ML26021A008
| ML26021A008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/2026 |
| From: | Matthew Endress NRC/RGN-II/DORS/OB |
| To: | Martino P Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| 2025301 | |
| Download: ML26021A008 (0) | |
Text
Patrick A. Martino Site Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 7825 River Road Waynesboro, GA 30830
SUBJECT:
VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT UNIT 3 & UNIT 4 - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT (0520025/2025301 and 05200026/2025301)
Dear Patrick Martino:
During the period November 12-20, 2025, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4. At the conclusion of the operating 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 November 26, 2025.
Nine Reactor Operator (RO) and 11 Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One SRO applicant passed the operating test, but failed the written examination. There were three post-administration comments concerning the written examination. These comments, and the NRC resolution of these comments, are summarized in. 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. NRC regional management considered the impacts of the post-examination comment resolution on the evaluation that the written examinations met the expected quality standards. 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).
January 22, 2026
P. Martino 2
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 997-4718.
Sincerely, Matthew F. Endress, Chief Operations Branch Division of Operating Reactor Safety Docket Nos.: 5200025, 5200026 License Nos.: NPF-91, NPF-92
Enclosures:
- 1. Report Details
- 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution
- 3. Simulator Fidelity Report cc: Distribution via Listserv Signed by Endress, Matthew on 01/22/26
SUNSI Review X
Non-Sensitive
Sensitive X
Publicly Available
Non-Publicly Available OFFICE RII/DORS RII/DORS NAME M. Bates M. Endress DATE 01/21/26 01/22/26 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II Examination Report Docket No.:
05200025, 05200026 License No.:
05200025/2025301 and 05200026/2025301 Enterprise Identifier:
L-2025-OLL-0034 Licensee:
Southern Nuclear Company (SNC)
Facility:
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3 & 4 Location:
Waynesboro, GA Dates:
Operating Test - November 12 - 20, 2025 Written Examination - November 26, 2025 Examiners:
M. Bates, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer J. Bundy, Senior Operations Engineer J. DeMarshall, Senior Operations Engineer J. Viera, Senior Operations Engineer V. Furr, Senior Operations Engineer (Region I)
T. Morrissey, Senior Resident Inspector Approved by:
Matthew F. Endress, Chief Operations Branch Division of Operating Reactor Safety
2
SUMMARY
ER 05200025/2025301, 05200026/2025301; November 12-20, 2025 & November 26, 2025; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3 & 4; 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.
Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The NRC developed the written examination outlines. The initial operating test, written RO examination, and written SRO examination submittals met the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. NRC regional management considered the impacts of the post-examination comment resolution on the evaluation that the written examinations met the expected quality standards.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period November 12-20, 2025. Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant training staff administered the written examination on November 26, 2025. Nine Reactor Operator (RO) and 11 Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One SRO applicant passed the operating test, but failed the written examination. Eighteen applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered; however, licensing actions for two SRO applicants who were granted deferrals have been delayed, pending receipt of additional information.
There were three post-examination comments concerning the written examinations.
No findings were identified.
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 in order to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject applicants qualifications in accordance with NUREG-1021.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period November 12-20, 2025.
The NRC examiners evaluated nine Reactor Operator (RO) and 12 Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant training staff administered the written examination on November 26, 2025. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses.
The NRC evaluated the performance and fidelity of the simulation facility during the preparation and conduct of the operating tests. The simulator performance is documented in Enclosure 3.
b.
Findings No findings were identified.
The NRC developed the written examination sample plan outline. Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4, 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.
2 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 determined, using NUREG-1021, that the licensees initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
NRC regional management considered the impacts of the post-examination comment resolution on the evaluation that the written examinations met the expected quality standards.
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 three post-examination comments concerning the written examination. A copy of the full text of the post-examination comments has been placed in the ADAMS system at ADAMS Accession Number ML26009A037. A copy of the final written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, has also been placed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Number(s) ML26009A035 and ML26009A036). Note that these written examinations and post-examination comments contain proprietary information as specified by the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3 and 4 design and construction vendor; therefore, they are not available to the public.
Once redacted versions of this material are obtained, the redacted versions will be placed in the ADAMS system and made available to the public.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit Exit Meeting Summary On November 20, 2025, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with A. Nichols, Examination Development Lead, and other members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Unit 3 and 4) staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. The information that the licensee identified as proprietary was handled in a manner consistent with NRC and licensee guidelines for this type of information. On January 21, 2026, the NRC examination team conducted a final exit meeting with A.
Nichols, Examination Development Lead, and other members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Unit 3 and 4) staff to discuss the examination results and provide the licensing details.
3 KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel M. Brummitt, Plant Manager G. Crosby, Operations Training Coordinator A. Ferguson, Simulator Coordinator W. Garrett, Licensing Manager C. Howard, Examinations Developer A. McRae, ILT Class Coordinator A. Nichols, Examinations Development Lead B. Denlinger Examinations Developer J. Overstreet, Training Director FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENTS AND NRC RESOLUTIONS A complete text of the licensees post-examination comments can be found in ADAMS under Accession Number ML26009A037.
Item Question 28, K/A SGS K3.05 Facility Licensee Comment The facility argues that the phrase, Based ONLY on WR SG level, creates ambiguity as to what information is being solicited. They argue that there are two actuations associated with CMTs that use WR SG level - one is from PMS and the other is from DAS. They contend that the question statement is unclear on which is being tested.
The two CMT actuations are:
1.
SG WR Level Low-2 coincident with Hot Leg NR Temperature High (35% with 636 oF),
which is generated by PMS, and 2.
SG WR Level Low (26%), which is generated by DAS.
Facility Licensee Recommendation The facility recommends accepting the originally designated answer of D as correct and also accepting C as correct.
Facility Licensee Justification Since the stem uses the specific words Based ONLY on WR SG level a minimum competent operator could reasonably believe that Hot Leg Temperature, which was NOT given in the stem should be ignored and the question was ONLY testing which occurred FIRST (Earliest indicated time) PMS or DAS, thereby testing the CMT actuation setpoints (35% or 26%) for PMS or DAS. By choosing 1010:00 / PMS the candidate demonstrated knowledge of how a malfunction of the steam generator system will affect the Passive core cooling system by choosing the EARLIEST time that a CMT actuation will occur based ONLY on SG WR Level.
NRC Resolution The facility licensees recommendation was not accepted. The only correct answer remains D.
NRC Justification Initial conditions present in the stem of the question included SG inventories which were sufficient to provide a heat sink. SG 1 WR level was 85% and SG 2 WR level was 80%, each lowering at 5% per minute. The steam generators were functioning as a heat sink during the span of time of this question; thereby preventing Hot Leg NR Temperatures from exceeding 636 oF. The licensee failed to provide justification, considering both the rules of exam administration and plant design, that could result in Hot Leg NR Temperatures exceeding 636 oF. With Hot Leg NR Temperatures less than 636 oF, a SG WR level of 26% was required for CMT actuation.
2 Furthermore, this is the answer choice that would be correct when only considering SG WR level.
An applicant would actually need to consider Hot Leg NR Temperature to conclude that the PMS SG WR level setpoint of 35% was correct. Considering Hot Leg NR Temperature would be contrary to the question statement which directed them to base their answer only on SG WR level.
3 Item Question 69, K/A G2.4.21 Facility Licensee Comment The facilitys contention is with the second part of the question, which asks whether Shutdown Critical Safety Function monitoring is required to be performed continuously or whether monitoring is only required once every 10-20 minutes.
Facility Licensee Recommendation The facility recommends changing the correct answer of A (10-20 minutes) to answer choice B (continuously).
Facility Licensee Justification The facility supports their recommendation with the 3-EOP-SDF-0 Basis Document, which states:
The foldout page provides a list of important items that should be continuously monitored. If any of the parameters exceed their limits, the appropriate operations should be initiated.
They argue that since the Basis Document states that the foldout page should be continuously monitored, that the operators must monitor Shutdown Critical Safety Functions continuously, even though, for the given plant conditions, the actual procedure states:
Perform shutdown critical safety function monitoring every 10-20 minutes.
NRC Resolution The facility licensees recommendation was not accepted. The correct answer remains A.
NRC Justification 3-EOP-SDF-0 clearly states that when no ORANGE path exists and no rapidly changing plant conditions are present, then shutdown critical safety function monitoring is only required every 10-20 minutes. This also makes sense in the context of what this procedure is designed to do, which is to relax monitoring frequency when stable, GREEN path, conditions exist and require continuous monitoring when ORANGE path or rapidly changing conditions exist. If the intent was to always monitor continuously, under any set of plant conditions, then the procedure would simply direct operators to continuously monitor when in the applicable modes. Since the procedure does not make this statement, NRC concludes that continuous monitoring is not required without rapidly changing conditions or an ORANGE path present.
4 Item Question 84, K/A FR-Z.1 G2.4.51 Facility Licensee Comment The facilitys contention is with the first part of the question. The question asks whether PCS is in service following the completion of FR-Z.1, Response to High Containment Pressure. The facility states that FR-Z.1 does direct placing PCS in service if it is not in service when the procedure is entered. Therefore, at 10:00, when the first part of the question is asked, FR-Z.1 has been completed in its entirety, and PCS would be in service.
Facility Licensee Recommendation The facility recommends changing the correct answer from D (PCS is NOT in service) to B (PCS is in service).
Facility Licensee Justification At the completion of FR-Z.1, steps would have been performed to place PCS in service.
An ORANGE path on FR-Z.1 could then only exist if degraded flow were occurring or flow indicators had failed, as the Critical Safety Function Status Tree decision point is based only on PCS flow.
NRC Resolution The facility licensees recommendation was accepted. B is the correct answer.
NRC Justification NRC agrees that FR-Z.1 does direct placing PCS in service and the question stem does state that all required steps if FR-Z.1 have been completed. The possibility of failed flow instruments or reduced flow caused by some form of flow restriction could possibly exist; however, all steps to place PCS in service had been completed at the conclusion of FR-Z.1.
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3 and 4 (AP-1000)
Facility Docket No.: 05200025, 05200026 Operating Test Administered: November 12 - 20, 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 issues were identified.