ML20247B979
| ML20247B979 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1989 |
| From: | Kennedy K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247B973 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-OL-89-02, 50-498-OL-89-2, 50-499-OL-89-02, 50-499-OL-89-2, NUDOCS 8905240308 | |
| Download: ML20247B979 (5) | |
Text
-_-_
f*
' +
,x*
j APPENDIX l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Operator Licensing Exam Report: 50-498/0L 89-02 Operating License:
NPF-76 50-499/0L 89-02 NPF-78 Docket Nos.: 50-498 50-499 Licensee: Houston Lighting'& Power Company P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility.Name:
South _ Texas Project Electric Generating Station Examination at:
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 1
Chief Examiner:
8/.
5//r/E7 K. M. Kennedy, Examipbr, Date Operator Licensing Section Division of Reactor Safety 79 Approvedby:fu,J.L. Pellet, Chief Date AcL0
- Operator Licensing Section Division of Reactor Safety Summary NRC Administered Examinations Conducted on April 5-6, 1989 (Report 50-498/0L 89-02; 50-499/0L 89-02)
NRC administered retake examinations to five reactor operator (RO) applicants.
Four applicants were administered the written examination and one applicant was administered the simulator portion of the operating examination. The five k0 applicants passed all portions-of the examination and have been issued the appropriate license.
l 8905240308 890516 PDR ADOCK 05000498 V
'f
k.
,.. s 2-7 DETAILS 1.
Persons Examined SRO R0 Total
. License Examinations:
Pass -
0 5
5' Fail -
0 0
0 g
2..
Examiner K. M. Kennedy, Chief Examiner 3.
Examination Report Performance results!for individual examinees are not included in this.
report as it will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and these results are not subject to public disclosure.
a.
Examination Review Comment / Resolution In general, editorial comments or changes made during the examination, or subsequent grading reviews are not. addressed by this resolution.
section. This'section reflects resolution of substantive comments -
made by STP. The only comments addressed in this section are those.
which were not accepted for incorporation into the examination and/or answer key. Those coments accepted are incorporated.into the master examination key, which is included in this report. ~ Comments may be paraphrased for brevity. The full text of the coments'is_ attached.
1.16 Accept "d" as an optional correct response.
Response: Reject.
Reference cited in the comment does not support this answer.
4 2.05b Accept the folloving as optional correct answers:
Close FW Flow Control & Bypass Valves Close MSIV Above Seat-Drain Response: Reject "Close FW Flow Control & Bypass Valves". This answer is not an action. listed in 1 POP 05-E0-E020 for the isolation of a faulted steam generator.
2.16b
-Accept the following as an optional response:
Increase level in the RCS to mid-loop or greater. (A specific level _is not delineated in the Off-Normal Operating procedure.)-
Response: Reject.
IPOP03-ZG-0007 PLANT C00LDOWN, page 26, cautions the operator not to start a standby RHR pump until level.
in the reactor vessel is restored to greater than 34 feet L
for acceptable pump operation.
l
= _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ -
o I
u.
- a. ;, :._
=.
3-2.17 Accept the following as an optional correct response:
' Select Rod Bank.not in' alarm, with R0D BANK SEL switch, and move control rods' in manual.
C Response: Reject. This answer is not an option in OPOP04-RS-0001, STUCK OR DROPPED CONTROL ROD.
3.08a Accept the following as optional answers for discharging to the PRT:
Post Accident Sampling System (PASS)
Waste Collection Unit RCDT Response: Reject RCDT.
Reference cited in the comment does not indicate that-the RCDT discharges to the PRT.
b.
Site Visit Summary (1) At the end of the written examination administration, the
. facility licensee was provided a copy of the examination and' answer key for the purpose of commenting on the examination content validity.
It was explained to the facility licensee that regional policy'was to have examination results finalized within 30 days. Thus. a timely response was desired to attain this goal.
(2) At the conclusion of the site visit, the NRC examiner met with-facility licensee representatives to discuss aspects of the conduct of the examinations. The following personnel were present at.the exit:
NRC STP K. Kennedy P. Appleby L. Weldon B. Doss J. Bartlett P.. Graham J. Calvert (3) The following items were communicated to the facility licensee representatives as comments, observations, suggestions, or deficiencies:
(a) Simulator fidelity items were discussed. A list of these items is included in' the Simulation Facility Fidelity Report, which is included in this report. The facility licensee discussed the improvements that had been made to the simulator since the November 1988 examinations and the additional planned improvements.
d
_..m_
..: ;' L.
l.' ll 1
(b)' Future examinations were discussed, including the option..
now available to the Chief Examiner to allow a prereview of.the written examination by the facility and the option to prerun simulator scenarios.
c.
Master Examination and Answer Key A master copy of the STP license examination and answer key is attached. The facility licensee comments which have-been accepted are incorporated into the answer key.
d.
Facility Examination Review Comments The facility licensee comments regarding the written examination are attached. Those comments which were not incorporated into the examination answer key have been addressed in the resolution section of this report.
e.
Simulation Facility Fidelity Report All items in the attached Fidelity Report have been discussed with the facility simulator instructor personnel.
7-n fi
~
.t SIMULATION FACILITY FIDELITY REPORT n:
Facility Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power FacilityLLicensee Docket No.:
50-498 o
'50-499 Facility License No.:-
NPF-76 NPF-78 Operating Tests administered at: ' South Texas. Project (STP) Facility Operating Test'tiven on:;-April 5, 1989 During the es Mt of the simulator ' portion of the operating test identified s
-above, the f h /ing, apparent performance and/or human factors discrepancies were observed:
s o
1.
Following a rod ejection with a reactor trip and safety injection, ' "
reactor. coolant pump seal. differential pressure decreased to approximately 25 psid on all reactor coolant pumps, requiring the operator to trip the pumps.
3-2.
Response of the charging system flow control valve was erratic, resulting in flow fluctuations and alarms.
'a'!l__-----.__-.__-.-._-_--_____.---_____..-----__.--.__.___.-__-_--_._._---
- -. _ _ _ _ _