ML20045G844
| ML20045G844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1993 |
| From: | Burdick T, Clyde Osterholtz NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20045G830 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-OL-93-01, 50-454-OL-93-1, NUDOCS 9307160057 | |
| Download: ML20045G844 (9) | |
Text
.e j
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III
)
Report No. 50-454/OL-93-01 J
Docket Nos.
50-454; 50-455 Licenses No. NPF-37; NPF-66 Licensee:
Comnonwealth Edison Company 1
1400 Opus Place, Suite 300
)
j Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name:
Byron Nuclear Power Station Examination Administered At:
4450 N. German Church Road Byron, IL 61010 Examination Conducted:
During the week of June 7, 1993 l
Examiner:
T. Guilfoil, Contract Examiner, Sonalyst 7/f/93 Chief Examiner:
(
C.
C.
Osterholtz 2
Date '
7/f/fJ Approved By:
Thomas M.
Burdick, Chief Datd /
Operator Licensing Section 2 Examination Summarv Examination Administered durina the week of June 7, 1993 (Recort No. 50-454/OL-93-01(DRSI)
Written and operating requalification (requal) examinations were administered to seven senior reactor operators (SROs), five reactor operators (ROs), and one senior reactor operator limited to fuel handling (LSRO).
Two operating crews and one staff crew were evaluated on the simulator portion of the NRC examination.
Results: All individuals and crews satisfactorily passed all portions of the NRC requal exacination.
In accordance with the criteria of NUREG-1021, Revision 7, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, ES-601, the Byron Nuclear Power Station Requalification Training Program was rated as satisfactory.
i The following is a summary of the strengths and weaknesses noted during the performance of this examination.
Strenaths The SRO and RO written examinations were used as proposed by e
the facility with only minor changes.
9307160057 930708 PDR ADOCK 05000454 V
Examination Summary 2
The LSRO JPMs actively utilized the actual equipment involved in the movement of fuel, significantly contributing to the tasks' realism and credibility.
The scenarios generated by the facility were used with little or no changes.
The ability of crews to work effectively as teams; operators provided input to each other in the course of combatting a casualty.
The ability of SRO's to keep their crews informed of plant status.
Training and support staff assistance. (For details see Section 4)
Weaknesses Multiple job performance measure (JPM) cueing problems. (For details see sections 3b and 4b)
The LSRO written examination. (For details see Section 3a)
Technical Specification application on an intermediate range nuclear instrument failure. (For details see Section 3a)
The ability of crews to efficiently implement the Emergency Operating Procedures. (For details see Section 3c)
The ability of crews to prioritize problems concerning rod control operability. (For details see Section 3c)
The ability of crew members to use plant parameters for diagnostic purposes. (For details see Section 3c)
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Examiners
- +C.
C.
Osterholtz, Chief Examiner, NRC, Region III
- T. Guilfoil, Examiner, Sonalyst 2.
Eersons Contacted Facility
+G.
K.
Schwartz, Station Manager
- +D.
Popkins, Training Supervisor
+D.
Brindle, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
- P.
Enge, NRC Coordinator
- J. Hamilton, Simulator Coordinator
- +J.
Heaton, Licensed Operator Training Supervisor
- S.
Pettinger, Simulator Coordinator
+M.
Snow, Services Director
+T.
Tulon, Operations Manager
- +R.
Wegner, Shift Operations Supervisor U.
S.
Nuclear Reaulatory Commission (NRC)
- T.
Burdick, Section Chief, OLS 2, Region III
+H.
Peterson, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the Training Staff exit meeting on June 9, 1993.
+ Denotes those present at the Management exit meeting on June 10, 1993.
3.
Reaualification Trainina Procram Observations The following information is provided for evaluation by the licensee via their SAT based training program.
No response 1s required, a.
Written Examination Strenath:
The SRO and RO written examinations were used as proposed by the facility with only minor changes.
Weaknesses:
The LSRO written examination required some significant changes in question construction and did not represent the same quality as the SRO and RO written exams.
3
. ~.
l Based on the results of the written examination, the following area showed weakness:
-Determining the amount of time the plant may remain at steady state when an intermediate range nuclear instrument fails at 100% power (SRO question #11).
I b.
Job Perforvence Measures (JPMs)
Strenath:
The LSRO JPMs actively utilized the actual equipment involved in the movement of fuel, significantly contributing to the tasks' realism and credibility.
Weakness:
Some JPMs had a tendency to overcue the candidate; providing more information than was necessary to complete the task.
For example, a task involving local emergency start of a diesel generator cued the candidate on all instrument readings when the candidate could have used the actual indications.
c.
Dynamic Simulator Scenarios Strenaths:
The scenarios generated by the facility were used with little or no changes.
The ability of crews to work effectively as teams; operators provided input to each other in the course of combatting a casualty.
The ability of SRO's to keep their crews informed of plant status.
Weaknesses:
)
The ability of crews.to efficiently implement the Emergency Operating Procedures.
For example:
Two crews delayed transitioning to E-3,
" Steam Generator Tube Rupture", until their second procedural opportunity.
Both crews had identified a ruptured steam generator casualty had occurred but did not transition to the appropriate procedure at their first opportunity (step 29 of E-0,
" Reactor Trip or Safety Injection"
' Check if Steam Generator Tubes are Intact') because secondary radiation alarms had not yet come in.
4
One crew entered FR-S.1, " Response to Nuclear Power Generation /ATWS", with plant parameters indicating that the reactor was tripped.
The ability of crews to prioritize problems concerning rod control operability.
One crew did not enter any abnormal procedure when a loss of automatic rod _ control occurred.
Another crew, upon receipt of a rod control urgent failure
- alarm, delayed entry into the rod control abnormal procedure until a shift of letdown heat exchangers was completed.
The ability of crew members to use plant parameters for diagnostic purposes.
For example:
An operator acknowledged an alarm on low steam generator pressure on the "B" steam generator, then monitored "A" steam generator parameters.
An operator stated a steam flow channel had failed on a steam pressure channel failure.
An operator stated that a steam. generator that had lost main feed flow could not be a candidate for a~ faulted steam generator casualty.
An operator had difficulty in accurately reading residual heat removal flow indicators.
4.
General a.
Trainino Strenaths:
i l
The training staff provided excellent support e
during the examination process and worked well with the Nku examiners both during the preparatory and examination weeks.
During the administration of the dynamic simulator examination, one crew's operational success path on their first scenario did not include entry into an Emergency Contingency Action (ECA) procedure as the scenario had originally planned for.
Revision 7 of NUREG-1021 requires at least one ECA procedure implementation per scenario set.
The training staff quickly provided and effectively executed an adequate change to the second scenario to fulfill this requirement.
1 5
The variance between NRC and facility grading on the written and operating portions of the examination conformed with existing standards.
Weaknesses:
Multiple cueing problems occurred during the administration of the in-plant portion of the walkthrough examination.
For example:
A facility examiner was unfamiliar with the mechanical interlock on the local / remote switch for the diesel generator.
This caused a miscue which misled a candidate into thinking a procedural step was successfully completed when it had not.
A facility examiner was unsure of what indications were required to verify the diesel generator jacking gear engaged.
The cue " turning gear engaged" was given to a candidate before he demonstrated how to verify turning gear status.
A facility examiner miscued a candidate that
" diesel generator support systems are expected to be checked" as the candidate was transitioning to the correct attachment for diagnosing the diesel generator problem.
The miscue caused the candidate to enter an i
incorrect procedural path that he later had to recover from.
A facility examiner cued a candidate on diesel generator annunciator status after a candidate asked if the diesel generator running loaded light was not lit.
A facility examiner gave a candidate an incorrect simulation sheet of electrical contacts when the candidate was trying to demonstrate how to locally reset safety injection.
Annunciator stickero used by one crew during the dynamic simulator were not removed prior to the start of a dynamic simulator examination for a second crew.
b.
Operations. Security. Radiation Protection All plant support personnel encountered provided excellent support during the examination process.
This contributed to the examination week running smoothly and helped minimize operator stress.
6
- ~..
5.
Simulator observations Simulator discrepancies were identified.
These l
discrepancies are noted in Attachment 3.
6.
Exit Meetina A training exit meeting was held on June 9, 1993 and a management exit meeting was held on June 10, 1993.
Those attending the meetings are' listed in Section 2 of this report.
The following items were discussed during the exit meeting:
1 Strengths and weaknesses noted in this report.
The general observations relating to the plant e
noted in Section 4.
The preliminary results of the NRC examiners was' presented at the management exit meeting.
The facility was informed that the final results would be documented in this report.
l l
I i
l
[
l 1
I 7
L-
j
)
I l
REOUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT Facility:
Byron Nuclear Power Station Examiners:
C.
C.
Osterholtz, Chief Examiner, NRC T.
Guilfoil, Sonalyst i
l Date of Evaluation: June 7-10, 1993 Areas Evaluated:
Written, Oral, and Simulator Examination Results:
RO SRO Total Evaluation Pass / Fall Pass / Fail Pass / Fail (S or U)
Written Exam:
5/0 8/0*
13/0*
S Operating Exam l
Oral 5/0 8/0*
13/0*
S Simulator 5/0 7/0 12/0 S
l Evaluation of facility written examination grading:
S
- includes one SRO candidate limited to fuel handling Crew Examination Results:
Crew 1 Crew 2 Crew 3 Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Operating Examination Pass Pass Pass Overall Procram Evaluation Satisfactory I
RII RI Os erholtz Burdick ding Chie Examiner Section Chief Bran h Chief 07/
/93 07/6I 93 07/
/93
/
l l
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT l
l Facility:
Byron Nuclear Power Station Docket Nos.
50-454; 50-455 Operating Tests Administered On:
June 7-10, 1993 The following documents observations made by the NRC examination team.
These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative 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 in response to these observations.
During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed:
l ITEM DESCRIPTION 1.
- 2 CRT was not working on the simulator.
2.
Audible Annunciators Audible annunciators did not engage at the beginning of one scenario.
l l
l 1
m,,