IR 05000266/2017301

NRC Initial License Examination Report 05000266/2017301; 05000301/2017301 (Jls)

ML17192A335
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	07/11/2017
From:	Robert Orlikowski Operations Branch III
To:	Coffey R Point Beach
Shared Package
ML16319A327	List: IR 05000266/2017301 ML17123A385 ML17199D690
References
50-266/17-301, 50-301/17-301
Download: ML17192A335 (10)

Text

UNITED STATES July 11, 2017

SUBJECT:

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - NRC INITIAL LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000266/2017301; 05000301/2017301

Dear Mr. Coffey:

On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed the initial operator licensing examination process for license applicants employed at your Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The enclosed report documents the results of those examinations. Preliminary observations noted during the examination process were discussed on May 19, 2017, with yourself and other members of your staff. An exit meeting was conducted by telephone on June 2, 2017, with members of your staff, and Mr. J. Seymour, Chief Operator Licensing Examiner, to review the final grading of the written examination for the license applicants.

The NRC examiners administered an initial license examination operating test during the weeks of May 8 and May 15, 2017. The written examination was administered by Point Beach Nuclear Plant training department personnel on May 23, 2017. Ten Senior Reactor Operator and four Reactor Operator applicants were administered license examinations. The results of the examinations were finalized on June 1, 2017. Fourteen applicants passed all sections of their respective examinations; ten applicants were issued a senior operator license and four applicants were issued operator licenses.

The administered written examination and operating test, as well as documents related to the development and review (outlines, review comments and resolution, etc.) of the examination will be withheld from public disclosure until July 29, 2019. This letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be made available for public inspection and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and at the NRC Public Document Room in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Robert J. Orlikowski, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos. 50-266; 50-301 License Nos. DPR-24; DPR-27

Enclosures:

1. OL Examination Report 05000266/2017301; 05000301/2017301 2. Simulation Facility Fidelity Report

REGION III==

Docket Nos: 50-266; 50-301 License Nos: DPR-24; DPR-27 Report No: 05000266/2017301; 05000301/2017301 Licensee: NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC Facility: Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Location: Two Rivers, WI Dates: May 8 - 30, 2017 Examiners: J. Seymour, Operations Engineer - Chief Examiner R. Walton, Senior Operations Engineer - Examiner B. Bergeon, Operations Engineer - Examiner Approved by: R. Orlikowski, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1

SUMMARY

Examination Report 05000266/2017301; 05000301/2017301; 05/08/2017 - 05/30/2017;

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Initial License Examination Report.

The announced initial operator licensing examination was conducted by regional Nuclear Regulatory Commission examiners in accordance with the guidance of NUREG-1021,

Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 10.

Examination Summary Fourteen of fourteen applicants passed all sections of their respective examinations.

Ten applicants were issued senior operator licenses and four applicants were issued operator licenses (Section 4OA5.1).

REPORT DETAILS

4OA5 Other Activities

.1 Initial Licensing Examinations

a. Examination Scope

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners and members of the facility licensees staff used the guidance prescribed in NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 10, to develop, validate, administer, and grade the written examination and operating test. Members of the facility licensees staff prepared the outlines and developed the written examination and operating test. The NRC examiners validated the proposed examination during the week of April 10, 2017, with the assistance of members of the facility licensees staff.

During the on-site validation week, the examiners audited three license applications for accuracy. The NRC examiners, with the assistance of members of the facility licensees staff, administered the operating test, consisting of job performance measures and dynamic simulator scenarios, during the period of May 8 through May 18, 2017.

The facility licensee administered the written examination on May 23, 2017.

b. Findings

(1) Written Examination The NRC examiners determined that the written examination, as proposed by the licensee, was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.

Less than 20% of the proposed examination questions were determined to be unsatisfactory and required modification or replacement.

During the validation of the written examination, several questions were modified or replaced. All changes made to the written examination were made in accordance with NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, and were documented on Form ES-401-9, Written Examination Review Worksheet. The Form ES-401-9, the written examination outlines (ES-401-2 and ES-401-3), and both the proposed and final written examinations, will be available electronically in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) on July 29, 2019 (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML16319A340, ML16319A342, ML16319A344, and ML16319A341, respectively).

On May 30, 2017, the licensee submitted documentation noting that there were no post-examination comments for consideration by the NRC examiners when grading the written examination.

The NRC examiners graded the written examination on May 31, 2017, and conducted a review of each missed question to determine the accuracy and validity of the examination questions.

(2) Operating Test The NRC examiners determined that the operating test, as originally proposed by the licensee, was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.

Following the review and validation of the operating test, minor modifications were made to several Job Performance Measures (JPMs), and some minor modifications were made to the dynamic simulator scenarios. All changes made to the operating test were made in accordance with NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, and were documented in a document titled, Operating Test Comments, The Operating Test Comments document, the operating test outlines (ES-301-1, ES-301-2, and ES-D-1s), and both the proposed and final operating tests, will be available electronically in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's ADAMS on July 29, 2019 (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML16319A340, ML16319A342, ML16319A344, and ML16319A341, respectively).

The NRC examiners completed operating test grading on June 1, 2017.

(3) Examination Results Ten applicants at the Senior Reactor Operator level and four applicants at the Reactor Operator level were administered written examinations and operating tests.

• Fourteen applicants passed all portions of their examinations and were issued their respective operating licenses on June 1, 2017.

.2 Examination Security

a. Scope

The NRC examiners reviewed and observed the licensee's implementation of examination security requirements during the examination validation and administration to assure compliance with Title10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 55.49, Integrity of Examinations and Tests. The examiners used the guidelines provided in NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, to determine acceptability of the licensees examination security activities.

b. Findings

(1) A facility training instructor who was not on the appropriate examination security agreement was given access to initial license examination material during exam development. The instructor in question was on a separate examination security agreement for an ongoing licensed operator requalification exam. Another member of the facility training staff (who was on the exam security agreements for both the initial and requalification exams) provided a quantity of exam material to the instructor for disposal using a nearby paper shredder. The material in question, which should have contained only requalification exam material, in fact, also included a portion of the initial license examination operating test. Additionally, this exam material was briefly left unattended while inside of a controlled exam security boundary (which had been established for the purposes of the ongoing requalification exam). Upon noting differences in markings and paper colors (a facility exam security measure) among the exam material, the instructor notified the facility NRC exam coordinator of the discrepancy. The instructor in question was placed on the initial license exam security agreement and the exam materials were disposed of by shredding. A follow-up evaluation determined that no exam compromise occurred and, therefore, that no replacement of examination material was warranted. This issue, which was of minor significance, was documented in Action Request (A/R) 02162388.

(2) Three initial license class applicants received a qualification end-of-card checkout from an operations shift manager who had knowledge of the initial license examination and, therefore, was on the applicable examination security agreement. The shift manager had previously signed the examination security agreement, which clearly states not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants in the initial license training class. The shift managers knowledge of the examination material was limited to a small portion of the written examination. The shift manager subsequently recognized that conducting this end-of-card checkout had been prohibited and informed the applicable facility training personnel. A follow-up evaluation determined that no exam compromise occurred and, therefore, that no replacement of examination material was warranted. This issue, which was of minor significance, was documented in A/R 02189199.

(3) During administration of the operating test, an examiner lost control of a cue sheet for one of the administrative JPMs. The loss of control occurred when the examiner exited a room where the JPM was being administered and inadvertently left the exam material behind. The cue sheet was located, where it had been inadvertently left, by another examiner approximately ten minutes later. The examination team evaluated whether the JPM had been potentially compromised. During the timeframe in which the exam material remained uncontrolled, all of the applicants who had not yet been exposed to the JPM in question remained sequestered by the facility in a separate location. A determination was made that no examination material had been compromised. No examination material had to be modified or replaced as a result of this lapse in exam security. The facility staff documented this issue in A/R 02205942.

4OA6 Management Meetings

.1 Debrief

The chief examiner presented the examination team's preliminary observations and findings on May 19, 2017, to Mr. R. Coffey, Site Vice President, and other members of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant staff.

.2 Exit Meeting

The chief examiner conducted an exit meeting on June 2, 2017, with Mr. D. Peterson, Training Manager, and other members of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant staff, by telephone. The examiners asked the licensee whether any of the material used to develop or administer the examination should be considered proprietary. Proprietary or sensitive information identified during the examination or debrief/exit meetings will be handled in accordance with the applicable requirements.

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee

R. Coffey, Site Vice President

R. Craven, Plant General Manager

D. Peterson, Training Manager

R. Higgins, Assistant Operations Manager, Training

E. Schultz, Assistant Operations Manager, Work Management

E. Salzwedel, Initial License Training Supervisor

A. Gustafson, General Supervisor of Training

R. Amundson, Regulatory Exam Coordinator

J. Hinze, Exam Author

T. Larson, Operations Facility Representative

K. Locke, Licensing Analyst

U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission

T. Hartman, Senior Resident Inspector

K. Barclay, Resident Inspector

J. Seymour, Chief Examiner

R. Walton, Examiner

B. Bergeon, Examiner

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened, Closed, and Discussed

None

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED

A/R Action Request

FRV Feedwater Regulating Valve

JPM Job Performance Measure

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

SAR Simulator Action Request

VCT Volume Control Tank

SIMULATION FACILITY FIDELITY REPORT

Facility Licensee: Point Beach Nuclear Plant

Facility Docket Nos: 50-266; 50-301

Operating Tests Administered: May 8 - 18, 2017

The following documents observations made by the NRC examination team during the initial

operator license examination. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings

and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of non-compliance with Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification

or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information which may be used in

future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.

During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were

observed:

ITEM DESCRIPTION

High Flux at During the conduct of a simulator JPM which involved testing of the high flux

Shutdown drawer and at shutdown alarm, there were multiple instances of an instrument test light

associated switches failing to clear when the appropriate switch was repositioned. The facility

determined that the condition was caused by a dirty switch contact and

documented this condition in Simulator Action Request (SAR) #1513.

Unit 1 Condenser During multiple simulator scenarios, indications on two Unit 1 condenser

Pressure Gauges pressure gauges read an unexpectedly low value, inconsistent with diverse

indications. This failure did not create an undue distraction for applicants and

did not adversely affect the administration of the operating test. Applicants

were cued to consider the affected indications as being out of service.

The facility documented this issue in A/R #02205839 and SAR #1511.

Unit 1 A Loop During a simulator scenario, the Unit 1 A Loop FRV Controller (1FIC-466A)

Feedwater Regulating became unresponsive during a scenario event. This failure resulted in the

Valve (FRV) crew taking action, based upon the existing indications, to insert a reactor trip

Controller earlier than had been anticipated during scenario design. As a result, two

(1FIC 466A) additional events which had been planned to be run prior to the originally

anticipated reactor trip could not be run. The facility determined that the

failure resulted from a combination of the simulator initial condition and the

manner in which power had cycled to the affected controller between

scenarios as part of examination security measures. The failure did not

reoccur during a subsequent evaluation utilizing the same scenario later on

that same day. The facility documented the issue in A/R #02205852 and

A/R #02205940.

Unit 1 Volume Control During a simulator scenario, a VCT level chart recorder pen was observed

Tank (VCT) Level to be stuck at an indication that was inconsistent with diverse indications.

Recorder This failure did not create an undue distraction for the applicants and did not

adversely affect the administration of the operating test. The facility

determined that the chart recorder pen had become stuck following an earlier

paper change. The facility documented this issue in SAR #1512.

2