IR 05000334/1986002

Exam Rept 50-334/86-02 on 860204-14.Exam Results:All 5 Reactor Operator Candidates Passed & 1 of 11 Senior Reactor Operator Candidates Passed

ML20203P441
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	04/15/1986
From:	Coe D, Keller R, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203P435	List: IR 05000334/1986002 ML20203P434
References
50-334-86-02, 50-334-86-2, NUDOCS 8605070252
Download: ML20203P441 (6)

Text

-_

,

-

,

.

.

..

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT

'

EXAMINATION REPORT N /86-02(0L)

FACILITY DOCKET NO. 50-334 FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-66 LICENSEE: Duquesne Light Company Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 ~

FACILITY: Beaver Valley I

'

EXAMINATION DATES: February 4-14, 1986 CHIEF EXAMINER: N %- Y//[G 0. C. Coe, Reactor Engineer (Examiner) Date-

REVIEWED BY: I [ -( i-R. M. Keller, Chig?, Projects Section IC

'7/// /Ib

.) Date APPROVED BY: , . - 7 Ha rryl. K'i ste r , Chi e f

/[

Date #

Projects Branch No. I SUMMARY: Oral, written and simulator exams were administered to three reactor operator and eleven senior reactor operator candidates. In addition, the oral and simulator portion only was given to two reactor operator retake candidate All. reactor operator candidates passed all portions of their examination and will be issued licenses. One senior reactor operator candidate passed all portions of the examination and will be issued a license. Of the ten senior reactor operator candidates that did not pass: 5 failed the written only, 3 failed the simulator only, 1 failed the simulator and oral and, 1 failed the written, oral and simulato j

, Generic' weaknesses were noted in senior reactor operator knowledge of plant specific operating and administrative procedures. These weaknesses _ appeared to be a result of an overdependence on previous operating experienc .

'

,

lehr u s - ga 8

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -

-- _

..,. _ _

-

. .

,

.

.5 REPORT DETAILS TYPE OF EXAMS: Initial Replacement X Requalification EXAM RESULTS:

l RO l SRO l l Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail l I I I I I I I l Written Exam l 3/0 l 5/6 I I I I I I I I I l Oral Exam l 5/0 l 9/2 l 1 1 I -l 1 I I I ISimulator Examl 5/0 l 6/5 l 1 l l l i I 1 1 10vera11 1 5/0 l I/10 l 1 1 I I I I I I

) CHIEF-EXAMINER AT SITE: D. C. Coe, NRC II. OTHER EXAMINERS: R. M. Keller, NRC N. F. Dudley, NRC G. S. Barber, NRC J. N. Hannon, NRC B. S. Norris, NRC III. SUMMARY OF GENERIC TRAINING STRENGTHS AND DEFICIENCIES NOTED DURING

- OPERATING EXAMS For SRO's, a deficiency was noted in their ability to use less common Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP's). Excepting E-0, Reactor Trip /SI, and other commonly used E0P's, SR0s demonstrated ~

unfamiliaritywiththeE0Psbyadeedtofocusexcessiveattention-on< individual steps at the expense of understanding overall-plant conditions and procedural intent. This resulted in a lack of aware-ness of pressure and inventory control'and core cooling methods, poor communications between the SRO and panel operators (missed reports), slower progress, and impaired judgement. In some cases decisions were made which degraded rather than mitigated adverse plant condition .

'

_.__.._1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _'

.._ _ _ _ _ _

..

.

..

.

.

. For all candidates, a lack of awareness was noted of the requirement of OM 1.7.4.X. to isolate letdown during high charging flow condi-tions to minimize RCS inventory los . Some candidates were reluctant to manually initiate a failed automatic function when a valid automatic actuation signal existed.

i Some SR0s had difficulty locating some instrumentation and manipula-

,' ting some of the controls. Conversely, R0s demonstrated an extra-ordinary ease of locating instrumentation and manipulating control . Some SR0s were unable to locate appropriate Technical Specification LCOs when given a situation requiring their us . Operators tended to rely too heavily on their prior experience at Shippingport when questioned regarding Beaver Valley specific . All of the candidates were weak in the- theory of operation and proper use of portable radiation monitoring instrument I SIMULATOR DEFICIENCIES The list of initial conditions (IC's) provided was not current. In addition, the simulator staf f stated that the end of life IC's were not fully reliabl t

!

4 The Main Feed Line Break inside containment was not considered reliable and was not recommended for use. This malfunction is_being i

reviewed by Westinghouse and should be available for the July examinatio , The accumulator drain rate was improper ~and varied widely in two separate scenario . Control rods moved by themselves while selected to manua . Numerous turbine indications failed high when all cooling tower pumps were tripped. This malfunction is being reviewed by u

,

Westinghouse and should be available for the July examination.

ThePowerRangeNucleadInstrumentrampmalfunctiondoesn'twork

,

' properly. A slow negative ramp gavela-high negative rate reacto tri . The examiners were provided with a simulator malfunction book which

included malfunctions considered not usable by the training ' staff.

i

.

I

3 I

.

.

.

4 Frequently, during the simulator scenarios all indicating lights would blink on and off for about a half second due to a static elec-tricity problem. This reduced the inherent realism of the simulato This should be corrected by installing demineralizers in the air condi'.ioning system before the July examinatio DEFICIENCIES NOTED DURING GRADING WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS:

The SR0s did not know what precautions to take during transfer of the main feedwater regulating valves to automatic control to prevent reactor trips. The facility had committed to train all operators in this procedure as part of a Licensing Event Report (LER-85-010-00).

The SR0s did not know the chain of command during refueling operations or who was responsible for authorizing fuel movement.

'

V TRAINING / REFERENCE MATERIAL The system descriptions provided in the operations manual were out-of-dat The most up-to-date training systems descriptions were not provide VII. PERSONNEL PRESENT AT EXIT INTERVIEW:

NRC PERSONNEL N. F. Dudley, Lead Reactor Engineer (Examiner)

D. H. Coe, Reactor Engineer (Examiner)

G. S. Barber, Reactor Engineer (Examiner)

B. S. Norris, Reactor Engineer (Examiner)

D. M. Silk, Reactor Engineer (Examiner)

W. Troskoski, Senior Resident Inspector A. A. Asars, Resident Inspector (EIT)

FACILITY PERSONNEL

.

W. S. Lacey, Plant Manager A. J. Morabito, Manager, Nuclear Training T. W. Burns, Director, Operations Training L. G. Schad, Simulator Coordinator T. E. Kuhar, Nuclear Operations Instructor A. Nowrnowski, Westinghouse Training VIII. SUMMARY OF NRC COMMENTS MADE AT EXIT INTERVIEW:

The examiner reviewed the number and types of examinations administered ,

over the two week period and presented the generic weaknesses observed l during the simulator and oral examination .

.

a.,y 4 6-m a -e4 e A 4- *,2J.m-9.4-. 14 4Er MM= D$, &-~sdi4 *m- .lmRi &A 45AM a I ,5 .Em 4--4Ett mEda,4e-a mm*-a2E- EiJs.a-4 ,a-%-r dves eeJs agme m = era as sa-.-w 4aog ap2an-+ m47 ..'w., a wm.a s-e

$.

{ .. . --

O-

i '. e l- ,

e

.

i, -

.

. t

-

I

E f

,

I i

i i

a h

s l '

,

I t

e i

i i .

)- i

1

-

-.

1 ~

s

<

i b

l

) .

. )

4

4

-

.

j ._

.

,

$

,,

.

4 1,

!

!

.

t

!

4-:

.

t

.

i.

,

"

!

i m r .

m

,

1 . '.

!

. .

i l

The facility committed to correcting the simulator deficiencies prior to the licensing examination in July, 1986. (0 pen Item 50-334/86-02-01)

! The facility stated that future training programs would schedule radiac training prior to licensing examination '

!

!

The facility requested an overall impression from the examiner of the licensing class. The examiner stated that the R0 candidates were above average while the SRO candidates were below averag IX. EXAMINATION REVIEW:

!

'

An examination review was conducted at. the completion of all of the j operating exams. Items from Attachment 3 were discussed on a line item

basis. All items were considered during grading but not all items resulted in a change to the master exam. Attachment 4 details the

'

( significant changes to the examinatio .

_ Attachments: - Written Examination and Answer Key (RO) Written Examination and Answer Key (SRO)

) Facility Comments on Written. Examinations made for the Exam Review Facility Comments Accepted by the NR >

~

r l

l l

l I l 1 l

l 1 ,

i

.