IR 05000286/1987003
| ML20210A173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1987 |
| From: | Kane W, Keller R, Temps R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210A096 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-286-87-03OL, 50-286-87-3OL, NUDOCS 8705050029 | |
| Download: ML20210A173 (5) | |
Text
!
.
.
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 87-03 (0L)
'
FACILITY DOCKET NO. 50-286
FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-64 LICENSEE: Power Authority of New York P.O. Box 215 Buchanan, New York 10511 FACILITY:
Indian Point Unit 3 EXAMINATION DATES:
February 24-26, 1987 CHIEF EXAMINER:
ht/O. N m_
4-F- 67 Robert R. Temp i
"
Date Reactor Engi Examiner REVIEWED BY:
h)
'Ntv[N Robert M. Keller, Chief
'
Projec s ecti o. 1C APPROVED BY:
C F/c/8[
William F.'Kane, Director, DRP Date SUMMARY:
Oral, written and simulator examinations were administered to eight senior operator candidates.
tions of their examinations and will be issued licenses.Seven senior operator ca One senior operator i
candidate failed all portions of the examination.
j PDR8705050029 870420 V
ADOCK 05000286 PDR
_
-
.
REPORT DETAILS TYPE OF EXAM: Replacement X
EXAM RESULTS:
l l
SR0 l
l l
l Pass / Fail i
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l Written Exam l I
7 / 1 l
l l
l l
l
I I
I I
I I
I I
10ral Exam l
l 7 / 1 l
l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l Simulator Examl
7 / 1 l
l l
l
I I
I I
l l
I I
I I
10verall l
I 7 / 1 l
1
1
I I
I I
I I
I I
i 1.
CHIEF EXAMINER AT SITE:
R.R. Temps, NRC 2.
OTHER EXAMINERS:
N. Dudley, NRC E. Yachimiak, NRC G. Weale, Sonalysts (NRC Contractor Examiner)
3.
No generic weaknesses were noted during conduct of the Operating and Simulator Examinations.
4.
Generic weaknesses noted from grading of the written examinations:
These comments are provided for your use in upgrading future requalifi-cation and initial operating training programs.
No reply is necessary.
A.
Most candidates did not list peak overlap as one of the three effects which cause the Doppler Temperature Coefficient to become less negative as fuel temperature increases.
B.
Most candidates stated that the SG Atmospheric Dump Valves remain functional when instrument air pressure is less than 30 psig.
Per Off Normal Operating Procedure IA-1, the valves fail shut.
C.
All candidates were unable to properly list the immediate action substeps for verification of main fees.ater isolatio.
.
,
.
.
D.
All candidates were unable to properly list the three isolation steps, and the basis for each, as found in ECA 0.0 for the RCP seals.
E.
Most candidates had trouble listing the five parameters and/or trends these parameters should exhibit to indicate that natural circulation flow is in effect.
F.
All but one candidate were unable to state the three individuals (by title) who may authorize a volunteer rescuer to receive exposure during extreme conditions involving life saving circumstances.
5.
Training and Reference Material:
A.
Significant problems were noted as to the accuracy and completeness of the System Descriptions.
Several chapters of the System Descrip-tions were incomplete (i.e. pages missing), some did not reflect plant modifications and others referenced old emergency procedures no longer in effect.
B.
Some inconsistencies were noted between information found in the E0P lesson plans and the E0P's themselves.
6.
Examination Meetings; Entrance, Exam Review and Exit:
A.
Entrance Meeting 1)
Personnel Present at Entrance Meeting:
!!RC Richard Barkley Resident Inspector, IP-3 Noel Dudley Lead Reactor Engineer Examiner Robert Temps Reactor Engineer Examiner Gary Weale Licensing Examiner (Sonalysts)
Ed Yachimiak Reactor Engineer Facility Personnel Steve Bridges Operations Training Supervisor Michael Cass Assistant to Resident Manager William Josiger Resident Manager Bryan Ray Training Coordinator Richard Robenstein Training Consultant Richard Tansky Training Superintendent 2)
An entrance meeting was held on February 24, 1987 to inform facility personnel of the purpose of the examination trip and to discuss any facility questions regarding the examination process.
i
. _ -
..
. -.
.
.
.
__
..
.
.
,
,
The facility licensee expressed concern on two subjects.
The first dealt with the extent of simulator scenarios, specifically operation of the plant outside of its design basis, and the second dealt with whether or not the NRC has guidelines which cover the extent to which simulator scenarios are taken.
The NRC addressed the first concern by stating that the matter has already been addressed by the Commission in the proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 55, dealing with degree requirements on shift.
NRC policy is that it is necessary, at times, to use simulator scenarios which operate the plant outside of its design basis in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the operator candidates in dealing with the situation and their ability to use and transition through the E0P's.
Regarding the second concern, guidelines in the Examiner Standards (NUREG-1021, ES-302) are used in the development of simulator scenarios. These guidelines are undergoing continuous upgrading and review based on licensee comments, examination development programs and usage.
B.
Written Examination Review 1.
A review of the written examination was conducted following the exam.
Four facility comments were discussed and all were re-solved at the examination review. As a result, the following changes were made to the answer key:
'
a.
Part (a) of question 5.09 was deleted as it dealt with theoretical concepts beyond those required to be used by SR0's. Any value obtained in part (a) was allowed to be used in part (b) and full credit given for determining subcooled margin, provided the correct process was used.
Point value of the question was reduced accordingly.
b.
The response to part (e) of question 6.01 was changed to
"NO" as recent plant modifications removed any automatic actions associated with process radiation monitor R-17A/B.
Also, part (c) was modified to delete reference to the auto start of the dilution fan. Point value of the question was reduced accordingly.
i
- -.
-
,
-
-
-
_
/ /- / /
-
g
-
'
.
..
c.
.
The m
a atinswer
d.
ful on l
co
-
to cr ntain qu The edi e
t ed sti
pa answ giv i
on rt pa n
rt (c()a), e r
en 10 80 The s to pr CF 6 x
m Epl qu vi R
o con ate w
>
5a0s an st ded the ri cer
, cl e
pl ex s
ov si cl io the.7 modifi al n
as
i n
mi ed. am w
fias
pr, pa ed er as sifi08 ope rts t
t r
c C.
th ted As vi dico ati e
mplete I.A. 5 c
w r
Xo s
up e NRCo i r
a on atier r
ew cu t
a a
e ef, Y cc Exi s
on s
to date ept e
nd ed ne er a
f mpl sul a
wi ss was Ie t
I xpa nd or eme ence Z info Me I.3 nded f
t c
utu nt of op th a
1)
eti nd w
wi r-y was as the Tr
.
as th P
ng e measur ad the of r
accu ded. ad f
m er exa n
a lo ade.
di ed ni cy ded ol so mi e
s ot ai r
nn N_RC el n
s cus w;f of a
ng Depa ati di s
so nd sio P
that n, s f
r ons c
f or e
a ese r
or cili Ri th pa No cha nt wil n rtm r
e ty l
ef e f ci r
at be er a
e nt r
el d B Exi Robe Dudleyrkl ci s w f
enceli as ol ef co a
t er
.
E lo m ty Y
T ey Me mpl d rt ence a
et ete, ate ha als win F
ch e imimps i
ri s o sg n
a al com up-
>
g:
accurse ak Re cilit Le si s
,-
Re ad de ate nt St P
nt a
to Mev er a
Re In nd Br chae Bri i
sonn Re cto acto spe a
r el d
J ya o
n C ge el cto En Encto r
R ass En gine gi s
r Rsi eph ay r
n, IP 3 2)
cha Ru gi er eer neer rd s Ex Ope An Tsell As ati ner ner a
Ex r
mi e
an ami mat xi sky Tr si te t o
ai sta ns m
r m ate Supe ni nt Tr e
ri of eti co n
Tr ri g Coto ai mmi als co ng Re ni tm wa aini e
mpl was nte n
T o
si g Supe he nt s
ete hel ng nde rdi de co Chi to m Supent n e
nes d
at nt r
thendu ef i nt Ma vi of or cted Ex mpr io s the ri P
sor n
a n
nd ev nte w
age e
f ed, al ov ower a
a akn cili er ov mi e
accurn r
eni nde exa the n
es er on a min se ty r
si g a
g nt the cka at s li pr vi tu wi cy of e
ai ge io w censee vio ed io ew at th of F er f ebr ns e
ni s e
the Tr ng Dind, a a
n ci ulary n
i nd oted, the the f
us i
or c
f ai ty
n epa ated that du feek.n w
u Ex rtm ri a
ning Dep mbe utu ref,1987 a
a if ng cili mi e
r re er nt ny ati w
si sub the ty In a
n ence T
r nd exa a
oul gni se si was spo ty min rtm he e
on d
fi qu m
pe ati nt 's e
and be c
e ul inf nse of An iant nt ato /o o
or n
m to exa nf r
s.
r sw or ge evi r ed a c
of pothatqu min er m
n ew al Key ed. eri ati esti o
weaknthe rt no on i
ns ons ge by exami of eri ess n
es n
the c the ation
'
,
,
-
.,;
'
-.
-
_
_
- _ _ _ _ _ _
\\
.
l i
,
The answer to question 8.06 was modified to accept infor-c.
mation contained in 10 CFR 50.74, parts X, Y and Z with full credit given provided the proper reference was made.
d.
The answers to question 8.08 were expanded as follows; for part (a), E plan classification III.3 was added and for part (c), classification I.A.5 was added.
2.
The concern over completeness and accuracy of facility reference materials was discussed with the Training Department following the exam review and a copy of noted discrepancies was also sup-plied. As a result of the discussion, the facility has com-mitted to implement measures so that reference materials sent to the NRC for future examinations will be complete, accurate and up-to-date.
C.
Exit Meeting 1)
Personnel Present at Exit Meeting:
NRC Richard Barkley Resident Inspector, IP-3 Noel Dudley Lead Reactor Engineer Examiner Robert Temps Reactor Engineer Examiner Ed Yachimiak Reactor Engineer Facility Personnel Steve Bridges Operations Training Supervisor Michael Cass Assistant to Resident Manager Bryan Ray Training Coordinator Joseph Russell Superintendent of Power Richard Tansky Training Superintendent 2)
An exit meeting was held the evening of February 26, 1987.
The matter of completeness and accuracy of facility reference materials was mentioned, along with the Training Department's commitment to improve the situation for future examinations.
The Chief Examiner reviewed the number and type of examinations conducted over the previous week.
In response to a question by the facility licensee, the facility was informed that no generic weaknesses were noted during the simulator / oral portions of the examinations, and that if subsequent review of the examination packages indicated any significant generic weaknesses the l
Training Department would be informed.
j Attachment: Written Examination and Answer Key