ML18033B674
| ML18033B674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1991 |
| From: | Casto C, Payne D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18033B673 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-OL-91-01, 50-259-OL-91-1, NUDOCS 9104230163 | |
| Download: ML18033B674 (5) | |
Text
~P,tt At'Cfy, gp,
~4 0
co
+c av O
I os
+vp aa0
++*gc~
t UNITED STATES t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 ENCLOSURE 1
EXAMINATION REPORT 50-259/OL-91-01 Facility Licensee:
Tennessee Valley Authority Facility Name:
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Facility Docket Nos.:
50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 Facility License Nos.:
DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 Operational evaluations were administered at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near
- Decatur, Alabama.
Chief Examiner:
Approved By:
r ya 2
~
7(
ar es ayne..
.-( 'ww ar es
- asto, ie Operator Licensing Section 2
- ~ Division of Reactor Safety V
a e
gne
'Ijg/r,'f ate sgne
SUMMARY
Operational evaluations were administered during the weeks of February 14 through March 21, 1991.
Six operating crews designated to operate Unit 2 upon reactor restart were evaluated performirIg normal, abnormal and test evolutions on the Browns Ferry simulator.
Each crew consisted of two Senior Reactor Operators (SROs),
two Reactor Operators (ROs),
one Shift Technical Advisor, one Reactor
- Engineer, and one Test Engineer.
All crew members performed satisfactorily.
Based upon the above described results and each licensed operator's performance on either the 1989 or 1990 requalification
- exam, these crews are judged capable to perform all licensed duties required to restart and operate Browns Ferry Unit 2.
9104230163'9i0408 PDR ADOCK 05000259 V
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Facility Employees Attending Exit Meeting M. R.
- DeRoche, Operator Training Manager T. L. Chinn, Instructor 2.
Examiners "D. C.
- Payne, Region II B. L. Holbrook, Region II C.
W. Rapp, Region II "Chief Examiner 3.
Scope of Evaluations Six operating crews designated to operate Unit 2 upon reactor restart were evaluated performing normal, abnormal and test evolutions on the Browns Ferry simulator.
Each crew consisted'f two Senior Reactor Operators (SROs),
two Reactor Operators (ROs),
one Shift Technical Advisor (STA), one Reactor
- Engineer, and one Test Engineer.
Each RO was required to pull the reactor critical from an all-rods-in condition and establish a controlled heatup rate.
.During the course of these startups, planned instrument malfunctions associated with the power monitoring systems were received and responded to by the crews in accordance with applicable abnormal procedures and Technical Specifications.
After the reactor startups, each crew was evaluated on a selected normal evolution and a power ascension test evolution.
The possible normal evolutions consisted of either (I) synchronizing the main generator to the grid, (2) placing a reactor feed pump in service, or (3) starting an idle recirculation pump.
The possible power ascension test evolutions consisted of one of the following: I) Feedwater pump trip testing or 2) High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) manual injection to the reactor.
4.
Exit Meeting At the conclusion of each site visit, the examiners met with representatives of the plant staff to discuss the results of the examinations.
There were no generic weaknesses noted during the operational evaluations.
ENCLOSURE I, Report Details The examiners made the following observations concerning selected crews:
a.
In general, all crews exhibite4 good team skills and a high level of understanding and control in the operation of the plant.
Crew
. communications were also good.
b.
During the first startup of Group 3, the RO at the controls was observed leaving the reactor panel on two occassions.
Once was to make a log entry and the other was to discuss procedural issues with the Shift Operations Supervisor (SOS).
During the time the operator was
- away, no individual was instructed to monitor the Nuclear Instruments (NIs).
By procedure, the operator at the controls is responsible only for performing the startup and monitoring of.the NIs.
c ~
Also during the first startup of Group 3, an error was observed in the calculation of heatup rate.
The operator taking logs on recirculation loop temperature determined a 30 degree per hour heatup rate.
Another operator taking informal readings on the log typer calculated a 3 degree per hour heatup rate.
There was no effort on the part of the crew to resolve this difference in calculated heatup rate.
d.
Difficulties in calculating the heatup rate were.also observed with the Group 4 operators;
- however, the SOS in this crew took prompt action to correct the problem.
e.
It was noted that the STA in Group 5 was not as effectively utilized by the cre'w as he was in the other groups.
Often he was observed sitting at the SOS's desk simply watching crew activities when tasks were in progress where he could have assisted the crew.
The Browns Ferry evaluators also noticed this weakness and attributed it to two factors.
One, this crew did not have a permanently assigned STA and thus became accustomed to not relying on his skills.
And two, this particular STA was not a licensed operator.
The operations management representative observing the evaluation agreed to rectify this problem.
The cooperation given to the examiners was also noted and appreciated.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the examiners during this evaluation.
4
ENCLOSURE 2
SIMULATOR FACILITY FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee:
'ennessee Valley Authority Facilty Name:
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Facility Docket Nos.:
50-259,
- 260, and 50-296 Operational Evaluations Given:
Weeks of February 14 through March 21, 1991 This form is used only to report observations.
These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification or review, indicative of noncompliance 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:
None not already noted in previous Simulator Facility Fidelity Reports.
I I
1