IR 05000410/1985015
| ML20205E410 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1985 |
| From: | Keller R, Kister H, Lange D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138B604 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-410-85-15, NUDOCS 8510170296 | |
| Download: ML20205E410 (4) | |
Text
m V
.
ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 85-15 (OL).
FACILITY DOCKET NO. 50-410 FACILITY LICENSE NO. CPPR-112 LICENSEE: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Eric Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13202 FACILITY: NINE MILE POINT 2 EXAMINATION DATES: June 11-19, 1985 g- )4 (,w D0 CHIEF EXAMINER:
I0 2 85 Reactor Endneer (Exa er)
datb L[ead Reactor Eng1neer (Examiner)
/od /f s-REVIEWED By:
ma va date '
REVIEWED By:
/d F
R. Kell (/, Chief dat'e '
Reactor Projects Section 1C APPROVED By:
O h
=
H. Ki ster,Mhief da e /
Reactor Projects Branch No. 1 SUMMARY: Operator licensing examinations were conducted at Nine Mile Point Unit 2 during the period June 11-19, 1985. Twelve Reactor Operator candidates and 12 Senior Reactor Operator candidates were administered written, oral, and simulator examinations. Nine Reactor Cperator candidates failed the written examination; one Senior Reactor Operator candidate failed both the oral and simulator examination; one Senior Reactor Operator candidate failed the simu-lator examination.
- PdoToiPe$$!A G
...
-
--
.
,
J h
REPORT DETAILS TYPE OF EXAM:
Initial EXAM RESULTS:
l R0 l
SR0 l
l Pass / Fail l
Pass / Fail l
l l
I I
I I
l Written Exam l
3/9 l
12/0 l
l l
l l
I I
I l Oral Exam l
12/0 l
11/1
I I
I I
,
I I
I I
l Simulator Exam l 12/0
10/2 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l Overall l
3/9 l
10/2 l
l l
l l
1.
Chief Examiner at Site:
Frank Crescenzo 2.
Other Examiners: John Berry, Dave Lange, Robert Keller William Cliff (PNL), Gary Sly (PNL).
3.
Summary of generic strengths or deficiencies noted on oral exams:
No outstanding generic weaknesses were noted; however, the following weak-
nesses were noted among some candidates:
a.
Knowledge of refueling operations and supervision of refuel floor activities was weak.
b.
Candidates were weak on noting abnormal conditions which have no annunciators, i.e., containment isolations, half scram on loss of RPS MG set, EHC oscillations.
Strengths were noted in the following areas:
a.
SR0s performed well on emergency classifications and notification, b.
Most candidates performed well during plant walkthroughs.
c.
Knowledge and use of Technical Specifications.
.
. -,
y
-
_.,
-
_
, _,
,,m
- . 9 g.
.r_
,
-.r
_
.
,.
d.
Concern for personnel safety.
4.
Summary of generic strengths or deficiencies noted from grading of written exams:
The Senior Reactor Operator candidates performed well on the written
.
examination as evidenced by a 100% pass rate. The Reactor Operator
!
candidates performed poorly on the written, as evidenced by a 25% pass rate with a high total score of 81.7%.
It is difficult to identify specific generic weaknesses from grading of the RO examinations since all
. scores, both sectional and total, were, in general, low.
In addition, all
'
candidates who failed had failing total scores and at least one failing sectional score.
5.
Personnel present at exit interview:
NRC Personnel D. Lange, Reactor Engineer (Examiner)
.
F. Crescenzo, Reactor Engineer (Examiner)
Facility Personnel R. Zollitzch, Niagara Mohawk Training Supervisor M. Dooley, Niagara Mohawk NMP2 Training Supervisor R. W. Gayne, NMP2 Operations R. I. Brown, General Physics E. K. Bates, General Physics 6.
Summary of NRC comments made at exit interview:
a.
The preliminary.results of the operating examinations were positive, b.
The generic strengths and deficiencies noted in paragraph 3 of this report were discussed.
I c.
It was noted during the exam that many control' room forms were not available in the simulator.
d.
It was noted that many procedures were not issued or up-to-date.
It was noted that the simulator did not perform well during the e.
. examinations; specifically, the following deficiencies were discussed.
I 1.
Back panels were not simulated.
2.
Many gauges and indicators were not labeled.
3.
Simulator fidelity was lacking in several key areas which contri-buted to confusion among candidates and examiners.
,
$
-
,
- - -
_
,_,
_, - -,. -.,
.
.
-w
~
_...
.
_
-
,
.
4.
Small " glitches" in software occurred which rendered many mal-functions useless for examination purposes. At times, these
" glitches" were not pointed out prior to scenario performance, and their occurrence during the exams further added to confusion
'
among candidates and examiners.
In addition, defective malfunc-
-
tions were not identified in the facility provided material which necessitated last minute changes to scenarios.
f.
Facility personnel were very cooperative and helpful during the examination process.
The simulator instructors / operators performed very well and were extremely helpful to the examiners despite the
'
simulator problems noted above.
7.
Summary of facility comments and commitments made at exit interview:
a.
The examination process was conducted in a professional manner, and the written and operating examinations were fair.
,
b.
The facility acknowledged the simulator deficiencies.
It was noted that the simulator was to undergo a six week warranty repair and upgrade period immediately following the examinations and that most, if not all, deficiencies would be corrected well in advance of the next cold licensing period scheduled in mid-December 1985.
In addi-tion, the facility committed to providing an accurate, up-to-date listing and description of validated simulator malfunctions for NRC review prior to the December examinations.
The facility also encour-aged the NRC examiners to return prior to the December exams for inspection of the simulator.
Attachments:
1.
NRC Resolution of Exam Review Comments and changes noted to be necessary during grading 2.
Written Examination and Answer Key (SRO)
!
3.
Written Examination and Answer Key (RO)
-
=
-
-
,ww