IR 05000321/2016301: 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)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML16256A054
| number = ML16256A054
| issue date = 09/07/2016
| issue date = 09/07/2016
| title = Edwin I. Hatch - NRC Operator License Examination Report 05000321/2016301 and 05000366/2016301
| title = NRC Operator License Examination Report 05000321/2016301 and 05000366/2016301
| author name = McCoy G J
| author name = Mccoy G
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/DRS
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/DRS
| addressee name = Vineyard D R
| addressee name = Vineyard D
| addressee affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc
| addressee affiliation = Southern Nuclear Operating Co, Inc
| docket = 05000321, 05000366
| docket = 05000321, 05000366
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES ber 7, 2016
[[Issue date::September 7, 2016]]


Mr. David Site Vice President Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
==SUBJECT:==
 
EDWIN I. HATCH - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000321/2016301 AND 05000366/2016301
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, GA 31513
 
SUBJECT: EDWIN I. HATCH - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000321/2016301 AND 05000366/2016301


==Dear Mr. Vineyard:==
==Dear Mr. Vineyard:==
Line 32: Line 28:
Six Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO applicant failed the operating test and written examination. There were four post-administration comments concerning both the operating test and 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.
Six Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO applicant failed the operating test and written examination. There were four post-administration comments concerning both the operating test and 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 10.
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 10.


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.
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 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) 997-4551.


Sincerely,/RA/ Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos: 50-321, 50-366 License Nos: DPR-57, NPF-5  
Sincerely,
/RA/
Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos: 50-321, 50-366 License Nos: DPR-57, NPF-5


===Enclosures:===
===Enclosures:===
1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report  
1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report


cc: Distribution via Listserv
REGION II==
Docket No.: 50-321, 50-366 License No.: DPR-57, NPF-5 Report No.: 05000321/2016301 and 05000366/2016301 Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC)
Facility: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Location: Baxley, GA Dates: Operating Test - June 20-29, 2016 Written Examination - July 7, 2016 Examiners: J. Viera, Chief Examiner, Operations Engineer P. Presby, Senior Operations Engineer J. Bundy, Operations Engineer Approved by: Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1


__ ____________ SUNSI REVIEW COMPLETE FORM 665 ATTACHED OFFICE RII:DRS RI:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS SIGNATURE JDB10 via email PAP3 via email JXV3 via email GJM1 NAME JBUNDY PPRESBY JVIERA GMcCOY DATE 8/31/2016 8/31/2016 9/1/2016 9/ 7 /2016 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 Docket No.: 50-321, 50-366
=SUMMARY=
 
ER 05000321/2016301, 05000366/2016301; June 20-29, 2016 & July 7, 2016; Edwin I. Hatch
License No.: DPR-57, NPF-5 Report No.: 05000321/2016301 and 05000366/2016301  
 
Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC)


Facility: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Location: Baxley, GA
Nuclear Plant; Operator License Examinations.


Dates: Operating Test - June 20-29, 2016 Written Examination - July 7, 2016 Examiners: J. Viera, Chief Examiner, Operations Engineer P. Presby, Senior Operations Engineer J. Bundy, Operations Engineer Approved by: Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners conducted an initial examination in accordance with the guidelines in Revision 10, 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.


=SUMMARY=
Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The initial operating tests, written Reactor Operator (RO) examination, and written Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) examination submittals met the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021.
ER 05000321/2016301, 05000366/2016301; June 20-29, 2016 & July 7, 2016; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant; Operator License Examinations.


Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners conducted an initial examination in accordance with the guidelines in Revision 10, 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 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The initial operating tests, written Reactor Operator (RO) examination, and written Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) examination submittals met the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. The NRC administered the operating tests during the period June 20-29, 2016. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on July 7, 2016.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period June 20-29, 2016. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on July 7, 2016.


Six Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. Eleven applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered.
Six Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. Eleven applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered.
Line 71: Line 67:


====a. Inspection Scope====
====a. Inspection Scope====
The NRC evaluated the submitted operating test by combining the scenario events and job performance measures (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 evaluated the submitted operating test by combining the scenario events and job performance measures (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 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 administered the operating tests during the period June 20-29, 2016. The NRC examiners evaluated seven RO and five SRO applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on July 7, 2016. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, "Operators' Licenses."
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period June 20-29, 2016. The NRC examiners evaluated seven RO and five SRO applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on July 7, 2016. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Edwin I. Hatch 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.
The NRC evaluated the performance or fidelity of the simulation facility during the preparation and conduct of the operating tests.
Line 82: Line 80:
The NRC developed the written examination sample plan outline. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch 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 10 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 developed the written examination sample plan outline. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch 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 10 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.
The NRC determined, using NUREG-1021, that the licensees initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.


No issues related to examination security were identified during preparation and administration of the examination.
No issues related to examination security were identified during preparation and administration of the examination.


Six RO applicants and five SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO applicant did not pass the operating test or written examination. Six RO applicants and five SRO applicants were issued licenses.
Six RO applicants and five SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO applicant did not pass the operating test or written examination.
 
Six RO applicants and five SRO applicants were issued licenses.


One RO applicant passed the operating test, but passed the written examination with an overall score between 80% and 82%. This applicant was 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.
One RO applicant passed the operating test, but passed the written examination with an overall score between 80% and 82%. This applicant was 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.
Line 92: Line 92:
Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility Training Manager for evaluation of weaknesses and determination of appropriate remedial training.
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 three post-examination comments concerning the operating test and one post-examination comment concerning the written examination. A copy of the final written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, may be accessed not earlier than July 7, 2018, and a copy of the licensee's post-examination comments, may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML16214A180, ML16214A189 and ML16214A194).
The licensee submitted three post-examination comments concerning the operating test and one post-examination comment concerning the written examination. A copy of the final written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, may be accessed not earlier than July 7, 2018, and a copy of the licensees post-examination comments, may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML16214A180, ML16214A189 and ML16214A194).


{{a|4OA6}}
{{a|4OA6}}
==4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit==
==4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit==


=====Exit Meeting Summary=====
===Exit Meeting Summary===
 
On July 29, 2016 the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with David Vineyard, Site Vice President, and members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
On July 29, 2016 the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with David Vineyard, Site Vice President, and members of the Edwin I. Hatch 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 David Vineyard, Site Vice President Tony Spring, Plant Manager Chuck Vonier, Operations Director Brad Deen, Training Director Greg Johnson, Regulatory Affairs Manager Russell Lewis, Operations Support Manager Ed Jones, Nuclear Operations Training Instructor - Lead Anthony Ball, Lead Exam Developer Richard Greenhouse, Exam Developer Art Genereax, Exam Developer Jerry Thomas, Initial Nuclear Operations Training Instructor John Campbell, Initial Nuclear Operations Training Instructor 2
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel David Vineyard, Site Vice President Tony Spring, Plant Manager Chuck Vonier, Operations Director Brad Deen, Training Director Greg Johnson, Regulatory Affairs Manager Russell Lewis, Operations Support Manager Ed Jones, Nuclear Operations Training Instructor - Lead Anthony Ball, Lead Exam Developer Richard Greenhouse, Exam Developer Art Genereax, Exam Developer Jerry Thomas, Initial Nuclear Operations Training Instructor John Campbell, Initial Nuclear Operations Training Instructor


=FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENTS AND NRC RESOLUTIONS=
=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 ML16214A194. Item #1: RO / SRO Written Exam Question # 56 Post-Examination Comment During administration of the written examination, two applicants provided questions seeking clarification for the second half answer choices to Question # 56 (Q56). The licensee contended
A complete text of the licensees post-examination comments can be found in ADAMS under
Accession Number ML16214A194.
Item #1: RO / SRO Written Exam Question # 56
Post-Examination Comment
During administration of the written examination, two applicants provided questions seeking
clarification for the second half answer choices to Question # 56 (Q56). The licensee contended
that these Q56 answer choices were open to interpretation, contained ambiguity, and required
that these Q56 answer choices were open to interpretation, contained ambiguity, and required
revision. Use of the Q56 term, ILLUMINATED, or 'annunciator in alarm' as an answer choice,
revision. Use of the Q56 term, ILLUMINATED, or annunciator in alarm as an answer choice,
implied control panel annunciator indication of either SOLID GREEN (annunciator in non-alarming condition) or FLASHING WHITE (annunciator in alarming condition). The licensee recommended a revision of the second half answer choices to remove this ambiguity:   NRC Resolution The entire text of Q56 is included below.  
implied control panel annunciator indication of either SOLID GREEN (annunciator in non-
alarming condition) or FLASHING WHITE (annunciator in alarming condition). The licensee
recommended a revision of the second half answer choices to remove this ambiguity:
NRC Resolution
The entire text of Q56 is included below.


The licensee's recommendation was partially accepted.
The licensees recommendation was partially accepted.
Following discussion with the facility examination team and based, in part, on the applicant questions provided, the Chief Examiner concluded that the provided answer choices of ILLUMINATED and EXTINGUISHED were not specific to actual control board annunciator
Following discussion with the facility examination team and based, in part, on the applicant
response with no operator action, did not definitively elicit the 'asked-for' knowledge, and required revision.
questions provided, the Chief Examiner concluded that the provided answer choices of
In Post Exam Comment #1, the licensee recommended adoption of revised answer choices for Q56 to remove ambiguity and elicit the 'asked-for' knowledge, i.e. alarm status of annunciator 603-141. This was performed during administration of the written examination as a result of questions raised by several applicants where the licensee staff and the chief examiner jointly
ILLUMINATED and EXTINGUISHED were not specific to actual control board annunciator
response with no operator action, did not definitively elicit the asked-for knowledge, and
required revision.
In Post Exam Comment #1, the licensee recommended adoption of revised answer choices for
Q56 to remove ambiguity and elicit the asked-for knowledge, i.e. alarm status of annunciator
603-141. This was performed during administration of the written examination as a result of
questions raised by several applicants where the licensee staff and the chief examiner jointly
agreed that the wording was ambiguous.
agreed that the wording was ambiguous.
Therefore, the second half answer choices for Q56 are revised to read FLASHING WHITE and SOLID GREEN and all applicants were informed of the revised wording during administration of
Therefore, the second half answer choices for Q56 are revised to read FLASHING WHITE and
the written examination. The correct answer choice for Q56 remains answer choice D.
SOLID GREEN and all applicants were informed of the revised wording during administration of
Item #2: Administrative Topic "d", 2016-301 ADMIN 5, Evaluate an RWP and Survey Map
the written examination. The correct answer choice for Q56 remains answer choice  
: [[contact::D.
Item #2: Administrative Topic d]], 2016-301 ADMIN 5, Evaluate an RWP and Survey Map
Post-Examination Comment
Post-Examination Comment
The licensee contended that job performance measure (JPM) Step 1 required reclassification from CRITICAL to non-CRITICA
The licensee contended that job performance measure (JPM) Step 1 required reclassification
from CRITICAL to non-CRITICA
: [[contact::L. As a basis]], the licensee contended that the provided
: [[contact::L. As a basis]], the licensee contended that the provided
radiological survey map contained no areas with an indicated dose rate > 1000 mRem/hour in the JPM specified work area, Unit 1 Turbine Building Condenser Bay 147' elevation. JPM Step 1, with accompanying NOTE, is included below.
radiological survey map contained no areas with an indicated dose rate > 1000 mRem/hour in
A portion of Radiation Work Permit (RWP) 16-0164 is included below. A portion of RWP 16-004 is included below.
the JPM specified work area, Unit 1 Turbine Building Condenser Bay 147 elevation. JPM Step
NRC Resolution The licensee's recommendation was not accepted.
1, with accompanying NOTE, is included below.
A portion of Radiation Work Permit (RWP) 16-0164 is included below.
A portion of RWP 16-004 is included below.
NRC Resolution
The licensees recommendation was not accepted.
Although the JPM provided survey map contained no areas with an indicated dose rate > 1000
Although the JPM provided survey map contained no areas with an indicated dose rate > 1000
mRem/hour (i.e. the radiological dose rate requiring designation of an area as a Locked High
mRem/hour (i.e. the radiological dose rate requiring designation of an area as a Locked High
Radiation Area (LHRA)), the given plant condition of operation at 20% reactor power
Radiation Area (LHRA)), the given plant condition of operation at 20% reactor power
procedurally required LHRA posting of all access doors into the Unit 1 Turbine Building Condenser Bay. Knowledge of this procedural requirement was required to perform JPM step 1. The task standard for this JPM is included below.
procedurally required LHRA posting of all access doors into the Unit 1 Turbine Building
Condenser Bay. Knowledge of this procedural requirement was required to perform JPM step 1.
The task standard for this JPM is included below.
For this JPM, the following information, in part, was provided to each applicant.
For this JPM, the following information, in part, was provided to each applicant.
Procedurally, during preparations to perform a reactor startup, the locking of High Radiation Areas (HRAs) is commenced in accordance with 34GO-OPS-003-1, Startup System Status Checklist, Version 12.19.
Procedurally, during preparations to perform a reactor startup, the locking of High Radiation
The process of LHRA posting verification is completed in accordance with performance of 62RP-RAD-019-0, Radiation Protection Start-Up Surveillance, Version 10.0.
Areas (HRAs) is commenced in accordance with 34GO-OPS-003-1, Startup System Status
Checklist, Version 12.19.
The process of LHRA posting verification is completed in accordance with performance of
2RP-RAD-019-0, Radiation Protection Start-Up Surveillance, Version 10.0.
A portion of HPX-1082, Unit One High Radiation Area Entrance Surveillance at 20% Power,
A portion of HPX-1082, Unit One High Radiation Area Entrance Surveillance at 20% Power,
which provides a listing of the entry doors into High Radiation areas is provided below. In Post Exam Comment #2, the licensee recommended revising JPM Step 1 from CRITICAL to non-CRITICAL based on a lack of indicated radiological dose rate information in the provided
which provides a listing of the entry doors into High Radiation areas is provided below.
In Post Exam Comment #2, the licensee recommended revising JPM Step 1 from CRITICAL to
non-CRITICAL based on a lack of indicated radiological dose rate information in the provided
survey map. However, a procedural basis did exist for the conditions specified in the JPM and
survey map. However, a procedural basis did exist for the conditions specified in the JPM and
indicate that the doors which permit entry into the Unit 1 Turbine Building Condenser Bay (112'
indicate that the doors which permit entry into the Unit 1 Turbine Building Condenser Bay (112
CONBAY NORTH, 130' CONBAY EAST, and 130' CONBAY NORTH), would be verified to be locked and posted as a LHRA with Unit 1 operating at a minimum of 20% reactor power.
CONBAY NORTH, 130 CONBAY EAST, and 130 CONBAY NORTH), would be verified to be
locked and posted as a LHRA with Unit 1 operating at a minimum of 20% reactor power.
Therefore, since a procedural basis exists that validates the licensee provided JPM standard for
Therefore, since a procedural basis exists that validates the licensee provided JPM standard for
applicant selection of RWP 16-0164, JPM step 1 remains a CRITICAL step.  
applicant selection of RWP 16-0164, JPM step 1 remains a CRITICAL step.
 
Item #3: Systems - Control Room JPM c, CR-SIM 3 2016-301, Override the MSIVs in an
Item #3: Systems - Control Room JPM "c", CR-SIM 3 2016-301, Override the MSIVs in an Emergency Post-Examination Comment During the performance of this job performance measure (JPM), several license applicants
Emergency
commenced opening an Inboard Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) with a differential pressure  
Post-Examination Comment
During the performance of this job performance measure (JPM), several license applicants
commenced opening an Inboard Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) with a differential pressure
(d/p) in excess of the procedurally prescribed 200 pounds-per-square inch differential (psid).
(d/p) in excess of the procedurally prescribed 200 pounds-per-square inch differential (psid).
The licensee contended that further analysis would be required to determine the consequence of opening an Inboard MSIV with this d/p.
The licensee contended that further analysis would be required to determine the consequence
of opening an Inboard MSIV with this d/p.
NRC Resolution
NRC Resolution
The licensee's comment was accepted. In Post Exam Comment #3, the licensee recommended that additional analysis would be
The licensees comment was accepted.
In Post Exam Comment #3, the licensee recommended that additional analysis would be
required to determine the consequence of MSIV operation with a d/p in excess of procedural
required to determine the consequence of MSIV operation with a d/p in excess of procedural
limits during the performance of this JPM.
limits during the performance of this JP
Therefore, the NRC accepts that any MSIV operation with a d/p in excess of procedural limits could result in MSIV damage during the performance of this JPM.
: [[contact::M.
Item #4: Systems - Control Room JPM "f", CR-SIM 6 2016-301, Transfer an Emergency 4160 VAC Bus from the Emergency to the Normal Power Supply
Therefore]], the NRC accepts that any MSIV operation with a d/p in excess of procedural limits
Post-Examination Comment During performance of this job performance measure (JPM), actions taken by a license
could result in MSIV damage during the performance of this JP
: [[contact::M.
Item #4: Systems - Control Room JPM f]], CR-SIM 6 2016-301, Transfer an Emergency 4160
VAC Bus from the Emergency to the Normal Power Supply
Post-Examination Comment
During performance of this job performance measure (JPM), actions taken by a license
applicant resulted in the inadvertent trip of the running emergency diesel generator (EDG). The
applicant resulted in the inadvertent trip of the running emergency diesel generator (EDG). The
licensee contended that no equipment damage or personnel injury would result from an inadvertent reverse power trip of the EDG. The basis for this contention lies in the automatic TRIP of the EDG output breaker and automatic shutdown of the running EDG.
licensee contended that no equipment damage or personnel injury would result from an
inadvertent reverse power trip of the EDG. The basis for this contention lies in the automatic
TRIP of the EDG output breaker and automatic shutdown of the running EDG.
NRC Resolution
NRC Resolution
The licensee's comment was accepted. In Post Exam Comment #4, the licensee recommended that there was no adverse plant impact from an inadvertent reverse power trip of the EDG during the performance of this JPM.
The licensees comment was accepted.
Therefore, the NRC accepts that an inadvertent reverse power trip of the running EDG during performance of this JPM would result in no adverse impact to the EDG.
In Post Exam Comment #4, the licensee recommended that there was no adverse plant impact
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT   Facility Licensee: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant
from an inadvertent reverse power trip of the EDG during the performance of this JP
: [[contact::M.
Therefore]], the NRC accepts that an inadvertent reverse power trip of the running EDG during
performance of this JPM would result in no adverse impact to the EDG.
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT
Facility Licensee: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant
Facility Docket No.: 50-321, 50-366
Facility Docket No.: 50-321, 50-366
Operating Test Administered: June 20-29, 2016
Operating Test Administered: June 20-29, 2016
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
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
Procedure 71111.11 are not indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.46. No licensee
action is required in response to these observations.
action is required in response to these observations.
No simulator fidelity or configuration issues were identified.
No simulator fidelity or configuration issues were identified.
3
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 12:12, 3 November 2019

NRC Operator License Examination Report 05000321/2016301 and 05000366/2016301
ML16256A054
Person / Time
Site: Hatch  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 09/07/2016
From: Gerald Mccoy
Division of Reactor Safety II
To: Vineyard D
Southern Nuclear Operating Co
References
2016301
Download: ML16256A054 (13)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES ber 7, 2016

SUBJECT:

EDWIN I. HATCH - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000321/2016301 AND 05000366/2016301

Dear Mr. Vineyard:

During the period June 20 - 29, 2016, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 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 July 7, 2016.

Six Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO applicant failed the operating test and written examination. There were four post-administration comments concerning both the operating test and 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 10.

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 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) 997-4551.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos: 50-321, 50-366 License Nos: DPR-57, NPF-5

Enclosures:

1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report

REGION II==

Docket No.: 50-321, 50-366 License No.: DPR-57, NPF-5 Report No.: 05000321/2016301 and 05000366/2016301 Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC)

Facility: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Location: Baxley, GA Dates: Operating Test - June 20-29, 2016 Written Examination - July 7, 2016 Examiners: J. Viera, Chief Examiner, Operations Engineer P. Presby, Senior Operations Engineer J. Bundy, Operations Engineer Approved by: Gerald J. McCoy, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1

SUMMARY

ER 05000321/2016301, 05000366/2016301; June 20-29, 2016 & July 7, 2016; Edwin I. Hatch

Nuclear Plant; Operator License Examinations.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners conducted an initial examination in accordance with the guidelines in Revision 10, 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 Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The initial operating tests, written Reactor Operator (RO) examination, and written Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) examination submittals met the quality guidelines contained in NUREG-1021.

The NRC administered the operating tests during the period June 20-29, 2016. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on July 7, 2016.

Six Reactor Operator (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. Eleven 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

4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations

a. Inspection Scope

The NRC evaluated the submitted operating test by combining the scenario events and job performance measures (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 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 administered the operating tests during the period June 20-29, 2016. The NRC examiners evaluated seven RO and five SRO applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on July 7, 2016. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Edwin I. Hatch 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. Members of the Edwin I. Hatch 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 10 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 licensees initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.

No issues related to examination security were identified during preparation and administration of the examination.

Six RO applicants and five SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. One RO applicant did not pass the operating test or written examination.

Six RO applicants and five SRO applicants were issued licenses.

One RO applicant passed the operating test, but passed the written examination with an overall score between 80% and 82%. This applicant was 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 three post-examination comments concerning the operating test and one post-examination comment concerning the written examination. A copy of the final written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, may be accessed not earlier than July 7, 2018, and a copy of the licensees post-examination comments, may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML16214A180, ML16214A189 and ML16214A194).

4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit

Exit Meeting Summary

On July 29, 2016 the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with David Vineyard, Site Vice President, and members of the Edwin I. Hatch 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 David Vineyard, Site Vice President Tony Spring, Plant Manager Chuck Vonier, Operations Director Brad Deen, Training Director Greg Johnson, Regulatory Affairs Manager Russell Lewis, Operations Support Manager Ed Jones, Nuclear Operations Training Instructor - Lead Anthony Ball, Lead Exam Developer Richard Greenhouse, Exam Developer Art Genereax, Exam Developer Jerry Thomas, Initial Nuclear Operations Training Instructor John Campbell, Initial Nuclear Operations Training Instructor

FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENTS AND NRC RESOLUTIONS

A complete text of the licensees post-examination comments can be found in ADAMS under

Accession Number ML16214A194.

Item #1: RO / SRO Written Exam Question # 56

Post-Examination Comment

During administration of the written examination, two applicants provided questions seeking

clarification for the second half answer choices to Question # 56 (Q56). The licensee contended

that these Q56 answer choices were open to interpretation, contained ambiguity, and required

revision. Use of the Q56 term, ILLUMINATED, or annunciator in alarm as an answer choice,

implied control panel annunciator indication of either SOLID GREEN (annunciator in non-

alarming condition) or FLASHING WHITE (annunciator in alarming condition). The licensee

recommended a revision of the second half answer choices to remove this ambiguity:

NRC Resolution

The entire text of Q56 is included below.

The licensees recommendation was partially accepted.

Following discussion with the facility examination team and based, in part, on the applicant

questions provided, the Chief Examiner concluded that the provided answer choices of

ILLUMINATED and EXTINGUISHED were not specific to actual control board annunciator

response with no operator action, did not definitively elicit the asked-for knowledge, and

required revision.

In Post Exam Comment #1, the licensee recommended adoption of revised answer choices for

Q56 to remove ambiguity and elicit the asked-for knowledge, i.e. alarm status of annunciator

603-141. This was performed during administration of the written examination as a result of

questions raised by several applicants where the licensee staff and the chief examiner jointly

agreed that the wording was ambiguous.

Therefore, the second half answer choices for Q56 are revised to read FLASHING WHITE and

SOLID GREEN and all applicants were informed of the revised wording during administration of

the written examination. The correct answer choice for Q56 remains answer choice

D.

Item #2: Administrative Topic d, 2016-301 ADMIN 5, Evaluate an RWP and Survey Map

Post-Examination Comment

The licensee contended that job performance measure (JPM) Step 1 required reclassification

from CRITICAL to non-CRITICA

L. As a basis, the licensee contended that the provided

radiological survey map contained no areas with an indicated dose rate > 1000 mRem/hour in

the JPM specified work area, Unit 1 Turbine Building Condenser Bay 147 elevation. JPM Step

1, with accompanying NOTE, is included below.

A portion of Radiation Work Permit (RWP) 16-0164 is included below.

A portion of RWP 16-004 is included below.

NRC Resolution

The licensees recommendation was not accepted.

Although the JPM provided survey map contained no areas with an indicated dose rate > 1000

mRem/hour (i.e. the radiological dose rate requiring designation of an area as a Locked High

Radiation Area (LHRA)), the given plant condition of operation at 20% reactor power

procedurally required LHRA posting of all access doors into the Unit 1 Turbine Building

Condenser Bay. Knowledge of this procedural requirement was required to perform JPM step 1.

The task standard for this JPM is included below.

For this JPM, the following information, in part, was provided to each applicant.

Procedurally, during preparations to perform a reactor startup, the locking of High Radiation

Areas (HRAs) is commenced in accordance with 34GO-OPS-003-1, Startup System Status

Checklist, Version 12.19.

The process of LHRA posting verification is completed in accordance with performance of

2RP-RAD-019-0, Radiation Protection Start-Up Surveillance, Version 10.0.

A portion of HPX-1082, Unit One High Radiation Area Entrance Surveillance at 20% Power,

which provides a listing of the entry doors into High Radiation areas is provided below.

In Post Exam Comment #2, the licensee recommended revising JPM Step 1 from CRITICAL to

non-CRITICAL based on a lack of indicated radiological dose rate information in the provided

survey map. However, a procedural basis did exist for the conditions specified in the JPM and

indicate that the doors which permit entry into the Unit 1 Turbine Building Condenser Bay (112

CONBAY NORTH, 130 CONBAY EAST, and 130 CONBAY NORTH), would be verified to be

locked and posted as a LHRA with Unit 1 operating at a minimum of 20% reactor power.

Therefore, since a procedural basis exists that validates the licensee provided JPM standard for

applicant selection of RWP 16-0164, JPM step 1 remains a CRITICAL step.

Item #3: Systems - Control Room JPM c, CR-SIM 3 2016-301, Override the MSIVs in an

Emergency

Post-Examination Comment

During the performance of this job performance measure (JPM), several license applicants

commenced opening an Inboard Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) with a differential pressure

(d/p) in excess of the procedurally prescribed 200 pounds-per-square inch differential (psid).

The licensee contended that further analysis would be required to determine the consequence

of opening an Inboard MSIV with this d/p.

NRC Resolution

The licensees comment was accepted.

In Post Exam Comment #3, the licensee recommended that additional analysis would be

required to determine the consequence of MSIV operation with a d/p in excess of procedural

limits during the performance of this JP

M.

Therefore, the NRC accepts that any MSIV operation with a d/p in excess of procedural limits

could result in MSIV damage during the performance of this JP

M.

Item #4: Systems - Control Room JPM f, CR-SIM 6 2016-301, Transfer an Emergency 4160

VAC Bus from the Emergency to the Normal Power Supply

Post-Examination Comment

During performance of this job performance measure (JPM), actions taken by a license

applicant resulted in the inadvertent trip of the running emergency diesel generator (EDG). The

licensee contended that no equipment damage or personnel injury would result from an

inadvertent reverse power trip of the EDG. The basis for this contention lies in the automatic TRIP of the EDG output breaker and automatic shutdown of the running EDG.

NRC Resolution

The licensees comment was accepted.

In Post Exam Comment #4, the licensee recommended that there was no adverse plant impact

from an inadvertent reverse power trip of the EDG during the performance of this JP

M.

Therefore, the NRC accepts that an inadvertent reverse power trip of the running EDG during

performance of this JPM would result in no adverse impact to the EDG.

SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT

Facility Licensee: Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant

Facility Docket No.: 50-321, 50-366

Operating Test Administered: June 20-29, 2016

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.

3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=IR_05000321/2016301&oldid=2043269"