ML081850231

Er 05000369-08-301 and 05000370-08-301, on 05/12-21/08 & 05/23/08, McGuire Nuclear Plant, Units 1& 2, Licensed Operator Examinations

ML081850231
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire, McGuire
Issue date:	07/03/2008
From:	Widmann M NRC/RGN-II/DRS/OLB
To:	Brandi Hamilton Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Power Co
References
50-369/08-301, 50-370/08-301 50-369/08-301, 50-370/08-301
Download: ML081850231 (12)

See also: IR 05000369/2008301

Text

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

SAM NUNN ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER

61 FORSYTH STREET, SW, SUITE 23T85

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8931

July 3, 2008

Mr. Bruce H. Hamilton

Vice President

Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

McGuire Nuclear Station

12700 Hagers Ferry Road

Huntersville, NC 28078-8985

SUBJECT: MCGUIRE NUCLEAR PLANT- NRC EXAMINATION REPORT

05000369/2008301 AND 05000370/2008301

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

During the period May 12 - 21, 2008, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered

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

McGuire Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. At the conclusion of the tests, the examiners discussed

the tests and preliminary findings with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed

report. The written examination was administered by your staff on May 23, 2008.

Nine Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and three Reactor Operator (RO) applicants passed both

the written examination and operating test. There were four post examination comments. The

NRC resolutions to these comments are summarized in Enclosure 2.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "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 NRC's 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) 562-4550.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief

Operations Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket Nos.: 50-369, 50-370

License Nos.: NPF-9, NPF-17

Enclosures: 1. Report Details

2. NRC Resolution to the Facility Comments

cc: See Page 2

_________________________

OFFICE RII:DRS RII:DRS RII:DRS RIV:DRS

SIGNATURE * / RA / * /RA / * /RA/ /RA/

NAME RAiello: RBaldwin SRose MWidmann

DATE 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/30/2008 07/03/2008 7/ /2008 7/ /2008 7/ /2008

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

DPC 2

cc w/encl:

Bruce Hamilton Kathryn B. Nolan

Vice President Senior Counsel

McGuire Nuclear Station Duke Energy Corporation

Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke 526 South Church Street-EC07H

Energy Carolinas, LLC Charlotte, NC 28202

Electronic Mail Distribution

David A. Repka

Steven D. Capps Winston Strawn LLP

Engineering Manager Electronic Mail Distribution

Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke

Energy Carolinas, LLC County Manager of Mecklenburg County

Electronic Mail Distribution 720 East Fourth Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

Scotty L. Bradshaw

Training Manager Beverly O. Hall

Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke Chief, Radiation Protection Section

Energy Carolinas, LLC Department of Environmental Health

Electronic Mail Distribution N.C. Department of Environment and

Natural Resources

Kenneth L. Ashe Electronic Mail Distribution

Regulatory Compliance Manager

Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke Dhiaa M. Jamil

Energy Carolinas, LLC Group Executive and Chief Nuclear Officer

Electronic Mail Distribution Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC

Electronic Mail Distribution

R. L. Gill, Jr.

Manager Senior Resident Inspector

Nuclear Regulatory Issues & Industry Affairs Duke Energy Corporation

Duke Power Company, LLC d/b/a Duke William B. McGuire Nuclear Station

Energy Carolinas, LLC U.S. NRC

Electronic Mail Distribution 12700 Hagers Ferry Rd

Huntersville, NC 28078

Lisa F. Vaughn

Associate General Counsel Duke Energy Corporation

Duke Energy Corporation ATTN: Mr. Scotty L. Bradshaw

526 South Church Street-EC07H Training Manager

Charlotte, NC 28202 McGuire Nuclear Station

Maintenance Training Facility

Courier Mail Code MG03MT

12700 Hagers Ferry Road

Huntersville, NC 28078-8985

DPC 3

Letter to Bruce H. Hamilton from Malcolm T. Widmann dated July 3, 2008

SUBJECT: MCGUIRE NUCLEAR PLANT- NRC EXAMINATION REPORT

05000369/2008301 AND 05000370/2008301

Distribution w/encl:

RIDSNRRDIRS

PUBLIC

J. Stang, NRR (PM: CAT, MCG)

NRC Resident Inspector

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

12700 Hagers Ferry Rd.

Huntersville, NC 28078

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

Docket Nos.: 50-369, 50-370

License Nos.: NPF-9, NPF-17

Report No.: 05000369/2008301 and 05000370/2008301

Licensee: Duke power Company (DPC)

Facility: McGuire Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2

Location: 12700 Hagers Ferry Rd.

Huntersville, NC 28078

Dates: Operating Tests - May 12 - 21, 2008

Written Examination - May 23, 2008

Examiners: R. Aiello, Chief, Senior Operations Engineer

R. Baldwin, Senior Operations Engineer

S. Rose, Senior Reactor Inspector

R. Monk, Senior Resident Inspector

Approved by: Malcolm T. Widmann, Chief

Operations Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ER 05000369/2008301 and 05000370/2008301; 05/12-21/08 & 05/23/08; McGuire Nuclear

Plant, Units 1& 2, Licensed Operator Examinations.

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

guidance in NUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,

Revision 9, Supplement 1. 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 of May 12 - 21, 2008. Members of

the McGuire training staff administered the written examination on May 23, 2008. The written

examination and the operating test was developed by the McGuire Training Department.

Nine Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and three Reactor Operator (RO) applicants passed both

the written examination and operating test. There were four post examination comments. The

NRC resolutions to these comments are summarized in Enclosure 2.

No findings of significance were identified.

Enclosure 1

Report Details

4. OTHER ACTIVITIES

4OA5 Operator Licensing Initial Examinations

a. Inspection Scope

The facility developed both the operating test and the written examination in accordance

with NUREG-1021,Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,

Revision 9, Supplement 1. The NRC reviewed the proposed written examination and

operating test. Examination changes agreed upon between the NRC and the licensee

were made according to NUREG-1021 and incorporated into the final version of the test

materials.

The examiners reviewed the licensees examination and test security measures while

preparing and administering the examinations and tests to ensure examination and test

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

The examiners evaluated three RO and nine SRO applicants who were being assessed

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

operating tests during the period of May 12 - 21, 2008. The written examination was

administered by the McGuire training staff on May 23, 2008. The evaluations of the

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

who applied for licenses to operate the McGuire Nuclear Plant, met requirements

specified in 10 CFR 55, Operators Licenses.

b. Findings

No findings of significance were identified.

The licensee and the NRC reviewed the final version of the written examination and

operating test, and indicated that these exams were within the range of acceptability

expected for the proposed examination and test, respectively. Nine Senior Reactor

Operator (SRO) and three Reactor Operator (RO) applicants passed both the written

examination and operating test.

The combined RO and SRO written examinations with knowledge and abilities (K/As)

question references/answers and examination references may be accessed in the

ADAMS system (ADAMS Accession Numbers, ML081770368, ML 081770373,

ML081770443 and ML081770463.)

Enclosure 1

4

4OA2 Problem Identification and Resolution

Annual Sample Review

Inspection Scope

The inspectors selected Problem Identification Process (PIP) M-08-03242 and M-08-

03260 for a detailed review. PIP M-08-03242 was initiated because AP-14, Rod Control

Malfunction, Enclosure 1, Step 3 Response Not Obtained (RNO) needed clarification to

ensure consistency of plant direction if a load rejection occurs coincident with a rod

control malfunction. PIP M-08-03260 was initiated to document the lessons learned

from the 2008 NRC initial examination for Hot License Prep (HLP) class 24. These

issues were identified during the NRC examination that was administered during the

period of May 12 - 21, 2008. The inspectors checked that these issues had been

completely and accurately identified in the licensee's Corrective Action Program (CAP)

and that safety concerns were properly classified, prioritized for resolution, and the

scope of the apparent cause determinations were sufficient. Corrective actions include a

review to determine the impacts on future initial and continuing training classes.

4OA6 Meetings

Exit Meeting Summary

On May 21, 2008, the examination team discussed generic issues with Mr. Bruce

Hamilton, Site Vice President, and members of his staff. The examiners asked the

licensee whether any materials examined during the examination should be considered

proprietary. No proprietary information was identified.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

Licensee personnel

K. Ashe, Regulatory Compliance Manager

S. Bradshaw, Training Manager

S. Capps, Engineering Manager

K. Crane, Regulatory Compliance

L. Gabbert, Operations Instructor

B. Hamilton, Site Vice president

S. Helms Operations Training Supervisor

F. Kirk, Operations Shift Supervisor

J. Jenkins, Independent Nuclear Oversight Manager

R. Repko, Station Manager

T. Simril, Operations Superintendent

R. Pope, Operations Training manager

NRC personnel

J. Brady, Senior Resident inspector

Enclosure 1

NRC Resolution to the Facility Comment

A complete text of the licensee's post examination comments can be found in ADAMS under

Accession Number ML 081770470 and ML081770473.

RO QUESTION # 53

LICENSEE COMMENT:

In summary, the licensee requested that this question be deleted from the exam due to not

having a correct answer. The original post exam comments submitted by the licensee can be

viewed in ADAMS under the above referenced ML numbers.

The original correct answer stated that the reactor would first trip due to a turbine trip on a loss

of both main feedwater pumps. According to the licensees post exam analysis, the reactor will

not trip due to a turbine trip; rather the reactor will trip due to low steam generator level. The

licensee argues that the conditions presented in the stem, namely the loss of station air (VI),

would cause the Feedwater Regulating Valves (FRVs) to drift closed. The slow closure of the

FRVs would cause an increase in dP across the FRVs, which would cause the feedwater

control system to lower the speed of the feedwater pumps. The lowering feedwater pump

speed would maintain the FRV dP below the setpoint that would cause a direct feedwater pump

trip due to that dP, thus delaying a turbine trip. However, due to the slow closure of the FRVs

and the lowering main feedwater pump speed, the reactor would first receive a trip signal due to

low steam generator level.

The licensee supplied simulator and actual plant data that supports the reactor receiving a trip

signal due to low steam generator level. The licensee contends that all VI failures, except a

catastrophic failure of the VI header, would result in a reactor trip signal being generated due to

low steam generator level. The licensee contends that the conditions in the stem are not

representative of a catastrophic VI header failure.

NRC DISCUSSION:

The NRC reviewed the simulator data and documentation from the actual plant event. The NRC

agrees that in all cases, except for a catastrophic VI header failure, the reactor will first receive a

trip signal generated due to low steam generator level. Therefore, the original correct answer is

NOT a correct answer choice. Since none of the answer choices state that the reactor will first

trip due to low steam generator level, there is no correct answer for this question.

NRC RESOLUTION

In accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-403, Section D.1.c, the question was deleted due to not

having a correct answer.

Enclosure 2

6

SRO QUESTION # 77

LICENSEE COMMENT:

In summary, the licensee requested that this question be graded with two correct answers. The

original post exam comments submitted by the licensee can be viewed in ADAMS under the

above referenced ML numbers.

The licensee states that the second part of both answer choices C and D are correct; with

the first part of those answer choices being the same. The licensee states that NUREG-1021,

Appendix E, instructs the applicants not to make assumptions with respect to operator actions

that are not stated in the question. Therefore, the applicant should rightfully not assume that

nuclear service water makeup was aligned to the component cooling water (KC) surge tank.

With no nuclear service water aligned to the KC surge tank, the level in the tank would continue

to drop. The level drop described in the stem is greater than 0.10 ft/min, thereby requiring the

operators to isolate the A KC train from the B KC train in accordance with AP-21, Loss of KC

or KC System Leakage, Step 20 (Answer Choice D). The KC surge tank level would continue

to decrease to 2 ft, which would then meet the Foldout Page requirement which requires

isolation of KC non-essential headers in accordance with AP-21, Enclosure 2 (Answer Choice

D).

NRC DISCUSSION:

The NRC agrees that the applicants rightfully were not permitted to assume that nuclear service

water makeup was aligned to the KC surge tank in accordance with NUREG-1021, Appendix E

guidance. The NRC also agrees that with no nuclear service water makeup aligned to the KC

surge tank, the level in the tank would continue to decrease until the criteria for AP-21, Step 20

was met and continue to decrease until the Foldout Page criteria was met. Therefore, the NRC

agrees that both answer choices C and D are correct answers.

NRC RESOLUTION

In accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-403, Section D.1.c, the question was graded with answer

choices C and D as correct answers.

Enclosure 2

7

SRO QUESTION # 84

LICENSEE COMMENT:

In summary, the licensee requested that this question be graded with two correct answers. The

original post exam comments submitted by the licensee can be viewed in ADAMS under the

above referenced ML numbers.

The licensee contends that answer choices A and D are both correct answers. A was the

correct choice per the original answer key and D was originally thought to be an incorrect

response. The licensee contends that D provides correct dose limits as stated in their Site

Licensing Commitment (SLC); therefore, making D an alternate correct answer.

NRC DISCUSSION:

The NRC disagrees with the licensees assessment of the correct answers. The question

specifically asks the applicants to state the requirements of 10CFR50. 10CFR50 does not

contain any quarterly limits, such as those stated in the SLC. Therefore, the only correct

answer is D, which states the correct annual dose limits from 10CFR50. Answer choice A is

an incorrect answer choice because it contains quarterly dose limits.

NRC RESOLUTION

In accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-403, Section D.1.b, the question was graded with D

being the correct answer and A not being a correct answer.

Enclosure 2

8

SRO QUESTION # 87

LICENSEE COMMENT:

In summary, the licensee requested that this question be deleted from the exam due to having

two correct answers containing conflicting information. The original post exam comments

submitted by the licensee can be viewed in ADAMS under the above referenced ML numbers.

The licensee contends that the second part of answer choices A and B are both correct; with

the first part of those answer choices being identical. The licensee contends that the second

part of answer choice A, the original correct answer, remains correct because Step 8 of FR-

Z.1 allows the rest of the procedure to be treated as a Yellow Path when a faulted steam

generator exists. Thus, the applicant could consider this to be an early transition out of the

procedure. The licensee also contends that the second part of answer choice B is correct

because the transition out of the procedure as defined in answer choice A, can be interpreted

as a structured exit from the procedure. In this instance, an early transition out of FR-Z.1 would

only occur if a higher priority yellow or orange path existed. Therefore, the licensee contends

that both A and B are correct answer choices.

NRC DISCUSSION:

The NRC agrees with the licensees contention that two answer choices are correct. Early

transition out of a procedure is not a defined term in the licensees administrative procedures;

therefore, it is left to the applicants to determine what this is intended to mean. The applicant

was forced to either assume that an early transition out of FR-Z.1 meant that the question was

asking for a non-structured exit OR that the question was asking for a transition out of the

procedure prior to completing all of the applicable steps in that procedure. Depending on the

assumption made by the applicant, either answer choice A or B could be considered a

correct answer.

The NRC disagrees with the licensees contention that the two correct answer choices contain

conflicting information. The answer choices are not diametrically opposed, as detailed in the

examples in NUREG-1021, ES-403, Section D.1.c. The answer choices contain two different

and independent reasons for exiting FR-Z.1; therefore, the question was not deleted.

NRC RESOLUTION

In accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-403, Section D.1.c, the question was graded with answer

choices A and B as correct answers due to the answer choices not containing conflicting

information.

Enclosure 2