ML103130208

2010 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Initial Examination Administrative Files

ML103130208
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	03/15/2010
From:	Zoia C D NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB
To:	Nuclear Management Co
Shared Package
ML093500366	List: ML103130208
References
Download: ML103130208 (34)

Text

NG PLANT

= Facility: Prairie Island Nuclear Plant Developed by. Written - Facility X NRC N Operating - Facility Date of Examination:

3/15 - 26/2010 NRC c] Target Date* Chief Exam iner's Initials Task Description (Reference)

1. Examination administration date confirmed (C 1 a; C 2.a and b) -1 80 -120 2. 3. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.l .d; C.2.e) Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c) -120 -1 20 4. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.d) 1-90] 15. Reference material due (C 1 .e, C 3.c; Attachment 3)J (-751 6. Integrated exarnination outline(s) due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-207 -3, ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-0-1's. ES-401-1/2, ES-401-3, and ES-401-4, as applicable (C 1 e and f, C 3.d) Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility licensee (C 2.h; C 3 e)} Proposed examinations (including written, walk-through JPMs, and scenarios, as applicable), supporting documentation (in ES-301-3, ES-301-4, ES-301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-401 ES-201-3 updates), and reference materials due (C.l .e, f. g and h: C 3 d) (7 8 clan7 (-701 T I-45) -30 9 Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398's) due (C 1 .I, C.2 g, ES-202) -14 10. Final license applications due and Form ES-201-4 prepared (C 1 I, C 2 I, ES-202) -14 11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review fC.2.h. C 3.f) -14 12. 13. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C 1 j, C 2 f and h, C 3 g) Written examiriations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor (C 2.1: C 3 h) 7 14. Final applications reviewed, 1 or 2 (if >lo) applications audited to Confirm qualifications

/ eligibility: and examination approval and waiver letters sent (C.2 I, Attachment 5; ES-202, C 2 e; ES-2041 Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee (C 3.k) Approved scenarios, job performance measures, and questions distributed to NRC examiners (C.3 I) 15 16 7 Target dates are generally based on facility-prepared examinations and are keyed to the examination date dentified in the corporate notification letter They are for planning purposes and may be adjusted on a case-by-

ase basis in coordination with the facility licensee, Applies only] {Does not apply}

to examinations prepared by the NRC

___- 42 and DPR-60 21, Revision 9, Supplement 1, Operator Licensing Exam Mark A. Schimmel sland Nuclear Generating Plant

f Exam Sensitive Material an 2. Post-Examination 11 concerning the exa ered these exa DATE NOT I. 2 3. E lj 4 -e # 5. N 6. 22 7. Retention.

Life of Plant Retain in Exam File 0 c3

m QF-1071-02, Rev. 2 (FP-T-SAT-71) a Page 1 of 2 -- I ._.__.I "_- __ LIMITED SECURITY AGREEMENT - __ -- The Limited Security Agreement is used for those personnel having limited knowledge of Exam Sensitive Material but do not have unrestricted access to Primary and Secondary Containment.

I. 2. % 8s e N c3 52 1. 2. 3. 4. Pre-Examination (Review FP-T-SAT-71, Attachment

'I for pre-job briefing requirements)

I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge abo who have not been authorized by an those individuals scheduled to be ad understand that I am not to evaluat Acting as a simulator booth operator or an examinee. Furthermore, I am aware of the physical sec understand that violation of the conditions of this agreemen my facility or me. I will immediately been compromised.

Post-Examination examination scheduled for the date(s) of 3/tr/t~ 14 tb 'si'zL/&S Of the date Of ot to instruct or provide ntil completion of examination adm indirect feedback to not divulge to any unautho ed persons any information concerning the examination administered during the . From the date that I enter into this security agreement until the completion of this examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those individuals who were administered this examination.

Furthermore, I agree to NOT discuss any aspects associated with the contents of this examination with ANY examinee until the completion of their examination administration.

I further understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examination and/or enforcement action against the facility licensee or me. Retention:

Life of plant Retain in:

Exam file Form retained in accordance with record retention schedule identified in FP-G-RM-01 ev. 2 (FP-T-SAT-7 ary and Secondary Containment.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE Retention:

Life of plant Retain in: Exam file Retention:

Life of plant Retain in: Exam file rm retained in accordance with record retention sche

QF-1071-02, Rev. 2 (FP-T-SAT-71)

Page 2 of 2 1 I ---- I 2 LIMITED SECURITY AGREEMENT The Limited Security Agreement is used for those personnel having limited knowledne of Exam Sensitive Material but do not have unrestricted - - access to Primary and Secondary Containment.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (I ) NOTES: x 2 w a N a Q L Retention:

Life of plant Retain in: Exam file Form retained in accordance with record retention schedule identified in FP-G-RM-01 .

V. 2 (FP-T-SAT-7 cess to Primary an DATE NOTE - 1 NOTES: ,P c1 lit-.,'y*

i N a 0 _.. Retention:

Life of plant Retain in: Exam file Form retained in accordance with record retention Retention:

Life of plant Retain in: Exam file QF-1071-02, Rev. 2 (FP-T-SAT-71)

The Limited Security Agreement is used access to Primary and Secondary Conta ne1 having limited f Exam Sensitive Material but do not have unrestricted JOB TITLE / RESPON DATE NOTE ,' f&* -

12* 0 ES-401 Record of Rejected WAS Form ES401-4 Tier I Randomly Reason for Rejection Group Selected WA 212 029 K3.02 Purge system not requiredlused for containment entry. No procedural support. Used K3.01 I I I I NUREG 1021, Revision 9 Supplement 1

ES-403, Rev. 9 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Initials I I Item Description a b C 1. Clean answer sheets copied before grading b% RIZW 2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified

4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 12% overall and Printed NamelSignature Date a. Grader b. Facility Reviewer(*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) 9 I 6 fb10 4 I 2 I 261 c d, NRC Supervisor

(") (*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.

ES-401 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-451-9 1 1# LOK (FIH) 1F2 2. 3 Psychometric Flaws 4 Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6 7. 0 LOD (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO BIMIN UIEIS Explanation Focus Dist Link units ward WA Only (NOTE. A bolded. highlighted Q# denotes the initial 30 question sample) v v N E GOMM. - Preventing charging flow from increasing seems implausible.

RESP 1 2 3 Enter the level of knowledge (LOK) of each question as ei:her (F)undamental or (H)igher cognitive level Enter the level of difficulty (LOD) of each quesbon using a 1 - 5 (easy - difficult) rating scale (questions in the 2 - 4 range are acceptable)

Check the appropnate box if a psychometric flaw is identified The stem lacks suffiuent focus to elicit the correct answer (e g., unclear intent. more information is needed, or too much needless tnformation)

The stem or distractors contain cues (I e , clues. specific determiners, phrasing, length, etc).

The answer choices are a collection of unrelated truelfalse Statements The dis!ractors are not credible, single implausible distractors should be repatred. mote than one IS unacceptable One or more dis!ractors is (are) par6ally correct (e g , if the applicant can make unstated assumptions that are not contradicted by stem) The question is not linked to the )ob requirements (I e, the question has a valid K/A but, as written, is not operational in content) The ques:ion requires the recall of knowledge that IS too specific for the closed reference test mode (I e , it IS not required to be known from memory) The question contains data with an unrealistic level of accuracy or inconsistent units (e g , panel meter in percent wi!h question in gallons)

The question requires reverse logic or application compared to the job requirements 4 Check the appropnate box if a Job content error is identified 5 6 7 8 Check questtons that are sampled for conformance with the approved WA and those that are designated SRO-only (WA and license level mismatches are unacceptable)

Enter question source (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew Check that (M)odified questions meet critena of ES-401 Section D 2 f Based on the reviewer s judgment.

is the question as written (UJnsalisfactory (requiring repair or replacement). in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactoryT At a minimum, explain any U" ratings (e 9.. how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met)

h w - z _I W z z - I m - z - 5. x - I I -I- + m 0 ux I v) 8 u.

N N

Operating Test Comments Admin JPMs (ES-301-1):

I I Comment NOTE: ADMIN 43 (RO) used on previous RO and SRO 2007 ILE. RO outline correctly identifies it was previously used.

ADMIN 63 (SRO) is basically same as ADMIN 43. Utilizes same information and technique as ADMlN 43 except applicant must identify incorrect action (used on 2007 RO/SRO and 2010 RO). If considered same as ADMlN 43, then SRO Outline does not identify this as previously used.

ADMlN 48 (RO). As written, the JPM is too simplistic and amounts to evaluating if the applicant can correctly perform arithmetic. The procedure guides the applicant on what readings to take, what readings to subtract, and the required criteria to meet. As a minimum, rather than the examiner cuing the readings, have the RO actually obtain the readings.

Adequate to base licensing decision on?

ADMIN 64 (SRO). More simplistic than ADMIN 48 (RO) except applicant does not take readings, only evaluates readings already taken by the RO. Adequate to base licensing decision on?

Response Noted The JPM has different initial conditions (ICs) and calculated values, so was considered to be a new JPM. This JPM was validated and was found to be appropriate to base a licensing decision on with only a minor change.

The only change required was adding an initial RCS Temperature to the ICs. Readings were obtained locally. This JPM was validated and found to be appropriate to use for a licensing decision with only one minor change. Specifically, removing the final step because the task was completed.

Page 1 of 9 Resolution N/A - ~- The licensee has no mechanism to reference past NRC exam usage for new JPMs. RCS Temperature added to initial conditions. Final step removed.

what are incorrect, dentify what applicant get correct, otherwise, ding against? ADMIN 62 (ROERO). Have applicants actually fill out a "trip At the onsite validation, changing the cueing and standard was needed to limit the scope to the verification of the boundary only. Identifying the incorrect boundaries were considered to be critical steps and the only JPM steps listed. If the correct boundaries given were imtxoperlv reviewed as wrong, any errors should be evaluated as emergent critical steps, as needed. Cueing and standard were altered to limit task scope to the verification of the boundary.

Remove the PINGP yearly Removed PI yearly administrative dose limit from initial included filling out a 3perating Test Corn PM was validat NtA setup step added. The final step to end he drain down was :hanged to be critical.

Operating Test Comments JPM g. NI-4SF-1 1) Initial ns should state the nt's position (ie, At The nitiating Cue, rather than applicant stand in front of already have the alarm in and direct applicant to respond to it, and tell him someone else will perform E-0 actions? 3) Why isn't 1 C51 .I, Step 1 .A. not critical (Select NR-45 recorder to Source Range.. .)? 4) What is the Alternate Path for this JPM? JPM h. CC-6s 1) First JPM IC14 AOPI step should be 2.4.4 not 2.44. JPM EO-31SF-1, Perform Attachment L This JPM was validated and found to be adeq a few changes needed. Adding the Immediate Action Steps to the response made the applicant's actions realistic, addressing comment 2). The selection of NR-45 was determined to be of minor significance (3), and the alternate path was addressing the IR failure (4). Added the Immediate Action Steps.

Corrected typo. 1 Corrected typo. Determined to be too similar to scenario situations where Attachment L is used regularly.

Replaced with JPM VC-103, Placing Excess Letdown in Service. Page 4 of 9 Operating Test Comments SCENARIOS:

GENERAL: 1) Add identity of position ex SRO, ATC, BOP). This was "beans" were provided to each applicant without excessive surrogate usage. credit for each malfunction on the scenario malfunction summary page (le, d agreed upon when creating the schedule, to ensure sufficient Comment Response Resolution SCENARIO 1: Event 3 -MT 1 Stage PiT fails high I IIC (SROIRO);

TS (SRO) personnel.

Add "Extra Operator" to address Heater Drains.

Added "Extra Operator" to the turnover and required Changed candidate directions to require starting the feed pump prior to power ascension Added cue to terminate power ascension and stabilize plant systems. Change sequence of starting feed pump and power ascension Add Cue to indicate power ascension is no longer required and to stabilize plant at present load.

NIA NIA Noted N/A Scenario 1 Noted, the classification is merely N/A consistent between s . would be evaluated in the context of procedural adherence SCENARIO 2: Event 1 See below -1 1 FWP trip I R(R0); N(B0P) 1) No actions can recover what actions is the BOP g to address the FWP trip?

Does he have to take any actions (ie, to address level) other than "verify" other systems are operating in auto? PageSof 9 See below this event almost same as Event 1 (ie, place rods in manual and restore tavg/tref ) Event requires more signi Event 5 -1 1/12 MSlVs fail to auto close Used on 2005 Scenarios 1 and 2 NOTE: Scenario only identifies one T for SRO, needs two? Pressurizer pressu in the number of need to verify indicationskrew actions are consistent between scenarios.

at the conclusion of the scenario, it would be evaluated in the context of procedural adherence.

Event Noted N/A -1 1 TDAFW pump fails to auto start Used on 2007 Scenario 1 and 2005 Operating Test Comments Event 1 -1 1 FWP trip I R(R0): N(B0P) 1) No actions can recover t what actions is the BOP ge to address the FWP trip? Does he have to take any actions (ie, to address level) other than "verify" other systems are operating in auto? Event 2 -N-44 Power Range NI fails high / I/C(RO); TS(SR0) 1) lnttial response actions for this event almost same as Event 1 (ie, place rods in manual and restore tavg/tref.). Event requires more significant actions, or at least identify more actions in the write-up(?)

2) Used on 2007 Scenario 2 Event 3 -Loss of power to Instrument Bus 113 I/C(RO,BOP)

BOP is directly addressing the loss of Bus 113, why is RO getting credit? Event 5 -1 1/12 MSlVs fail to auto close Used on 2005 Scenarios 1 and 2 NOTE: Scenario only identifies one TS for SRO, needs two? See below Resequence NI Failure and Feed Pump Trip. Add detail to Bus 11 3 failure Separate Event 3 tasks into both the applicable events.

Noted The schedule was reviewed and all applicants were verified to have all rewired TIS evaluations. See below NI failure moved to the first event and Feed Pump trip moved to second event. Bus 113 failure details added. Event 3 separated into the Reactor Trip and the Bus 1 13 failure.

N/A N/A SCENARIO 3: Event 2 -122 Air Compressor fails IK(B0P) This event has no verifiable actions to evaluate the BOP. All actions are done in the plant.

Not an I/C for the BOP, Event 3 -Pressurizer Heater Backup Group 1B breaker trip IIC(B0P);

TS(SR0) The only action performed by BOP is to turn heaters off before power is transferred in plant, then on after power is transferred.

This event has no significant verifiable actions Significant actions are done in the plant. Not an I/C for BOP. Event 4 Noted -PT-431 Pressurizer pressure channel fails high Used on 2007 Scenario Spare (used on exam) Correct Various typographical errors Correct missing outplant cues. Correct missing outplant cues This is considered an IIC for the ATC operator.

the BOP to evaluate. Corrected Various typographical errors. Corrected missing outplant cues. Corrected missing outplant cues. N/A NIA Page 8 of 9 Operating Test Comments ~ Event 6 system fails to actuate ntify "Event 6" in scenario writeup. 2) What is significance of this event? List required actions in scenario 3) Used on 2005 Scenarios 1 and 7 Recommend not performing the emergency event classification.

If you do, need to verify indicationslcrew actions are consistent between scenarios.

Event 6" in the body of

3) Noted Noted, the classification is merely listed in the guide If asked to classify at the conclusion of the scenario, it valuated in the context of adherence.

N/A SCENARIO 4: Remove from exam due to reduction in the number of applicants (SPARE)

Removed Recommend not performing the Noted, the classification is merely N/A emergency event classification.

If you do, need to verify indications/crew actions are consistent between scenarios.

listed in the guide. If asked to classify at the conclusion of the scenario, it would be evaluated in the context of procedural adherence Event 6 Noted -11 T fails to auto start Used nario 1 and 2005 Scen - __ ___I_-__.

Page9of 9 N/A XceIEnergye MAR 2 4 2010 Regional Administrator, Region Ill U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210 Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 Dockets 50-282 and 50-306 license Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60 L-PI-10-030 NUREG-I 021 2010 Reactor ODerator (RO) and Senior Reactor OPerator (SRO) Written Examination Post-Examination Comments Pursuant to NUREG-I 021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, Operator Licensing Examination Examinations, the facility licensee should submit formal comments within 5 working days after the examination is administered. tandards for Power Reactors, section ES-402, Administering Initial Written lowing the administration of the written license examination at Prairie island Nuclear nerating Plant (PINGP) on March 22,2010, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (NSPM), doing business as Xcel Energy, has collected all the post-examination comments. NSPM submits the comments, recommendations, and supporting references as Enclosure I. Summarv of Commitments This letter contains no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments.

hx&resident, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Units I and 2 orthern States Power Company - Minnesota Enclosure cc: Charles Zoia, US NRC Region 111, with enclosure Hironori Peterson, US NRC Region 111, without enclosure - ~ __._ 171 7 Wakonade Drive East Welch, Minnesota 55089-9642 Telephone:

651.388.1 121