ML20126D816
| ML20126D816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1992 |
| From: | Scace S NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| To: | Bettenhausen L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126D774 | List: |
| References | |
| MP-92-1299, NUDOCS 9212280175 | |
| Download: ML20126D816 (7) | |
Text
,
NORTHEAST UYlLITIES c,ene,s onm. t.emn o m no nn connenu
]
..,., _. ~ ~
..c4.,..
+.,me.o % o P.o. DOX 270
-..i.v..4~-
H ART i onD. CONNE CT ICUT 00141-0?70 w...**""~
L L
J 903) (>654 0CX)
..........m-.--
December 11, 1992 MP-92-1299 RE:
!JUREG 1021, ES-601 Dr. Lee Bettenhaucen Chlef, Operations Branch U.
S. 11uc1 car Regulatory Commission, Region 1 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 R EIT,R EliCE :
Pacility Operating License 11o. 11PF-49 Docket 110. 50-423 flRC Requa1ification Examination Summary
Dear Dr. Bettenhausen:
During the week of 11ovember 16, 1992, Licensed Operator Requa1ification Examinations were administered to Iour Mi11 stone Unit 3 Licensed Operators and Senior Licensed Operators.
These examinations were conducted in accordance with llUREG 1021, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, Section ES-601.
Accordingly, the examinations were prepared, administered, and evaluated by both !JRC and facility examiners.
Preliminary results of the facility evaluations for all portions of the examination were provided to p.
!!. Bissett, 11RC Chief Examiner, on llovember 19, 1992.
Attached is a summary of our grades.
An evaluation of the examination resilts was performed to identify strengths and weaknesses, b th individual and crew, and to identify necessary remediation and enhancements to the MP3 Licensed operator Requalification Pro.' ram content. The following l
is a summary, by examination environmc.nt, of the evaluation:
SI.1UI ATOlt EX A.\\11N ATIONS STRIMJGTilS :
Use of Procedures - in al1 observed instances where any type of procedure applied, operators knew where to obtain them and consistently referred to them in a timely nanner.
9212200175 921221 PDR ADOCK 05000423 V
paa
F Dr. Lee 15ettenhaucun Page 2 of S Mf1@UtgHils (Individua1):
Operator C -
During the cimulator portion of the exam, thin operator's verbal communicationn were not consistently conforming to MP3 Operationn Manager's e>:pectations.
This appeared to be limited to the first of two scenarios and was particularly noticeable in situations of rapidly reporting multiple pointe of information.
During one JPM, Responce to ATWS conditions, it was not evident that thic operator completely performed the initial (redundant) verification of reactor status, as linted in l'OP JS-l'R S.I.
Although this had no impact upon the JPM itcell, the underlying cause wau investigated and determined to be attributable to the JPF'n initiating cue.
Operator D -
During the simulator exam, this operator omitted one picco of equipment among a.engthy list of pumps / fans to be manually inhibited from automatically starting upon electrical power restoration.
After a chort duration, this operator diccovered his own mistake and properly reported and corrected it.
The mistake appeared to be caused by trannpocition error with similar equipment and function on the sane control pr.nel.
During one JPM, Responne to ATWS conditions, it was not evident that this operator completely performed the initial (redundant) verification of reactor ctatus, as listed in EOP 3 5-l'R S.I.
Although thin had no impact upon the JPM itself, the underlying cause was investigated and determined to be attributable to the JPM's initiating cue.
W AI.KTilitOUGli 13 AMIN ATIONS There were no J PM's perf ormed unsatisf actorily.
liowever, the facility graded one JPM performed by one operator as a "miss",
because a non-critical step was performed out of order.
t
Dr. Lee Bettenhausen Page 3 of 5 Witt'ITEN EXAMINATION L'xaminee perf ormance on the written examination was satisfactory, showing an understanding of the learning objectives examined.
EXAM Al>MINISTi(ATION Written Preparation -
During the 110/!i11C exam team's preparation, two questions that were proposed were deemed to not be at the appropriato level for the purpose of IlltC examination.
The Chief IlltC examiner decided that these questions were measuring simple memory-recall intormation and r eded replacement or modification to be acceptable.
Thec.g questions were replaced by questions of the appropriate level that measured similar areas of plant operations.
Additionally, one question unique to the Sito exam appeared to be measuring concepts too similar to another question on the exam.
This question was replaced within the bounds of the sampling plan.
There were several questions that were (to some degree) altered to enhance them.
Input from all members of the exam team provided valuable improvements, particularly in the quality of multiple choice distractors.
Written Administration -
Immediately preceding the written examination, it was discovered that two questions on the Sito exam (previously identified for replacement) were not replaced, as they were on the RO exam.
This was corrected prior to giving the exam.
One (1) other question had been subject to normal review / modification of the exam bank by the training staff during the interim period betwean preparation week and exam week.
The replacement was acceptable.
On the static exam, the operators' turnover form contained a minor error in a procedure number.
This error was missed in the facility review of the form, and required correction by briefing the examinees.
Dr. Lee Bettenhausen Page 4 of 5 The above difficulties were caused primarily by the unusually detailed, direct involvement of the training supervisor.
In the future, as has occurred on past exams, this involvement will be Icft to those individuals who perform these functions as their normal job duties.
.ll'M ADMINISTitATION One operator spent too much time waiting between simulator and in-plant JPM's.
This is because the facility did not fully assess the impact of having NRC examiners remain with the candidates, rather than remaining on-station for all candidates.
This will be better assessed in future exams.
SIMUL.ATOlt Al)MINISTitATION The simulator exam was adminir.tered as planned with two exceptions:
Because of a simulator model proolem, the turbine-driven aux.
feed pump did not deliver flow vhen required.
Operators performed all required actions, and the simulator instructors took action to restore flod.
At the very end of a smr.11 LOCT scenario, the requirements for exiting the procedure in use vere not met and thus did not transition as predicted.
This was due to the crew having taken more time to reach that point than predicted, yet had no impact upon the exam.
SIMULATOlt I?IDl't.lTY Three simulator fidelity problems were noted.
The Aux Building Filter Fanc (A and B) and damper indicating lamps had inconsistent states upon loss of power.
This was corrected prior to the exam.
The necessary instruments for determining " adverse containment" had no simulated power on a station blackout, even though the EOP requires the determination.
Further investigation revealed a simulator problem, rather than plant.
This was corrected prior to the exam.
.i
.}
?
Dr. Lee Bettenhausen Page 5 of 5 The dynamics of the Turbine-Driven Aux Feed Pump were not properly modelled.
Under a unique set of coincidences, this problem becomes apparent, and indeed occurred again on this exam.
The model han since been revised to produce desired results.
Yours truly, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY
-r t
/
eh Y Cnto-
/ Stephed E. ocace Station Vice President Millstone Nuclear Power Station i
. Attachment SES/RGS/kao c:
Document Control Desks, U.S.
NRC B.
W.
Ruth,. Manager, Operator Training, NU R.
M.
Kacich, Nuclear Licensing, NU P.
H.
- Bissett, U.S.
NRC 1
Y 6
4 a
t' r
-e
-,.c ~ g m s-r w
org,v,,-me.,
, -er s w-
,w r e
-m-
.<-vm.-
.v,-,-
n-~.,-,,,--
---e ww.,..~-->m.------r---,,, -,
.~
e a-r-a
-~,.
O ATTACHMENT WRT EXAMINATION
SUMMARY
WEEK OF NOVEMBER 16, 1992 NIILLSTONE UNIT 3 Simulator Category Written JPM's Name P/F Static B
Total No. Sat OPERATOR A P
10/12 23/23 94.3 5
OPERATOR B P
10/12 21/23 88.6 4
OPERATOR C P
10/12 21/23 88.6 5
OPERATOR D P
12/12 20/23 91.4 5
NITACilS1ENT 2
[
l SINIULATION FACll,lTY ltEPOllT l
Facility Licensee: MP-3 Facility Docket No.: 50-423 llequalification Examinations Administered from: November 16 - 19, 1992 This form is used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection fmdings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of non-compliance with 10 CFil 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 evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed.
JTEM DISScitIPTION Aux. Illdg. Fans Upon a loss of power, the A & B auxiliary building filter fans and damper indicating lamps had inconsistent status indications.
This discrepancy was corrected prior to the examination, lustrumentation During a loss of all power scenario, it was identified that instrumentation used to determine adverse containment conditions had no backup power supplies. Therefore, it was impossible to determine if adverse containment conditions existed. Containment temperature and/or containment rad monitor readings are used per EOP direction to determine if adverse conditions exist. This discrepancy was corrected prior to the examination.
Aux. Feed Pump Under certain initiating power level conditions, i.e., 80% or less, followed by accident conditions that called for an automatic start of the turbine driven auxiliary feed pemp, the aaxiliary feed pump failed to start. Modeling was such that exhaust pressure was greater than steam inlet pressure; hence, the AFW
\\
pump would not start. This discrepancy was not corrected prior to the exam; however, the NRC has since been informed that this modeling problem has been corrected.
k Vl- - - _
___