Text

NRC Examination Report 50-395/2002-301
	ML022970033
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	10/23/2002
From:	Ernstes M; Division of Reactor Safety II
To:	Byrne S; South Carolina Electric & Gas Co
References
	50-395/02301
	Download: ML022970033 (12)
	v • d • e

October 23, 2002

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

ATTN: Mr. Stephen A. Byrne

Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

P. O. Box 88

Jenkinsville, SC 29065

SUBJECT: VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT

50-395/2002-301

Dear Mr. Byrne:

During the week of September 9, 2002, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

administered operating examinations to to six Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants who

had applied for licenses to operate the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. On September 17,

2002, the NRC administered the NRC written examination to the six applicants. The enclosed

report documents the examination results and findings which were discussed on September 13,

2002.

All Senior Reactor Operator applicants who received the written examination and operating test

passed. No findings of significance were identified. A Simulation Facility Report is included in

this report as Enclosure 2. There were three Post Examination comments. Post examination

comment resolutions are included in this report as Enclosure 3.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 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 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).

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (404) 562-4638.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Michael E. Ernstes, Chief

Operator Licensing and Human

Performance Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket No. 50-395

License No. NPF-12

Enclosure: (See page 2)

SCE&G 2

Enclosures: 1. Report Details

2. Simulation Facility Report

3. NRC Resolution of Comments

cc w/encls:

R. J. White

Nuclear Coordinator Mail Code 802

S.C. Public Service Authority

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

Electronic Mail Distribution

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Winston and Strawn

Electronic Mail Distribution

Henry J. Porter, Director

Div. of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.

Dept. of Health and Environmental

Control

Electronic Mail Distribution

R. Mike Gandy

Division of Radioactive Waste Mgmt.

S. C. Department of Health and

Environmental Control

Electronic Mail Distribution

Gregory H. Halnon, General Manager

Nuclear Plant Operations (Mail Code 303)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

Electronic Mail Distribution

Melvin N. Browne, Manager

Nuclear Licensing & Operating

Experience (Mail Code 830)

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

Electronic Mail Distribution

Steve Furstenburg

Training Manager

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

P. O. Box 88 (Mail Code P-40)

Jenkinsville, SC 29065

SCE&G 3

Distribution w/encls:

G. Edison, NRR

RIDSNRRDIPMLIPB

PUBLIC

OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRP

SIGNATURE /RA/ /RA/ /RA/ /RA/

NAME LMiller:pmd SRose MErnstes KLandis

DATE 10/22/2002 10/22/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002

E-MAIL COPY? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

PUBLIC DOCUMENT YES NO

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML022970033.wpd

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

Docket No.: 50-395

License No.: NPF-12

Report No.: 50-395/02-301

Licensee: South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Company

Facility: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

Location: P. O. Box 88

Jenkinsville, SC 29065

Dates: Operating Examination - September 9-13, 2002

Written Examination - September 17, 2002

Examiners: Lee R. Miller, Senior Operations Engineer

Steven D. Rose, Operations Engineer

Approved by: Michael E. Ernstes, Chief

Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosure 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000395/02-301, on 9/9-13/2002, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station licensed operator examinations.

NRC examiners conducted an announced operator licensing initial examination in accordance

with the guidance of Examination Standards, NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1. This

examination implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and

§55.45.

Six senior reactor operator (SRO) applicants received written examinations and operating tests.

The NRC administered the operating tests during the week of September 9, 2002. The NRC

administered the written examination on September 17, 2002.

Report Details

4. OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)

4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations

a. Inspection Scope

The examiners evaluated six SRO applicants who were being assessed under the

guidelines of the Examination Standards (ES), NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1.

The NRC developed the written examination. The licensee reviewed and validated the

written exam. The simulator scenarios and Job Performance Measure (JPM) set were

validated during a preparation visit conducted during the week of August 19, 2002. The

written examination was administered by the NRC on September 17, 2002. Six senior

reactor operator (SRO) applicants received written examinations and operating tests.

The examiners reviewed the results of the written examination and evaluated the

applicants compliance with and use of plant procedures during the simulator scenarios

and JPMs.

b. Issues and Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

Six of six SRO applicants passed the written examination and the operating

examination.

The licensee submitted two post-examination comments on the written examination and

one comment on the operating test (ADAMS Accession Number: ML022940037). A

copy of NRCs resolution of these comments is provided in Enclosure 3. The NRC

accepted one and part of the other written examination comments and revised the final

SRO written examination answer key accordingly (ADAMS Accession Number:

ML022950184). The NRC reviewed the comment provided concerning the operating

test. The comment was a request to accept two possible classifications on a security

event. The NRC did not accept the comment.

4OA6 Meetings

Exit Meeting Summary

The Chief Examiner presented the preliminary examination results on September 13,

2002, to members of licensee management. The licensee acknowledged the

examination results presented. No proprietary information was received.

2

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee

S. Byrne, Senior VP

G. Halnon, General Manager Nuclear Plant Operations

K. Nettles, General Manager Nuclear Support Services

D. Gatlin, Operations Manager

D. Goldston, Operations Supervisor

A. Koon, Supervisor, Operations Training

S. Furstenburg, Training Manager

Attended Exit Interview

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED

NUREG-1021, Rev. 8 supplement 1: Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power

Reactors

ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Opened

None

Closed

None

Discussed

None

SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT

Facility Licensee: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1

Facility Docket No.: 50-395

Operating Tests Administered on: September 9-13, 2002

This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit

or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of

noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification or

approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information that may be used in future

evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.

While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were

observed:

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Annunciator XCP-614 (2-6), CCW to Did not properly model the 20 sec. time delay

CHG PP VLV as in the plant.

XCP-621, CRB INSERT LIMIT LO Alarm would come in inappropriately

Enclosure 2

FACILITY COMMENTS

NRC RESOLUTION OF FACILITY COMMENTS

QUESTION #17 SRO:

Recommendation accepted:

The NRC agrees with the licensees comment that answer A is correct, charging flow will

decrease in response to a level reference signal decrease of 5%.

QUESTION #24 SRO

The NRC agrees with the licensees comment that answer D is the correct answer. The

NRC disagrees with the licensees comment that answer B is also a correct answer.

The NRC reviewed the licensees comments, the licensees supporting information, and

the systems training material for Core Subcooling Monitor, IC-12. The facilitys

reference material indicated that the RTD temperature and thermocouple temperature

inputs were auctioneered high in the microprocessor. The microprocessor calculated

saturation temperature by comparing the pressure signal to the respective temperature

signals (RTD or thermocouple) and the Temperature margin-to-saturation was indicated

on the main control board (MCB) by four meters (two meters per train). The meters

indicate margin to saturation based on pressure versus auctioneered high RTD

temperature and pressure versus auctioneered high thermocouple temperature. The

review revealed that the facilitys reference material was silent concerning whether the

Subcooling Monitor would autoselect the other thermocouple assigned in the failed

thermocouple core quadrant.

In conclusion, the NRC has determined, based on the above discussion, that answer D

is the only correct answer.

ADMINISTRATIVE JPM A.4 CLASSIFY AN EMERGENCY PLAN EVENT

The NRC disagrees with the licensees comment that the initiating conditions were

unclear. The initial conditions clearly stated three conditions: (1) Severe weather

warnings for the site. (2) An armed intrusion is in progress. (3) The RWST has been

destroyed by an explosion. The information given in the initial conditions provides the

applicants with adequate information to classify the emergency plan event and indicate

the basis for the classification.

The NRC disagrees with the licensees comment that the detection method provided

enough latitude to allow defaulting to a higher classification. With security as the

initiating event, the applicant should consider condition 281, Ongoing Severe Security

Threat. The detection method for condition 281 was stated as, Security safeguards

contingency event which results in adversaries commandeering an area of the plant, but

not impacting shutdown capacity. The initial condition (2), an armed intrusion is in

progress, met the condition 281 detection statement.

The initial conditions provided in the examination did not meet the condition 381,

Security Threat Involving Imminent Loss of Physical Control of the Plant, detection

Enclosure 3

2

method statement because there was no information given or implied which indicated a

physical attack on the plant involving imminent occupancy of either the Control Room or

Control Room Evacuation Panel Rooms was in progress. With the information provided

in the initial conditions selection of condition 281 would result in an Alert declaration.

The applicant must also consider the impact on classification from initial condition (3):

The RWST has been destroyed by an explosion. The loss of the RWST met condition

292 , Other Hazards being Experienced or Projected Which have a Significant Potential

for Affecting Plant Safety. However, it did not meet condition 392, Other Hazards

being experienced or Projected with Plant not in Cold Shutdown, since the RWST is not

a function needed for Hot Shutdown. With the information provided in the initial

conditions selection of condition 292 would result in an Alert declaration.

The NRC also disagrees with the licensees proposal to accept either the classification

of Alert or Site Area Emergency as long as the candidate stated the proper justification.

The NRC examination team is absolutely certain that nothing was stated directly or

implied by them that could have been construed that more than one classification

category would be acceptable. There are times when classification of an emergency

plan event must be made without the benefit of all the facts or within the comfort zone of

the IEDs, but with the information known at the time. Escalation to the next higher

emergency action level is not always appropriate.

In conclusion, the NRC determined that based on the initiating conditions, an armed

intrusion is in progress and the RWST destroyed by an explosion, the only correct

classification was an Alert.

Enclosure 3

ML022970033

Text

Navigation menu

Search