ML18058B127

Forwards Exam Rept 50-255/OL-92-02 Administered During Wk of 920921

ML18058B127
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	10/07/1992
From:	Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
Shared Package
ML18058B128	List: ML18058B127
References
NUDOCS 9210140058
Download: ML18058B127 (8)

Text

Docket No. 50-255

-~

• Consumers Power Company ATTN:

Gerald B. Slade

.General Manager OCT - 7 1992 Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway covert, MI 49043

SUBJECT:

EXAMINATION REPORT During the week of September 21, 1992, the NRC administered examinations to employees of your organization who had applied for licenses to operate your Palisades Nuclear Plant.

At the conclusion of the examination, the examination questions and preliminary findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.

The training department's pre-administration exam review contributed significantly to the exams quality.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in*the

• . NRC Public Document Room.*

Should you have any questions concerning this examination, please contact us.

Enclosures:

1.

Examination Report No.

50-255/0L-~2-02

2.

Examinations and

• Answer Keys (SRO/RO)

3.

• Simulation Facility Report See Attached Distribution RIE /.

w~r/cg 10/ 7 /92 RI~

~.'B~k 10/ 7 /92 9210140058 921007 PDR ADOCK 05000255 V

PDR Sincere*1y, Geoffrey c. Wright, Chie~

Operations Branch RIII J~nsen 1~~~; /92

~tt/

~~ight

• 1 107 /92 ~-.. i I

!0

Consumers Power Company Distribution cc w/enclosures:

David P* Hoffman, Vice President Nuclear Operations P~ M. Donnelly, Safety and Licensing Director DCD/DCB (RIDS)

. OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, RIII

• Janies R. Padgett, Michigan Public Service *commission, Michigan Department of Public Health_

SRI, Big Rock Point D.- Rogers, Plant Training Manager 2

A. S. Masciantonio, Project Manager, NRR G. L. Jones, Contract Exam Supervisor, INEL R. M. Gallo, Branch Chief, OLB OCT - 7 1992

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No.

50-255/0L~92~02 Docket No.

50-255 License No.

DPR-20.

Licensee:

Consumers Power Company 27780 Blue *Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043 Facility Name:

Palisades Nuclear Plant Examination Administered At:

Covert, Michigan 49043 Examination Conducted:

Week Chief Examiner:

~

'/4

'* ill*./

Waifu Approved Examination Summary of September 21, 1992 section 2.

• t0/7/7 L Date Examination administered during the week of September 21. 1992,

-(Report No. 50-25S/OL-92-02CDRS)) to one reactor operator (RO}

and six senior reactor operators (SRO}.

The written examinations were administered on September 21, 1992 at the Palisades Training Building.

The operational examinations were administered at Palisades simulator facility on September 22, 1992.

The Job Performance Measure (JPM} portion of the examination was administered on September 21 and September 23, 1992.

Results:

All candidates passed the examinations.

The following are examples of the strengths and weaknesses identified by the NRC evaluators.

Strengths

,Good use of alarm response procedures by the crew to help.in diagnosing events and leading to recovery response.

Overall procedur~usage was good.

Weaknesses Communications between crew members and personnel outside the control room during dynamic simulator examinations was weak.

9210140060 90250100007255 PDR. ADOCK V

roR -

(

REPORT DETAILS

• 1.

Examiners

• • J. Walker, Nuctear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

F.. Jagger, Idaho National Engineering Labs (INEL)

s. Johnson; INEL M. Jones, INEL

• Chief Examiner

2.

Exit Meeting An exit meeting was held on September 24, 1992, with facility management and training ~taff representatives, to discuss the examiner's observations contained in this report.

NRC Representatives in attendance were:

J. Walker, Chief Examiner Facility Representatives in attendance were:

T. Palmisano, Operations Manager J. Hanson, Operations Superintendent D. Rogers, Training Administrator J. Kuemin, License Administrator P. Donnelly~ ~afety and Licensing Direc~or P. Rewa, Instructor Supervisor II T. Horan, Director Nuclear Training P. Kluskowski, Simulator Engineer P. Schmidt, Supervisory Instructor W. Pratt,. Senior Nuclear Instructor R. Frigo, Supervisory Instructor The licensee representatives acknowledged the examiner observations discussed in. Sections* 3 and 4 of this report as well as the items identified in Enclosure 3, the Simulation Facility Report.

3.

Examination Development The reference material that the licensee s,ent to the NRC for examination preparation was properly

. bound and labeled, and for the most part,* the NRC examiners were able to extract the needed information.

2

• The pre-examination review conducted by the licensee on the written examinations was very productive.

The licensee's input to the examination ensured that the terminology used on the.examination was plant. specific, thus avoiding confusion on the part of.the candidates during the examination.

In addition, the review

• • process ensured that the examinatic;ms were technically correct and appropriate for_ each license type as specified by.the lieensee's job description.

4.

Examination Administration During the administration of the examinations, the examiners observed both strengths and weaknesses on the part of the Senior Reactor Operator and Reactor Operator candidates.

The following strengths in the candidates' performance were observed in the majority of the candidates.* that were examined in each particular knowledge or ability:

1)

Use of the alarm response procedures during both the Simulator Scenarios and Simulator JPM's was very good.

Each candidate showed a thorough knowledge.and understanding of the ARP's and their importance.

2)

All candidates demonstrated complete and thorough knowledge of equipment locations.

This demonstrated an active effort on the candidates part to spend time in the plant.

The following weaknesses in the candidates' performance were observed in the majority of the candidates that were examined in each particular knowledge or ability:

1)

Crew communications deteriorated during the scenario performance.

a.

At each scenario start each crew maintained good close ended communications.

As the scenario progressed communications became more open ended.

This.resulted in at least two cases when crew members did not receive valuable information.

b.

Communications between the crew and outside the control room was poor.

wide announcements concerning plant made during seven scenarios.

. 3 personnel Only two plant status were

'~

2)

During one JPM, candidates were unable to determine reduced inventory levels within the RCS.

The methods used by each candidate to finally determine this level were varied anq could present actual problems during a

.reduced inventory evolution.

During the grading of the written examination a variety of weaknesses were identified in the following knowledge or ability areas:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

Requirements to enter the RCA during an abnormal event.

Actions to be taken in the event of a "RED".CAM Alarm while in the RCA.

• Various shift turnover items and when they are required to be performed.

Conditions which would result in an.AUTOMATIC start of the Primary Coolant Pump Backstop oil p\\lmp.

Which ESFAS equipment has bypass ability.

What causes an automatic start of various ventilation-fans.

The preferred method* of draining water from the reactor cavity to the SIRWT following refueling.

Primary method to index the bridge of the refueling machine.

Priority of boration methods during a loss of Reactivity Control.

Technical Specification requirements for operable Gaseous Effluent monitors.

Knowledge of the ~utomatic actions as~ociat~d with a loss of preferred AC Bus Y20.

5.

Written Examination Review Facility representatives were allowed to *review the written examinations prior to their administration as discussed in Section 3 of this report, *and any applicable comments.from the. review were incorporated into the examinations.

4

Following the conclusion of the written examinations, the facility was given a copy of the Senior Reactor Operator* and Reactor Operator examinations and answer keys.

The facility had until the end of the examination administration week to

• provide any additional comments in writing to the NRC.

The facility provided no additional comments on the written examination.

5

ENCLOSURE 3 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee:

Palisades Nuclear Plant Facility Licensee Docket No.:

50-255 Operating Tests Administered On:

Week of September 21, 1992 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 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 that may be used in future evaluatioris.

No licensee action is required in res~onse to these observations..

While conducting the simulator portion of the operating.tests, the following items were observed:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

DESCRIPTION The simulator demonstrated an inability to recover from a simulated station blackout. *To enable the machine to continue operation, it was required to do a hard reset on the computers controlling the simulator.

• The simulator failed to initially restore the PIP and CFMS computers following their loss during two scenarios.

High Pressure Injection Flow (HPSI) is indicated with all pumps secured and the valves open.

Various area radiation monitors are not modeled in

.the simulator that are present in the control room.

The simulator is not modeled to place an RPS channel in the tripped condition.