IR 05000327/2012301
| ML120670387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/2012 |
| From: | Widmann M Division of Reactor Safety II |
| To: | James Shea Tennessee Valley Authority |
| References | |
| 50-327/12-301, 50-328/12-301 | |
| Download: ML120670387 (13) | |
Text
UNITED STATES rch 6, 2012
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION REPORT 05000327/2012301 AND 05000328/2012301
Dear Mr. Shea:
During the period January 17 - 25, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
administered operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Sequoyah Nuclear 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 February 1, 2012.
All applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. There was one post-administration comment concerning the written examination. The resolution to the licensees comment is provided in this report as Enclosure 2. A Simulator Fidelity Report is included in this report as Enclosure 3.
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) 997-4550.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos.: 50-327, 50-328 License Nos.: DPR-77, DPR-79
Enclosures:
1. Report Details 2. NRC Resolution to the Facility Comments 3. Simulator Fidelity Report
REGION II==
Docket No.: 50-327, 50-328 License No.: DPR-77, DPR-79 Report Nos.: 05000327/2012301, 05000328/2012301 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Facility: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 Location: Sequoyah Access Road Soddy-Daisy, TN 37379 Dates: Operating Test - January 17 - 25, 2012 Written Examination - February 1, 2012 Examiners: Gerard W. Laska, Chief, Senior Operations Examiner Mark A. Bates, Senior Operations Engineer Mark J. Riches, Operations Engineer Andreas Goldau, Operations Engineer, (Certification)
Approved by: Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief Operations Branch 1 Division of Reactor Safety Enclosure 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ER 05000327/2012301, 05000328/2012301, 01/17-25/2012 & 02/1/2012; Sequoyah Nuclear Plant; 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 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant training staff developed both the operating tests and the written examination.
The NRC administered the operating tests during the period January 17 - 25, 2012. Members of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on February 1, 2012. Three Reactor Operator and ten Senior Reactor Operator applicants passed both the operating test and written examination. Thirteen applicants were issued licenses commensurate with the level of examination administered.
There was one post-examination comment on the written examination. The NRC resolution to this comment is summarized in Enclosure 2.
No findings were identified.
Enclosure 1
REPORT DETAILS 4. OTHER ACTIVITIES 4OA5 Operator Licensing Examinations a. Inspection Scope The NRC developed the written examination outline. Members of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 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 Part 55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.
The NRC examiners evaluated three Reactor Operator (RO) and ten Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants using the guidelines contained in NUREG-1021. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period January 17 - 25, 2012.
Members of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant training staff administered the written examination on February 1, 2012. Evaluations of applicants and reviews of associated documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licenses to operate the Sequoyah Nuclear 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 operating test and written examination submittals were both within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
Three RO applicants and ten SRO applicants passed both the operating test and written examination.
There was one post-examination comment. The NRC resolution to this comment is summarized in Enclosure 2. A copy of the final written examination and answer key may be accessed not earlier than February 04, 2014, in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Number ML120550249 and ML120550255). The licensees post-examination comments pertained only to the written examination and may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Number ML120550259).
Copies of all individual examination reports were sent to the facility Training Manager for evaluation and determination of appropriate remedial training.
Enclosure 1
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit Exit Meeting Summary On January 25, 2012, the NRC examination team discussed generic issues associated with the operating test with Mr. J. Carlin, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Site Vice President, and members of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant staff. The examiners asked the licensee if any of the examination material was proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.
Enclosure 1
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT Licensee personnel A. Bergeron, Operations Training Manager M. Buckner, Exam Author J. Carlin, Site Vice President S. Connors, Operations Manager G. Cook, Manager-Licensing Manager D. Erb, Assistant Operations Manager N. Good, Simulator Manager D. Hawes, Initial License Training Supervisor T. Jones, Operations Training Instructor R. Joplin, Corporate Exam Manager R. Proffitt, Licensing Engineer D. Selph, Operations Lead Instructor P. Simmons, Plant Manager S. Smith, LOR Supervisor N. Thomas, Licensing Engineer S. Tuthill, SRO, Facility Representative C. Ware, Training Director B. Wetzel, Director Safety & Licensing K. Wilkes, Operations Support Superintendent NRC personnel W. Deschaine, RI Enclosure 1
Facility Comments and NRC Resolution A complete Text of the licensees post examination comments can be found in ADAMS under Accession Number ML120550259.
Licensee Comments:
Item:
(1) RO Question # 62 62. Given the following plant conditions:
Unit 1 is shutdown and at NOP and NOT Chemistry reports the Hydrogen concentration in A Waste Gas Decay tank at 5% by volume and Oxygen concentration at 3% by volume.
Which ONE of the following describes the gas concentration, if any, that exceeded the Unit 1 Tech Spec 3.11.2.5 limit for waste gas decay tanks?
A. Oxygen only.
B. Hydrogen only.
C. Neither Hydrogen or Oxygen.
A was designated as the correct answer.
Facility Comment:
Facility contends that D is the correct answer.
Justification:
The stem stated that Hydrogen concentration of A WGDT is at 5% and Oxygen concentration is at 3% by volume.
Tech Spec LCO3.11.2.5, Explosive Gas Mixtures, states the concentration of oxygen in the waste gas holdup system shall be limited to less than or equal to 2% by volume whenever the hydrogen concentration exceeds 4% by volume. The basis for this specification states; this specification is provided to ensure that the concentration of potentially explosive gas mixtures contained in the waste gas holdup system is maintained below the flammability limits of hydrogen and oxygen.
The surveillance requirement directs the determination of both H2 and O2 concentrations. The determination of both gases is due to the fact that if the H2 concentration is greater than a limit of 4%, than the O2 limits are required to comply with the LCO.
Enclosure 2
Furthermore, if the hydrogen concentration is reduced to below the hydrogen limit of 4%, then oxygen would be within its limits. If O2 increased to greater than 4% and hydrogen is greater than the limit of 2% (which is less than LCO 3.11.2.5) then additional actions are required per action b. Thus the Tech Spec LCO does contain a limit for hydrogen (either 2% or 4%) and a limit for oxygen (either 2% or 4%) so since H2 given in the stem is greater than 4%, its limit has been exceeded and since O2 given in the stem is greater than 2%, its limit is also exceeded.
Facility Recommendation:
Change Answer Key to reflect D as the correct answer.
NRC RESOLUTION:
The NRC agrees with the licensees contention that D is the correct answer. Upon review of Technical Specification 3.11.2.5 Explosive Gas Mixtures, it is clearly stated that the concentration of oxygen in the waste gas holdup system shall be limited to less than or equal to 2% by volume whenever the hydrogen concentration exceeds 4% by volume. This implies that there is a limit for oxygen and hydrogen. Because LCO 3.11.2.5 oxygen limits are reliant upon the hydrogen concentration, the only correct answer is D. The answer key will be changed to D being the correct answer for question 62.
Enclosure 2
SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Facility Docket No.: 05000327/2012301, & 05000328/2012301 Operating Test Administered: January 17 - 25, 2012 This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and, without further verification and review in accordance with Inspection Procedure 71111.11, are 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 AFW switches failed to operate During scenario validation and examination several times. scenarios several AFW switches failed to operate when demanded. Licensee stated that switches were obsolete. Recently several of these switches were found at the Watts Bar Nuclear station and will be installed after the exam. SDR 5322 was written to address the issue.
Open Simulator Booth. During the administration of the operating test, instructors could be heard whispering and keystrokes to put in malfunctions could also be heard from certain areas inside the simulator.
This could lead to cueing of applicants. SR 495162 was written to address the issue.
Recorder clear function failed to work on Recorder clear function failed to work during several occasions. reset between scenarios (serial communications converter failure) this added to the reset time between scenarios and JPMs. SDR 5330 was written to address the issue.
Generator MW and steam line radiation During validation, one of the operators monitor reading much more stable than the mentioned that the generator MW meter and same indicators in the plant. the steam line radiation monitors were much more stable than the actual indicators in the plant. This enables the applicant to diagnose quicker in the simulator than in the plant. SDR 5332 was written to address this issue.
Enclosure 3
Item Description N-41 failure caused a positive and negative During a scenario with a failure of N-41 high to rate trip on some occasions and a positive rate 120% and then lowered to zero, results for trip on others. positive and negative rate trips were not consistent. SDR 5323 was written to address this issue.
RCS Tavg on instructor station and RHR Heat During a JPM that swapped RHR system exchanger A inlet temperature on TR-74-14 lineups from the B train to the A train RCS increased more than expected. Tavg on the instructor station, and RHR A inlet temperature increased more than expected. SDR 5333 was written to address this issue.
Enclosure 3