ML040970487

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC Examination Report 05000280/2004-301 and 05000281/2004-301
ML040970487
Person / Time
Site: Surry  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 04/06/2004
From: Ernstes M
Division of Reactor Safety II
To: Christian D
Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO)
References
50-280/04-301, 50-281/04-301 50-280/04-301, 50-281/04-301
Download: ML040970487 (12)


See also: IR 05000280/2004301

Text

April 6, 2004

Virginia Electric and Power Company

ATTN: Mr. David A. Christian

Senior Vice President and

Chief Nuclear Officer

Innsbrook Technical Center

5000 Dominion Boulevard

Glen Allen, VA 23060

SUBJECT: SURRY POWER STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT

05000280/2004-301 AND 05000281/2004-301

Dear Mr. Christian:

During the period February 23 - March 2, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

administered operating examinations to employees of your company who had applied for

licenses to operate the Surry Power Station. 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 March 4, 2004.

All applicants passed both the written and operating examinations. There were three post

examination comments submitted. The NRC post examination comment resolutions are

included in this report as Enclosure 2.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs "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).

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 Nos. 50-280, 50-281

License Nos. DPR-32, DPR-37

Enclosures: (See page 2)

VEPCO 2

Enclosures: 1. Report Details

2. NRC Resolutions to Surry Power Station Initial Post Exam Comments

cc w/encls:

Chris L. Funderburk, Director

Nuclear Licensing and

Operations Support

Virginia Electric & Power Company

Electronic Mail Distribution

Richard H. Blount, II

Site Vice President

Surry Power Station

Virginia Electric & Power Company

Electronic Mail Distribution

Virginia State Corporation Commission

Division of Energy Regulation

P. O. Box 1197

Richmond, VA 23209

Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq.

Senior Counsel

Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Electronic Mail Distribution

Attorney General

Supreme Court Building

900 East Main Street

Richmond, VA 23219

David T. Llewellyn

Manager of Nuclear Training

Surry Power Station

5570 Hog Island Road

Surry, VA 23883

VEPCO 3

Distribution w/encls:

S. Monarque, NRR

C. Evans (Part 72 Only)

L. Slack, RII EICS

RIDSNRRDIPMLIPB

PUBLIC

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

SIGNATURE /RA/ /RA By E. Lea for/ /RA By L. Miller for/ /RA/

NAME ELea:pmd TKolb MErnstes KLandis

DATE 3/31/04 3/31/04 4/6/02 3/31/04

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\ML040970487.wpd

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

Docket Nos.: 50-280, 50-281

License Nos.: DPR-32, DPR-37

Report Nos.: 05000280/2004-301, 05000281/2004-301

Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO)

Facility: Surry Power Station, Units 1 & 2

Location: 5850 Hog Island Road

Surry, VA 23883

Dates: Operating Test - February 23 - March 2, 2004

Written Examination - March 4, 2004

Examiners: Edwin Lea, Chief, Senior Operations Engineer

Steven D. Rose, Chief (Under Instruction), Operations

Engineer

Timothy C. Kolb, Operations Examiner

Mark A. Bates, Operations Engineer (Under Instruction)

Approved by: M. Ernstes, Chief

Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosure 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000280/2004-301, 05000281/2004-301; 2/23-3/2/2004 and 3/4/2004; Surry Power

Station; Licensed Operator Examinations.

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

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

Power Reactors. This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements identified

in 10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and §55.45.

The NRC administered the operating examination February 23 - March 2, 2004. The Surry

Power Station training staff administered the written examination on March 4, 2004. The written

examination, job performance measures (JPMs) and one scenario were developed by the NRC.

The remaining scenarios (3) were developed by the Surry Power Station training staff from

outlines developed by the NRC. All applicants, four Reactor Operators (RO) and six Senior

Reactor Operators (SRO), passed both the operating and written examinations. All applicants

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 examination, the NRC and licensee co-developed the

operating examination in accordance with the guidelines specified in NUREG-1021,

Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Draft Revision 9. The

NRC examination team reviewed the proposed examination. Examination changes

agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee were made according to NUREG-1021

and incorporated into the final version of the examination materials.

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 four Reactor Operator (RO) and six 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 February 23 -

March 2, 2004. Members of the Surry Power Station training staff administered the

written examination on March 4, 2004. The evaluations of the applicants and review of

documentation were performed to determine if the applicants, who applied for licensees

to operate the Surry Power Station, met the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 55.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

The licensees operating examination submittal was within the range of acceptability

expected for a proposed examination. Four ROs and six SROs passed both the

operating and written examinations. The licensee submitted three post examination

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

with answers and examination references, and licensees post examination comments,

may be accessed in the ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers, ML040890634,

ML040890642, ML040890633).

2

4OA6 Meetings

Exit Meeting Summary

On March 2, 2004, the examination team discussed generic issues with Mr. Kenny

Sloane 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.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee personnel

K. Sloane, Director Nuclear Operations and Maintenance

D. Llewellyn, Manager Nuclear Training

P. Nelson, Supervisor Nuclear Shift Operations

J. Spence, Supervisor Nuclear Operations Training

M. Gabriele, Supervisor Nuclear Operations Support

B. Marshall, Lead License Class Instructor

S. Irwin, License Class Instructor

J. Ashley, Station Licensing Engineer

NRC personnel

G. McCoy, Senior Resident Inspector

NRC Resolutions to Surry Power Station Initial Post Exam Comments

1. Question #38

Facility Comment: Most trainees applied the Management standard for conservative

decision making. If reactor trip is imminent, then manually trip the reactor and perform

the immediate actions of E-0. The definition of IMMINENT is within one to two hours

and continuing deteriorating conditions exist.

DNOS-0101, Nuclear Safety and Conservative Decision Making, states Operators

faced with unexpected or uncertain conditions will place the plant in a safe condition and

will not hesitate, if necessary, to reduce power or trip the reactor.

The conditions provided in this question, one condensate pump running with feed pump

suction pressure at 105 psig and decreasing, can only result if the only running

condensate pump is also significantly degraded. This places the plant in a condition not

considered in the development of AP-21.00, Loss of Main Feedwater Flow.

The Supervisor of Shift Operations said that he would not hesitate to trip the reactor

given the conditions provided in the stem of the question.

We ran this scenario on the simulator and were unable to keep the unit online. It

resulted in a reactor trip 100% of the time.

6 of 10 trainees chose answer (B).

Recommendations: Based on the above information, accept (B) as an alternate correct

answer.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted; the question has two correct answers (A

and B). The NRC concurs that it is reasonable and conservative for an operator to

manually trip the reactor with Main Feedwater pump suction pressure at 105 psig and

slowly lowering. The stem conditions created the sense that the system conditions were

continuing to degrade therefore, a natural assumption was that a reactor trip was

imminent.

Enclosure 2

2

2. Question #41

Facility Comment: Question has no correct answer. If the battery charger DC output

is lost, 1H1-1 cannot be the supply to Vital Bus 1/1A. When the battery charger is lost,

the inverter via the DC Bus, supplies Vital Bus 1/1A not 1H1-2 as stated in choice (D).

Recommendations: Based on the above information, recommend dropping this question

from the exam.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation not accepted. Facility comment that there is no

correct answer to this question is incorrect. Given the conditions of Battery Charger DC

Output for UPS 1A-1 reading zero amps, 1K-A8 (UPS SYSTEM TROUBLE) in alarm,

and 1K-A7 (BATT SYSTEM 1A TROUBLE) in alarm, there is one correct answer.

Answer (D) is correct for the following reasons:

 DC Bus 1A voltage remaining stable indicates that Battery 1A is not supplying

the DC Bus; rather it is being supplied from a non-depleting source. UPS 1A-1 is

not the source for the DC Bus due to the UPS 1A-1 Battery Charger DC Output

indicating zero amps. The alternate source, UPS 1A-2, therefore, would be the

source supplying DC Bus 1A.

 1K-A8 will annunciate when the static switch is in the alternate position. With the

static switch in the alternate position, the power supply to Vital Bus 1 and 1A

would be 1H1-2.

 As stated in answer D, DC Bus 1A could be supplied by UPS 1A-2 as indicated

by DC Bus voltage remaining stable and Vital AC Buses 1 and 1A could be

supplied from 1H1-2. Thus, there is only one correct answer listed as an answer

choice.

 A second possibility for supplying Vital Bus 1 and 1A would be from DC Bus 1A

through the inverter; however, this option is not listed as an answer.

Based on this analysis, answer D is the only correct answer based on the initial

conditions provided in the stem.

3

3. Question #66

Facility Comment: NOTE in 1-OP-VS-001 Page 17 of 51 states If the Containment

Purge Form allows greater than 3000 CFM but less than 20,000 CFM, 1-VS-MOV-

100D will be used to obtain the desired flow. Fine tuning of purge flow using 1-VS-

MOV-101 is allowed.

Step (m) on Page 17 states Adjust 1-VS-MOV-100D and/or 1-VS-MOV-101 until the

desired purge flow is indicated.

Since the stem of the question asked which valve is used to obtain the correct purge

flow rate, some trainees applied the NOTE above and chose to do the final throttling

with 1-VS-MOD-101 to obtain the final rate instead of continuing to throttle 1-VS-MOV-

100D.

4 of 10 trainees chose answer (C).

Recommendations: Based on the above information, accept (C) as an alternate correct

answer.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation not accepted. As stated in 1-OP-VS-001 (Page

17 of 51), fine tuning of flow rates is allowed using 1-VS-MOV-101. Answer choice (C)

states that 1-VS-MOV-101 should be throttled instead of 1-VS-MOV-100D due to the

low flow rate required by the Containment Purge Form. Answer choice (C) is incorrect

because 1-VS-MOV-101 is NOT throttled instead of 1-VS-MOV-100D; rather it could be

throttled in addition to 1-VS-MOV-100D. 1-VS-MOV-101 is not used due to the low flow

rate, 1-VS-MOV-101 is simply used for fine tuning when flow rates are high between

3,000 and 20,000 cfm. 1-OP-VS-001 (Page 42 of 51) NOTE prior to step 5.10.22

states, Physical limitations of 1-VS-MOV-101 will limit purge flow to approximately

3000 cfm for establishment of purge.