IR 05000324/2012301
| ML13024A218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/2013 |
| From: | Mark Franke NRC/RGN-II/DRS/EB2 |
| To: | Annacone M Carolina Power & Light Co |
| References | |
| 50-324/12-301, 50-325/12-301 | |
| Download: ML13024A218 (14) | |
Text
UNITED STATES ary 23, 2013
SUBJECT:
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000325/2012301 AND 05000324/2012301
Dear Mr. Annacone:
During the period of December 3 - 13, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
administered operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. At the conclusion of the tests, the examiners discussed preliminary findings related to the operating tests with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on December 18, 2012.
All applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. There was one post-administration comment concerning the written examination. This comment, and the NRC resolution of the comment, is summarized in Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.
The initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. All examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and your staff were made according to NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 9, Supplement 1.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs Rules of Practice, a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 997- 4436
Sincerely,
/RA/
Mark E. Franke, Chief Operations Branch 2 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos: 50-325, 50-324 License Nos: DPR-71, DPR-62
Enclosures:
1. Report Details 2. Facility Comments and NRC Resolution 3. Simulator Fidelity Report
REGION II==
Docket No.: 05000325, 05000324 License No.: DPR-71, DPR-62 Report No.: 05000325/2012301 and 05000324/2012301 Licensee: Carolina Power and Light Company Facility: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 Location: Southport, NC Dates: Operating Tests - December 3 - 13, 2012 Written Examination - December 18, 2012 Examiners: B. Caballero, Chief Examiner R. Baldwin, Senior Operations Engineer A. Goldau, Operations Engineer Approved by: Mark E. Franke, Chief Operations Branch 2 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ER 05000325/2012301 and ER 05000324/2012301; operating test December 3 - 13, 2012, &
written exam December 18, 2012; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 & 2; Operator License Examinations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners conducted an initial examination in accordance with the guidelines in Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors." This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements identified in 10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and §55.45, as applicable.
Members of the Brunswick training staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. The NRC developed the written examination outline.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period of December 3 - 13, 2012. The Brunswick training staff administered the written examination on December 18, 2012. Nine Reactor Operators (RO) and three Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. All applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered.
There was one post-examination comment.
No findings were identified.
Enclosure 1
REPORT DETAILS 4. OTHER ACTIVITIES 4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations a. Inspection Scope Members of the Brunswick training staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination. All examination material was developed in accordance with the guidelines contained in Revision 9, Supplement 1, of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors." The NRC examination team reviewed the proposed examination. Examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee were made per NUREG-1021, and incorporated into the final version of the examination materials.
The NRC reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing and administering the examinations in order to ensure compliance with 10 CFR §55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.
The NRC examiners evaluated nine RO, and three SRO applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period of December 3 - 13, 2012. Members of the Brunswick training staff administered the written examination on December 18, 2012. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55, Operators Licenses.
b. Findings No findings were identified. The NRC determined, using NUREG-1021, that the licensees initial examination submittal was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
All applicants passed both the operating test and written examination and were issued licenses.
Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the Training Manager for evaluation and determination of appropriate remedial training.
The licensee submitted one post-examination comment concerning the written examination. A copy of the final RO written examination and answer key, final SRO written examination and answer key, with all changes incorporated, and the licensees post-examination comment may be accessed not earlier than January 5, 2015, in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML13008A554, ML13008A524, and ML13008A517).
Enclosure 1
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit Exit Meeting Summary On December 13, 2012, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with you and members of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee Personnel T. Pearson, Superintendant of Operator Training B. Bolin, Senior Nuclear Operations Training Instructor J. Kalamaja, Operations Manager L. Grzeck, Licensing Supervisor (Acting)
W. Jefferson, Director of Site Operations M. Nemec, Supervisor Operator Continuing Training A. Padleckas, Superintendant Nuclear Operations Performance R. Scott, Supervisor Operator Initial Training T. Sherrill, Licensing E. Wills, Plant General Manager NRC personnel None Enclosure 1
FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENT AND NRC RESOLUTION A complete text of the licensees post-examination comment can be found in ADAMS under Accession Number ML13008A517.
Item RO Question #3 Comment In summary, the licensee contended that the answer key was incorrect for this question and requested that the correct answer be changed from Choice B to Choice A.
The licensee contended that the 2A Residual Heat Removal (RHR) heat exchanger shell-to-tube differential pressure would rise when the 2A heat exchanger bypass valve, 2E11-F048A, was opened during shutdown cooling operation because the shell side (RHR) pressure in the heat exchanger would lower and the service water (tube side) pressure would remain the same.
The licensee contended that the only correct answer was Choice A, and that the original answer key selection was an error.
NRC Resolution The licensees recommendation was accepted.
This 2-part question tested the applicants knowledge of:
1) which valve (2E11-F048A OR 2E11-PDV-F068A, 2A Heat Exchanger Service Water Discharge Valve) was allowed to be throttled to lower the cool down rate given the following initial conditions:
- RHRSW Pump 2A Operating
- RHRSW Flow: 2000 gpm
- RHR Pump 2A Operating
- RHR Loop A Flow: 6000 gpm AND 2) how the heat exchanger shell-to-tube differential pressure would be affected after the required valve was manipulated, that is, rise or lower.
For the first part of the question, the two valve choices provided in the 2-part question were 2E11-F048A or 2E11-PDV-F068A. The licensees procedure for service water (2OP-43, Service Water System Operating Procedure) required service water flow to be no less than 2000 gpm; therefore, the only valve allowed to be throttled to lower the cool down rate was 2E11-F048A. Based on this requirement, Choices C and D were incorrect.
Enclosure 2
The question stated that RHR Loop A was operating in the Shutdown Cooling mode of operation with only the 2A RHR Pump operating. In accordance with 2OP-17, Residual Heat Removal System Operating Procedure, Section 5.7, Placing First RHR Loop in Shutdown Cooling Mode, the existing system lineup, once heat removal had commenced, was:
- 2E11-F047A, 2A Heat Exchanger Inlet Valve: FULL OPEN
- 2E11-F003A, 2A Heat Exchanger Outlet Valve: THROTTLED
- 2E11-F048A, 2A Heat Exchanger Bypass Valve: CLOSED OR THROTTLED
- 2E11-F017A, Outboard LPCI Injection Valve: FULL OPEN
- 2E11-F015A, Inboard LPCI Injection Valve: FULL OPEN The licensees procedure for adjusting shutdown cooling flow was 2OP-17, Section 8.12, Shutdown Cooling Flow Adjustments, which stated:
In accordance with 2OP-17, Section 8.12, any of the three valves (2E11-F003A, 2E11-F068A, or 2E11-F048A) were allowed, as necessary, to be adjusted to lower the cool down rate. Since the stem of the question did not list 2E11-F003A as an option for lowering the cool down rate, the applicants were required to choose between throttling open 2E11-F048A or throttling closed 2E11-F068A, which were both operationally valid choices based on operating practices and the procedures allowance, that is, the words as necessary, is listed in Step 5 for all three valves.
However, as previously mentioned, the 2E11-F068A was not allowed to be closed further because the stem stated that the RHR service water flow was 2000 gpm, which was the lowest allowable flow based on 2OP-43 requirements.
The second fill in the blank statement required the applicants to identify how the differential pressure across the heat exchanger tubes was affected when 2E11-F048A was throttled open to lower the cool down rate. The licensee contended that, in accordance with the RHR Pump curve, the discharge pressure of the RHR Pump would lower as system flow was initially increased by throttling open 2E11-F048A, which would result in a lower RHR (shell) side pressure inside the heat exchanger. The licensee contended that the service water (tube) side Enclosure 2
pressure was unchanged when 2E11-F048A was throttled open; therefore, the difference between the shell and tube pressures would increase (rise) since the RHR shell side pressure was slightly lower (Choice A).
The RHR piping configuration was such that 2E11-F048A heat exchanger bypass line tapped in downstream of 2E11-F003A, which had previously been throttled to establish some initial cool down rate. When 2E11-F048A was throttled OPEN to lower the cool down rate, the RHR pump discharge pressure was expected to lower and the RHR loop flow rate was expected to increase, based on the pump curves and piping flow characteristics. Consequently, assuming no further operator action, the shell side pressure inside the RHR heat exchanger was expected to slightly lower; thereby raising the differential pressure across the heat exchanger tubes. The licensee subsequently validated this effect on the plant reference simulator, that is, the resulting shell side heat exchanger pressure was slightly lower after 2E11-F048B was throttled open.
Therefore, the only correct answer to this question is Choice A.
Enclosure 2
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Facility Docket No.: 05000325 and 05000324 Operating Tests Administered on: December 3 - 13, 2012 This form is to used only to report observations. This observation does not constitute audit or inspection findings and, without further verification and review in accordance with Inspection Procedure 71111.11, is not indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.46. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
While conducting the simulator portion of the operating test, examiners observed the following:
Item Description Simulator Service Request Malfunction CF039F, Heater Drain Deaerator (HDD) Level
- 12-0075 Controller Failure, initially caused both HDD Pump discharge valves to fully open; however, when the 2A Pump was tripped, the 2B Pumps discharge valve began throttling correctly even though malfunction CF039F was still active.
Enclosure 3