ML121630287

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
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)

See also: IR 05000424/2012301

Text

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

245 PEACHTREE CENTER AVENUE, SUITE 1200

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-1257

June 7, 2012

Mr. Tom E. Tynan

Vice President

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

7821 River Road

Waynesboro, GA 30830

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

T. Tynan 2

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

cc w/encl: (See page 3)

ML12163087 X SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE

OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRP

SIGNATURE RA RA RA RA

NAME MBates MMeeks MWidmann FEhrhardt

DATE 06/ 5 /2012 06/ 5 /2012 06/ 7 /2012 06/ 5 /2012

E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

T. Tynan 3

cc w/encls: J. L. Pemberton

C. Russ Dedrickson SVP & General Counsel-Ops & SNC

Fleet Support Supervisor Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Electronic Mail Distribution

Electronic Mail Distribution

M. J. Ajluni

S. Kuczynski Nuclear Licensing Director

Chairman, President and CEO Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Electronic Mail Distribution

Electronic Mail Distribution

B. D. McKinney, Jr.

Todd L. Youngblood Regulatory Response Manager

Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Fleet Oversight Electronic Mail Distribution

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution D. W. Daughhetee

Licensing Engineer

W. L. Bargeron Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Plant Manager Electronic Mail Distribution

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. L. Mike Stinson

Electronic Mail Distribution Vice President

Fleet Operations Support

D. G. Bost Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Chief Nuclear Officer Electronic Mail Distribution

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution T. D. Honeycutt

Regulatory Response Supervisor

N. J. Stringfellow Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Licensing Manager Electronic Mail Distribution

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution L. P. Hill

Licensing Supervisor

Paula Marino Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Vice President Electronic Mail Distribution

Engineering

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. L. L. Crumpton

Electronic Mail Distribution Administrative Assistant, Sr.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

T. A. Lynch Electronic Mail Distribution

Vice President

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant David H. Jones

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Site Vice President

Electronic Mail Distribution Vogtle Units 3 and 4

Southern Nuclear Operating Company

Dennis R. Madison Electronic Mail Distribution

Vice President

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution (cc w/encls contd - See page 4)

T. Tynan 4

(cc w/encls contd) Chuck Mueller

Hickox, T. Mark Manager

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Policy and Radiation Program

Electronic Mail Distribution Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Electronic Mail Distribution

S. C. Swanson

Site Support Manager Cynthia A. Sanders

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Radioactive Materials Program Manager

Electronic Mail Distribution Environmental Protection Division

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Senior Resident Inspector Electronic Mail Distribution

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant James C. Hardeman

7821 River Road Environmental Radiation Program Manager

Waynesboro, GA 30830 Environmental Protection Division

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Arthur H. Domby, Esq. Electronic Mail Distribution

Troutman Sanders

Electronic Mail Distribution Mr. Steven M. Jackson

Senior Engineer - Power Supply

Sandra Threatt, Manager Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia

Nuclear Response and Emergency Electronic Mail Distribution

Environmental Surveillance

Bureau of Land and Waste Management Reece McAlister

Department of Health and Environmental Executive Secretary

Control Georgia Public Service Commission

Electronic Mail Distribution Electronic Mail Distribution

Division of Radiological Health Office of the Attorney General

TN Dept. of Environment & Conservation 40 Capitol Square, SW

401 Church Street Atlanta, GA 30334

Nashville, TN 37243-1532

Office of the County Commissioner

Richard Haynes Burke County Commission

Director, Division of Waste Management Electronic Mail Distribution

Bureau of Land and Waste Management

S.C. Department of Health and Director

Environmental Control Consumers' Utility Counsel Division

2600 Bull Street Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs

Columbia, SC 29201 2 M. L. King, Jr. Drive

Plaza Level East; Suite 356

Lee Foley Atlanta, GA 30334-4600

Manager of Contracts Generation

Oglethorpe Power Corporation Amy Whaley

Electronic Mail Distribution Resident Manager

Electronic Mail Distribution

Mark Williams

Commissioner

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Electronic Mail Distribution (cc w/encls contd - See page 5)

T. Tynan 5

(cc w/encls contd)

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

ATTN: Mr. Robert Brown

Plant Training and

Emergency Preparedness Manager

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

7821 River Road

Bin 63030

Waynesboro, GA 30830-2965

T. Tynan 6

Letter to Tom E. Tynan from Malcolm T. Widmann dated June 7, 2012

SUBJECT: VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT - REACTOR AND SENIOR

REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATIONS 05000424/2012301 AND

05000425/2012301

Distribution w/encls:

RIDSNRRDIRS

PUBLIC

RidsNrrPMVogtle Resource

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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.

Enclosure 1

REPORT DETAILS

4. 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.

Enclosure 1

4

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.

Enclosure 1

5

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

Enclosure 1

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.

Enclosure 2

2

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 SO.

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 OSC. Therefore, answer choice

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

Enclosure 2

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.

Enclosure 3