IR 05000400/2014302: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
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.
}}
}}

Revision as of 09:34, 26 June 2018

Harris Nuclear Plant - Operator Licensing Written Exam Approval 05000400-14-302
ML14310A835
Person / Time
Site: Harris Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/06/2014
From: McCoy G J
Division of Reactor Safety I
To: Griffith D L
Duke Energy Progress
References
IR-14-302
Download: ML14310A835 (2)
v • d • e


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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000400/2014302&oldid=721331"