ML18153C605
| ML18153C605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1991 |
| From: | Baldwin R, Lawyer L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18153C603 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-OL-91-01, 50-280-OL-91-1, NUDOCS 9104230060 | |
| Download: ML18153C605 (2) | |
Text
f e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II 101 MARIETTA ~TREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
- ENCLOSURE REPORT DETAILS Facility Licensee: Virginia EJectric and Power Company Facility Name:
Surry Power Station
- Facility Docket Nos:
50-280 avd ~0-281 Facility Liiense Nos:
DPR-32 and DPR-37 Examinations were administered at Surry Power *station near Surry, Virginia.
Chief Examiner:
Approved. By:
Lawrence L. Lawyer,Chief'*
Operator ~icensing Section 1
. Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY
Date 3/-z-J /_rt Date.
A requalification retake examination was administered on March 4, 1991, for an individual who fiiled the requalification examination given on September 19, 1990..
There was no progr~m evaluation made due to the small sample *size.
One* operating test was administered to 1 (one) SRO.
One SRO passed this examination.
9104230060 9tgggiso PDR ADDCK O PDR V
1.. Examiner
- Richard S. Baldwin
- Chief Examiner REPORT DETAILS
- 2.
Facility Representatives at Exit Meeting H. Mccallum, Operations Coordinator Training J. McCarthy, Superintendent of Operations A; Friedman, Superintendent of Nuclear Training B. Bilyeu, Station Licensing
- 3.
Resident Inspector at Exit Meeting S. Tingen
- 4.
Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the site visit the examiner met with representatives of the plant staff to discuss the results of the examinations.
The following item concerning the examination development was discussed:
- During review of simulator scenarios, Revision #5 scenarios were originally provided for the review process.
The factlity had completed Revision #6 prior to the NRC review.
The Revision #6 -
$cenarios were ~ot provided to the NRC until requested.
It is of utmost importance that the facility pr_ovide the current revision_of simulator scenarios in order to allow a timely review of the examination material.
- 5.
During the performance of l-E-1, "Loss of Reactor or Secondary Coolant,"
it was noted that step 8, "CHECK IF HI HI CLS INITIATED" was misleading as written. It was observed during the performance of this step, the operator had to analyze which*pathway needed to be followed, either to proceed to step 14 as the RNO required or to continue with steps 9 thru
- 13.
As written, if the HI HI CLS annunciation is no longer LIT, the operator would be required by EOP useage guidelines to proceed to the RNO (GO TO Step 14).
However, this would have been the incorrect action. If HI HI CLS has initiated, steps 9 thru 14 are necessary to be completed.
Emergency Operating Procedure steps should be written such that they do not require operator interpretation to decide if the step should have or should not have been accomplished.
Step 8 should be reviewed to determine if corrective action is necessary.