ML20034F201
| ML20034F201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1993 |
| From: | Burdick T, Hansen J, Shepard D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034F187 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-295-OL-93-01, 50-295-OL-93-1, NUDOCS 9303020390 | |
| Download: ML20034F201 (9) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 50-295/OL-93-01 Docket Nos.
50-295; 50-304 Licenses No. DPR-39; DPR-48 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Opus West III 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60560 Facility Name: Zion Generating Station Examination Administered At:
101 Shilch Boulevard Zion, IL 60099 Examination Conducted:
Weeks of January 11 and January 25, 1993 Examiners:
J.
R. Nickolaus, Contract Examiner, PNL, RIII Examiner:
/
ed b
.J/a/s DI L.
Shepard Date Chief Examiner:
hl J
[93 J.
Ll Hansen Date Approved By:
M / 2 k93 T.
Burdick Dat'e
/
Section Chief, OLS 2 Examination Summary Examinations Administered durina the weeks of January 11 and January 25. 1993 (Report No. 50-295/OL-93-01(DRS))
Written and operating requalification examinations were administered to four Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) and only the simulator portion of the examination was administered to three SROs and five Reactor Operators (ROs).
Three crews consisting of one shift crew and two mixed staff and shift' crews were evaluated i
on the simulator portion of the examination, j
Additionally, two instant SRO candidates were reexamined on the simulator portion and one instant SRO candidate continued the simulator portion of the NRC initial' examination administered in July of 1992 (Report No. 50-295/OL-92-02 ~ (DRS) ).
Results:
All crews satisfactorily passed the NRC requalification examination.
Three SROs passed all sections of their examinations.
The three SROs and five ROs being examined on only.
the simulator portion of the examination passed.
One SRO failed the written portion of the examination.
Due to the small number 9303020390 930225 PDR ADOCK 05000295 Y
PDR u
of examinees receiving all portions of the examination, final evaluation of the Zion Generating Station Requalification Training Program has been deferred until the next requalification examination in accordance with the criteria of NUREG-1021, Revision 7,
" Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," ES-601.
Regarding the additional examinations, the two SRO candidates passed the initial retake examination on the simulator and the one SRO candidate passed the continuation of the simulator portion of the initial examination.
The following is a summary of the strengths and weaknesses noted during the performance of these examinations.
Strenaths o
The facility proposed examination covered a wide variety of systems and events and was used with only minor changes.
(For details see'Section 3a) o Facility personnel provided good support of the exam process.
(For details see Section 4)
Weaknesses o
Improper implementation of Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) allowed steps to be missed during procedure performance. (For details see Section.3c) o Units on the control boards do not always correspond to units given on the' simulator operator console.
This not only delayed the validation but served to confuse instructors and hinder exam administration.
(For. details see Section 3c) l
'l
}. -
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Examiners
- +J.
L. Hansen, Chief Examiner, NRC, Region III
- +D.
L. Shepard, NRC, Region III J. R. Nickolaus, PNL 2.
Persons Contacted Commonwealth Edison Company Reoresentatives
+T. Joyce, Station Manager
+E.
Borccolo, Jr., Services Director
+R.
Dahl, Training Instructor
+P.-Geddes, Training Instructor
- +K.
Gerling, Training Supervisor, PTD
- +R.
Landrum, Simulator Supervisor
+A.
Lucky, Training Instructor
- +D.
Selph, simulator Staff
+R.
Shepherd, Training Instructor
- +W.
T'Niemi, Operating Engineer
- +G.
Trzyna, Training Supervisor
- +T.
Weis, Training Instructor
+L.
Zech, Regulatory Assurance U.
S.
Nuclear Reaulatory Commission (NRC)
+J.
D. Smith, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the Training Staff exit meeting on January 28, 1993.
+ Denotes those present at the Management exit meeting on January 28, 1993.
3.
Reaualification Trainina Proaram Observations The following information is provided for evaluation by the licensee for incorporation into their SAT based training program.
No response is required.
a.
Written Examination Strenaths:
The exams were used as proposed by the facility with few exceptions.
All questions utilized as replacements were from the facility examination bank.
3
Weaknesses:
Based on the results of the written examination, the following areas showed weaknesses:
Emergency Procedure transitions based on specific plant conditions.
Indication _of emergency power supply on the turbine EHC panel.
Actions. required in E-0 prior to transitions to other procedures.
Actions required concerning RCS level indications while' draining the RCS for refueling or maintenance.
Actions required by technical specifications for a mechanically stuck rod at 231 steps while in Mode 1.
b.
Job Performance Measures (JPMs)
Strenoths:
1 The JPMs used covered a variety'of systems and
+
types of procedures (normal, abnormal and emergency procedures).
Weaknesses:
3 Several task statements needed to be rewritten to ensure the correct procedure was used by the operator.
Minor errors were observed in JPM setup and implementation (i.e. control rod step counters were not set to the correct values prior _to the first set of JPMs until the NRC examiner noted the problem, the condenser leak was isolated early by' I
the booth operator causing the JPM to be terminated without the operator performing a load decrease.)
c.
Dynamic Simulator Scenarios j
Strenoths:
1 Scenarios were used as written with only minor exceptions.
4 J
Validation of the scenarios by an operations crew helped to ensure the scenarios would run as planned.
The variety of malfunctions used in the scenarios prompted entries into Emergency Contingency Actions and Functional Restoration Guides.
Weaknesses:
Improper implementation of Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) allowed steps to be missed during procedure performance.
During performance of E-3,
" Steam Generator-Tube Rupture," the SRO did not complete the response not obtained (RNO) actions to isolate a steam generator when the main steam isolation valve failed to close.
During performance of ECA-1.1, " Loss of Emergency Coolant Recirculation," the SRO did not perform step 2 which directs refilling the refueling water storage tank.
During performance of FR-P.1, " Response to Imminent Pressurized Thermal Shock Condition," the SRO missed direction provided in step 4.c to transition to step 20.
While these errors in EOP implementation did not cause significant degradation in plant status, they did cause a delay in the remediation of the events and indicate a possible generic problem in implementation of EOPs.
Units on the control boards did not always correspond to units given on the simulator operator console which delayed the validation of a simulator scenario.
This was ide7tified during scenario validation when attempting to size an auxiliary feedwater leak.
The control board indication was indicated in GPM while the simulator operator console was indicated in pounds mass per second.
This caused unnecessary delays while the simulator operator attempted to appropriately size the break for the desired effect.
The Simulator Supervisor provided documentation indicating that resolution of these discrepancies is a priority and that only 8 items remain to be resolved in the 350 malfunctions currently available on the simulator.
5
4.
Trainina, operations. Security. Radiation Protection Strenaths:
The training staff worked well with the NRC examiners to create an " examination team" and promote a good atmosphere for coevaluation of the operators.
The NRC contacts from the Training and Operations-Departments provided excellent support to the exam process.
Their personal attention helped to ensure a smooth exam week with less stress on the licensees.
The Simulator Supervisor was of great assistance in resolving concerns pertaining to possible simulator fidelity issues.
The on shift crews were courteous and professional during in-plant JPM performance.
Security and Radiation Protection departments provided timely entrance to the plant and radiologically controlled areas.
Weaknesses:
Some JPM evaluators need to improve certain areas of-their examination technique. These include instances of inadvertent cues, allowing the operator to view the evaluators copy of the JPM during JPM performance and discussing the task with the operator prior to task completion.
5.
Simulator observations Simulator discrepancies were identified.
These discrepancies.are noted in Attachment 3.
6.
Exit Meetina A preliminary exit meeting with the facility-training department was-held at the Zion Training Center on January 28, 1993, and a final exit meeting with Zion Generating Station plant management was held at the training center later the same day.
Those attending the meetings are listed in Section 2 of this report.
The following items were discussed during the exit meeting:
6
Strengths and weaknesses noted in this report.
The general observations relating to plant support noted in Section 4.
The preliminary results of the Zion requalification exam were presented at the exit meeting.
The facility was reminded that the Zion requalification program evaluation would be deferred until the next requalification examination and was informed'that the final exam results would be documented in this examination report.
7
ENCLOSURE 2 REOUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT Facility:
Zion Generating Station I
Examiners:
J. L. Ilansen, Chief Examiner D.
L. Shepard, Examiner J.
R. Nickolaus, Examinor Date of Evaluation:
Week of January 25, 1993 Areas Evaluated:
X Written X
Oral X
Simulator EXaEination Results:
RO.
SRO Total Evaluation Pass / Fall Pass / Fall Pass / Fail (S or U)
Written Exam:
N/A 3/1 3/1 S
Operating Exam Oral N/A 4/0 4/0 S
Simulator 5/0 7/0 12/0 S
Evaluation of facility written examination grading S
Crew Examination Resulta:
Crew 1 Crew 2 Crew 3 Pass / Fail Pass / Pall Pass / Fall Operating l
Examination Pass Pasa Pass Overall Proctram Evalunt12D Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Deferred X
l Submitted:
Ferw rd- :
Approved:-
&9Q A/, fy -
L')ft Hanson/cg ic Ring'
(
Examiner Section Chief Branch Ch f
g1 ENCLOSURE 3-SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee:
ZionfGenerating Station'
.l Facility Licensee Docket Nos.
50-295; 50-304 Operating _ Tests Administered On:
January 26 and January.27, 1993 The following documents observations made by the NRC examination team during the January, 1993, requalification examination.
These observations do not constitute' audit or inspection findings:
and are not, without further verification'and review,-indicative 9
of non-compliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b).
These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval'of-'the simulation facility other than to provide information which-may be'used in future evaluations.
No licensee action is required irt response to these observations.
i During tne conduct of the simulator. portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed:
ITEM DESCRIPTION f
Auxiliary Feed Water Control board indications differed i
from' those available: to the console operator.
_(For details see' i
Section.3c)-
Rad. Mon. Display System ~
The Rad. Monitoring Display System failed to' boot correctly for the initial' dynamic simulator _ setup causing a 20 minute delay.
-l
?
a F
1 0
1 i
- e n
. -.,