IR 05000245/1993025
| ML20057F451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1993 |
| From: | Conte R, Williams J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057F436 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1021 50-245-93-25-OL, NUDOCS 9310180019 | |
| Download: ML20057F451 (8) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
b U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMISSION REGION 1 MILLSTONE UNIT 1 REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT NO:
50-245/93-25 FACILITY DOCKET NO: 50-245 FACILITY LICENSE NO: DPR-21 LICENSEE:
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 FACILITY:
Millstone Unit 1 Nuclear Power Station EXAMINATION DATES: September 14-16, 1993 EXAMINERS:
Julian H. Williams, Sr. Operations Engineer Carl E. Sisco, Operations Engineer John Hanek, INEL (Contractor)
Mark Pan L 5, INEL (Contractor)
CHIEF EXAMINER:
[f_ id
-
//
f3
- - -
lian H. Williams, Sr. Operations Engineer Dat6 '
WR Section, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety APPROVED BY:
Richard J. Conte, C' ief Date BWR Section, rations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 9310180019 931007 PDR ADOCK 05000245 V
-
,__
%
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 NUCLEAR POWER STATION EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-245/93-25 Requalification examinations were administered to 8 reactor operators (ROs) and 7 senior reactor operators (SROs). The 15 licensed operators were divided into 2 operating and 1 staff crews. All fifteen licensed operators passed all portions of the examination, and all three crews performed satisfactorily in the simulator. The results of the requalification examinations were satisfactory and in accordance with Examiner Standard 601 criteria.
,
However the status of corrective actions associated with the unsatisfactory requalification program must also be factored into the final program evaluation. This is not done in the examination report.
The facility prepared examination met NRC standards as defined in NUREG-1021 and required very few changes. Facility evaluations of simulator performance were detailed and
a strength to the program. Operator performance was strong on all parts of the examination.
An issue was raised dealing with the performance and design basis of the Isolation Condenser vent drain line loop seal when the condenser is in service. This issue is unresolved pending licensee clarification of the purpose of the drain line (93-25-01).
The SRO's ability to make accurate EAL classifications was reviewed in relation to an earlier violation (92-07-01). It was determined that the SROs could make accurate EAL classifications.
i i
f
'l l
_
.
-
[
DETAILS 1.0 INTRODUCTION
,
'
During the week of September 13, 1993, the NRC staff administered requalification examinations to 15 licensed operators (8 ROs and 7 SROs). The examiners used the process and criteria described in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 7.
An entrance meeting was held on September 13, 1993. The examination materials were reviewed and validated during the week of August 30,1993. An exit meeting was conducted on September 17, 1993. Attachment I lists those in attendance at the exit meeting.
2.0 SUh1A1ARY OF EXAMINATION RESULTS AND PROGRAh!
FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS 2.1 Requalification Individual Examination Results NRC GRADING OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION i
RO SRO TOTAL Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fait i
Written 8/0 7/0 15/0
-
Simulator 8/0 7/0 15/0 Walk-through 8/0 7/0 15/0 Overall 8/0 7/0 15/0
>
S
- _.
__
._.
_
_ _ _
_
.
_
.-
_
_
.
~__
..
FACILITY GRADING OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION RO SRO TOTAL
'
Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail i
Written 8/0 7/0 15/0 i
a
.
Simulator 8/0 7/0 15/0 i
Walk-through 8/0 7/0 15/0
.
Overall 8/0 7/0 15/0 i
Based on both the NRC and facility grading, all three crews passed the simulator portion of the requalification examination.
2.2 Facility Generic Strengths and Weaknesses Based on Requalification Examination i
Performance Strengths
- Operations and Training Departments worked well together.
- Facility evaluations of simulator performance were constructive.
i
- Crews showed good analysis skills during the dynamic simulator examination.
- Operator performance on all portions of the examination was strong.
Weaknesses
~
l
- None identified j
.
-
.-
.-
_-
___
-_. _
t 1-l
1 3.0 REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Euminer Standards Evaluation Criteria and Results l
Using the criteria of ES-601, " Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations,"
the program evaluation is as follows:
D.2.a.(1)
At least 75% of the licenses must pass all parts of the examination in which they particioate.
The pass rate was 100% (15 out of 15) for all parts of the examination.
D.2.a.(2)
At least two thirds of the crews pass the simulator examination.
All three crews passed the simulator examination.
The following factors were also considered in the program evaluation:
D.2.b.(1)
There was agreement between the facility and NRC on all crew i
evaluations.
D.2.b.(2)
All facility evaluators performed satisfactorily.
D.2.b.(3)
Operators were trained and evaluated in positions permitted by their license.
D.2.b.(4)
Administrative controls are in place to preclude an inactive licensee from performing licensed duties.
The results of the licensed operator requalification program review were satisfactory and in accordance with Examiner Standard 601 criteria. However ES-601 also requires that the corrective actions for significant program weaknesses that were identified previously must be completed and determined to be satisfactory by the NRC staff before a determination of program status can be made.
3.2 Requalification Examination Development and Administration The Sample Plan that was provided with the examinations materials was detailed and complete. The Test Outline for the examinations adhered to the Sample Plan.
Only minor revisions were made to the proposed written examinations. Test items were at the proper level of difficulty.
-
.
..
l The proposed Job Performance Measures (JPMs) required few changes. Improvements or clarifications for initiating and terminating cues could be made. This fact was revealed during the administration of the JPMs. The facility evaluator often had to terminate the JPM
,
rather than the operator informing the evaluator when the task was complete, i
The dynamic simulator scenarios contained events that challenged the SRO's ability to
prioritize actions and effectively direct crew operations. The identified crew critical tasks i
met the Examiners Standards criteria for critical tasks for safety significance and measurable l
performance standards. The scenarios that were used for the examinations met the guidelines f
for qualitative attributes defined in the Examiners Standards.
j The administration of the examinations was smooth and as planned.
.
Violation (50-245/336/423/92-07-01) (Open) deals with the SRO's inability to make accurate EAL classifications. This requalification examination required twenty classifications to be made by 7 SROs. During the dynamic simulator examination all classifications were made correctly. One of the classifications on the simulator was a " general emergency " which
,
involved a radiation release via the isolation condenser. The SRO's accuracy in classifying
events was greater than 90 percent. The violation remains open because of other issues i'
associated with the violation. These issues will be addressed in another inspection report.
During the examination a question was raised over the performance of the loop seal on the
'
vent drain line from the isolation condenser and its impact on reactor vessel emergency i
blowdown. After the examination further analyses and discussions were held with the Licensee. It was concluded that the loop seal would not blow out with the isolation
condenser in service, but the specific purpose of the drain line could not be described. The
,
drain line provides a pathway from secondary containment to outside the reactor building.
This item is unresolved pending information on the purpose of the line (245/93-25-01).
)
3.3 Conclusions
Licensed operator performance on the requalification examination was determined to be satisfactory. The examination materials that were proposed for the examination met the i
examiners standards and required only minor revisions. Administration of the examinations
!
'
was smooth.
4.0 EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on September 17, 1993. Personnel attending are listed in
-
Attachment 1. The NRC presented preliminary results of the examinations and discussed i
examination related findings.
.
-
..
..
.
.
.
ATTACIIMENT 1
,
PERSONS CONTACTED
,
Northeast Utilities Wayne Romberg, Vice President, Nuclear Operations Services
'
Harry Haynes, Unit 1 Director Peter Przekop, Unit 1 Operations Manager l
Malcolm Black, Director Nuclear Training Bob Heidecker, Project Team Supervisor Mike Brown, Manager Project Team Chris Tabone, Supervisor Operator Training
'
Dick Schmidtnecht, Project Team Operations Representative Drexel Harris, Licensing Engineer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Rich Conte, Chief, BWR Section Herb Williams, Sr. Operations Engineer
'
Carl Sisco, Operations Engineer larry Vick, OLB Auditor Ken Kolaczyk, Resident Inspector
,
)
'
,
i
.
.
...
-
.
.
ATT ACIIMENT 2 SIMULATOR FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Millstone Unit 1 f
Facility Docket No: 50-245 Operating Tests Administered from September 14-16, 1993 This form is to used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit of 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 (if none, so state):
.
ITEM: None i
,
l
i
,