ML19327A956
| ML19327A956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1989 |
| From: | Chaffee A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Bridenbecker R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19327A957 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910240045 | |
| Download: ML19327A956 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- '/Y UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g -{ s REGON V a. 1450 MARIA LANE, SUITE 210 l: %..., *,o WALNUT CRE E K.CAllf 0HNI A 94b96 t October 12. 1989 l Southern California Edison Company l San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station i 1 P. O. Box 128 San Clemente. California 92672 i Attention: Robert H. Bridenbecker, Vice President and Site Manager
Dear Mr. Bridenbecker:
I
Subject:
Final Requalification Program Evaluation Report j During the period of August 15, 1989 through September 1, 1989, the NRC j conducted an evaluation of the San Onofre Unit 2/3 Operator Requalification Program. The evaluation was based on writt<.n and operating examinations administered in accordance with NUREG-1021. ES-601, Revision 5 " Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations." The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the effectiveness of the San Onofre Unit 2/3 Operator Requalification Program and to evaluate individual operators for renewal of their six year term licenses. Twenty licensed operators representing five operating crews were evaluated. Additionally. l each crew's team performance was evaluated in an operational setting, i Details and findings of the evaluation are contained in the Examination Report, which is Enclosure (1) of this letter'. As specified in NUREG-1021 j ES-601, the program may be evaluated only as " satisfactory" or " unsatisfactory." i Based on the NRC evaluation, conducted in accordance with ES-601, the San Onofre Unit 2/3 Operator Requalification Program is satisfactory. However, two findings of particular concern were identified. The first finding is that the majority of the operators examined exhibited a l weak performance in the area of normal operations. This was particularly t evident in the results of the written examinations. Twelve operators performed i at a level of below 80% in this specific functional area. Furthermore, some of i the operators in this group scored less than 60%. Although the " normal operations" functional area is only a small portion of the overall program j evaluation, it becomes significant when considering recent events involving operator error at your facility such as: j " Core Protection Calculator Operability" LER 89-004 Unit 2 " Reactor Trip / Loss of Load", and LER 89-006 Unit 3 " Reactor Trip / Loss of U.P.S." LER 89-001 Unit 3 '\\ s91o;4co40 8+1012 FDR ADOCK 05000 41 fh h "UU V j l
i 2 October 12, 1989 Therefore, this finding augments our concern of your operating crews' ability to efficiently perform basic plant operations without challenging safety systems. Your management staff, identified in Enclosure (1), concurred with this finding and agreed to take irrnediate action to correct the program training weaknesses that contributed to this condition. The second observation was that non-licensed operators routinely are permitted to operate the electrical panels in the control room without direct supervision. The Code of Federal Regulations, Part 10 CFR 50.54.j., requires that " apparatus and mechanisms other than controls" which may affect the reactivity or power level of the reactor shall be manipulated only with the " knowledge end consent" i of a licensed operator or senior operator. Not all of your Auxiliary Control Room Operators (ACO's) are licensed. Also, it is not clear in your procedures or apparent in your operator training program that your licensed operators maintain " knowledge and consent" of AC0 manipulations of safety related control room electrical switchgear. Your management staff, identified in Enclosure (1), comitted to take imediate actions to ensure that all manipulations that may affect the reactivity or power level of the reactor are always performed by a licensed operator, or with the " knowledge and consent" of a licensed operator. Furthermore, they stated that all of your AC0's would be licensed within the next two requalification program cycles. Nineteen of the twenty operator's individual performances were judged satisfactory by the NRC, and will be eligible for renewal of their six year tem licenses. We understand that the individual identified by the NRC who failed the written portion of the examination was removed from licensed duties, remediated in the areas of weakness, and then returned to licensed duties consistent with the approved requalification program. The NRC will arrange to readminister~a requalification examinetion for this individual, in the area of deficiency, within six months of the initial failure notification letter. All five of the operating crews' performances were judged satisfactory by the NRC. It is a requirement of 10 CFR 55.57(b)(2)(iv) that all applicants for license renewal must pass an NRC administered written and operating test during the term of a six year license prior to the renewal of the operating license. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and enclosure (1) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. if our understanding of your actions in response to the two programmatic weaknesses and to the individual operator who failed the examination is incorrect, or if you should have any questions concerning this evaluation, please contact us. Sincerely, ff l Alfred E. Chaffee, Deputy Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
l -3 October 12, 1989 : Examination Report 50-361/0L-89-02 (w/ Attachment A Examination Security Agreements) : Requelification Results Summary Sheets (ES-601, Attachments 16 and 17) : Individual Requalification Examination Reports (ES-601 Attachment 18) Simulation Facility Report (ES-501, Attachment 3. Enclosure 5) ccw/ enclosures (1),(2),(3),and(4): J. Reeder, Manager Nuclear Training, San Onofre, SCE R. Cross, RV (2 copies) cc w/ enclosure (2) w/o Attachment A: J. Lanning, OLB-HQ ccw/ enclosure (1)only: G. Wright, LOLB Project Manager, NRR J. Martin, RV B. Faulkenberry, RV A. Johnson, RV R. Zimmerman, RV A. Chaffee, RV D. Kirsch, RV L. Miller, RV P. Johnson, RV T. Meadows, RV P. Morrill, RV C. Caldwell, SRI B. Moffitt, PNL H. Ray, SCE
- 0. Mette, SCE L. Simmons, SCE 1
1 1
p- -~ !,7c . I; I if. j ) { i,g ~ ' ' U A jg;..%y[
- 4 1, j*(
g t 4 $c 3 October 12, 1989 f', ? s ( '.h/ 9 I ' Enclosure 1: Examination' Report 50-361/0L-89-02 4 / ( %.,+ (w/ Attachment A Examination Security Agree:nents) -Enclosure 2: Requalification Results Sumary Sheets (ES-601, Attachments,16'and17) Individual Requalification Examination Reports (ES-601, Attachment 18) L. :- Simulation Facility Report (ES-501, Attachment 3, Enclosure 5) f-ccw/ enclosures (1),(2),(3),and(4): J. Reeder, Manager Nuclear Training San Onofre, SCE E R. Cross,RV(2 copies) I; ccw/ enclosure (2)w/oAttachmentA: J. Lanning, OLB-HQ ccw/ enclosure (1)only: l G. Wright LOLB Project Manager, NRR J. Martin, RV B. Faulkenberry, RV A. Johnson, RV R. Zimmerman, RV A. Chaffee, RV D. Kirsch, RV L. Miller, RV P. Johnson,'RV T. Meadows, RV P. Morrill, RV C. Caldwell, SRI B. Moffitt,.PNL H. Ray, SCE
- 0. Mette, SCE L. Simons SCE
'I{ REGION V.$._ f A C/p l TMeadows/nw-PMorrill iller PJohnson irsch 10/.r/89 10/() /89 10/G/89 10/fo/89 10/ 6/89 l bs REQUEST COPY, REQUESTCgPY] REQ)UESTCOPY RJRt4ST COPY 'IREQyESTCOPY' . y ', (VER / NO YES /TRO ]7ES / NO W Ef // NO l l E F /- NO i i Yz
- f,p
,gD TO PDR ; ~ I m man 10/It /89-c a j,,,, i DONOTSbEh 05U E5 .f /NO jo /a /$') 2 AND 3 TO PDR': ycw x nr6 1 dr/sp i ~ i s, ,}}