ML25351A185
| ML25351A185 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  (DPR-057, NPF-005) |
| Issue date: | 12/27/2025 |
| From: | Matthew Endress NRC/RGN-II/DORS/OB |
| To: | Busch M Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| 50-321/25-301, 50-366/25-301 | |
| Download: ML25351A185 (0) | |
Text
Matthew Busch Site Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513
SUBJECT:
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000321/2025301 AND 05000366/2025301
Dear Matthew Busch:
During the period October 14 - 22, 2025, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. At the conclusion of the tests, the examiners discussed preliminary findings related to the operating tests and the written examination submittal with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on October 28, 2025.
Three Reactor Operator (RO) and nine Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One SRO applicant failed the written examination.
There was one post-administration comment concerning the written examination. This comment, and NRC resolution of this comment, are summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.
The initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. All examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and your staff were made according to NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 12.
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).
December 27, 2025
M. Busch 2
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 997-4718.
Sincerely, Matthew Endress, Chief Operations Branch Division of Operating Reactor Safety Docket Nos: 50-321, 50-366 License Nos: DPR-57, NPF-5
Enclosures:
- 1. Report Details
- 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution
- 3. Simulator Fidelity Report cc: Distribution via Listserv Signed by Endress, Matthew on 12/27/25
SUNSI Review
Non-Sensitive
Sensitive
Publicly Available
Non-Publicly Available OFFICE RII/DORS RII/DORS NAME J. Viera M. Endress DATE 12/23/2025 12/27/2025
Enclosure 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II Examination Report Docket No.:
05000321, 05000366 License No.:
05000321/2025301, 05000366/2025301 Enterprise Identifier:
L-2025-OLL-0015 Licensee:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC)
Facility:
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 Location:
Baxley, GA Dates:
Operating Test - October 14 - 22, 2025 Written Examination - October 28, 2025 Examiners:
J. Viera, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer D. Lanyi, Senior Operations Engineer M. Donithan, Senior Operations Engineer Approved by:
Matthew Endress, Chief Operations Branch Division of Operating Reactor Safety
2
SUMMARY
ER 05000321/2025301, 05000366/2025301; operating test October 14 - 22, 2025 & written examination October 28, 2025; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant; Operator License Examinations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners conducted an initial examination in accordance with the guidelines in Revision 12, 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.
The operating test and written examination outlines were developed by the NRC and the written examination was developed by the NRC. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant staff developed the operating tests and the written examination. The initial operating test, written RO examination, and written SRO examination submittals met the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period October 14 - 22, 2025. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on October 28, 2025. All Reactor Operator (RO) and nine Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. Twelve applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered.
There was one post-examination comment.
No findings were identified.
3 REPORT DETAILS 4.
OTHER ACTIVITIES 4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations a.
Inspection Scope The NRC evaluated the submitted operating test by combining the scenario events and JPMs in order to determine the percentage of submitted test items that required replacement or significant modification. The NRC also evaluated the submitted written examination questions (RO and SRO questions considered separately) in order to determine the percentage of submitted questions that required replacement or significant modification, or that clearly did not conform with the intent of the approved knowledge and ability (K/A) statement. Any questions that were deleted during the grading process, or for which the answer key had to be changed, were also included in the count of unacceptable questions. The percentage of submitted test items that were unacceptable was compared to the acceptance criteria of NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Standards for Power Reactors.
The NRC reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing and administering the examinations in order to ensure compliance with 10 CFR §55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.
The NRC performed an audit of license applications during the preparatory site visit to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject applicants qualifications in accordance with NUREG-1021.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period October 14 - 22, 2025. The NRC examiners evaluated three Reactor Operator (RO) and ten Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on October 28, 2025. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses.
The NRC evaluated the performance or fidelity of the simulation facility during the preparation and conduct of the operating tests.
b.
Findings No findings were identified.
The NRC developed the operating test and written examination sample plan outlines and the written examination. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. All examination material was developed in accordance with the guidelines contained in Revision 12, of NUREG-1021. 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.
4 The NRC determined, using NUREG-1021, that the licensees initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
Three RO applicants and nine SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One SRO applicant passed the operating test but did not pass the written examination. Three RO applicants and nine SRO applicants were issued licenses.
Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility Training Manager for evaluation of weaknesses and determination of appropriate remedial training.
The licensee submitted one post-examination comment concerning the written examination. A copy of the final written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, and the licensees post-examination comments may be accessed not earlier than October 28, 2027, in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML25345A001, ML25345A002 and ML25321A402).
5 4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit Exit Meeting Summary On October 22, 2025, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test and written examination with Mark Walter, Training Director, and members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
6 KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel Mark Walter, Training Director Brandon Shuman, Operations Director Blake Bolt, Shift Operations Manager Michael Johnston, Operations Training Manager David Hutto, Operations Shift Manager Derek Williams, Examination Author FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENTS AND NRC RESOLUTIONS A complete text of the licensees post-examination comments can be found in ADAMS under Accession Number ML25321A402.
Item 1: SRO Question 98 Question Development During examination outline development, Question 98 was selected as Knowledge and Ability (K/A) G2.3.11, to be a Tier 3 question. Questions formulated from this tier are generally administrative with broad application across systems and operations. Questions testing the Radiation Control subject matter area are used to evaluate topics such as radiation hazards, personnel protection and public protection.
Question 98 was proposed for use on the 2025 NRC-authored examination with modification from its last use. This question was last administered on the 2012 facility-authored examination at Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (one Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicant, 100% pass rate, no post-examination comment).
Knowledge and Ability (K/A) Statement: (G2.3.11) RADIATION CONTROL, Ability to control radiation releases (CFR 41.11 / 43.4 / 45.10); Importance Rating 4.3 Question 98, as administered:
2 After completion of examination development and as approved for administration, answer choice C was keyed as the correct answer. The selection of answer choice C was based (in part) on applicant knowledge of the transition point between selection of a Drywell vent path versus a Torus vent path. This transition point is proceduralized within 31EO-EOP-012-2, PC Primary Containment Control (flowchart), as CAUTION 12 (see below).
In accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-4.2, paragraph B.6.b, the facility provided the following justification supporting the selection of answer choice C as correct (relevant portion highlighted below).
31EO-EOP-001-0, EOP Basis Introduction and General Information, discusses the basis for CAUTION 12 (included below).
Question Administration NUREG-1021, ES-4.3, item B.2.i, identifies that for applicants taking a combined RO/SRO written examination, nine hours is to be allotted. The range of applicant completion times for this examination was between four hours thirty-five minutes (4:35) and six hours thirty minutes (6:30).
There were no questions or clarifications asked by any applicant for Question 98 during administration of the written examination.
Seven (of ten) SRO applicants submitted answer choice C (the keyed answer) as correct during examination administration (70% pass rate).
Three applicants, in a single post-examination comment, proposed an answer key change for Question 98. All submitted answer choice A as correct during examination administration.
3 Applicant Contention and Recommendation Three applicants (docket numbers 55-24510, 55-73493, 55-77816) recommended that Question 98 be re-keyed from answer choice C to answer choice A prior to grading finalization. This re-key recommendation was based on two perceived question errors.
1.
The perception that use of the phrasing appropriate decision in the question stem was non-specific and left room for interpretation.
2.
The perception that interpreting the provided Torus Water Level condition introduced confusion, since the provided information (Torus Water Level - 305 inches, stable) is not directly available to control board operators (0-300 indication range). Therefore, Question 98 could only be answered by assessing the availability of remaining Torus air space volume.
The applicant contention continued by stating that an available Torus air volume corresponding to 26 inches of Torus Water Level (331 physical elevation of Torus Vent line minus 305 as given Torus Water Level) remained available for venting using the Torus vent path.
The applicant contention concluded that based on these identified question deficiencies, sufficient volume remained available to vent primary containment via the Torus vent path, thereby justifying a proposed answer key modification to answer choice A.
Facility Position and Recommendation The facility concurred with the applicant contention and recommendation. The facility based this position on the premise that Question 98 contained an unclear stem which led to applicant misunderstanding of question intent and validity of the given answer choices.
The facility also recommended an examination key change from answer choice C to answer choice A based on review of each contention applicants Question 98 examination sheet, which indicated that each applicant had physically provided written justification, during examination administration, of the appropriate EOP knowledge regarding this question.
4 Region II Analysis The region evaluated this contention in accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-4.4, paragraph C.3.c. Specifically, to determine if the following types of errors were adequately identified and justified for effecting an answer key change.
Did Question 98 lack necessary information upon which to answer or contain an unclear stem that confused the applicants?
Neither the applicant nor facility contentions claimed that Question 98 lacked any necessary information upon which to base an answer. The applicant contention claimed that subjective question phrasing (invoking an appropriate decision) added confusion during administration.
Region II concluded that use of the concept appropriate decision in the question stem was valid with respect to compliance with 31EO-EOP-101-2, Emergency Containment Venting, Section 4.6, Containment Preservation Strategy, in that the as-directed procedure contains options to vent containment using any of four methods (see below).
Note that only overall vent path selection was tested by this question and not which specific procedural subsection was required.
Procedurally, selection of the appropriate vent path is dependent on plant conditions, system availability and is to be conducted in conformance with the limits of 31EO-EOP-012-2, PC Primary Containment Control (flowchart). CAUTION 12, the procedural guidance that identifies the transition point between selection and use of the Torus vent path (Torus Water Level 300 inches) or Drywell vent path (Torus Water Level > 300 inches), can be found within the 31EO-EOP-012-2 flowchart.
In summary, the lack of challenge to examination completion times, the lack of clarifying questions requested during administration, and the definitive procedural tie invoked by the question statement do not support the contention that Question 98 contained an unclear stem that confused the applicants.
Did Question 98 test the wrong license level (RO versus SRO) or was it not linked to (SRO) job requirements?
Neither the applicant nor facility contentions claimed incorrect license level or lack of job link as a basis for their respective contentions.
Region II concluded that Question 98 did not test the wrong license level and that the tested subject matter was linked to job requirements. Specifically, K/A G2.3.11.
5 Did Question 98 contain unintended typographical errors?
Neither the applicant nor facility contentions claimed unintended typographical errors as a basis for their respective contentions.
Region II concluded that there were no unintended typographical errors in Question 98.
Did either the applicant or facility contention introduce newly discovered technical information which supports an answer key change?
The applicant contention claimed that as written, this question assumed applicant evaluation of CAUTION 12 using indications normally available in the Main Control Room. Based on an inability to reconcile the given Torus Water Level condition with normally available indications, only the availability of Torus air space volume could be used to identify the correct answer. Interpreting technical information from Plant Hatch Technical Support Guidelines (TSG), an available Torus air volume corresponding to 26 inches Torus Water Level was stated as justification for an answer key change.
The facility contention did not provide newly discovered technical information but did state that based on the applicant contention, this question contained an unclear stem which led to applicant misunderstanding of both the question and of the validity of the answer choices provided.
Region II concluded that there was no language contained within the question to support a perception that knowledge of Torus Water Level indication range was needed to select any given answer choice.
Additionally, 31EO-TSG-001-0, Plant Hatch TSG, Section 3.20.1, Vent Path Selection, bullet eight, identifies that Torus venting is dependent on Torus water level and cautions that if primary containment is initially pressurized, opening of a Torus vent path could lower containment (or as suggested by TSG wording, Drywell) water level. This phenomenon would logically cause an undefined Torus water level increase due to the interconnected design of a Mark I containment.
Question 98 contained the conditions of a pressurized containment, a high Torus water level and consideration of aligning a Torus vent path (answer choice A). While these conditions do not directly correlate to the TSG verbiage above, the discussion that Torus water level could be affected, within a pressurized containment, and upon alignment of a Torus vent path suggests that the available Torus air volume corresponding to 26 inches Torus Water Level, in the applicant contention, cannot be reasonably expected.
6 In summary, neither the stated contention that knowledge of Torus Water Level indication range was necessary to answer nor the provided Torus air space volume determination support an answer key change.
Region II Conclusion Following regional evaluation of this contention in accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-4.4, paragraph C.3.c, no written examination answer key change was found to be required.
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Facility Docket No.: 05000321, 05000366 Operating Test Administered: October 14 - 22, 2025 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.
No simulator fidelity or configuration issues were identified.