ML20070L667
| ML20070L667 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1991 |
| From: | Broughton T GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070L643 | List: |
| References | |
| C311-91-2016, NUDOCS 9103200150 | |
| Download: ML20070L667 (5) | |
Text
.
OPU Nuclear Corporation sfvJ Nuclear
- emsa'*o o
a Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 0191 717 944 7621 TELEX 84 2386 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
(717) 948-8833 February 14, 1991 C311-91-2016
\\
Mr. T. T, Martin Region I, Regional Administrator US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
Dear Eir:
Subject:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Operating License No. OPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Facility Examination Report to the NRC This report provides the facility evaluation of the NRC administered licensed operator requalification examinations administered to 12 individuals at TMI-1 from January 28-31, 1991. This report is being prepared at the request of the NRC Chief Examiner, r. H. Bissett.
Overall, TM1-1 has rated its licensed operator requalification program as satisfactory.
The combined results of the NRC and TM1 were 9 of the 12 examinees were evaluated as passing both the written examination and the operating test.
l The following attachments detail the various aspects of the examinations:
1.
TMI-1 Requalification Results Summary Sheet 2.
TMI-1 Identified Weaknesses 3.
Discussion of NRC/TMI-1 Disagreements on the Simulator Examination Results and Walkthru Exams.
l In addition, the original Examination Security Agreements are forwarded with Mr. Bissett's copy of this letter.
9103200150 910308 PDR ADOCK 0500g9 g ;eg 3 'oc L
WITrQLD FRCL1.% $UC Ot5CuiWE GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utilities Corporation
.l Mr. T. T. Martin 0311-91-2016 Page Two The attachments to this letter contain information which should be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790.
If you should have any questions, pleata contact Mr. Mark Trump, Operations Training Manager at (717) 948-8418.
Sincerely, T. G.
oughton Vice President and Director, TMI-1 DVH/mkk Attachments cc: NRC Ch44f-Examinar Senior Resident inspector I
s b ;...;',
. :. : i
C311-91-2016 ATTACHMENT 2, FACILITY IDCNTIFIED WEAKNESSES The following weaknesses were identified by analysis of the examination results.
Actions to address these weaknesses will be taken in accordance with established facility processes.
A.
Written Exam Performaqqa out of the 12 written examinations conducted, all were considered j
satis f actory by GPUN.
Some of the examinees exhibited difficulty with:
1.
Identifying conditions that may cause an erroneous indication on the Sub-Cooling Margin meters.
2.
Determining the steps to use to swap makeup pumps during an ES condition with the diesel generators supplying the bus.
3.
Identifying discrepancies on a TCN.
4.
Identifying when independent verification on components is required.
5.
Determining the required boron concentration required for hot shutdown for a short period of time where credit can be taken for Zenon.
6.
Determining if a plant cooldown rate has been exceeded.
7.
Identifying th-basis for maintaining RCS pressure 25 to 100 psig above OTSO pressure when boyika curve B in ATP 1210-8.
j 8.
Determining if the Reactor Protection System configuration satisfies l
Technical Specifications for a startup.
9.
Determining the degree of redundancy for the Heat Sink Protection System with one channel de-enorgized.
- 10. Identifying the reason for the "Large NW Error in Track" alarm being actuated.
- 11. Determining the status of the PORV during a loss of power.
- 12. Predicting what will happen to Tave as natural circulation builds in.
i l
l l
I l
i 1
a B.
JPN Task Performance out of the 60 individual JPN evaluations conducted, three were evaluated as un'.atisf actory by GPUN.
During the unsatisfactory evslustions, examinees demonstrated difficulties with:
1.
Correctly identifying RB pressure following a large-break LOCA, shorefore not recognising failure of.50# RB spray end containment isolation actuation.
2.
Manual initiation of BPI at the component level, due to not using procedure to perfora or verity the task.
3.
Returning a 4KV ES bus to its normal power supply from the emergency i,
diesel ger. orator, due to controlling incorrect voltages prior to closure of normal feeder breaker.
C.
JPN Follow-up Ouestions Some of the examinees demonstrated difficulties with:
1.
Loss of vital bus power effects on the ESAS system.
2.
Predicting which RPS trips wuntd result from given transient conditions.
3.
Identifying what signals increase h:4ctor power when Feedwater is increased during operation of ICS in the Reactor / Turbine-following mode.
4.
Two (2) methods for clearing ICCM line break isolation signal.
5.
Operation and reset of the in-plant 480V breaker " Bell Alarm Switch".
D.
Dynamic Simulator Examinations 1.
Both crews initially tried to continue a controlled Reactor shutdown during an OTSO tube leak, following a turbine trip at 40% power.
While this is allowed by procedure, Plant instabilities and problems with OTSG l
)
pressure control resulted in undesired MSSV lif ts.
2.
One crew had problems with command and control when the junior SRO was in either the SF or SS positions.
Incorrect or incomplete direction by this individual complicated the events and degraded crew performance. The individual was rated as a fail and was removed from watch pending upgrade.
l 3.
One RO had difficulty at manual control of OTSO pressures after a I
Reactor trip and caused excessive cooling of RCS which complicated events.
l The individual was rated as a fall and was removed from watch pending i
upgrade.
i 4
C311-91-2016 ATI'ACEMENT 3, DISCUSSION OF FACILITY /NRC EIAN ORADING DISAOREEMENTS Dynamic Sieulator = Operator License 55-8537 NRC - PASS OPUN - FAIL The dynamic simulator portion of the exam administered on January 29, 1991 shewed considerable weakness in Crew B's performance. The crew performed well in its normal lineup. However, the performance deteriorated when crew supervision was rotated and the junior shif t foreman (license 55-8537) was inserted as SS or Sr.
GPUN viewed his performance as unsatisf actory during this simulator exam and f ailed him in both the competency evaluation and on ISCTs relating to procedural direction.
JPN Examination - Operator License 55-6399 NRC - FAIL OPUN - PASS An Alternate B JPN evaluation was conducted on January 30 and J1, 1991.
This operator was presented with 5 JPNs and 10 questions. The NRC failed this operator on 1 JPN involving restoration of letdown. The procedure calls for a gradual restoration of flow to minimise stress on the letdown coolers. A self imposed limit of 2.5 GPN/ Min increase rate is specified in the procedure and was listed as a critical stop in the approved JPN e"aluation tool. This operator increased flow at about 9 OPN/ Min and was initially evaluated as fail by the CPU evaluator.
Subsequent review led operations and Training to revise the JPN standard to eliminate this as a critical step, as it did not meet the definition of a critical step per ES 601.
A change to TWI procedures was initiated as a result of this evaluation.
Changing this step to non critical resulted in a passing grade on this JPN and an overall pass for this operator. The NRC declined to agree with the change to the JPN and rated this operator as unsatisfactory due to the combination of this JPN and his performance on the JPN questions.
[
ts b:
ti l
.__