|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:D. R. Madison (Dennis) Vice President | | {{#Wiki_filter:D. R. Madison (Dennis) Southern Nuclear Vice President - Hatch Operating Company. Inc. |
| -Hatch November 10, 2009 Mr. Bruno Caballero Southern Nuclear Operating Company. Inc. Plant Edwin I. Hatch 11028 Hatch Parkway, North Baxley, Georgia 31513 Tel 912.537.5859 Fax 912.366.2077 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 24T131 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931 | | Plant Edwin I. Hatch 11028 Hatch Parkway, North Baxley, Georgia 31513 Tel 912.537.5859 Fax 912.366.2077 SOUTHERN'\' |
| | COMPANY Energy to Serve Your World sMsM November 10, 2009 LR-PM-004-1109 Mr. Bruno Caballero United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 24T131 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931 |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| Transmittal of 2009-302 Operating Examination Post Exam Comments | | Transmittal of 2009-302 Operating Examination Post Exam Comments |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr. Caballero:== | | ==Dear Mr. Caballero:== |
|
| |
|
| Energy to Serve Your World sM LR-PM-004-1109 In accordance with NUREG 1021, ES-501, "Initial Post-Examination Activities," this is to inform you that Plant Hatch has one post exam comment on the Operating Exam administered the week of October 26 th , 2009. Enclosed is the discussion and recommended resolution.
| | In accordance with NUREG 1021, ES-501, "Initial Post-Examination Activities," this is to inform you that Plant Hatch has one post exam comment on the Operating Exam administered the week of October 26th th , |
| If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. Sincerely, Dennis R. Madison Vice President Nuclear Plant Site D. R. Madison (Dennis) Vice President | | 2009. |
| -Hatch November 10, 2009 Mr. Bruno Caballero Southern Nuclear Operating Company. Inc. Plant Edwin I. Hatch 11028 Hatch Parkway, North Baxley, Georgia 31513 Tel 912.537.5859 Fax 912.366.2077 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 24T131 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931
| | Enclosed is the discussion and recommended resolution. |
| | If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. |
| | Sincerely, |
| | £}~fry)~ |
| | £}~77J~ |
| | Dennis R. Madison Vice President Nuclear Plant Site |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:==
| | Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302) |
| Transmittal of 2009-302 Operating Examination Post Exam Comments
| | JPM SIM 1 Comments: |
| | JPM SIM 1, "Start an Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD) from the Control Room," was administered as part of the 2009-302 operating exam. |
| | While performing as the Simulator Facility operator for the administration of the JPM, it was observed that there was a variance in completion times of the JPM. After the JPM was completed for all applicants, the Chief Examiner questioned the basis for the Standard for JPM step 9, a critical step. |
| | The Standard for step 9 required the operator to place the ASD control switch to the STOP position or depress the SHUTDOWN pushbutton within 5 minutes of receiving annunciators indicating a loss of cooling to the ASD and that the ASD should have tripped. |
| | This standard had been modified during prep week activities based on comments from the Chief Examiner dealing with how long should be allowed to trip or shutdown the ASD. The 5 minutes was based on the fact that there were 3 annunciators that sequentially alarmed over a 12 second period. It was estimated that it would take approximately 1 minute to address each of the 3 alarms, 1 minute to dispatch an operator to the ASD in accordance with the annunciator response procedures for the alarms, and 1 minute to trip or shutdown the ASD. The time to perform these actions, when totaled, equaled 5 minutes. It was discussed that double the allotted time would allow a total time of ten minutes to trip the ASD, but this doubled time was not noted in the Step 9 standard. The reason for using this approach was because an engineering basis for the time was not available and Plant Hatch does not have a defined time standard for these actions. |
| | The vendor for the ASD (VFD), Siemens Industry, was contacted to assist in determining the amount of time that the ASD transformer could be operated with a loss of cooling to the transformer. The following are excerpts from the vendor response: |
| | ((In the case of the power cells, iiff cells were to start bypassing because "In of the temperature being over 65C as measured by their internal sensor, then the VFD would trip once to many cells were bypassed. In the case of the transformer if the average temp of the transformer went up consistently no cells would be bypassed, but the transformer can withstand a higher temperature than the cells and there is a lot more thermal mass to heat up. |
| | ((I am not sure if it is possible to put a definite time frame on when "I |
| | damage would occur if no temperature trips occurred. There are two variables that I can think of now that would cause variations in the time. Initial water temperature when the pumps failed and the VFD output current while there is no cooling water flowing. The biggest current.nD would be the output current. |
| | ((Also, one last item I just thought of. If the pumps were to seize, and "Also, no temperature alarms occurred. There would be the flow loss alarm from the cooling system as well as alarms for the pumps not running/over current/etc. |
| | This has been tested before here at Siemens where the cooling pumps were "Dead Headed" and the VFD was allowed to run. The cells were the device that tripped the VFD on over temperature faults.n faults.D Page 2 of 4 |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr. Caballero:==
| | Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302) |
| | As can be interpreted from the vendor's response, there is not a definitive time for tripping the ASD prior to causing significant damage to the transformer. |
| | Continuing with further review of the Step 9 standard, it was recognized that neither the JPM nor any portion of the JPM had been marked as Time-Critical. Also, none of the applicants were informed that the JPM was Time-Critical as required by NUREG 1021. In fact, based on the following excerpt from NUREG 1021, this JPM is not Time-Critical because shutting down the ASD under the loss of cooling conditions that were presented to the applicants does not have a time period specified in a regulation, nor is it a facility commitment to the NRC. |
| | NUREG 1021, Appendix C step B.5 |
| | : 5. Develop a Time Standard Every JPM shall identify an estimated average time for completing the task. |
| | The time should be measured from the moment that the examinee is read the initiating cue at the plant location in which an operator would normally be given the order to perform the specified task. |
| | JPMs that are considered time-critical (Le., those having a task standard that must be completed within a time period specified in a regulation or a facility commitment to the NRC) shall be uniquely identified and specifically validated. The facility licensee must agree that a failure to complete the task within the specified time will justify a failure of the given JPM. |
| | NUREG 1021, Appendix E, D.4 DA |
| | : 4. Before beginning each JPM, the examiner will describe the initial conditions, explain the task that is to be completed, indicate whether the task is time-critical, and explain which steps are to be simulated or discussed. |
| | Page 3 of 4 |
|
| |
|
| SOUTHERN'\'
| | Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302) |
| COMPANY Energy to Serve Your World sM LR-PM-004-1109 In accordance with NUREG 1021, ES-501, "Initial Post-Examination Activities," this is to inform you that Plant Hatch has one post exam comment on the Operating Exam administered the week of October 26 th , 2009. Enclosed is the discussion and recommended resolution.
| |
| If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. Sincerely, Dennis R. Madison Vice President Nuclear Plant Site Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
| |
| JPM SIM 1 Comments:
| |
| JPM SIM 1, "Start an Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD) from the Control Room," was administered as part of the 2009-302 operating exam. While performing as the Simulator Facility operator for the administration of the JPM, it was observed that there was a variance in completion times of the JPM. After the JPM was completed for all applicants, the Chief Examiner questioned the basis for the Standard for JPM step 9, a critical step. The Standard for step 9 required the operator to place the ASD control switch to the STOP position or depress the SHUTDOWN pushbutton within 5 minutes of receiving annunciators indicating a loss of cooling to the ASD and that the ASD should have tripped. This standard had been modified during prep week activities based on comments from the Chief Examiner dealing with how long should be allowed to trip or shutdown the ASD. The 5 minutes was based on the fact that there were 3 annunciators that sequentially alarmed over a 12 second period. It was estimated that it would take approximately 1 minute to address each of the 3 alarms, 1 minute to dispatch an operator to the ASD in accordance with the annunciator response procedures for the alarms, and 1 minute to trip or shutdown the ASD. The time to perform these actions, when totaled, equaled 5 minutes. It was discussed that double the allotted time would allow a total time of ten minutes to trip the ASD, but this doubled time was not noted in the Step 9 standard.
| |
| The reason for using this approach was because an engineering basis for the time was not available and Plant Hatch does not have a defined time standard for these actions. The vendor for the ASD (VFD), Siemens Industry, was contacted to assist in determining the amount of time that the ASD transformer could be operated with a loss of cooling to the transformer.
| |
| The following are excerpts from the vendor response:
| |
| ((In the case of the power cells, if cells were to start bypassing because of the temperature being over 65C as measured by their internal sensor, then the VFD would trip once to many cells were bypassed.
| |
| In the case of the transformer if the average temp of the transformer went up consistently no cells would be bypassed, but the transformer can withstand a higher temperature than the cells and there is a lot more thermal mass to heat up. ((I am not sure if it is possible to put a definite time frame on when damage would occur if no temperature trips occurred.
| |
| There are two variables that I can think of now that would cause variations in the time. Initial water temperature when the pumps failed and the VFD output current while there is no cooling water flowing. The biggest would be the output current.n
| |
| ((Also, one last item I just thought of. If the pumps were to seize, and no temperature alarms occurred.
| |
| There would be the flow loss alarm from the cooling system as well as alarms for the pumps not running/over current/etc.
| |
| This has been tested before here at Siemens where the cooling pumps were "Dead Headed" and the VFD was allowed to run. The cells were the device that tripped the VFD on over temperature faults.n Page 2 of 4 Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
| |
| JPM SIM 1 Comments:
| |
| JPM SIM 1, "Start an Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD) from the Control Room," was administered as part of the 2009-302 operating exam. While performing as the Simulator Facility operator for the administration of the JPM, it was observed that there was a variance in completion times of the JPM. After the JPM was completed for all applicants, the Chief Examiner questioned the basis for the Standard for JPM step 9, a critical step. The Standard for step 9 required the operator to place the ASD control switch to the STOP position or depress the SHUTDOWN pushbutton within 5 minutes of receiving annunciators indicating a loss of cooling to the ASD and that the ASD should have tripped. This standard had been modified during prep week activities based on comments from the Chief Examiner dealing with how long should be allowed to trip or shutdown the ASD. The 5 minutes was based on the fact that there were 3 annunciators that sequentially alarmed over a 12 second period. It was estimated that it would take approximately 1 minute to address each of the 3 alarms, 1 minute to dispatch an operator to the ASD in accordance with the annunciator response procedures for the alarms, and 1 minute to trip or shutdown the ASD. The time to perform these actions, when totaled, equaled 5 minutes. It was discussed that double the allotted time would allow a total time of ten minutes to trip the ASD, but this doubled time was not noted in the Step 9 standard.
| |
| The reason for using this approach was because an engineering basis for the time was not available and Plant Hatch does not have a defined time standard for these actions. The vendor for the ASD (VFD), Siemens Industry, was contacted to assist in determining the amount of time that the ASD transformer could be operated with a loss of cooling to the transformer.
| |
| The following are excerpts from the vendor response: "In the case of the power cells, if cells were to start bypassing because of the temperature being over 65C as measured by their internal sensor, then the VFD would trip once to many cells were bypassed.
| |
| In the case of the transformer if the average temp of the transformer went up consistently no cells would be bypassed, but the transformer can withstand a higher temperature than the cells and there is a lot more thermal mass to heat up. "I am not sure if it is possible to put a definite time frame on when damage would occur if no temperature trips occurred.
| |
| There are two variables that I can think of now that would cause variations in the time. Initial water temperature when the pumps failed and the VFD output current while there is no cooling water flowing. The biggest would be the output current.D "Also, one last item I just thought of. If the pumps were to seize, and no temperature alarms occurred.
| |
| There would be the flow loss alarm from the cooling system as well as alarms for the pumps not running/over current/etc.
| |
| This has been tested before here at Siemens where the cooling pumps were "Dead Headed" and the VFD was allowed to run. The cells were the device that tripped the VFD on over temperature faults.D Page 2 of 4 Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
| |
| As can be interpreted from the vendor's response, there is not a definitive time for tripping the ASD prior to causing significant damage to the transformer.
| |
| Continuing with further review of the Step 9 standard, it was recognized that neither the JPM nor any portion of the JPM had been marked as Time-Critical.
| |
| Also, none of the applicants were informed that the JPM was Time-Critical as required by NUREG 1021. In fact, based on the following excerpt from NUREG 1021, this JPM is not Time-Critical because shutting down the ASD under the loss of cooling conditions that were presented to the applicants does not have a time period specified in a regulation, nor is it a facility commitment to the NRC. NUREG 1021, Appendix C step B.5 5. Develop a Time Standard Every JPM shall identify an estimated average time for completing the task. The time should be measured from the moment that the examinee is read the initiating cue at the plant location in which an operator would normally be given the order to the task. The facility licensee must agree that a failure to complete the task within the specified time will justify a failure of the given JPM. NUREG 1021, Appendix E, D.4 4. explain the task that is to be completed, and explain which steps are to be simulated or discussed.
| |
| Page 3 of 4 Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
| |
| As can be interpreted from the vendor's response, there is not a definitive time for tripping the ASD prior to causing significant damage to the transformer.
| |
| Continuing with further review of the Step 9 standard, it was recognized that neither the JPM nor any portion of the JPM had been marked as Time-Critical.
| |
| Also, none of the applicants were informed that the JPM was Time-Critical as required by NUREG 1021. In fact, based on the following excerpt from NUREG 1021, this JPM is not Time-Critical because shutting down the ASD under the loss of cooling conditions that were presented to the applicants does not have a time period specified in a regulation, nor is it a facility commitment to the NRC. NUREG 1021, Appendix C step B.5 5. Develop a Time Standard Every JPM shall identify an estimated average time for completing the task. The time should be measured from the moment that the examinee is read the initiating cue at the plant location in which an operator would normally be given the order to perform the specified task. JPMs that are considered time-critical (Le., those having a task standard that must be completed within a time period specified in a regulation or a facility commitment to the NRC) shall be uniquely identified and specifically validated.
| |
| The facility licensee must agree that a failure to complete the task within the specified time will justify a failure of the given JPM. NUREG 1021, Appendix E, DA 4. Before beginning each JPM, the examiner will describe the initial conditions, explain the task that is to be completed, indicate whether the task is time-critical, and explain which steps are to be simulated or discussed.
| |
| Page 3 of 4 Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
| |
| Recommended Resolution:
| |
| The recommendation for this JPM is that the standard for step 9 be changed such that "within 5 minutes of receiving the alarms" is deleted from the standard because JPM SIM 1 is NOT a Time-Critical JPM. The normal time allowance for completion of a JPM that is NOT Time-Critical, as described in the following NUREG excerpt, should be used for the time standard for completing the JPM. The validated time for the JPM was 15 minutes. NUREG 1021, Appendix E, D.5 5. Time-critical JPMs have been validated by your facility and must be completed within the ined time interval in order to obtain a for that JPM. If the examiner believes that you are not making reasonable progress, he will ask you to explain what remains to be done and how it should take before the task. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. Page4of4 Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
| |
| Recommended Resolution: | | Recommended Resolution: |
| The recommendation for this IPM is that the standard for step 9 be changed such that "within 5 minutes of receiving the alarms" is deleted from the standard because IPM SIM 1 is NOT a Time-Critical IPM. The normal time allowance for completion of a IPM that is NOT Time-Critical, as described in the following NUREG excerpt, should be used for the time standard for completing the IPM. The validated time for the IPM was 15 minutes. NUREG 1021, Appendix E, D.5 5. Time-critical JPMs have been validated by your facility and must be completed within the predetermined time interval in order to obtain a satisfactory grade for that JPM. You will be permitted to take whatever time is necessary to complete those JPMs that are not time-critical, provided that you are making reasonable progress toward achieving the task standard. | | The recommendation for this JPM IPM is that the standard for step 9 be changed such that "within 5 minutes of receiving the alarms" is deleted from the standard because JPM IPM SIM 1 is NOT a Time-Critical JPM. IPM. |
| If the examiner believes that you are not making reasonable progress, he will ask you to explain what remains to be done and how long it should take before stopping the task. You will be permitted at least twice the validated time to complete the JPM, whether you are making progress or not. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. Page 4 of 4 Dennis R. Madison Vice President | | The normal time allowance for completion of a JPM IPM that is NOT Time-Critical, as described in the following NUREG excerpt, should be used for the time standard for completing the JPM. IPM. The validated time for the IPM was 15 minutes. |
| -Hatch November 16,2009 Mr. Bruno Caballero Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Plant Edwin I. Hatch 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, Georgia 31513 Tel 912.537.5859 Fax 912.366.2077 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 24T131 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931
| | JPM NUREG 1021, Appendix E, D.5 |
| | | : 5. Time-critical JPMs have been validated by your facility and must be completed within the predetermined ined time interval in order to obtain a satisfactory grade for that JPM. |
| ==Subject:==
| | You will be permitted to take whatever time is necessary to complete those JPMs that are not time-critical, provided that you are making reasonable progress toward achieving the task standard. If the examiner believes that you are not making reasonable progress, he will ask you to explain what remains to be done and how long it should take before stopping the task. You will be permitted at least twice the validated time to complete the JPM, whether you are making progress or not. |
| Transmittal of 2009-302 Written Examination Post-Exam Comments
| | If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. |
| | Page 4 of 4 Page4of4 |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr. Caballero:==
| | Dennis R. Madison Southern Nuclear Vice President - Hatch Operating Company, Inc. |
| | | Plant Edwin I. Hatch 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, Georgia 31513 Baxley. |
| LR-PM-OOS-ll09 In accordance with NUREG 1021, ES-501, "Initial Post-Examination Activities," post exam comments are due within 5 days of exam administration.
| | Tel 912.537.5859 Fax 912.366.2077 SOUTHERN COMPANY November 16,2009 16, 2009 LR-PM-OOS-ll09 LR-PM-005-1109 Mr. Bruno Caballero United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 24T131 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931 |
| This is to inform you that for the NRC Initial License written exam administered at Plant Hatch on November 12th, 2009 (Hatch 2009-302) there were no post-examination question comments from the applicants.
| |
| If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. Dennis R. Madison Vice President Nuclear Plant Site Dennis R. Madison Vice President
| |
| -Hatch November 16, 2009 Mr. Bruno Caballero Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Plant Edwin I. Hatch 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley. Georgia 31513 Tel 912.537.5859 Fax 912.366.2077 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 24T131 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931 | |
|
| |
|
| ==Subject:== | | ==Subject:== |
| Transmittal of 2009-302 Written Examination Post-Exam Comments | | Transmittal of 2009-302 Written Examination Post-Exam Comments |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr. Caballero:== | | ==Dear Mr. Caballero:== |
|
| |
|
| SOUTHERN COMPANY LR-PM-005-1109 In accordance with NUREG 1021, ES-501, "Initial Post-Examination Activities," post exam comments are due within 5 days of exam administration.
| | In accordance with NUREG 1021, ES-501, "Initial Post-Examination Activities," post exam comments are due within 5 days of exam administration. |
| This is to inform you that for the NRC Initial License written exam administered at Plant Hatch on November 12th, 2009 (Hatch 2009-302) there were no post-examination question comments from the applicants. | | This is to inform you that for the NRC Initial License written exam administered at Plant Hatch on November 12th, 2009 (Hatch 2009-302) there were no post-examination question comments from the applicants. |
| If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. | | If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772. |
| | Sincerel~ |
| Dennis R. Madison Vice President Nuclear Plant Site}} | | Dennis R. Madison Vice President Nuclear Plant Site}} |
Similar Documents at Hatch |
|---|
Category:Letter
MONTHYEARIR 05000321/20240102024-11-0606 November 2024
NRC Inspection Report 05000321/2024010 and 05000366/2024010
ML24299A2222024-10-31031 October 2024
Audit Summary for License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to Adopt an Alternative Seismic Method for Categorization of Structures, Systems, and Components
IR 05000321/20240032024-10-30030 October 2024
Edwin I Hatch, Units 1 and 2 - Integrated Inspection Report 05000321/2024003 and 05000366/2024003
NL-24-0357, Notification of Deviation from the Inspection Frequency Requirements of the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) BWR Jet Pump Assembly Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines2024-10-30030 October 2024
Notification of Deviation from the Inspection Frequency Requirements of the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) BWR Jet Pump Assembly Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines
ML24292A1602024-10-22022 October 2024
Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valve Setpoints
ML24290A0792024-10-18018 October 2024
SLR Environmental Preapplication Meeting Summary
ML24303A4102024-10-17017 October 2024
Dir Results Letter to NRC - Hatch - Hurricane Helene
IR 05000321/20244012024-10-10010 October 2024
Security Baseline Inspection Report 05000321-2024401 and 05000366-2024401
ML24256A0282024-09-12012 September 2024
2024 Hatch Requal Inspection Corporate Notification Letter
NL-23-0930, Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591, Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program2024-09-11011 September 2024
Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-591, Revise Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program
NL-24-0337, Interim 10 CFR 21.21(a)(2) Report Regarding Operation Technology, Inc., ETAP Software Error in Transient Stability Program2024-09-0909 September 2024
Interim 10 CFR 21.21(a)(2) Report Regarding Operation Technology, Inc., ETAP Software Error in Transient Stability Program
ML24249A1362024-09-0404 September 2024
EN 57304 - Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, Final Report - No Embedded Files. Notification of the Potential Existence of Defects Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 21
NL-24-0334, 0 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Technical Specifications Bases Changes, Technical Requirements Manual Changes, License Renewal 10 CFR 54 .37(b) Changes, 10 CFR 50.59 Summary Report & Revised Nrc2024-09-0303 September 2024
0 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Technical Specifications Bases Changes, Technical Requirements Manual Changes, License Renewal 10 CFR 54 .37(b) Changes, 10 CFR 50.59 Summary Report & Revised Nrc
IR 05000321/20240912024-08-27027 August 2024
NRC Investigation Report 2-2023-003 and NOV - NRC Inspection Report 05000321/2024091 and 05000366/2024091
IR 05000321/20240052024-08-26026 August 2024
Updated Inspection Plan for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Report 05000321/2024005 and 05000366/2024005
NL-24-0313, Application to Revise Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valves Setpoint Response to Request for Additional Information2024-08-23023 August 2024
Application to Revise Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valves Setpoint Response to Request for Additional Information
IR 05000321/20240022024-08-0808 August 2024
Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2 – Integrated Inspection Report 05000321-2024002 and 05000366-2024002
NL-24-0276, Post-Audit Supplement to License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to Adopt an Alternative Seismic Method for Categorization of Structures, Systems, and Components2024-07-26026 July 2024
Post-Audit Supplement to License Amendment Request to Revise Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to Adopt an Alternative Seismic Method for Categorization of Structures, Systems, and Components
NL-24-0290, Response to Request for Additional Information Related to Request for Specific Exemption2024-07-26026 July 2024
Response to Request for Additional Information Related to Request for Specific Exemption
NL-24-0261, 10 CFR 50.46 ECCS Evaluation Model Annual Report for 20232024-07-19019 July 2024
10 CFR 50.46 ECCS Evaluation Model Annual Report for 2023
ML24198A1252024-07-16016 July 2024
Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 - 2 Notification of Conduct of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50
NL-24-0260, Inservice Inspection Program Owner’S Activity Report (OAR-1) for Refueling Outage 1R312024-07-0909 July 2024
Inservice Inspection Program Owner’S Activity Report (OAR-1) for Refueling Outage 1R31
05000321/LER-2024-003, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System Inoperable Due to Mispositioned Link2024-07-0303 July 2024
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System Inoperable Due to Mispositioned Link
05000321/LER-2024-002-01, Incorrectly Installed Temporary Modification Results in Multiple Conditions Prohibited by Plant Technical Specifications2024-07-0303 July 2024
Incorrectly Installed Temporary Modification Results in Multiple Conditions Prohibited by Plant Technical Specifications
NL-24-0143, Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-752, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment for Repair/ Replacement Activities in2024-06-27027 June 2024
Proposed Alternative to Use ASME Code Case N-752, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment for Repair/ Replacement Activities in
NL-24-0239, Response to Apparent Violation in NRC Inspection Report 05000321, 366/2024090: EA-23-1392024-06-17017 June 2024
Response to Apparent Violation in NRC Inspection Report 05000321, 366/2024090: EA-23-139
ML24163A0532024-06-14014 June 2024
Audit Plan - Alternative Seismic Method LAR
NL-24-0148, Report of Changes to Emergency Plan and Summary of 50.54(q) Analysis2024-06-0404 June 2024
Report of Changes to Emergency Plan and Summary of 50.54(q) Analysis
ML24149A0492024-06-0404 June 2024
SNC Fleet - Regulatory Audit in Support of Review of the License Amendment Request to Revise TS 1.1, Use and Application Definitions, and Add New Technical Specification 5.5.21 and 5.5.17, Online Monitoring Program,
NL-24-0202, SNC Response to Regulatory Issue Summary 2024-01: Preparation and Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations2024-05-24024 May 2024
SNC Response to Regulatory Issue Summary 2024-01: Preparation and Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations
IR 05000321/20240902024-05-15015 May 2024
NRC Inspection Report 05000321-2024090 and 05000366-2024090, Investigation Report 2-2023-003; and Apparent Violation
NL-24-0191, Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 20232024-05-10010 May 2024
Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for 2023
05000321/LER-2024-002, Manual Reactor Trip Due to Loss of Feedwater2024-05-0909 May 2024
Manual Reactor Trip Due to Loss of Feedwater
NL-24-0195, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt Risk Informed Completion Times for Residual Heat Removal Service Water.2024-05-0707 May 2024
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt Risk Informed Completion Times for Residual Heat Removal Service Water.
NL-24-0064, Units 1 & 2 and Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 1.1 and Add Online Monitoring Program to Technical Specification 5.52024-05-0303 May 2024
Units 1 & 2 and Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 & 2 License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 1.1 and Add Online Monitoring Program to Technical Specification 5.5
NL-24-0165, Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Reports and Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for 20232024-04-25025 April 2024
Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Reports and Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for 2023
IR 05000032/20240112024-04-25025 April 2024
Notification of Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Comprehensive Engineering Team Inspection (CETI) Baseline Inspection Report 0500032/2024011 and 05000366/2024011
05000366/LER-2024-002, Incorrectly Installed Temporary Modification Results in a Condition Prohibited by Plant Technical Specifications2024-04-24024 April 2024
Incorrectly Installed Temporary Modification Results in a Condition Prohibited by Plant Technical Specifications
ML23032A3322024-04-24024 April 2024
Issuance of Amendments Nos. 322 and 267, Regarding LAR to Relax Required Number of Fully Tensioned Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Closure Studs in TS Table 1.1-1, Modes
IR 05000321/20240012024-04-22022 April 2024
Integrated Inspection Report 05000321/2024001 and 05000366/2024001
NL-24-0026, Application to Revise Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valves Setpoint2024-04-19019 April 2024
Application to Revise Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements to Increase Safety/Relief Valves Setpoint
05000321/LER-2024-001, Primary Containment Penetration Exceeded Maximum Allowable Primary Containment Leakage Rate (La)2024-04-0909 April 2024
Primary Containment Penetration Exceeded Maximum Allowable Primary Containment Leakage Rate (La)
NL-24-0115, Response to Request for Additional Information Exemption Requests for Physical.2024-04-0404 April 2024
Response to Request for Additional Information Exemption Requests for Physical.
NL-24-0116, Nuclear Property Insurance Coverage as of April 1, 2024 and Licensee Guarantees of Payment of Deferred.2024-03-29029 March 2024
Nuclear Property Insurance Coverage as of April 1, 2024 and Licensee Guarantees of Payment of Deferred.
ML23275A2402024-03-22022 March 2024
SNC Fleet - Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding Exemption from the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 73, Section 73.2, Definitions (EPID Nos. L-2023-LLE-0018 & L-2023-LLE-0021) - Letter
NL-24-0062, Report of Changes to Emergency Plan and Summary of 50.54(q) Analysis2024-03-12012 March 2024
Report of Changes to Emergency Plan and Summary of 50.54(q) Analysis
ML24069A0012024-03-0909 March 2024
– Correction of Amendment No. 266 Regarding License Amendment Request Regarding Relocation of Specific Surveillance Frequencies to a Licensee-Controlled Program (TSTF-425, Revision 3)
NL-24-0089, Correction of Technical Specification Omission2024-03-0909 March 2024
Correction of Technical Specification Omission
ML24047A0362024-03-0404 March 2024
Response to Hatch and Vogtle FOF Dates Change Request (2025)
NL-24-0061, Cycle 32 Core Operating Limits Report Version 12024-03-0101 March 2024
Cycle 32 Core Operating Limits Report Version 1
2024-09-09
[Table view]
Category:License-Operator
[Table view]
Category:Part 55 Examination Related Material
[Table view] |
Text
D. R. Madison (Dennis) Southern Nuclear Vice President - Hatch Operating Company. Inc.
Plant Edwin I. Hatch 11028 Hatch Parkway, North Baxley, Georgia 31513 Tel 912.537.5859 Fax 912.366.2077 SOUTHERN'\'
COMPANY Energy to Serve Your World sMsM November 10, 2009 LR-PM-004-1109 Mr. Bruno Caballero United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 24T131 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931
Subject:
Transmittal of 2009-302 Operating Examination Post Exam Comments
Dear Mr. Caballero:
In accordance with NUREG 1021, ES-501, "Initial Post-Examination Activities," this is to inform you that Plant Hatch has one post exam comment on the Operating Exam administered the week of October 26th th ,
2009.
Enclosed is the discussion and recommended resolution.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772.
Sincerely,
£}~fry)~
£}~77J~
Dennis R. Madison Vice President Nuclear Plant Site
Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
JPM SIM 1 Comments:
JPM SIM 1, "Start an Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD) from the Control Room," was administered as part of the 2009-302 operating exam.
While performing as the Simulator Facility operator for the administration of the JPM, it was observed that there was a variance in completion times of the JPM. After the JPM was completed for all applicants, the Chief Examiner questioned the basis for the Standard for JPM step 9, a critical step.
The Standard for step 9 required the operator to place the ASD control switch to the STOP position or depress the SHUTDOWN pushbutton within 5 minutes of receiving annunciators indicating a loss of cooling to the ASD and that the ASD should have tripped.
This standard had been modified during prep week activities based on comments from the Chief Examiner dealing with how long should be allowed to trip or shutdown the ASD. The 5 minutes was based on the fact that there were 3 annunciators that sequentially alarmed over a 12 second period. It was estimated that it would take approximately 1 minute to address each of the 3 alarms, 1 minute to dispatch an operator to the ASD in accordance with the annunciator response procedures for the alarms, and 1 minute to trip or shutdown the ASD. The time to perform these actions, when totaled, equaled 5 minutes. It was discussed that double the allotted time would allow a total time of ten minutes to trip the ASD, but this doubled time was not noted in the Step 9 standard. The reason for using this approach was because an engineering basis for the time was not available and Plant Hatch does not have a defined time standard for these actions.
The vendor for the ASD (VFD), Siemens Industry, was contacted to assist in determining the amount of time that the ASD transformer could be operated with a loss of cooling to the transformer. The following are excerpts from the vendor response:
((In the case of the power cells, iiff cells were to start bypassing because "In of the temperature being over 65C as measured by their internal sensor, then the VFD would trip once to many cells were bypassed. In the case of the transformer if the average temp of the transformer went up consistently no cells would be bypassed, but the transformer can withstand a higher temperature than the cells and there is a lot more thermal mass to heat up.
((I am not sure if it is possible to put a definite time frame on when "I
damage would occur if no temperature trips occurred. There are two variables that I can think of now that would cause variations in the time. Initial water temperature when the pumps failed and the VFD output current while there is no cooling water flowing. The biggest current.nD would be the output current.
((Also, one last item I just thought of. If the pumps were to seize, and "Also, no temperature alarms occurred. There would be the flow loss alarm from the cooling system as well as alarms for the pumps not running/over current/etc.
This has been tested before here at Siemens where the cooling pumps were "Dead Headed" and the VFD was allowed to run. The cells were the device that tripped the VFD on over temperature faults.n faults.D Page 2 of 4
Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
As can be interpreted from the vendor's response, there is not a definitive time for tripping the ASD prior to causing significant damage to the transformer.
Continuing with further review of the Step 9 standard, it was recognized that neither the JPM nor any portion of the JPM had been marked as Time-Critical. Also, none of the applicants were informed that the JPM was Time-Critical as required by NUREG 1021. In fact, based on the following excerpt from NUREG 1021, this JPM is not Time-Critical because shutting down the ASD under the loss of cooling conditions that were presented to the applicants does not have a time period specified in a regulation, nor is it a facility commitment to the NRC.
NUREG 1021, Appendix C step B.5
- 5. Develop a Time Standard Every JPM shall identify an estimated average time for completing the task.
The time should be measured from the moment that the examinee is read the initiating cue at the plant location in which an operator would normally be given the order to perform the specified task.
JPMs that are considered time-critical (Le., those having a task standard that must be completed within a time period specified in a regulation or a facility commitment to the NRC) shall be uniquely identified and specifically validated. The facility licensee must agree that a failure to complete the task within the specified time will justify a failure of the given JPM.
NUREG 1021, Appendix E, D.4 DA
- 4. Before beginning each JPM, the examiner will describe the initial conditions, explain the task that is to be completed, indicate whether the task is time-critical, and explain which steps are to be simulated or discussed.
Page 3 of 4
Hatch Post Exam Comments for NRC Exam Administered 10/26/2009 (Hatch 2009-302)
Recommended Resolution:
The recommendation for this JPM IPM is that the standard for step 9 be changed such that "within 5 minutes of receiving the alarms" is deleted from the standard because JPM IPM SIM 1 is NOT a Time-Critical JPM. IPM.
The normal time allowance for completion of a JPM IPM that is NOT Time-Critical, as described in the following NUREG excerpt, should be used for the time standard for completing the JPM. IPM. The validated time for the IPM was 15 minutes.
JPM NUREG 1021, Appendix E, D.5
- 5. Time-critical JPMs have been validated by your facility and must be completed within the predetermined ined time interval in order to obtain a satisfactory grade for that JPM.
You will be permitted to take whatever time is necessary to complete those JPMs that are not time-critical, provided that you are making reasonable progress toward achieving the task standard. If the examiner believes that you are not making reasonable progress, he will ask you to explain what remains to be done and how long it should take before stopping the task. You will be permitted at least twice the validated time to complete the JPM, whether you are making progress or not.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772.
Page 4 of 4 Page4of4
Dennis R. Madison Southern Nuclear Vice President - Hatch Operating Company, Inc.
Plant Edwin I. Hatch 11028 Hatch Parkway North Baxley, Georgia 31513 Baxley.
Tel 912.537.5859 Fax 912.366.2077 SOUTHERN COMPANY November 16,2009 16, 2009 LR-PM-OOS-ll09 LR-PM-005-1109 Mr. Bruno Caballero United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 24T131 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931
Subject:
Transmittal of 2009-302 Written Examination Post-Exam Comments
Dear Mr. Caballero:
In accordance with NUREG 1021, ES-501, "Initial Post-Examination Activities," post exam comments are due within 5 days of exam administration.
This is to inform you that for the NRC Initial License written exam administered at Plant Hatch on November 12th, 2009 (Hatch 2009-302) there were no post-examination question comments from the applicants.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Charlie Edmund at (912) 366-2000, ext 3773 or Anthony Ball at (912) 366-2000, ext 3772.
Sincerel~
Dennis R. Madison Vice President Nuclear Plant Site
