IR 05000348/1989016

Insp Repts 50-348/89-16 & 50-364/89-16 on 890711-31.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Operational Safety Verification & Monthly Surveillance & Maint Observation.List of Backlog of Ungraded Exams Encl

ML20246P397
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	08/17/1989
From:	Cantrell F, Maxwell G, Miller W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20246P361	List: IR 05000348/1989016 ML20246P356
References
50-348-89-16, 50-364-89-16, NUDOCS 8909110105
Download: ML20246P397 (20)

Text

__ . _ _ _ . - _ _ - _ _ _ - -

'

'

.. , ,..,

7 *

' annary ::. , UNITED STATES P '~~ " ' .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

• '

o,i , REllON 1 ~U* j-

.

t'

101 MARlETTA STREET, ;* # ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

>

, f

.....

jif l a

' Report Nos.: 50-348/89-16 and 50-364/89-16-

-

Licensee: . Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 36291

_

Docket Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8-

+

Facility name: Farley 1 and 2

Inspection Conducted: July 11 - July 31, 1989

'

.. I'nspecto s: - 7f 4 ' G. F M wel Se ior Resident Inspector- Date Signed

. . W 7 ?

, W. fll r, Jr., Resident Inspector Date Sign'ed Approved by: Y *~

$.ef. S. Kantrell, Section Chief

.

S/7/f?

Date' Signed SUMMARY Scope:

This routine onsite inspection involved a review of operational safety verifi-cation, monthly surveillance observation, and monthly maintenance observatio Results:

Within the areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie Certain tours were conducted on deep backshift or weekends, these' tours were conducted on July 13 (deep backshift inspections occur between 10

00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.).

8909110105 890$17 PDR ADOCK 05000348 g FDC

_=_-_=_______-__--- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..

,,'

'

-

o REPORT DETAILS Licensee Employees Contacted R. G. Berryhill, Systems Performance and Planning Manager C. L. Buck, Plant Modification Manager L. W. Enfinger, Administrative Manager R. D. Hill, Assistant General Manager - Plant Operations-D. N. Morey, General Manager - Farir; duclear Plant C. D. Nesbitt, Technical Manager J. K. Osterholtz, Operations Manager L. M. Stinson, Assistant General Manager - Plant Support J. J. Thomas, Maintenance Manager L. S. Williams Training Manager Other licensee employees contacted included, technicians, operations personnel, maintenance and I&C personnel, security force members, and office personne Acronyms and abbreviations used throughout this report are listed in the last paragrap . Plant Status Unit 1 Unit 1 operated at approximately 100 percent reactor power throughout the reporting perio Unit 2 Unit 2 operated at approximately 100 percent reactor power throughout the reporting period,- except power was reduced on July 24 to approximately 55 percent due to excessive vibration alarm on steam generator m'in feedwater pump 2 Power was increased to 65 percent on July 2. and remained at that level until modifications were completed to eliminate the excessive vibration alarm. The unit was returned to 100 percent power on July 2 Other Inspections Report No. 89-17 Design Engineering and Technical Support Inspection, July 24-2 Report No. 89-18, Routine Security Inspection, July 31 - August 4.

--_ - - _

-

.

.. -

2 Operational Safety Verification (71707, 92700) Plant Tours The inspectors conducted routine plant tours during this inspection period to verify that tha licensee's requirements and commitments were being implemente Inspections were conducted at various times including week-days, nights, weekends and holidays. These tours were performed to verify that: systems, valves, and breakers required for safe plant operations were in their correct position; fire protection equipment, spare equipment and materials were being maintained and stored properly; plant operators were aware of the current plant status; plant operations personnel were documenting the status of out-of-service equipment; there were no undocumented cases of unusual fluid leaks, piping vibration, abnormal hanger or seismic restraint movements; all reviewed equipment requiring calibration was current; and general housekeeping was satisfactor Tours of the plant included review of site documentation and interviews with plant personnel. The inspectors reviewed the control room operators' logs, tag out logs, chemistry and health physics logs, and control boards and panels. During these tours the inspectors noted that the operators appeared to be alert, aware of changing plant conditions and manipulated plant controls properly. The inspectors evaluated operations shift turnovers and attended shift briefing They observed that the briefings and turnover provided sufficient detail for the next shift cre Site security was evaluated by observing personnel in the protected and vital areas to ensure that these persons had the proper authorization to be in the respective area The inspectors also verified that vital area portals were kept locked and alarmed. The security personnel appeared to be alert and attentive to their duties and those officers performing personnel and vehicular searches were thorough and systematic. Responses to security alarm conditions appeared to be prompt and adequat Selected activities of the licensee's Radiological Protection Program were reviewed by the inspectors to verify conformance with plant procedures and NRC regulatory requirement The areas reviewed included: operation and management of the plant's health physics staff, "ALARA" implementation, Radiation Work Permits (RWPs) for compliance to plant procedures, personnel exposure records, observa-tion of work and personnel in radiation areas to verify compliance to radiation protection procedures, and control of radioactive material Plant Events and Observations Steam Generator Feed Pump (SGFP) 2A The inspectors reviewed the circumstances associated with the high vibrations on turbine driven SGFP 2A that required this pump to be removed from service on July 24. At 4:30 a.m. on

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ - - - _ _____--____-_-_--_-______--___________w

_ _ _ - _ - _

___ __-_ _ -

u y

j*

,.. y

,

,

July 23, the control room received a high vibration alarm from SGFP. 2 An investigation was initiated by operations and maintenance which by using a portable vibration detector found -

that the pump shaft vibrations were approximately 2.8 mils with spikes that exceeded 3.0 mils The control. room alarm set point

-

.is 3.0- mils. The maintenance group began.taking vibration

. readings each hour on July 23. .The shaft vibrations remained constant until about 6:00 p.m. on July 2 At this time th vibrations began to increase and eventually reached 11 mils at midnight on July 23. .To prevent damage to the pump or turbine, operations decided to remove the pump from service. Reactor power was-reduced to approximately.55 percent at 12:29 a.m. on July 24 and the pump was-taken off line at 4:22 a.m. Reactor power. was maintained at approximately 65 percent from July 24 until July 28. -Maintenance removed the inboard turbine bearing and found some wear.- In general the bearing was satisfactory and was apparently not the cause of the high vibration, but was replaced as'a. precautio On July 25.the pump was disconnected from the turbin The turbine was run and high' vibrations were found to still exis The - vendor's technical representative end Southern Company's engineering group were on site and involved with the investiga-tions.and the pump test runs. These investigations found that the most probable cause of' the vibration was a change in the pumps' resonance frequency. To correct this problem a. new

' bearing support bracket or stiffener was added to the. inboard bearing housing. This modification was reviewed and approved by the vendor (Westinghouse) and by Minor Departure 89-2088. The ,

modification was completed and SGFP 2A was restored to service '

at 3:08 a.m. on July 2 An increase'of reactor power was initiated at 3:35 p.m. and reactor was returned'to 100% power at 6:45 p.m. on July 2 The licensee continues to review this event and plans further investigation of the pump and turbine drive during the next refueling outage, which is scheduled to begin in September 198 The inspectors will continue to monitor the licensee's investi-gation, but have no further concerns or questions at-this tim . Monthly Surveillance Observation (61726)

The inspectors witnessed the licensee conducting maintenance surveillance

-

test activities on safety-related systems and components to verify that the licensee performed the activities in accordance with TS and licensee requirements. These observations included witnessing selected portions of each surveillance, review of the surveillance procedures to ensure that administrative controls and tagging procedures were in force, determining that approval was obtained prior to conducting the surveillance test and

- _ __ __ - ___- --

, _ - -_

..

.

,.

. . . .

,the individuals conducting the test were qualified in accordance wit plant-approved procedures. Other observations included ascertaining that test instrumentation used was calibrated, data collected was within the specified requirements of TS, any identified discrepancies were properly noted, and the systems were correctly returned to service. The following specific activities were observed:

1-STP- Borated Water Source Operability Test 2.STP- RCP Seal Controlled Leakage Test 2-STP-1 Containment Spray Pump 2A Quarterly IST 1-STP-1 Containment Cooling System Train B Operability Test 1-STP-2 Penetration Room Filtration Alignment Verification 2-STP-2 Penetration Room Filtration System Train B Monthly Operability Test 2-STP-2 Auxiliary Building DC Distribution System Verification 2-STP-3 Accumulator MOV Power Isolation Verification 2-STF-3 Containment Inspectior (Post Maint nance - Replacement of Incore Drive C Detector)

1-STP-4 Power Range Functional Test - Channel N-42 1-STP-5 Radiation Monitor Monthly Source Check 2-STP-6 Area Temperature Monitoring No violations or deviations were identified. The results of the inspections in this area indicate that the program was effective with respect to meeting the safety objective . Monthly Maintenance Observation (62703)

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's maintenance activities to verify the following: maintenance personnel were obtaining the appropriate tag out and clearance approvals prior to commencing work activities, correct documentation was available for all requested parts and material prior to use, procedures were available for all requested parts and material prior to use, procedures were available and adequate for the work being conducted, maintenance personnel performing work activities were qualified to accomplish these tasks, no maintenance activities reviewed were violating any limiting conditions for operation during the specific evolution, the required QA/QC reviews and QC hold points were implemented, post-maintenance testing activities were completed, and equipment was properly returned to service after the completion of work activitie Activities reviewed included:

.

MWR 183104 Disassemble and repair relief valve to CCW heat exchange Replace relay for control room filtration fan B0P

'

MWR 187386 annunciato MWR 18973J' Repair high vibration on inboard bearing to steam generator feed pump 2 MWR 190051 Repair inlet gas pressure control valve to Unit 2A recombine MWR 210119 Repair emergency lights in Unit 2 diesel generator tunnel.

L- -- _-_- - -_ _--_______-- _ -__.--_- - - - _ . - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - -

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

e

,

,, .

No violations or deviations were identified. The results of the inspections in this area indicate that the program was effective with respect to meeting the safety objective .- Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized during management interviews throughout the report period and on August 3, with the plant manager and selected members of his staff. The inspection findings were discussed in detail. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings and did not identify as proprietary any material reviewed by the inspection during this inspectio . Management Meeting Summary A management meeting was held at the Region II office on July 31, 1989, to discuss issues related to inspection findings documented in Inspection Report 348, 364/0L 89-01. The issues involved were the licensee's excessive use of overtime by licensed operators and the licensee's requalification training program. Attachment 1 is a list of attendees at the meeting and Attachment 2 is a copy of the handout presented at the meetin The licensee representatives discussed their present method of scheduling licensed operator crews for shift work and explained that during periods when one unit was in an outage that they maintained essentially the same schedule but extended shifts from eight to twelve hours such that crews worked 84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> in one week. They opposed any changes to their scheduling method because it would be disruptive to crew morale and have possible ALARA consideration The NRC representatives generally agreed with the licensee's position but expressed concern about several cases in which operators used overtime excessively. The licensee agreed with this concern and committed to tighten control of overtime approval to eliminate isolated excessive overtim The licensee representatives presented their response to the generic operator weaknesses identified during the requalification examination Procedure changes were outlined for EEP 1.0 and the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures. The NRC representatives agreed that changes to these procedures are necessary. Techniques for improving the operator's performance of Immediate Operator Actions and the implementation of Technical Specifications Limiting Conditions for Operations were also presented. The NRC will evaluate operator performance in these areas during future examination visit _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ -

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

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .__ __ _____

_ _ - _

.;

.. .'

6 Acronyms and Abbreviations AFW - Auxiliary Feedweter A0P - Abnormal Operating Procedure AP -

Administrative Procedure APC0 - Alabama Power Company CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

'CCW -

Component Cooling Water DC - Design Change DR - Deviation Report

'ECP - Emergency Contingency Procedure EIP - Emergency Plant Implementing Procedure EQ -

Environmental Qualifications ESF - Engineered Safety Features EWR - Engineering Work Request F -

Fahrenheit GPM - Gallons Per Minute ISI - Inservice Inspection IST - Inservice Test LC0 - Limiting Condition for Operation MOV - Motor-0perated Valve M0 VATS - Motor-0perated Valve Actuation Testing System MWR - Maintenance Work Request NCR - Nonconformance Report NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR - NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PMD - Plant Modifications Department QA - Quality Assurance QC - Quality Control RCP -

Radiation Control and Protection Procedure RCS - Reactor Coolant System

'

RHR - Residual Heat Removal i

SI - Safety Injection

'

SAER - Safety Audit and Engineering Review-S/G - Steam Generator

'

SSPS - Solid State Protection System 50V - Solenoid Operated Valve STP -

Surveillance Test Procedure SW- -

Service Water TS - Technical Specifica; ion TSC - Technical Support Center WA -

Work Authorization

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

_ - _ _ _ _ _

(

.

_

• .

'

.. .

'T

, ,

. ,

ATTACHMENT-1

._

-List of Attendees Management Meeting-

. July 31, 1989 L

l Alabama' Power Company J. Woodard, Vice President' Nuclear .

- Morey, Genera 1' Manager,' Farley Nuclear' Plant -(FNP)

k J. Osterholtz, Operations. Manager, FNP

- L. Williams,. Training Manager, FNP U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Region II M.-Ernst Deputy Regional Administrator .

- B.. Grimes, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator W. Hehl, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP)

E. Merschoff, Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Safety (DRS)

- D. Verre111, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 1, DRP T. Peebles, Chief, Operations' Branch, DRS

- C. Julian.. Chief Engineering Branch, DRS

, F. Cantrell, Chief, Reactor Projects.Section 1B, DRP-

. C. Casto,. Acting Chief,.0perator Licensing Section 1 DRS P. Kellogg, Chief, Operational Programs Section, DRS

- G. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector - Farley, DRP

- W. Miller, Jr., Resident Inspector. - Farley, DRP-

'

L. Lawyer, Reactor Inspector, DRS P. Balmain, Project Engineer, DRP R. Baldwin, Reactor. Engineer, DRS-

- B. Breslau,LReactor Engineer, DRS Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations E.- Adensam,' Director Project Directorate 11-1 E. Reeves, Senior Project Manager C. Goodman, Technical Reviewer t-I

'

__.___._.-._l-___.._.__________.___m. - _.__.2 ._..._ __ _[

- _-

a

!

.

..

'

ATTACHMENT 2 -

ALABAMA POWER COMPANY i i

FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT l,

,

NRC MANAGEMENT MEETING ,

July 31,1989

._

l I

MANAGEMENT OF OVERTIME l

TRAINING PROGRAM l

l l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_j

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

,.

, '? & 9 l~ ,. .

I n , .'

!" . . .

'h l: AGENDA l

Introduction and Opening Remarks ,

!

\

Overtime Presentation . i

_

Questions and Answers . l i

Training Program Presentation l

. Questions. and Answers ')

- Final Remarks

l

.

l

1 I

l i

I l

I

. . . . . .

___---___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ - . - - - - _ _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - . J

J.M.FARLEY

'

.. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

.. .- 6.2. " Administrative procedures shall be developed and implemented to limit the working hours of unit staff who perform safety-related functions; e.g., Senior Reactor Operators, Reactor Operators, Health Physics Technicians, Auxiliary Operators, and key maintenance personnel. Adequate shift coverage shall be maintained without routine heavy use of overtim The objective shall be to have operatinz aersonnel work a nominal 40-hour weel while Lhe plant is operatin In the event that unforeseen problems require substantial amounts of overtime to be used, or during extended periods of shutdown for refueling, major maintenance or major plant modifications, on a temporary basis, the following guidelines ;

shall be followed:

, An individual will not be permitted to work more than 16 i hours straight (not including shift turnover time).

2.,

There will be a break of' at least 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> (which can include shift turnover time) between work period . An individual will not work more than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> in any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, nor more than ,24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in any 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />  ;

period, nor more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any 7-day period (all excluding shift turnover time). l

! Except during extended shutdown periods I

'

the use of overtime should be considered, on an individual basis and not for the entire staff on a shif i Any deviation from the above guidelines for the minimum shift complement defined in Technical Specification  !

Table 6.2-1 and health physics technicians shall be i reviewed and approved by the General Manager - Nuclear Plant, his designee (Emergency Director) or higher )

authority. Any deviation from the above guidelines fer j

key maintenance personnel shall be reviewed and approved by the Maintenance Manager or his designee (group supervisor)"

E _ _ _ _ __ __ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________J

f I .S P

.S N . R G . I

. S . M

. . .

. . . .E

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

2 3 4 _

.

_

1 M A P

2 3 _ 1

. T R 2 3 5 1 W 2

2 4 5 1 T

-

2 4 5 1 F A

3 4 5 .

S P R

3 4 5 S

0 3 4 5 2 M M

3 4 2 T Y 3 4 1 2 W C

3 5 1 2 T

-

3 5 1 2 F

.

4 5 1 S M Y

4 5 1 S

7

-

4 5 1 3 M M

4 5 3 T Y 4 5 2 3 W 0

4 1 2 3 T

-

4 1 2 3 F 5 1 2 S M Y

5 1 2 S

_

.

_

.

-

_

_ 5 1 2 4 M

.

.

.

.

.

M

_

.

_

_

5 1 4 T Y

_

_

_

.

.

5 1 3 4 W 1

T

_

2 3 4

.

_ 5

_ -

_

_

_ 5 2 3 4 F M.

_

S

-

_

1 2 3 Y

_

_

_

_

_ 1 2 3 S

.

_

_

.

_

-

.

.

_

_

2 3 5 M

.

-

_ 1

-

_ M

_

.

_

.

-

1 2 5 T Y

_

-

_

_

1 2 4 5 W 2

T

_

.

_

_

1 3 4 5

-

.

_

_

_

1 3 4 5 F

_

_

_

2 3 4 S M

_

_

Y

_

-

2 3 4 S

.

_

_

.

.

_

_

_

_

_

.

-

-

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_^

.

$ l

. - - - - - - - --

.

..

.

..

I~ NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-364/80-27 (7.b(4))

(4) "APCo has informed the inspectors that it is in total agreement with and fully supports the commission's requirement to limit maximum work hours of personnel performing safety related functions. They have stated that they are able to commit to working personnel under normal conditions to no more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in any seven day work period and to working these personnel no more than 14 consecutive days without at least two consecutive days off. However, APCo has also informed the inspectors that at the present time, it is unable to commit to limit the work of

'

personnel to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> off between work periods. APCo stated that its inability to make this commitment is due

'

primarily to a binding contract with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) which does not provide for such scheduling of personne APCo has informed the inspectors that it is initiating negotiations with the IBEW to meet the overtime limits required the NRC. APCo has also advised the inspector that newly constituted training and licensing requirements raise uncertainties about total manpower needs which make the overtime limits difficult to meet at this tim This item will remain open pending further review by the NRC ancf the review of procedur'al controls pl.qced on overtime during a subseguent inspection (364/B0-27-03)'

~

- _ _ _ - - - _ _

- ._-

.

..

,

.

-

50-384 & 50-364/88-05 Paragraph 5.a(8)

"The inspectors reviewed time sheets for Operations personnel for the period between December 12, 1987 through February 21, 1988. During that time frame both units were operational. Only one person was noted to have exceeded the overtime guidelines. That occurred when more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> were worked in a seven day period. The Emergency Director, as specified in FNP-0-AP-64, granted approval for that overtime. When the plant is operating at power, Operations personnel appeared to work a nominal 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> week with occasional overtime required due to sickness or absences of other staff members.

l The inspectors also reviewed time sheets for the last refueling outage. Numerous examples were noted of Operations personnel exceeding, with the Emergency Director's approval, 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7 day period. During outages, the Operation's staff rotates through two, seven day,12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per day periods, i.e.,

-

two periods of 84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> in seven days~

every 5 week Although this exceeds the guidelines of Technical Specification 6.2.2.f.3 ar.d FNP-0-AP-64, the benefits of this schedule are that when additional outage related overtime is required, the operatingstaff continues to receive the normr.1 days off. resulting in 10 days off during the 5 week period. Operators also rotate on the same schedule as during normal operations. The change is that each person works either a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> day or night shift in place of his normal 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> work perio The licensee has been able to maintain short outa therefore, ge durations in the past;it appears that the structure of approved overtime during outages is acceptabl No violations or deviations were identified"

.-

_ _ _ ,

'I

,.

se , ,-

.

..

> . , . . .-

,

.;. . . .

NRC . CONCERNS

Generic. Weakness from the Examination * Transition from EEP 1.0 for Secondary break-

'

-

Emergency Classifications

- Immediate Operator Actions Technical Specification Application

_-

- - . Back log of ungraded examinations

~

1:

!

-

Post exam changes  ;

Training staffing l

!

l I

I l

l 1,_

u_ ___ _ i'

, . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..

..g

..

}" . , j' *

,

^

SOURCES & SCHEDULE OF REMEDIAL-TRAINING l

SOURCES .

Knowledges FNP written exams NRC written exams

JPM questions

Generic weaknesses Skills -

Simulator Performance

_

JPMs

. Generic weaknesses SCHEDUL Written Simulator Armstrong 07/16/89 07/20/89 Olson 07/06/89 --------

Arute 07/14/89 .07/20/89

'

Cumbee 07/21/89 07/20/89 Forrester ---- 07/20/89 ,

I Ware -------- To be scheduled Vanlandingham --- -

To be scheduled Wynn -- --- To be scheduled

'

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

_

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

- _ _ _ _ .

?

.

'" -

... .s

.. a POST EXAM CHANGES i

17 total changes, 9 substantive 11 Total changes for week 1, 7 substantive 6. Total changes for week 2, 2 substantive I question deleted .

I comment not accepted Week 2 exams received additional validation and verification Future exam questions will receive additional validation and verification

-

- Training staff Operations supervision

Simulator setup . verification Root Cause Insufficient Validation & Verification

- _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ . :. ; ..

-

.

.

'

BACKLOG OF UNGRADED EXAMINATIONS I

,

h.

I f 06/01/89 & 06/02/89 20 week .1 exams administered 06/30/89 Week 1 exams graded - 21 working days 06/08/89 & 06/09/89 26 week 2 exams administered 07/07/89 Week 2 exams graded - 21 working days ,

06/15/89 & 06/16/89 23 week 3 exams administered 07/14/89 Week 3 exams graded - 21 working days 06/19/8_9 11 week 4 NRi exams administered 07/04/89 Week 4 exams graded - 8 working days 06/26/89 11 week 5 NRC cr.ams administered 07/04/89 Week 5 exams graded - 2 working days 07/07/89 9 week 6 exams administered 07/12/89 Week 6 exants graded - 4 working days

[ -- -

-

_ __ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

_-. . . - . . _ . _

9-

... ,

,,

+9'

. . . + .. n

~.

, PROGRAMMATIC ENHANCEMENTS

'

,

a .

'

l

'*

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW SCHEDULE i

Revised' Presentation Schedule .

Eliminate non-licensed topics Expanded. Schedul ._

. INSTRUCTIONAL . METHODOLOGY L

Support new examination process L

l Develop additional Operator capabilities

'

EXAM QUESTION VERIFICATION & VALIDATION L

i

?

I

,

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ J

.. - _ _ _ _ ______ _- ._ .

'

REMEDIAL TRAINING 'IOPICS

.- .

Armstrong RCP operation in mode 5, RIL limit at power, RCP operation in EEP-3, l manipulator crane interlocks, FRP rules of usage, 1/m plots, AEW operation !

in EEP-3, symptoms of loss of a RCP at power, ESP-0.0 usage, SDM requirements on RHR, electrical alignment during LOSP, loss of CCW cooling effect on CVCS, effect of penetration room high pressure, AEW flow control valve interlocks, natural circulation indications, LOSP sequencer functions, j FRP-Z.1 red path criteria, ERG flow path for EEP-3, CCW operation with j system leakage, source range operation with intermediate range failures, RCP !

. operation with seal failures, accumulator operation during abnormal l conditions, operation of ICCMS, CETC funcCons, AMSAC autostart of TDAFW pump, reasons for seal isolation during lot 9 Z all AC, EEP-1 transition of steam break l Olson l RCP restart criteria, steam dump operation, rod speeds, RCS drain down when solid, SGFP speed control, SGFP suction pressure versus SG feed flow, pressurizer pressure control during loss of air, solid plant pressure control, CCW pump auto trips, emergency boron requirements during LOCA, ;

ESP-1.3 usage, FRP-H.1 usage, ESF sequencer operation after MCB SI reset, D/G response during LOSP, OPTR calculations, AFW flow control valve ,

interlocks, VCT pressure effects on RCP seal leakoff, FRP-P.1 application, l AOP-34 application, seal oil system operation, RMS operation during LOSP, source range operation with intermediate range failure, PORV lift set point, orifice isolation interlocks, EEP-1 transition for steam break Arute ,

EEP-3 usage, service water alignment to fire protection, RCP operation in EEP-3, Tech Spec application EEP usage, FCV-122 response, CCW pamp trip logic, D/G sequencer operation during LOSP, containment spray operation during large steam break, RCP support systems, VCT level control, AOP- usage, AOP-34 application, EEP-1 transition for steam break, EIP-9 classifications Cumbee Notification requirement for oil spill, RCS solid pressure control, RCP '

operation in EEP-3, Tech Spec application, 1/m plots, FCV-122 response, CCW pump trip logic, AEW operation during accident conditions, SOP- application, plant response during high penetration room pressure, NIS failure effects on rod control, STP-70 application with RCDT inoperable, RCP seal isolation, EEP-1 transition for steam break, EIP-9 classification Cumbee, Armstrong, Forrester Immediate operator actions, steam breaks, feedwater breaks, LOCA, SGTR, Technical Specification applications, communications, EIP-9 classification and notifications, AOP and ARP usage Ware, Vanlandingham, Wynn Communication, rod misalignment, EEP-1 branching criteria immediate operator actions, Tech Spec application, EIP-9 classification and notification

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