IR 05000416/2007301
| ML071800204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/2007 |
| From: | Gody A T Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Brian W R Entergy Operations |
| References | |
| 50-416/07-301 50-416/07-301 | |
| Download: ML071800204 (12) | |
Text
June 29, 2007
William R. Brian, Vice President of Operations Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, MS 39150
SUBJECT: GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION - NRC EXAMINATIONREPORT 05000416/2007-301
Dear Mr. Brian:
On May 24, 2007, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an examinationat your Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. The enclosed report documents the examination findings, which were discussed on May 24 and June 15, 2007, with you and members of your staff.The examination included the evaluation of three applicants for instant senior operator licensesand one applicant for upgrade senior operator licenses. The written and operating examinations were developed using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9. The license examiners determined that one of the four applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, "Operators' Licenses," and the appropriate license has been issued. No findings of significance 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 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 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/Anthony T. Gody, ChiefOperations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Entergy Operations, Inc.-2-Dockets: 50-416Licenses: NPF-29
Enclosure:
NRC Examination Report 05000416/2007301cc w/enclosure:Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 ChiefEnergy & Transportation Branch Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Division Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289-0385PresidentClaiborne County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 339 Port Gibson, MS 39150General Manager, Plant OperationsGrand Gulf Nuclear Station Entergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, MS 39150Attorney General Department of Justice State of Louisiana P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005 Office of the GovernorState of Mississippi Jackson, MS 39205 Entergy Operations, Inc.-3-Attorney GeneralAssistant Attorney General State of Mississippi P.O. Box 22947 Jackson, MS 39225-2947State Health OfficerState Board of Health P.O. Box 139 Jackson, MS 39205 DirectorNuclear Safety & Licensing Entergy Operations, Inc.
1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213-8298Director, Nuclear Safety AssuranceEntergy Operations, Inc.
P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, MS 39150Richard Penrod, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Liaison Officer Office of Environmental Services Northwestern State University
Russsell Hall, Room 201 Natchitoches, LA 71497Lisa R. Hammond, ChiefTechnological Hazards Branch National Preparedness Division FEMA Region VI 800 N. Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209Conrad S. Burnside, ChiefTechnological Hazards Branch National Preparedness Division DHS/FEMA 3003 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341 Entergy Operations, Inc.-4-Electronic distribution by RIV:Regional Administrator (BSM1)DRP Director (ATH)DRS Director (DDC)DRS Deputy Director (RJC1)Senior Resident Inspector (GBM)Branch Chief, DRP/C (MCH2)Senior Project Engineer, DRP/C (WCW)Team Leader, DRP/TSS (CJP)RITS Coordinator (MSH3)DRS STA (DAP)M. Kunowski, OEDO RIV Coordinator (MAK3)ROPreports GG Site Secretary (NAS2)SUNSI Review Completed: ___Y___ADAMS: Yes G No Initials: _SMG_____ Publicly Available G Non-Publicly Available G Sensitive Non-SensitiveSOE:OBOE:OBC:OBC:PBCC:OBSMGarchow/lmbBTindellATGodyMHayATGody/RA//RA//RA//RA//RA/6/19/076/25/076/24/076/25/076/28/07OFFICIAL RECORD COPY T=Telephone E=E-mail F=Fax Enclosure-1-EXAMINATION REPORTU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Docket:50-416 License:NPF-29 Report :05000416/2007-301 Licensee:Entergy Operations, Inc.
Facility:Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Location:P.O. Box 756Port Gibson, MS 39150Dates:May 21 through June 15, 2007 Inspectors:S. Garchow, Chief Examiner, Operations BranchB. Tindell, Operations EngineerApproved By:Anthony T. Gody, ChiefOperations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure-2-
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER 05000416/2007-301; 5/21-24,2007; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station; Initial Operator LicensingExaminations.NRC examiners evaluated the competency of three applicants for instant senior operatorlicenses and one applicant for an upgrade senior operator license at the Grand Gulf Nuclear
Station. The facility licensee developed the written and operating examinations using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9.
The written examination was administered by the facility licensee and NRC on May 21, 2007.
The NRC examiners administered the operating tests on May 22 - 24, 2007. The license examiners determined that one of the applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate license has been issued. No findings of significance were identified.
Enclosure-3-
REPORT DETAILS
4.OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)4OA5Other Activities (Initial Operator License Examination).1License Applications
a. Scope
The examiners reviewed the four applications submitted by the licensee for each of thelicense applicants. The applications were submitted on NRC Form 398, "Personal Qualification Statement," and NRC Form 396, "Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee." The examiners also audited one license application to confirm accurate documentation of the subject applicant's qualifications to satisfy the 10 percent audit requirement for the applicant's experience and on-the-job training, including control manipulations that provided significant reactivity changes. All control manipulations were performed in the plant.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified..2Operator Knowledge and Performance
a. Examination Scope
On May 21, 2007, the facility licensee and NRC proctored the administration of thewritten examinations to all four applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on June 15, 2007.The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operatingexamination to all four applicants on May 22 - 24, 2007. The three applicants seeking an instant senior operator license participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios, a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of 10 system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of 5 administrative tasks. The applicant for upgrade senior operator license participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios, a control room and facilities walkthrough test consisting of 5 system tasks, and an administrative test consisting of 5 administrative tasks.
b. Findings
One of the applicants passed all parts of the examinations. There were no identifiedgeneric weaknesses on the operating examination.
-4-For the written examinations, overall senior reactor operator applicant's average scorewas 75.8 percent and ranged from 69.0 to 85.0 percent. The average score on the senior operator only portion of the examination was 68.0 percent and ranged from 60.0 to 80.0 percent. NUREG 1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,"Revision 9, Section ES-403, requires the licensee to analyze the validity of any written examination questions that were missed by half or more of the applicants. The licensee conducted this performance analysis and submitted the analysis to the chief examiner on June 15, 2007. The licensee recommended four questions (Exam Questions 44, 65, 90, and 99) to have more than one answer or a different answer be accepted as correct.The licensee's recommendations and the NRC responses follow:
Reactor/Senior Operator Question 44, missed by three applicantsThe facility recommended changing the answer key so that Answers c and d would beconsidered correct. This change was based on information contained in system training material and the Updated Final Safety Analyses Report. Both sources state controlling reactor pressure is achieved by controlling turbine pressure since the turbine is slaved to the reactor.
NRC Response - The NRC does not agree with the facility's recommendation to acceptAnswers c and d. Distractor c is incorrect, in that it states the turbine control valves willthrottle closed in an effort to control reactor pressure constant. This is incorrect because the electro-hydraulic control system does not sense reactor pressure and consequently, will not attempt to control any process variable in direct response to changes in reactor pressure. The electro-hydraulic control system is designed to maintain turbine throttle pressure constant as sensed at the equalizing header through turbine control valve positioning. For example, if a main steam isolation valve were to close, steady state reactor pressure would increase while turbine header pressure would be maintained constant by the electro-hydraulic control system. Based on the information given in the stem, Answer d is the only correct answer.Reactor/Senior Operator Question 65, missed by one applicantThe facility recommended changing the answer key to Answers a and c would beconsidered correct. This recommendation was based on assuming Reactor Recirc Pump B is running and bottom head temperature is not greater than Reactor Recirc Loop B temperature. Therefore, this would mean the difference between the average coolant temperature and Recirc Loop A temperature would be greater than 50 degrees and this would not meet the thermal limit requirements as defined in System Operating Instruction 04-1-01-B33-1.
NRC Response - The recommended change to the answer key was reviewed and itwas concluded Answers a and c are both correct. For the reactor to be in Mode 1,Reactor Recirc Pump B must be running or a reactor scram would occur. Given Reactor Recirc Pump B is running, the bottom head region temperature would be
-5-representative of the average coolant and Reactor Recirc Loop B temperatures. According to the referenced procedures, a difference greater than 50 degrees between the average coolant temperature and Reactor Recirc A would impose an excessive thermal transient. Therefore, Answers a and c are correct. Senior Operator Question 90, missed by two applicantsFollowing the examination, the facility recommended Answers c and d both be acceptedfor this question. This recommendation was based on
- (1) the shift manager being qualified to perform the duties of the control room supervisor;
- (2) the shift manager is responsible for maintaining the temporary alteration log book; and
- (3) by practice, the shift manager places the temporary alteration request form in the temporary alteration log book.
NRC Response - This recommended answer key change was reviewed and it wasconcluded Answer d is the only correct answer. The procedure referenced in the stemof the question states in Steps 6.1.14.b and c - the control room supervisor, by position, is responsible for placing the temporary alteration form in the temporary alteration log book. The shift manager is qualified to perform the duties of the control room supervisor and would, therefore, be responsible for performing this function if acting in the capacity of the control room supervisor. While the shift manager may functionally perform this action, procedurally the control room supervisor is still responsible for ensuring the form is placed in the log book and a copy is sent out. Based on this, Answer d is the only correct answer.Reactor/Senior Operator Question 99, missed by four applicantsFollowing the examination, the facility recommended Answer a be accepted as thecorrect answer instead of Answer c. Accepting Answer a instead of c was based on a procedural recommendation that notification of a safety limit violation be made as soon as possible. As soon as possible would be assumed to be quicker than the unusual event notification time of 15 minutes.
NRC Response - This recommended change to the answer key was reviewed and itwas concluded Answer c is the only correct answer. The question asks which of theconditions has "the shortest time limit [emphasis added] for notification." Procedurally,the shift manager would be expected to notify the NRC as soon as possible, but the actual time limit is 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. Conversely, condition c would require an entry into the emergency plan and that has an associated time limit of 15 minutes. Therefore, Answer c is the only correct answer.
-6- 3.Initial Licensing Examination Development
a. Examination Scope
The licensee developed the written examination and operating examination inaccordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 9. All licensee facility training and operations staff involved in examination preparation and validation were on a security agreement.
The facility licensee submitted the integrated examination outlines on December 20, 2006. The chief examiner reviewed the outlines against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 9, and provided comments to the licensee on December 23, 2006. The facility licensee submitted the draft examination package on January 19, 2007. The chief examiner reviewed the draft examination package against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 9, and provided comments to the licensee on February 7, 2007. The NRC conducted an onsite validation of the operating examinations and provided further comments during the week of February 12, 2007.
The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution on March 19, 2007.
b. Findings
Examiners approved the initial examination outline with minor comments and advisedthe licensee to proceed with the written and operating examination development. The chief examiner considered the written examination to be adequate and noted thatthe number of unacceptable questions in the overall submittal was within the acceptable quality range of less than or equal to 20 percent expected by the NRC, with 13 questions requiring significant modification or replacement (13 percent). The senior reactor operator portion of the examination also met the 20 percent threshold because 3 questions out of 25 required replacement or significant modification (12 percent). The reactor operator portion of the examination required replacement or modification for 10 of the 75 (13 percent) reactor operator questions. The majority of questions on the reactor operator examination that required replacement or significant modification (7 questions) involved requiring the reactor operator to have knowledge of the technical specifications. The questions on the senior operator examination that required replacement or significant modification (4 questions) involved various reasons. These comments were discussed with facility licensee representatives. The chief examiner determined that the operating examinations initially submitted by thelicensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.No findings of significance were identified.
-7-.4Simulation Facility Performance
a. Examination Scope
The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to plant fidelity during theexamination validation and administration.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified..5Examination Security
a. Examination Scope
The examiners reviewed examination security for examination development during boththe onsite preparation week and examination administration week for compliance with NUREG-1021 requirements. Plans for simulator security and applicant control were reviewed and discussed with licensee personnel during the onsite preparation week.
b. Findings
No findings of significance were identified.4OA6Meetings, Including ExitOn May 24, 2007, the examination team presented a debrief to William R. Brian, VicePresident of Operations, and other members of the licensee's management staff at the conclusion of the operating test. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. A subsequent telecom exit was conducted with members of your staff on June 15, 2007.
The findings as detailed in this report and applicant performance during the examination were discussed. The examiners confirmed that proprietary information was not provided or examined during the examination process. 4OA7Licensee-Identified ViolationsNo findings of significance were identified.ATTACHMENT:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AttachmentA-1SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIONKEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
Steve Reeves, Manager, Operator Initial TrainingCharlie Roberts, Superintendent, Operator Requalification Training
William
- R. Brian, Vice President of Operations
Tom Tinkersley, Nuclear Training Manager
Mike Rasch, Senior Operations Instructor
Jerome Reed, General Manager