ML20154Q150
| ML20154Q150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1998 |
| From: | Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Franz J IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT |
| References | |
| 50-331-98-301OL, NUDOCS 9810230153 | |
| Download: ML20154Q150 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000331/1998301
Text
_
_
- _ _ _
_
__
_
_
. _ __
._
_
_ _ _
__
.
'$
October 16, 1998
- Mr. John F. Franz, Jr.
Vice President, Nuclear
Alliant Tower
200 First Street SE
P. O. Box 351
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0351
SUBJECT:
EXAMINATION WEAKNESSES (NRC INSPECTION REPORT
50-331/98301(OL))
Dear Mr. Franz.
i
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 21,1998, in response to our letter
dated August 21,1998, transmitting Examination Weaknesses associated with the above
mentioned inspection report at the Duane Arnold Energy Center. We have reviewed your
corrective actions and have no further questions at this time. These corrective actions will be
examined during future inspections.
in reference to your last comment, we agree with your comment that a decision to scram does
not constitute a weakness, rather it may be a conservative action to a degrading plant condition.
However, in this case, the candidate was not down graded because he took a conservative
action, but that he failed to follow approved emergency operating procedures (EOP) when
ample time was available. The procedure in question was EOP 3, " Secondary Containment
Control," whereby the candidate was given Max Normal radiation conditions that did not warrant
a plant shutdown. In fact, the emergency procedure directed him to verify no system discharge
into the affected rooms, continue to monitor the radiation levels, and when the same two
parameters exceeded the Max Safe limits to initiate a controlled reactor shutdown, not a reactor
scram at high power. With indications of a possible fuel-clad leak, an unnecessany and
significant mechanical transient, such as a reactor scram, could cause additional (extensive)
fuel failure. Therefore, the performance of a reactor scram, in this case, was not the most
conservative action. His actions could have potentially caused additional fuel damage
(degraded the plant) due to the unnecessary mechanical transient.
Sincerely,
s/S. A. Reynolds
John A. Grobe, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Docket No.:
50-331
License No.: DPR-49
)
,n4o
.outu
,h-
See Attached Distribution
l
DOCUMENT NAME: G:DRS\\DUA98301.WPD
r. c.w . ..n om. ooem m.i. m e. w v . em um anmuw*mie v = cm wm hhow. Y a No ,a
OFFICE
Rill
('
Rlll
Al Rlli
Jl tl
Rill
l
,
NAME
Peterson:ipM
Leach it/Af /c,
A mtr/x # h /r b h
Grobe / _ - -
f
f
DATE
10/l4/98 Wf
10/#/98
8
10/14/98
/'
10//#98
'
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
9810230153 981016
ADOCK 05000331
V
a
- . _
.- -
..
. . . .
- . .
. - .
-
__
-
,.
{
'-
J. Franz
2
!
cc:
E. Protsch, Executive Vice President
Energy Delivery Atliant;
President, IES Utilities, Inc.
G. Van Middlesworth, Plant Manager
j
K. Peveler Manager, Regulatoy Performance
Chairperson, Iowa Utilities Board
Distribution:
RPC (E-Mail)
Project Mgr., NRR
J. Caldwell, Rill
C. Pederson, Rll!
B. Clayton, Rlli
,
SRI Duane Arnold
.
DRS-
RlliPRR
PUBLIC IE-42
Docket File
GREENS
LEO (E-Mail)
DOCDESK (E-Mail)
M. Bies
.
_
_
.
_
.
_
._ _
-
,
=i.
' '
N,
4
i
21 A L LI A N T
'
emi UTILITIES
IEs unime. i e.
i
IES Utilities
Duane Arnold Energy Center
32U DAEC Road
Palo. IA 52324-9785
OfEce: 319.851.7611
Fax: 319.851.7986
September 21,1998
~
~ ' ' ' ' "
- NG-98-1611
.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Attn: Document Control Desk
Mail Station 0-PI-17
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Subject:
Duane Arnold Energy Center
DocketNo: 50-331
Op. License No: DPR-49
Reply to Weaknesses Identified in Inspection Report 98-301(OL)
Reference:
NRC Inspection Report No.98-301(OL)
File:
A-102
Dear Sir:
This letter and attachment are provided, as requested, in response to the weaknesses
contained in the above referenced inspection report relating to the hdtial Operator
License examinations conducted at the Duane Arnold Energy Center in July 1998.
This letter contains no new commitments.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact my office.
Sincerely,
,
.
John F. Franz -
Vice President, Nuclear
/
~I
Attachment
cc:
R. Murrell
E. Protsch
j
D. Wilson
'
R. Laufer (NRC-NRR)
J. Caldwell(Region III)
l.
NRC Resident Office
DOCU
SEP 2 8 2
- W 6T73
hp._
..m_.
. _ _ _ _ ___.. _ __ .. . _ _ _ .. _ _ . . _ _ . . .
. _ _
. _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
.
4
'
Attachment to
s
NG-98-1611
Page 1 of 2
Reply to Weaknesses
,
Identified in Inspection Report 98-301(OL)
The Duane Amold Energy Center is continuing to review the weaknesses outlined in
Inspection Report 98-301(OL) conceming the initial operator license examination
conducted in July,1998. The weaknesses identified will be used as feedback into the
licensed operator training program in accordance with our Systematic' Approach to
~
Training process. Preliminary reviews of the results of the initial operator license
examinations have determined that improvement opportumties currently exist in the areas
of examination development and candidate preparation.
Concerning examination development, there is room for improvement in the development
of written examination questions, job performance measures, and simulator scenarios.
4
These improvements in the examinations are needed to assure the appropriate level of
,
difficulty, improve the ability to discriminate between competent and less than competent
candidates, and conform with the guidance contained in NUREG 1021, Interim Rev. 8. A
contributor to weaknesses in examination development was our staff's n-wness to the
examination development process and the complexity of the timelines associated with
Attending the May,1998, NRC Region III Examination Writers
Workshop was helpful, but not an adequate substitute for experience with this process.
Additionally, the selection of some Improved Technical Specification questions for the
written examination was inappropriate. Specifically, some of the examples selected were
at a complexity level that may have required an operator to obtain further consultations
(e.g. Licensing support) prior to making the appropriate determinations.
'
With regard to candidate preparation, it has been determined that the candidates may not
have been exposed to NRC style high level written examination questions early enough in
the program to assure appropriate readiness for the written examination.
Corrective actions for these two areas and the inspection report identified weaknesses will
be determined after completion of the review of the examination weaknesses in
,
accordance with our Systematic Approach to Trainmg process, review of initial operator
license class lessons teamed, and other activities as appropriate. These actions are
expected to be completed by December 15,1998.
- We would like to take this opportunity to comment on a specific statement contained in
the Inspection Report concerning a perceived weakness involving a candidate's
performance during the Dynamic Simulator Examination. Specifically, the report states,
"Some applicants displayed weaknesses in performing abnormal and emergency
operating procedures (EOPs). For example: (1) an SRO [ senior reactor operator]
,
e
.m. .
.
_
.
__
_ . _
!
. _ _
. _ -
..
- -
.
l
Attachment to
.
l .
NG-981611
Page 2 of 2
!
,
applicant decided to ccnservatively scram the reactor after only receiving Mar Normal
indications on two area radiation monitors, contrary to the EOP directions...". We
believe that inserting a manual scram, in response to degrading plant conditions, is based
on the SRO's or operator's judgment and that this candidate's decision to scram does not
constitute a weakness. The candidate's actions were consistent with our conservative
operating philosophy. Our existing Administrative Control Procedure,'ACP 1410.1,
" Conduct of Operations," Section 3.6, " Reactivity Control," supports this position by
stating: "All on-shift licensed Operators shall take action to reduce power or scram the
reactor ifnecessary to ensure safety ofthe reactor orpersonnel. "
!-
l
c