IR 05000397/2011301
| ML111751311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/2011 |
| From: | Mark Haire Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Reddemann M Energy Northwest |
| References | |
| 50-397/11-301 | |
| Download: ML111751311 (12) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUC LE AR RE G UL AT O RY C O M M I S S I O N une 23, 2011
SUBJECT:
COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000397/2011301
Dear Mr. Reddemann:
On April 30, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial operator license examination at Columbia Generating Station. The enclosed report documents the examination results and licensing decisions. The preliminary examination results were discussed on April 29, 2011, with Mr. Bruce MacKissock, Plant General Manager, and other members of your staff. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on May 13, 2011, with Mr. Ron Hayden, Operations Training Specialist, who was provided the NRC licensing decisions.
The examination included the evaluation of six applicants for reactor operator licenses, seven applicants for instant senior reactor operator licenses and one applicant for upgrade senior reactor operator license. The license examiners determined that thirteen of the fourteen applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and the appropriate licenses have been issued. There were two post examination comments submitted by your staff. The details of this report and the post examination comment resolution are contained in the enclosure.
No findings 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 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 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/
Mark S. Haire, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
Energy Northwest -2-Docket: 50-397 License: NPF-21
Enclosure:
NRC Examination Report 05000397/2011301
REGION IV==
Docket: 50-397 License: NPF-21 Report: 05000397/2011301 Licensee: Energy Northwest Facility: Columbia Generating Station Location: Richland, Washington Dates: April 22 to May 13, 2011 Inspectors: S. Hedger, Chief Examiner, Operations Engineer K. Clayton, Senior Operations Engineer T. Farina, Operations Engineer B. Larson, Senior Operations Engineer D. Strickland, Operations Engineer Approved By: Mark S. Haire, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 1 Enclosure
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
ER05000397/2011301; April 22 to May 13, 2011; Columbia Generating Station; Initial Operator
Licensing Examination Report.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of six applicants for reactor operator licenses, seven applicants for instant senior reactor operator licenses and one applicant for upgrade senior reactor operator license at Columbia Generating Station.
The licensee developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 9, Supplement 1. The written examination was administered by the licensee on 4/22/2011. NRC examiners administered the operating tests on week of April 25, 2011.
The examiners determined that thirteen of the fourteen applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. One of the applicants that satisfied the 10 CFR Part 55 requirements to receive a license was not issued one based on facility written request to withdraw the individuals license application.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
No findings were identified.
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. The examiners also audited five of the license applications in detail to confirm that 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 that the written examinations and operating tests initially submitted by the licensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
.3 Operator Knowledge and Performance
a. Scope
On April 22, 2011, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all fourteen applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis and post examination comments to the NRC on May 2, 2011.
The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating tests to all fourteen applicants on week of April 25, 2011.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
All of the applicants passed all parts of the operating test. Thirteen applicants passed the written examination. One reactor operator applicant failed the written examination.
The final written examinations (on delayed release schedule) and post-examination analysis and comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment.
The examination team noted several generic weaknesses with inconsistencies in procedures. Two deal with clarifications needed to procedures with the Traversing In-Core Probe (TIP) malfunction and the Main Turbine governor valve optimization procedures (documented in Action Requests 00237425 and 00239466). In addition, inconsistencies between procedure text and equipment labeling were identified in the TIP malfunction and Control Room evacuation procedure (documented in Action Request 00239461).
.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.
Several discrepancies were found in the simulator during the administration of both JPMs and dynamic scenarios. The licensee documented the issues with Action Request Reports (Action Requests 00239405 and 00239462), and they are described in 2 of this report.
.5 Examination Security
a. Scope
The NRC examiners reviewed examination security during both the onsite preparation 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
No findings were identified.
.6 Facility Post Exam Comments
The facility provided the examiners with two post administration comments on the written examination (RO Questions 15 and 53). The following are the respective questions, the licensee comments, and the examiners evaluation of the licensees comments:
RO QUESTION # 15 LICENSEE COMMENT:
NRC RESOLUTION: The NRC reviewed this question, as well as the following references:
- Procedure 5.0.10, Flowchart Training Manual, Revision 15
- Procedure PPM 5.2.1, Primary Containment Control
- Initial Licensing Class Course Training Slides - Emergency Operating Procedure 5.2.1, Primary Containment Control
- Initial Licensing Class Course Training Slides - Columbia Generating Station EOPs Variables and Figures - PPM 5.0.10, Section 7.0
- Records of questions asked by the applicants during written exam administration Full text of the original Question #15:
Entry into PPM 5.2.1, Primary Containment Control, has been made due to lowering Suppression Pool water level.
If the lowering trend were to continue, which of the following systems vortex limit would be reached first?
A. RHR-A B. RHR-C C. RCIC D. HPCS ANSWER: C The licensee asserts that the systems vortex limit that would be reached first is not merely a question of physical configuration (location of pumps suction piping in the Wet Well), but also a question of current specific system alignment (i.e., whether it can reasonably be assumed that the system in question is aligned for Wet Well suction at the time). The NRC concludes that it is not unreasonable to assume that, given no other indications in the stem, the RCIC system suction may well be aligned to the CST.
However, no assumption as to the particular system alignment is necessary or relevant to answering the question as worded. The stem of the question clearly tests the applicants knowledge of which vortex limit would be reached first. The vortex limit is set based on system specific design that translates into a suppression pool (Wet Well)level needed to maintain minimum suction pressure for the given system. The vortex limit for RCIC is reached when WW level reaches 17.5 ft. regardless of how the system is aligned at that moment; if the suction of RCIC was aligned to the WW when the limit is reached, then action would be required; if the system were not aligned to the WW when the limit is reached, then realignment of the RCIC suction to the WW would be prohibited. Either way, the vortex limit for RCIC is reached at 17.5 ft., which is the first system vortex limit to be reached, making C the only correct answer to the question as asked. It is a discrete limiting value for each operating system to protect it if its suction is aligned to the Wet Well. To answer the question correctly requires knowledge of which systems vortex limit and suction piping elevation in the Wet Well would be reached first. Therefore, Answer C is correct.
RO QUESTION # 53 LICENSEE COMMENT:
NRC RESOLUTION: The NRC reviewed this question, as well as reference SD000188, Columbia Generating Station System Description - DC Distribution, Revision 9.
Full text of the original Question #53:
If, during transient conditions on the 125 VDC system, the power output of battery charger E-C1-1A is exceeded by 10 amps, which of the following explains the resultant condition of the battery chargers and the battery?
A.
The E-B1-1 battery picks up and supplies the entire load. The battery could handle this load for a minimum of two hours.
B.
Per ABN-ELEC-125VDC, E-C1-1B would be placed in service and would assume the remainder of the load.
C.
E-C1-1A will supply the entire load but at a reduced power output. All loads will experience a lower voltage but voltage will remain GT 105 VDC.
D.
E-C1-1A supplies its max load and the battery, E-B1-1 supplies the remaining load. The DC system could handle this transient load for at least two hours.
ANSWER: D To accept that answer A is also correct would require battery charger E-C1-1As output current limiting circuit to fail. When its current limiting circuit is functioning as expected, it limits output current to 115 to 125% of rated output current of the battery charger. The rated output current of the battery charger is 200 Amps. Therefore, the maximum current output from the battery charger is 230-250 Amps. Battery charger E-C1-B, which is connected to the same DC distribution, is normally in standby and does not auto start under transient conditions. Therefore, an assumption would have to be made by the applicants taking the test that battery charger E-C1-1As current limiter circuit had failed in order to allow current in excess of 400 Amps in that portion of the DC distribution.
The question stem does not indicate that the current limiting circuit had failed, and a transient causing the amperage output of the battery charger to be 10 Amps higher than normal would be well within the capacity of the current limiting circuit to function properly. In conclusion, it has been determined that there is only one correct answer to this question, which is the original answer (Answer D).
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
The chief examiner presented the preliminary examination results to Messrs. Bruce MacKissock, Plant General Manager; Kevin Smart, Operations Training Supervisor; Ken Elliot, Initial Licensing Class Supervisor, and other members of the staff on April 29, 2011. A telephonic exit was conducted on May 13, 2011, between Messrs. Sean D.
Hedger, Chief Examiner, and Ron Hayden, Operations Training Specialist.
The licensee did not identify any information or materials used during the examination as proprietary.
ATTACHMENT 1:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
- B. MacKissock, Plant General Manager
- K. Smart, Operations Training Supervisor
- K. Elliot, Initial Licensing Class Supervisor
- C. Maxwell, Operations Training Specialist
- L. Williams, Acting Licensing Supervisor
- D. Gregoire, Acting Regulatory Affairs Manager
- R. Garcia, Licensing Engineer
- P. Taylor, Maintenance Support Manager
NRC Personnel
- R. Cohen, Senior Resident Inspector
- M. Hayes, Resident Inspector