IR 05000424/2012301: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML13220A403
| number = ML121630287
| issue date = 04/30/2013
| issue date = 06/07/2012
| title = Official Exhibit - CCS-018-00-BD01 - Vogtle - Notification of Licensed Operator Initial Examination 05000424-12-301 and 05000425-12-301
| title = Er 05000424-12-301, 05000425-12-301, on March 26 - April 13, 2012, and April 20, 2012, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2, Operator License Examinations
| author name = Caballero B
| author name = Widmann M
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/DRS
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/DRS/EB1
| addressee name = Tynan T
| addressee name = Tynan T
| addressee affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc
| addressee affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc
| docket = 05523694, 05000424, 05000425
| docket = 05000424, 05000425
| license number =  
| license number = NPF-068, NPF-081
| contact person = SECY RAS
| contact person =  
| case reference number = RAS 24424, 55-23694-SP, ASLBP 13-925-01-SP-BD01
| case reference number = ER-12-301
| document report number = IR-12-301
| document type = Letter, License-Operator Examination Report
| document type = Legal-Exhibit
| page count = 15
| page count = 7
}}
}}


Line 19: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:CCS-018 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES une 7, 2012


==REGION II==
==SUBJECT:==
245 PEACHTREE CENTER AVENUE NE. SUITE 1200 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-1257 October 21,2011 Mr. Tom Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - REACTOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATIONS 05000424/2012301 AND 05000425/2012301


Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 7821 River Road Waynesboro, GA 30830 SUBJECT: VOGTLE - NOTIFICATION OF LICENSED OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATION 05000424/2012301 AND 05000425/2012301
==Dear Mr. Tynan:==
During the period of March 26 to April 13, 2012, 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. 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 April 20, 2012.
 
Eight Reactor Operator (RO) and eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. Two RO applicants and two SRO applicants, who were granted waivers for a previously passed operating test, passed the written exam. One SRO applicant failed the operating test, and one SRO applicant failed the written examination.
 
There were two post-examination comments concerning the written examination. These comments, and the NRC resolution of the comments, are summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.
 
The initial RO and SRO written examinations submitted by your staff failed to meet the guidelines for quality contained in NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 9, Supplement 1, as described in the enclosed report.


==Dear Mr. Tynan:==
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).
In a telephone conversation on October 12, 2011, between Mr. Greg Wainwright, Operations Training Instructor, and Mr, Mark Bates, Senior Operations Engineer, arrangements were made for the administration of licensing examinations at Vogtle, The operating test Is scheduled to be administered during the weeks of March 26, 2012, April 9, 2012; and April 16, 2012. The written examination is scheduled to be administered either the week of April 16, 2012, or the week of April 23, 2012, depending on the need for the third week of the operating test. The on-site preparatory week is scheduled for the week of March 5, 2012.
 
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 997-4550.
 
Sincerely,
/RA/
Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos: 50-424, 50-425 License Nos: NPF-68, NPF-81
 
===Enclosures:===
1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report
 
REGION II==
Docket Nos.: 05000424, 05000425 License Nos.: NPF-68, NPF-81 Report No.: 05000424/2012301 and 05000425/2012301 Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
 
Facility: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Location: 7821 River Road Waynesboro, GA 30830 Dates: Operating Test - March 26 - April 13, 2012 Written Examination - April 20, 2012 Examiners: M. Bates, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer M. Meeks, Chief Examiner - Under Instruction, Senior Operations Engineer P. Capehart, Senior Operations Engineer Approved by: Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1
 
=SUMMARY OF FINDINGS=
ER 05000424/2012301, 05000425/2012301; March 26 - April 13, 2012, and April 20, 2012;


As agreed during the telephone conversation, your staff will prepare both the operating test and written examination based on the guidelines in Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG*1 021 ,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2; Operator License Examinations.
  "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors." The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regional office will discuss with your staff any changes that might be necessary before the examinations are administered. Your staff has also agreed to make copies of all examination materials that are necessary for administering the examination.


To meet the above schedule, it will be necessary for your staff to furnish the operating test outline by December 12, 2011. Mr. Mark Bates provided the written examination outline to your staff in June, 2011 . The operating test, written examination, and the supporting reference materials identified in Attachment 3 to ES-201 will be due by January 11, 2012. Pursuant to Title 10, Section 5S.40(b)(3), of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR SS.40(b)(3>>, an authorized representative of the facility licensee shalf approve the outline, examination, and test before they are submitted to the NRC for review and approval. All materials shall be complete and ready*to-use.
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.


We request that any personal, proprietary, sensitive unclassified, or safeguards Information in your response be contained in a separate enclosure and appropriately marked. Any delay in receiving the required examination and reference materials, or the submittal of inadequate or incomplete materials, may cause the examinations to be rescheduled.
Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The initial Reactor Operator (RO) and Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)written examination submittal did not meet the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021.


United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit Charlissa C. Smith In the Matter of:
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period of March 26 to April 13, 2012.
  (Denial of Senior Reactor Operator License)
c.\.t.1-f\R£O(lttl' ASLBP #: 13-925-01-SP-BD01 Docket #: 05523694 l~\:  Exhibit #: CCS-018-00-BD01  Identified: 7/17/2013 I
<  0
~  . Admitted: 7/17/2013  Withdrawn:
o  'Y iii
~"1-o? . ~d-r-" Rejected:  Stricken:
If. . . . . .
Other:


SNC  2 In order to conduct the requested written examinations and operating tests, it will be necessary for your staff to provide adequate space and accommodations In accordance with ES-402, and to make the simulation facility available on the dates noted above. In accordance with ES-302, your staff should retain the original simulator performance data (e.g., system pressures, temperatures, and levels) generated during the dynamic operating tests until the examination results are final.
Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant training staff administered the written examination on April 20, 2012. Eight RO applicants and six SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination, and were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered. Two RO applicants and two SRO applicants, who were granted waivers for a previously passed operating test, passed the written exam and were also issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered. One SRO applicant failed the operating test, and one SRO applicant failed the written examination.


Appendix E of NUREG-1021 contains a number of NRC policies and guidelines that will be in effect while the written examinations and operating tests are being administered.
Two SRO applicants passed the operating test, but passed the SRO-only portion of the written examination with scores between 70 and 74 percent. Each of these applicants were issued a letter 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.


To permit timely NRC review and evaluation, your staff should submit preliminary reactor operator and senior reactor operator license applications, medical certifications, and waiver requests (If any) at least 30 days before the first examination date. If the applications are not received at least 30 days before the examination date, a postponement may be necessary.
There were two post-examination comments on the written examination.


Signed applications certifying that all training has been completed should be submitted at least 14 days before the first examination date.
No findings were identified.


This letter contains Information collections that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under approval number 3150-0018, which expires on February 28, 2013. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 500 hours per response, Including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, writing the examinations, and completing and reviewing the collection of Information. Send comments on any aspect of this collection of Information, Including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at infocollect9resource@nrc.gov; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0018), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
=REPORT DETAILS=


The NRC may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection, unless It displays a currently valid OMB control number.
==OTHER ACTIVITIES==
{{a|4OA5}}
==4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations==


In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "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 NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
====a. Inspection Scope====
Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff 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.


Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Mr. Wainwright has been advised of the policies and guidelines referenced in this letter. If you have any questions regarding the NRC's examination procedures and guidelines, please contact Mr. Michael Meeks at (404) 997-4467,
The NRC reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing and administering the examinations in order to ensure compliance with 10 CFR &sect;55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.


SNC  3 (Internet E-mail: MichaeI.Meeks@nrc.gov), Mr. Mark Bates at (404) 997-4612, (Internet E-mail:
The NRC examiners evaluated 10 RO applicants and 12 SRO applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period of March 26 to April 13, 2012. Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant training staff administered the written examination on April 20, 2012.
Mark.Bates@nrc.gov), or me at (404) 997-4608, (Internet E-mail: Bruno.Caballero@nrc.gov).


Sincerely, IRAJ Bruno L. Caballero, Acting Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket No.: 50-424, 50-425 License No.: NPF-68, NPF-81 cc: See Page 4
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, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses.


SNC    3 (Intemet E-mail: MichaeI.Meeks@nrc.gov). Mr. Mark Bates at (404) 997-4612. (Intemet E-mail:
====b. Findings====
Mark.Bates@nrc.gov). Of me at (404) 997-4608. (Intemet E-mail: Bruno.Caballero@nrc.gov).
The NRC determined that the licensees examination submittal was outside the range of acceptable quality specified in NUREG-1021. The initial written examination submittal was outside the range of acceptable quality because more than 20 percent [RO Exam:
21 of 75 and SRO Exam: 7 of 25] of questions sampled for review contained unacceptable flaws. Individual questions were evaluated as unsatisfactory due to questions not meeting the K/A statement contained in the examination outline, questions containing two or more implausible distractors, questions on the SRO examination not written at the SRO license level, and questions containing other unacceptable psychometric flaws.


Sincerely
The NRC determined that the licensees initial operating test submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
.
IRAJ Bruno L Caballero. Acting Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket No.: 50-424. 50-425 License No.: NPF-68. NPF-81 cc: See Page 4 Distribution:
RIDSNRRDIRS PUBLIC RldsNrrPMVogtie Resource
.0 PVIII.ICLY AVAILABLE o NON-PUIILICLY AVAILABLE  (;) seNSITIVE .0 _ _SENSITIVE ADAMS' ..0 YM ACCESSION NUMBER ilL11_193  lCO SUNS! REVIEW COMPLETE x FORM 665 ATTACHED OFFICE  RII:DR9 RII:DR9 RII.DfIlI SIGNATURE i M RA RA NAME  MEEKS BATES CABALLERO DATE  10/2112011 1012112011 1U12112011 IE-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL RI:CORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME, G:IOLEXAM91VOGTLE EXAMINATIONSlINrTlAL EXAMSlINrTlAL EXAM 2012-301ICORRESPONDENCEIVOGTLE MARCH 2012 CORPORATE NOTIFICATION LETTER (120 DAY).OOCX


SNC  4 ccw/encl:  B. D. McKinney, Jr.
Eight RO applicants and six SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination, and were issued licenses. Two RO applicants and two SRO applicants, who were granted waivers for a previously passed operating test, were also issued licenses. One SRO applicant failed the operating test, and one SRO applicant failed the written examination.


S. Kuczynski  Regulatory Response Manager Chairman, President and CEO  Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Two SRO applicants passed the operating test, but passed the SRO-only portion of the written examination with scores between 70 and 74 percent. Each of these applicants were issued a letter 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.


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Electronic Mail Distribution Electronic Mail Distribution T. D. Honeycutt Jeffrey T. Gasser  Regulatory Response Supervisor Chief Nuclear Officer  Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility Training Manager for evaluation of weaknesses and determination of appropriate remedial training.


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Electronic Mail Distribution Electronic Mail Distribution L. P. Hili N. J. Stringfellow  Licensing Supervisor Licensing Manager  Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
The licensee submitted two post-examination comments. 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 June 2, 2014, in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Number(s): ML121280562, ML121280569, and ML121280573.)


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Electronic Mail Distribution Electronic Mail Distribution R. L. Gladney Paula Marino  Licensing Engineer Vice President  Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
{{a|4OA6}}
==4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit==


Engineering  Electronic Mail Distribution Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
===Exit Meeting Summary===


Electronic Mail Distribution L. L. Crumpton Administrative Assistant, Sr.
On April 13, 2012, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with Mr. Tom E. Tynan, Vice President, and members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.


L. Mike Stinson  Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
On May 11, 2012, the NRC examination team discussed the final exam results and evaluation of the initial written examination submittal via phone call with Mr. Robert Brown, Plant Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager, and members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff.


Vice President Electronic Mail Distribution Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Hickox, T. Mark Electronic Mail Distribution Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Electronic Mail Distribution Dennis R. Madison Vice President  S. C. Swanson Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Site Support Manager Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Vogtle ElectriC Generating Plant Electronic Mall Distribution Electronic Mail Distribution J. L. Pemberton  Senior Resident Inspector SVP & General Counsel-Ops & SNC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Electronic Mail Distribution 7821 River Road Waynesboro, GA 30830 T.E.Tynan Site Vice President  Bob Masse Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Resident Manager Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Electronic Mail Distribution Oglethorpe Power Corporation Electronic Mail Distribution M. J.AJluni Nuclear Licensing Director Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel T. Tynan, Site Vice President D. McCary, Operations Manager T. Parton, Operations Support Superintendent R. Brown, Training Manager J. Acree, Operations Training Supervisor R. Dorman, Operations Shift Manager T. Harris, Initial Instructor Lead G. Wainwright, Operations Training Exam Development Lead M. Henry, Operations Training Coordinator K. Jenkins, Operations Training Instructor


Electronic Mail Distribution (cc cont'd - See page 5)
=FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENTS AND NRC RESOLUTIONS=


SNC  5 (cc cont'd)  James A. Capp Arthur H. Domby, Esq. Program Coordination Branch Chief Troutman Sanders  Environmental Protection Division Electronic Mall Distribution Georgia Department of Natural Resources Electronic Mall Distribution Sandra Threatt, Manager Nuclear Response and Emergency James C. Hardeman Environmental Surveillance  Environmental Radiation Program Manager Bureau of Land and Waste Management Environmental Protection Division Department of Health and Environmental Georgia Department of Natural Resources Control  Electronic Mall Distribution Electronic Mall Distribution AI Frazier Division of Radiological Health Emergency Response and Radiation TN Dept. of Environment & Conservation Program Manager 401 Church Street  Environmental Protection Division Nashville, TN 31243-1532  Georgia Department of Natural Resources Electronic Mall Distribution Richard Haynes Director, Division of Waste Management Mr. Steven M. Jackson Bureau of Land and Waste Management Senior Engineer - Power Supply S.C. Department of Health and Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia Environmental Control  Electronic Mall Distribution 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201  Reece McAlister Executive Secretary Lee Foley  Georgia Public Service Commission Manager of Contracts Generation Electronic Mall Distribution Oglethorpe Power Corporation Electronic Mail Distribution Office of the Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Mark Williams  Atlanta, GA 30334 Commissioner Georgia Department of Natural Resources Office of the County Commissioner Electronic Mail Distribution Burke County Commission Electronic Mall Distribution F. Allen Barnes Director  Director Environmental Protection Division Consumers' Utility Counsel Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs Electronic Mail Distribution 2 M. L. King, Jr. Drive Plaza Level East; Suite 356 Cynthia A. Sanders  Atlanta, GA 30334-4600 Radioactive Materials Program Manager Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources Electronic Mall Distribution (cc cont'd - See page 6)
A complete text of the licensee's post examination comments can be found in ADAMS under
Accession Number ML121280573.
Item
RO Question 32, K/A 039K5.08
Comment
The licensee recommends that choices C and D both be accepted as correct answers.
Insufficient information was provided in the stem of the question to determine if D was a
potentially correct answer. The bases for answering the question correctly involved determining
the core reactivity balance change that would result in a critical control rod height higher than
the predicted estimated critical position (ECP). The answer key listed choice C as the correct
answer, which would result in a net negative reactivity addition to the core and thus a higher
critical rod height. Choice C is correct as written and is not in contention. However, the
timeline for the predicted ECP was not made clear in the question stem, and as a result answer
choice D could also be correct. The Xenon concentration at 15 hours post-trip will be greater
than either full power equilibrium Xenon concentration, or 26 hours post-trip. During exam
administration, an initial clarification to applicant question referenced full power equilibrium
conditions, and a second clarification referenced a reactivity condition 26 hours post-trip. Both
clarifications contributed to reinforce choice D as an additional correct choice for this question.
NRC Resolution
The licensees recommendation was accepted.
The question stem did not provide enough information for the applicant to unambiguously
determine whether answer choice D was correct or not, because the timeline for the predicted
ECP was not clearly specified in the question stem. Clarifications provided during the written
exam administration reinforced the potential for D to be correct. Applicants were forced to
make an assumption as to what time the predicted ECP was calculated for; and it was
reasonable to assume that the predicted ECP would have been determined at a time greater
than 15 hours post-trip. This reasonable assumption renders D as an additional correct
answer.
In accordance with NUREG-1021 section ES-403 D.1.c., because both answer choices C and
D are correct and do not contain conflicting information, both are accepted as correct.


SNC  6 (cc cont'd)
Item
Amy Whaley Engineer Nuclear Generation Development and Construction Electronic Mall Distribution Southern Nuclear Operations Company, Inc AnN: Mr. Richard D. Brlgdon Plant Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 7621 River Road Bin 63030 Waynesboro, GA 30630-2965
SRO Question 96, K/A G 2.4.12
Comment
The licensee recommends that the question be deleted from the examination.
The licensee contends that there is not a correct answer to the question, based upon procedure
91401-C, ASSEMBLY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, step 5.6.3, which states All other PA
personnel and visitors with no responsibility in the ERO shall exit the PA following use of the exit
card reader, and shall report to designated assembly areas. A complete list of assembly areas
is provided in Table 1. Table 1 of this procedure specified that the correct assembly area for
this group of personnel is inside the Administration Building. Because there is no answer choice
that referenced the Administration Building, there is no correct answer.
NRC Resolution
The licensees recommendation was not accepted.
Question 96 specifically asks about an on shift Systems Operator (SO) (i.e. a non-licensed
operator who is part of the watch team) who does not hold an ERO position. It is clear from
the question that such an individual is a normal watchstander (e.g. turbine building watch,
nuclear building watch, etc.) who does not hold another specific ERO position, such as
Emergency Communicator or Fire Brigade Member. This statement in the question is not the
same as stating that the SO does not have any ERO responsibilities; in fact, there is no such
thing as an on-shift SO who would have no ERO responsibilities. The statement in the question
simply makes it clear that the SO does not hold any additional ERO position besides that of S
: [[contact::O.
With the above discussion in mind]], procedure 91101-C, EMERGENCY RESPONSE
ORGANIZATION, steps 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are clear that on-shift personnel would form
organizations per Figure 1 and Figure 2 of 91101-C when ALERT emergencies (or higher) are
declared. It is clear from Figure 1 and Figure 2 of 91101-C that on-shift System Operators
report to the Control Room; and off-shift operators report to the OS
: [[contact::C. Therefore]], answer choice
D is the one and only correct answer to this question.
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT
Facility Licensee: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
Facility Docket No.: 05000424 and 05000425
Operating Test Administered: March 26 to April 13, 2012.
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.
3
}}
}}

Revision as of 19:50, 10 March 2020

Er 05000424-12-301, 05000425-12-301, on March 26 - April 13, 2012, and April 20, 2012, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2, Operator License Examinations
ML121630287
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle, 05523694  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 06/07/2012
From: Widmann M
NRC/RGN-II/DRS/EB1
To: Tynan T
Southern Nuclear Operating Co
References
ER-12-301
Download: ML121630287 (15)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES une 7, 2012

SUBJECT:

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - REACTOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATIONS 05000424/2012301 AND 05000425/2012301

Dear Mr. Tynan:

During the period of March 26 to April 13, 2012, 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. 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 April 20, 2012.

Eight Reactor Operator (RO) and eight Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. Two RO applicants and two SRO applicants, who were granted waivers for a previously passed operating test, passed the written exam. One SRO applicant failed the operating test, and one SRO applicant failed the written examination.

There were two post-examination comments concerning the written examination. These comments, and the NRC resolution of the comments, are summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.

The initial RO and SRO written examinations submitted by your staff failed to meet the guidelines for quality contained in NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 9, Supplement 1, as described in the enclosed report.

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 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos: 50-424, 50-425 License Nos: NPF-68, NPF-81

Enclosures:

1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report

REGION II==

Docket Nos.: 05000424, 05000425 License Nos.: NPF-68, NPF-81 Report No.: 05000424/2012301 and 05000425/2012301 Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Facility: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Location: 7821 River Road Waynesboro, GA 30830 Dates: Operating Test - March 26 - April 13, 2012 Written Examination - April 20, 2012 Examiners: M. Bates, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer M. Meeks, Chief Examiner - Under Instruction, Senior Operations Engineer P. Capehart, Senior Operations Engineer Approved by: Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000424/2012301, 05000425/2012301; March 26 - April 13, 2012, and April 20, 2012;

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2; 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 the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The initial Reactor Operator (RO) and Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)written examination submittal did not meet the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021.

The NRC administered the operating tests during the period of March 26 to April 13, 2012.

Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant training staff administered the written examination on April 20, 2012. Eight RO applicants and six SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination, and were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered. Two RO applicants and two SRO applicants, who were granted waivers for a previously passed operating test, passed the written exam and were also issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered. One SRO applicant failed the operating test, and one SRO applicant failed the written examination.

Two SRO applicants passed the operating test, but passed the SRO-only portion of the written examination with scores between 70 and 74 percent. Each of these applicants were issued a letter 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.

There were two post-examination comments on the written examination.

No findings were identified.

REPORT DETAILS

OTHER ACTIVITIES

4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations

a. Inspection Scope

Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff 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 §55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.

The NRC examiners evaluated 10 RO applicants and 12 SRO applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period of March 26 to April 13, 2012. Members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant training staff administered the written examination on April 20, 2012.

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, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses.

b. Findings

The NRC determined that the licensees examination submittal was outside the range of acceptable quality specified in NUREG-1021. The initial written examination submittal was outside the range of acceptable quality because more than 20 percent [RO Exam:

21 of 75 and SRO Exam: 7 of 25] of questions sampled for review contained unacceptable flaws. Individual questions were evaluated as unsatisfactory due to questions not meeting the K/A statement contained in the examination outline, questions containing two or more implausible distractors, questions on the SRO examination not written at the SRO license level, and questions containing other unacceptable psychometric flaws.

The NRC determined that the licensees initial operating test submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.

Eight RO applicants and six SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination, and were issued licenses. Two RO applicants and two SRO applicants, who were granted waivers for a previously passed operating test, were also issued licenses. One SRO applicant failed the operating test, and one SRO applicant failed the written examination.

Two SRO applicants passed the operating test, but passed the SRO-only portion of the written examination with scores between 70 and 74 percent. Each of these applicants were issued a letter 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.

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 two post-examination comments. 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 June 2, 2014, in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Number(s): ML121280562, ML121280569, and ML121280573.)

4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit

Exit Meeting Summary

On April 13, 2012, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with Mr. Tom E. Tynan, Vice President, and members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.

On May 11, 2012, the NRC examination team discussed the final exam results and evaluation of the initial written examination submittal via phone call with Mr. Robert Brown, Plant Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager, and members of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant staff.

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel T. Tynan, Site Vice President D. McCary, Operations Manager T. Parton, Operations Support Superintendent R. Brown, Training Manager J. Acree, Operations Training Supervisor R. Dorman, Operations Shift Manager T. Harris, Initial Instructor Lead G. Wainwright, Operations Training Exam Development Lead M. Henry, Operations Training Coordinator K. Jenkins, Operations Training Instructor

FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENTS AND NRC RESOLUTIONS

A complete text of the licensee's post examination comments can be found in ADAMS under

Accession Number ML121280573.

Item

RO Question 32, K/A 039K5.08

Comment

The licensee recommends that choices C and D both be accepted as correct answers.

Insufficient information was provided in the stem of the question to determine if D was a

potentially correct answer. The bases for answering the question correctly involved determining

the core reactivity balance change that would result in a critical control rod height higher than

the predicted estimated critical position (ECP). The answer key listed choice C as the correct

answer, which would result in a net negative reactivity addition to the core and thus a higher

critical rod height. Choice C is correct as written and is not in contention. However, the

timeline for the predicted ECP was not made clear in the question stem, and as a result answer

choice D could also be correct. The Xenon concentration at 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> post-trip will be greater

than either full power equilibrium Xenon concentration, or 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> post-trip. During exam

administration, an initial clarification to applicant question referenced full power equilibrium

conditions, and a second clarification referenced a reactivity condition 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> post-trip. Both

clarifications contributed to reinforce choice D as an additional correct choice for this question.

NRC Resolution

The licensees recommendation was accepted.

The question stem did not provide enough information for the applicant to unambiguously

determine whether answer choice D was correct or not, because the timeline for the predicted

ECP was not clearly specified in the question stem. Clarifications provided during the written

exam administration reinforced the potential for D to be correct. Applicants were forced to

make an assumption as to what time the predicted ECP was calculated for; and it was

reasonable to assume that the predicted ECP would have been determined at a time greater

than 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> post-trip. This reasonable assumption renders D as an additional correct

answer.

In accordance with NUREG-1021 section ES-403 D.1.c., because both answer choices C and

D are correct and do not contain conflicting information, both are accepted as correct.

Item

SRO Question 96, K/A G 2.4.12

Comment

The licensee recommends that the question be deleted from the examination.

The licensee contends that there is not a correct answer to the question, based upon procedure

91401-C, ASSEMBLY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, step 5.6.3, which states All other PA

personnel and visitors with no responsibility in the ERO shall exit the PA following use of the exit

card reader, and shall report to designated assembly areas. A complete list of assembly areas

is provided in Table 1. Table 1 of this procedure specified that the correct assembly area for

this group of personnel is inside the Administration Building. Because there is no answer choice

that referenced the Administration Building, there is no correct answer.

NRC Resolution

The licensees recommendation was not accepted.

Question 96 specifically asks about an on shift Systems Operator (SO) (i.e. a non-licensed

operator who is part of the watch team) who does not hold an ERO position. It is clear from

the question that such an individual is a normal watchstander (e.g. turbine building watch,

nuclear building watch, etc.) who does not hold another specific ERO position, such as

Emergency Communicator or Fire Brigade Member. This statement in the question is not the

same as stating that the SO does not have any ERO responsibilities; in fact, there is no such

thing as an on-shift SO who would have no ERO responsibilities. The statement in the question

simply makes it clear that the SO does not hold any additional ERO position besides that of S

O.

With the above discussion in mind, procedure 91101-C, EMERGENCY RESPONSE

ORGANIZATION, steps 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are clear that on-shift personnel would form

organizations per Figure 1 and Figure 2 of 91101-C when ALERT emergencies (or higher) are

declared. It is clear from Figure 1 and Figure 2 of 91101-C that on-shift System Operators

report to the Control Room; and off-shift operators report to the OS

C. Therefore, answer choice

D is the one and only correct answer to this question.

SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT

Facility Licensee: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Facility Docket No.: 05000424 and 05000425

Operating Test Administered: March 26 to April 13, 2012.

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.

3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000424/2012301&oldid=2549131"