IR 05000334/2007301

Er 05000334-07-301, Exam Dates 11/9/2007 & 11/12-16/2007, BVPS-1, Initial Operator Licensing Examination. Eleven of Twelve Applicants Passed Examination. One SRO Upgrade Failed Written Exam. Twelve Applicants Included Four Ros, Six SRO Inst

ML073510223
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	12/14/2007
From:	Marvin Sykes Operations Branch I
To:	Sena P FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
Shared Package
ml072040334	List: IR 05000334/2007301
References
ER-07-301
Download: ML073510223 (12)

Text

December 14, 2007Mr. Peter SenaSite Vice President FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Beaver Valley Power Station PO Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077SUBJECT:BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 1 - OPERATOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 05000334/2007-301

Dear Mr. Sena:

This report transmits the results of the reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO)licensing examination conducted by the NRC during the period of November 9 - 16, 2007. This examination addressed areas important to public health and safety and was developed and administered using the guidelines of the "Examination Standards for Power Reactors" (NUREG-1021, Revision 9).Based on the results of the examination, eleven of twelve applicants passed all portions of theexamination. One SRO upgrade did not pass the written exam. The twelve applicants included four ROs, six instant SROs, and two upgrade SROs. Mr. Todd Fish, NRC Chief Examiner, discussed performance insights observed during the examination with Mr. Brian Tuite and other members of your training staff on November 16, 2007. On December 10, 2007, final examination results, including individual license numbers for the applicants who passed allportions of the exam, were given during a telephone call between Mr. R. Brooks of your training staff and Mr. D. Silk (NRC).In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and itsenclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public DocumentRoom or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document management system (ADAMS). These records include the final examination and are available in ADAMS (Master File - Accession Number ML072040334; RO and SRO Written Examination with Answer Key - Accession Number ML073340190; Final Section A Operating Exam -

Accession Number ML073340251; Final Section B Operating Exam - Accession Number ML073340286; and Final Section C Operating Exam - Accession Number ML073340322).

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (thePublic Electronic Reading Room).

Mr. P. Sena2Should you have any questions regarding this examination, please contact me at (610) 337-5046, or by E-mail at MD S1@NRC.GOV.

Sincerely,

/RA/Marvin D. Sykes, ChiefOperations Branch Division of Reactor SafetyDocket No:50-334License No:DPR-66Enclosure:Initial Examination Report No. 05000334/2007-301 M

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000334/2007301; exam dates 11/9/2007 and 11/12-16/2007; BVPS-1; Initial OperatorLicensing Examination. Eleven of twelve applicants passed the examination. One SROupgrade failed the written exam. The twelve applicants included four ROs, six SRO instants, and two SRO upgrades. The written examinations were administered by the facility and the operating tests wereadministered by three NRC region-based examiners. A.Inspector Identified FindingsNo findings of significance were identified.B. Licensee Identified FindingsNo findings of significance were identified.

Enclosure

REPORT DETAILS

1.REACTOR SAFETYMitigating Systems - Reactor Operator (RO) and Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) InitialLicense Examination

a. Scope

of ReviewThe NRC examination team developed the written and operating initial examination andtogether with BVPS-1 training and operations personnel verified or ensured, as applicable, the following: *The examination was prepared and developed in accordance with the guidelinesof Revision 9 of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors." A review was conducted both in the Region I office and at the BVPS-1 plant and training facility. Final resolution of comments and incorporation of test revisions were conducted during and following the onsite preparation week.*Simulation facility operation was proper.

• A test item analysis was completed on the written examination for feedback intoBVPS-1's systems approach to training program.*Examination security requirements were met.

The NRC examiners administered the operating portion of the examination to allapplicants from November 12 - 16, 2007. The written examination was previously administered by the BVPS-1 training staff on November 9, 2007.

b. Findings

Grading and ResultsEleven of twelve applicants passed all portions of the initial licensing examination. OneSRO upgrade failed the written exam. The twelve applicants included four ROs, six SRO instants, and two SRO upgrades. The facility submitted comments related to two questions on the written exam. A summary of the facility comments and NRC resolution of those comments are provided as Attachment 2.Examination Administration and PerformanceNo findings of significance were identified.

2Enclosure4OA6Exit Meeting SummaryOn December 10, 2007, the NRC provided examination results to BVPS - 1 training representatives via telephone. License numbers for the applicants who passed all portions of the exam were also provided during this call. The NRC expressed appreciation for the cooperation and assistance that was providedduring the preparation and administration of the examination by the licensee's training staff. ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

A1-1AttachmentATTACHMENT ONESUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONKEY POINTS OF CONTACT

Licensee Personnel

M. MouserOperations Manager Unit 1B. TuiteTraining Manager

R. BrooksExam Development Lead

T. GaydosikInitial License LeadLIST OF ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSEDITEM NUMBERTYPEDESCRIPTIONNONENANA

A2-1AttachmentATTACHMENT TWOFacility Post Exam CommentsCommon Question #41Facility Comment:This question asked the applicants to determine how the loss ofinstrument air would affect auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system operation

and the subsequent action an operator would take. The facility asserted

that conditions given in the question stem (the conditions said the plant

was in Mode 3) were subject to interpretation, i.e., the given conditions

did not make clear whether the plant was in Mode 3 and starting up, or in

Mode 3 following a trip from rated power. Based on two interpretations of

plant conditions in Mode 3, therefore, the question had two correct

answers.NRC Response:Comment accepted. "A" (an additional correct answer) & "B" (originalcorrect answer) will both be considered correct. The examiner reviewedthe exhibits provided by the facility and determined that operation of the

AFW system depends on whether the operator is in Mode 3, just starting

up or in Mode 3, post reactor trip. The original question was designed

based on the plant being in Mode 3 during a start up. Under these

conditions there would be no decay heat. However, if the plant were in

Mode 3 just after a reactor trip, then decay heat would require the

operator to adjust AFW flow, and, per procedure, leave only the turbine

driven AFW pump running. Since plant conditions provided in the

question were plausible for Mode 3 and starting up, as well as for Mode 3

just after a reactor trip at power, an applicant could reasonably answer

the question two different ways. Therefore, there are two correct

answers.SRO Question #18Facility Comment:This question asked the SRO applicants to integrate plant conditions dueto a loss of coolant accident, then enter emergency procedures and

determine how the pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORVs)

were to be operated. The conditions given in the stem were ambiguous

such that the question had two correct answers.

NRC Response:Comment accepted. "B" (an additional correct answer) & "D" (originalcorrect answer) will both be considered correct. The examiner reviewedthe information provided by the facility and determined that operation of

the PORVs - to isolate them or to allow them to operate automatically -

depends on whether the operator believes the PORVs are open or

A2-2Attachmentclosed. The original question was designed based on the PORVs beingclosed, therefore choice "D" was the correct answer. However, if the

PORVs were not closed, and in fact were the source of the loss of

coolant, then the correct response is for the operator to isolate those

valves, which makes "B" also a correct answer. The conditions provided

in the question do not give PORV status, e.g., "The PORVs are

closed(open).", nor do the provided plant parameters indicate whether

PORVs are open or closed. Therefore, given the ambiguity of the plant

conditions, an applicant could reasonably choose two different and

correct answers to the question.