ML022970033
| 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) | |
See also: IR 05000395/2002301
Text
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
Enclosure 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket No.:
50-395
License No.:
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
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
Enclosure 2
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.
Alarm would come in inappropriately
Enclosure 3
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
2
Enclosure 3
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.