ML17328A546
| ML17328A546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1990 |
| From: | Burdick T, Damon D, Hopkins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17328A545 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-OL-89-02, 50-315-OL-89-2, NUDOCS 9001190363 | |
| Download: ML17328A546 (5) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 50-315/OL-89-02 Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316
Licensee:
Indiana Michigan Power Company 1 Riverside Plaza
- Columbus, OH 43216 Licenses Nos.
D. C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Examination Administered At:
- Bridgman, MI 49106 Examination Conducted:
December 11 through December 17, 1989 RIII Examiner:
~
p lns ate Chief Examiner:
D.
amon I I-// 70 ate Approved By:
ur c, e
Operator Licensing Section 2
a,e Examination Summar Examination administered on December ll throu h 17, 1989 (Re ort No.
ss exam was a
m n stere to eactor perators (RO) and en>or eactor Operators (SRO), comprising three operating crews and two staff crews.
Results:
Two Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) and two Reactor Operators (RO)
~a
~e the examination.
All other examinees passed the examination.
One operating crew filed the simulator examinations; all other crews passed the examinations.
The facility requalification program is satisfactory.
'VOOii903h3 900i04 PDR ADOCK 050003i5 V
PNU
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Examiners
- D. Damon J. Hopkins E. Benjamin N. Haguire-Hoffitt
- Chief Examiner 2.
~Ei On December 18, 1989, the NRC exam team met with members of the facility staff to discuss the exam process.
The following persons
, attended the meeting:
K. Baker, Assistant Plant Manager - Production, I&M L. Matthias, Administrative Superintendent, I&M W. Nichols, Operations Training Supervisor, I&H J.
- Sampson, Operations Superintendent, I&M R. Anderson, Requalification Training Coordinator, I&M D. Burris, Operations Unit Supervisor, I&M G. Arent, Training Specialist, I&M S. Wolf, Senior gA Auditor, AEPSC B. Jorgensen, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC D. Damon, Chief Examiner, NRC J. Hopkins, Examiner, NRC N. Haguire-Moffitt, Examiner, NRC E. Benjamin,
- Examiner, NRC The following items were discussed:
a ~
Examinee Weaknesses More than half of the crews exhibited weaknesses on use of EOPs.
These weaknesses included items such as transitions, use of caution statements, and general familiarity with the content of EOPs.
The crews were generally weak in follow-through of ordered actions and verification of communications.
b.
Examinee Stren ths The crews exhibited positive control of instrument bistable tripping.
Emergency plan classifications and notifications were accurate and timely.
c.
Pro ram Weaknesses Once a dynamic simulator evaluation begins, facility evaluators should not provide, additional information to the examinees.
This was not always adhered to by the facility evaluators.
Facility personnel that are acting as extra operators should take care not to provide information to the crew that would be considered a prompt.
On occasion, information that would not always be available to the control room crew was provided by the extra operator.
The facility appeared to use the simulator evaluation sheets to rate each scenario, and the aggregate crew score was a simple numerical average of all scenarios.
The facility must take care to weigh the average with how significant the events in each scenario are.
d.
Pro ram.Stren ths Coordination of the schedule during the written examinations was improved from the prior NRC site visit.
There were no delays for setup time between JPNs on the simulator.
Observations made during the dynamic simulator scenarios by facility evaluators were generally consistent. with NRC observations.
RE UALIFICATION PROGRN EVALUATION REPORT Facility:
D. C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Examiners:
Damon, Hopkins, Benjamin, Haguire-Moffitt Date of Evaluation:
December ll through 17, 1989 Areas Evaluated:
X Written X
Oral X
Simulator Examination Results:
llritten Examination Operating Examination Oral RO SRO Pass/Fail Pass/Fail 8/2 10/0 9/1 10/0 Total Pass/Fail 18/2 19/1 Evaluation (S or U)
Simulator 10/0 8/2 18/2 Evaluation of facility wr itten examination grading Crew Examination Results:
Crew 1: Pass Crew 5:
Pass Crew 2:
Fail Crew 3:
Pass Overall crew evaluations:
S Crew 4:
Pass Overall Pro ram Evaluation Satisfactory X
Marginal Unsatisfactory Facility must use care when applying observations to the evaluation criteria to arrive at decisions that are consistent with NRC findings.
In general, facility grading of written examinations appears to be more lenient than NRC grading of the same examinations.
Facility must continue efforts to expand and upgrade examination bank items.
Submitted:
D.
Damon xaminer Forwarded:
T. H. Burdick ection e
Approved:
G. C. Mri t rane e
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee:
D. C.
Cook Nuclear Plant Facility Licensee Docket Nos. 50-315; 50-316 Operating Tests Administered At:
- Bridgman, MI During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed (if none, so state):
ITEM None DESCRIPTION