ML20128A314
| ML20128A314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1993 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302020187 | |
| Download: ML20128A314 (3) | |
Text
.. _. _
1 JAf/ 2 71333
[
i Docket No. 50-295 Docket No. 50-304 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. L. O.
DolGeorge, Vico president Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Services Executivo Towers West III 1400 Opus place, Suite 300 Downers Grovo, IL 60515
Dear Mr. DolGoorgo:
This letter addressos_the major points in your October 27, 1992 responso to our concerns in the area of initial license operator, training.
The specific issues were addressed in my August 31, 1992 letter which transmitted Examination Report 50-295/OL-92-02.
t We agree with your plans to restructuro the initial licenso training (ILT) program sequence to reduce the time betwoon cortification and the NRC examination.
This restructuring Will also provido a more formal process for candidates' studios and improve your exam review documentation.
We also support your interest in early validation of test scenarios and encourage the same for job performance measures.
On the matter of EOP usage, we agree that a " cookbook" approach was a mischaractorization of the candidatos' performanco.
We clarified our concern at the October 20, 1992, mooting by describing the candidatos as unaware of current or impending plant conditions while methodically _ proceeding with the emergency-procedures,-thoroby unnecessarily delaying desired mitigating actions.
This observed weakness is not part of_the concern t
regarding the lack of crew intoraction as described in your letter.
Our review of your ILT program confirmod-the self identified' lack' of emphasis on crow dynamics as well as other training program
-deficiencies that wo believo also contributed to the simulator failures.
Deficiencios in the ILT program included:
1.
Use of roqualification program simulator scenarios for candidate cortification which woro not, designed to moot the NRC licenso examination minimum requiroments in:torms of:
typos and numbers of component failures and events.
9302020187 930127 f ()'
Qf4
v.
Commonwealth Edison Company 2
JAN 2 7 BG3 Also, the use of training scenarios that lacked sufficient complexity in terms of multiple and simultaneous failures requiring prioritization, and in depth use of emergency procedures.
2.
Absence of instructor foodback to individual candida+es with respect to their simulator performance strengths and weaknesSos.
3.
Remediation and rooxamination of candidates who failed cortification was limited to the specific area of weakness rather than a comprohansive review.
4.
Belief on the part of candidatos that their performance on the NRU simulator examination was dictated by some protocol that precluded a cooperative joint effort.
Regarding Item 4.,
we noto the NRC's expectation is that.each candidato for an operator license will demonstrate, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.45, that they are able to function within the control room team; observo and safely control tho' operating characteristics of the facility; and perform control manipulations required to obtain desired operating results during normal, abnormal, and omorgency situations.
In accordance with NUREG 1021, NRC simulator examinations are preceded by an NRC oxaminor briefing to the candidatos.
Candidatos are advised to perform as if they are operating the actual plant, and a failure to respond, silence, or inaction on the part of an operator is viewed by the NRC as tacit approvcl of ongoing crew actions whethor they are right or wrong.
Team work and communications-are critically important.
From our review of these issues at the December 9, 1992 meeting with Messrs. Donny Farrar and Tom Joyce, we are aware that your program staff has begun corrective actions to preclude recurrenca of those problems.
We expect to follow the resultw of these actions during future examinations.
With regards to the use of persons who are_not license candidates as supporting crew members, we are considering accepting only those who have a curront NRC license.
4 A final matter raised by your staff at the October 20th meeting was the complexity of NRC simulator scenarios used at the July' Zion examination.
After reviewing all scenarios used in-Region III at PWR's for the past two years, we concluded that, l
1 s-
Commonwealth Edison Company 3
although challenging and above averago in complexity, the Zion aconarios were not unlike many others administered at other Region III facilities.
These scenarios are consistent with agency objectives of testing a wide range of emergency operating proceduroa.
Your state-of-the-art simulator has facilitated our ability to achiovo this goal.
We reaffirmed these conclusions with Messrs. Joyce and Farrar on December 9, 1992.
If ;rou have any further questions please contact Bruce Burgess at 790-5575 or Thomas Burdick at 790-5566.
Original signed by T. O. Martin T.
O.
Martin, Acting Director Division of Roactor Safety cc:
R. Tuotken, Sito Vica President T. Kovach, Nuclear Licensing Manager T. Joyce, Station Manager S.
Kaplan, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor D.
Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory Services Manager DCJ/DCB (RIDS)
OC/LFDCB Resident Inspectors. Byron, Praidwood, Zion Richard llubbard J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division Mayor, City of Zion Chandu Patel, LPM, NRR Robert Newmann, Offico of Public Counsel, State of Illinois Center Robert M.
Thompson, Administrator Wisconsin Division of Emergency Government State Liaison Officer RIII s RI RIIIe RIII 10
/ ^
-Q f),W{,e/
I ff Burdick/tb/cg ght arb r Martin 01/26/93 01/25/93 01/g,/93 01/g?/93
-.. _. _ _ _..