ML20006C685
| ML20006C685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1990 |
| From: | Jordan M, Nejfelt G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006C679 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-OL-90-02, 50-461-OL-90-2, NUDOCS 9002080381 | |
| Download: ML20006C685 (6) | |
Text
'-
,,n f.:, (g i) ;.. y 7
=
f,,
- s;%,
-ghe D*"
,)
.?
'U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION =
. P.EGION-III~
g
~'
l Region'No. 50-461/0L-90-02 Docket.No. 50-461:
Licensee No. NPF-62 x:
Licensee:. Illinois Power Company-
[
.500 South.27th' Street Decatur,.IL 62525 Facility Name:.Clinton 1 Power Station.
ExaminationAdmihisteredat: Clinton.1 Power Station, Clinton, Illinois i.
Examinations Conducted: January 22-23, 1990.
x Chief Examiner: M h h @ >f' dhW-70 p
Ta. M. Ne fe
-Date h///9b l
- il Approved by:
W M.J.prpn Date j
L p
L
' Examination Suninary s
- Examination administered on-January 22-23.'1990'(Report No. 50-461/0L-90-02):.
.Three Senior Reactor Reactors-(SR0s) were administered retake written examinations;<and one SRO-and one Reactor Operator (RO) were administered.
retake operational.. examination-(i.e., Job Performance Measures'(JPMs)).
- Results:: All-the operators passed the retake examinations. The parallel grading between the facility and NRC of examination results were within the y
guidance provided by NUREG-1021,-ES-601.
q Significant Strength:-
Training Staff applied the " lessons learned" from the September 1989 Requalification Examination (See Examination Report 50-461/0L-89-01).
Examination development by licensee identified several procedural problems-(See Paragraph 2.b of this report for details).
i Significant: Weaknesses:
None Noted.
w.
n, 90020so381 900201 h
ADOCK05oogi N
j' DR.
v
p.g :
x h
REPORT DETAILS-1.
Examiner lJ G. M.-Nejfelt, Chief Examiner, USNRC, Region III 2.
Exit Meeting An exit' meeting was-conducted on January 23, 1990, at the Clinton Nuclear Power Station..
l.
L Illinois Power Company Representatives J. S. Perry, Vice' President, Nuclear J. G. Cook, Manager, Clinton Power Station
-R. E. Wyatt, Manager, Nuclear Training Department (NTD)
J. A. Miller, Manager, Scheduling & Outage Management'(SOM) l A. L. Ruwe, Director, Nuclear _ Station Engineering (NSED)
D. L. Holtzscher, Acting Manager, Licensing & Safety (L&S)
L
-J. D. Weaver, Director, L&S K. R. Graf, Director, Operations Monitoring, Quality Assurance (QA)'
D. M. Antonelli, Director, Operator Training, NTD
,M.-W. Lyon, Supervisor, Requalification & Operator Training, NTD P.'D. Yocum, Supervisor, Plant Operations (0PS)
W. S.-Iliff Supervisor. Licensing Administration, L&S 1
J. R. Hays, Senior Training Instructor, NTD T. M. Weldzius, Technical-Advisor, Nuclear Program Assessment Group (NPAG)
Soyland Representative J. Greenwood, Manager Power Supply, Site Representative NRC Representative G. M. Nejfelt, Chief Examiner, Region III, USNRC The.following items were discussed during the exit:
a.
The material prepared by the licensee for this retake of the NRC September 1980 Requalification Examination was excellent. The written examination questions for both the_ static simulator (Part A) and open reference (Part B) portions were unambiguously written in' a multiply choice format; and required the operator to analyze the information provided. Also, the operating examination portion used-Job Performance Measures (JPMs) of significant importance (i.e.,
Emergency Reactor Pressure Vessel Depressurization, JPM-EPE-49, Revision 2) with relevant followup questions.
2
,m
,. < y -
a
- ,,9,
l
+
b.
.During the development.of this examination, the Training Department identified-several-procedural difficulties.
This was the natural consequence of thoroughly considering the sources of information to prepare technically correct examination questions. Your Training r
Staff is commended for the critical review performed of the R
examination materials provided..Several specific procedural items identified by your Training Staff were:
+
,..(1). Human Factor Type Items:
(a). Design numbers were used rather than values that-can be read with the accuracy of the instrumentation used by thel t
operator.. For example,
-KW Meter for loading a diese1' generator required a.
minimum load of 3,869 KW, although the smallest meter increment is 200 KW (CPS No. 3506.01, Rev. 13, Step 8.1.4.5); and Low Pressure Core' Spray (LPCS) flow rate is expected i
to be controlled between.5,010 to 5,151 gpm, although the smallest meter increment is 200 gpm,(CPS No. 3313.01, Rev. 5, Step 8.3),
t t
(b) Positioning of transfer switches on the Remote Shutdown Panel (RSP) to place Residual Heat Removal (RHR) into Alternate Shutdown Cooling (CPS No. 4003.01,.Rev. 6, Step 8.3.6.5) required the operator to determine the correct table to reposition the RSP transfer switches.
The actual implementation to initially reposition the needed transfer switches was found to be both protracted and confusing method. A solution proposed by s
a Senior Training Department Instructor was to verify that power was available to the component to be operated (i.e.,
pump, valve, etc.)~using the color coded geometric shapes associated with each RSP active. component and its RSP transfer switch (i.e., red square, blue hexagon, etc.)~
immediately prior to operating the component.- This comment was applicable to other evolutions performed from the RSP.
(2). Identified the omission of flow criteria for RHR Service Water CPS No. 3312.01, Rev. 15)perator (CPS No.
to be maintained by the o 3211.01, Rev. 11; and a
5 3
V gf I
]
(3). Identified erroneous procedural value of 120 VAC that was to be verified.for the'Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) Alternate AC Power. Supply Voltage, which is typically 520 VAC (CPS-No. 3509.01, Rev. 6 Step 8.1.3).
c.
The operator, who was retested for the JPMs because of procedural non-compliance, showed a marked improvement in his careful use of procedures compared to the testing performed in September 1989.
v ' Furthermore, this operator identified a nomenclature error while doing JPM-RH-35, Revision 2 Service Water Injection into the Reactor Vessel in CPS No. 3312.01, Rev. 15. Ste procedure called the "RHR B HX [ Heat Exchanger]p 8.3.3.4.b. ThisSSW [ Se Inlet Valve" the "1E12-F014A" rather than the "1E12-F014B" Valve.
The remedial training provided_by the Training Department proved to be effective.
d.
Plant cleanliness was noted by the Examiner to be good. Equipment used for work was picked at the end of the workday (i.e., removal of tools and trash located at the entrance to containment).
l1 e.
A safety hazard was observed on January 22, 1990, removing several 55 gallon (gal) drums via the Lower Containment Personnel Airlock.
These drums were not adequately secured to the dolly; and no ramas were used for the dolly.- One drum was barely kept on the dolly ay a workman, who quickly pushed a drum back onto the dolly carriage, l
after the dolly was pulled and dropped approximately 7 vertical inches between the containment door base and the secondary containment deck. Also, one drum cover was jarred loose negotiating l-l this vertical _ drop and resulted in approdstely 0.5 gallons of 4
L liquid in the drum to be-spilled in the secondary containment. The saill was-inconsequential, because the liquid-was flush water from l
t1e surveillance for the Standby Liquid Control System'(SLC) with an estimate concentration of sodium pentaborate less-than 2 parts per million (ppm).
r L
-f.
The Examiner expressed.a concern that procedural changes were not being incorporated within a reasonably expeditious manner, since the
_ procedural discrepancy noted for the UPS Alternate Power Supply (See Paragraph 2.b(3)) was not scheduled to be revised. Mr. Perry, Vice President of Nuclear, agreed that there was indeed a problem with the backlog of. items to be incorporated into procedures; and that there was a significant effort to correct this problem. This concern will be monitored by the Resident Inspector Office.
~
3.
Examination Results Comparison The written examination results between the facility and the NRC were identical, because the entire written examination consisted of multiple choice questions. Also, the comparison for the operating examination between the facility and NRC evaluations was consistent.
i 1
4
g.4 :' f Q:c "
. :s.
i.'
1
-i
.~ 1
-4.
Overall Requalification Program Evaluation The'requalification program was-assigned an overall program rating of
. satisfactory (based upon the September 1989 NRC Requalification Examination. See Examination Report:
50-461/0L-89-01).
-1 k
o
-t u
a
'r f p
\\
t 7
i s
Y s
~)
_+ l
, r 5
y
~,. y q
.?
e.
);j i Facility:-
Clinton:1 Power Station Ctiief Examiner:
G. M.-Nejfelt Dates'of Evaluation:
January 22-23, 1990 Areas Eyaluated:
. Written and Oral Examination Results*:
R0 SRO Total Evaluation Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail--
(S M. or U)
Written-Examination 0/0 3/0 3/0 S
Oper'ating Examination
~0ral 1/0 1/0 2/0 S
Simulator..................... Not AppTicable
- This NRC Requalification Examination was the re-examination of operator 3 who either failed or did not complete the September 1989 NRC Requalification Examination.
-Written The facility grading identically matched the NRC grading, since Examination-grading the entire examination was in a multiple choice format.
Grading:~
~
Crew Examination Results:
Crew evaluation was not applicable for this particular re-examination.
'Overall-Program Evaluation:
- Satisfactory.
Rill RII I
Nej t/cg J
an W
ght a
2/d1/90 2/J/90 2/{/90 6
\\
-_ ____ _