IR 05000277/1993004
| ML20035C727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1993 |
| From: | Conte R, Florek D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035C725 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-93-04, 50-277-93-4, 50-278-93-04, 50-278-93-4, NUDOCS 9304090040 | |
| Download: ML20035C727 (8) | |
Text
-
.
I
~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMISSION REGION 1
r PEACH BOTTOM REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION-REPORT NOS.
50-277/93-04 50-278/93-04 FACILITY DOCKET NOS.
50-277
!
50-278 i
FACILITY LICENSE NOS.
,
LICENSEE:
Philadelphia Electric Company Nuclear Group Headquarters Correspondence Control Desk
- '
P.O. Box 195
.,
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
FACILITY:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 EXAMINATION DATES:
February 25 and March 9-12,1993 j
EXAMINERS:
Donald J. Florek, Sr. Operations Engineer
>
J. Hanek, NRC Consultant (EG&G)
CHIEF EXAMINER:
.
/*
'#
't/ /
'I)onald J. Florek,f$r. Operations Engineer Date/
,
BWR Section, Operations Branch
-
Division of Reactor Safety V/
'
APPROVED BY:
Richard J. Conte, g$ef bate
'
BWR Section, Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety i
!
.
930409004o 93o402
'
PDR ADOCK 05000277 V
,
'
_.
-.
.
_ __.
_
_ _ _
..
-
,14
.:
)
!
'
.,
PEACH BOITOM ATOMIC POWER STATION j
t i
COMBINED EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-277/93-04 & 50-278/93-04-l
..i
!
-
An initial retake operating examination was administered to one SRO applicant.
-
l Requalification examinations were administered to 4 reactor operators (ROs) and 4. senior reactor operators (SROs) divided into two crews. The applicant passed the initial retake.
examination. All eight licensed operators passed the 1993 requalification examination and ~
l
!
both crews passed in the simulator. In the 1992 requalification examina* ion, six"out of seven operators passed and the one crew passed. The results of the 1992 and 1993 requalification -
examinations indicate a satisfactory requalification program at the Peach Bottom Atomic.
,
Power Station. No generic strengths or weaknesses were specifically noted as a' result of the -
i requalification examination.
y
,
'l t
..
-i
.
%
!
>
r
.
,
'!
!
I
!
!
i i
.i e
!
i I
..
-
.
-.-. -
-
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
,
.
-
J
-
+
.
b
'
DETAILS 1.0 INTRODUCTION
..
g On February 25,1993, the NRC staff administered an initial retake operating examination to j
one SRO upgrade applicant. During the week of March 8,1993, the NRC staff administered
!
requalification examinations to 8 licensed operators (4 ROs and 4 SROs). The' examiners
!
used the process and criteria described in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner
_
!
Standards." Revision 6 was used for the initial examination, and Revision 7 was used for the
>
requalification examinations.
An exit meeting was conducted on March 12, 1993. Attachment 1 is a listing of those in
.j
!
attendance at the exit meeting.
!
2.0 SUMMARY OF EXAMINATION RESULTS AND PROGRAM FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS
,
- i
-
2.1 Initici Examination Results The one SRO upgrade applicant passed the operating test.
-
2.2 Requalification Individual Examination Results
NRC GRADING OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION
!
Pass / Fail Pass / Fail-Pass / Fail.
.a
Written 3/0 3/0 6/0
I
Simulator 4/0 4/0 8/0
!
'
Walk-through 3/0 3/0 6/0
.!
~
.. ;
Overall -
4/0 4/0 8/0
- [
?
3-Ros and 3-SROs took the entire examinations. One RO and one SRO participated in the
&
simulator portion only to provide simulators crews of normal shift complement (2 SR.Os and
]
2 ROs).
- l
!
?
E i
'
-
.
--
.
--
-
.
.-
-.:
..
.
.
-
- -
. =
,
-
.
..
....
.
-
'9
_
' '
FACILITY GRADING OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION
i RO SRO-TOTAL
- i Pass / Fail Pass / Fail -
Pass / Fail J
!
Written 3/0 3/0 6/0
'l
!
i Simulator 4/0 4/0 8/0
,
.p j
Walk-through 3/0 3/0 6/0
- l
,
}
Overall 4/0 4/0 8/0
,
..
Facility licensee letter dated, March 22,1993, attached, provided the Final I'equalification.
j Program Evaluation Report. The licensee perspective on the examination results is consistent
>
with that contained in the NRC report.
.
Based on both the NRC and facility grading, both crews passed the simulator portion of the
requalification examination.
.
b 2.2 Facility Generic Strengths and Weaknesses Based on Individual Operator
Performance on Requalification Examinations No generic strengths or weaknesses were specifically noted during the operating test. The-operators were well prepared for the examinations. Teamwork was evident during the l
!
'
simulator scenarios.
l 3.0 REQUALIFICATION_ PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS, FINDINGS AND l
L CONCLUSIONS
'
l 3.1 Examiner Standards Evaluation Criteria and Results During the week of March 8,1993, the NRC staff conducted licensed operator requalification examinations and a program evaluation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power l
Station Units 2 and 3. In March 1992, requalification examinations were given to 7
!
. operators, but since the sample size was less than 12 operators a program evaluation could
'j not be accomplished. In March 1992, one operator failed the walk-through and all others j
,
,
.
q
,
>
-
,
.
... -
...
.
....
.
.
....
.
-...
..
.
.
.
'
f passed. The crew also passed. In accordance with NUREG-1021 when a total of 12 operators examined are achieved, a program evaluation will be possible. Therefore, when considering the results from March 1992 along with the March 1993 results using the criteria of ES-601, " Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations," the program i
evaluation is as follows.
D.2.a.(1)
At least 75% of the licenses must pass all parts of the examination in which they participate.
The pass rate was 93% (14 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.
f
,
The results of the licensed operator requalification program review were satisfactory.
3.2 Requalification Examination Development and Administration
!
In the early stages of examination development, the facility licensee examination team representatives took the initiative to meet with the Chief Examiner in the Region 1 office to discuss the examination development. These discussions focused on simulator crew critical task application and use, length of the written examination, relocating procedure use questions to the classroom written examination and JPM standards. These discussions were very valuable and resulted in an as-submitted examination that resulted in very few minor j
-
editorial changes.
Due to unplanned simulator outages, the examination sequence and schedule had to be changed during the examination. The facility licensee made sure that the operators taking the examination were kept informed of the simulator status and revised examination schedules.
The operators performance did not appear to be degraded based on the revised _ sequence and'
j schedule.
,
During the review of the simulator examination bank, the examiner noted that the licensee does not have a scenario in its bank that challenges the torus water level leg of the primary containment control tmnsient response implementing procedure (TRIP). This may be due to limitations of the simulator model or malfunction on leakage of torus water.
3.3 Conclusions The results of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Plant requalification examination are
satisfactory. The discussions with the NRC and facility representatives early in the examination development process resulted in a high quality as-submined examination.
'
i
,
4.0 FACILITY PROCEDURAL IMPROVEMENTS The following procedures were identified for enhancements to improve operator use.
This item was identified during the initial examination. SE-1, " Plant Shutdown from the Remote Shutdown Panel," contains general directions wihout specific detail. For example, SE-1 directs, " Place ALL instrument transfer switches ii the EMERG position," without specifying the number of instrument transfer switches rr the switch number. During the examination, the applicant did not place one of the five instrument transfer switches to emergency.ts required by the procedure and had no.neans available to self check his actions.
This item was identified during the requalification examination. T-240, " Termination and Prevention of Injection into the RPV," contains the actions required to terminate HPCI, i
RCIC, Feedwater, RHR, Core Spray and Alternate Injection Systems. During the ATWS simulator scenario when emergency depressurization was required, one of the steps required
'
prevention of the ECCS stayfull system to inject into the RPV. This step required action by an in-plant opentor. The control room operators waited for the in-plant operator to complete
the step prior to proceeding to emergency depressurize. This wait added unnecessary delay to emergency depressurization since the ECCS stayfull injection path is a low flow and pressure system.
At the exit meeting, the facility licensee operations representatives indicated that they would review the above procedures.
5.0 EXIT MEETING
!
An exit meeting was conducted on March 12, 1993. Personnel attending are listed m
'
Attachmert 1. The NRC presented results of the examinstions and discussed examination
.
!
related findings.
l
,
L
!
!
[
!
i
!
'
e
,
\\
,
$
-
,
t
.
ATTACIIMENT 1 l
,
March 12,1993, EXIT MEETING ATIT2fDANCE i
Philadelphia Electric Company D. Foss, Regulatory Engineer G. Gellrich, Operations Manager S. Mannix, Assistant Operations Manager D. McClellan, Manager - Operations Training P. Nielson, Principle Instructor - Initial P. Ott, PSE&G Site Representative K. Patek, Principle Instructor - Requalification
'
K. Powers, Plant Manager R. Smith, Regulatory J. Stankiewicz, Training Director
!
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. Bonnett, Resident Inspector D. Florek, Sr. Operations Engineer
,
D
)
?
k
...
.
.
>
.
ATTACIIMENT 2 SIMULATOR FACILITY REPORT
,
Facility Licensee: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
'
Facility Docket Nos: 50-277 and 50-278 Operating Tests Administered on March 11, 1993 This form is to used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit of inspection findings and are not, without funher 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 DESCRIPTION Reactor pressure During a scenario which required RPV flooding with all rods insened, RPV pressure was being maintained fairly constant at approximately 100 psig with 5 SRVs open with reactor level indications in the normal band. This in not the expected reactor pressure response.
l
.
,
2