ML20236Q448
| ML20236Q448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 11/04/1987 |
| From: | Hasse R, Hopkins J, Phillips M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236Q439 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-87-29, 50-265-87-29, CAL-RIII-86-07, CAL-RIII-86-7, NUDOCS 8711200041 | |
| Download: ML20236Q448 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000254/1987029
Text
m
a
.:
.
.
.!
U. Si NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' REGION III-
' Reports No. 50-254/87029(DRS);No.50-265/87029(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265
Licenses No. DPR-29; No. DPR-30
Licensee:- Commonwealth Edison Company
P. 0. Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
JFacility Name: ' Quad Cities l Nuclear' Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
Inspection At: Cordova,: Illinois
,
Inspection Conducted: October 19-21,'1987
h
yh/f7.
. Inspectors:
R. A. Hasse
Date
"h//7
J. A. Hopkins
Date
~
Approved By:
M. P. Phillips, Chief
//[f/M
.
Operational Programs Section
Date
'
Inspection Summary-
Inspection on October 19-21, 1987 (Reports No. 50-254/87029(DRS);
No. 50-265/87029(DRS))
Areas Inspected:
Special~ announced safety inspection to determine if the
conditions of the Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) CAL-RIII-86-007,
Amendment 1,. dated November 14, 1986, has been properly implemented and to
- followup on previous NRC inspection findings in this area.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
hok
Soo$K $
4
G
m
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
,,
_ - _ - . - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
W
,
'
.
..
.>
-
,
'
'
-DETAILS.
p
~ 1. -
Persons Contacted
l
Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco)
- R. Bax, Station; Manager
- R. Robey, Services Superintendent
.
- R. Hopkins, Quality Assurance Engineer.
,.'
M. Kooi, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
'*J. Neal, Training Supervisor
M.' Miller, Quality Assurance Inspector-
q
-*M. Rodts, Training Instructor
i
'U.S. NRC
1
-A. Morrongiello, Resident Inspector
i
Other personnel were. contacted as a matter of routine during the
j
inspection.
]
1
- Denotes those attending. exit interview'on October 21, 1987.
l
2.
Followup on previous l'nspection Findings
(Closed): Unresolved Item (254/86019-01; 265/86020-01):
Conducting
j
Licensed 0perator requalification lectures during one two week period
"each year rather than continuously throughout the license period.
. Region III (RIII) requested an interpretation from the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation (NRR).to clarify the intent of 10 CFR 55 concerning
requalification lectures that were administered in " blocks."
In a
j
memorandum to RIII dated August 13, 1987, NRR explained that " block"
j
lecture training for requalification programs was acceptable if the
1
-program content was based on an evaluation of performance on written
examinations, facility' operating experience, and personnel performance.
Further, the memorandum stated that a requalification program which is
accredited and based on a Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) may elect
to continue " block" lecture training.
.The licensee's current requalification lecture training cycle consists
of six sessions.of four days scheduled throughout the calendar year.
The inspectors believe that this schedule meets the intent of
.10 CFR 55.59(c)(2) which requires preplanned lectures on a regular and
continuing basis.
3.
Licensed Operator Requalification
a.
Purpose
The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the licensee had
I
implemented the commitments documented in the Confirmatory Action
Letter (CAL) CAL-RIII-86-007,datedNovember 10, 1986, and Amendment 1
l
2
_ - _
_ - _ _ _ _ _
._
,
.
.
.
,
'
of the CAL, dated November 14, 1986. The CAL was issued as a result
of the 58% failure rate on the NRC requalification examinations
administered during the weeks of September 15 and October 13, 1986.
The CAL detailed additional control room staffing requirements,
. removed those operators who failed the NRC requalification exam from
licensed duties, gave a brief outline of the short-term upgrade
program, and required the implementation of a long term improvement
plan beginning in the next requalification training cycle.
b.
Inspection Results
(1) Part One of the CAL required that while in cold shutdown the
Quad Cities-Units 1 and 2 control room would be staffed with a
licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) as an advisor who had
passed either the NRC administered requalification exam or had
passed a NRC license examination since October 1, 1985. The
inspectors determined through interviews and a review of
training records and shift log books how the licensee selected
candidates for the SRO advisor position.
In order to meet
these restrictions the licensee conducted an audit of the
licensed operators' records to select a pool of. candidates.
The licensee wanted to keep a high level of experiense on-shift
and decided that since the SRO advisor would not be it a
decision making role, on-shift experience was not criti al.
1
The Shift Engineer (SE), while not necessarily meeting the
i
restrictions outlined in the CAL, would provide this experience.
The Station Operating and Training Review Board then approved
the candidates and assigned them as shift advisors in Cold
Shutdown.
The licensee removed the SR0 advisors from shift as soon as
SR0s who had passed the accelerated requalification program and
had been returned to licensed duties became available to act as
SEs.
The inspectors judged these actions to be in compliance with
the CAL with no further action required.
'
(2) Part Two of the CAL required that when in other than cold
I
shutdown the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 control room would be
staffed by a licensed SR0 and as a minimum, a licensed Reactor
Operator (RO) at the controls of each operating unit who met
the criteria of Part One of the CAL or had successfully
completed the short term upgrade program. The inspectors
b
determined through interviews and a review of training records
l
and shift log books how the licensee selected candidates for
!
the R0s at the controls of each unit. The licensee used the
process described above to select the SR0 advisors. The
licensee had adequate R0s routinely assigned to shift duties
who met the requirements of Part One of the CAL which obviated
the need to put inexperienced R0s on shift duty.
3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
.
.
.
The inspectors judged these actions to be in compliance with
the CAL with no further action required,
e
(3) Part Three of the CAL required the licensee to remove from
licensed duties those R0s and SR0s who failed the NRC
administered requalification examination until such time,that.
those individuals successfully completed the accelerated upgrade
training program. The inspectors determined through a review of
i
training records and shift log books that the licensed operators
were taken off-shift and successfully completed the upgrade
program. Ten licensed operators (four R0s and six SR0s)
failed the NRC requalification exams administered during the
weeks of September 15 and October 13, 1986. Those ten licensed
operators were removed from licensed duties and placed in the
Short-Term Operator Training Upgrade Program. Two of the
licensed operators had successfully completed the upgrade
training program by the end of December 1986, one completed the
program in January 1987, two completed the program in March 1987,
and five surrendered their NRC licenses. With the exception of
the SR0 discussed below, all licensed operators who successfully
completed the upgrade training, were returned to licensed duties
upon completion of the program.
One SRO who failed the NRC administered requalification exam
j
was placed on-shift as a Shift Foreman (SF), his normal
i
position, prior to successfully completing the accelerated
upgrade training program. The SF is required by Technical
Specification to hold a SR0 license but does not routinely
4
direct the licensed activities of a licensed operator.
j
However, the SF assumes the duties of the SE if the SE is
i
incapacitated.
j
'
j
The SRO in question failed both the written exam and operating
test administered by the NRC. Significant concerns from the
operating test were the SR0's unsatisfactory ability to direct
plant operations in a casualty while acting as the SE and his
i
failure to utilize Emergency Procedures.
[
,
'
The SR0 was placed in the first session of the accelerated
requalification program and passed the written exam but failed
the simulator operating test on December 19, 1986. The
simulator operating evaluation stated that his performance as
SE was not satisfactory. The SRO did not properly respond to
or investigate changing plant conditions, his communication and
supervisory abilities were unsatisfactory, and he failed to
refer to procedures when required. These were the same basic
reasons for his failure of the NRC requalification exam.
I
H
The licensee's Station Operation and Training Review Board
4
evaluated the SRO's performance to determine if he should be
4
returned to licensed duties. The Review Board determined that
a
the SRO's excellent past record in the control room made him
4
i
_
t
-__
_-__
'
s
i
'
N ;
.
^
acceptable to perform licensed duties until additional training
could be provided. The Review Board also'noted that he is not
,
assigned the duties of SE. The SRO was returned to, shift
n
. duties. as a SF on January 14,.1987. The SRO successfully
completed the simulator training _ on January 23, 1987.
'
The conclusions reached by the' Review Board did not fully
consider.the reasons for the SRO's failure of the NRC and
' licensees' operating examinations in terms of the SF's total-
1
. responsibilities'
In both cases the SRO failed to satisfactorily
l
.
direct plant operations in'a casualty while acting as SE. The
1
. Review Boards recommendation to return the SRO to licensed
duties in view of the fact that he is not assigned SE duties,
apparently did'not consider the fact that-the SF- automatically -
succeeds the SE in the event of the SE's incapacitation. . hile
W
the~ SRO. performing the duties of SF did not violate-the
requirements:of the. CAL, the licensee created a situation where
this could have occurred.
It appears that the Review Board's
evaluation was superficial by applying past control room
experience'for a position that did not perform licensed duties
as justification to allowed the SRO to be returned to licensed
duties.
The inspectors judged these actions to be in compliance with
the CAL. With the exception of a thorough licensee review of.
this concern, no further action is required.
(4) Part Fo'ur of the CAL required the licensee to implement an
-accelerated requalification program for all licensed operators
who had not passed one of the recent NRC administered
requalification exams or passed a NRC license exam since
October 1, 1985. The inspectors determined through a review
of training records, interviews, lesson plan reviews, and
simulator scenarios, that the licensee had implemented the
accelerated requalification program. The program consisted of
three weeks of classroom training and one week of simulator
training with the program's major emphasis in the following
I
areas:
E0P Theory and Usage (QGA)
Selected Normal Procedures (QAP, QOP, QRP)
General Integrated Procedures (QGP)
Technical Specifications (T.S.) and Bases
Selected Abnormal Procedures (QOA)
Reactor Theory and Thermodynamics
Selected Plant Systems
The licensee used three weeks of classroom lectures to address
some of the areas of major emphasis in the upgrade program.
Below is a list of the topics covered in the lecture series:
1
5
.
. . .
_ _ _ _ _
___
-_- __
,
,
a
Week One
Thermodynamics Review
Reactor Theory Review
'
Selected Plant Systems and Procedure Synopsis
Weekly Quiz
Week Two
Selected Plant Systems and Procedure Synopsis
Weekly Quiz
Week Three
Technical Specifications
Selected Abnormal Procedures (Q0A)
E0P Theory and Usage (QGA)
General Integrated Procedures (QGP)
Selected Administration Procedures (QAP)
Radiation Protection (QRP)
Weekly Quiz
The fourth week of the accelerated requalification program was
simulator training. This training was conducted using the
Dresden Station simulator, which is not Quad Cities plant
specific. The simulator training consisted of two hours of
classroom lecture and six hour simulator sessions for three days
followed by a four to six hour evaluation on the fourth day.
The control room crew in the simulator consisted of two SR0s
(a SE and a Shift Technical Advisor (STA)) and two R0s (a reactor
operator, and an extra Nuclear Station Operator (NS0)).
Each
simulator session typically consisted of four different
scenarios. Below is a list of the scenarios used during the
upgrade program:
]
Day One
Classroom
Introduction to Problem Solving Algorithms
Introduction to E0P Flowcharts
Preview of scenarios
Simulator
System Familiarization /Small Leak in Drywell
Plant Startup (with malfunctions)
Loss of Offsite Power / Plant Shutdown (with malfunctions)
Plant Casualty Response familiarization (observation only)
l
6
- _ _ - - -
-
_
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
.
.
Day Two
,
Classroom
Simulator session critique
Interrelating Flowcharts and Procedures
Preview of scenarios
Simulator
.
q
High Conductivity
Steam Cooling
Loss of both Control Rod Drive (CRD) Pumps /ATWS (with
,
malfunctions)
Loss of Normal and Emergency Feedwater (with malfunctions)
Turbine Trip /ATWS
-
I
Day Three
Classroom
Simulator session critique
Interrelating Flowcharts and Procedures
Preview of scenarios
4
Simulator
Large LOCA (with malfunctions)
Spray Cooling (with malfunctions)
MSIV Closure /ATWS (with malfunctions)
ATWS Requiring Emergency Depressurization
Day Four
'
The fourth day of simulator training was a four to six hour
i
evaluation of the licensed operators. The evaluation was
l
performed by independent General Electric (GE) instructors from
I
the Dresden Simulator Training Center. The licensed operators
'
were evaluated in nine categories:
Control Board Awareness
Event Diagnosis
Immediate Actions
,
Subsequent Actions
'
Console Manipulations
j
Use of Procedures / Reference Data /T.S.
.
'
Communications
Supervisory Ability
i
Team Work
j
Each licensed operator evaluation was reviewed by the Dresden
Station management and categorized in one of two ways:
7
- _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - _ _
-_
j .
<
.
.
'
'(1)
' Released to full licensed duties.
(ii) Removal from licensed duties until all training
recommendations are complete.
The licensee has 64 licensed operators (R0s and SR0s). Three
of the SR0s are Fuel Handling Foremen with' limited license and
were exempt from the upgrade program. .All licensed operators
had successfully. completed the upgrade program.
The inspectors judged these actions to be in compliance with
the-CAL'with no further action required.
-(5):'Part Five of the CAL required the licensee to implement a long.
term requalification program improvement plan at.the beginning
of the next requalification training cycle.
The inspectors
determined through interviews, a review of training records,
and a review'of the 1987 and 1988 training schedules that the
improvement program was adequate. The five point program to
enhance the requalification program is' outlined in the
following paragraphs:
(a) Increase Training Staff-from 16 to 23.
The licensee has hired three maintenance and two operations
instructors to increase the Training Department staffing
to 21. The licensee plans to extend employment offers to
'
one operations and one technical instructor by December 1987.
(b) Lengthen Requalification Classroom Training from eight to
3.
22 days.
The licensee has expanded the classroom training to
six sessions of four days in each requalification cycle.
The program, which. coincides with the calendar year,
schedules the first four sessions consecutively followed
by a ten week break for vacations, simulator training,
" walk-through" oral exams, and any required remedial
training. The final two sessions are followed by a
six week period for record review by the Training
Department.
The Requalification Training program operates on'a two year
cycle with a review day and an annual written exam
administered during the fourth session.
Each week consists
of a review of the previous week's quiz, lectures on
j
selected systems and procedures, theory review, and a
weekly quiz.
l
(c) Lengthen Requalification Simulator Training from three to
I
five days.
1
i
8
i
-
i
. . . . .. .. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
The licensee completed five days of simulator training
during the 1987 requalification cycle. The simulator
q
training consisted of two hours in the classroom and
]
six hoprs on .the simulator during each session. The
ulations outlined in
simulator. sessions included the manigRequalification
- Attachment A of Ceco Topical Report
Program for Licensed Operators, Senior Operators, and
Senior Operators (Limited), " February 10, 1987, recent
' industry related events, areas identified as weak in
previous exam evaluations, and suggestions from.the
simulator training staff.
I:
The 1988 simulator training is scheduled for two
'!
four day sessions.
!
(d) Modify Training to Increase Depth of Procedure Knowledge.
1
ll
The licensee has. implemented a four point program to
.
increase the depth of procedure knowledge as outlined
below:
.
.]
l
(1)
Incorporate procedure synopsis in all systems
1
training.
(ii) Review Emergency Procedures (QEPs) with GESP training
twice each year.
(iii) Conduct E0P (QGA) classroom exercises to familiarize
q
the operators with using the E0Ps and Flow Charts.
(iv) Schedule the Procedural required reading to coincide
with the systems taught in requalification training.
(e) Upgrade E0P-(QGA) Training and _ Procedures with Flow Charts
j-
and Increased Practical Applications.
-l
The licensee developed a pilot program to familiarize the
i
'
operators with the E0Ps and Flow Charts. The program
consisted of an oral " walk-through" of casualty scenarios
to place the plant in a safe condition with emphasis placed
on entry conditions of various QGA procedure blocks, the
basis of principal steps within the QGAs, and guidance on
what parameters are important to observe.
,
The licensee has incorporated this pilot program into
the requalification program as described above
(Paragraph 3.b(5)(d)).
The inspectors determined the above actions satisfied the
licensee's commitments identified in the CAL with no
,
further action required.
l
t
9
!
6 .
. .
.. .
- .
- - . -
-
, . .
,
.
4.
Exit Interview
The inspectors held an exit interview with licensee representatives
I
(denoted in Paragraph 1) and summarized the purpose, scope, and findings
The licensee stated that the likely informational
of the inspection.
content of the report would contain no proprietary information.
l
1
i:
il
10
l,
!
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .