ML20079C771
| ML20079C771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1991 |
| From: | Scace S NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | Bettenhausen L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| MP-91-492, NUDOCS 9106260077 | |
| Download: ML20079C771 (4) | |
Text
.
T NORTHEAST UTILITIES ce. onm. uom smi eee c-3
[
P o Box 270 H ART F oRD CONNECTICUT M141/ 2 70 L
t J
G0h M 5 5000 RE:
NUREG 1021, ES-601 Jure 14, 1991 MP-91-492 Mr. Lee H. Bettenhausen Chief, Operations Branch, DRS U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
REFERENCE:
Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 Docket No. 50-336 NRC Requalification Examination Summary
Dear Mr. Bettenhausen:
During the week of June 3,
1991, Licensed operator Requalification Examinations were administered to fourteen Millstone Unit 2 Licensed operators and Senior Licensed operators.
These examinations were conducted in accordance with the applicable sections of NUREG 1021, opetotor Licensing Examiner Standards.
Accordingly, the examinations were prepared, administered, and evaluated by both NRC and facility examiners.
Preliminary results of the facility evaluations for all portions of the examination were provided to Mr. Kerry Ihnen, NRC Chief Examiner, on June 6, 1991.
Based on our review of the exam grading, these results can be considered final.
Attached is a summary of our grades.
An evaluation of the examination results was performed to identify strengths and weaknesses, both individual and crew, and to identify necessary remediation and enhancements to the MP2 Licensed Operator Requalification Program content.
The following is a summary, by examination environment, of the evaluation:
SIMULATOR EXAMINATIONS STRENGTHS:
o Teamwork, communications and crew interaction.
Where appropriate, team members were involved in decision-making and shared vith each other information concerning event strategy and inter-watchstation operations.
Individual team members operated within their pre-defined roles.
i {i j /' * } /
/
9106260077 910614 PDR ADOCK OSoun336
,t V
FDR
t o
Proper selection and implementation of abnormal and emergency operating procedures.
o Timely and correct referral to technical specifications, o
Use of the alarm response procedures.
o Manipulation of controls, both while referring to the procedures and when taking actions from memory.
o Diagnosis of events, both major and niinor, o
Event classification in accordance with the emergency plan WEAKNESSES:
None of the weaknesses listed below are considered of such significance that they require formal individual or crew remediation.
Where appropriate, increased emphasis will be placed on these items during simulator training sessions.
o Annunciator acknowledgment.
At times, annunciators remained unacknowledged for an excessive time during post-trip conditions.
Additionally, some post-trip annunciators were acknowledged without recognizing them as indicators of abnormal plant conditions, o
Technical Specification Action Statement log entries.
Minor administrative errors were occasionally made, o
One instance of less-than-optimal EOP selection.
EOP 2540, Functional Recovery, was chosen for entry when EOP 2532, LOCA, would have been more efficient.
o Two crews were slower than expected in recognizing a loss of the running Auxiliary Feed Pumps.
WALKTHROUGH EXAMINATION In general, the examinees demonstrated excellent proficiency and knowledge for the tasks examined.
When combined with the nimulator evaluation, a weakt. ass was identified in the SRO ense holders' ability to access non-EOP related information u..ng the plant process computer.
During the administration of the examination, two JPM questions were identified as requiring modifications.
These questions are associated with JPM's 104-710-01-04 and 279-700-02-OlA.
Additionally, during the pre-exam review of JPMs, several operating procedure inaccuracies or enhancement opportunities were identified.
The JPM questions will be modified prior to subsequent use; the procedure items are being assessed by the MP2 procedure writers group.
WRITTEN EXAMINATION Examinee performance on the written examination was excellent, showing a sound mastery of the learning objectives examined.
A high percentage of examinees lost credit on three questions:
- 2105, 2108 and 3382.
The associated knowledge deficiencies will be addressed in upcoming requalification training sessions.
Yours Truly, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY f
'4 c4 W Stepnen Scace Station Director Millstone Nuclear Power Station Attachment SES/MJW/lah c:
Document Control Desk, US NRC B.
W.
Ruth, Manager, Operator Training R.
M.
Kacich, Generation Facilities Licensing, NU K.
Ihnen, US NRC
4-LORr EXAMINNTION SUMrWIY WIIK OF JtNE 3,1991 l TOIAL JPM SS SS OPf2i WRITTDJ JPM NAME SIKJLATOR 41/42 39/40 au uuACE TOIAL JPM's CUESTIas OPERATOR A S
25 25 49.6 99.6 75 25 100 i
f OPERATOR B S
24.4 23.3 45.4 93.1 75 22.5 97.5 OPERATOR C S
24.3 24.73 45.4 94.43 75 25 100 OPERATOR D 5
22.9 21.9 45.93 90.73 75 25 103 OPERATOR E S
25 23.3 47.4 95.7 75 25 100 OPERATOR F S
23.3 24.6 50 97.9 75 25 100 OPERATOR G S
24.7 20.53 42.9 88.13 60 20 80 OPERATOR H S
25 25 43.2 93.2 75 22.5 97.5 OPESATOR I S
25 23 49.6 97.6 75 25 100 OPERATOR J S
25 22.8 45.1 92.9 75 25 100
)
OPERATOR K S
25 21.7 44.93 91.63 75 25 100 OPERATOR L S
23.1 21.37 47.13 91.6 75 20 95 OPERATOR M S
24.37 23.62 50 97.99 75 25 100 OPERATOR N S
24.3 25 47.7 97 75 25 100 24.38 23.27 46.73 94.38 73.92 23.92 97.84 AVERAGE
. _ _ _