ML121630287: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 14:51, 20 March 2020
| 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
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
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
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
Distribution w/encls:
RIDSNRRDIRS
PUBLIC
RidsNrrPMVogtle Resource
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket Nos.: 05000424, 05000425
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
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