IR 05000528/2009301

Er 05000528-09-301, 05000529-09-301, 05000530-09-301, on November 6, 2009, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report

ML093490925
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	12/15/2009
From:	Garchow S M Operations Branch IV
To:	Edington R K Arizona Public Service Co
References
ER-09-301
Download: ML093490925 (13)

Text

December 15, 2009

Randall K. Edington, Executive Vice President, Nuclear/CNO Mail Station 7602 Arizona Public Service Company P. O. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034

SUBJECT: PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 -

NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000528/2009301; 05000529/2009301; 05000530/2009301

Dear Mr. Edington:

On November 13, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial operator license examination at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. The enclosed report documents the examination findings and licensing decisions. The preliminary examination findings were discussed on November 12, 2009, with Mr. Bob Bement, Vice-President Nuclear Operations, and other members of your staff. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on December 2, 2009, with Mr. Warren Potter, Simulator Department Leader, who was provided the NRC licensing decisions.

The examination included the evaluation of fifteen applicants for reactor operator licenses, five applicants for instant senior reactor operator licenses and three applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator licenses. The license examiners determined that all but one of the applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. The one individual failed the written examination and has been issued a license denial letter. 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 of significance were identified during this examination. Arizona Public Service Company - 2 -

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/

Stephen M. Garchow, Acting Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Dockets: 50-528; 50-529; 50-530 Licenses: NPF-41; NPF-51; NPF-74

Enclosure:

1. NRC Examination Report 05000528/2009301; 05000529/2009301; 05000530/2009301 2. NRC Post Examination Comment Resolution

cc w/enclosure: Mr. Steve Olea Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 Mr. Douglas Kent Porter Senior Counsel Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Generation Resources P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Chairman Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Mr. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40 Street Phoenix, AZ 85040

Arizona Public Service Company - 3 -Mr. Scott Bauer, Director Regulatory Affairs Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Mail Station 7636 P.O. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034

Mr. Dwight C. Mims Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Plant Improvement Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Mail Station 7605 P.O. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 Mr. Jeffrey T. Weikert Assistant General Counsel El Paso Electric Company Mail Location 167 123 W. Mills El Paso, TX 79901 Mr. Eric Tharp Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Southern California Public Power Authority P.O. Box 51111, Room 1255-C Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100

Mr. James Ray Public Service Company of New Mexico 2401 Aztec NE, MS Z110 Albuquerque, NM 87107-4224

Mr. Geoffrey M. Cook Southern California Edison Company 5000 Pacific Coast Hwy. Bldg. D21 San Clemente, CA 92672

Mr. Robert Henry Salt River Project 6504 East Thomas Road Scottsdale, AZ 85251

Arizona Public Service Company - 4 -Mr. Brian Almon Public Utility Commission William B. Travis Building P.O. Box 13326 Austin, TX 78701-3326

Environmental Program Manager City of Phoenix Office of Environmental Programs 200 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003

Mr. John C. Taylor Director, Nuclear Generation El Paso Electric Company 340 East Palm Lane, Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Chief, Technological Hazards Branch FEMA Region IX 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 Arizona Public Service Company - 5 -Electronic distribution by RIV: Regional Administrator (Elmo.Collins@nrc.gov) Deputy Regional Administrator (Chuck.Casto@nrc.gov) DRP Director (Dwight.Chamberlain@nrc.gov) DRP Deputy Director (Anton.Vegel@nrc.gov) DRS Director (Roy.Caniano@nrc.gov)

DRS Deputy Director (Troy.Pruett@nrc.gov) Senior Resident Inspector (Ryan.Treadway@nrc.gov) Branch Chief, DRP/D (Ryan.Lantz@nrc.gov) PV Administrative Assistant (Regina.McFadden@nrc.gov) Senior Project Engineer, DRP/D (Don.Allen@nrc.gov)

Public Affairs Officer (Victor.Dricks@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 ROPreports DRS STA (Dale.Powers@nrc.gov) OEDO RIV Coordinator (Leigh.Trocine@nrc.gov)

R:\ ADAMS ML ADAMS: No x Yes x SUNSI Review Complete Reviewer Initials: SMG x Publicly Available x Non-Sensitive Non-publicly Available Sensitive SGarchow KClayton JDrake RLantz SGarchow /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ 12/15/09 12/15/09 12/15/09 12/15/09 12/15/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax Enclosure 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV

Dockets: 50-528, 50-529, 50-530 Licenses: NPF-41, NPF-51, NPF-74 Report: 05000528/2009301; 05000529/2009301; 05000530/2009301 Licensee: Arizona Public Service Company Facility: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Location: 5951 S. Wintersburg Road Tonopah, Arizona Dates: November 6, 2009 Inspectors: Stephen Garchow, Chief Examiner Kelly Clayton, Senior Operations Engineer Jim Drake, Senior Reactor Inspector Chuck Zoia, Operations Engineer Peter Presby, Operations Engineer Gabriel Apger, Senior Operations Engineer Approved By: Stephen Garchow, Acting Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER05000528/2009301; 05000529/2009301; 05000530/2009301; November 6, 2009; Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3; Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report.

NRC examiners evaluated the competency of fifteen applicants for reactor operator licenses, five applicants for instant senior reactor operator licenses and three applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator licenses at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.

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 November 6, 2009. NRC examiners administered the operating tests on November 9 - 13, 2009.

The examiners determined that all but one of the applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. One individual failed the written portion of the examination and a license denial letter has been issued.

A. NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

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. The 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 of significance 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

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 that 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 November 6, 2009, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all 23 applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis and post examination comments to the NRC on November 17, 2009.

The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating tests to all 23 applicants on November 9 - 13, 2009.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

All but one of the 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:

• Knowledge of administrative dose limits and radiological postings

• Knowledge of licensed operator proficiency requirements

• Knowledge of the indications associated with determining if a running Emergency Diesel Generator was ready to load following an automatic start

• Ability to diagnose system status following an abnormal event such as a loss of an electrical bus

• Ability to determine charging flow when in an usual alignment such as charging via the High Pressure Safety Injection header

• The applicants, as a group, failed more of the individual administrative job-performance-measures (JPMs) than what is typically seen on an examination.

.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 of significance were identified.

.5 Examination Security

a. Scope

The NRC examiners reviewed examination security 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 of significance were identified.

4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit

The chief examiner presented the preliminary examination results to Messrs. Bob Bement, Lou Cortopassi, Joe Waid, and other members of the licensee staff on November 12, 2009. A telephonic exit was conducted on December 2, 2009, between Messrs. Stephen Garchow, Chief Examiner, and Warren Potter, Simulator Department Leader.

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

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee Personnel

Warren Potter, Simulator Department Leader

Larry Burton, Exam Developer Alan Malley, Exam Developer Louis Cortopassi, Plant Manager Joe Waid, Training Director Ron Barnes, Regulatory Affairs Director

NRC Personnel

Joseph Bayshore, Resident Inspector

ADAMS DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

Accession No.

ML 093450278

Accession No.

ML 093370156

NRC Resolution to the Palo Verde Post Examination Comments

A complete text of the licensee's post examination analysis and comments can be found in ADAMS under Accession Number ML093370156.

RO QUESTION # 50

COMMENT:

This question required the applicant to evaluate the indications associated with the 'A' PK Battery Charger and correctly assess its' status.

The original answer was the battery charger was in a normal alignment.

Following the exam, the applicants were interviewed and it was discovered that from the indications provided there were two correct answers; the battery charger could be in its' normal alignment or the battery charger's output breaker could be tripped.

Based on this, the facility licensee believes distractors A and B should both be considered correct.

NRC RESOLUTION:

In this question the applicants were provided a picture of the 'A' Battery Charger PK indications as observed on Panel B01.

From the picture, the applicant was expected to evaluate the indications and determine the battery charger was in a normal alignment.

Following the examination it was determined the indications would be the same for a normal alignment as for a tripped battery output breaker alignment with the exception of the battery charger charging rate would drop by 10 amperes with the battery output breaker open.

The meter showing the battery charger amperes has a scale of 0 to 500 amperes and there is very little meter movement associated with a 10 ampere change.

The difference in the indications is barely discernible and could be interpreted in two ways depending on other plant variables associated with this battery charger.

Depending on how the applicant interpreted the battery charging amperes, the applicant could correctly conclude distractor 'A' or 'B' as being correct.

Therefore, the NRC agrees with the facility licensee that distractors 'A' and 'B' should both be considered correct.

SRO QUESTION # 15

COMMENT:

In this question, the applicant is given a set of conditions associated with the CEDM Air Cooling Fan System.

Basically, the question states one of two running fans trip on overload and asks the applicant what the system response would be and what procedure would then be in use.

The facility licensee argues two answers should be correct; the first is there would be no auto start of the standby fans and the second answer states the standby fans would auto start following a 120 second time delay.

This would depend on whether the running fan differential pressure would fall below the automatic start setpoint.

The associated alarm response procedure states the standby fan will start following the time delay and also states the standby fan will auto start only if the differential pressure falls below the automatic start setpoint.

NRC RESOLUTION:

The two answers argued as both being correct are diametrically opposed answers; one states the standby fans will automatically start and the other distractor states the standby fans will not auto start.

Both cannot be correct.

To resolve this conflict, the NRC requested the conditions as stated in the stem in the question be tested on the simulator and the results would be used to determine the correct answer.

This was not successful as it could not be simulated in the same fashion as presented in the stem of the question.

The NRC then requested a check be made on the station's operating experience and system testing to see if a similar event had been experienced in the plant in order to make a determination as to whether the fan differential pressure would fall below the automatic start setpoint.

This effort was also unsuccessful.

Because the two distractors are diametrically opposed, both cannot be considered as correct and because the correct answer could not be determined, the question was deleted from the exam.