IR 05000458/2010302

ER 05000458-10-302; December 2 - 22, 2010, River Bend Station, Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report

ML110250693
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	01/24/2011
From:	Haire M S Operations Branch IV
To:	Mike Perito Entergy Operations
References
50-458/10-302
Download: ML110250693 (11)

Text

January 24, 2011

Michael Perito Site Vice President Entergy Operations, Inc. River Bend Station 5485 US Highway 61N St. Francisville, LA 70775

SUBJECT: RIVER BEND STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000458/2010302

Dear Mr. Perito:

On December 10, 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial operator license examination at the River Bend Station. The enclosed report documents the examination results and licensing decisions. The preliminary examination results were discussed on December 9, 2010, with yourself, Mr. Eric Olsen, General Manager - Plant Operations, Mr. Marvin Chase, Manager - Training and Development, and other members of your staff. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on December 22, 2010 with Mr. John Fralic, Initial Licensed Operator Training Supervisor, who was provided the NRC licensing decisions. The examination included the evaluation of six applicants for reactor operator licenses, six applicants for instant senior reactor operator licenses, and two applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator licenses. The license examiners determined that 11 of the 14 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued.

There were two post examination comments submitted by your staff. Enclosure 1 contains details of this report and Enclosure 2 summarizes post examination comment resolution. No findings were identified during this examination.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,/RA/

Mark S. Haire, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Entergy Operations, Inc. - 2 - Docket: 50 - 458 License: NPF - 47

Enclosure:

1. NRC Examination Report 05000458/2010302 2. NRC Post Examination Comment Resolution cc w/enclosure:

Senior Vice President and COO Entergy Operations, Inc P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Vice President, Oversight Entergy Operations, Inc.

P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Senior Manager, Nuclear Safety & Licensing Entergy Nuclear Operations P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Manager, Licensing Entergy Operations, Inc.

5485 US Highway 61N St. Francisville, LA 70775 Attorney General State of Louisiana P. O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005 Ms. H. Anne Plettinger 3456 Villa Rose Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70806 President of West Feliciana Police Jury P. O. Box 1921 St. Francisville, LA 70775 Entergy Operations, Inc. - 3 - Mr. Brian Almon Public Utility Commission William B. Travis Building P. O. Box 13326 Austin, TX 78701-3326 Mr. Jim Calloway Public Utility Commission of Texas 1701 N. Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78711-3326 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Radiological Emergency Planning and Response Division P. O. Box 4312 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4312 Joseph A. Aluise Associate General Counsel - Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc.

639 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Chief, Technological Hazards Branch FEMA Region VI 800 N. Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209-3606 Entergy Operations, Inc. - 4 - Electronic distribution by RIV: Regional Administrator (Elmo.Collins@nrc.gov) Deputy Regional Administrator (Art.Howell@nrc.gov) DRP Director (Kriss.Kennedy@nrc.gov)

DRP Deputy Director (Troy.Pruett@nrc.gov) DRS Director (Anton.Vegel@nrc.gov) DRS Deputy Director (Vacant) Senior Resident Inspector (Grant.Larkin@nrc.gov) Branch Chief, DRP/C (Vincent.Gaddy@nrc.gov)

RBS Administrative Assistant (Lisa.Day@nrc.gov) Senior Project Engineer, DRP/C (Bob.Hagar@nrc.gov) Project Engineer, DRP/C (Rayomand.Kumana@nrc.gov) Branch Chief, DRS/OB (Mark.Haire@nrc.gov) Public Affairs Officer (Victor.Dricks@nrc.gov) Public Affairs Officer (Lara.Uselding@nrc.gov) Project Manager (Alan.Wang@nrc.gov)

Branch Chief, DRS/TSB (Michael.Hay@nrc.gov) RITS Coordinator (Marisa.Herrera@nrc.gov) Regional Counsel (Karla.Fuller@nrc.gov) Congressional Affairs Officer (Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov) OEMail Resource OEDO RIV Coordinator (James.Trapp@nrc.gov) DRS/TSB STA (Dale.Powers@nrc.gov)

SUNSI Review Completed: __SMG__ ADAMS: Yes No Initials: __SMG__ Publicly Available Non-Publicly Available Sensitive Non-Sensitive SOE:OB SOE:OB SOE:OB RI:PBC C:PBC C:OB KClayton COsterholtz SGarchow BTindell VGaddy MHaire /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ 1/11/11 1/13/11 1/17/11 1/12/11 1/24/11 1/24/11 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax 1 Enclosure 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Docket: 50-458 License: NPF-47 Report: 05000458/2010302 Licensee: Entergy, Inc. Facility: River Bend Station Location: 5485 US Highway 61N St. Francisville, LA 70775 Dates: December 2 - 22, 2010 Inspectors: S. Garchow, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer C. Osterholtz, Senior Operations Engineer K. Clayton, Senior Operations Engineer B. Tindell, Resident Inspector Approved By: Mark Haire, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 2 Enclosure 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000458/2010302; December 2 - 22, 2010, River Bend Station, Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report.

NRC examiners evaluated the competency of six applicants for reactor operator licenses, six applicants for instant senior reactor operator licenses and two applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator licenses at the River Bend Station. The licensee developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9, Supplement 1. The written examination was administered by the licensee on December 2, 2010. NRC examiners administered the operating tests on December 6 - 10, 2010. The examiners determined that 11 of the 14 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued.

A. NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings

None.

B. Licensee-Identified Violations

None.

1

REPORT DETAILS

4OA5 Other Activities (Initial Operator License Examination)

.1 License Applications

a. Scope

NRC examiners reviewed all license applications submitted to ensure each applicant satisfied relevant license eligibility requirements. Examiners also audited five of the license applications in detail to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject applicant's qualifications. This audit focused on the applicant's experience and on-the-job training, including control manipulations that provided significant reactivity changes.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.2 Examination Development

a. Scope

NRC examiners reviewed integrated examination outlines and draft examinations submitted by the licensee against the requirements of NUREG-1021. The NRC examination team conducted an onsite validation of the operating tests.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

NRC examiners provided outline, draft examination and post-validation comments to the licensee. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution prior to examination administration. NRC examiners determined the written examinations and operating tests initially submitted by the licensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.

.3 Operator Knowledge and Performance

a. Scope

On December 2, 2010, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all 14 applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis and post examination comments to the NRC on December 10, 2010.

The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating tests to all applicants on December 6 - 10, 2010.

b. Findings

No findings were identified. Eleven of the 14 applicants passed the written examination and all parts of the operating test. The final written examinations and post examination analysis and comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment.

The examination team noted the following generic weaknesses during the operating test: 1) The applicants generally did not acknowledge annunciators and this resulted in some significant annunciators being missed. 2) Three of four applicants were unable to successfully control reactor pressure vessel water level during an Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS). 3) Two of four applicants did not understand why the feedwater regulating valves locked up when being operated in manual control nor did they know how to reset the lockouts once they occurred. As a result, one of the crews had to perform an unnecessary emergency depressurization during an ATWS. This specific knowledge deficiency was a contributor to the previous generic weakness comment. 4) Three of four Senior Reactor Operator applicants did not enter Technical Specification 3.6.1.7, Containment Cooling, due to a misconception of the safety related qualifications of Containment Unit Cooler "C". 5) The majority of the applicants experienced difficulty in determining the status of, and locking out, the pumps controlled from the "Harris Panel" on H13-P808 while performing a job performance measure involving the restoration of off-site power.

Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility initial licensed operator training supervisor for evaluation and determination of appropriate remedial training.

.4 Simulation Facility Performance

a. Scope

The NRC examiners observed simulator performance with regard to plant fidelity during examination validation and administration.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

.5 Examination Security

a. Scope

The NRC examiners reviewed examination security for examination development during both the onsite preparation week and examination administration week for compliance

with 10 CFR 55.49 and NUREG-1021. Plans for simulator security and applicant control were reviewed and discussed with licensee personnel.

b. Findings

No findings were identified.

4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit

The chief examiner presented the preliminary examination results to Messrs. Michael Perito, Vice President Operations, Mr. Eric Olsen, General Manager - Plant Operations, Mr. Marvin Chase, Manager - Training and Development, and other members of the staff on December 9, 2010. A telephonic exit was conducted on December 22, 2010, between Mr. Steve Garchow, Chief Examiner, and Mr. John Fralic, Initial Licensed Operator Training Supervisor.

The licensee did not identify any information or materials used during the examination as proprietary. ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee Personnel

M. Chase, Manager - Training and Development

J. Fralic, Supervisor - Initial Licensed Operator Training

A. Bergeron, Nuclear Training Instructor

NRC Personnel

G. Larkin, Senior Resident Inspector

A. Barrett, Resident Inspector

ADAMS DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

Accession No. ML110050223 - FINAL WRITTEN EXAMS

Accession No. ML110040749 - POST EXAM ANALYSIS-COMMENTS Accession No. ML110200366 - FINAL OPERATING TEST

Enclosure 2 NRC Resolution to the River Bend Station Post Examination Comments

The licensee's post examination analysis can be found in ADAMS under ML110040749.

RO QUESTION # 55

COMMENT:

This question involved a loss of Reactor Protection System electrical bus 'B' and the resulting system isolations.

Then the applicant was asked what would happen to the reactor recirculation flow control valves if a runback occurred before the isolation restoration had been completed.

The licensee's comment is that the stem does not state which isolations had been restored but only that the "restoration of the isolation has not been completed."

Based on this, if the applicant assumed some of the isolations, including the reactor recirculation valve hydraulic isolation valves, had been completed, then distractor 'B' would also be correct.

The licensee, therefore, recommended accepting distractor 'B' in addition to distractor 'D'.

NRC RESOLUTION:

The NRC disagrees with the licensee's recommendation to accept both 'B' and 'D' as correct answers for Question #55.

The stem of the question states "restoration from the isolations has not been completed" and there is no reason from the information provided to assume the reactor recirculation flow control valve isolation had been restored.

In addition, during the briefing provided prior to the exam per

NUREG-1021, Appendix E, Part B.7, it is explained that "-you [the applicant] should assume that no operator actions have been taken, unless the stem of the question or answer choices specifically state otherwise."

Since there were no specific operator actions listed in the stem, and there were no clarification questions asked concerning this question by any of the applicants during the administration of the exam, the NRC concludes distractor 'D' is the only correct answer.

SRO QUESTION # 88

COMMENT:

This question focused on the technical specification implications and the actions to be taken given a set of conditions concerning Intermediate Range Monitor (IRM) system.

Specifically, the conditions described in the stem state IRM channels 'A' and 'C' are both inoperable with reactor power on range 8 of the IRMs.

The facility's licensee recommendation is that distractor 'C' should also be considered correct.

This recommendation is based on the wording in distractor 'C' which states the operating crew should "-Continue the plant startup per

GOP-0001, PLANT STARTUP.

No further actions are required."

The facility licensee contends the "plant startup" can continue with no further action by performing activities other than continuing the reactor startup.

Therefore, the licensee recommended accepting distractor

'C' in addition to distractor 'D'.

NRC RESOLUTION:

The NRC disagrees with the licensee's recommendation to accept both 'C' and 'D' as correct.

Integral to the plant startup per

GOP-0001, PLANT STARTUP, is the reactor startup.

Since there is a rod withdraw block, the only way to continue with the reactor and plant startup is for the operating crew to bypass the IRM rod block.

Distractor 'C' states the crew should continue the plant startup and no other actions are required.

Since the startup cannot continue with an active rod block, these are mutually exclusive statements.

While the NRC agrees that there are some secondary plant startup activities that can continue regardless of the reactor status, eventually the operators must bypass the rod withdraw block to continue the startup.

Therefore, other actions are required to continue the plant startup to mode 1, and 'D' is the only correct answer to the question as written.