ML17179A489
| ML17179A489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1992 |
| From: | Jordan M, Leach M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17179A488 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-OL-92-02, 50-237-OL-92-2, NUDOCS 9210090070 | |
| Download: ML17179A489 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No: 50-237/0L-92-02 Docket Nos. 50-237;' 50-249 Licenses No~ DPR-19; DPR-25 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Opus West*.III 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name: Dresden Power.Station Examination Administered At: Dresden Power Station Morris, IL Examination Conducted: Septe~ber 14-16 & 21-24, 1992 Examiners: D-. R. McNeil, NRC, Region* III K. M. Shembarger, NRC, Region III Chief Examiner: *~~~ M. N. Leach Approved By:. k'M ~!)~~ ~~ M. J. Jordan/le. Operator Licensing Section 1 Examination Summary /'ZfLfA-Date 10(1 (t/:J-. Date Examination administered on September 14-16 & 21-24, 1992 (Report No. 50-237/0L-92-02) Written and operating requalification examinations were administered to 13 Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) and 7 Reactor Operators (ROs). Four crews consisting of both operating and staff personnel were evaluatad on the simulator portion of.the
- .NRC examination.
- Results:
One SRO failed the dynamic simulator portion of the requalif ication examination, all other individuals passed the examination, and all crews passed the dynamic simulator portion of the examination. Region III has assigned the Dresden Power Station Requalif ication Training Program an overall satisfactory rating. 9210090070 921002 PDR ADOCK 05000237 V -PDR
Observations from Requalif ication Examination Strength The quality of the proposed written examination improved significantly in comparison to proposals for previous NRC administered requalif ication examinations. Operator** performance on the written examination was good. {For details see Section 3) Weaknesses The performance of in-plant Job Performance *Measures by both operators and licensee evaluators was inconsistent. *{For details see Section 3). Crews inconsistently applied Emergency Operating Procedures and Technical Specifications. {For details see Section 3) The coordination of staff for the examination team was inadequate. {For details see Section 4) y
REPORT DETAILS
- 1.
Examiners
- +M. N. Leach, Chief Examiner, NRC, Region III D. R. McNeil, NRC, Region III K. M. Shembarger, NRC, Region III
- 2.
Facility Representatives Contacted +K. Graesser, General ManagerBWR Operations +E. Carroll, Regulatory Assurance
- B. Grant, Instructor
- D. Gronek, Operations Lead Instructor
- J. Heck,* Instructor
. +F. Kanuscher,. Servic~s Director +J. Kotowski, Production Superintendent
- +T. Mohr, Operations Engineer
- +D. Schavey, Simulator Training Supervisor
+c. Schroeder, Station Manager
- R. Sitts, Simulator Requalification Group* Leader
+G. Smith,,Assistant Superintendent Operations
- +R. Weidner, Training Supervisor
- L. You_ng, Instructor NRC Representatives A. *Bongiovanni, Resident Inspector, z ion C~ Zelig, Reactor Engineer, RIII
- *Denotes those attending the *training exit on September 24t 1992.
+Denotes those attending the management exit on September 24, 1992.
- 3.
Training Program. Observations The training program was observed to be adequately and competently: staffed.* With some exceptions, the licensee's proposed requalification examination was satisfactory. The following information is provided for evaluation by the licensee via their SAT based training program. No response is required.
- a.
Written* Examination Strengths The sample plan for the requalif ication
- examination was comprehensive and complete.
However the pl~n should specifically include material not taught during the most recent training cycle and should provide a method for considering how frequently a task is performed. The majority of questions in both sections of the proposed.examination were constructed at the analysis level. This was a significant improvement over the 1991 examination. Operators demonstrated good performance on both sections of the examination. Weaknesses The format of some questions in Section B (Limits & Controlsf was not iri accordance with NUREG/BR-0122, Examiners' Handbook for Developing Operator Licensing Written Examinations.,specifically for one question two of the choices qid not match the stem and could be discarded.
- This reduced the question to a true/false
- . format.
Another question appeared to test multiple ** knowledges/analyses but because of the structure actually only tested*one simple knowledge. Some questions in Section A (Static Simulator) were modified by the examination team to directly .relate them t,o the scenario. Thi.s improved the discriminating ability of the questions.
- b.
Job Performance Measures CJPMs) Strength Operators.were very knowledgeable of equipment locations. Weaknesses A number of critical steps in the proposed JPMs involved verification activities. In most cases "verify" should not be a critical step because it has limited safety significance if the item being verified is correct. In addition, the act of
- verifying is difficult to observe _and validate.
"Verify" steps can best be evaluated by the use of alternate path JPMs where the item being validated is not correct arid the operator must take some corrective action. The verify steps were deleted as critical steps from the examination. Differences were observed in the performance of
in-plant JPMs both by the operators and the licensee evaluators. These differences include: the extent to which the specific task was described/enacted by the operator, the speed with which evaluator cues were provided, the documentation of question responses by evaluators, the maintenance of a neutral posture by evaluators,.the timing of time-critical JPMs. The operators did not simulate calling the control room during the in-plant JPMs, rather they would just state they would call the control room. If this communication was correctly simulated, the operators would request information from the -control room on system status. This information would enable the operators to possibly recover the JPM'if an error had been made.
- c.
Scenarios Strengths The proposed examination ~onsisted of eight scenarios. In general 'the scenarios met the standards for complexity and EOP usage.
- However, three scenarios were enhanced to improve discrimination and one scenario (Scenario B) was not used because it was weak.
The simulator operators/communicators provided. good communications and interaction with.the examination team and the operating crews. Operators demonstrated good board manipulation skills. Operators consistently used the general procedures. effectively. Weaknesses Individual Scenario Critical Task (ISCT) designation in the proposed examination improved in comparison to submittals for previous NRC administered. requalification examinations, but some proposed ISCTs were not safety significant. For example, placing Core Spray pumps to pull-to-lock or the Automatic Depressurization System to inhibit during an Anticipated Transient Without Scram has no safety significance if these systems would not actuate during the scenario. v
Crew communications were not consistently closed loop. Some orders were not repeated back and some plant status information was not acknowledged. Some orders were not clear and concise. Proc~dtire DEOP 500-5, "Alternate Insertion qf Control Rods", provides guidance on the priority of control rod insertion during an Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) condition. The
- guidance states "Prioritize control rod insertion by rod worth".
The team observed different operators had different methods of trying to
- follow this guidance, some of which were not effective.
For e~ample, one operator was observed inserting peripheral control rods from position 06 to oo, minimal worth rods, when rods near the center of the core were at position 3~ or 48, high worth rods. .Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) were not' .used correctly by all crews. Examples include: _ numerous operators did not mark the f lowpath of actions on the EOP flowcharts, which diminishes the capability of effective review by the Shift Tec~nical Advisor or management; one crew commenced a plant cooldown while in an ATWS condition, which was contrary to the.EOP; numerous crews did not apply the pressure suppression pressure limit in a conservative manner; two of two crews misunderstood the application of the 310 psig pressure limit for reinjection while depressurizing in an ATWS.condition, in that they believed this pressure must be maintained while reinjecting. Crews applied Technical Specifications inconsistently. Examples include: when two control rod accumulators were depressurized within a 9 x 9 array, one crew took actions to insert a rod to prevent a plant shutdown while another crew did not declare the rods inoperable.and therefore did not recognize a plant shutdown was required; when busses 28-7 and 29-7 were deenergized, one crew declared a seven day Limiting Condition for Operation while another crew correctly determined an immediate plant shutdown was required. Numerous crews did not contact operations management when a Technical Specifications plant shutdown-was required. This is contrary to the expectations in the plant. y
- 4.
General The licensee was responsible for examination administration
- while NRC observed the process.
Co-evaluation of the operators was performed by the NRC and.-the licensee. *During examination-administration the NRC assessed each licensee evaluator's ability to conduct consistent and objective examinations and their ability.to provide unbiased evaluations of the operators. During administration of the examination the NRC examiners evaluated other licensee activities as appropriate.
- a.
Training Staff The facility evaluators used in the requaliflcation examination were generally good. During the dynamic simulator phase of the examination, facility evaluators were more* stringent in grading than the NRC examiners. This resulted in a more conservative evaluation of crew competencies. The training staff were courteous, helpful and professional throughout the examination. Training staff exhibited a non-defensive attitude to comments from the NRC examiners. The proposed examination was presented in two parts by the respective tr~ining departments. The NRC examination team dealt with the two separate training departments during the preparation week and the examiriation weeks. A single point of contact submitting a single examination would facilitate better scheduling and coordination of* th~ examination process. Some licensee staff were not experienced in NRC requalification examinations. This inexperience 'coupled with inadequate communications from more experienced staff led to a significant delay during the examination preparation week.
- b.
Operations, Security, Rad Protection, Other Operations, radiation protection and security personnel were courteous and professional
- throughout the examination.
- During a static simulator scenario' one reactor operator stated he had a color vision problem and could not differentiate the first out annunciator
]_
from the remainder. This item is being followed-. up by Region III. During the in-plant walkthroughs the examination team observed some operators -on shift walking down. the control room panels while.other operators were sitting with backs to *the panels. The examination team observed some licensee personnel perform a frisk at the step-off pad by the Unit 2 Standby Liquid Control area and some *
- personnel did not.
The licensee identified this step-off pad was for personnel changing after working on the 61.3' elevation.* The licensee stated at the exit meeting appropriate notification was now in place. *
- The examination team observed water on the floor
- of the 2/3 Diesel Generator room.
The examination team observed the valves used for injecting Fire Water into the feedlines in -accordance with Emergency Operating Procedures were not labelled in the plant and were not specified by valve number in the procedure.*
- 5.
Simulator Observations Within the capabilities of the machine, the simulator ran well. No simulator discrepancies were identified.
- 6.
Exit Meeting A preliminary exit meeting with the facility training department was held on September 24, 1992, and a final exit meeting with Dresden Station.plant management was he.ld later the same day. Those attending the meetings are listed in Section 2 of this report. The following items were discussed during the exit meeting: Strengths and weaknesses noted in this report. The general observations relating to the plant noted in Section 4. The preliminary rating of the Dresden requalif ication training program was presented at the exit meeting. The iicensee was informed that the *results would be documented in an examination report. v
ENCLOSURE 2 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
- . Facility Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company Dresden Power Station Facility Licensee Docket No. 50-237 Operating Tests Administered on:. 09/14/92 - 09/24/92. This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of non-compliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information which may be used in future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response*to these observations.. . During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed: DESCRIPTION None
ENCLOSURE 3 REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT Facility: Dresden Power Station Examiners: M. *Leach, Chief Examiner, Region III D. McNeil, Region III K. Shembarger, nRegion III Dates of Evaluation:'- September 14-16 _ & 21..:.24, 1992
- Areas Evaluated:
_lL Written _lL Oral _lL Simulator Examination Re'sults: RO SRO Total Evaluation Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Pass/Fail cs or Written Examination 7/0 13/0 20/0 Operating Examination
- oral 7/0 13/0 20/0 Simulator 7/0 12/1 19/1 Evaluation of facility written examination gradi!lg Crew Examination Results:
Crew A.* Evaluation crew B Operating Examination Operating Examination overall Program Submitted:
- //;(_,
Examiner M. Leach 10//'/92 Pass/Fail CS or U} Pass/Fail Pass s Pass Crew C Evaluation Crew D Pass/Fail cs or U} Pass/Fail Pass s Pass Evaluation Satisfactory Forwarded: Kn\\$-{<x Section Chief M. Jordan 10/ J /92 ranch Chief G. Wright 10/9'./92 s s s s Evaluation cs or U)' s Evaluation cs or U) s U} !}}