ML20128L342
| ML20128L342 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1985 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Kelly R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507110322 | |
| Download: ML20128L342 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000321/1985001
Text
,
.
Ytll
.
7
June 13, 1985
Georgia Power Company
ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly
Executive Vice President
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: MEETING SUMMARY
This letter transmits the Meeting Summary for the meeting held between
Mr. H. E. Nix, General Manager, Plant Hatch, of Georgia Power Company, and
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, NRC, Region II, and staff members
of each organization on May 24, 1985. The meeting was held in the Region II
offices, Atlanta, Georgia, and concerned Plant Hatch requalification examina-
tions.
Region II believes that previous resolution of your concerns was accurate and
proper. However, the examination answer key for Question 8.04 has been revised
to allow for a more equitable evaluation of the candidate's knowledge. Details
of the subjects discussed are enclosed in the Meeting Summary.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title
10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be
placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to
discuss them.
Sincerely,
(Original signed by JNGrace)
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Meeting Summary
cc w/ encl: (See page 2)
kDR k322850613
e o5000321
PDR l(
\
,
a
,
'
s
Georgia Power Company 2 June 13, 1985
e
cc w/ enc 1:
J. T.lBeckham, Vice. President and
-General Manager - Nuclear Operations
H. C. Nix, Site General Manager
P. E. Fornel, Site QA Supervisor
L. Gucwa, Chief, Nuclear Engineer
J. Badgett, Manager, Nuclear Training
Corporate
C. T. Moore, Manager, Nuclear Training
Plant Hatch
bec w/ enc 1:
NRC Resident Inspector
Hugh S. Jordan, Executive Secretary
. Document Control Desk
State of Georgia
RII RII RII RI
/10M C s
'(II 88k
Sdi,lson:ll AFG n P mis RDWhTker J sh nski
06/5 /95 06/c) 85 ,p6/ /85 06/10/85 6// //85
RIII
iera
o g /85
r
.-
.
ENCLOSURE
MEETING SUMMARY
Licensee: Georgia Power Company
Facility: Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
Docket Nos: 50-321 and 50-366
SUBJECT: HATCH REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS
On May 24,1985, _ representatives of Georgia Power Company (GPC) met with NRC
Region II personnel in Atlanta, Georgia, to discuss the requalification exami-
nation conducted at Plant Hatch during the week of March 11, 1985,
(0L-50-321/85-01). The meeting was held at the request of Georgia Power Company.
The purpose was to appeal the resolutions from the April 23, 1985 meeting between
the Region II staff and GPC. Agenda items were unchanged from the April 23-
meeting. An attendance list is attached as Attachment A to this summary.
After opening remarks by Mr. J. Badgett, Mr. C. T. Moore presented Georgia
Power's analysis of selected examination items. This analysis was limited to
Section 8 of the Senior Operator written examination (Administrative
Procedures, Conditions, and Limitations). It was the opinion of GPC that this
-section was the most substantive for displaying items whose impact was signifi-
cant. The specific methodology by which the evaluation was made, the deduced
implications on the accelerated-requalification training program, and the resul-
tant concerns with specific questions (to include corrective recommendations)
constituted the background information provided by the briefing. The Region's
response (letter of May 3, 1985) was then summarized and rebutted.
.
Attachment B is the revised answer key with justification, for Question 8.04.
For all other questions, the examination and answer key will' remain unchanged.
All questions are considered to be both relevant and definitive. The specific
comments presented previously by the staff are still considered to be valid and
appropriate. As a generic statement, aids and support devices do not remove the
onus of responsibility from the licensed operator. The requirements for
familiarity with, and understanding of, the basis and application of operating
procedures remain unchanged. Similarly, candidates are expected to have a
thorough knowledge of Technical Specifications, the bases for the requirements
and means to comply with the requirements.
Review of individual performance on the written exam shows that no final statuses
will be_ changed based upon the answer key modifications made. Individuals will,
however, be contacted concerning their revised scores.
.
-
..
.
Enclosure 2 June 13, 1985
'With respect to the request for waiver made by Georgia Power concerning the
July exams, a response will be made by June 15, 1985.
% 4.^U L A
KAfn E. Brockman, Reactor Engineer
Attachments:
A. Attendance List
B. - Revised Answer Key
!
l
l
l
,
l
l
..
..
ATTACHMENT A
ATTENDANCE LIST
Georgia Power Company
.J. J. Badgett, Corporate Nuclear Training Manager
W. E. Burns,' Nuclear Engineering & Evaluation Manager
C. T. Moore, Training Manager, Plant Hatch
H. E. Nix, General Manager, Plant Hatch
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II
J. N. Grace, Regional Administrator
J. A. 01shinski, Deputy Regional Administrator
A. F. Gibson, Chief, Operations Branch
V. L. Brownlee, Chief, Projects Branch #2
B. A. Wilson, Chief, Operator Licensing Section
K..E. Brockman, Reactor Engineer
R. Carroll, Project Engineer
R. Butcher, Senior Resident Inspector
.
.
I
c.
-
.
.
I
!
ATTACHMENT B
ANSWER KEY (REVISED)
8.04 Unit 2 Technical Specifications specify the frequency intervals for the
performance of Surveillance requirements. This is accomplishea by use of
FREQUENCY NOTATION.
COMPLETE the following table. (D0 NOT INCLUDE GRACE PERIODS)
NOTATION FREQUENCY
a. S At least once per hours,
b. Q At least once per days,
c. M At least once per days.
d. At least once per 18 months.
ANSWER:
a. 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (+0, -25% 0 0.20) (0.25)
b. 92 days (+0, -25% 0 0.20) (0.25)
c. 31 days (+0, -25% 0 0.20) (0.25)
d. R (0.25)
Justification: Acceptability of conservative response in accordance with the
allowable " grace period," as defined within the surveillance program.