ML031880002

NRC Examination Report 50-348/2003-301 and 50-364/2003-301

ML031880002
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	07/03/2003
From:	Ernstes M Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch
To:	Beasley J Southern Nuclear Operating Co
References
50-348/03-301, 50-364/03-301
Download: ML031880002 (10)

See also: IR 05000348/2003301

Text

July 3, 2003

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.

ATTN: Mr. J. B. Beasley, Jr.

Vice President

P. O. Box 1295

Birmingham, AL 35201

SUBJECT: JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT

50-348/2003-301 AND 50-364/2003-301

Dear Mr. Beasley:

During the period May 19-27, 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered

operating examinations to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate

the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant. At the conclusion of the examination, the examiners

discussed the examination questions and preliminary findings with those members of your staff

identified in the enclosed report. The written examination was administered by your staff on

May 30, 2003.

Three reactor operator (RO) applicants and five senior reactor operator (SRO) applicants

passed both the written and operating examinations. Four SRO applicants passed the

operating test but failed the written examination. The NRC resolution of post examination

comments is included in this report as Enclosure 2.

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 By G. Hopper Acting For/

Michael E. Ernstes, Chief

Operator Licensing and

Human Performance Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket Nos.: 50-348, 50-364

License Nos.: NPF-2, NPF-8

Enclosures: (See page 2)

SNC 2

Enclosures: 1. Report Details

2. Simulation Facility Report

cc w/encls:

M. J. Ajluni, Licensing

Services Manager, B-031

Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution

D. E. Grissette

General Manager, Farley Plant

Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution

J. D. Woodard

Executive Vice President

Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution

State Health Officer

Alabama Department of Public Health

RSA Tower - Administration

Suite 1552

P. O. Box 303017

Montgomery, AL 36130-3017

M. Stanford Blanton

Balch and Bingham Law Firm

P. O. Box 306

1710 Sixth Avenue North

Birmingham, AL 35201

William D. Oldfield

Quality Assurance Supervisor

Southern Nuclear Operating Company

Electronic Mail Distribution

Charles D. Nesbitt, Plant Training &

Emergency Preparedness Manager

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant

P. O. Box 470

Ashford, Al 36312

SNC

Distribution w/encls:

F. Rinaldi, NRR

C. Evans (Part 72 Only)

L. Slack, RII EICS

RIDSNRRDIPMLIPB

PUBLIC

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

SIGNATURE /RA/ /RA/ /RA By G. Hopper for/ /RA/

NAME LMiller:pmd TKolb MErnstes JMoorman

DATE 7/3/03 7/3/03 7/3/03 7/3/03

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

PUBLIC DOCUMENT YES NO

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML031880002.wpd

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

Docket Nos.: 50-348, 50-364

License Nos.: NPF-2, NPF-8

Report No.: 50-348/2003-301 and 50-364/2003-301

Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC)

Facility: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2

Location: 7388 N. State Highway 95

Columbia, AL 36319

Dates: Operating Tests - May 19-27, 2003

Written Examination - May 30, 2003

Examiners: L. Miller, Chief, Senior Operations Engineer

S. Rose, Operations Engineer

T. Kolb, Operations Engineer

Approved by: M. Ernstes, Chief

Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosure 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000348/2003-301, ER 05000364/2003-301; Southern Nuclear Corporation; 5/19 -

27/2003; Farley Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Licensed Operator Examinations.

The NRC examiners conducted operator licensing initial examinations in accordance with the

guidance in NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for

Power Reactors. This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR

§55.41, §55.43, and §55.45.

The NRC administered the operating tests during the period May 19 - May 27, 2003. Members

of the Farley Nuclear Station training staff administered the written examination on

May 30, 2003. The written examinations and the operating tests were developed by the NRC.

Three Reactor Operators (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) passed both the

operating and written examinations. Four SRO applicants passed the operating examination,

but failed the initial written examination. The three RO applicants and five SRO applicants who

passed both the operating and written examinations were issued operator licenses

commensurate with the level of examination administered.

No significant issues were identified.

Report Details

4. OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)

4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations

a. Inspection Scope

The NRC developed the written and an outline for the operating examinations in

accordance with the guidelines specified in NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9. The

licensee provided the expected operator actions simulator scenarios and job

performance measures for the operating examinations.

The examiners reviewed the licensees examination security measures while preparing

and administering the examinations to ensure examination security and integrity

complied with 10 CFR 55.49, Integrity of examinations and tests.

The examiners evaluated three Reactor Operator (RO) and nine Senior Reactor

Operator (SRO) applicants who were being assessed under the guidelines specified in

NUREG-1021. The examiners administered the operating tests during the period

May 19 - May 27, 2003. Members of the Farley Nuclear Station training staff

administered the written examination on May 30, 2003. The evaluations of the

applicants and review of documentation were performed to determine if the applicants,

who applied for licensees to operate the Farley Nuclear Station, met requirements

specified in 10 CFR Part 55.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

Three Reactor Operators (RO) and five Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) passed both

the operating and written examinations. Four SRO applicants passed the operating

examination, but failed the initial written examination. The licensee submitted five post

examination comments concerning the written examination. The RO and SRO written

examinations and answer keys, licensees post examination comments, and combined

RO/SRO examination and examination references may be accessed in the ADAMS

system (ADAMS Accession Numbers, ML031820721 and ML031820740,

ML031820718, ML031840048).

4OA6 Meetings

Exit Meeting Summary

On May 28, 2003, the examination team discussed generic issues with Mr. Don

Grissette and members of his staff.

The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the

inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.

2

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee

D. Grissette, General Manager

R. Johnson, Assistant General Manager - Operations

P. Crone, Licensing Manager

C. Barefield, Operations Superintendent

C. Nesbitt, Training Manager

J. Horn, Operations Training Supervisor

NRC

T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector

NRC Resolution of Facility Post Examination Comments

Question # 56

Facility Comment: The stem of the question states that Unit 1 is starting up but does not state if

the startup is being conducted per UOP-1.2 or UOP-1.3. SOP-26.0 Appendix 1 allows the

canal makeup valve to be in remote manual or in automatic operation. Change to accept both

the A and B answers as correct.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation not accepted. There is only one answer. Choice B is the

only correct answer in accordance with the licensees procedures. Which startup procedure,

FNP-1-UOP-2.1 or FNP-1-UOP-1.3, is used does not matter to the question of which one of the

following describes the process by which water is made up to the Circulating Water Canal.

Startup of Unit from Hot Standby to Minimum Load version 62.0, and FNP-1-UOP-1.3 Startup

of Unit Following an at Power Reactor Trip version 44.0, Precautions and Limitations steps 3.34

and 3.35 respectively, state Circulating Water Make-Up Control Valve, Q1P16V560, should be

maintained in the OPEN position with canal level being maintained by use of the manual valves

until Unit 1 reaches 100% Power.

In the initial conditions for FNP-1-UOP-1.2 step 2.23 states, Circ water canal make up is being

controlled manually with N1P16V748, CW CANAL SW SUPP MANUAL ISO, or with

Q1P16V560 in Remote Manual per appendix 1 of FNP-1-SOP-26.0. FNP-1-SOP-26.0,

Circulating Water System version 31.0, provides the specific operating instructions on a variety

of circulating water system lineups and operational modes. Appendix 1 of FNP-1-SOP-26.0

contains guidance on the operational modes, but does not dictate any specific operational

mode for specific plant conditions.

Question #63

Facility Comment: This question should be deleted due to no correct answer.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted. The question is deleted due to no correct

answer.

Question #71

Facility Comment: There are two correct answers.[C and D] If the candidate assumes that

they establish normal charging at that moment and waits on the step to be completed, then they

would see the PZR [pressurizer] level dropping and would attempt to recover by raising

charging flow. In this case they would utilize the RNO column of ESP-1.1, Step 10.2.3 to deal

with the problem and go to ESP-1.2, or the team could use ESP-0.0, Rediagnosis to get to

EEP-1. Either way would be acceptable.

If the team is continues through ESP-1.1, while actions are taken for Step 10.2.3, Step 12 has

the operator check PZR level greater than 7%. There are no radiation alarms, containment

Enclosure 2

2

moisture alarms, or containment sump alarms. The team has no indications of anything going

on other than PZR level dropping. The operator could Assume the PZR level cannot be

restored and is trending to 7%, use the RNO column to re-establish HHSI flow and then

transition to EEP-1. Or due to the unexplained loss of level and needing an SI and a procedural

flow path, enter Rediagnosis, ESP-0.0, based on operator judgement, which would lead you to

EEP-1.

Recommendation not accepted. The stem of the question clearly establishes that At the

procedural step when normal charging was established, PRZR [pressurizer] level started

trending down from 15% and could not be controlled. With pressurizer level decreasing less

than 15% the operator should go to Step 10.2.3 RNO to realign HHSI per Attachment 2.

Applicants were read the NUREG- 1021 Appendix E, Policies and Guidelines for Taking NRC

Examinations which says that if the applicant has questions concerning intent or the initial

conditions of a question, do not hesitate asking the exam proctor. No applicant asked any

question concerning question #71. Appendix E tells the applicant not to make assumptions

regarding conditions not specified in the question unless they occur as a consequence of other

conditions that are stated in the question.

None of the possible answers contained a transition to ESP-0.0, so discussion of use of ESP-

0.0 to reach EEP-1 is not a possible choice. The question stem states that pressurizer level

started trending down from 15% and a rate of decrease is not stated. No starting point was

given for pressurizer level and the SI termination criteria given in FNP-1-EEP-0, Reactor Trip or

Safety Injection, for pressurizer level [Step 30.4] states Check pressurizer level greater than 7

%. Therefore, there is nothing in the question that could be used to establish a rate of

decrease for pressurizer level that would establish pressurizer level of less than or equal to 7%.

Question #81

Facility Comment: Change question to accept A and B. B actions could be acceptable in the

described situation making B a possible correct answer. This is actually the most conservative

thing to do since containment pressure is rising and both ESP-1.3 and FRP-Z.1 have you place

CS on recirculation.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation not accepted. The question is deleted due to the question

stem being technically incorrect and has no answer. The initial conditions stated in the question

are not realistic. It is not possible during a Large Break LOCA for containment pressure

pressure rise to be delayed such that 27 pounds in containment is reached while aligning 1B

RHR pump for cold leg recirculation.

Question #83

Facility Comment: Delete from exam due to low operational validity.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation not accepted. Long term loss of Spent Fuel Pool cooling

can be a real concern. The question evaluates the knowledge of the Abnormal Operating

Procedures, AOP-36.0, Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and tests the understanding of boron

concentrating as temperature approaches the boiling point. The question matches the

033G2.4.11 Knowledge and Abilities (KA) statement of NUREG-1122, Knowledge and Abilities

3

Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators - Pressurized Water Reactors, and has a point

value of 3.4/3.6. The question meets the requirements of 10CFR55.43(b)(5) for a SRO only

question.