ML17328A181
| ML17328A181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1989 |
| From: | Alexich M INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG |
| To: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| AEP:NRC:0992A, AEP:NRC:992A, NUDOCS 8910100113 | |
| Download: ML17328A181 (10) | |
Text
ACCELERATED D1%'RIBUTION DEMONSTA~ON SYSTEM REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:8910100113 DOC.DATE: 89/10/02 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET PT FACIL:50-315 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Indiana 05000315
.50-316 Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Indiana 05000316 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION ALEXICH,M.P.
(formerly Indiana
& Michigan Ele RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DAVIS,A..B.
Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBJECT:
Responds to Miller 890901 request re results of analysis of exam repts on implications on qualifications of staff.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
IE42D COPIES RECEIVED:LTRi ENCL L
SIZE:
TITLE: Operator Licensing Examination Reports NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD3-1 PD INTERNAL: AEOD/DSP/TPAB NRR/DLPQ/HFB 10 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT RGN3 FILE 01 EXTERNAL: LPDR NSIC COPIES LTTR E CL RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME GIZTTER,J.
NRR SHANKMAN,S
- L OLB 10
~R G F LE 02 NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL D
S MZE 'IO ALL RZDS" RECGUZÃIS:
PIZASE HELP US K) RECCE HASTE!
CGHZACT 'IHE DOCUMENI'ONTROL DESK, ROCK Pl-37 (EXT. 20079)
KO ELXHZHR28 YOUR KNE HKH DZSHGBUZZCN TOTAL NUMBER 8F%
5R B%~h ENCL 8
I D
8 I
D D
S
!ndiana Michigan Pr'~er Crrn:pany "0
".~ '683) 0
- 828 ksVOSANA AlK'8lGAN POWER AEP
- NRC:0992A Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2
Docket Nos.
50-315 and'50-316 License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 NRC EXAMINATIONREPORT NO. 50-315/OL-89-01 AND 50-316/OL-89-01 U.
S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Document Control Desk Vashington,.
D.
C.
20555 Attn:
A.
BE Davis October 2,
1989
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is the Cook Nuclear Plant response to the request contained in Mr. Miller's letter dated September 1,
1989 which forwarded the subject examination report for the NRC examinations administered on July 10-19, 1989.
The specific request was for Cook Nuclear Plant to present the results of our analysis of the examination results including any implications-'this may have on the qualifications of our incumbent operating staff.
The plant was also requested to discuss our strategy to prevent a recurrence of the high failure rate.
The content of the Cook Nuclear Plant Operator Replacement Program was originally developed based on reactor operator and senior reactor operator tasks selected as training subjects by Subject Matter Experts (SME's) during the first round of INPO accreditation in 1986.
During May of 1987 these tasks were revalidated and tasks for which site specific simulator training was to be conducted were selected.
Tasks selected as subjects of simulator training were then used as the basis for developing our seven-week simulator course for reactor operator and senior
. reactor operator candidates.
Since the administration of the NRC Operating Examination in July, this matrix has once again been validated in accordance with our ongoing accreditation process.
From these processes, we have concluded that the content of the simulator training program is sound, however we will continue to fine tune the program.
Mr. A. B. Davis AEP: NRC: 0992A Our internal evaluation mechanisms identified three of the weaknesses cited in your examination report:
instructors served as evaluators thereby limiting ob)ectivity; individual weaknesses were not compared to determine possible programmatic weaknesses thereby ovezlooking a generic weakness in procedure usage; and Instant SRO candidates were not routinely evaluated as control board operators.
Additionally, we concur with your examination report finding which stated that our evaluation scenarios did not expose the candidates to the same conditions as an NRC examination should require'.
In essence, we agree with the results of the NRC examination report.
While we also believe that the program can be improved the existing program has demonstrated sufficient success to provide confidence in the qualifications of the incumbent operating staff.
All operators licensed as a result of this examination have been enrolled in the operator requalification program which continuously exercises Emergency Operating Procedure
Response
Not Obtained and Emergency Operating Procedure contingency actions.
We believe that three of the scenarios developed for this examination were inappropriately constructed to test these concepts.
NUREG 1021 ES 301 discourages the use of unrelated ma]or casualties such as the following:
1.
Steam generator tube rupture at 60 gpm Loss of 600V buss 21A Reactor coolant system hot leg rupture 2.
Refueling water storage tank rupture to 45%
Auxiliary feed water suction leak Reactor coolant system cold leg rupture 3.
Pressurizer power operated relief valve leak Loss of control air inside containment Steam generator tube rupture at 550 gpm It is our position that Emergency Operating Procedure contingency actions can be exercised without the use of unrelated and unrealistic scenario sets.
- However, we will ensure that our operators are challenged with sufficiently difficult scenarios to engender high confidence in their ability to deal with all reasonable contingencies, Our strategy to deal with the identified program weaknesses and to prevent the recurrence of a high failure rate in the future is outlined below.
l.
At least two simulator floor evaluators will be used during
-evaluation scenarios.
Every effort will be made to ensure that at least one of these evaluators is not the instructor
Mr. ~ A. B. Davis AEP: NRC: 0992A for the week's simulator training.
Additionally,'valuators from the Operations Department will be used as personnel are available'his improvement has already been implemented into our present Replacement Class.
2.
Evaluation scenarios will be revised to routinely exercise cautions/notes and include emergency contingency actions.
For the short term, revised versions of the NRC examination scenarios will be used in our programs.
Long term research such as that suggested in the examination report will be required in order for us to develop our own scenarios.
The vendor contracted 'to provide our next audit examination has been directed to develop scenarios that examine to the standards stated above.
3.
Our simulator program will be revised to ensure that Instant SRO's are evaluated as reactor operators in a more appropriate manner.
This program revision will be in place no later than the start of the next Instant SRO Simulator Class.
4, Existing simulator scenarios have been revised to require the licensed candidates to review all instructor comments from the previous week's simulator training, These comments are not typically completed at the time of the actual debriefing and contain observations that could potentially be overlooked during the actual debriefing. It is intended that this review by the candidates will'efre'sh lessons learned from prior simulator sessions and identify trends that can be addressed by them as a group prior to the start of the next week of simulator training.
These daily comment sheets are reviewed by the program administrator at the end of each aweek, with individual and team weaknesses summarized.
The program administrator will also review all individual weaknesses identified during simulator evaluations to determine possible generic weaknesses for the group.
In
- addition, an independent review of simulator evaluations is periodically performed by the Training Support Section of the Training Department.
This independent revie~ will also be used to identify generic weaknesses, Additionally, an independent audit organization experienced in licensed operator training and evaluation has been contracted to review the content of our SRO Simulator, Training Program.
The results of this revi'ew will be incorporated into the simulator program as appropriate.
These results will be forwarded to you upon request.
Mr. A. B. Davis AEP: NRC: 0992A In conclusion, our analysis of the examination results indicates
. that the qualifications of our incumbent operating staff are not impacted.
We have also enhanced our program to reduce the possibility of such a high failure rate
~
This document has been prepared folloving Corporate procedures that incorporate a reasonable set of controls to ensure its accuracy and completeness prior to signatur'e by the undersigned.
Sincerely, M. P. Alexich Vice President eh cc:
D.
H. Williams. Jr.
A. A. Blind - Bridgman R.
CD Callen G. Charnoff NFEM Section Chief NRC Resident Inspector
- Bridgman
Distribution Sheet Distri55.txt jP@~
Priority: Normal From: Stefanie Fountain Action Recipients:
NRR/DLPM/LPD3-1 J Stang Internal Recipients:
RGN3 FILE 01 NRR/DIP M/OLHP
.ILFCE~~
ACRS External Recipients:
NOAC Copies:
1 Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Paper Copy Total Copies:
Item: ADAMS Document Library: ML ADAMS"HQNTAD01 ID: 003685964:1
Subject:
REQUALIFICATIONPROGRAM INSPECTION Body:
ADAMS DISTRIBUTIONNOTIFICATION.
Electronic Recipients can RIGHT CLICKand OPEN the first Attachment to View the Document in ADAMS. The Document may also be viewed by searching for Accession Number ML003685964.
IE42 - Operator Licensing Examination Reports Docket: 05000315 Page 1
Docket: 05000316 Distri55.txt Page 2
January 25, 2000 Mr. R. P. Powers Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation Group American Electric Power Company 500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Ml 49107-1395
SUBJECT:
REQUALIFICATIONPROGRAM INSPECTION
Dear Mr. Powers:
In a telephone conversation on January 19, 2000, Mrs. A.M. Stone, Senior Operations Engineer, and Mr. R.G. Brown, Licensed Operator Requalification Training Supervisor, made arrangements for the NRC to inspect the licensed operator requalification program at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. An inspection is planned for the week of February 14, 2000, which coincides with your scheduled requaliTication written examination.
The staff at your facilityshould prepare and conduct the requalification examinations in accordance with your NRC-approved requalification program.
We understand that you will be conducting your annual operating tests after the start-up of Unit 2. Please notify Mrs. Stone promptly when the dates for the operating tests are finalized so that we may schedule our inspection accordingly.
The materials which willbe reviewed by the inspectors during the week of February 14 were discussedwithMr. Brown. Thankyouforyourcooperationinthis matter. Ifyouhaveany questions regarding this inspection, please contact Ann Marie Stone at 630-829-9729, or me at 630-829-9733.
Sincerely, David E. Hills, Chief Operations Branch Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316 License Nos. DPR-58; DPR-74 See Attached Distribution DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS>DCC01250.WPD To receive a co of thIs document. Indicate In the boxt Me C without attachmentfendoaure E
~ C with attachmentfendoeure tt ~ No OFFICE Rill C
RIII NAME DATE AMStone 01/
00 DHills 018%00 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
R. Powers CC:
A. C. Bakken III, Site Vice President J. Pollock, Plant'anager M. Rencheck, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering R. Whale, Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Emergency Management Division Ml Department of State Police D. Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists B. J. Wallace, Training Department Distribution:
Docket File PUBLIC IE-42 D. C. Trimble, NRR:DIPM:IOLB J. Stang, LPM, NRR DRS RIII PRR SRI, D.C. Cook A. Vegel, DRP M. A. Bies, DRS
~l H I