IR 05000237/1994001
| ML17180A897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1994 |
| From: | Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Jamila Perry COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17180A898 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9409070221 | |
| Download: ML17180A897 (2) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-237 Docket No. 50-249 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. J. Stephen Perry Site Vice President Dresden Station 6500 North Dresden Road Morris, IL 60450
Dear Mr. Perry:
SUBJECT:
EXAMINATION REPORT September 1, 1994 During the weeks of July 25, and August 1, 1994, Mr. 0. McNeil and others of this office administered initial license examinations to employees of your organization who operate and handle fuel at your Dresden Units 2 and 3 Nuclear Power Station.
At the conclusion of the examinations preliminary findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.
-
Five licensed Reactor Operators were given Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)
~xaminations. Eight individuals not previously licensed at Dresden Units 2 and 3 were given SRO examinations.
Five non-licensed operators at Dresden Unit 2 and 3 were given Reactor Operator (RO) examinations.
One RO candidate failed both the written and operating sections of his examination.
Two additional RO candidates failed the written section of their examination.
All-other candidates passed all sections of their respective examination.
During the conduct of the examination three items of concern were noted:
1) weak capability to evaluate control room back panel knowledge and abilities in the simulator (see Section 3, Training Program Observations for details),
2) there were several procedural problems discovered (see Section 4, Procedure Problems for details) that have been referred to the NRC Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) at Dresden Station for further review, 3) the simulator had several model deficiencies (see Enclosure 3, SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT for details), and 4) the RO candidates were weak on system knowledge, (See Section 3.a, Written Examinations for details). These items are presented as examples of a lack of simulator support, poor procedure control, and training weakness within your organization.
No written response is required for these items.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
9409070221. 940901 PDR ADOCK 05000237 V
~~
fuf3L1c-1"J.f/CA
- 1
,
Commonwealth Edison Company
September 1, 1994 Should you have any questions concerning this examination, plea~e contact us..
Enclosures:
1.
Examination Report
Sincerely, Original signed by T. M. Burdick (for)
Mark A. Ring, Chief Operations Branch No. 50-237/0L-94-0l(DRS)
2.
Facility Comments and Comment Resolution 3.
Simulation Facility Report 4.
Examinations and Answer Keys (RO/SRO)
c: \\..'/enclosures:
J. C. Brans, Vice President, Nuclear Support B. Palagi, Station Manager Unit 1 J.E. Eenigenburg, Station Manager Unit 2 R. Bax, Station Manager Unit 3 P. Holland, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory*
Services Manager OC/LFDCB Resident Inspectors LaSalle, Dresden, Quad Cities Richard Hubbard Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attorney General State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission R. C. Weidner, Plant Training Manager J. F. Stang, Jr., LPM, NRR T. Mendiola, LOLB, NRR
!PAS (E-Mail)
bee w/enclosures:
PUBLIC - IE42 RIII ECiP _k McNei-1 /cg 011 J//94 RIII
[a_~
Plettner 0~/31 /94
~
RI! I I I (J~UJ-J Hiland 09/ I /94
~I~~
RiS _
Jordan
~Ring 09/ \\ /94 09/ I /94