITIES
4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations
a. Inspection Scope
Members of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant developed both the operating tests and the
written examination. All examination material was developed in accordance with the
guidelines contained in Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing
Examination Standards for Power Reactors." The NRC examination team reviewed the
proposed examination. Examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and the
licensee were made per NUREG-1021 and incorporated into the final version of the
examination materials.
The NRC reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing and
administering the examinations in order to ensure compliance with 10 CFR Part 55.49,
Integrity of examinations and tests.
The NRC examiners evaluated four Reactor Operator (RO) and eight Senior Reactor
Operator (SRO) applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. The
examiners administered the operating tests during the period June 17 - 14, 2010.
Members of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written
examination on June 17, 2010. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated
documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses
to operate the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR
Part 55, Operators Licenses.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified. The NRC determined that the details
provided by the licensee for the written exam, walkthrough, and simulator tests were
within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
During the performance of the examination, Job Performance Measures were being
conducted in the simulator by the examination team, a security violation occurred. A
Licensed Operator Requalification Instructor, who was not on the security agreement,
ignored the examination barriers in place and entered the simulator during the
examination process. Both the licensee and the NRC examiner immediately recognized
the security violation, stopped the examination process, and addressed the individual to
be escorted out of the simulator. The licensee immediately placed the Instructor on the
security agreement and wrote a service request report (192291) to address the error and
to prevent a reoccurrence.
Enclosure 1
3
Three RO applicants and seven SRO applicants passed both the operating test and
written examination. One RO applicant passed a written retake and was waived on the
operating examination. One SRO applicant failed the written examination. Two RO
applicants and seven SRO applicants were issued licenses.
Two RO applicants passed the operating test, but passed the written examination with
overall scores between 80% and 82%. These applicants were issued letters stating that
they passed the examination and issuance of their license has been delayed pending
any written examination appeals that may impact the licensing decision for their
application.
A copy of the final as-given RO and SRO written examinations and answer keys, with
all changes incorporated, and the licensees post-examination comments, may be
accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML102020489,
ML102020475, and ML102020502).
Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility Training Manager for
evaluation of weaknesses and determination of appropriate remedial training.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
Exit Meeting Summary
On June 14, 2010, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with
the operating test with Mr. K. Polson, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Site Vice President,
and members of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant staff. The examiners asked the
licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information
was identified.
Enclosure 1
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee personnel
J. Davenport, Licensing Engineer
B. Carrier, Exam Developer
D. Malinowski, Operations Training Manager
D. McConnell, Initial Training Manager
J. Miller, Operations Manager
J. Morris, Training Manager
K. Polson, Site Vice President BFN
J. Randich, GMSO
M. Sweeney, Exam Team Member
D. Williamson, Licensing Manager
D. Zielinski, Exam Team Member
NRC personnel
P. Capehart, DRS
T. Ross, SRI
K. Schaaf, DRS
Enclosure 1
NRC Post Examination Comment Resolution
A complete Text of the licensees post examination comments can be found in ADAMS under
Accession Number ML102020502.
RO QUESTION # 68
LICENSEE COMMENT:
The question asks, What is the MINIMUM personnel requirement at the VFD (Variable
Frequency Drive) to perform speed control manipulations for the Reactor Recirculation Pumps
in accordance with the procedure (2-OI-68, Reactor Recirculation System)?
2-OI-68, Reactor Recirculation System, only requires communication between a licensed
operator and the Unit Operator in the control room. The correct answer, based solely on the 2-
OI-68 procedure, from the choices given, was intended to be Reactor Operator ONLY, choice
A.
The licensee, in their post examination comment, challenges this question and request that two
correct answers (choice A Reactor Operator ONLY and choice C Reactor Operator AND
Senior Reactor Operator for oversight) be accepted. The licensee states that there are two
higher ranking procedures that state a Unit Supervisor shall be present or provide direct
oversight when reactivity manipulations are performed:
OPDP-1, Conduct of Operations, Rev 16, page 13, step 3.6.B.2, states that the Unit Supervisor
is responsible for all manipulations that affect reactivity and is charged to personally oversee all
reactivity changes or assign another SRO to oversee the reactivity change if unable to give
his/her undivided attention.
SSP-10.4, Reactivity Management Program, Rev. 8, page 12, step 3.2.6.J, states that the Unit
Supervisor shall provide direct oversight (line of sight within normal conversation level distance)
for all reactivity manipulation (may be performed by a dedicated SRO for major reactivity
evolutions such as reactor startup).
NRC RESOLUTION:
Based on the above discussion, the licensees recommendation was not accepted. Both
answer choices A and C are not correct. Based on the two higher tier procedures, an SRO
should always be present for reactivity manipulations. This does not contradict but adds
additional requirements to 2-OI-68 that always applies. Therefore, both A and C cannot be
correct. The only correct answer is choice C. The answer key has been changed to reflect this
change.
Enclosure 2
2
SRO QUESTION # 77
LICENSEE COMMENT:
The question concerns itself with the requirement for the highest level of EAL classification if the
backup control panel cannot be manned within 20 minutes following a control room evacuation.
The licensee contends that the basis document of EPIP-1, 6.2-S, gives a possible justification
for NOT classifying the event as a Site Area Emergency based on certain key parameters being
controlled by automatic functions. HPCI initiation and automatic operation is specifically given
as one of these instances. With no other evidence of uncontrolled key parameters in the
question stem, the event could also be classified as an Alert and therefore there are two correct
answers.
The licensee contends that there are two correct answers for this question: Choice A (1) Alert
and Choice C (1) Site Area Emergency.
NRC RESOLUTION:
After reviewing the licensees contention and supporting information, the recommendation is not
accepted. The criteria to establish plant control from the backup control panel is not based on
just one parameter (i.e. HPCI control), but on several critical parameters. The operator is forced
to evacuate the control room and is not aware of the status of these other critical parameters
within the time limit of 20 minutes and therefore has no other option but to declare a Site Area
Emergency.
Based on the above discussion, the recommendation to accept two answers was not accepted;
only answer choice C will be considered as a correct answer. No answer key change was
required.
Enclosure 2
3
Simulator JPM b Place a 2nd/3rd RFPT in service
LICENSEE COMMENT:
The JPM cue statement states The Unit Supervisor directs you to place RFPT 3A in service
and in automatic level control per 3-OI-3, Reactor Feedwater System, section 5.7. The task
standard is to Place the 2nd/3rd RFPT in service.
For this JPM, Unit 3 was less than 70% Reactor Power with the B and C Reactor Feedwater
Pumps in service. Placing RFP 3A MIN FLOW VALVE, 3-HS-3-20, in the OPEN position will
lock it open, preventing minimum flow valve oscillations at low flow. Although it is desired to
minimize valve oscillations, such oscillations at given conditions are well within the capability of
the Feedwater Level Control System to respond to and will not result in a significant plant
transient or significant diminished margin to safety.
The licensee contends that step [3] of the procedure: VERIFY RFP 3A MIN FLOW VALVE, 3-
HS-3-20 in OPEN position, is not a critical step. The task standard for this JPM is to place RFPT
3A in service and in automatic level control per 3-01-3 Reactor Feedwater System section 5.7.
Failure to perform this step will not prevent successful completion of the task standard.
Therefore, the licensee recommends that the performance of the step be changed to Not
Critical.
NRC RESOLUTION:
After reviewing the licensees contention and supporting information, the recommendation is
accepted. JPM step [3] to VERIFY RFP 3A MIN FLOW VALVE, 3-HS-3-20 OPEN does not
require the operator to place the switch from AUTO to OPEN and therefore it is not critical.
Enclosure 2
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT
Facility Licensee: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Facility Docket No.: 05000259, 05000260, 05000296
Operating Test Administered: June 7 - 14, 2010
This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit
or inspection findings and, without further verification and review in accordance with Inspection
Procedure 71111.11 are not indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.46. No licensee
action is required in response to these observations.
The following simulator fidelity or configuration issues were identified:
During a simulator scenario examination the simulator stopped responding and the examination
process had to be halted. The simulator support staff identified that the problem originated from
the digital feedwater computer. The crew under examination was escorted from the simulator
so that a simulator download and upload could be performed. This was required to restore the
simulator to proper operation. After approximately 15 minutes, the simulator was restored and
verified to be operational. The simulator examination crew was reintegrated to the scenario
from the point at which the simulator stopped responding and the exam was recommenced.
The delay in the scenario evaluation process did not impact administration of the scenario.
[Simulator Problem Report # 5048]
Enclosure 3