ML20059B745

Exam Rept 50-456/OL-93-02 During Wk of 931115 for Both Units.Exam Results:All Candidates Passed Written Exam

ML20059B745
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	12/16/1993
From:	Burdick T, Lennartz J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059B727	List: ML20059B724 ML20059B745
References
50-456-OL-93-02, 50-456-OL-93-2, NUDOCS 9401040234
Download: ML20059B745 (7)

Text

_ __

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7

('

I REGION III i

Report No. 50-456/0L-93-02  ;

Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. NPF-72; NPF-77 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company l 1400 Opus Place i Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name: Braidwood Nuclear Station Examination Administered At: Production Training Center Braidwood Nuclear Station  ;

Examination Conducted: Week of November 15, 1993 '

Chief Examiner: h _ J (&, 43

~

Wartz i Dat6 /

Approved By: Y(J. '

T.'Burdick, Chief

/&/N//f Dat'e '  !

Operator Licensing Section 2 j Examination Summary

-]

Examination administered on the week of November 15. 1993  ;

(Report No. 50-456/0L-93-02 (DRS)) 4 Initial licensing examinations were administered to one Senior Reactor j Operator (SRO) and three Reactor Operator (RO) candidates.

J Additionally, a simulator requalification retake examination was administered  :

to one SRO and a crew evaluation was also conducted.  ;

Results: Regarding the initial examinations: All candidates passed the written  ;

examination. All R0 candidates passed the operating examination and the SR0 1 candidate failed the operating examination. I Regarding the simulator requalification retake examination: 'he SR0 passed the  !

simulator requalification retake examination and the opera. .ng crew received a satisfactory evaluation.

O 9401040234 931216 PDR ADOCK 05000456~

V PDR,

'!j

Examination Summary 2

(

The following is a summary of strengths and weaknesses noted during administration of this examination:

Strenoths

• Written examination pre-review by the facility (Section 3).

• Training staff support during examination validation and administration (Section 4).

i

• Simulator fidelity (Section 4).

Weaknesses e Candidates' diagnostic ability (Section 3).

• Candidates' teamwork and communications during major transients (Section 3).

f '~s s

O

y REPORT DETAILS i

( 1. Examiners J. Lennartz, NRC, Chief Examiner B. Hemming, INEL

2. Persons Contacted i licensee Representatives

+ K. Kofron, Station Manager

+ D. Cooper, Operations Manager

+ R. Stols, Support Services Director

+*T. Chasensky, Training Supervisor

+ A. Haeger, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor l

+*W. Shear, Training Instructor i

+ B. McCue, Shift Operations Supervisor  !

+ A. Checca, System Engineer Supervisor

+ L. Alexander, Lead Chemist

+ B. Kerr, Site Engineer and Construction Manager

+ 0. Miller, Technical Services Superintendent

+ S. Butler, Senior QV Instructor

+ K. Kamp, INPO M. Olson, Licensed Operator Instructor f D. Burton, Simulator Instructor K. Gerbling, PWR Training Supervisor R. Gayheart, Simulator Instructor M. Trusheim, Shift Engineer K. Tiefenthal, Simulator Instructor U. S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission (NRC)

+ S. DuPont, Senior Resident Inspector

+Present at the management exit meeting on November 19, 1993.

• Present at the training exit meeting on November 19, 1993.

3. Initial License Procram Observations The following information is provided for evaluation by the licensee via ,

their SAT based training program. No response is required. '

a. Written Examination Strenoths .  ;

• The examination pre-review conducted by the facility training staff was thorough and very effective in the 3

.. j i

l g\ development of a plant specific valid examination as  ;

/ evidenced by no post examination contentions. -'

I Weaknesses The post examination review of the written examination by the NRC l identified the following deficiencies in the candidates' j knowledge. A majority of the candidates failed to provide the 1 correct response for each particular knowledge area examined. i

• The general actions required if a Shutdown Bank rod. drops ,

while in Mode 2. (R0 question 014; SR0 question 019)

• The actions required to reinitiate a safety. injection (SI) following control room evacuation due to a fire in the .

control board. (R0 question 018; SR0 question 022)  :

• Which SI and Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps would start automatically when an SI setpoint was reached after SI had been reset if one reactor trip breaker was failed closed.

(R0 question 057; SR0 question 068) e How the Reactor Containment Fan Coolers respond to a large LOCA. (R0 question 064; SR0 question 075)

• The time available to the operator to initiate SI flow to

/~' s prevent core uncovery during a small break LOCA in Mode 4.

.( (R0 question 077; SRO question 083)

• The actions required to be performed by the operator to prevent voiding during a LOCA in Mode 4. (R0 question 078; SR0 question 084)

The last two weaknesses above relate to shutdown conditions. The initial examinations administered in October 1992, identified a similar knowledge weakness regarding shutdown cooling (Report No.

50-456/0L-92-02(DRS)). These two examinations combined indicate an apparent trend in a knowledge weakness regarding shutdown cooling events.

P 4 '

i l

l

g. b. Job Performance Measures (JPMs)

Strenaths

• The candidates ability to use reference material (i.e. '

piping and instrument diagrams, procedures, and valve  ;

locator list) to attain needed information to complete the assigned tasks.

Weaknesses

• Two out of the four candidates failed to satisfactorily complete operations surveillance Bw0S 1.1.1.1.e-2, " Perform i Shutdown Margin Calculations." In both instances the calculated shutdown margin was less conservative than actual.

c. Dynamic Simulator Scenarios Strenaths

• The candidates referenced the Annunciator Response Procedures consistently in an effort to ascertain plant and equipment status.

• The candidates' use of the plant announcement (PA) system to inform plant personnel of plant status and when starting and (N securing major equipment from the control room was generally good.

Weaknesses

• Communications and teamwork among crew members diminished when more than a single malfunction occurred (i.e. loss of off-site power due to a tornado with a steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) in progress. concurrent with miscellaneous equipment malfunctions). In these instances important information was not communicated to the SRO in a timely manner and in some cases not at all. This resulted in a delay in implementation of required mitigation actions.

• The candidates' ability to diagnose events, equipment malfunctions, and failure of expected automatic actions was considered weak.

(

( 5

.4. Trainina. Operations. Security. Radiation Protection. Other ,

k Strenaths

• Simulator modeling of events exercised during dynamic simulator examinations was considered good. No simulator fidelity weaknesses were-identified during the examinations "

as noted in Enclosure 3, " Simulation Facility Report."

• Plant housekeeping was very good. All areas entered during ,

examination administration were very clean and the '

candidates were very conscious of and properly disposed of '

any debris found during administration of JPMs in the plant.

• Training staff support during the entire examination process was excellent. Their efforts contributed to administration ,

of a plant specific examination in an efficient manner.

• Additionally, the simulator instructors were very helpful in-adding realism to the dynamic simulator examinations. -

• The examiners received complete cooperation from security and health physics personnel to expedite entrance to the plant. This precluded any unnecessary delays in examination administration.

5. Reaualification Trainino Proaram Observations r

~( No strengths or weaknesses regarding the requalification examination ,

were observed.

6. Exit Meetina Exit meetings with the Braidwood Nuclear Station management and training staff were held on November 19, 1993. Those attending the meetings are listed in Section 2 of this report. Strengths and weaknesses noted in  ;

Sections 3 and 4 of this report were discussed during the exit meetings.

E o

l O 6

ENCLOSURE 3

( -

SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Braidwood Nuclear Station Facility Licensee Docket No. 50-456; 50-457 Operating Tests Administered On: Week of November 15, 1993 This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further '

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 future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.  :

While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following i items were observed:

ITEM DESCRIPTION None

k. '

~

?

t p

9

~)