IR 05000029/1987004
| ML20214V229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1987 |
| From: | Collins S, Keller R, Norris B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214V201 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-029-87-04OL, 50-29-87-4OL, NUDOCS 8706120029 | |
| Download: ML20214V229 (9) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:a O' U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT
'
EXAMINATION REPORT NO.: 87-04 (OL) FACILITY DOCKET NO.: 50-029 FACILITY LICENSE NO.: DPR-3 LICENSEE: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 FACILITY: Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS) EXAMINATION DATES: April 27 - 29, 1987 CHIEF EXAMINER:
'BaWy . Norris T 19 wu
_ ~0 ate 'Y Y
-
React r Engineer (Examiner) REVIEWED BY: _ _ M2$/fg(7 Robert M. Keller, Chief DateV Projects Section 1C APPROVED BY: _,2Cf $470 _. . 5$3dS'i _ 3amuel J. Collins, Deputy Director Date Division of Reactor Projects , SUMMARY: Four. Reactor Operator (RO) candidates and two Senior Reacter Operator (SRO) candidates were examined during ' this . period; all of the R0 candidates received their licenses. One of the SRO candidates failed both the written and oral examinations, and the other failed the written examination onl The facility is not teaching integrated plant response / failure analysis except within the limited bounds of procedural discussions. This is evidenced by the poor performance of SRO Candidates on the Oral examinations and the - low averages on the procedures sections of the RO and SRO written examinations.
l -
$[[300!k V
f' !
.. - - - , . - . - _ . ~ , , , , . _ , . _ _ _ _ - , . . _ . - - - _ . . ,
. . - . - - .- __. -_ .- . . * .-
REPORT DETAILS
: TYPE OF EXAMS: Replacement EXAM RESULTS: ( - -
l R0 l SR0 l _ -l Pass / Fail 1 -Pass / Fail I
I I I i l Written Exam l 4/0 l- 0/2 I I I l l l l l l Oral Exam l 4/0 l 1/1 l l l 1 l l 1 I l , 1 Overall l 4/0 l 0/2 l l l 1 i CHIEF EXAMINER AT SITE: B. S. Norris, USNRC OTHER EXAMINERS: R. R. Temps, USNRC .
! Summary of generic deficiencies noted from grading ~ of written exams:
i This information is being provided to document areas of minor weakness in the licensee's training program which should aid the licensee in upgrading ' license and requalification training program Reactor Operator Candidates
!
Question N ! ! 2.01 Could not explain why the Feedwater Control Valve would
- lock in place on a loss of Control Air.
l 2.09 Did not know of the normal vent path for venting of the l reactor vessel head during maintenance.
. ( 4.01 Were not aware of all of the required actions when the l Actual Critical Position is outside of the bounds estab-lished by the Estimated Critical Position calculatio .05 Did not know that the Shift Supervisor must approve any deviation from Technical Specifications, t
- 4.10 Did not know who could authorize emergency exposure in i excess of 5 Re .-. ,_ ._ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - . _ _ - . _ _ _ __
. . . .. - . _ . ~ . . ;.
Question N .11 Did not know the criteria for resetting of the . Safety Injection signal following an unisolable faulted steam generato Senior Reactor Operator Candidates Question N .02 Were unable to calculate or discuss the transient Start-Up Rate as experienced when rods are still moving.
5.07 Were unable to calculate how much Tavg would have to in-crease to lift the ' first steam generator safety valve.
- 5.10 Were unable to calculate the changes to Tavg and steam generator pressure if one Non-Return valve were to go shut while at powe .08 Were unable to draw an complete diagram of the different sources of electrical power to No. 1 Vital Bu .05 Comment on 4.11 also applies to the SR0 Candidate .08 Were ur.able to list the four Immediate Actions for a de-creasing Spent Fuel Pit leve .09 Did not know the basis for the system parameters as main-tained at the Safe Shutdown System cubicle; additionally, the Candidates could not identify the four curves on the Allowable P-T Limits as provided to the .10 Did not know the three automatic actions that occur on a loss of No. 1 Vital-Bus.
l 8.02 Were unaware of who is specifically prohibited from being in charge of the Fire Brigade.
l 8.08 Were unable to determine if surveillance intervals were within the required time frames to maintain equipment in an operable statu .11 Were unable to determine if a calibration should be allowed on the power range instruments when one instrument was
already placed out-of-service.
i . j
._ _ ., _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . ,. _ ... . __ _ . __ ~ . _ . _ . . - . _ - _ . . ._
. . , . < ,.
4 Summary of generic deficiencies noted from grading of the oral examina-tions: This information is being provided to document areas of minor weakness in , the licensee's training program which should aid the licensee in upgrading license and requalification training programs.
4 Five of the six Candidates did not understand the concept of "poten-tial for contamination" when exiting from the controlled area.
, The R0 Candidates were unable to explain the reason for a reactor scram on a loss of control ai The R0 Candidates were unable to locate the procedure to be used in t the event of an alarm condition on the Main Steam Line Radiation monito The SRO Candidates did not' use the main control board -indications or the available procedures to determine the cause of a reactor scra The SRO Candidates were unable to recommend which areas should be , evacuated when presented with a steam generator tube rupture coinci-dent with a stuck open steam generator safety valve.
i Personnel present at Exit Meeting: NRC Personnel B. S. Norris - Reactor Engineer (Examiner) R. R. Temps - Reactor Engineer (Examiner) H. Eichenhol; - Senior Resident Inspector (SRI), YNPS Facility Personnel N. N. St. Laurent - Plant Superintendent K. E. Jurentkuff - Plant Operations Manager T. Henderson - Technical Director C. R. Clark - Training Manager E. Chatfield - Training Manager (outgoing) L. J. Laffond - Senior Instructor
- Summary of comments made at Exit Meeting
- The NRC discussed the generic deficiencies as noted on the oral examinations; details are found . Item 2 abov ,
-.-m ,-,., , , . ,--m -
w - --r-, , , . - - y , ------m, _. - . - - - - , - - - -
-
,-%m,,r,-.,e- ,.-m----m.,- y-
. . -_ -. . - - . . - * - .
5 The NRC noted that during one of the examinations, there was an ap-parent' relief of the Shift Supervisor (SS) by an individual who was not part of the on-shift cre AP-2002, Operations Department Personnel Shift Relief, states in part that "A Shift Supervisor be-fore assuming the responsibility of relieving the watch shall be
"
cognizant of current plant status ... Contrary to the above, the on-shift SS told the incoming individual that he [on-shift] had to use the bathroom and that he [ incoming] had it [the watch]. A shift relief was not required since AP-2009, Control Room Area Limits for Control- Room Operators and Senior Licensed Operators allows the SRO to be in a position where he is in audible range of the control room annunciators but not necessarily in line of sight of the operators; the bathroom is in an area adjacent to the control room. The SRI and the facility were notified.
> The facility stated that the condition was discussed with the ~indi-viduals involved. The determination was that a shift relief had not been intended nor had a actual shift relief taken place; the individ-uals were counselled on the requirements of AP-200 The SRI will monitor shift relief practices and protocol on a routine basis, The NRC stated that th9 SS and Senior Control Room Operator (SCRO) are not exercising adequate control over the personnel who enter the immediate area surrounding the Operators and the control board Numerous personnel were observed walking between the Operators and the control boards without asking permission and without having any obvious reason for being in the are The facility stated that they would re-emphasize to the shift the necessity for the Control Room to be a place of business and not a location for gatherin This item in conjunction with Item B above are examples of the facil-
-ity's lack of formality and professionalism in the control roo This will be tracked by the SRI as Unresolved Item No. 87-04-0 YNPS Technical Specifications, paragraph 6.8.4, states, in part, that " Temporary changes to procedures of 6.8.1 may be made ..."; paragraph '
6.8.1 states, in part, that " Written procedures shall be established
.. . that meet or exceed the requirements of Section .. 5.3 of ANSI N18.7-1976 and Appendix "A" of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2 . . .";
ANSI N18.7-1976, paragraph 5.3.4.3, and Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revis-ion 2, Appendix "A", paragraph 2.f, both require procedures for load changing operations. AP-0001, Plant Procedures, paragraph III.B. states that " Temporary changes may be made to AP's and OP's proviold i
, . ,
-, . - , , - - - - - - - , ,cem
, , - - , , - - - -, , = - ~ ,
* .
..
that: (1) The intent of the procedure is not changed and, (2) The change is approved by two members of the plant management staff, at least one of whom holds a Senior Reactor Operator License and, (3) The change is documented, reviewed by PORC and approved by the Plant Superintendent within fourteen days of implementation."
The NRC stated that an instance was found where a Special Order (87-18, dated 2/11/87) was issued which effectively removed a pre-caution from OP-2107, Changing Generator Load. Per discussion with the SRI, this is a recurring proble The facility stated that they would review their procedures and prac-tices to ensure that they were in fact in compliance with their Tech-nical Specifications and procedure This will be tracked by the SRI as Unresolved Item No. 87-04-0 e. The NRC stated that the SCR0 is being trained to leave the Control Room, even if the SS is not in the Control Room, and become the Fire Brigade Team Leader. This is contained within procedure AP-2009, paragraph 5, which states, in part, that "A . .. SRO shall be present in the control room in Modes 1-4 .. . The only exception to the above requirement would be when the SR0 in the control room is the SCR0 and in his judgement he must respond to a plant fire, or alarm, when he is the fire brigade leade In this case, the SS shall immediately proceed to the control room when notified of the situation." This is in direct conflict with 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iii) which requires a per-son holding an SRO license to be in the Control Room at all time The facility stated that they would review the appropriate procedures and ensure that they are in compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(m).
This will be tracked by the SRI as Unresolved Item No. 87-04-0 f. The NRC noted that the YNPS Technical Specifications are not in com-pliance with 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(1) which delineates the minimum shift manning requirements; specifically, the Technical Specifications only require one SR0 licensed individual to be on shift while 10 CFR re-quires two SR0s. However, AP-2002, Operations Department Personnel Shift Relief does require two SR0s and two R0s to be on shift during modes 1-4; which is in compliance with 10 CFR 50.54(m).
The facility was aware of the requirement and stated that they were under the impression that the NRC would change the Technical Specifi-cations for the The NRC informed the facility that they had to request the change. The facility further stated that they had a tracking system for Technical Specification change . . . _ _ _
- 9 . . ,
-
The SRI will follow this item to ensure that the corrective action is effective in that all regulatory requirements are incorporated into the YNPS Technical Specifications. This will be tracked as Unre-solved Item No. 87-04-0 The NRC noted that all of the Nuclear Instrumentation is power from the same Vital Circui The facility stated that an Engineering Design. Change Request had already been approved to install new nuclear instrumentation and split the power supplies during the Cycle 20 refuelin The NRC followed-up on three items from earlier inspections:
(1) Item 50-29/86-03-01 stated in part "The facility training mate-rial does not define ... the extent or depth of knowledge for which the trainces are held responsible..."
, The facility has defined the Job Task Analysir 'm each position and has also defined the Enabling Objective each lesson
pla Item 50-29/86-03-01 is considered close (2) Item 50-29/86-03-02 stated in part "There is no indication in , the training material that integrated plant responses are " taught..." The facility has taken no action to correct this identified deficiency. The facility is still not teaching integrated plant response / failure analysis except within the limited bounds of procedural discussion This is not acceptable to the NRC in that the information is not being transmitted successfully to - the candidates / operators; this is evidenced by the poor perform-ance of SR0 Candidates on the Oral examinations and the low averages on the procedures sections of the written examinations (Section 4.0 of the R0 examination, Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of the SRO examination).
On further discussions with the facility, they agreed to incor-porate discussions on component failure analysis and integrated plant response into the lesson plans and the Systems Training Manuals. The facility committed to have made significant pro-gress towards this goal by January 1, 1988. Item 50-29/86-03-02 is to remain ope (3) A commitment was made in Report 50-29/86-07 to have all system descriptions completed by March, 1987. During preparation for the examinations, it was determined that all of the system descriptions had been completed. This concern is closed.
, s -e >- --
, , ,-n ,
, . -
_
. .. . *'.
The facility further stated that there is a procedure being developed to track changes to systems and procedures such that these changes can be incorporated in future revisions of the lesson plans. This system should be in place by January,198 . The Chief Examiner stated that the plant was one of the cleanest he had seen, from both a radiological standpoint and a housekeeping standpoin The facility stated that, with the exception of_a few questions, they thought the written examinations were well written and operationally oriente . Changes made to the <ritten examinations: Question N .02 Answer key corrected for math error in part (a), 1.04 Accepted 8-10 pcm/ ppm for boron concentratio .07 Accepted TK-1 for the DWST and TK-39 for the PWS .01 Deleted " manual" as part of required answer for part (a), per facility's revie .08 Changed answer on part (b) after review of the training material by the examiner .01 Point distribution adjusted on part (b) to agree with the questio .02 A discussion of the transient Start-Up Rate was accepted for part (a) since the required formula was not included on the Equation Shee The point distribution on part (b) was adjusted after re-view by the examiner, the question only asked for HOW not WH .09 Accepted for part (b) an answer of Increase if the candi-dates stated an assumption that increased core life was synonymous with a decreased boron concentratio .02 Same change as 4.08 abov _ - - ,
* . ,
Question N .04 This question was delete Due to a computer malfunction, the question was not printed on the final examination; total points for Section 7.0 were adjusted to 2 The deletion of the points would not have changed the pass / fail determination of the SRO Candidate .07 The answer for part (d) was inserted after review by the facilit .04 The reference was inserted after review by the facilit .11 The question and answer were handwritten during the admin-istration of the examination. Due to a computer malfunc-i tion on the final form of the examination, only part of the question was printe . During the written examination review, the facility stated that a question should not be asked if a Knowledge and Abilities (K&A) or Enabling Objec-tive (E0) could not be referenced.
! The Chief Examiner reminded the facility that during the meeting on the new Part 55 the previous week, the same question was raised. The explana-tion was that the NRC woula attempt to always reference at least one K&A or one E0; but that the examiners were not limited by that requirement if ' they felt that the concept was important, and the Section Chief approved the questio Attachment 1: R0 Written Examination and Answer Key Attachment 2: SR0 Written Examination and Answer Key ,
-r. - + v .. .- ,. --< - 7, - , . , , - , . , , - ~ - . -, - - - , .- . - - . , , , _ -
, , -
}}