ML031880002
| 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
Enclosures: (See page 2)
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
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
Enclosure 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket Nos.:
50-348, 50-364
License Nos.:
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
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,
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
Enclosure 2
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
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.