IR 05000334/1988024

Exam Rept 50-334/88-24OL on 880817-18.Exam Results:One of Two Senior Reactor Operators Passed Exams

ML20155E314
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	09/27/1988
From:	Briggs L, Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155E299	List: IR 05000334/1988024 ML20155E297 ML20155E327
References
50-334-88-24OL, NUDOCS 8810120237
Download: ML20155E314 (6)

Text

.

. .

,

'

.'.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-334/88-24(0L)

FACILITY DOCKET N0. 50-334 FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-66 LICENSEE: Duquesne Light Company Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 FACILITY: Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 1 EXAMINATION DATES: August 17 and 18, 193 CHIEF EXAMINER La

[ J '?/ '_ h27'88 Date yE.Brigpf,SeniorOperationsEngineer f? '

ll i APPROVED BY: o fM1 Peter Eselgr' th, Chief, PWR Section 9'27'fff Date Operations / ranch, Division of Reactor Safety

,

SUMMARY: Written examinations and operating tests were administered to two

, (2) senior reactor operator (SRO) candidates. One SR0 passed the examinations.

<

l l

I I

'

l

.i

-

v

.

l

._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

_ _ , _ . . _ . , _ _ _ , _

.

-

,

.

.

'

,.

OETAILS

.

TYPE OF EXAMINAI!ON: Replacement EXAMINATION RESULTS:

l R0 l SR0 l l Pass /Fafl l Pass / Fail l I l l I I I I l Written 1 0/0 l 1/1 l I ._ l l l l l 1 I I Operating l 0/0 l 2/0 I I I I I I I I I l Overall l 0/0 1 1/1 l 1 I I I CHIEF EXAMINER AT SITE: Larry E. Briggs, Senior Operations Engineer OTHER EXAMINERS: James Prell, Senior Operations Engineer PERSONNEL PRESENT AT THE EXIT INTERVIEW:

Tom Burns, Director Operations - Training James Crum, Nuclear Operations and Maintenance Instructor Larry Freeland, Nuclear Operations Supervisor

.

l

!

L

'

...

.-.* .

1

.

-3- SUMMARY OF NRC AND LICENSEE COMMENTS MADE AT THE EXIT MEETING a. The NRC expressed appreciation to the Training and Operations Departments for providing a sistance in expediting the examination process, b. The NRC reviewed the number and type of examinations conducted curing the week and observations made, c. There were no generic strengths or weaknesses observed during the examinations due to the limited number of caicidate '

d. The following is a sumary of NRC coments concerning reference material supplied by the facility for exam preparation, The ?xaminer noted that some Operating Manuals (CM) did not n.ppear to support the Enabling Objective and should be reviewed to determine applicabilit In particular the ON for the Reactor Coolant Pump appeared to be deficien . The examiner noted that although OM's and other reference material had an index in the front of the manual there were no tabs provided for easy access to each desired section. This caused a protracted period for exam preparatio . The examiner noted that the anr.unciator response procedures contained in the, CM's were not in any logical sequence and almost unusable in the provided forma Those in the control room are contained in separate binders divide:1 by annunciator section.

! The examiner stated that the P&lDs provided were reduced in size to the point of poor quality and were aften unreadable even with a magnifying glass.

'

The license's response to comments 1 through 4 was that an effort would be made to upgrade the reference material that would be supplied for future exam preparation.

l The NRC stated that during the plant walkthrough portion of the

operating test, it was observed that the remote shutdown panel 1 did not incorporate any physical restrictions to prevent control and operation transfer between the control room and the shutdown panel. The licenste said that this concern would be :

evaluated to determine acceptability, l

'

Attachments:

NRC response to facility coment . Facility coments on written examination Written Examination and Answer Key (SRO)  ;

!

._ - .-

_ ______ _ _ _ _ _

. .' .

i

.,. .

. l ATTACHMENT 1 ilRC RESPONSE TO FACILITY COMMENTS

The following statements address the NRC's disposition of comments submitted by the facility (see attachment 2) on the written SRO examination and changes .

made to the answer key during the grading proces .0 THEORY OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATION, FLUIDS AND THERMODYNAMICS 5.07.a.1&2 Coment noted. Credit was given if candidate specified assumed plant conditions in answe . 5.0 Answer key revised during grading to delete "Early extrapolation of the 1/M plot results in a late prediction of criticality" since the question would not elicit that part of the answer. Question point value was reduced by 0.5 point .0 PLANT SYSTEMS DESIGN, CONTPOL AND INSTRUMENTATION 6.03.e & f Comment accepte As stated, the reference material was in erro The answer key was changed in part e. to reflect the correct valve number. Part f. was changed to denote that the valve did not receive an ESF signa .0 Answer key revised during grading to include OT delta T and P11 as acceptable answer .06 Coment accepted. Answer key was changed to indicate that final steady state SG 1evel would be at normal program leve .09 Coment accepted. Answer key changed to "Trip of all running main feed pumps".

6.09. Coment accepted. Answer key changed to "Steam driven AFW start signal not follo ed by discharge pressure".

6.0 Answer key revised during grading to accept "breaker racked out" as an acceptable answer.

[

6.0 Coment accepte Valve position changed from not fully open to

"not fully closed".

- _. - - .-. ._ . _-____ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - .- -

.

a . . .

'

.",

.

.

.

I PROCEDURES-NORMAL, ABNORMAL, EMERGENCY AND RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL l

'

7.0 Answer key revised during grading to accept "Local manual trip of the turbine" as an acceptable part of the answer.

i j 7.0 Coment accepted. Answer key revised to include "RCS subcooling

less than attachment' and "Pressurizer level less than 5 percent" i as acceptable answers.

7.07 Coment accepte "Lifetime exposure is more limiting" was !

' deleted from the answer key and the question point value was  !

]

reduced by 0.25 points. Although not specifically asked for in i

.

the question it was necessary for the candidate to determine which '

t exposure limit was the cost restrictive in order to answer the ,

I quastion.

i

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURLS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS 8.01 Coment accepte Credit was giveri if the candidate stated the '

assumption that the primary to secondary leakage was in only one l

steam generator. Due to the wording of the RCP seal leakage statenent of the question it would be possible for the candidate to consider the 4.2 GPM as either controlled leakage or identitied >

'

leakag The answer key was revised to include Identified Leakage as ene of the acceptable answers,

'

t J 8.0 Coment accepted in part. Sufficient information was given for i the candidate to recognize th?t a fire in the diesel generator

breaker had disabled the diesel generator for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Tab 26 of EPP/I-1 definition of an Alert states "Fire which POTENTIALLY ,

affects safety systems". Loss of an Emergency Diesel Generator

due to a fire definately has the potential to affect safety l systems.

,

The answer key was changed as follows: Classification level to i "Alert" and Justification to "Fire which potentially affects

safety systems", i j 8.04 Coment not accepted. SRO's are required to be able to recognize that they have exceeded an LCO and entered an action statemen >

They must also know that they cannot change modes (toward mode 1) !

{ while relying on a action statement, if 3.0.4 is applicabl If ,

i the candidata does not know if 3.0.4 does or does not apply then ,

) he can state action for both case ;

} l

j i

i

'

i

!

l i

,

. . .

,

.,. .

,

l .

i j 8.0 Comment accepted. Answer key revised to incorporate new personnel j titles.

.

! 8.0 Answer key revised during grading to reflect that Tab 1 of EPP/1-1 I would require an unusual event to be declared for an unplanned I release. This would require a "One hour notification" and a "30

'

day LER" IAW SAP 3B No. 31.

l 8.1 Coppent noted. The question asks for two things, what j notifications must be made and to indicate which of those j notification (s) must be made in one hour.

I

I

1 t

!

l

$

!

!

!

!

l l

\ l i

i

!

)

?

i l

i i

l

1 i

_ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .