ML20125C862
| ML20125C862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1992 |
| From: | Jordan M, Mcneil D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20125C846 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-OL-92-02, 50-373-OL-92-2, NUDOCS 9212140116 | |
| Download: ML20125C862 (8) | |
Text
.
U.
S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Report No. 50-373/OL-92-02 Docket Hon.
50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensect Commonwealth Edison Company Licensing Department - Suite 300 Opus West III 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station Examination Administered At:
LaSalle County Station, Marsellies, IL Examination Conducted:
10/15/92 --- Requalification Retake Exam 10/23/92 --- Requalification for a Limited Senior Reactor Operator and an initial exam for a Limited Senior Reactor Operator Exam Week of 10/26/92 --- Initial Exam Examiners:
R.
L. Doornbos, Region III M. N. Leach, Region III H. Peterson, Region III C.
M.
Zelig, Region III Chief Examiner:
O
((/[
/?!/ *?.
~
D.
R. McNeil Date '
Approved By:
ph/
/
/
r /[dn/hJ Q[
t' M. J. Jordan, Chief Date Operator Licensing Section 1 i
Examination Summarv i
Examination Administered on October 15 - 30, 1992 (Recort No. 50-373/OL 92/02(DRS)):
Reactor Operator (RO) examinations were administered to three candidates.
Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) examinations were administered to fcv-lRO-Instant candidates-and three SRO-Upgrade candidates.
A Senior Reactor Operator Limited to Fuel Handling examination was given to one candidate.
A requalification re-take examination (Job Performance Measures (JPMs) portion) was given to one operator and a requalification examination was given to one SRO Limited to Fuel Handling.
Results:
All individuals examined passed their respective examination.
9212140116 921202 PDR ADOCK 05000373 V
PDR i
b
-. _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _. _ - _ _ _ _. =.... _ _
The following is a suamary of the strengths and weaknesses noted during the performance of this examination.
Strenaths:
o crew communications during dynamic simulator scenarios.
(For detcils see Section 3c.)
Weaknesses:
o Lack of familiarity with location of in-plant components during JPM walkthroughs.
(For details see Section 3b.)
L 9
2 l
l I
1
-J
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Examiners D. R. McNeil, Region III - Chief Examiner R.
L.
Doornbos, Region III M. N.
Leach, Region III H. Peterson, Region III
- c. M. Zelig, Region III 2.
Egrsons Contacted Facility
- J.
Schmultz, Production Superintendent
- W. R. Huntington, Technical Superintendent
- H. J.
Hentschel, Assistant Superintendent of Operating
- +T.
J.
Shaffer, Training Supervisor
- J. K. Walkington,-Services Director
- J '. E.
Lockwood, Radiological Protection Supervisor
- S.
Harmon, operations Training Group Leader
+R.
L. Calvin, Training Department
+T.
Johnson, Training Department
+G.
Graff, Training Department
+R.
Gutbrie, Training Department
+J.
Williams, Training Department
+G.
Dubois, Training Department
+M.
Dowd, Training Department
+C.
Essington, Training Department
+R. Simers, Training Department
+M.
D.
Schaible, Training Department L__E.i.Jiuclear Reculatory Commissio1 (NRCL
- +M.
J. Jordan, RIII, Chief, OLB Section 1
- +D.
R. McNeil, RIII, Chief Examiner
- +R.
L.
Doornbos, RIII Examiner M. N. Leach, RIII Examiner
- +H.
Peterson, RIII Examiner
- +C.
Zelig, RIII Examiner
- D. Hills, SRI, LaSalle County Station
- +W.
Gleaves, RIII Intern
- Denotes those present at the exit m,eeting on October 29, 1992.
+ Denotes those present at the training exit meeting on October 29, 1992.
I 3
l i
3.
License TrJ11aina.ElogIALQharIYatigna The initial license training program appears to be j
functioning well as evidenced by the 100% pass rate.
Candidates appeared well prepared for the examination.
Training department personnel were responsive to the needs of licence candidates and in assisting the NRC in developing this examination.
The roqualification program was not evaluated due to the j
small sample size.
The training department paroonnel responsible for preparing and conducting this examination were excellent at giving cues even when the operators made errors.
The following infornation from both the initial examinations and the requalification examinations is provided for evaluation by the licensee via their SAT based training program.
No response io required.
a.
Hr.l.tlyn Exaginatign l
Strengths o
The pre-exam review was thorough.
There were no i
post examination comments.
Hpaknesagg:
4 o
There was an identified weakness in knowledge of administrative daily exposure limits.
Two of three RO candidates chose incorrect (non-conservative) values for Radiation Work Permit (RWP) daily exposure limits at LaSalle.
b.
Job Performance Measurps (JPMs)
Strenaths:
o All candidates successfully performed all JPMs on the examination.
Epaknesgggt o
While performing JPMs in the plant it was noted that some SRO-Instant (SROI) candidates were not familiar with some component locations.
For example, three of four SROI candidates had 9
4
,.,y,.
y-
difficulty locating E12-F063C and E12-F388C (CY and LPCI crosc-connect valves) when they were directed to lineup CY to LPCI "C" as an alternate injection system.
Onu SROI candidate stated he had not opent much time in the plant, o
Several SRO candidates were slow in making Protective Action Recommendations during a simulated GSEP event.
One SRO candidate stated that this area of training had not been emphasized.
c.
Dynamic simulator Scenarios Etrengthat All candidates displayed excellent communications skills during the dynamic sce:ierios.
SRO candidates kept their crews informed of plant status and their intended recovery actions.
All candidates used the " closed-loop" method of communications, repeating back orders and acknowledging verbal responses.
It is noteworthy that proper thrae-way communications never broke down, even during the most intensive parts of the dynamic scenarios.
Weaknessent o
There were no major weaknesses noted in this area.
4.
Egngral a.
Irnining o
Training department personnel were professional and conscientious in execution of their duties and responsibilities.
Their assistance in dry-running the dynamic scenarios and.their suggestions for improvements contributed to the overall exam quality.
One item that needed clarification was the difference between the simulator performance during the dry-run scenarios and the actual examination scenarios.
The simulator operators had inserted a batch file into the computer program during the scenario dry-run which caused decay heat to be extremely high.
When the examination was conducted, this batch file was not inserted, leading to differing ~results.
The simulator should not be changed between the dry-run and actual examination.
5
o The facility's detailed written examination review resulted in many good comments; most were incorporated into the exam before it was administered.
b.
929 rations. Security. Rad Prqtection. Other j
o Operations, Security, and Rad Protection personnel were professional and ccurteous.
Operations personnel assisted in the review of the written 4
examination.
Their effort in this area was significant.
I o
The power block appeared clean and well lighted, especially for an outage.
o During the operating test, a candidate attempting d
to determine reactor vessel level from outside the control room was directed by LOA-AP-08 " Loss of All AC Power" to the local instrument racks in the reactor building, 761' level.
The candidate stated that the local instruments at that location had been removed recently, but the procedure he was using (TSC copy) had not boon updated.
A followup inspection by the examiner determined the candidate was correct and the procedure was in error.
4 o
A Ceco employee was observed jumping over a radcon barrier from a clean area into an RCA.
Although this is not a radiological control problem, it is a personnel safety concern and demenstrates a lack of professionalism. This was an isolated incident.
5.
Simulator Observations Simulator discrepancies were identified.
These discrepancies are noted in Enclosure 3.
6.
Exit Meeting An exit meeting was held at the LaSalle County Station, in the new service buildir.g, on October 29, 1992.
Those attending the meetings are listed in Section 2 of this report.
The following items were discussed during the exit meeting:
o Strengths and weaknesses n'oted in this report, o
The general observations relating to the plant noted in section 4.
6
.J
g 4
ENCLO ERE.1
.GlB1!LblJON FACILI'iT.EEEQJ1T Facility:
LaSalle County Station Docket No.
50-373 Operating Tests Administered On:
October 26 - 30, 1992 Tha fo137 wing documents observations made by the NRC examination team during the October, 1992 initial examination.
There 6
observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of non-complie me with 10 CFR 55.45(b).
These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information which may be used in future evaluctions.
No licensee action is required in responso to these observations.
During the conduct ot the sim'11ator em; tion of the operating tests, the following items were observed:
LT.EM PIKRIETmM t
CRD P/Bs The control rod insert / withdrawal pushbuttons must be depressed an excessive amount of time compared to the actual plant.
This is s. known simulator problem.
CRTs Control room CRT indications were errntic during the dynamic scenarios, especially when temperature displays were selected.
This is a known simulator problem.
SBGT Flow As flow rates in the Standby Gas Treatment Systen changed, they changed in a stepped (non-smooth) fashion. This is a known sinulacor problem.
Da~ay heat During the dry-run of the almulator sceriarios, a
batch fate was inserted, increasing the amount of decay weat.
This batch fils was not inserted during the actual examination scenarios.
The end results of the scenarios were then different than those expected by the NRC.
Review of the dynamics of the increased decay heat may be necessary to obtain proper simulator response.
b t
b
_,...,m.
w e
.mn "m
?
?
ENCIdlSURE 4 IIIQJJALIFICATION PRQGRAM EVALUAT.TJQll_FIEE9JtT 4
Facility:
' W % Ootmty Nuclear Power Station t
Examiners:
D. McNeil, Chief Examiner, RIII R. Doornbos, Examiner, RIII M. Leach, Examiner, RI.II Dates of Evaluation:
October 15, & 23, 1992 Areas Evaluated:
_X_
Written
_X_
Oral Examin,qf,1gn_Rngqlta:
Pasa / Fqil Rap _s / Fail, Pass / Fall,_LS 9,r, U)
Written Exam:
1/0 1/0 S
Operating Exam Oral if0
.1/ 0
' ' Q, J
Simulator N/A Evaluation of facility written examination grading S.
fjne.g IK,aminat ion _ _Resu lts :
Crew 1 Crew 2 Crew 3 Eagp,].fgil E30s/ Fall PAErd, Fall operating Examination L'A N/A N/A OyerqJJ_trggrAs Eva1uatinn Satisfactory N / A,_,
Unsatisfactory _d LA,_
l RIII RIII RIII E#
\\C~ Skr W l
McNeil Jordan
[ Wright Examiner Section Chief Branch Chief 12/l/92 12/1 /92 12/ N 92 J
.