ML103130208
| ML103130208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/2010 |
| From: | Chuck Zoia NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB |
| To: | Nuclear Management Co |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093500366 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML103130208 (34) | |
Text
NG PLANT
=
Facility: Prairie Island Nuclear Plant Date of Examination: 3/15 - 26/2010 Developed by. Written - Facility X NRC N Operating - Facility NRC c]
Target Chief Date* Task Description (Reference) Exam iner's Initials
-1 80 1. Examination administration date confirmed (C 1 a; C 2.a and b)
-120 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.l .d; C.2.e)
-120 3. Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c)
-120 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) clan7 Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility
(-701 (7 licensee (C 2.h; C 3 e)} T I-45) 8 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)
-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. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C 1 j, C 2 f and h, C 3 g)
-7 13. Written examiriations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor (C 2.1: C 3 h)
-7 14. Final applications reviewed, 1 or 2 (if > l o ) 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
-7 15 Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee (C3.k)
-7 16 Approved scenarios, job performance measures, and questions distributed to NRC examiners (C.3 I)
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 11concerning the exa ered these exa DATE NOT I.
2 3.
E lj
-e 4
- 5.
0 N 6.
22 c3 7.
Retention. Life of Plant Retain in Exam File
m QF-1071-02, Rev. 2 (FP-T-SAT-71) a Page 1 of 2
._.__.I "_- __
LIMITED SECURITY AGREEMENT - __ --
I 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 . Pre-Examination (Review FP-T-SAT-71, Attachment 'Ifor pre-job briefing requirements)
I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge abo examination scheduled for the date(s) of 3 / t r / t 14
~ tb 'si'zL/&S Of the date Of who have not been authorized by an ot to instruct or provide those individuals scheduled to be ad ntil completion of examination adm understand that I am not to evaluat Acting as a simulator booth operator or indirect feedback to 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.
- 2. Post-Examination 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.
8 s
Furthermore, I agree to NOT discuss any aspects associated with the contents of this examination with ANY examinee until the completion of e their examination administration. I further understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the N examination and/or enforcement action against the facility licensee or me.
52 c3 1.
2.
3.
4.
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 II LIMITED SECURITY AGREEMENT 2 The Limited Security Agreement is used for those personnel having - of Exam Sensitive Material but do not have unrestricted
- limited knowledne access to Primary and Secondary Containment.
PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (I )
NOTES:
x 2
w a
N a
L Q
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 5 -
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 ne1 having limited f Exam Sensitive Material but do not have unrestricted access to Primary and Secondary Conta 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(*) I 9 6fb10
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) 4 I I 2 261 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 2. 3 Psychometric Flaws 4 Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6 7. 0 1# LOK LOD (FIH) (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) 1 F 2 v v N E -
GOMM. Preventing charging flow from increasing seems implausible. RESP 1 Enter the level of knowledge (LOK) of each question as ei:her (F)undamental or (H)igher cognitive level 2 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) 3 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) 4 Check the appropnate box if a Job content error is identified 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 5 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) 6 Enter question source (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew Check that (M)odified questions meet critena of ES-401 Section D 2 f 7 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 8 At a minimum, explain any U" ratings (e 9.. how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met)
h W w z z z
- _ I I
m z 5.
x I
I
+I -
m 0 u x I u.
v) 8
N N
Operating Test Comments Admin JPMs (ES-301-1):
I I Comment Response Resolution NOTE: ADMIN 43 (RO) used on Noted N/A previous RO and SRO 2007 ILE. RO outline correctly identifies it was previously used.
- ~-
ADMIN 63 (SRO) is basically The JPM has different initial The licensee has no same as ADMIN 43. Utilizes conditions (ICs) and calculated mechanism to same information and technique values, so was considered to be reference past NRC as ADMlN 43 except applicant a new JPM. exam usage for new must identify incorrect action JPMs.
(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 This JPM was validated and RCS Temperature JPM is too simplistic and was found to be appropriate to added to initial amounts to evaluating if the base a licensing decision on conditions.
applicant can correctly perform with only a minor change. The arithmetic. The procedure only change required was guides the applicant on what adding an initial RCS readings to take, what readings Temperature to the ICs.
to subtract, and the required Readings were obtained locally.
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 This JPM was validated and Final step removed.
simplistic than ADMIN 48 (RO) found to be appropriate to use except applicant does not take for a licensing decision with only readings, only evaluates one minor change. Specifically, readings already taken by the removing the final step because RO. Adequate to base licensing the task was completed.
decision on?
Page 1 of 9
At the onsite validation, Cueing and standard what are incorrect, changing the cueing and were altered to limit dentify what applicant standard was needed to limit the task scope to the get correct, otherwise, scope to the verification of the verification of the ding against? boundary only. Identifying the boundary.
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.
ADMIN 62 (ROERO). Have Remove the PINGP yearly Removed PI yearly applicants actually fill out a trip 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 This JPM was validated and Added the Immediate ns should state the found to be adeq Action Steps.
nts position (ie, At The a few changes needed. Adding the Immediate Action Steps to nitiating Cue, rather than the response made the applicant stand in front of applicants actions realistic, addressing comment 2). The selection of NR-45 was already have the alarm in and determined to be of minor direct applicant to respond to it, significance (3), and the and tell him someone else will alternate path was addressing perform E-0 actions? the IR failure (4).
3 ) Why isnt 1C51.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 Corrected typo. 1 Corrected typo.
2.4.4 not 2.44.
JPM EO-31SF-1, Perform Determined to be too similar to Replaced with JPM Attachment L scenario situations where VC-103, Placing Attachment L is used regularly. Excess Letdown in Service.
Page 4 of 9
Operating Test Comments SCENARIOS:
GENERAL:
- 1) Add identity of position ex credit for each malfunction on the scenario malfunction summary page (le, SRO, ATC, BOP). This was d agreed upon when creating the schedule, to ensure sufficient beans were provided to each applicant without excessive surrogate usage.
Comment Response Resolution SCENARIO 1:
Event 3 Add Extra Operator to address Added Extra Operator to
-MT 1 Stage PiT fails high I IIC Heater Drains. the turnover and required (SROIRO); TS (SRO) personnel.
Change sequence of starting feed Changed candidate pump and power ascension directions to require starting the feed pump prior to power ascension Add Cue to indicate power ascension Added cue to terminate is no longer required and to stabilize power ascension and plant at present load. stabilize plant systems.
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 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
this event almost same as Event 1 (ie, place rods in manual and restore tavg/tref ) Event requires more signi Event 5
-11/12 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 at the conclusion of the scenario, it consistent between scenarios. would be evaluated in the context of procedural adherence.
Event Noted N/A
-11 TDAFW pump fails to auto start Used on 2007 Scenario 1 and 2005
Operating Test Comments Event 1 See below See below
-11 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 Resequence NI Failure and Feed NI failure moved to the first
-N-44 Power Range NI fails high / I/C(RO); Pump Trip. event and Feed Pump trip TS(SR0) 1) lnttial response actions for moved to second event.
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 Add detail to Bus 113 failure Bus 113 failure details
-Loss of power to Instrument Bus 113 added.
I/C(RO,BOP) BOP is directly addressing Separate Event 3 tasks into both the Event 3 separated into the the loss of Bus 113, why is RO getting applicable events. Reactor Trip and the Bus credit? 1 13 failure.
Event 5 Noted N/A
-11/12 MSlVs fail to auto close Used on 2005 Scenarios 1 and 2 NOTE: Scenario only identifies one TS The schedule was reviewed and all N/A for SRO, needs two? applicants were verified to have all rewired TIS evaluations.
SCENARIO 3:
Event 2 Correct Various typographical errors Corrected Various
-122 Air Compressor fails IK(B0P) This Correct missing outplant cues. typographical errors.
event has no verifiable actions to evaluate Corrected missing outplant the BOP. All actions are done in the plant. cues.
Not an I/C for the BOP, Event 3 Correct missing outplant cues Corrected missing outplant
-Pressurizer Heater Backup Group 1B cues.
breaker trip IIC(B0P); TS(SR0) The only action performed by BOP is to turn heaters This is considered an IIC for the ATC N/A offbefore power is transferred in plant, operator.
then on after power is transferred. This event has no significant verifiable actions the BOP to evaluate.
Significant actions are done in the plant.
Not an I/C for BOP.
Event 4 Noted NIA
-PT-431 Pressurizer pressure channel fails high Used on 2007 Scenario Spare (used on exam)
Page 8 of 9
Operating Test Comments
~
Event 6 system fails to actuate Event 6 in the body of 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 3) Noted Recommend not performing the Noted, the classification is merely N/A emergency event classification. If you do, listed in the guide If asked to classify need to verify indicationslcrew actions are at the conclusion of the scenario, it consistent between scenarios. valuated in the context of adherence.
SCENARIO 4: Remove from exam due to reduction Removed in the number of applicants (SPARE)
Recommend not performing the Noted, the classification is merely N/A emergency event classification. If you do, listed in the guide. If asked to classify need to verify indications/crew actions are at the conclusion of the scenario, it consistent between scenarios. would be evaluated in the context of procedural adherence Event 6 Noted N/A
-11 T fails to auto start Used nario 1 and 2005 Scen
- __ ___I_-__.
Page9of 9
XceIEnergye MAR 2 4 2010 L-PI-10-030 NUREG-I021 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 2010 Reactor ODerator (RO) and Senior Reactor OPerator (SRO) Written Examination Post-Examination Comments Pursuant to NUREG-I021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, Operator Licensing Examination tandards for Power Reactors, section ES-402, Administering Initial Written Examinations, the facility licensee should submit formal comments within 5 working days after the examination is administered.
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 Iand 2 orthern States Power Company - Minnesota Enclosure cc: Charles Zoia, US NRC Region 111, with enclosure Hironori Peterson, US NRC Region 111, without enclosure
- ~ __._
1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, Minnesota 55089-9642 Telephone: 651.388.1121