ML18096A181

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Followup Rept for Licensed Operator Requalification Exam Conducted for Six Senior Reactor Operators & Six Reactor Operators on 910611-13
ML18096A181
Person / Time
Site: Salem  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 06/24/1991
From: Orticelle A
Public Service Enterprise Group
To: Martin T
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML18096A179 List:
References
NTC-91-3165, NUDOCS 9108060233
Download: ML18096A181 (9)
v • d • e


Text

PS~G Public Service Electric and Gas Company 244 Chestnut Street Salem, N.J. 08079 Phone 609/935-8560 Nuclear Training Center June 24, 1991 NTC-91-3165 Mr. T. Timothy Martin Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Dear Mr. Martin:

REPORT OF THE LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION -

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION Attached please find our follow-up report for the Licensed Operator Requalif ication Examination conducted for six Senior Reactor Operators and six Reactor Operators licensed for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. The examination was conducted during June 11-13, 1991. The report consists of this cover letter and two attachments:

Attachment 1 - Tabular Summary of Individual and Team Results Attachment 2 - Post-Examination Analysis and Performance Findings As discussed at the Exit Meeting on June 14, 1991~ ten of the operators passed each of the required sections of the requalif ication examinat.ion. Two operators, one Senior Reactor Operator and one Reactor Operator, were judged unsatisfactory on the simulator examination and consequently failed the requalifi-cation examination. Both of these operators satisfactorily completed both the written and walkthru portions of the examination. Additionally, one of the three operating crews was evaluated as being unsatisfactory on the simulator examination.

The crew, which includes both of the operators evaluated as unsatisfactory, was immediately removed from licensed duties in accordance with our training procedures. Remediation of both the individual and crew failures has been initiated and will be conducted in accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-601 Section D.l and ES-605, section c for a satisfactory program.

$ NATIONAL 0

Ill ACADEMY FOR NUCLEAR 0 TRAINING 9108060233 910725 PDR ADOCK 05000272 V PDR

Mr. T. Timothy Martin 6/24/91 If you have any questions or comments regarding the report or require additional information, please contact Gregory Mecchi at (609) 33Q-3857 or.James Lloyd at (609) 339-3839.

Sincerely,

  • Arthur orticelle Manager - Nuclear Training JKL:al Attachments (2) c Mr. David Silk, Chief Examiner U.S. NRC - Region I

ATTACHMENT 1 TABULAR

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM RESULTS Facility: Salem Units 1 & 2 OVERALL RESULTS TOTAL PASSED FAILED Exam Date: June 11-13, 1991 *~... # # I % # I %

Examiners: v. Polizzi, J. Lloyd, Reactor Operator 6 5 I 83.3 1 I 16.7

c. Bersak, M. Kafantaris, B.

Binggeli, P. Casey ( Corecorp) , Senior Operator 6 5 I 83.3 1 I 16.7 B. O'Brien (Myriad, Inc) , F. Johnson Total 12 10 I 83.3 2 I 16.7 (CoreCorp) operating Crews 3 2 I 66.7 1 I 33.3 Name License JPMs JPM % Written % Results

  1. - of - Overall A B Total Written simul Wlkthru 1 5 of 5 100 84 94.3 90.0 PASS FAIL PASS 2 5 of 5 92.5 80 94.3 88.3 PASS PASS PASS 3 4 of 5 82.5 88 94.3 91.7 PASS PASS PASS 4 5 of 5 97.5 88 91. 4 90 PASS .PASS PASS 5 5 of 5 100 88 94.3 91.7 PASS PASS PASS 6 5 of 5 100 96 94.3 95 PASS PASS PASS 7 5 of 5 95.0 92 94.3 93.3 PASS PASS PASS Page 1 of 3

ATTACHMENT 1 TABULAR

SUMMARY

OF INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM RESULTS Name License JP Ms JPM % Written % Results

  1. - of - Overall A B Total Written Simul Wlkthru 8 5 of 5 92.5 76 82.9 80.0 PASS PASS PASS 9 5 of 5 97.5 76 94.3 86.7 PASS FAIL PASS 10 5 of 5 97.5 88 91.4 90 PASS PASS PASS 11 5 of 5 97.5 88 88.6 88.3 PASS PASS PASS 12 5 of 5 100 100 94.3 96.7 PASS PASS PASS SIMULATOR CREWS CREW A (FAILED) CREW B (PASSED) CREW C (PASSED) 1 3 5 2 4 6 8 11 7 9 12 10 Note! f"Jc 3~f' 3 ~+ 4-+fuc-h,..<?r.+ 1 hc,5 be,.,., 1'<-""o--'eol beu:ivs<' if corrd..-1-J Page 2 of 3 *He.. . tJ11,,,h ' r '>* " b. o*.1c I .:.,)-1 z. ) -r.

0 1 ..u 1 r<1c-c.c.-fvc.f "l<1"1e!> ~+ the fer.,-1-ors. 0 ..5,

ATTACHMENT 2 POST-EXAMINATION ANALYSIS AND PERFORMANCE FINDINGS WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS section A - Plant Operations

  • Four questions were missed by more than 25% of the operators, questions E-5 #6, and A-1 #9, #15 and #16.

Training on the topics examined will be included in the next requalification cycle. One of the questions, E-5 #6, illustrated the potential for a procedure change to EOP-SGTR-1 to further clarify the actions necessary on a steam Generator Tube Rupture when the affected Steam Generator's Main steamline Isolation Valve fails to close.

An Emergency Operating Procedure Change Request Form detailing the suggested change has been submitted to the EOP Coordinator in accordance with station procedures.

section B - Limits and Controls

  • Some of the questions proposed for this section were evaluated as being more appropriate to Section A of the examination. Substitutions were made for these questions prior to the administration of the examination. The questions in the Section B examination bank will be reevaluated using the guidance in ES-602 of NUREG-1021.
  • Two questions were missed by more than 25% of the operators, questions NRC-SF02 #14 and NRC-SF03 #20. Training on the topics examined will be included *in the next requalification cycle. ,

General (Written)

  • One crew of operators experienced difficulty in completing one portion of the Section A examination within the allotted time. The availability of reference material was cited as the cause of the difficulty. None of the other crews experienced difficulty *. Follow-up activities indicate that the crew which experienced difficulty was utilizing references of limited applicability. As a lesson learned for future examinations, additional copies of controlled reference material will be provided if a single reference is required for multiple questions.

Page 1 of 3

ATTACHMENT 2 JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURES

  • Some critical task modifications were made by the examination team during the NRC pre-examination visit.
  • - One generic weakness was observed during the operator responses to a follow-up questions to Job Performance Measure 118 501 05 01 Jl, TCAF A LOCA - Depressurize to Refill Pressurizer. This question dealt with the response of pressurizer level following the completion of the task.

This topic will be reviewed during the upcoming requalif ication cycle.

-concern over the correctness of the indicated event classification has resulted in an agreement between the Nuclear Training Department and the Emergency Response Organization to have Emergency Response review the initial conditions and resultant classification on JPMs evaluating event classification. The purpose of this review is to ensure that there is only one correct classification to the indicated event.

  • Overall, the schedule for the JPMs worked effectively and smoothly. One problem resulted when two SROs, who were required to report approximately two (2) hours earlier than their anticipated start time, took an unexpected brief lunch break during their transit from the station to the simulator. Follow-up investigation indicated that examination security had not been breached. Explicit instructions regarding examination security measures and precautions will be provided to the operators for future examinations.

Simulator Operational

  • One operational scenario was terminated by our lead examiner when an unanticipated Abnormal Operating Procedure (AOP) was referenced and the SRO ordered a reactor trip. An additional scenario was substituted and completed successfully. The AOP problem was resolved, prior to the NRC exit, by the Operations Manager.

Page 2 of 3

ATTACHMENT 2

  • By direction of the NRC Lead Examiner, examination scenarios were conducted with the Unit's Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) unavailable, requiring the Critical Safety Function Stat~s Trees to be evaluated manually. Operation with SPDS unavailable was not frequently practiced during the normal training sessions. This contributed to two crews missing a non-critical CFST Purple Path during a major LOCA.

This mode of operation will be incorporated and critiqued in training scenarios with greater frequency.

  • Application of an infrequently utilized Technical Specification, 3.4.9-RCS Activity, resulted in some difficulty for the operators. A review of Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications will be conducted to identify any other infrequent and somewhat complicated Technical Specifications. Training will be conducted during the next requalification cycle, as appropriate.
  • Communications in the control Room were identified as improved over the 1990 Requalification Examination.
  • During the performance of one scenario, an operator mis-dialed and contacted the Training Center's front desk when attempting to reach the Instructor Station for a simulated chemical analysis. The ability to isolate the simulator phone lines will be investigated and evaluated.
  • Some modifications were made to the examination scenarios by the examination team during the NRC pre-examination visit.

Lessons learned will be incorporated into the examination bank.

Page 3 of 3

ATTACHMENT 5 SIMULATOR FIDELITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Compa~y 244 Chestnut Street Salem N.J. 08079 Facility Docket Nos.: 50-272 and 50-311 Requalification Examination Administered on: June 11 - 13, 1991 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 non-compliance 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 dynamic simulator examinations of the requalification examination, the following items were observed:

Two scenarios were each run three times on the same day to three different operating crews. One scenario consisted of a service water valve controller failing high, a SG feed pump trip, a main turbine overspeed trip followed by a loss of all auxiliary feedwater. The second scenario consisted of the 11 8 11 4160 Bus sequencer fails, High RCS activity, speed reference channel failed on the main turbine and concluded with a large break LOCA. An additional scenario was ran on the third crew (due to unanticipated crew response early in the first scenario) which consisted of a loss of a vital 4KV bus, a continuous control rod bank insertion and a loss of all feedwater.

Running the same scenarios on consecutive crews permitted the exam team to observe the consistency of the simulator to replicate malfunctions.

In all scenarios the simulator was consistent and appeared to correctly model RCS and secondary responses for the inserted malfunctions as well as normal plant operations. Also, since the dynamic simulator examinations occurred over a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> span, thus proving the simulator's endurance. Throughout the exam, the simulator performed as directed.

The simulator was used to conduct job performance measures.

Specifically, reactor startups, power range nuclear instrumentation malfunctions, depressurizing the RCS to refill the pressurizer, and PORVs sticking open were run on the simulator. For the two static exams, the simulator was frozen after modeling a 750 GPM steam generator tube rupture with an MSIV failed open and a failed open PORV while at power.

In both examination settings, the simulator performed as expected.

2 Overall, the simulator performed well. During the three days that the simulator was used for examinations, it performed a variety of operations and malfunctions in an accurate and reliable manner. This permitted the examination team to evaluate individual operator and crew performances that provided input for the evaluation of the facility's requalification program.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18096A181&oldid=2409387"