ML041410115

NRC Examination Report 05000395/2004301

ML041410115
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	05/19/2004
From:	Ernstes M Division of Reactor Safety II
To:	Byrne S South Carolina Electric & Gas Co
References
50-395/04-301
Download: ML041410115 (11)

See also: IR 05000395/2004301

Text

May 19, 2004

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

05000395/2004301

Dear Mr. Mr. Byrne:

During the period April 19-22, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered

operating tests to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate the Virgil

C. Summer Nuclear 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 April 28, 2004.

All six Reactor Operator applicants passed both the written and operating examinations. 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 2.390 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

Enclosures: (See page 2)

SCE&G 2

Enclosures: 1. Report Details

2. Simulation Facility Report

3. Post Examination Comment

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 & Strawn LLP

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

Jeffrey B. Archie, General Manager

Nuclear Plant Operations (Mail Code 303)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

Electronic Mail Distribution

Ronald B. Clary, Manager

Nuclear Licensing & Operating

Experience (Mail Code 830)

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

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

Distribution w/encls:

K. Cotton, NRR

C. Evand, (Part 72 Only)

L. Slack, RII EICS

RIDSNRRDIPMLIPB

PUBLIC

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

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

NAME RBaldwin:pmd LMiller MErnstes KLandis

DATE 5/12/04 5/14/04 5/17/04 5/17/04

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\ML041410115.wpd

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

Docket No.: 50-395

License No.: NPF-12

Report No.: 05000395/2004301

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

Facility: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station

Location: P. O. Box 88

Jenkinsville, SC 29065

Dates: Operating Test, April 19 - 22, 2004

Written Examination, April 28, 2004

Examiners: Richard S. Baldwin, Chief, Senior Operations Engineer

Lee R. Miller, Senior Operations Examiner

Approved by: M. Ernstes, Chief

Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000395/2004301; 04/19 - 22/04; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station; Licensed Operator

Examinations.

The NRC developed the written examination, the NRC and licensee co-developed the operating

test. The operator licensing initial examination outlines were developed by the NRC and the

details to those outlines were developed by the licensee, reviewed by the NRC and

administered by NRC examiners in accordance with the guidance of NUREG-1021, Operator

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

implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR §55.41, and §55.45.

The NRC administered the operating examinations April 19 - 22, 2004. The licensee

administered the written examination on April 28, 2004. All six Reactor Operator applicants

passed the operating and written examinations.

No significant issues were identified.

Report Details

4. OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)

4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations

a. Inspection Scope

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 test. The operator licensing initial examination outlines were developed by the

NRC and the details to those outlines were developed by the licensee, reviewed by the

NRC and administered by NRC examiners 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 six Reactor Operator (RO) applicants who were being

assessed under the guidelines specified in NUREG-1021. The examiners administered

the operating tests during the period of April 19 - 22, 2004. Members of the Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station training staff administered the written examination on April 28,

2004. The evaluations of the applicants and review of documentation were performed

to determine if the applicants, who applied for licensees to operate the VC Summer

Nuclear Station, met 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. All six RO applicants passed both the operating

test and written examination. The licensee submitted three post examination comments

concerning the written examination. The RO written examination and answer key, and

licensees post examination comments may be accessed in the ADAMS system

(ADAMS Accession Numbers, MLO41320360 and MLO41320358).

2

4OA6 Meetings

Exit Meeting Summary

On April 23, 2004, the examination team discussed generic issues with Mr. K. Nettles

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

B. Davis, Training Instructor, Operations

C. Dickey, Training Instructor, Operations.

D. Edwards, Control Room Supervisor

S. Furstenburg, Manager, Nuclear Training

D. Gatlin, Manager, Operations

A. Koon, Supervisor, Operations Training

K. Nettles, General Manager, Nuclear Support

R. Quick, Senior Training Instructor, Operations

R. Sweet, Supervisor, Licensing

NRC personnel

J. Reese, Acting Senior Resident Inspector

SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT

Facility Licensee: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1

Facility Docket No.: 05000395

Operating Tests Administered on: April 19-22, 2004

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

Panel 6108 Power Spike There appeared to be a power spike on this

board during one simulator scenario. All

the meters and indications on this board

oscillated. The board returned to normal

and it appeared that the fluxuation did not

effect the simulator performance. This

event was not repeated during the rest of

the scenarios.

Enclosure 2

NRC Resolutions to Virgil C Summer Nuclear Station Initial Post Exam Comments

RO QUESTION #11:

Comment: The question asks what is the response of the pressurizer level system

with the selector switch in the 460/461 position, when a leak develops in

the sensing line on transmitter 460s reference leg near the connection to

the D/P Cell. The answer key indicates answer B as the correct answer

(i.e., a rise in LT-460, a decrease in charging flow, a decrease in actual

pressurizer level and pressurizer deviation alarm will come in). The

licensee recommends a change of the correct answer to D (i.e., a rise in

LT-460, an increase in charging flow, a decrease in pressurizer level, and

pressurizer heaters will energize). This recommendation is based on the

system line up. LT-460 is only used for indication while LT-461 is used to

control charging and other functions of the control system. The question

asked the expected plant response for the failure of LT-460, which is to

provide indication. The initial answer would have been correct if the

question asked the same information about LT-461, which is the

controlling channel. The licensee used the simulator in two different

instances, (different steam space leak rates of 10 and 75 gpm

respectively) to determine the expected response. In each case, the

simulator proved that answer D was the correct answer. The licensee

recommends that answer B be replaced with answer D.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted. Review of the additional reference material

confirmed that for selection switch position 460/461, D is the correct

answer. The answer key was changed to reflect that D as the only

correct answer.

RO QUESTION #15:

Comment: The question asks what would could cause an CMPTR ROD DEV alarm.

The answer key indicates D (An IPCS computer Alarm) as the correct

answer. This answer was obtained from the annunciator response

procedure (ARP) for the above alarm. The licensee points out that the

ARPs list of probable causes in not encompassing and that other items

not listed could also cause this annunciator to go into alarm. The

licensee recommends that C (An error or failure from both DRPI data

cabinets) could also be an answer. This recommendation is based on

System Matter Expert (SME) opinion. The SME states that Without

specifically stating what the failure mode is, it is possible to have this

alarm in response to many types of DRPI data cabinet failures.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted. Review of additional reference material

provided and SME opinion, confirmed that, under certain conditions, C

could be an additional correct answer. The answer key was changed to

reflect C as an additional correct answer.

Enclosure 3

2

RO QUESTION #38:

Comment: The question asks what would be the effect on the ESFLS system when

performing maintenance on XIT-5901 while in an A1 work week.

Because of this maintenance APN-5901 power was obtained from APN-

1FA. The normal feeder breaker for APN-1FA, trips open due to a fault.

The answer key indicates that C (A Train loads will remain connected

and ESFLS will be disbled) is the correct answer. The licensee

recommends that answer D (B Train Loads will remain connected and

ESFLS will be disabled) also be considered an additional correct answer.

The licensee states that the stem does not stipulate that a vital bus is lost

and it does not stipulate that ESFLS on Train B will not be actuated.

They additionally state that Train A or B running equipment will remain

running. Therefore the first part of distractors C and D are correct.

When APN-1FA power is lost, this causes the A train of ESFLS to be

lost, rendering it disabled. The second part of distractor C and D

stated the same information, that ESFLS is disabled. The licensee

correlated that if ESFLS Train A was disabled due to the conditions in

the stem, then the assumption could be made that this was equivalent to

the words used in distractors C and in the case for distractor D since

the words did not specifically state the B Train of ESFLS then both

distractors would answer the question adequately. The licensee

recommended that both answers C and D are acceptable.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation accepted. The possible answers, distractors C and

D, did not specify the respective train of ESFLS that was affected or the

whole ESFLS system. This inadvertently increased the number possible

answers. The question was written with the understanding that the train

designation at the beginning of the distractor was carried throughout the

entire distractor and encompassed the train of ESFLS. The licensee

pointed out that not designating the train affected could result in

confusion when deciding which answer was correct. In light of this new

information, it was decided that an additional answer of D be allowed.

The answer key was changed to allow D as an additional correct

answer.

Enclosure 3