IR 05000424/1998302: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML20204C475
| number = ML20236V503
| issue date = 03/11/1999
| issue date = 07/21/1998
| title = Forwards Exam Repts 50-424/98-302 & 50-425/98-302 for Exams Administered on 980721
| title = NRC Operator Licensing Exam Repts 50-424/98-302 & 50-425/98-302 for Tests Administered on 980721
| author name = Michael B
| author name = Mellen L, Peebles T
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
| addressee affiliation =  
| docket = 05000424, 05000425
| docket = 05000424, 05000425
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = 50-424-98-302, 50-425-98-302, NUDOCS 9903230108
| document report number = 50-424-98-302, 50-425-98-302, NUDOCS 9808030287
| document type = INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM, MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE
| package number = ML20236V498
| page count = 1
| document type = EXAMINATION REPORT, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 5
}}
}}


Line 18: Line 19:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:- _ ~ . . -.
{{#Wiki_filter:_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
        !
  ~
  -
  .
  ..e
,.
l l
March 11,1999 NOTE TO: NRC Document Control Desk    l Mail Stop 0-5-D-24 od d ~
FROM: Beverly Michael, Licer%rhdL/
ing Assistant, Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch, Division of Reactor Safety, Region 11 SUBJECT: OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS ADMINISTERED ON JULY 21,1998, AT THE VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT  l
        '
DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425 On July 21,1998, the administrative portion of an Operator Licensing Examination was administered at the referenced facility. Attached, you will find the following information for processing through NUDOCS and distribution to the NRC staff, including the NRC PDR:
Item #1 - a) Facility submitted outline, designated for distribution under RIDS Code A070, b) As given administrative portion of the operating examination, designated for distribution under RIDS Code A070.


Item #2 - Examination Report designated for distribution under RIDS Code IE42.
I U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


===Attachments:===
==REGION II==
As stated
Docket Nos.- 50-424, 50-425 License No NPF-68 NPF-81 Report Nos.* 50-424/98-302, 50-425/98-302 Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company In Facility: Vogtle Nuclear Plant Location: Waynesboro, GA Dates: July 21, 1998 Examiners: I d bo (LJrryQMellen, Chief License Examiner Approved by: Thomas /A.'Peebles, Chief Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety
      \
:
        \
Enclosure f 9808030287 980728 *
9903230108 990311 PDR ADOCK 05000424 V PDR
! PDR ADOCK 05000424 V PDR
!
I L


  '
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ .
i
  *
.
.
  .
  .
,4 July 28, 1998 l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vogtle Nuclear Plant NRC Examination Report No. 50-424/98-302. 50-425/98-302 On July 21, 1998. The NRC conducted an announced operator licensing Administrative portion of the Operating Examination in accordance with the guidance of Examiner Standards. NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8. These examinations implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR 555.43 and 55.4 Doerations
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc.
  . One SRO-U candidate received the Administrative ]ortion of the Operating Examination. This examination was administered ]y the NRC on July 21, 199 . Candidate Pass / Fail
 
      .
ATTN: Mr. J. B. Beasley. Vice President P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201-1295
      ,
 
SR0 R0 Total Percent Pass 1 0 1 100%
SUBJECT: NRC EXAMINATION REPORT NOS. 50-424/98-302 AND 50-425/98-302 Dear Mr. Beasley.
Fail 0 0 0 0%
 
  . The examiner concluded that the candidates' performance on the Administrative portion of the Operating Examination was satisfactor (Section 05.3).
On July 21. 1998. the NRC administered the Administrative portion of the Operating Examination to one Senior Reactor Operator Upgrade (SRO-U)
at the Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. At the conclusion of the examination. the chief examiner discussed the examination and preliminary findings with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.
 
'
The chief examiner concluded that the candidates' perf
 
REGION II==
Docket Nos.: 50-424, 50-425 License Nos.. NPF-68. NPF-81 Report Nos.: 50-424/98-302. 50-425/98-302 Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company. Inc.


Facility: Vogtle Nuclear Plant Location: Waynesboro. GA Dates: July 21. 1998 Examiners: I a (N Chief License Examiner
    ,
  (Lprry3Mellen.
Approved by: Thomas /A.'Peebles. Chief Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 9ggo3Dee7
. _.
>
i
i
!
!
L


-
     - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'
Vogtle Nutlear Plant NRC Examination Report No. 50 424/98-302. 50-425/98-302 On July 21. 1998. The NRC conducted an announced operator licensing Administrative portion of the Operating Examination in accordance with the guidance of Examiner Standards. NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8. These examinations implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR 555.43 and 55.45.
 
Doerations
.
One SRO-U candidate received the Administrative aortion of the Operating Examination. This examination was administered ]y the NRC on July 21.
 
1998.
 
. Candidate Pass / Fail SRO CD Total Percent Pass 1 0 1 100%
;  Fail 0 0 0 0%
.
The examiner concluded that the candidates' performance on the Administrative portion of the Operating Examination was satisfactory.
 
(Section 05.3).
 
.-  - - - .
.
     .
.
..
,
l o  Reoort Details Summary of Plant Status l
During the period of the examination, both Units were in Mode 1.
 
I. Ooerations 05 Operator Training and Qualifications l
l 05.1 General Comments.
 
The facility (under the guidance of the NRC) developed an operator licensing Administrative Portion of the Operating Examination. It was to be administered by the NRC under the requirements of an NRC security agreement. in accordance with the guidelines of the Examiner Standards (ES). NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8. One SRO upgrade re-take applicant received and passed the Administrative portion of the Operating Examination.
 
05.2 Pre and Post-Examination Activities
; a. Scope The NRC chief examiner reviewed the licensee's examination submittal using the criteria specified for examination development contained in NUREG 1021. Interim Revision 8.
 
b. Observations and Findinas The licensee developed the SRO Administrative portiori of the Operating Examination. The chief examiner reviewed, modified. and approved the examination prior to administration The NRC conducted in-office and onsite presaration. prior to examination administration. The revised examination met the criteria set forth in NUREG 1021. Interim Revision 8.
 
During the review the NRC noted that one PM required the candidate to interpret Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4. This required the operator to determine if a rod was "untrippable" to determine if entry into an LCO was required. The term ~untrippable" was not defined in the Technical Specifications. in tra'ining or in any procedures. During the performance of JPM RQ-JP-63508-NRC. the training ctaff expected the operator to determine that a rod was "untrippable: however, the candidate did not believe that it was based on his interpretation of the term. This was identified before the examination, but was maintained as a non-critical step. Following further review by the training staff and discussions with training management. it was determined that the operators' decision was justified.
 
. _ . _ _
  .
  .
.. .
Reoort Details
~ Summary of Plant Status
    '
.During the period of the examination, both Units were in Mode- . Doerations 05- Operator' Training and Qualifications      ,
05.1 General- Comments The facility-(under the guidance of the NRC) developed an operator
    -
licensing Administrative Portion of_the Operating Examination. It was-    1 to be administered by the NRC under the requirements of an NRC' security agreement, in accordance with the guidelines of the Examiner Standards    -l (ES). NUREG-1021. Interim Revision One SR0 upgrade re-take applicant received and passed the Administrative portion of the Operating Examinatio .2 P_re and Post-Examination Activities Scope The NRC chief examiner reviewed the licensee's examination submittal using the criteria s]ecified for examination development contained in NUREG 1021'. Interim levision Observations and Findinas'
The licensee develobed the SR0 Administrative portion of the Operating Examination- The clief erminer reviewed, mo<iified, and approved the
   .
   .
a
examination prior to administration. The NRC conducted in-office and onsite preparation prior to examination administration. The revised examination met the criteria set forth in NUREG 1021, Interim
.
. Revision During the review the NRC noted that one JPM required the candidate to interpret Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4. This required the operator to determine if a rod was "untrippable" to determine if entry
 
  -
'
into an LCO was required. The term "untrippable" was not defined in the-LTechnical Specifications. 'in training or in any procedures. - During the performance of JPM RQ-JP-63508-NRC, the training staff expected the l --
C. .Conclusif0 The NRC concluded that the facility had placed emphasis on ensuring that the examination was technically accurate and discriminating. During the exit meeting the examiner stressed that it was important to define the term "untrippable" to ensere the actions associated with TS 3.1.4 were appropriately understtod and implemented.
 
05.3 Examinatipn Pesults and_Relatad, Find 1nos. Observatior,s. and Conclusions a. Scope The chief examiner reviewed the results of the Administrative portion of the Operating Examinction.
 
b. Observations and Findincs..
The overall performance of the candidate was considered satisfactory.
 
c. Conclusiqn
:  The chief examiner identified no discrepancies.
 
V. Manaaement Meetinos  .
X1. Exit Meeting Summary On July 21. 1998, the chief examiner discussed the examination results with the Trcining and Emergency Preparedness Manager. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee. No proprietary information was identified.
 
'
'
  .-
operator to determine that a rod was "untrippable:~ however, the
    (
_ candidate did not believe that it was based on his interpretation of the
. *    i
.
  .
term. This was identified before the examination, but was maintained as L a non-critical-step. Following further review by the training staff and discussions with training management, it was determined that the
  -
  - operators' decision was justifie __--_=________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    ._


___  -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
  .
  .
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
2 Conclusion i
    !
The NRC concluded that the facility had placed emphasis on ensuring that    1 the examination was technically accurate and discriminatin During i the exit meeting the examiner stressed that it was important to define the term "untrippable" to ensure the actions associated with TS 3. were appropriately understtod and implemente .3 Examination Results and Related Findinas. Observations. and Conclusions Scoce The chief examiner reviewed the results of the Administrative portion of the Operating Examinatio Observations and Findina The overall performance of the candidate was considered satisfactor Conclusion The chief examiner identified no discrepancie V. Manaaement Meetinas XI. Exit Meeting Summary On July 21, 1998, the chief examiner discussed the examination results with the Training and Emergency Preparedness Manage Dissenting comments were not received from the license No proprietary information was identified, i
Licensee    I
* Robert Brown. Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager
* Leon Ray. Operations Training Supervisor
*Thad Thomson. Licensed Operator Instructor William Evans, Reactor Operator NRC  ,
    ,
*J. Zeiler Senior Resident Inspector
* Attended the Exit Interview ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED AND DISCUSSED Doened None Closed  .
None Discussed None l
l l
l l
  ...-
l
_ - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _
 
  -. - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _  - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ .
*
,c. .
      '
,
 
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee-
  * Robert Brown . Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager
  * Leon Ray. Operations Training Supervisor
  *Thad Thomson, Licensed Operator Instructor William Evans, Reactor Operator NRC    ,
  *J. Zeiler Senior Resident Inspector
  , - * Attended the Exit Interview ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED    !
I Doened None Closed None Discussed None
            >
l I
i j' I
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 05:51, 17 December 2021

NRC Operator Licensing Exam Repts 50-424/98-302 & 50-425/98-302 for Tests Administered on 980721
ML20236V503
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 07/21/1998
From: Mellen L, Peebles T
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236V498 List:
References
50-424-98-302, 50-425-98-302, NUDOCS 9808030287
Download: ML20236V503 (5)


Text

_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

~

.

I U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

Docket Nos.- 50-424, 50-425 License No NPF-68 NPF-81 Report Nos.* 50-424/98-302, 50-425/98-302 Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company In Facility: Vogtle Nuclear Plant Location: Waynesboro, GA Dates: July 21, 1998 Examiners: I d bo (LJrryQMellen, Chief License Examiner Approved by: Thomas /A.'Peebles, Chief Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosure f 9808030287 980728 *

! PDR ADOCK 05000424 V PDR

!

I L

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ .

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Vogtle Nuclear Plant NRC Examination Report No. 50-424/98-302. 50-425/98-302 On July 21, 1998. The NRC conducted an announced operator licensing Administrative portion of the Operating Examination in accordance with the guidance of Examiner Standards. NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8. These examinations implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR 555.43 and 55.4 Doerations

. One SRO-U candidate received the Administrative ]ortion of the Operating Examination. This examination was administered ]y the NRC on July 21, 199 . Candidate Pass / Fail

.

,

SR0 R0 Total Percent Pass 1 0 1 100%

Fail 0 0 0 0%

. The examiner concluded that the candidates' performance on the Administrative portion of the Operating Examination was satisfactor (Section 05.3).

i

!

!

L

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.. .

Reoort Details

~ Summary of Plant Status

'

.During the period of the examination, both Units were in Mode- . Doerations 05- Operator' Training and Qualifications ,

05.1 General- Comments The facility-(under the guidance of the NRC) developed an operator

-

licensing Administrative Portion of_the Operating Examination. It was- 1 to be administered by the NRC under the requirements of an NRC' security agreement, in accordance with the guidelines of the Examiner Standards -l (ES). NUREG-1021. Interim Revision One SR0 upgrade re-take applicant received and passed the Administrative portion of the Operating Examinatio .2 P_re and Post-Examination Activities Scope The NRC chief examiner reviewed the licensee's examination submittal using the criteria s]ecified for examination development contained in NUREG 1021'. Interim levision Observations and Findinas'

The licensee develobed the SR0 Administrative portion of the Operating Examination- The clief erminer reviewed, mo<iified, and approved the

.

examination prior to administration. The NRC conducted in-office and onsite preparation prior to examination administration. The revised examination met the criteria set forth in NUREG 1021, Interim

, . Revision During the review the NRC noted that one JPM required the candidate to interpret Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4. This required the operator to determine if a rod was "untrippable" to determine if entry

-

into an LCO was required. The term "untrippable" was not defined in the-LTechnical Specifications. 'in training or in any procedures. - During the performance of JPM RQ-JP-63508-NRC, the training staff expected the l --

'

operator to determine that a rod was "untrippable:~ however, the

_ candidate did not believe that it was based on his interpretation of the

.

term. This was identified before the examination, but was maintained as L a non-critical-step. Following further review by the training staff and discussions with training management, it was determined that the

- operators' decision was justifie __--_=________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._

___ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

.

2 Conclusion i

The NRC concluded that the facility had placed emphasis on ensuring that 1 the examination was technically accurate and discriminatin During i the exit meeting the examiner stressed that it was important to define the term "untrippable" to ensure the actions associated with TS 3. were appropriately understtod and implemente .3 Examination Results and Related Findinas. Observations. and Conclusions Scoce The chief examiner reviewed the results of the Administrative portion of the Operating Examinatio Observations and Findina The overall performance of the candidate was considered satisfactor Conclusion The chief examiner identified no discrepancie V. Manaaement Meetinas XI. Exit Meeting Summary On July 21, 1998, the chief examiner discussed the examination results with the Training and Emergency Preparedness Manage Dissenting comments were not received from the license No proprietary information was identified, i

l l

l

_ - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _

-. - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ .

,c. .

'

,

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee-

  • Leon Ray. Operations Training Supervisor
  • Thad Thomson, Licensed Operator Instructor William Evans, Reactor Operator NRC ,
  • J. Zeiler Senior Resident Inspector

, - * Attended the Exit Interview ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED  !

I Doened None Closed None Discussed None

>

l I

i j' I