ML15239A064
| ML15239A064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1992 |
| From: | Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Hampton J DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15239A065 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9209250222 | |
| Download: ML15239A064 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1992302
Text
September 15, 1992
Duke Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. J. W. Hampton
Vice President
Oconee Site
P. 0. Box 1439
Seneca, SC 29679
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT
NO. 50-269/92-302
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered
requalification examinations led by Richard S. Baldwin during the weeks of
July 20 and July 27, 1992. These examinations were administered to employees
of your company who currently hold licenses to operate the Oconee Nuclear
Station. At the conclusion of these examinations, the examination questions
and preliminary findings were discussed with those members of your staff
identified in the Examination Report, Enclosure 1. The examiners found that
.the
Oconee Requalification Program was satisfactory. A Simulator Fidelity
Report is provided as Enclosure 2. A copy of the written examination
questions and answer key, as noted in Enclosure 3, was provided to members of
your training staff at the conclusion of the examination.
We are concerned that, while your Requalification Program continues to be
satisfactory, it shows weaknesses which are a concern in both number and
severity. Specifically, it shows weaknesses in the Training Department's
ability to construct comprehensive written examinations. The facility stated
they understand this concern and committed to improve the examination develop
ment process.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this examination, please contact me.
Sincerely,
(Original signed by T. A. Peebles)
9209250222 920915
ADOCK 05000269
Thomas A. Peebles, Chief
V
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
.
Enclosures:
1. Examination Report 50-269/92-302
2. Simulator Fidelity Report
3. Examination and Answer Key (RO & SRO)
(Document Control Desk Only)
cc w/encls 1 and 2:
(See page 2)
.
Duke Power Company
2
September 15, 199.
H. B. Barron, Station Manager
Duke Power Company
Oconee Nuclear Station
P. 0. Box 1439
Seneca, SC 29679
L. Wikie, Training Manager
Duke Power Company
Oconee Nuclear Station
P. 0. Box 1439
Seneca, SC
29679
M. E. Patrick
Compliance
Duke Power Company
P. 0. Box 1439
Seneca, SC 29679
A. V. Carr, Esq.
Duke Power Company
422 South Church Street
.
Charlotte, NC 28242-0001
County Supervisor of
Oconee County
Walhalla, SC 29621
Robert B. Borsum
Babcock and Wilcox Company
Nuclear Power Generation Division
1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525
Rockville, MD 20852
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Winston and Strawn
1400 L Street, NW
Washington, D. C. 20005
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Heyward G. Shealy, Chief
Bureau of Radiological Health
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
.
Columbia, SC 29201
(cc w/encls cont'd -
See page 3)
Duke Power Company
3
September 15, 1992
cc w/encls cont'd:
Manager, LIS
NUS Corporation
2650 McCormick Drive
Clearwater, FL 34619-1035
R. L. Gill
Nuclear Production Department
Duke Power Company
P. 0. Box 1007
Charlotte, NC 28201-1007
Karen E. Long
Assistant Attorney General
N. C. Department of Justice
P. 0. Box 629
Raleigh, NC
27602
bcc w/encls: 1 and 2:
L. Wiens, NRR
A. F. Gibson, DRS
W. Miller, DRP
G. A.
Belisle, DRP
A. R. Herdt, DRP
L. L. Lawyer, DRS
G. T. Hopper, DRS
R. S. Baldwin, DRS
Operator Licensing Branch, DLPQ:NRR
R. Miller, Sonalysts
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN:
Mr. P. Harmon, Oconee Senior
Resident Inspector
Route 2, Box 610
Seneca, SC 29678
bcc w/encls 1, 2, and 3:
Document Control Desk
bcc w/o encs:
IMS, Region II
RII:DRS
RII
RII:DRP
RII:DR
JBarTley:jb/sd
LLawyer
Ael1
s'
09/c\\/92
09/f /92
09/J/'
09/, /92
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
- B. Barron, Station Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station
- D. Covar, Nuclear Instructor, Oconee Nuclear Station
- P. Stovall, Director of Operator Training, Oconee Nuclear Station
- D. Sweigart, Operations Superintendent
- L. Wilkie, Training Manager, Oconee Nuclear Station
Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, instructors,
operators, and office personnel.
2.
Examiners
- R. Baldwin, Chief Examiner, Region II
- J. Bartley, Region II
- R. Miller, Sonalysts
- Attended exit interview
3.
Other NRC Personnel Attending Exit
None
4.
Discussion
a.
Examination Results/Program Evaluation
Based on the examination results, the examination team found that
the Oconee Requalification Program met the criteria established in
NUREG-1021, ES 601 C.2.b (Revision 6), and thus was determined to
be satisfactory. The facility is permitted to administer the re
examinations for returning those individuals that failed this
examination to licensed duties. However, these individuals must
still pass a subsequent NRC administered examination for license
renewal.
b.
Reference Material
(1) The examiners reviewed the reference material supplied by
the licensee and determined it to be adequate to support the
examination.
(2) The licensee supplied a sampling plan describing the
requalification cycle topics and the selection process used
for the topics to be included in the examination. This
sampling plan was very difficult to use. The design of the
sampling plan allowed the skewing of the examinations
.
Report Details
2
towards specific topic areas. As an example, 35 percent of
the questions on two of the proposed Part A, static
examinations, and two of the proposed Job Performance
Measures dealt with the Reactor Protection System. Also,
five of the seven proposed dynamic simulator scenarios had
Small Break Loss of Coolant Accidents (SBLOCA) as the major
(3) The examiners found that many of the questions in the
question bank lacked time validation. This required the
facility to delete almost 30 percent of the questions from
the proposed examinations to meet time limits based on
actual crew validation of the examination.
(4) The facility does not have the complete EOP basis documents
on site and must call the main office in Charlotte,
North Carolina to resolve questions concerning EOP bases.
This hampers the effectiveness of the instructors when
researching EOP issues.
c.
Proposed Examination
(1) The examiners expended a significant amount of time and
effort to raise the written examinations up to the level
required by NUREG 1021.
This required replacing 20 percent
-and modifying 25 percent of the questions for the proposed
Part A Static sections, and modifying 30 percent of the
questions for the Part B Limits and Controls section.
Almost 60 percent of the questions on the proposed Part A
could be answered without the use of the associated static
simulator setup. Many of the questions on the Part A and
Part B examinations were memory level or direct lookup. The
examiners required other changes be made to the stems and
distractors of questions to make them test at the synthesis
and analysis level.
During the prep week, after the
proposed written examinations had been revised, another 25
percent of the questions had to be modified so the
examinations would meet the requirements of NUREG 1021.
(2) The examiners determined the proposed simulator scenarios
met the requirements of NUREG 1021 in complexity and depth
of EOP usage. However, none of the scenarios contained
instrument failures, several did not have failures requiring
the Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) to reference Technical
Specifications as specified in NUREG-1021 (Revision 6)
ES-604-1, Simulator Scenario Review Checklist, and several
Individual Simulator Critical Tasks did not have clear
evaluation standards for the evaluators. These problems
were corrected during the preparation week.
Report Details
3
(3) The JPMs were well organized and their content was good.
Eight of the thirty-nine proposed JPMs were faulted. The
examiners faulted four additional JPMs. The facility JPM
bank had only one JPM written for calculating an Estimated
Critical Position and one for calculating Shutdown Margin.
These were rewritten to change the numbers and graphs used
to obtain the data for the calculations in order to provide
test variety.
d.
Examination Administration
(1) Administration of the exams went smoothly and according to
the facility's schedule with a few exceptions.
(a) There were three last minute changes to the written
examinations which delayed their start times about 20
minutes.
(b) During the second week of the examinations, the
facility left two operators unescorted with operators
who had already completed two JPMs which the
unescorted operators were scheduled to perform later
that day. This security lapse required rescheduling
these operators to perform two different JPMs the
following day.
(2) Part of the reference materials for the Part B examination
included extracts of the facility's Technical
Specifications. The facility had included only those
sections covered in the requalification cycle. This was
inappropriate cueing and the facility was informed the
reference materials should include the complete Technical
Specifications.
(3) One question on the Part A examination was re-evaluated
post-exam and was determined to have two correct answers.
This change resulted in the change of a pass or fail
determination.
e.
Operator Performance
The examiners noted several operator and crew weaknesses during
the dynamic simulator portions of the examination. Two of these
weaknesses, communications and EOP usage, affect the crews'
ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
(1) Communication weaknesses were noted in the areas of
repeatbacks and the interaction and coordination between the
Unit Supervisor (US), Control Room Senior Reactor Operator
(CRSRO), and the Reactor Operators (RO).