ML17174A961
| ML17174A961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 11/06/1991 |
| From: | Jordan M, Mcneil D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17174A959 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-OL-91-02, 50-237-OL-91-2, NUDOCS 9111130029 | |
| Download: ML17174A961 (9) | |
Text
----------
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 50-237/0L-91-02 Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249 Licenses No. DPR-29; DPR-27 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Opus West III 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station Examination Administered At:
Dresden Nuclear Power Station Examination Conducted:
Weeks of September 23 and 30, 1991 Examiners:
R. Doornbos, USNRC K. Mikkelsen, Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL)
Chief Examiner:,k,,, /( /J1 /'~/
Approved By: -
- b. McNeil
- ' _{V)
~1; I
.:fordan, Chief Operator Licensing Section 1 Examination Summary Date
/i/s-/11 Date Examinations administered durinq the weeks of September 23 and September 30, 1991 (Report No. OL-91-02) (An Initial Retake Examination was administered on September 9, 1991)
Written ~nd operating requalification examinations were administered to thirteen Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) and, seven Reactor Operators (ROs).
Four crews, made up of staff and operating personnel, were evaluated on the simulator portion of the NRC examinqtion.
One SRO candidate was given a retake examination (walkthrough portion).
Initial Retake Examination Results:
One individual took the walk-through portion of an initial examination.
The individual was assessed as satisfactory and has been issued an operator license.
'J
Regualification Examination Results:
There was one individual failure and no crew failures associated with the dynamic simulator portion of the NRC requalification examination.
The individual failure was a staff SRO.
This individual also failed the written and walk-through portions of the examination.
In accordance with the criteria of NUREG-1021, Revision 6, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, ES-601, C.2.b. (1), the DresdeI?-* Requalification Training Program is.
assigned an overall rating of satisfactory.
STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES:
Weaknesses:
o JPM question quality and JPM time validation needs improvement.
See Report Details, Section 3.c.
o Plant announcements during emergency conditions need improvement.
See Report Details, Section 4.a.
o Some personnel were not able to obtain required equipment during emergencies.
See Report Details, Section 4.b.
strengths:
o With the exceptions noted above,- significant improvement was noted in the exam process.
See Report Details, Section 4.a.
o Simulator response and usefulness has improved significantly since the 1990 examination.
See Report Details, Section 4.a.
2
REPORT DETAILS
- 1.
Examiners
+*D. McNeil, Chief Examiner, NRC, Region III
+*R. Doornbos, Examiner, NRC, Region III
+*K. Mikkelsen,. Paci.fie Northwest Laboratories (PNL)
- 2.
Persons Contacted Facility
+*G. Smith, Assistant Superintendent, Operations
- S. Stiles, *Training Supervisor~ Dresden
- J. Kotowski, Production Superintendent
- K. Geriing, Operations Training Supervisor, PTC
+*B. Grant, Operator Training Instructor
+*D. Gronek, Operator Training, Dresden
- F. Kanwischer, Services Director
- T. Mohr, Operations
+*D. Schavey, Simulator Requal Coordinator
- R. Weidner, Simulator Supervisor U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- W. Rogers, Senior Resident inspector, Dresden
- D. Hills, Resident Inspector, Dresden
- Denotes those present at the management exit meeting on October 2, 1991.
+Denotes those present at the training exit meeting on October 2, 1991.
- 3.
Examination Material Early submission of the proposed examination and a regional visit by facility personnel to determine NRC needs were beneficial in preparing and administering the examination.
The result~ of the examination team's review of examination material are as follows:
The quantity of examination material per the criteria of NUREG-1021, Revision 6, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, ES-601, was acceptable.
Material quality concerning requalification written questions required some enhancement.
3
- a.
Written Examination Many questions-on the proposed written examination were memory recall questions and did not require diagnostic skills by the operators.
Guidance was provided to the facility on what was expected and on question writing techniques to enhance the proposed examination~
- b.
Simulator Scenarios The quantity of simulator scenarios was adequate to meet the minimum guidance of NUREG 1021.
The simulator scenarios were adequate in entering Technical Specification concerns and abnormal procedures.
They also adequately entered and required transitions between Emer'g_ency Operating Procedures (EOPs).
- c.
Job Performance Measures (JPM)
The JPM bank met the guidelines of NUREG 1021 for quantity of JPMs.
JPM questions were not discriminating.
Most questions selected were simple look-up or memory recall questions.
Time-val~dation of some JPMs needs to be re-evaluated.
Some JPMs were allowed twice the time necessary to satisfactorily complete the JPM.
- d.
Evaluators/Personnel The facility's evaluators and other exam personnel were courteous and professional.
Exam personnel were responsive to the NRC requests to modify-portions of the examination ~o meet NRC requirements.
During the dynamic simulator phase of the requalification examination, the evaluators demonstrated adequate jridgment, ~reparation.and detection skills.
- 4.
Observations The following items are the summary of observations and concerns noted by the NRC during the license requalification examination.
These comments are to assist the facility in identifying items which may require additional attention to avoid difficulties in the future.
- a.
Training The overall exam process, exam materials and simulator capability has shown significant improvement over the 1990 requalification examination.
4
Some evaluators were unfamiliar with the walk-through examination process as it was the first time they had conducted JPMs.
These evaluators asked JPM questions in high noise areas and provided cues too slowly.
The Category B written examination rules sheet is in need of improvement.
Examiner Standards, ES-601,, En6losure 3 provides guidance for an adequate rules sheet.
Scheduling was good.
Crew wait times between various examination sections were kept to a minimum.
With this improvement in scheduling the possibility for exam compromise was reduced.
This is an improvement over prior examinations.
The training department was receptive to NRC suggestions relating to examination material and evaluation techniques.
Some crews made plant announcements during the dynamic simulator portion of the examination while other crews made no announcements.
When announcements were made, they were unclear and sometimes left out important information (evacuation routes, assembly areas to avoid, etc.)
Consideration should be made to provide prescripted announcements to use with the public address system and guidance as to when to use the announcements.
- b.
General Plant housekeeping was fair considering the station was in a refuel outage.
In some areas housekeeping could be improved.
For example, boron crystals have built up on the Standby Liquid Control System pumps and some lower level areas have peeling paint and rusting on exposed metal surfaces.
Operations and health physics personnel were very cooperative in assuring there were no unnecessary delays associated with badging, dosimetry and accessing the station.
A security guard was noted walking through the turbine building with his hard hat in his hand.
A maintenance worker was noted working in the auxiliary electric room with his electronic dosimetry several feet away from where he was working.
Although the auxiliary electric room is not within the RCA, personnel should not get in the habit of becoming 5
personnel should not get in the habit of becoming separated from their dosimetry while.in the plant.
The Dresden Emergency Operating _Procedure (DEOP) flow charts are hard to remove from their holder in the control room.
Also, the DEOP cabinet key* is difficult to find in the Center Desk operator's desk drawers.
Several times during the in-plant JPMs the control room operators were not able to quickly find the key.
Consideration should be given to finding a better storage *location -~or the key.
Some personnel are not familiar with the new DEOP cabinet and the material it contains.
Several examinees opened the old DEOP cabinet while.performing*
JPMs.
During validation of one JPM it was noted the recirculation pump, motor generator (MG) sets do not all have their own manual operating crank nor is there a designated central location for a crank.
A designated 10cation for the manual operating crank should be specified or each MG set should be provided with its own operating crank.
While performing an in-plant JPM, it was noted that the Unit 2 *Diesel Generator air start compressor oil level was high, out of the normal band.
This may lead to damaged equipment and should be investigated.
Tape was used in the Auxiliary Electric room to tape extension cords and test leads to the fioor.
This had been torn up in some locations exposing wiring to personnel in the room.
This is a tripping hazard for personnel walking through the room.
consideration should given to permanently mounting equipment with properly routed cables.
- 5.
Ex~mination Results Comparison A comparison between the NRC and the facility grading ori the written and operating portions of the excimiriation was performed.
Facility grading was found to be more stringent than that of the NRC evaluators.
- 6.
Simulator Observations During the administration of the requalification.examiriation no major simulator discrepancies were identified.
There
'were some minor equipment fidelity problems which are listed in the enclosed Simulator Fidelity Report (Enclosure 3).
6
- 7.
Exit Meeting A' plant management exit meeting was conducted oh October 2,
. 1991.
Those* attending the meetings are listed in Section 2 of.this report.
The following items were discussed during the exit meeting:
- a.
.The training program observations made*by the examiners during* the administration of the requalif ication examination (see "Sections 3 & 4. a).
- b.
The general observations relating to the plant (see*
section 4b).
A preliminary rating of the Dresden Requalification Training*
Program was presented at the exit meeting.
The facility was
.informed that the results will be reviewed by regional management and documented in this examination report.
7
ENCLOSURE 2 REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT Facility:
Dresden County Station Examiners:
D. McNeil, Chief Examiner R. Doornbos, Region III K. Mikkelsen, Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL)
Dates of Evaluation:. September 23-25 and September 30, 1991, October 2, 1991 Areas Evaluated:
_lL Written
_lL Oral
_lL Simulator Examination Results:
RO SRO Total Evaluation Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Written Examination 7/0 12/1 19/1 Operating Examination Oral 7LO 12Ll 19Ll Simulator 7LO 12Ll 19Ll Evaluation of facility written examination grading Crew Examination Results:
Week 1 Sept. 23-25, 1991 Crew 1 PassLFail Operating Examination PASS Week 2 Crew 1 Sept. 30 Oct 2, 1991 Pass/Fail Operating Examination PASS overall Program Evaluation Satisfactory Submitted:
I
.1 I'
/' /I
,JJ) ~,)//LI j,~. /
D. McNeil 11/ f /91 Forwarded:
'\\
M. Jordan 11/ _-; /91 Crew 2 PassLFail PASS Crew 2 Pass/Fail PASS Evaluation
( s or U) s Evaluation
( s or U) s (S or U) s s
s s
ENCLOSURE 3 :.
)
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
- Facility Licensee:
Dresden station
- Facility Licensee Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249 Operating Tests Administered On: September 23 -
25, 1991 and September 30 through October-2, 1991 During_ the conduct of the simulator portion of the. operating tests, the following items were observed:
DESCRIPTION During depressurization of the plant, the depressurization proceeds very slowly and completely uncovers the core.
A check of the model in this a~ea m~y be necessary.
~