IR 05000445/2016301
| ML16267A105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/2016 |
| From: | Vincent Gaddy Division of Reactor Safety IV |
| To: | Peters K Luminant Generation Co |
| References | |
| 50-445/OL-16, 50-446/OL-16 | |
| Download: ML16267A105 (50) | |
Text
September 23, 2016
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000445/2016301; 05000446/2016301
Dear Mr. Peters:
On July 18, 2016, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial operator license examination at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. The enclosed report documents the examination results and licensing decisions. The preliminary examination results were discussed on July 13, 2016, with Mr. T. McCool, Site Vice President, and other members of your staff. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on August 10, 2016, with Mr. G. Struble, Simulator and Licensing Examination Manager, who was provided with the NRC licensing decisions.
The examination included the evaluation of three applicants for reactor operator licenses and three applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator licenses. The license examiners determined that five of six applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and the appropriate licenses have been issued. There were four post-examination comments submitted by your staff. Enclosure 1 contains details of this report, Enclosure 2 summarizes post-examination comment resolution, and Enclosure 3 documents two minor simulator deficiencies.
No findings were identified during this examination.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice and Procedure," 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 NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management 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/
Vincent G. Gaddy, Chief Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89
Enclosures:
1. Examination Report 05000445/2016301;
05000446/2016301, w/Attachment:
Supplemental Information 2. NRC Review of Comanche Peak Nuclear
Power Plant Written Post-Examination
Comments 3. Simulator Fidelity Report
REGION IV==
Dockets:
05000445, 05000446 Licenses:
05000445/2016301; 05000446/2016301 Licensee:
Luminant Generation Company, LLC Facility:
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Location:
6322 N. FM-56, Glen Rose, Texas Dates:
July 11 through August 10, 2016 Inspectors:
B. Larson, Chief Examiner, Senior Operations Engineer J. Kirkland, Senior Operations Engineer M. Hayes, Operations Engineer Approved By:
Vincent G. Gaddy Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
- 2 -
SUMMARY
ER05000445/2016301; 05000446/2016301; 07/11/2016 - 08/10/2016; Comanche Peak Nuclear
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Initial Operator Licensing Examination Report.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of three applicants for reactor operator licenses and three applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator licenses at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The licensee developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 10. The written examination was administered by the licensee on July 18, 2016. NRC examiners administered the operating tests the week of July 11, 2016.
The license examiners determined that two of three applicants for reactor operator licenses and all three applicants for upgrade senior reactor operator licenses satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. One reactor operator license applicant failed the written portion of the examination. The appropriate licenses have been issued.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
None
Licensee-Identified Violations
None
REPORT DETAILS
OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
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 three of the license applications in detail to confirm they accurately reflected the subject applicants qualifications. This audit focused on the applicants 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 senior reactor operator (SRO)-only written examination initially submitted by the licensee was not within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. The NUREG-1021 standard for an unsatisfactory submittal requires more than 20 percent of the written examination questions (reactor operator (RO)/SRO written examinations assessed separately) must be classified as unsatisfactory based on criteria in Section ES-401. The proposed SRO-only written examination was determined to be unsatisfactory as a result of a facility licensee requested post-examination change to Question 79. Section ES-501, C.2.c, states the regional office will also consider post-examination deletions and changes when evaluating the quality of the facility licensees proposed examination for documentation in the examination report. The licensee indicated they would write a condition report to address the issue of an unsatisfactory SRO-only written examination submittal after this examination report is issued. As required by NUREG-1021, it is noted that future examination submittals should incorporate any lessons learned from the joint NRC and facility licensee examination review process.
NRC examiners determined the RO written examination initially submitted by the licensee was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. It is noted that the combined number of unsatisfactory questions and editorial revisions (76 percent) across both written examinations caused a substantial amount of work by NRC examiners and licensee staff to obtain an approved written examinations for administration.
The statistics for the proposed written examination were as follows:
Reactor Operator (RO) written examination (75 total questions)
1. Eleven questions were unsatisfactory (15 percent)
2. Forty-eight questions required editorial changes (64 percent)
Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) written examination (25 total questions)
1. Six questions were unsatisfactory (24 percent)
- Question to K/A Mismatch - 2
- Stem Focus Flaws - 3
- Not SRO-only - 1
2. Eleven questions required editorial changes (44 percent)
Combined written examinations (100 total questions)
1. Seventeen questions were unsatisfactory (17 percent)
2. Fifty-nine questions required editorial changes (59 percent)
During the initial facility contact, the licensee was reminded of the option to submit some sample test items (up to ten written questions, one scenario, and one to two job performance measures) for preliminary review and comment by the chief examiner in accordance with the guidance contained in NUREG-1021, ES-201. The chief examiner described the intended approach of the test item review to be early in the examination development process as it was designed to give the licensees examination writer(s) an understanding of what constitutes a satisfactory test item. It also provided an opportunity for the licensee to submit questions without them being assessed as unsatisfactory on the proposed examination submittal (if appropriate changes were made prior to the proposed examination submittal). The licensee did submit 10 questions for review, but chose to submit the questions after most of the written examination questions were completed. The facility expressed that their use of the sample test item review was more for correcting format type issues and did not expect to uncover significant errors that would have had any major impact on the questions content (also true for the sample operating test item review).
NRC examiners determined the operating test initially submitted by the licensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. One observation regarding operating test outlines was the submittal of two scenario outlines that were exactly the same and one scenario that was almost the same as scenarios used on a previous NRC initial license examination (third previous NRC examination). While the outlines did meet the criteria of not having been used on either of the last two NRC examinations, it was discussed with the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant facility representative that the submittal did not meet the expectation for discrimination validity as discussed in NUREG-1021, Appendix A. The licensee re-submitted one entirely new scenario and significantly modified the other scenarios.
.3 Operator Knowledge and Performance
a. Scope
On July 18, 2016, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all six applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on July 22, 2016.
The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating test to all applicants during the week of July 11, 2016.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
Five of the six applicants passed the written examination and all six applicants passed all parts of the operating test. The final written examinations, the operating test, and post-examination analysis and comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment.
The licensee noted the following generic weaknesses during the written examination reviews:
1. Containment spray chemical add tank discharge valve configuration and
power supplies
2. Component cooling water train isolation valve arrangements
3. Reasons for performing additional load shedding per ECA-0.0,
2.C
4. The use of standing orders and their relationship to approved procedures
5. Tech Spec 3.1.6 Bases
6. Tech Spec 3.3.3 Bases
7. Performance of Operability Assessments
The licensee wrote Condition Report CR-2016-006876 to address these knowledge weaknesses.
The examination team noted the following generic weaknesses during the operating test:
1. Time critical actions associated with the containment spray system
2. ABN-712, Section 3.0, Step 15.h - "Verify Rod Control Urgent Failure Alarm -
clear" and associated logic diagram from ALM
3. Response to Letdown temperature control valve controller failure, 1-TK-130
4. Main feedwater control during abnormal conditions
5. Post reactor trip auxiliary feedwater control
6. Procedure use and adherence
Additionally, the licensee submitted four post-examination comments (Q43, Q48, Q73, Q79) that required review and disposition by the chief examiner. The Region IV Operations Branch Chief assigned a panel of three examiners to review each question submitted in the post-examination comments. None of the examiners assigned to the panel had any involvement with examination development, validation, or administration of the written examination. The panel results were provided to the chief examiner for use in developing the NRC resolution for each question. Enclosure 2 of this report contains the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant post-examination comments and NRC resolution for each of the four questions. The entire licensees post-examination comments and analysis can be found in ADAMS using Accession Number ML16262A036.
Copies of all individual examination reports were provided the facility training manager 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.
During administration of the operating tests, two simulator deficiencies were identified.
See Enclosure 3, Simulator Fidelity Report, for details.
.5 Examination Security
a. Scope
The NRC examiners reviewed examination security for examination development during both the on-site validation 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
/Observations
No findings were identified.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
Exit Meeting
The chief examiner presented the preliminary examination results to Mr. T. McCool, Site Vice President, and other members of the staff on July 13, 2016. A telephonic exit was conducted on August 10, 2016, between Mr. B. Larson, Chief Examiner, and Mr. G. Struble, Operations Training Manager, where final licensing decisions were provided.
The licensee did not identify any information or materials used during the examination as proprietary.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
- T. McCool, Site Vice President
- J. Dreyfuss, Plant Manager
- T. Hope, Regulatory Affairs Manager
- G. Struble, Operations Training Manager
- A. Glass, Operations Training Supervisor
- D. Cox, Initial Operations Training Supervisor
- S. Dixon, Licensing Analyst
- R. Blankenship, Consulting Engineer
- J. Ruby, Exam development staff
NRC Personnel
- J. Josey, Senior Resident Inspector
- R. Kumana, Resident Inspector