ML20036A973
| ML20036A973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1993 |
| From: | Burdick T, Clyde Osterholtz, Shepard D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20036A969 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-456-OL-93-01, 50-456-OL-93-1, NUDOCS 9305180025 | |
| Download: ML20036A973 (7) | |
Text
.
3 ll U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III
'l Report No.
50-456/0L-93-01 Docket Nos.
50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. NPF-72; NPF-77 r
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company i
1400 Opus Place, Suite 300 Downers Grove, IL 60515 i
Facility Name:
Braidwood Nuclear Power Station i
Examination Administered At: Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Examination Conducted: During the week of April 19, 1993 RIII Examiner:
1 S[8/73 f
D. Shepard Date Chief Examiner:
Nd Sh3/R3 C. Osterholtz
/
Date
- Approved By:
((/J[9f T. Burdick, Chief Date /
Operator Licensing Section 2 r
Examination %"mmary Examination administered durina the week of April 19. 1993 (Report No. 50-456/0L-93-01)
Written and operating requalification examinations were administered to eight senior. reactor operators (SR0s) and four reactor operators (R0s) using the Alternative B methodology (two operators per one NRC evaluator).
l Results: All crews satisfactorily passed the NRC requalification examination.
Seven SR0s and four R0s passed all sections of their examinations. One SR0 failed the simulator portion of the examination. The licensee's i
requalification program is evaluated satisfactory in accordance with the program performance criteria in NUREG-1021, ES-601.
j 9305180025 930513 r
'PDR ADOCK 05000456 V
1 Examination Summary 2
The following is a summary of the strengths and weaknesses noted during the performance of this examination.
Strenath The materials developed by the licensee were used with no or only minor changes.
Weakness Crew ability to work as a team to diagnose and effectively mitigate problems encountered in the dynamic simulator examination.
Details on strengths and weaknesses are in Section 3.
-l
t REPORT DETAILS 1.
Examiners
- +C. Osterholtz, NRC, Chief Examiner
- +D. Shepard, NRC 2.
Persons Contacted
- K. Kofron, Station Manager
- +T. Chasensky, Simulator Supervisor
- +A. Checca, Training Supervisor
- D. Cooper, Operations Manager
- K. Gerling, PWR Operations Training Supervisor
- +W. McCue, Operations Supervisor
+N.
Sanborn, Instructor
+W.
Shear, Instructor
- R. Stols, Support Services Director U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commissiqn
- M. Ring, Chief, Operations Branch, Region III
- S. Dupont, Senior Resident Inspector
+K. Bristow, Reactor Engineer, Region III
+ Denotes those personnel present at the training exit meeting held April 22, 1993.
- Denotes those personnel present at the management exit meeting held April 23, 1993.
3.
Recualification Trainino Prooram Observations The following information is provided as input to the licensee's system approach to training (SAT) process.
No response is required.
a.
Written Examination l
Strenoth l
l The examinations were used as proposed by the facility with few exceptions.
Weakness I
e One question had to be deleted from the Part "B" portion of the written (question No. 6 on both the R0 and SRO) examination due to an incorrect question revision l
implementation.
l l
3 i
a
b.
Dynamic Simulator Scenarios Strenath e
The scenarios were used as proposed by the facility with minor changes.
Weakness Communications between operators and the ability of operators to work together as a team.
For example, one crew did not initiate a necessary emergency procedure transition based upon one operator reporting one indication regarding containment radiation. The crew had previously been trending this particular parameter as being abnormally high, l
yet no crew discussion took place when one operator reported it as normal. Another example occurred on a different crew when the SRO ordered emergency core cooling equipment i
secured during a large break loss of coolant accident.
The operators complied with the order and did not question the activity until minutes later, resulting in a significant decrease in reactor vessel water level.
4.
General a.
Trainina The training staff provided excellent support during the examination process and worked well with the NRC examiners both during the prep and exam weeks. All facility examiners provided objective evaluations of the operators and were deemed satisfactory with respect to the criteria of NUREG-1021.
The following observations were made by the NRC concerning examination techniques:
Some facility evaluators paraphrased the responses given by e
their candidates instead of verbatim repeat-backs.
e Some of the cues on the walkthrough exam were missed or given late, causing some slight confusion on the part of the candidates.
An NRC examiner prevented a facility evaluator from inadvertently giving a candidate a JPM question with the answer printed on it.
b.
Operations. Security. Radiation Protection All plant support personnel encountered provided excellent support during the examination process. This contributed to the 4
)
examination week running timely and smoothly, helping to minimize operator stress.
5.
Simulator Observations Simulator discrepancies were identified. These discrepancies are noted in Enclosure 3.
l 6.
Exit Meetina A training exit meeting was held on April 22, 1993, and a management l
exit meeting was held on April 23, 1993. Those attending the meetings l
are listed in section 2 of this report. The following items were i
discussed during the exit meeting:
Strengths and weaknesses noted in this report.
P The general observations noted in section 4.
l The preliminary results of the NRC examiners were presented at the management exit meeting. The facility was informed that the final results would be documented in this report.
r i
I 1
5 i
i
?
REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT Facility:
Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Examiners:
C. Osterholtz, D. Shepard Dates of Evaluation: April 19 - 23, 1993 Areas Evaluated: Written, Oral, and Simulator Examination Results:
R0 SR0 Total Evaluation Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail (S or U)
Written Examination 4/0 8/0 12/0 S
(
Operating Examination Oral 4/0 8/0 12/0 S
Simulator 4/0 7/1 11/1 S
Evaluation of facility written examination grading S
I Crew Examination Results:
Crew 1 Crew 2 Crew 3 Evaluation Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail (S or U)
Operatina Examination Pass Pass Pass S
Overall Proaram Evaluation Satisfactory Submitted:
Forwarded:
Approved:
Y f
C.Osterho}dz T. Burdick M( Ring
~
Examiner Section Chief Branch Chief i
05/s3/93 05/(193 05/,7 /93
{
/
l a
l i
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT l
r Facility Licensee: Braidwood Nuclear Power Station Facility Licensee Docket Nos.: 50-456; 50-457 Operating Tests Administered On: April 19 - 21, 1993 s
This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further i
verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b).
These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information that may be used in j
future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following f
items were observed:
l t
ITEM DESCRIPTION 1.
Turbine Reset Turbine reset pushbutton did not light when required, j
2.
RM-ll Select button sometimes engaged twice when
{
pressed once.
3.
Simulator Reboot The simulator had to be rebooted twice.
Once towards the end of a crew dynamic after all pertinent operational observations were made, and a second timo prior to examining the same crew on a subsequent scenario.
f
-... - - - -