IR 05000336/1990007
| ML20043H323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1990 |
| From: | Briggs L, Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043G300 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-336-90-07OL, 50-336-90-7OL, NUDOCS 9006250207 | |
| Download: ML20043H323 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:w --
. ' , . ' . , !
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT EXAMINATION REPORT NO,: 50-336/90-07 FACILITY DOCKET NO,: 50-336 FACILITY LICENSE NO,: DPR-65 LICENSEE: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P, 0, Box 270 l Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270
FACILITY: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 EXAMINATION DATES: April 23 through 26, 1990 CHIEF EXAMINER: D
- %
8 [O . hgarryE.BriggstSenWr ' perations Engineer Da'te 8!fD APPROVED BY: h/>er Eselgroth, Chief. PWR Section Date Operations Branch, Division of_ Reactor Safety SUMMARY: Written examinations and operating tests were administered to three senior reactor operator (SRO) and six reactor operator (RO) candidates.- Three SRO's and five R0's passed these examinctions. One reactor operator candidate ' failed the written portion of the examination, ! ! l l ! .- - ,b kD
, _y
, , - - _ _ _ _ _ _, , k, ' _, . . ..
i DETAILS !. TYPE OF EXAMINATIONS: Replacement
EXAMINATION RESULTS: ,
R0 l SRO l " l Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail l l l ll l l
. Written l 5/1 l 3/0 l-l l Operating 6/0-l 3/0 l l l
l I I Overall.
l 5/1 l 3/0 l J l I l CHIEF EXAMINER AT SITE: Larry E. Briggs, Senior Operations Engineer L OTHER EXAMINERS: Peter. Eselgroth, Chief, PWR Sectie-NRC (UI) Peter Isaksen, INEL NRC Examiner John Hanek, INEL NRC Examiner Mark Jones, INEL NRC Examiner (VI) LICENSEE PERSONNEL PRESENT AT THE EXIT MEETING: Steve Brinkman, Millstone Point (MP) 2 Operations. Engineer-Robert Burnside, MP 2 Licensed Operator Upgrade Training Coordinator Dan Pantalone, MP 2 Program Coordinator ' -Brad Ruth, Manager, Operator Training Jeffrey Smith, MP 2 Operations Manager Michael Wilson, MP 2 Supervisor, Operator Training 2.0. PRE-EXAMINATION REVIEW I ~ , Priorto'theadministrationoftheSeniorReactorOperator(SRO)andthe < Reactor Operator -(RO) written examinations, four (4) Millstone Point 2 staff members (operations and training), all under security agreement, reviewed the-examinations at the NRC office in King of Prussia, Pennsyl-vania on April 17, 1990.
This review was performed to ensure that the
examination to be administered'was content valid and performance base, - , l.- ' , '. .
. -. . L All simulator scenarios were reviewed and exercised by the NRC on the MP 2 simulator prior to their use. Verification was performed using simu-lator training staff personnel that were under security agreement.
3.0 SUMMARY OF NRC AND LICENSEE COMMENTS MADE AT THE EXIT MEETING: a.
The NRC expressed appreciation to the Training and Operations Staff for providing assistance in expediting the examination process, b.
The following comments apply to observed procedure usage and content.
1.
E0P usage was not consistent between the operating crews after performing Standard Post Trip Actions (SPTA).
Due to the word-ing in the E0P User's Guide and the general format and construc-tion of Combustion Engineering (CE) E0Ps it could not be pre- . determined if crews would transition to E0P 2540, Functional ! Recovery or E0P 2534, Steam Generator Tube Rupture during one of ' the scenario verifications.
Three crews performed the same exercise.
Two of the three crews transitioned to E0P 2540 but via different routes, one crew transitioned to E0P 2534.
Either procedure was correct by User's Guide and CE guidance and would '! address the plant problems present in the scenario ! . i 2.
Operating Procedures referenced during the simulator exercises and during in plant walkdowns sometimes did not address the specific evolution or system status.
For example during a local start and parallel of the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) the procedure, OP 2346A, was written for a manual start of the EDG ! from the control room versus the local control station.
Most i indications are the same at both locations but some switches in ! the control room are buttons at the local control station.
The opposite is also true. This can and did cause momentary opera-tor confusion.
Level of detail was also different, sometimes within the same procedure.
OP 2380, RPS and NI Safety Channel Operation, Section 8.14, does not give specific direction concerning how to determine the failed component and which trip units to bypass if a failure is identified.
Section 8.16 of ' that same procedure gives very specific direction to the opera-tor concerning actions to take if a Power Range Nuclear Instru-
ment should fail.
! I c.
The following were noted during the simulator examinations, j i 1.
The Letdown Temperature Controller in both the simulator and the ! control room are reverse acting.
During two of the three j exercises of the scenario involving this controller, the opera-
tors did not read the indication correctly.
) 2.
The control room average comparator defeat capability is not modeled at the simulator.
I i I J l i
- . , . ,
> - . 3.- During two scenarios, the simulator experienced two spurious reactor trips and one momentary loss of the VA 30 Power Supply.
The licensee noted that efforts had been ongoing to locate the cause of the computer problems.
The faults did not affect the crews performance as the computer could be reset to a point preceding the trips. All crews performed acceptably.
During a subsequent discussion.on May 25, the Supervisor of Operator Training noted that a Hot Functional Computer (a backup unit) had been in use for two weeks and had not experienced any spurious failures. The backup computer will be used during the Requalification Examinations scheduled for the week of June 18, 1990, to ensure correct simulator performance, d.
The following comments apply to the reference material supplied by the licensee in preparation for the examination.
1.
One system description with enabling objectives was included in the reference material for a system (CEA Change Machine) that has been retired in place.
This necessitated a change in the written test since a question had beer. Sveloped concerning this system.
2.
The classroom Enabling Objectives (EO) were not indexed and did not appear to be easily correlated between the lesson plans and the system descriptions.
The Supervisor, Operator Training more fully explained the means to cross reference the E0s to other parts of the reference material and more effectively use the material supplied. He also stated that written instructions concerning the effective use of the supplied reference material and associated E0s would be provided for subsequent examinations, e.
The following candidate strengths were noted.
1.
Technical Specification usage by both the SRO and R0 candidates was noted as very good by all examiners.
This is noteworthy since R0 candidates are not required to exhibit extensive know-ledge of Technical Specifications.
2.
Excellent communications practices were used by a majority of the crews and candidates observed during the simulator scenarios, f.
The following comments apply to the general plant conditions and personnel observed by the examiners.
1.
The plant was noted as being clean in all areas toured which included, but not limited to, the EDG rooms, the Turbine build-ing,'the Auxiliary and Control Building.
.
TISE i .j - t ue . ' ' - , - y c, /... _s
. . . Et igs.
- + is.
! n; , [[ +v ' i e, .. k 2.
lAll on-shift crews were cooperative and professional I
.
- ,..
3.
Security and Health Physics access was very good, f . 4.0 POST-TEST WRITTEN LICENSEE COMMENTS AND NRC RESPONSE ,. m-i ef;- Subsequent to the' examination the licensee submitted comments on five (5).
! L'~ questions on the written exam. Those comments are contained in Attachment ! .3 of this report.
, i " The NRC response to the licensee comments are conta'ined in Attachment 4 l of.this report, i m.
' Attachments: l P ' ). Written Examination and Answer Key (RO) ! i., Li, 2.
Written Examination and Answer Key (SRO) . 3.. Facility Comments on Written Examinations after Facility Review > ' 4., NRC' Response to Facility Comments , ,, !
J2, . I
'g ' ..e
L: f
- -H
. ! E if . 'i: ',f s t,
! .' y \\[ t'\\, \\ ,, ,
i s < t .h '. - , , . -. -. . - .. .. -.. ... . . -,.... }}