|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Adams | | {{Adams |
| | number = ML14364A375 | | | number = ML14310A835 |
| | issue date = 12/30/2014 | | | issue date = 11/06/2014 |
| | title = Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant - NRC Operator License Examination Report 05000400/2014302 | | | title = Harris Nuclear Plant - Operator Licensing Written Exam Approval 05000400-14-302 |
| | author name = McCoy G J | | | author name = McCoy G J |
| | author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/DRS | | | author affiliation = NRC/RGN-I/DRS |
| | addressee name = Waldrep B C | | | addressee name = Griffith D L |
| | addressee affiliation = Duke Energy Progress, Inc | | | addressee affiliation = Duke Energy Progress, Inc |
| | docket = 05000400 | | | docket = 05000400 |
| | license number = NPF-063 | | | license number = NPF-063 |
| | contact person = | | | contact person = |
| | document report number = 50-400/OL-14 | | | document report number = IR-14-302 |
| | package number = ML15013A407
| | | document type = Letter |
| | document type = Letter, License-Operator, Part 55 Examination Related Material | | | page count = 2 |
| | page count = 12 | |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
Line 19: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter: | | {{#Wiki_filter: Duke Energy Progress, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Donald Training Manager Harris Energy & Env. Center Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 327, State Road 1127 New Hill, NC 27562-0165 |
| [[Issue date::December 30, 2014]]
| |
|
| |
|
| Mr. Benjamin Vice President Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
| | SUBJECT: HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT - OPERATOR LICENSING WRITTEN EXAMINATION APPROVAL 05000400/2014302 |
|
| |
|
| Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant 5413 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, North Carolina 27562-0165
| | ==Dear Mr. Griffith:== |
| | The purpose of this letter is to confirm the final arrangements for the upcoming operator licensing written examination at Harris Nuclear Plant. |
|
| |
|
| SUBJECT: SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000400/2014302
| | The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed its review of the operator license applications submitted in connection with this examination and separately provided a list of approved applicants to your office. The NRC staff will administer operating tests to these individuals, as applicable, the week of November 17, 2014. |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr. Waldrep:==
| | The NRC has approved the subject written examination and hereby authorizes you to administer the written examination in accordance with Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," the week of November 24, 2014. This examination has undergone extensive review by my staff and representatives responsible for operator training at your facility. Based on this review I have concluded that the examination meets the guidelines of NUREG-1021 for content, operational, and discrimination validity. By administering this examination, you also agree that it meets NUREG-1021 guidelines, and is appropriate for measuring the qualifications of licensed operators at your facility. If you determine that this examination is not appropriate for licensing operators at your facility, do not administer the examination and contact me at (404) 997-4551. |
| During the period November 17 - 21, 2014 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
| |
| administered operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant. At the conclusion of the tests, the examiners discussed preliminary findings related to the operating tests with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on November 25, 2014.
| |
|
| |
|
| All applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. There were four post-
| | Please contact your Chief Examiner, Mr. David Lanyi, at (404) 997-4487 if you have any questions or identify any errors or changes in license level (RO or SRO) or type of examination (partial or complete written examination and/or operating test) specified for each applicant on the list of approved applicants. |
| administration comments concerning the written examination. These comments, and the NRC resolution of these comments, are summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.
| |
|
| |
|
| The initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. All examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and your staff were made according to NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9, Supplement 1.
| | Sincerely,/RA/ Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket No.: 50-400 License No.: NPF-63 |
|
| |
|
| 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). If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 997-4551.
| | November 6, 2014 November 6, 2014 Duke Energy Progress, Inc. |
|
| |
|
| Sincerely,/RA/ Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket No: 50-400 License No: NPF-63
| | ATTN: Mr. Donald Training Manager Harris Energy & Env. Center Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 327, State Road 1127 New Hill, NC 27562-0165 |
|
| |
|
| ===Enclosures:===
| | SUBJECT: HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT - OPERATOR LICENSING WRITTEN EXAMINATION APPROVAL 05000400/2014302 |
| 1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report
| |
|
| |
|
| cc: Distribution via Listserv
| | ==Dear Mr. Griffith:== |
| | The purpose of this letter is to confirm the final arrangements for the upcoming operator licensing written examination at Harris Nuclear Plant. |
|
| |
|
| _ML14364A375______________ SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE FORM 665 ATTACHED OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS SIGNATURE VIA EMAIL VIA EMAIL GJM1 FOR GJM1 NAME LANYI LACY VIERA MCCOY DATE 1/ /2015 1/ /2015 1/ /2015 1/ /2015 1/ /2015 1/ /2015 1/ /2015 E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Enclosure 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II
| | The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed its review of the operator license applications submitted in connection with this examination and separately provided a list of approved applicants to your office. The NRC staff will administer operating tests to these individuals, as applicable, the week of November 17, 2014. |
|
| |
|
| Docket No.: 50-400 License No.: NPF-63
| | The NRC has approved the subject written examination and hereby authorizes you to administer the written examination in accordance with Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," the week of November 24, 2014. |
|
| |
|
| Report No.: 05000400/2014302 Licensee: Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
| | This examination has undergone extensive review by my staff and representatives responsible for operator training at your facility. Based on this review I have concluded that the examination meets the guidelines of NUREG-1021 for content, operational, and discrimination validity. By administering this examination, you also agree that it meets NUREG-1021 guidelines, and is appropriate for measuring the qualifications of licensed operators at your facility. If you determine that this examination is not appropriate for licensing operators at your facility, do not administer the examination and contact me at (404) 997-4551. Please contact your Chief Examiner, Mr. David Lanyi, at (404) 997-4487 if you have any questions or identify any errors or changes in license level (RO or SRO) or type of examination (partial or complete written examination and/or operating test) specified for each applicant on the list of approved applicants. |
|
| |
|
| Facility: Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, Unit 1
| | Sincerely,/RA/ |
| | | Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket No.: 50-400 License No.: NPF-63 x PUBLICLY AVAILABLE G NON-PUBLICLY AVAILABLE G SENSITIVE x NON-SENSITIVE ADAMS: Yes ACCESSION NUMBER: ML14310A835 X SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS SIGNATURE DL GJMCOY NAME DLANYI GJMCCOY DATE 11/4/2014 11/6/2014 11/ /2014 11/ /2014 11/ /2014 11/ /2014 E-MAIL COPY? NO NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL COPY |
| Location: 5413 Shearon Harris Road New Hill, NC 27562 Dates: Operating Test - November 17-21, 2014 Written Examination - November 25, 2014
| |
| | |
| Examiners: David Lanyi, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer Newton Lacy, Operations Engineer Joseph Viera, Operations Engineer
| |
| | |
| Approved by: Gerald McCoy Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
| |
| | |
| =SUMMARY=
| |
| ER 05000400/2014302; operating test November 17 - 21, 2014 & written exam November 21, 2014; Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant; 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 Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The initial operating test, written RO examination, and written SRO examination submittals met the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021.
| |
| | |
| The NRC administered the operating tests during the period November 17 - 21, 2014. Members of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on November 25, 2014. All Reactor Operator (RO) and Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. All applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered. There were four post-examination comments.
| |
| | |
| No findings were identified. | |
| | |
| =REPORT DETAILS=
| |
| | |
| ==OTHER ACTIVITIES==
| |
| {{a|4OA5}}
| |
| ==4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations==
| |
| | |
| ====a. Inspection Scope====
| |
| The NRC evaluated the submitted operating test by combining the scenario events and JPMs in order to determine the percentage of submitted test items that required replacement or significant modification. The NRC also evaluated the submitted written examination questions (RO and SRO questions considered separately) in order to determine the percentage of submitted questions that required replacement or significant modification, or that clearly did not conform with the intent of the approved knowledge and ability (K/A) statement. Any questions that were deleted during the grading process, or for which the answer key had to be changed, were also included in the count of unacceptable questions. The percentage of submitted test items that were unacceptable was compared to the acceptance criteria of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Standards for Power Reactors." The NRC reviewed the licensee's 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 administered the operating tests during the period November 17 - 21, 2014. The NRC examiners evaluated four Reactor Operator (RO) and six Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. Members of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on November 25, 2014. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, "Operators' Licenses."
| |
| | |
| The NRC evaluated the performance or fidelity of the simulation facility during the preparation and conduct of the operating tests.
| |
| | |
| ====b. Findings====
| |
| No findings were identified. | |
| | |
| The NRC developed the written examination sample plan outline. Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant training 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. 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 determined, using NUREG-1021, that the licensee's initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
| |
| | |
| All applicants passed both the operating test and written examination and were issued licenses.
| |
| | |
| 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 four post-examination comments concerning the written examination. A copy of the final written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, and the licensee's post-examination comments may be accessed not earlier than November 25, 2016--two years after administration of the written exam, in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML14338A038 and ML14338A036).
| |
| {{a|4OA6}}
| |
| ==4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit==
| |
| | |
| =====Exit Meeting Summary=====
| |
| | |
| On November 21, 2014, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with Mr. Benjamin Waldrep, Site Vice-President, and members of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
| |
| | |
| KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel B. Waldrep, Site Vice-President J. Dufner, Plant General Manager D. Hayes, Operations Manager D. Griffith, Training Manager S. Schwindt, Operations Training Manager D. Corbett, Manager - Regulatory Affairs E. Betram, Operations Instructor R. Horton, Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor A. Lucky, Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor G. Pickar, Initial Training Supervisor S. Rua, NLO / Exam Supervisor S. Scott, Assistant Operations Manager - Training R. Vondenberg, Assistant Operations Manager - Shift M Wallace, Senior Technical Specialist - Regulatory Affairs NRC personnel J. Austin, Senior Resident Inspector 2
| |
| | |
| =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 ML14338A046. Item Question 5, K/A 015AA1.16 Comment The licensee recommends that there is no correct answer for RO question #5.
| |
| The question asks whether or not a reactor trip would occur based on plant conditions described
| |
| by Bistable Status on the Bypass Permissive Light Box (BPLB) and the Trip Status Light Boxes
| |
| (TSLB). The first half of the question asked whether a reactor trip WOULD or WOULD NOT
| |
| occur. The second half of the question asked which Reactor Protection System (RPS) Permissive caused the reactor to trip/not trip. The keyed answer is that a reactor trip would occur because of the status of P-7 (Low Power Trips Blocked).
| |
| The stem of the question states that the BPLB and TSLB both indicate that both the P-7 and P-
| |
| (Power Range > 10%) bistables were lit. This is not possible unless there is a fault, because one illuminated light indicates greater than 10% power and the other indicates less than 10% power.
| |
| Clarification for this question was given during the exam in that the Bypass Permissive Light Box window names for each RPS Permissive were written down. The clarification provided
| |
| implied that the P-7 BPLB light was being referenced in the question. The stem of the question and the additional guidance provided in the clarification led candidates
| |
| to answer the question based on BPLB status. Since the conditions in the stem of the question
| |
| could not exist in any plant condition using BPLB indications, this is an invalid question without a
| |
| correct answer. NRC Resolution
| |
| The licensee's recommendation was accepted.
| |
| The question was written upon the mistaken supposition that if the P-7 permissive light were lit, the interlock would be met. The stem also stated that the P-10 permissive light was lit.
| |
| Further review of the wiring diagrams reveal that P-7 would be extinguished when power is greater than 10% and that P-10 would be lit when power was greater than 10%. The
| |
| configuration of having both lights lit at the same time is not possible without a circuitry failure.
| |
| The question was written to test the applicants' knowledge of low-power reactor trip block status lights during a loss of Reactor Coolant flow. Specifically, the intent was to examine their
| |
| knowledge that the reactor trip was due to loss of two out of three loops when power was
| |
| between the P-7 power and P-8 (Single Loop Low Flow Trip Blocked) power (approximately
| |
| 49% power). The concept was that with the P-7 light on and the P-8 light off, the applicant was to infer that power was between these two permissives. They would then be able to choose the
| |
| correct answer that a trip would occur because two of the three Reactor Coolant Pumps would have lost power (P-7 permissive). However with the P-7 light illuminated, the stem of the
| |
| question led the applicants to conclude that power was actually less than 10% and the P-7 induced loss of flow trips were not valid. No trip would have occurred in this case. No answer was provided that would have allowed "no trip occurring" due to the status of P-7. Since the P-7 permissive appeared to not be met, there were no correct answers provided and
| |
| the question was deleted.
| |
| Item Question 27, K/A WE15EA1.3 Comment The licensee recommends that there is no correct answer for RO question #27.
| |
| The first part of the question requires the candidate to evaluate containment parameters and
| |
| choose the appropriate Function Restoration (FR) Procedure to implement. The current
| |
| construction of the Containment Critical Safety Function Status Tree (CSFST) as adopted by the licensee evaluates containment pressure before containment sump level or radiation levels. CSFST rules of usage as described in EOP USERS GUIDE section 5.2 states "At any given
| |
| time, a Critical Safety Function status is represented by a single path through its tree. Since
| |
| each path is unique, it is uniquely labeled at its end point, or terminus. This labeling consists of
| |
| color coding and/or line-pattern-coding of the terminus and last branch line, plus a transition to
| |
| an appropriate FR if required by that safety status." Since containment pressure is evaluated before evaluation of sump levels, the Containment Status Tree would result in a YELLOW terminus requiring transition to FR-Z.1. This YELLOW path effectively blocks evaluation of the
| |
| ORANGE path terminus for Containment flooding. This results in an entry into EOP-FR-Z.1 Response to High Containment Pressure, eliminating answers "C" and "D" from being correct. The second part of this question requires the candidate to know what needs to be sampled as required by the implementing procedure. The stem of the question stated that bus 1A2-SA was
| |
| de-energized due to a fault. This fault results in a loss of one train of Containment Spray Pumps
| |
| and Emergency Service Water (ESW) Booster Pumps. Since one train of ESW booster pumps
| |
| remain in service (B train), service water for the de-energized train is simply isolated per step 9.a RNO, not sampled. Since nothing is sampled in EOP-FR-Z.1 with the current plant conditions, "A" and "B" are also incorrect leaving no correct answer for this question.
| |
| NRC Resolution
| |
| The licensee's recommendation was accepted. The Westinghouse Emergency Response Guidelines (ERG) Background Document for F-0.5,
| |
| Section 2 states "When the status tree 'rules of usage' are applied to F-0.5, CONTAINMENT,
| |
| with a spray pump running and containment pressure between the spray actuation pressure
| |
| (T.02) and the design pressure (T.03), then a YELLOW priority will result. The operator should be aware that this YELLOW priority can be reached without evaluating the ORANGE priority for entry into FR-Z.2, RESPONSE TO CONTAINMENT FLOODING, based on high containment sump level. This priority scheme should not present conflicts for plants with a large, dry
| |
| containment (like the reference plant) due to the containment pressure behavior following an
| |
| event that releases sufficient mass and energy into the containment atmosphere to actuate containment spray, and the value of footnote (T.06) for entry into FR-Z.2, RESPONSE TO
| |
| CONTAINMENT FLOODING." The background document goes on to provide options for how to change the Containment Status Tree if it were determined that containment flooding should be evaluated before pressure was reduced less than the Containment Spray actuation setpoint.
| |
| The licensee has not adopted any of these changes and currently uses the ERG version of the
| |
| Containment Status Tree as is. Therefore, the question as written would recommend entry into
| |
| FR-Z.1. Based upon that procedure, no guidance would be given on sampling any water in
| |
| containment. Therefore, none of the answers provided were correct. Since no correct answers were provided, the question has been deleted.
| |
| Item Question 51, K/A 064A2.04 Comment
| |
| The licensee recommends that there is no correct answer based on the information provided in
| |
| the stem of the question. The first part of the question requires the candidate to evaluate the time required to shut down
| |
| the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) from 35% load. The second part of the question asks
| |
| for the impact of taking the action per the first part of the question. There is no comment on the
| |
| second part of the question. The basis for the timely shutdown of the EDG is to minimize
| |
| carbon buildup which is both "B" and "D" answers. The comment on the first part of the question is there was not enough information provided in
| |
| the stem of the question to provide an operationally accurate response. Section 7.1.2, step 9 of
| |
| OP-155, "Diesel Generator Emergency Power System" states "At the MCB (Main Control Board), WHEN stack exhaust temperatures are less than 500°F,THEN POSITION DIESEL GENERATOR A-SA (B-SB) control switch to STOP". Since these temperatures were not provided there was not enough information provided for the candidate to determine if the note
| |
| that states "The EDG should be shutdown from 35% load in less than 5 minutes to minimize
| |
| carbon buildup" was applicable.
| |
| Without the stack temperatures it is not possible to determine the time the EDG should be shutdown.
| |
| NRC Resolution
| |
| The licensee's recommendation was rejected. The lack of stack exhaust temperature data was irrelevant for the question asked. Although
| |
| there have been occasions in the past where the EDGs had to be operated unloaded for periods
| |
| greater than five minutes. The note to shutdown the EDG within 5 minutes is always applicable
| |
| unless other conditions prevent performing it in that time frame. In this case, no information was provided on the stack exhaust temperature, therefore the logical assumption would be that the temperature did not hinder a timely shutdown.
| |
| | |
| The lack of information in the stem would not cause confusion about what was being asked. If any confusion was experienced by the applicants by the stem of the question, they were repeatedly informed that they should ask for clarification. The applicants asked no clarifying questions about lack of stack exhaust temperature data. Therefore there was adequate information in the stem to answer the question.
| |
| Item Question 73, K/A G2.4.17 Comment
| |
| The licensee recommends that the correct answer to this question is "A" and not "B" as
| |
| keyed.
| |
| The question required the applicant to evaluate the condition of Reactor Coolant System (RCS) RCS pressure during an operator controlled cooldown following a small break Loss of Coolant
| |
| Accident (LOCA) and the basis for that decision. The EOP USERS GUIDE section 6.5 states
| |
| "The operator is frequently asked to check RCS and SG (Steam Generator) pressures and
| |
| temperature as STABLE (or RISING). STABLE does not necessarily imply constant. RCS and/or SG pressure may be dropping slowly due to an operator-controlled cooldown and still be considered stable. If the operator can control the rate and magnitude of the pressure change,
| |
| then pressure should be considered stable." Therefore RCS pressure should be considered
| |
| STABLE due to the pressure drop seen being a direct result of an operator controlled cooldown,
| |
| which makes answer "A" correct and answers "C" and "D" incorrect.
| |
| Answer "B" provides a basis for calling RCS pressure stable as RCS subcooling is rising. While a rising subcooling is a diverse indication of a stable/rising pressure, it is not an indication that is
| |
| referenced in the EOP users guide revision that was used to write this exam question or by the
| |
| applicants as they prepared for the exam.
| |
| Based on the information provided in the EOP Users Guide answer A is the more correct answer to this question.
| |
| NRC Resolution
| |
| The licensee's recommendation was partially accepted Based upon the assumption made by the applicants during the test that a controlled cooldown
| |
| was in progress, it is reasonable to understand that RCS pressure would be slowly lowering due
| |
| to the operator's actions. However, rising subcooling with a slowly lowering RCS pressure
| |
| continues to be a legitimate indication of stable pressure. Both answer "A" and "B" were accepted as correct answers.
| |
| SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant
| |
| Facility Docket No.: 50-400
| |
| Operating Test Administered: November 17 - 21, 2014
| |
| 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.
| |
| }} | | }} |
|
---|
Category:Letter
MONTHYEARIR 05000400/20230042024-01-30030 January 2024 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400/2023004 ML23317A3462023-11-14014 November 2023 Duke Fleet - Correction Letter to License Amendment Nos. 312 & 340 Issuance of Amendments Regarding the Adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler TSTF-554, Revision 1 IR 05000400/20230032023-11-0909 November 2023 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400/2023003 ML23346A1322023-10-0606 October 2023 Communication from C-10 Research & Education Foundation Regarding NextEra Common Emergency Fleet Plan License Amendment Request and Related Documents Subsequently Published ML23234A1702023-10-0303 October 2023 Issuance of Amendment No. 199 Regarding Administrative Changes to the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications ML23256A0882023-09-25025 September 2023 Issuance of Alternative to Steam Generator Welds ML23195A0782023-08-29029 August 2023 Issuance of Amendments Regarding the Adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler TSTF-554, Revision 1 IR 05000400/20230052023-08-23023 August 2023 Updated Inspection Plan for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Report 05000400/2023005) ML23234A2542023-08-22022 August 2023 RQ Inspection Notification Letter IR 05000400/20234022023-07-26026 July 2023 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000400/2023402 IR 05000400/20230022023-07-24024 July 2023 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400/2023002 IR 05000400/20234402023-07-17017 July 2023 Special Inspection Report 05000400/2023440 and Preliminary Greater than Green Finding and Apparent Violation Cover Letter IR 05000400/20243012023-05-15015 May 2023 Notification of Licensed Operator Initial Examination 05000400/2024301 IR 05000400/20230012023-05-10010 May 2023 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400 2023001 IR 05000400/20234042023-05-0404 May 2023 Cyber Security Inspection Report 05000400/2023404 ML23118A0762023-05-0101 May 2023 Approval for Use of Specific Provision of a Later Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI ML23118A1392023-04-28028 April 2023 Submittal of Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Amendment 65), Technical Specification Bases Revision, Report of Changes Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 and Summary of Commitment Changes IR 05000400/20234032023-04-0505 April 2023 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000400/2023403 IR 05000400/20230102023-03-15015 March 2023 Comprehensive Engineering Team Inspection (CETI) Inspection Report 05000400/2023010 ML22332A4932023-03-10010 March 2023 William States Lee III 1 and 2 - Issuance of Amendments Regarding the Relocation of the Emergency Operations Facility IR 05000400/20220062023-03-0101 March 2023 Annual Assessment Letter for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant - NRC Inspection Report 05000400/2022006 ML23033A5272023-02-0808 February 2023 Correction of Typographical Errors Incurred During Issuance of License Amendment No. 196 IR 05000400/20220042023-02-0707 February 2023 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400/2022004 ML23020A1252023-01-23023 January 2023 Notification of Target Set Inspection and Request for Information (NRC Inspection Report 05000400/2023403) ML22096A0032022-11-18018 November 2022 McGuire Nuclear Station and Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Authorization of RA-19-0352 Regarding Use of Alternative for RPV Head Closure Stud Examinations ML22256A2532022-11-14014 November 2022 Issuance of Amendments Regarding the Adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler TSTF-541, Rev. 2 IR 05000400/20220032022-11-10010 November 2022 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400/2022003 IR 05000400/20223012022-11-0202 November 2022 NRC Operator License Examination Report 05000400/2022301 ML22271A6202022-09-29029 September 2022 Notification of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Comprehensive Engineering Team Inspection - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection Report 05000400/2023010 ML22258A1262022-09-14014 September 2022 NRC Operator Licensing Examination Approval 05000400/2022301 ML22242A0022022-09-12012 September 2022 Issuance of Amendments to Adopt TSTF 569, Revision 2, Revise Response Time Testing Definition ML22227A0682022-09-0202 September 2022 Alternative to Certain Inservice Testing Requirements in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operation and Maintenance for Certain Target Rock Solenoid Valves IR 05000400/20220052022-08-24024 August 2022 Updated Inspection Plan for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (Report 05000400/2022005) IR 05000400/20224032022-08-23023 August 2022 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000400/2022403 ML22126A0082022-08-0909 August 2022 Issuance of Amendment No. 194 Revise Technical Specifications Related to Reactor Protection System Instrumentation P7 IR 05000400/20220022022-08-0505 August 2022 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400/2022002 ML22161B0332022-07-28028 July 2022 Issuance of Amendment No. 193 Regarding Revision of Surveillance Requirements to Remove Shutdown Limitation IR 05000400/20220112022-07-20020 July 2022 Biennial Problem Identification and Resolution Inspection Report 05000400 2022011 IR 05000400/20224022022-06-30030 June 2022 Material Control and Accounting Program Inspection Report 05000400/2022402 (OUO Removed) IR 05000400/20220102022-06-13013 June 2022 Design Basis Assurance Inspection (Programs) Inspection Report 05000400/2022010 ML22138A4012022-05-26026 May 2022 Project Manager Reassignment ML22101A2822022-05-0606 May 2022 Regulatory Audit Summary Related to the Review of License Amendment Regarding Revising the Flood Hazard Protection Scheme IR 05000400/20220012022-05-0404 May 2022 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400/2022001 IR 05000400/20224012022-03-24024 March 2022 Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000400/2022401 ML22020A0072022-03-10010 March 2022 Issuance of Amendment No. 192 Regarding Removal of Extraneous Content and Requirements from the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications ML22010A2812022-03-0404 March 2022 Issuance of Amendments to Adopt TSTF-577, Rev. 1 Revised Frequencies for Steam Generator Tube Inspections (EPID L-2021-LLA-0161 IR 05000400/20210062022-03-0202 March 2022 Annual Assessment Letter for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (Report No. 05000400/2021006) ML21351A4722022-02-10010 February 2022 Issuance of Amendment No. 190 Regarding Revision to Containment Spray Nozzle Test Frequency IR 05000400/20210042022-02-0404 February 2022 Integrated Inspection Report 05000400/2021004 ML22034A5352022-02-0202 February 2022 Notification of Licensed Operator Initial Examination 05000400/2022301 2024-01-30
[Table view] |
Text
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Donald Training Manager Harris Energy & Env. Center Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 327, State Road 1127 New Hill, NC 27562-0165
SUBJECT: HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT - OPERATOR LICENSING WRITTEN EXAMINATION APPROVAL 05000400/2014302
Dear Mr. Griffith:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm the final arrangements for the upcoming operator licensing written examination at Harris Nuclear Plant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed its review of the operator license applications submitted in connection with this examination and separately provided a list of approved applicants to your office. The NRC staff will administer operating tests to these individuals, as applicable, the week of November 17, 2014.
The NRC has approved the subject written examination and hereby authorizes you to administer the written examination in accordance with Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," the week of November 24, 2014. This examination has undergone extensive review by my staff and representatives responsible for operator training at your facility. Based on this review I have concluded that the examination meets the guidelines of NUREG-1021 for content, operational, and discrimination validity. By administering this examination, you also agree that it meets NUREG-1021 guidelines, and is appropriate for measuring the qualifications of licensed operators at your facility. If you determine that this examination is not appropriate for licensing operators at your facility, do not administer the examination and contact me at (404) 997-4551.
Please contact your Chief Examiner, Mr. David Lanyi, at (404) 997-4487 if you have any questions or identify any errors or changes in license level (RO or SRO) or type of examination (partial or complete written examination and/or operating test) specified for each applicant on the list of approved applicants.
Sincerely,/RA/ Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket No.: 50-400 License No.: NPF-63
November 6, 2014 November 6, 2014 Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
ATTN: Mr. Donald Training Manager Harris Energy & Env. Center Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 327, State Road 1127 New Hill, NC 27562-0165
SUBJECT: HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT - OPERATOR LICENSING WRITTEN EXAMINATION APPROVAL 05000400/2014302
Dear Mr. Griffith:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm the final arrangements for the upcoming operator licensing written examination at Harris Nuclear Plant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed its review of the operator license applications submitted in connection with this examination and separately provided a list of approved applicants to your office. The NRC staff will administer operating tests to these individuals, as applicable, the week of November 17, 2014.
The NRC has approved the subject written examination and hereby authorizes you to administer the written examination in accordance with Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," the week of November 24, 2014.
This examination has undergone extensive review by my staff and representatives responsible for operator training at your facility. Based on this review I have concluded that the examination meets the guidelines of NUREG-1021 for content, operational, and discrimination validity. By administering this examination, you also agree that it meets NUREG-1021 guidelines, and is appropriate for measuring the qualifications of licensed operators at your facility. If you determine that this examination is not appropriate for licensing operators at your facility, do not administer the examination and contact me at (404) 997-4551. Please contact your Chief Examiner, Mr. David Lanyi, at (404) 997-4487 if you have any questions or identify any errors or changes in license level (RO or SRO) or type of examination (partial or complete written examination and/or operating test) specified for each applicant on the list of approved applicants.
Sincerely,/RA/
Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket No.: 50-400 License No.: NPF-63 x PUBLICLY AVAILABLE G NON-PUBLICLY AVAILABLE G SENSITIVE x NON-SENSITIVE ADAMS: Yes ACCESSION NUMBER: ML14310A835 X SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS SIGNATURE DL GJMCOY NAME DLANYI GJMCCOY DATE 11/4/2014 11/6/2014 11/ /2014 11/ /2014 11/ /2014 11/ /2014 E-MAIL COPY? NO NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL COPY