ML072120449

License Examination Report 2007-301

ML072120449
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	07/26/2007
From:	Hironori Peterson Division of Reactor Safety III
To:	Crane C M Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
References
50-254/07-301, 50-265/07-301
Download: ML072120449 (15)

Text

July 26, 2007Mr. Christopher M. CranePresident and Chief Nuclear Officer Exelon Nuclear Exelon Generation Company, LLC Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555

SUBJECT:

QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATIONNRC INITIAL LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000254/2007301(DRS);

05000265/2007301(DRS)

Dear Mr. Crane:

On June 18, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed administration ofinitial operator licensing examinations at your Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. The enclosed report presents the results of the examination which were discussed on June 18 and June 28, 2007, with Mr. Moser, and with other members of your staff.The NRC examiners administered initial license examination operating tests during the week ofJune 11, 2007. The NRC administered an initial license written examination on June 18, 2007, to the applicants. Six senior reactor operator and one reactor operator applicants were administered license examinations. The results of the examinations were finalized on July 17, 2007. All seven applicants passed all sections of their examinations resulting in the issuance of six senior reactor operator and one reactor operator licenses. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and itsenclosures will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public DocumentRoom or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC Web site athttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

C. Crane-2-We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this examination.Sincerely,/RA/Hironori Peterson, ChiefOperations Branch Division of Reactor SafetyDocket Nos. 50-254; 50-265License Nos. DPR-29; DPR-30

Enclosures:

1.Operator Licensing Examination Report 05000254/2007301(DRS); 05000265/2007301(DRS)2.Simulation Facility Report 3.Post Examination Comments and Resolutions 4.Written Examinations and Answer Keys (RO/SRO)cc w/encls 1 and 2:Site Vice President - Quad Cities Nuclear Power StationPlant Manager - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Regulatory Assurance Manager - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Chief Operating Officer Senior Vice President - Nuclear Services Senior Vice President - Mid-West Regional Operating Group Vice President - Mid-West Operations Support Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director Licensing - Mid-West Regional Operating Group Manager Licensing - Dresden and Quad Cities Senior Counsel, Nuclear, Mid-West Regional Operating Group Document Control Desk - Licensing Vice President - Law and Regulatory Affairs Mid American Energy Company Assistant Attorney General Illinois Emergency Management Agency State Liaison Officer, State of Illinois State Liaison Officer, State of Iowa Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Chief Radiological Emergency Preparedness Section, Dept. Of Homeland Security D. Tubbs, Manager of Nuclear MidAmerican Energy Companycc w/encls 1, 2, 3, and 4:

K. Moser, Training Manager C. Crane-2-We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this examination.Sincerely,

/RA/

Hironori Peterson, ChiefOperations Branch Division of Reactor SafetyDocket Nos. 50-254; 50-265License Nos. DPR-29; DPR-30

Enclosures:

1.Operator Licensing Examination Report 05000254/2007301(DRS); 05000265/2007301(DRS)2.Simulation Facility Report 3.Post Examination Comments and Resolutions 4.Written Examinations and Answer Keys (RO/SRO)cc w/encls 1 and 2:Site Vice President - Quad Cities Nuclear Power StationPlant Manager - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Regulatory Assurance Manager - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Chief Operating Officer Senior Vice President - Nuclear Services Senior Vice President - Mid-West Regional Operating Group Vice President - Mid-West Operations Support Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director Licensing - Mid-West Regional Operating Group Manager Licensing - Dresden and Quad Cities Senior Counsel, Nuclear, Mid-West Regional Operating Group Document Control Desk - Licensing Vice President - Law and Regulatory Affairs Mid American Energy Company Assistant Attorney General Illinois Emergency Management Agency State Liaison Officer, State of Illinois State Liaison Officer, State of Iowa Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Chief Radiological Emergency Preparedness Section, Dept. Of Homeland Security D. Tubbs, Manager of Nuclear MidAmerican Energy Companycc w/encls 1, 2, 3, and 4:

K. Moser, Training ManagerDISTRIBUTIONSee next pageDOCUMENT NAME: C:\FileNet\ML072120449.wpd G Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive G Non-SensitiveTo receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copyOFFICERIIIRIIINAMERKWalton:co HPetersonDATE07/20/0707/26/07OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Letter to Mr. Christopher M. Crane from Mr. Hironori Peterson dated July 26, 2007.

SUBJECT:

QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATIONNRC INITIAL LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000254/2007301(DRS);

05000265/2007301(DRS)DISTRIBUTION

TEB RAG1 MMT RidsNrrDirsIrib GEG KGO KKB CAA1 LSL (electronic IR's only)

C. Pederson, DRS (hard copy - IR's only)

DRPIII DRSIII PLB1 TXN ROPreports@nrc.gov NLS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONREGION IIIDocket Nos:50-254: 50-265License Nos:DPR-29; DPR-30Report No:05000254/2007301(DRS); 05000265/2007301(DRS)

Licensee:Exelon Company Facility:Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Location:Cordova, Illinois Dates:April 16 through June 28, 2007 Examiners:R. K. Walton, Chief ExaminerC. Moore, Examiner D. Reeser, Examiner R. Daley, (Examiner In Training)Approved by:Hironori Peterson, ChiefOperations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 1

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS ER 05000254/2007301(DRS); 05000265/2007301(DRS); 04/16/2007 - 06/28/2007;Exelon Company; Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station; Initial License Examination Report.The announced initial operator licensing examination was conducted by regional NRCexaminers in accordance with the guidance of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9.Examination Summary

• Seven examinations were administered (six senior reactor operator and one reactoroperator).*All applicants passed all sections of their examinations resulting in the issuance of sixsenior reactor operator and one reactor operator licenses.

2REPORT DETAILS4.OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)4OA5Other.1Initial Licensing Examinations a.Inspection ScopeThe NRC Region III, Operator Licensing Branch prepared the examinat ion outline anddeveloped the written examination and operating test. The NRC examiners visited the Quad Cities Training Building to develop the proposed examination during the week of April 16, 2007, with the assistance of members of the facility licensee training staff. The NRC examiners validated the written examination and operating test the week of May 21, 2007. Also, during the on-site development week, the examiners audited three of the license applications for accuracy. The NRC examiners conducted an announced initial operator licensing examination during the week of June 11, 2007. The NRC Region III, Operator Licensing Branch used the gu idance prescribed in NUREG-1021,"Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9, to prepare the outline and develop the written examination and operating test. The examiners administered the operating test, consisting of job performance measures and dynamic simulator scenarios, during the period of June 11 through June 15, 2007. The chief examiner administered the written examination on June 18, 2007. Six senior reactor operators and one reactor operator applicants were examined. b.FindingsWritten ExaminationDuring a series of validations of the written examination, a number of questions weremodified or replaced. Changes made to the written examination were documented on Form ES-401-9, "Written Examination Review Worksheet" which is available electronically in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). On June 25, 2007, the licensee submitted one post-examination comment for consideration by the NRC examiners when grading the written examination. The post-examination comments and the NRC resolution for the post-examination comments are contained in Enclosure 3 of this document, "Post Examination Comments and Resolutions." The NRC examiners graded the written examination on June 27, 2007, and conducted a review of each missed question to determine the accuracy and validity of the examination questions.Operating TestDuring the validation of the operating test, several Job Performance Measures (JPMs)were replaced and some modifications made to the dynamic simulator scenarios.

Several JPMs were replaced for several reasons including: 1) the JPM was performed as part of the licensee's audit exam; 2) a JPM was determined to have the same safety function as a previously selected JPM; and 3) a JPM was determined to be too simplistic 3in nature (inadequate difficulty level). Changes made to the operating test weredocumented in a document titled, "Operating Test Comments," which is available electronically in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). The NRC examiners completed operating test grading on July 17, 2007.Examination ResultsSix applicants were administered written and operating tests at the Senior ReactorOperator level. One of the applicants was previously licensed Nuclear Station Operator at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. One applicant was administered a written and operating test at the Reactor Operator level. All applicants passed all portions of their examinations and were issued operating licenses..2Examination Security a.Inspection ScopeThe NRC examiners briefed the facility contact on the NRC's requirements andguidelines related to examination physical security (e.g., access restrictions and simulator considerations) and integrity in accordance with 10 CFR 55.49, "Integrity of Examinations and Tests," and NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standard for Power Reactors." The examiners reviewed and observed the licensee's implementation and controls of examination security and integrity measures (e.g.,

security agreements) throughout the examination process. b.FindingsThe licensee's implementation of examination security requirements during examinationpreparation and administration were acceptable and met the guidelines provided in NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors." No violations of 10 CFR 55.49 occurred during the examination preparation or administration.4OA6MeetingsDebrief MeetingThe chief examiner presented the examination team's preliminary observations withMr. R. Gideon, Plant Manager, and other members of the licensee management on June 18, 2007. The licensee acknowledged the observations and findings presented.

4Exit MeetingA subsequent exit via teleconference was held on June 28, 2007, with Mr. K. Moser,Training Manager, and other members of the licensee, following review of the site post-examination comments. No proprietary items were identified during the administration of the examination nor during the exit meeting with the licensee staff. ATTACHMENT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Attachment 1SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONKEY POINTS OF CONTACT LicenseeR. Gideon, Plant Manager*R. Svaleson, Operations Director G. Moore, Nuclear Oversite Manager

• K. Moser, Training Manager C. Kronich, Shift Operations Supervisor

• D. Snook, Operations Training Specialist

• M. Jensen, Facility Author

• S. Russell, Nuclear Training - Corporate

• R. Coon, Nuclear Training - Corporate NRC*R. K. Walton, Chief ExaminerM. Kurth, Site Resident Inspector A. Koonce, Resident Inspector (In-Training)IEMA/DNSB. Ganser, IDNS Inspector

• Present for the June 28 teleconference exit.ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSEDOpened, Closed, and Discussed NoneLIST OF ACRONYMSADAMSAgency-Wide Document Access and Management SystemAPRMAverage Power Range Monitor ARAction Request CFRCode of Federal Regulations DRSDivision of Reactor Safety LPRMLocal Power Range Monitor NRCNuclear Regulatory Commission PARSPublicly Available Records System ROReactor Operator SROSenior Reactor Operator SWRSimulator Work Request 1SIMULATION FACILITY REPORTFacility Licensee:Quad Cities Nuclear Power PlantFacility Licensee Docket No.:50-254, 50-265 Operating Tests Administered:June 11 through June 15, 2007The following documents observations made by the NRC examination team during the initialoperator license examination. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of non-compliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information which may be used in future evaluations.

No licensee action is required in response to these observations.Use of the simulator during the development week, validation week and test administrationweek, the following discrepancies were observed:ITEMDESCRIPTION1There was one simulator exam scenario delay of approximately 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> on themorning of May 21, 2007, due to failed hardware. AR 00632021 was written to document the problem.2When performing an annunciator test at the simulator 901-5 panel, the red first-hitannunciators did not extinguish until the reset pushbutton was depressed. This differs from the control room. AR00634525 and SWR 10038 were written to document the problem.3During validation of a Main Steam Line Break in the MSIV room with failure toisolate, the room temperature indicator indicated approximately 508°F 30 seconds after the break. This was a much higher temperature than the inspectors expected. SWR 10105 was written to document this issue.4During administration of the MSIV closure time test per JPM a, AO 1-203-1A,MSIV Inboard Isolation Valve, timed too slowly compared to the validated stroke time. SWR 10110 was written to document this issue.5The 3B ERV valve failed to indicate open when given a manual open signal. Thelicensee attributed this to the open indicating light bulb being about 1/8 turn loose.

This condition was documented on Simulator Minor Maintenance item #5578.6A candidate placed HPCI in the Trip-Latched condition during a scenario. Later,HPCI was observed as running. The evaluator believed that the simulator was behaving improperly instead of the individual improperly trip-latching HPCI.

This condition was previously documented as Simulator Minor Maintenance Item #5555.

Post Examination Comments and ResolutionsEnclosure 3 1QUESTION: 040 (1.00)With Unit 2 in Mode 1 on the 60% rod line, Operators raise recirculation flow with both pumps to80% of rated drive flow. Assume that the APRM Flow Biased scram signal is set to the analytical value.The APRM Flow Biased scram set point is now . . .A.108.0%.

B.112.2%.

C.115.9%.

D.125.0%.Answer: B Facility Comment

Quad Cities Lesson Plan LIC-0703 LPRM/APRM, provided to your office with the original reference material submittal, lists the APRM Flow Biased scram set point Analytical Limit:APRM HIGH-HIGH Trip Unit set point:Analytical Limit 20%

(Not in Run)Analytical Limit.56 Wd =71.1% and 125%Wd is the percentage of recirculation loop flow, which provides a rated core flow of98 million lbs/hr.0.56(80) + 71.1% = 115.9%. Therefore, the answer to the question should be "C," 115.9%.

A facility requested revision to question might have prompted the error on the key. As originallyprovided for validation, the question was based on the Tech Spec allowable value for the APRM Flow Biased scram set point (.56Wd+67.4% and 122%) and the correct answer was "B."

Following validation, the facility requested revision of the question to base it on the Analytical Limit instead of the Tech Spec allowable value. The Lead Examiner and Facility Representative agreed on the revision prior to approval, but it appears that the key was not revised accordingly.Facility Proposed Resolution

The key provided with the examination lists the answer as "B," but the correct answer should be "C." The facility proposes changing the correct answer for Question 40 from "B" to "C."

Post Examination Comments and ResolutionsEnclosure 3 2NRC Resolution

Question 40 was revised, following the onsite validation visit, to change the question so that the answer would be based on the Analytical Limit rather than the Technical Specification AllowableValue. The answer key was not updated to reflect the change to the question. The basis for changing the question was, as stated in the Facility Comment, that the set-point value identified in the Facility's training materials is based on the Analytical Limit. With the set-point based on the Analytical Limit the correct answer choice is "C," not "B." The correct answer for Question 40 was changed from "B" to "C" on the answer key.

1WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS AND ANSWER KEYS (RO/SRO)RO/SRO Initial Examination ADAMS Accession #ML 072010171.