ML20107A925
| ML20107A925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1984 |
| From: | Bauser D GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| CON-#484-856 SP, NUDOCS 8411020026 | |
| Download: ML20107A925 (14) | |
Text
V NSLn i
b PO mD Cc :"FONDEMCE D3CHETED
!!SNRC October 29, ' A!0 :16
.1984
'84 NOV -1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,j BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket-No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart - Management (Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Remand)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWERS TO UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS SEVENTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES Licensee General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (GPU Nuclear), pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740b, hereby submits the following answers to " Union of Concerned Scientists' Seventh Set of Interrogatories and. Document Requests to General Public.
Utilities."
The provision of answers to these interrogatories la not to be deemed a representation.that Licensee considers the information sought to be relevant to the issues to be heard in this remanded proceeding.
INTERROGATORIES 7-1.
Identify all current TMI training instructors who have completed the GPUN Instructor Development Program men-tioned in the Special Report of the Reconstituted OARP Review Committee-and state the date when the individual completed the program.
8411020026 841029 PDR ADOCK 05000289 O
PDR OSD3
ANSWER.
7-1.
The attendance of licensed operator instructors at the GPUN-Instructor-Development Program is summarized below:
Instructor Date' Attended
'G.
S. Barber
-6/83 F. Perry 4/84-D.
Boltz 11/80 F. Kacinko 11/82 D. Wilt 11/82 B.
Leonardo 11/83 7-2.
Describe in detail the oral examination given at the end of the operator training program.
Include in your descrip-Ltion how the oral examination is given, the number of people
. involved in giving the examination, the time that each examina-tion takes, the number of questions, and any guidelines used for constructing the examination, such as the subjects that must be covered and-the methods used for formulating questions.
ANSWER.
.7-2.
See response to UCS First Set of Interrogatories
- 14.
The respective programs' include guidance on number of personnel designated to give_ examinations.
7-3.
Provide the grading criteria, if any, used to evalu-ate performance on the oral examination, including the minimum passing grade on the examination.
List the-grounds for failure on the_ oral exam, and state who has final authority to deter-
,mine whether an operator has passed or failed the oral exams.
-Describe the process used by GPU to determine the grade to be given on the oral examination, including all possibilities for review or alteration of the initial grades.
2-
-a w
e-g ww w, w
9 v
,,te-,
9.
e.
~
e--
e-6m
ANSWER.
7-3.
Final examination grades on oral examinations are either pass or fail.
A minimum overall passing grade of " pass" is required for the examination.
The person designated to ad-minister the oral examination determines the final examination grade prior to submittal of the oral summary sheet to Operator Training.
Each examiner is tasked with evaluating the candi-date's ability to operate the plant in a competent and safe manner.
The oral board summary sheet with final grade is forwarded to_the Supervisor, Licensed Operator Training for review.
This review includes ensuring designated areas received grades, weak and fail (unsatisfactory) areas are documented with amplifying information, and that the final grade reflects the comments documented by the examiner.
As required, oral examinations are reviewed as a group to determine generic weaknesses.
Examination grades cannot be altered except by the person who administered the exam.
7-4.
Describe all screening processes used by GPU for the evaluation of candidates going through the training program, including any evaluations of the adequacy of the operator can-didates during the course of the training program.
ANSWER.
7-4.
Candidates are evaluated during the training process by the following:
1.
Weekly quizzes during classroom training.
2.
On the job training task and Final Verification checkouts.
i.
3.
OJT spot checks.
4.
Simulator Operational Evaluation.
i 5.
Final Comprehensive Oral Examination.
6.
Final Comprehensive Written Examination.
7.
Requirements for Certification of Candidates for NRC Operator Licenses and Instructor Certifica-tions.
Items 1-6 are described in the respective training programs.
7-5.
.Have any operator candidates been removed from GPU's training program as a result of such a screening process?
If yes, list the number of candidates removed and the reasons why the candidate was eliminated.
ANSWER.
7-5.
Three candidates have been removed from the-reactor operator replacement program since 1981 due to not meeting pro-gram requirements.
Several candidates have voluntarily removed themselves from the program due to academic difficulties.
7-6.
Identify and describe all GPU evaluations on opera-tors licensed since January 1983, including, but not limited to, evaluations by the Supervisor of Licensed Operator Training cited on page 13 of the Replacement Operator Training Program Descriptions...
' ANSWER.
7-6.
Candidates'who have been licensed since January 1983-
-have been enrolled in.the Licensed Operator Requalification Program and are not evaluated under the Replacement Operator
. Training Program.
7-7.
Describe GPU's procedure to be followed if a candi-date fails the Replacement Operator Training Program.
ANSWER.
7-7.
Candidates who have been removed from the Replace-ment Operator Training Program due to failure to meet program requirements are normally returned to the job classification held prior to placement in the program.
7-8.
Does GPU consider failure of an NRC mock exam equiv-alent to failure in the Replacement Operator Training Program?
If not, what are GPU's procedures in the' case of failure on a mock examination?
State the criteria by which GPU decides what additional training a candidate should receive after failing a mock NRC examination, and whether the candidate should take an-other mock NRC examination.
Describe any retraining that a candidate must undergo before retaking the exam.
In addition, list the maximum number of times that a candidate may retake a mock NRC examination.
If there is no' maximum, state the criteria by which-GPU determines, after one or more failures by the same individual, whether the individual should be allowed to remain in the training program.
ANSWER.
7-8.
-The administrative requirements for failures of the comprehensive (mock) examination are outlined in the Replace-ment Operator Training Program description.
Failure of the comprehensive examination does not require automatic removal of the candidate from the training program. _
Upon-failure of a mock examination, the candidate's training record is reviewed by the Supervisor, Licensed Opera-tor, Training, Operator Training Manager, and' Manager, Plant Operations.
Each candidate's record is reviewed considering (1)-performance during OJT, (2) weekly quiz grades during pro-
. gram, (3)-comprehensive exam grades, (4) attitude, and (5) performance during simulator training.
The decision to ad-minister reexams'is made by the Operator Training Manager and Manager, Plant Operations.
There is no established' limit on the number of reexams per candidate.
This decision is made as
. described above.
Retraining required. prior to examination retakes is developed on the basis of deficiencies exhibited during the comprehensive examination and the overall training program.
7-9.
Describe the capabilities of the simulator in use at the TMI-1 training program, including in your description whether the simulator.has the-capability of adaptive variation to adjust to an operator's weaknesses, and whether the si-mulator has the ability to record and to store data on transac-tions between the operator and the control room such as the op-erator's time of reaction and the number of errors made by the operator.-
ANSWER.
7-9.
The BPT simulation of plant operation is based on full' scope simulator software of a nuclear generating station similar in design to TMI-1.
It provides the capability to sim-ulate in real time normal,and abnormal conditions, both tran-sient and steady state.
_The trainee console consists of a ver-tical display panel and horizontal control panel.
The display _. _
panel contains a mimic drawing illustrating TMI systems and ap-propriate actuation switches, parameter display meters and annuciators.
The control panel contains major controls and some parameter displays.
The CRT's are also available for trend' display of plant parameters as well as selected calculat-ed data,'like spatial xenon concentration or axial and radial core power distribution.
1An instructor's console with a CRT provides a means of controlling and monitoring the BPT's operation.
The instructor
.can utilize such features as:
1.
Initialization to one of 30 plant conditions.
2.
Backtrack or ability to return to prior condi-tions.
3.
Manual time delay or insertion of malfunctions.
4.
Fast time -- slow time capability.
5.
Control of certain functions external to the control room.
Inside the BPTS The' interactive mimic and schematic control panel give the student an overall view of the entire plant and the necessary controls to operate.
The student observes the effect of a par-ticular decision on all or part of a system.
The panel encour-ages an action-reaction experience necessary for the under-standing of system dynamics.
Because the system has the ability to go from cold shutdown to 100% power, students expe-rience start-ups and shutdowns as they happen in an actual plant. ___
- D*
r Initialization / Snapshots The simulator can be initialized to any of 21 protected conditions.
These Initial Conditions provide the capability of
. starting.an exercise from a known plant operating condition.
The similator can also be initialized from a snapshot, developed by an instructor in support of the training exercise.
Up to 10 snapshots are.available on the system.
Graphic Display System Through the use of the Graphics Display System, the si-mulator's capabilities as a learning device are generally en-hanced.
The displays are organized by the instructor using the graphics development keyboard and are selected by the student through use of a functional keypad.
The ability of the graphics system to display any variable in_the simulation data-base provides for correlations to be made that up to now could only be manually plotted or mentally pictured.
Parameters such as void fraction, reactivity, xenon, and enthalpy are available for demonstrating and understanding.
how the process works.
Because of the flexibility of the graphic displays, the BPTS can support a good deal more
. training than would be possible by use of just the mimic panel and miniaturized meters.
Backtrack / Replay
-The simulator automatically records the status of the
. plant for the last 30 minutes of operation at half minute in-tervals.
Through the use of Backtrack, the simulator can be l
l
-e-
y e
~
reinitialized to any of the previous points and simulation resumed.
The Replay function is similar to Backtrack with the exception that the simulator " replays" the simulation from the selected point instead of initializing at that point.
- Thus, the Replay function is used to demonstrate any portion of the last 15 minutes of operation on the panel.
Thermal Hydraulics on the BPTS The BPTS.can be used in a number of schemes to demonstrate the basic principles of systems operation and processes to en-hance the trainee's knowledge of power plant application with a nuclear steam supply system.
Training can be focued on integrated response or individ-ual system or process models for in-depth studies to reinforce concepts and applications.
In fact peripheral system models can be placed in a " freeze" state to enable exact control of model interface and enable observance of single parameters without feedback effects from boundary systems.
Through the use of Historical Data Collection up to 96
- database parameters (assignable by the instructor) can be recorded for off-line study and analysis.
For example, one could record reactor coolant system temperatures, flows, enthalpies, and other related parameters to develop a heat bal-ance calculation for the system.
7-10. Describe what GPU considers satisfactory performance in the simulator portion of its replacement operator training program, and describe the system of grading operator's perfor-mance on the simulator, including all guidelines for grading an operator's performance. :-
h.'
ANSWER.
7-10.
An examination is conducted at the completion of the replacement. operator simulator training program.
The can-didate is required to demonstrate abilities outlined in Appendix C to the Replacement Operator Training Program De-scription.
7-11. GPU has provided copies of drafts.of the Special Re-port of the Reconstituted OARP Committee Special Report under cover pages that state " Memo - Richard P. Coe, J. Duncan
-9/7/84, Rev. 1 Uhrig Report."
Please provide the following information with respect to these documents:
a.
Who is J. Duncan, what were his/her responsibil-ities, and what actions did he/she take with respect to the Special Report?
b.
Why do the memoranda that accompany these drafts refer to J. Duncan?
c.
Who wrote-each of the handwritten notations on each of the documents, Rev. 0 and Rev. 1 of the "Uhrig Re-port?"
ANSWER.
7-11 a.
John Duncan is an administrative assistant who is assigned to the Training & Education Department.
He took no
-actions with respect to the Special Report.
b.
The memoranda in question refer to J. Duncan be-
.cause when they were produced in response to intervenors' dis-i. :-
L covery requests, they were forwarded from Dr. Coe to Mr. Duncan I
for transmittal to the discovery reading room, c.
The Reconstituted OARP Committee. -
m.
7-12. Identify every individual who drafted all or part of the' conclusion to the Special Report.
For each individual, identify the part of the conclusion to the Special Report that he/she drafted.
ANSWER.
7-12. See response to UCS Interrogatory 2-9.
7-13. Identify every individual who reviewed any draft of the conclusion to the Special Report.
For each individual, identify the changes suggested by that individual and the changes made to the conclusion as a result of or consistent with his/her review.
-ANSWER.
7-13. See response to UCS Interrogatory 2-8.
Respectfully submitted,
_Deborah B.
Bauser John N. Nassikas, III Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1215 Counsel for Licensee
' Dated:
October 29, 1984 ___ _
- a p, ',
j-
.)
20c! n,
c CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L31hc
4 N0't -1 A!0:16 I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Answers to SeventhSetofInterrogad$EheNU'[j['
Union of Concerned Scientists'
- Raycy to General Public Utilities" were served this 29th day of October, 1984, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, post-age prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
Ah John N. Nassikas III
9
[
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart Romand on Management)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Nunzio J.
Pal _adino, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear.:egulatory Commission John H.
Buck Washington, 0.0.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Thomas M.
Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissu U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Christine N.
Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C.
20555 Soard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissu Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Lando W.
Zach Jr., Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi:
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Sheldon J.
Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
4 f
- 6 Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill Vice President Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety a Licensing Board,
GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington, 6.C.
20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Docketing and service section (3)
Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt R.D.
5 office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety & Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C.
20535 Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20002 Washington, D.C.
20555 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
G vernment Accountability Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq. (4)
Of* ice f ene Executive Legal
' E { Connecticut Avenue Washington, D.C.
20036 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, 2.0.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Mar on, Weiss & Jordan Thomas Y.
A;, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W.,
Suite ;;-
Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.
20003 Department Of Environmental Resources Michael F.
McBride, Esq.
505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 Michael W.
Maupin, Esq.
Hunten & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 William T.
Russell Deputy Director, Division of Human Factors Safety Office of NRR Mail Stop AR5200 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
_