ML17199T394
| ML17199T394 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1987 |
| From: | Hasse R, Hopkins J, Phillips M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17199T393 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-237-87-32, 50-249-87-31, CAL-RIII-87-01, CAL-RIII-87-1, NUDOCS 8710260459 | |
| Download: ML17199T394 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000237/1987032
Text
..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-237/87032(DRS); 50-249/8703l(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-237; 50-249
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
Post Office Box 767
Chicago, IL
60690
Facility Name:* Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3
Inspection At:
Morris, Illinois
Tnspection Conducted:
September 29 through October 1, 1987
Inspectors:
J. Hopkins ~/7
Approved By:
Monte P. Phillips., Chief ~
Operational Programs Section~
Inspection Summary
faskM
Date
/tt:J~?
Date"
Inspection on September 29 through October 1, 1987 (Reports No. 50-237/87032(DRS);
50-249/87031(0RS))
Areas Inspected:
Special announced safety inspection to determine if
the conditions of the Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) CAL-RIII-87-001,
Amendment 1, issued March 17, 1987, had been properly implemented.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
8710260459 871021
ADOCK 05000237
Q
1.
DETAILS
Persons Contacted
Commonwealth Edison Company (CECo)
- E.
Ee~igenburg, Station Manager
- C. Schroeder, Services Superintendent
- R. Jeisy,_Station Quality Assurance Superintendent
- J. Williams, Station Regulatory Assurance
S. Stiles, Training Manager
S. Mattson, Lead - Operator Training Program
- R. Flessner, Administrative Engineer - G.O.
J. Kotoski, Assistant Operations Superintendent
E. Armstrong, Station Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
- Denotes those attending exit interview on October 1, 1987.
2.
Licensed Operator Regualification
a.
b.
Purpose
The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the licensee
had implemented the commitments documented in the Confirmatory
Action Letter (CAL) CAL-RIII-87-001, Amendment 1, dated March 17,
1987.
The CAL was issued as a result of the 50% failure 'rate on
the NRC requalification examination administered during the week
of January 26, 1987.
The CAL detailed additional control room
staffing requirements, removed those operators who failed the NRC
requalification exam from licensed duties, gave a brief outline
of the short-term upgrade program, and required a long term
improvement plan to be presented to the staff.
Inspection Results
(1) Part One of the CAL required that while in cold shutdown
the Dresden Units 2 and 3 control room be staffed with a
licensed Senior Reactor Op~rator (SRO) as an advisor who
had passed either the NRC administered requalification exam
or had passed a NRC license examination*since January 1986.
The inspectors conducted interviews with the licensee and
reviewed training records to determine how the licensee
selected candidates for the SRO advisor position.
In order
to meet these restrictions, the licensee conducted an audit of
the licensed operators
1 records to select a pool of candidates.
Some of the candidates for the SRO advisors were not routinely
assigned to the duties of a licensed operator and, in accordance
with 10 C~R 55.31.e (prior to May 26, 1987), they had to be
certified by an authorized representative of the licensee to
perform those duties.
The licensee evaluated the SRO advisor
candidates in accordance with Section VI of CECo Topical Report,
2*
~----
.*
11 Requalification Program for Licensed Operators, Senior Operators,
_and Senior Operators (Limited),
11 July 19, 1984.
This evaluation
was conducted by the Operation and Training Review Board which
considered the candidates day-to-day involvement with license
activities and recommended additional training, where required,
prior to resumption of licensed duties.
The licensee identified
ten SROs which met all of the requirements and assigned them as
shift advisers in cold shutdown.
On May 26, 1987, 10 CFR 55 was revised and changed the
requirements necessary for an operator to resume licensed
duties.
10 CFR 55.53 outlines the requirements needed to
maintain an active licens& and the amount of shift time
11 under
instruction
11 necessary to regain an active license.
After
May 26, 1987, the licensee had four SRO advisors still on-shift
who did not meet the new 10 CFR 55.53 criteria for an active
license.
The licensee management felt that since these SRO
advisors were considered
11active
11 under the pre-May 26, 1987,
Part 55, and had been performing the duties of SRO advisors
since February 27, 1987, and were not going to be used beyond
the role of an advisor in cold shutdown, these SROs would
continue in their role as shift advisors until
11active
11 _SROs
had passed the accelerated req~alification program and were
returned to licensed duties.
The last SRO advisor normally
not assigned to licensed. duties was on-shift June 20; 1987.
The inspectors judged these actions to be in compliance with
the CAL with no further action required.
(2)
Part Two of the CAL required that when in other than cold
shutdown the Dresden Units 2 and 3 control room would be
staffed by a licensed SRO and as a minimum, a licensed Reactor
Operator (RO) at the controls of each unit who met the criteria
of Part One of the CAL.
The inspectors conducted interviews with
the licensee and reviewed training records to-determine how the
licensee selected candidates for the SRO advisor position and
the ROs at the controls of each unit.
The licensee used the
process described above to select the li~ensed ROs.
As soon
as licensed ROs who had completed the NRC approved accelerated
upgrade training program were available, the licensee removed
any operators from shift who were not normally assigned to
licensed duties.
The inspectors judged these actions to be in compliance with
the CAL with no further action required.
(3)
Part Three of the CAL required the licensee to remove from
licensed duties those ROs and SROs who failed the NRC
administered,requalification examination until such time
that those individuals successfully completed an NRC approved
accelerated upgrade training program or passed an NRC
administered examination.
The inspectors reviewed training
3
'
.*
records to determine if the licensed operators were taken
off-shift and successfully completed the upgrade program.
Six licensed operators (two ROs and four SROs) failed the
NRC administered requalification exam on January 26, 1987.
Those six licensed operators were immediately removed from
licensed duties andplaced in the NRC approved
Operator Training Upgrade Program.
11
Four of the licensed
operators had successfully completed the upgrade training
pro.gram by the end of April l987, one completed the program
in June 1987, and one surrendered his NRC license.
The inspectors judged these actions to be in compliance
with the CAL with no further action required.
(4)
Part Four of the CAL required the licensee to implement
an accelerated requalification program for all licensed
operators.
This short-term program was required to be
completed no later than September 1987.
The
11 Short-Term
Operator Training Upgrade Program,
11 outlined in a March 11,
1987 letter, was approved by the NRC in the CAL, Amendment I,
dated March 17, 1987.
The inspectors reviewed training records,
conducted interviews, and reviewed lesson plans and simulator
scenarios to determine if the licensee had implemented the
11Short-Term Operator Training Upgrade Program.
11
The program
consisted of eight hours of classroom training and 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />
of simulator training with the program's major emphasis in
the following areas:
Crew communication
Team building
Compliance and use of procedures
Proper reference to Technical Specifications (T.S.)
Safety systems features
Understanding and use of instrument response
SRO panel manipulation practice
The licensee used a series of two-hour classroom lectures
to address some of the areas of major emphasis in the upgrade
program. Below is* a list of the topics covered in the lecture
series:
Day One
Communication and Team Building
4
Operating Order No.
35~87 (Use of Procedures)
Lessons learned from NRC exam
Recent Operational errors at the Dresden Station
(U-2 inadvertent deinerting and U-3 reactor boiling
event)
Day Two
Simulator Session Critique
Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) Review
(using flowcharts)
DEOP-:-100 block
DEOP-200 block
Implementation of existing Operating Orders
Day Three
Simulator Session Critique
EOP Review (using flowcharts)
DEOP-300 block
DEOP-400 block
Day Four
Debriefing by the evaluators with the trainees.
The simulator training consisted of six hour sessions for
three days followed by a four to six hour evaluation on the
fourth day.
The control room crew in the simulator consisted
of a shift supervisor, *a reactor operator, and a balance of
plant operator who all rotated positions after each scenario.
Each simulator session typically consisted of* three different
scenarios.
Below is a list of the scenarios used during the
upgrade program:
Day One
Plant Startup (with malfunctions)
Loss of Feedwater
Loss of both Recirculation Pumps and Feedwater Pumps
(with malfunctions)
5
Loss of Offsite Power/Plant Shutdown (with malfunctions)
Plant Casualty Response familiarization (observation only)
Day Two
Mispositioned Rod, Small Break LOCA inside Drywell
Main Steamline Break (with malfunctions)
Large LOCA (with malfunctions)
Loss of Normal and Emergency Feedwater (with malfunctions)
Turbine Trip/ATWS
Day Three
Security Break (with malfunctions)
Loss of both Control Rod Drive (CRD) Pumps/ATWS
(with malfunctions)
Spray Cooling (with malfunctions)
MSIV Closure/ATWS (with malfunctions)
Main Steamline Break inside Drywell (with malfunctions)
Day Four
The fourth day of simulator training was a four to six
hour evaluation of the licensed operators at each of the
three control room stations.
The evaluation was performed
by independent General Electric (G.E.) instructors with
concurrent evaluation by a CECo representative.
The
licensed operators were evaluated in eight categori~s:
Control Board Awareness
Event Diagnosis
Immediate Actions
Subsequent Actions
Console Manipulations
Use of Procedures/Reference Data/T.S.
Communications
Supervisory Ability
Each licensed operator evaluation was reviewed by the
Dresden Station management and categorized in one of
three ways:
(i)
Released to full licensed duties.
6
(ii) Continuation of licensed duties with an established
time frame for completion of recommended training.
(iii) Removal from licensed duties until all training
recommendations are complete.
The licensee has 84 licensed operators (ROs and SROs).
Three of the SROs are Fuel Handling Foremen with limited
license and were exempt from the upgrade program.
All
but one SRO successfully completed the upgrade program
by September 27, 1987.
The remaining SRO is still removed
from all licensed duties.
The inspectors judged these actions to be in compliance
with the CAL with no further action required.
(5)
Part Five of the CAL required the licensee to present a long
term requalification program improvement plan to the staff
during the week of March 23, 1987.
The inspectors conducted
interviews, reviewed training records, and reviewed the 1988
training schedule to determine the status of the long term
improvement program.
The eight point program to enhance the
requalification program is outlined in the following paragraphs:
(a) Starting in 1988, simulator training would be increased
from four days per year to two sessions of four days each.
The first session would consist of startups, shutdowns,
casualties, and the control manipulations required by
The second session would consist of EOP
usage, communications, compliance with procedures, SRO
panel manipulations, and a one-day evaluation by G.E.
instructors and a CECo representative.
The simulator
evaluation would be reviewed by the licensee
1s management
and each operator would be classified in one of three ways:
( i )
(ii )
Released to full licensed duties.
Continuation of licensed duties with an established
time frame for completion of recommended training.
(iii) Removal from licensed duties *until all training
recommendations are complete.
Since the original presentation of the long tenn improvement
program, the licensee has increased the simulator training
to two sessions of five days each~
tb)
Establish one training week in the Spring and one training
week in the Fall as mandatory attendance training for all
licensed operators. The topics covered will include major
systems, procedures, and T.S. Daily quizzes will be averaged
7
(c)
over the week and must total at least 80%. Less than 80%
will require some remedial action.
The licensee conducted the first mandatory training session
from August 10 to September 18, 1987.
The following topics
were covered:
Dresden EOPs (DEOPs)
_
Automatic Depressurization System (ADS)
High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)
Low Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI)
Reactor Vessel Construction
Physics/Thermohydraulics Revi'ew
Recirculation System
Dresden Operating Abnormal (DOA) Procedures
Control Rod Drive (CRD) Hydraulics
Feedwater Level Control (FWLC)
Isolation Condenser.
Security Systems
General Site Emergency Plan (GSEP)
The licensee has committed to incorporate this mandatory
attendance training into the
11 Licensed Operator
Requalification- Program,
11 DPP-5.
The revision to
DPP-5 is considered an Open Item (237/87032-01;
249/87031-01).
Direct the simulator instructors* to demand strict
adherence to the Operating Order on procedure usage
during the simulator training sessions.
The licensee has reemphasized their commitment to Dresden
Operating Order No. 35-87 (use of procedures) in.a letter
to the Training Department dated June 4, 1987.
(d) Supply the simulator with site-specific binders for
Dresden Procedures to make the simulator more closely
replicate Dresden's control room.
The licensee has placed color coded Dresden specific
binders in the simulator control room to contain the
procedures used by the operators in the plant's control
room.
(e) Build annunciator procedure holders for the lower
vertical kick panels in the simulator.
The. licensee has installed the annunciator procedure
holders in the simulator control room to duplicate
the plant's control room.
8
(f)
Develop a complete Procedure vs. System Index and
a new T.S. Index as operator aids.
The two indices were approved by the licensee on May 28,
1987 and placed in both the plant and simulator control
rooms as operator aids.
(g)
Increase the number of questions per section on
Dresden's annual written requalification exam
from approximately 15 to 20.
The written requalification exams administered after
April 10, 1987 have averaged 20 questions per section.
(h)
Provide for an annual third party sample evaluation of *
Dresden's exam-bank generated tests and Dresden's grading
of the exams.
On September 24, 1987, the licensee provided six
requalification exams and answer keys to the G.E.
Certification Group for a third party evaluation.
As of October 1, 1987, the results of the evaluation
w~re not yet available.
The inspectors determined the above actions satisfied the licensee's
commitments identified in the CAL with no further action required except
the Open Item discussed in Paragraph 2.b(S)(b).
3.
Open Items
Open Items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which
will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action
on the part of the NRC or licensee or both.
Open Items disclosed during
the inspection are discussed in Paragraph 2.b(S)(b).
4.
Exit Interview
The inspectors held an exit interview with licensee representatives
(denoted in Paragraph 1) and summarized the purpose, scope, and findings
of the inspection.
The licensee stated that the likely informational
content of the report would contain no proprietary information.
9