ML20127J584

Exam Rept 50-269/OL-85-01 on 850205-06.Exam Results:All Candidates Passed

ML20127J584
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	03/14/1985
From:	Wilson B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127J576	List: ML20127J573 ML20127J584
References
50-269-OL-85-01, 50-269-OL-85-1, NUDOCS 8505210517
Download: ML20127J584 (3)

Text

_.

o ENCLOSURE 1 EXAMINAilON REPORT 269.'OL-Eb-01

' Facility Licensee: Duke Power Company P. O. Box 1436 Seneca, SC 29678 Facility Name: .0conee 1,'2 and 3 Facility' Docket.Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 Simulator examinations were administered at Oconee Training Center near Seneca, South Carolina. An oral examination was administered at Oconee Nuclear Station near Seneca, S utn Carolina.

Chief Examiner: m . . be W Ef B ce A. Wilson n

Cate' Signed

.. Approved by: u s hube Ntq/qf Date' Signed fuceA. Wilson,SectionChief Summary:

Examinations on February 5-6, 1985 Simulator examinations were administered to five cant Jates, all of whom passed.

One oral. examination was administered, and that candidate passed.

t e

8505210517 850408 PDR ADOCK 05000269 G PDR

e -

f!

REPORT DETAILS v

1. f etiiity En.pione: Cent 6 g

~

• T. Farmer, Lead Classroom Instructor

• D. Roth' Shift Supervisor

• T. Coutu, Asst. Operating Engineer

• P. Stovall, Instructor

• J. Byko, Atsociate. Instructor

• L. Hindman, Lead Simulator Instructor

• T. Loflin, Instructor

• H. Lowery, Shift Operating Engineer'

• J. N. Pope, Superintendent of Operations

• R. Bugert, Senior Instructor

• M. S. Tuckman, Station Manager

• Attended: Exit Meeting

2. Examiners:

• B. A. Wilson:

W. J. Apley T. Rogers (observer)

• Chief Examiner

3. -Examination Review Meeting N/A-

4. Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the site visit, the examiners-(W. Apley /T.-Rogers) met

.with the representatives of the plant staff to discuss'the results of the examinations. Those individuals who clearly passed the oral and simulator.

examinations were identified.

There were no generic weaknesses noted for the oral examination. Three igeneric weaknesses related to the simulator examinations were identified:

(1)- Communications between operators were marginal; between operators and senior operators, it was consistently poor.

4 e (2) Operators, when reducing to two Reactor Coolant Pumps, do not. split the loads between' alternate busses, e

p .. =. .-

i 3,:

m (3) Operators did_not always. check'for secondary verification of valve

- positioning and turbine tripping.

.1nel Malf un:.ticn Iride pros ide by the' f acility for use in preparing simulator? scenarios contained a significant number of errors. The facility

~

staff was informed:that it is not_ acceptable in its current-form for future submittals where.information on simulator capabilities is requested.

- The support of the Oconee Simulator Training Staff:and cooperation given to

' the examiners by both training and operations-staff (during oral exami-nation) were also noted and appreciated, i=

I e

{

4

,