ML20011E542
| ML20011E542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1990 |
| From: | Jordan M, Mikkelson K, Orton B, Rau E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E540 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-OL-90-01, 50-461-OL-90-1, NUDOCS 9002160040 | |
| Download: ML20011E542 (7) | |
Text
_
f U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0ltISSION REGION III
(
[
Report No. 50-461/0L-90-01 Docket NO. 50-461 License No. NPF-62 Licensee:
Illinois Power Company Clinton, IL 61727 Facility Name: Clinton Power Station Examination Administered At:
Clinton Power Station Examination Conducted: January 15-19, 1990 Examiners:
d)/v A///9 o
/
E. D. R&u, Chief Examiner Date EA L
2h/vo t
K. Mikke{sbn Date F AL Ju a N 90 B, Orton U Date Approved By:
/
fo liichaWJordan, Operator Date i
Licensing, Section No. 1 t
Examination Summary Examination administered on January 15-19, 1990 Report No. 50-461/0L-90-01:
Written and Operating Examinations were administered to five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) candidates.
Results: All candidates successfully passed the written examination.
One candidate failed the administrative topics and integrated plant operations portions of the operating test.
Overall, one candidate failed the examination.
The following strengths and weakness were observed:
Strenoths 1.
The candidates demonstrated a high level of knowledge of locations y'
and operation of in-plant equipment, t
2.
The candidates showed a high level of knowledge of emergency and off-normal procedures.
9002160040 900201 4PDR ADOCK0500gp1 I
L
~
o o
i E4 Weaknesses 1.
Candidates appeared to be conditioned to emergency depressurize if High Pressure Feed (except CRD) is lost despite being above level 2 and stable.
2.
Candidates did not attempt to regain equipment that had failed.
3.
The candidates showed some generic weakness on the written exam such as the reason for the heat capacity temperature limits, and power supplies to major safety related equipment, r
i l
s 1
2
4
'4 DETAILS 1.0 Introduction and Overview The.NRC examiners administered replacement examinations to five senior reactor operator (SRO) applicants; four SRO instant applicants; and one (SRO) upgrade ap)1icants. The examinations were administered in accordance with WREG 1021 Examiner Standards, Rev. 5.
Prior to administration of the examinations, the written examination was reviewed with personnel from the training and operations departments.
The scenarios used for the operating portion of the examinations were prepared by the NRC and run on the plant specific simulator prior to administration. All facility individuals involved with the review of the examination materials signed security agreements to ensure that there was no compromise of the examination.
2.0 Persons Contacted
- J. S. Perry - Vice President - IP
- J. C. Cook - Plant Manager
- R. E. Wyatt Manager - Nuclear Training
- F. Worrell - Senior Instructor i
- A. L. Ruwe - Director - System and Reliability Engineering
- P. E. Campbell - Manager - QA Q. L. Holtzscher - Acting Manager - Licensing and Safety
- J. A. Miller - Manager - SOM
- S. F. Buck - Project Specialist
- D. R. Morris - Director - Plant Operations i
- J. Greenwood - MGR Power Supply-Soyland
- R. F. Phares - Supervisor Licensing Operations
- J. R. Kainey - Instructor
- J. Kouski - Senior Instructor
- H. C. Hollon - Tech Advisor
- Individuals that were present at the exit on January 19, 1990.
3.0 Examination Related Findings and Conclusions 3.1 Summary of Results R0 SR0 Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Written N/A 5/0 Operating N/A 4/1 Overall N/A 4/1 3
t f
I 3.2 Operating Examinations The following is a summary of generic strengths and weaknesses noted on the operating tests. This information is being provided to aid the licensee in upgrading license and requalification training programs. No licensee response is required.
Strengths 1.
The candidates demonstrated good knowledge of locations and operation i
of in plant equipment.
Weaknesses 1.
Candidates appeared to be conditioned to emergency depressuri:e if High Pressure Feed (except CRD) is lost desaite being above level 2 and stable. The E0P is designed to allow t1e operator to have sufficient time to recover lost feed systems before depressurizing.
e Emergency depressurizing when not required results in an unnecessary plant transient and increases the potential for other failures.
2.
Candidates did not attempt to regain equipment that had failed.
For Example, when Feedwater and/or condensate pumps were tripped, candidates made no attempts to restore the systems.
3.3 Written Examinations The fo'110 wing is a summary of the generic strengths and weaknesses noted from the grading of the written examinations. This information is being provided to aid the licensee in upgrading license and requalification training programs.
No licensee response is required.
Strengths The candidates showed a high level of knowledge in the following areas:
1.
Knowledge of procedure immediate actions.
2.
Knowledge of entry conditions for off-normal procedures.
3.
Knowledge of reasons actions are taken in off-normal procedure.
]
Weaknesses The candidates showed lack of knowledge in the following areas:
1.
Reasons for heat capacity temperature limit (Suppression Pool).
2.
Use of EHC Controls to mitigate EHC failures.
i 4
3.
Power Supplies to major safety related equipment.
4.
Actions necessary if a tagout is released under emergency conditions.
3.4 Plant Specific Simulation Facility A number of problems with simulator fidelity were identified as a result of the examination process. These problems are discussed in Attachment 1 to this report.
3.5 Reference Material Several discrepancies were noted in the reference material submitted to the NRC for examination preparation; 1.
System descriptions use GE not the Clinton Power Station panel numbering.
2.
No system description exists for the remote shutdown panel.
3.
No job task analysis was provided.
4.0 Other Items of Concern Several other items of concern were noted by the examiners and were presented at the exit.
1.
Examiner standards used by the instructors did not include all Rev 5 l
- changes, f.
The level control E0P references the SBLC Procedure for the Lineup Instructions for using the test tank as a source of makeup. These instructions are not in the procedure.
The licensee has previously identified this problem on a Comment Control Form No.89-693 dated September 28, 1989.
3.
A management directive not to hesitate injecting SBLC needs to be clarified and placed in writing. Failure to place the directive in writing could result in misinterpretation and failure to comply with the E0Ps.
4.
No " spare" keys exists as backups to the keys necessary to initiate either SBLC train.
5.0 Exit Meeting An exit meeting was conducted on January 19, 1990 following the administration of the examinations. The licensee representatives that attended the meeting are listed in section 2.0 of this report.
There were no problems with actess to the plant and Operations personnel were cooperative. The generic strengths and weaknesses noted on the 5
m 4
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee:
Illinois Power Facility Licensee Docket No. 50-461 Operating Tests Administered At: Clinton Power Station I-During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed:
ITEM DESCRIPTION 1.
Division III DG Operation Cooling water valve failed to auto open when DG started resulting in DG trip.
2.
CRD Pump Motor Ammeter CRD > ump motor ammeters read in red )atid.
3.
Simulator Malfunctions Simulator does not meet ANSI 3.5 required list of malfunctions because it does not have a feed line break inside containment.
ATTACHMENT 1
j F
i examination were presented (see sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this report).
The problems with simulator fidelity (See Attachment 1), the reference material (See Section 3.5) and other items of concern (See Section 4.0) i were also discussed. The results of the examinations would not be presented at the exit meeting but would be contained in the Examination Report and every effort would be made to send the applicant's results in r
approximately 30 working days.
l' Attachments:
1.
Simulation Facility Report 2.
Senior Reactor Operator Written Examination and Answer Key 9
1 l
1 6
l