ML20094G707
| ML20094G707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1992 |
| From: | Mervine M VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | Hansell S NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| BVY-92-20, TDL-92-05, TDL-92-5, NUDOCS 9203030264 | |
| Download: ML20094G707 (4) | |
Text
IElb10NT YANKill?
NUCI EAn PowEn COllPOllATION
)
, fv.
,f RD 5. Box 169. Terry Road Brattleboro. VT 05301
( y.
,'u ),
Ny
,Y ~
.y x.
February 21,1992 TDL 92 05 reca rsr w 1 BVY 92 20 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ono White Flint North Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20505 Attention:
Mr. Samuel Hansell, Lead Examiner USNRC Region i
References:
a)
License No. DPR 28 (Docket No. 50-2711 b)
NUREG 1021, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards
Subject:
Licensed Operator Requalification (LOR)
Dear Mr. Hansell:
A licensed operator requalification examination was jointly administered to twelve license holders at the Vermont Yankee Training Center and Station by the USNRC and the licensee duri the week of February 10,1992. Pursuant to Section ES-601 of reference b, the Vermont Yankee Training Department conducted an LOR training program evaluation. Vermont Yankee's evaluation results are enclosed.
if you have any questions regarding these results, please contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
?/
Mark L. Mervine Training Manager Enclosure USNRC Regional Administrator Thomas T. Martin cc:
USNRC Project Manager - Patrick M. Sears VYNPS USNRC Resident inspector Harold Eichenholtz VYNPS 0 ' 0 l'd 9 i
hl 9803030264 9popy3
{DR ADOCK 05000271
)
/
Wlu I'
._a m
m_
J REQUAllFICATION PROGRAM EVA_LUATION BASED ON 1992 EXAMMATION 1.
IndividuaLExaminati.QILBRIMlla RO SRO TOTAL Pass / Fail Eass/ Foil Pass / Fail Written 4/0 8/0 12/0 JPM/Walkthrough 4/0 8/0 12/0 Simulator 4/0 8/0 12/0 Overall 4/0 8/0 12/0 2.
.Cmv Examinat!anlicaulta 3 of 3 Crows Passed 3.
Etagram Evaluation Results The facility performed an evaluation of the requalification program based on the facilit y's examination results. Tho criteria for program ovaluation as specified in ES-601 was used where appropriate.
The sample size (12) met the minimum requirement of ES-601. The facility results are:
All three crews passed the simulator portion of the examination.
100% of the operators pass 'd the written examination.
100% of the operators passed the simulator portion of the examination.
100% of the operators passed the JPM portion of the examination.
All operators were trained and 9 valuated in all positions permitted by their individual licenses.
Based on feedback from operators, facility observers, and the NRC tearr, it is felt that all the facility evaluators performed in a satisfactory manner.
Common weaknesses on JPM's are os follows:
75% of the operators administerei JPM 20106 had difficulty shifting CRD flow control valves 50% of the operators administered JPM 26407 had difficulty controlling VARS when the diesel was running in parallel Common weaknesses on the written examinations are as follows:
42% of the operators missed question number two (2) on static simulator scenario 1.
(Response of recirc system valves to LPCI Logic) 75% of the operators missed question number thirteen (13) on static simulator scenario 1, (Systems available for continued use in a;tornate level control) 1 1
t s
3.
Emgram Evaluation Results (cont'd) 33% of the operators missed question number thrco (3) on static simulator scenario 2. (LPCI system response to a LOCA with a DC bus de energized) 42% of the operators missed question nurnbor five (5) on static simulator scenario 2.
(Feedwater level control system failure) 33% of the operators missed questien number ten (10) on the classroom examination. (Electrical sofoty requirements when opening a 480 V breaker)
The Simulator portion of the operating examination revealed the following weaknesses.
Theso identified weaknessos will be addressed.
Crows failed to recognize the significance of multiplo flowpathv in the RHR system when injection was necessary Delays were noted between the timo reactor level reached TAF and RPV ED was actually initiated Two Shift Supervisors had rninor difficulties in interpretating Technical Specifications A Shift Supervisor failed to enter the level / power controlleg of OE-3102 during an ATWS condition 4.
Written Examination Results Tho written examination completion times fell within the guidelines of ES 602.
Classroom S101[g_1 Static ll Ofttator Average 116 minutes 56 minutes 54 minutos
!NQ1V_lDUALS WRITTEN EXAMINATION RESULIS Section A Section B Overall pnerator gpj013 points Score %
Amirault 23 of 26 29 of 30 92.9 %
Aproa 23 of 26 29 of 30 92.9 %
l Cavanaugh 20 of 26 28 of 30 85.7 %
Deer 21 of 26 26 of 30 83.9'6 Faupel 21 of 26 28 of 30 87.5 %
Horron 25 of 26 30 of 30 98.2 %
Keith 25 of 26 28 of 30 94.6 %
LaPorte 25 of 26 28 of 30 94.6 %
Metcalf 23 of 26 29 of 30 92.9 %
Oliver 23 of 26 30 of 30 94.6 %
Paul 25 of 26 26 of 30 91.1 %
Schulze 21 of 26 29 of 30 89.3 %
2
=.
WalithistgitJPM EKaminD1!QD_ Held 118 5.
/
Operator Jftd Questions Score %
Amirault 10 of 10 19 of 20 98.8 %
Aprea 9 of 10 19 of 20 91.3 %
Cavanaugh 10 of 10 18 of 20 97.5 %
Deer 8 of 10 18 of 20 82.5%
Faupel 10 of 10 17 of 20 96.3 %
Horron 10 of 10 18 of 20 97,5 %
Keith 9 of 10 19 of 20 91.3 %
La P > rte 8 of 10 19 of 20 83.8 %
Me' calf 10 of 10 20 of 20 100 %
i Oliver 10 of 10 20 of 20 100 %
Psul 10 of 10 18 of 20 90.0 %
Shulze 10 of 10 18 of 20 95.0 %
6.
Recommenddgm for improvement JPM Evolp_dga Simulator setup does not always include all the required malfunctions and plant conditions for the JPM to be performed JPM's are inconsistent about how actions are verified Shnulo. tor Evaluation Guldo The size of the simulator scenario bank should be increased as necessary to meet e
the requirements to have a minimum of 30 scenarios and to cover all legs of the EOP's 3