ML20005G576
| ML20005G576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1990 |
| From: | Bielby M, Jordan M, Nejfelt G, Hironori Peterson, Rau E, Riches M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005G575 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-OL-89-02, 50-155-OL-89-2, NUDOCS 9001190350 | |
| Download: ML20005G576 (8) | |
Text
k..,
- c
) !l)
- m" P
U.S.' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b
O' REGION III.
t Report No.
50-155/0L-89-02 Docket No'.
50-155 License No. DPR-6 Licensee: Consumers Power Ccmpany=
4
-Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant 10269.U.S. 31 North Charlevoix, MI - 49720-9458
' Facility Name: Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant
- Examination Administered At: Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant b
Charlevoix, Michigan
[
November-1-19 -1989 Examination Conducted:
0 Examiners:
.L 4/-0.2 94
- 'G. M. Nejf g Chief Examiner Date
, 0.
//3-/fo
. Biel 5
Date ll2l9o
[,]f,
w i.
E. Rau
\\
Da'te /
W h
/ / ldt O l
- 02 -lo
- /M.. Ric es Date
_ fmy, b kN 0/-02-90
'H. PetersCn Date Approved By:
/-J-90
- 1. 4 # Jordan,' Chief, Operator Date Licensing Section No. 1 i
EXAMINATION
SUMMARY
-Examination administered on November 1-19, 1989 (Report No. 50-155/0L-89-02):
i Written and operating requalification examinations were administered to eight Senior Reactor Operators (SR0s) and four Reactor Operators (R0s).
In conjunction with the simulator portion of these examinations, two shift crews and one staff crew were evaluated.
Results: One R0 failed the written examination.
In that 92% of the licensed
. 9001190350 900103
-i i PDR.ADOCK 05000155
~
V PNU
y b
g,..
a; f-operators (11'of-12) passed'the'NRC Requalification Examination both by the W
facility and NRC independent grading as required by HUREG-1021, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, Revision 5, ES-601,:the Big Rock Point l-Requalification Program is considered satisfactory.
.Significant Strengths:
Operators generally performed.well on the GE-Dresden simulator modified for.the Big Rock Point Unit for the scenarios given (i.e.,
Loss of Instrument Air and Major Loss of Cooling-Accident (LOCA)).,
The operators were well prepared for the examination.
The Training Staff was very' responsive to correct difficulties found
~ during the development of requalification material in that material that.was not initially reviewed was corrected.
Significant Weaknesses:
None.
l l
i i
1 2
f$ g
[
wm. >
REPORT DETAILS 1
I f
1; Examiners G. Nejfelt Chief Examiner, USNRC
.E.-Rau, USNRC M. Riches, Battelle - Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL)
H. Peterson (under instruction), USNRC tb 2.
Exit Meeting-
.An exit meeting was conducted on November 19, 1989. The following personnel attended this exit meeting:
Facility Representatives T. W. Elward, Plant Manager C. R. Abel, Production and Performance Superintendent
- D. G. Lacroix, Training Administrator W. J.'Trubilowicz, Operations Supervisor
.l
- J. R. Hutchison, Senior Training Instructor NRC Representatives i
- M. Jordan, Section Chief, USNRC
- G. M. Nejfelt, Chief Examiner, USNRC E. Plettner, Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC E.-Rau, Examiner, USNRC H. Peterson, Examiner, USNRC l-M._ Riches, Examiner, PNL i
- Attended regional: meeting in March'1989, with Big Rock _ Point i
representatives to provide direction needed to comply with the i
Requalification Program provided in Operator Licensing Examiner t
Stendards,:NUREG-1021, Revision 5.
.The following items were discussed during the exit meeting:
a.
The examiners were favorably impressed by the overall knowledge level and demeanor of the candidates, r
L b.
Security and radiological accesses for examiners to the plant I
were excellent. No delays occurred.
1 c.
The general plant appearance and housekeeping observed at the Big Rock Point Facility were excellent based upon the numerous occasions that the examination team was in the plant.
l 3
i
y M
?,
.l
- 4
'd.
Both'the'requalification material quantity and quality were acceptable.
L However, it was recognized that difficulties encountered during the preparation of this requalification examination need to be applied to e'
the materials in the=Requalification Question and Scenario Test Banks P
> prior to its use.or new material' development.
F Since the training staff was very responsive to correct difficulties 1
~found during the' development of requalification material, the following comments are provided to document specific areas of difficulties to be avoided in the future.
(1) Scenario Development:
-(a) Scenario Critical. Steps need to be properly established k
and identified; p
(b) Scenarios needed to be in sufficient detail to keep track
-of the expected operator actions (i.e., the first scenarios checked with the GE Dresden simulation on October 21, 1989, stated general tasks to be performed).
(c) Scenario development should reflect the current procedural and management policy to definitively support an expected F
course of action, rather than permitting various options (i.e.. to close or to keep open main steam line isolation valves durin an ATWS-given the parameters established by the scenario.
(2) Job Performance Measures-(JPMs):
(a) Job Performance Measures (JPMs) need to be walked down thoroughly to be consistent with procedures and equipment (i.e.,-it was physically not possible to, as indicated in JPM "JBNA270901," to bypass a clogged filter without placing the standby filter train into service; and two JPMs had incorrect alarm responses and alarm panel designators).
This process also entails that a time validation be done in all cases (i.e., six of 32 JPMs that were reviewed did not indicate a time validation);
(b) JPMs did not initially provide sufficient details for an observer to independently determine, if the operator's actions were correct (i.e., did not provide labelling of switch, valve, pump, etc.)
l (c) JPMs are required to be self contained units.
It is j
not appropriate nor practical to include into a JPM the associated surveillance prior to doing the desired t
task. Two JPMs had surveillances required as l
performance steps; E
l 1
4 1
1.
4~
L f;
r',
(d) JPMs Critical' Steps need to be properly established and identified.(11 of.32 JPMs Critical Steps that were reviewed were reevaluated); and h
(e) JPMs Questions need to be relevant to the task being
~v performed (i.e., nine of 65 JPMs Questions were replaced).
(3) Written Examination Questions:
-(a)- Although not a generic concern, Written Examination Questions need to be principally analytic or to involve decision making, rather than simply looking up a fact-in the documentation available.
(b) Static Simulator Questions require the assimilation of information that is necessary to answer the questions.
In lieu of a simulator for the Big Rock Point NRC Requalification Examination, a comprehensive table of information was provided at various times ( i.e., time zero, +5 minutes, +15 minutes, etc.) to achieve this objective. -The effort and results obtained by the training staff is commendable.
(c) Because of the Chief Examiner's insistence, the entire written examination was presented in a multiple choice format. The benefits of removing possible grading bias and of facilitating grading markedly offset the preparation to prepare these multiple choice questions, as noted by the training staff.
(d) Until more definitive information is available, the question structures should parallel the guidance provided in NUREG-1021, ES-401, which is used for Replacement Examinations.
e.
Use of GE Dresden Simulator:
Overall, the crews performed well. However, it was noted for the ATWS Scenario that various approaches were taken by each crew (i.e., various applications of Emergency Operating Procedure (E0P)-1 RC-Q and ATWS contingency). To establish a consistent conduct among the crews, the Training Administrator committed to:
(1) emphasis E0P usage for all operating shifts in the 1990 Requalification Sessions; and (2) retrain the crews on the use of E0P-1RC-Q and ATWS contingency utilizing team scenarios either through in plant walkthroughs or use of the mock-up simulator that will be available for use during the 1990 requalification examination cycle.
5
fe,3Me-ll !
'Although the Big Rock Point operators are sh'own differences in k
the pre-simulator familiarization sessions at the GE Dresden b
Simulator, operator error resulted due to significantly different.
controls between the units at Big Rock Point and GE Dresden Simulator.' In one instance, a scenario was stopped and restarted to preclude spending excessive time to recover from an-
" unexpected" causality immediately after initially loading the main generator. The " unexpected" event was due to a protective feature on the GE Dresden Simulator to prevent motorizing the-main. generator. 'This protective feature in not used at Big Rock
[
Point. To address similar items, the Training Administrator connitted to continue incorporating into the. training program simulator fidelity concerns;- and will evaluate the feasibility of. making additional modification to the GE Dresden Simulator.
f.
Preparation Work by NRC:
-The Chief Examiner with other personnel made two trips to the facility on October 10-13, 1989, and on October 23-27, 1989, prior to.the NRC Requalification Examination administration on November 16-20, 1989, to review the requalification material.
g.-
Medical Records:
-Approximately twenty percent of the currently active licensed operator medical records were reviewed and were found to be within the two year interval between medical examinations
-required by Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations'(CFR),
Part 55.21.
There was no discrepancy.
h.
Video Taping:
The NRC Requalification Scenarios at the 3E Oresden Simulator were video taped. These vidae t:pe: w re erased at the end of
'each day with the permis',ien of the Chief Examiner in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 5, ES-601.
Note:
The Initial NRC Examination Exit Meeting was conducted in conjunction with the NRC Requalification Exit tieeting on November 19, 1989 (See Examination Report No. 50-155/0L-89-01).
3.-
Examination Results Comparison A comparison of the written examination results between the facility and the NRC grading was identical, because the examinations were entirely in a multiple choice format.
Also, the facility and NRC evaluations for the simulator and operating portions of the examination were consistent.
6 L
m
.. i.p. 4
':,. ', 'y
[
s
-P s -.
h!,
hf Y
.'4 Overall'Requalification Program Evaluation The requalification program was' assigned an'overall program rating of-
^
Lsatisfactory. The evaluation criteria of NUREG-1021, Revision 5, was met.-
l
- (;
1 f
7
A[q
-I
.19 e; 3
- p 1
- y. -
- J REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
.l 4
Facility:
s
' Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Station Chief-Examiner:- G. M.' Nejfelt' C
~,-
. Dates of Evaluation: November 1, 6, 11 -and 17-19. 1989 r
y.sv
~
. Written X
Oral X
Simulator N
-Areas Evaluated:-'
X Examination Results:
j i
- R0 SR0 Total' Evaluation a
Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail (S, M, or U) l w
Written Examination 3/1 8/0 ~
11/1 S-
'n Oper_ating-Examination Oral; 4/0 8/0 12/0-S 1 Simulator' 4/0 8/0 12/0 S
s c
^
Evaluation'of facility written. examination grading: The facility grading
. identically matched the NRC grading.. The examinations used multiple choice type questions.:
Crew Examination.
.Results:-
CREW 1-CREW 2 CREW 3 Evaluation Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail (S, M, or U)
Operating Examination Pass Pass Pass S
Overall-Program Evaluation Satisfactory _
X i
Submitted:
Forwarded:
Approved:
G)
"f fWu
?)
ejfelt M. O J rdan G. C. Wri ht Chief Examiner Section Chief Branch Chief 1.
8
..