ML20245J556
| ML20245J556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1989 |
| From: | Bettendorf T, Bielby M, Graves D, Jordan M, Morgan M, Muth J, Orton R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245J551 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-OL-89-01, 50-373-OL-89-1, 50-374-OL-89-01, 50-374-OL-89-1, NUDOCS 8908180068 | |
| Download: ML20245J556 (6) | |
Text
m:
O.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Reports No.-50-373; 50-374/ OL-89-01 Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company LaSalle County Nuclear Station Harseilles, IL 61341 Facility Name: LaSalle County Nuclear Station Examination Administered At: LaSalle County Nuclear Station Examination Conducted: June 19-24, 1989 k
k/ff Examiner:
D. Graves Date h
f /J1 M. Bielby.
t J. Muth QG 8 /(7 J
Date M. Morgan
/
t7 T.Bettendorfg/[
[
$[!f 7 Date fn T[!f 7 R. Orton 5'
Date S /f,[h Chief Examiner:
D. Grave Date 7 / !Y7 Approved By:
M. Jordan f
Date 8908180068 890802 PDR ADOCK 05000373 V
l..
e*
Examination Sunrnary Examination administered on June 19-24, 1989 (Report No. OL-89-01))
Written, oral and simulator replacement examinations were administered to nine.SRO and four R0 applicants.
Results:.All nine SRO and four R0 applicants passed these examinations.
-Ho generic training weaknesses were noted during administration of the examination. Two simulator modeling infidelities were identified (Attachment 2) 2
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Examiners D. Graves, Chief Examiner M. Bielby l
J. Muth i
M. Morgan
~
T. Bettendorf R. Orton 2.
Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the examinations, an exit meeting was held. The following personnel attended:
i Facility Representatives G. Diederich, Station Manager W. Huntington, Strvices Superintendent J. Renwick, Production Superintendent J. Schmeltz, Assistant Superintendent Operations J. Walkington, Services Director J. Shaffer, Training Supervisor D. Sheldon, Training US NRC Representatives M. Bielby, Operator Licensing Examiner E. Rau, Operator Licensing B. Wetzel, Operator Licensing The following items were discussed:
a.
No generic training weaknesses were noted during administration of the examination.
It was noted that although the applicants could adequately answer questions on the site tagging procedure, they were unfamiliar with the procedure. This specific weakness was attributed to implementation of a significant revision on June 10, 1989.
b.
It was also noted that training manuals located in the control room were uncontrolled documents.
c.
Modeling infidelities of the simulators were noted per Enclosure 4.
3.
Examination Review Specific facility comments concerning written examination questions, followed by the NRC response are enumerated in Enclosure 2.
3
ENCLOSURE 2 NRC RESPONSE TO FACILITY COMMENTS ON THE R0 WRITTEN EXAMINATION ADMINISTERED JUNE 19, 1989 Comment:
Question 2.05 Answer 1 should be revised to accept "close drive water pressure control valve" vice "open drive water pressure control valve." Per system designed operation, closing the drive water pressure control valve will increase drive water pressure.
Reference:
LaSalle System Description Chapter 8, page 8.
Response: Comment accepted. Answer key revised.
Comment:
Question 3.16 No credit should be subtracted for answers that include a Group III isolation. Group III (Reactor Process Sample Valves) will also isolate on Main Steam Line High Rad 4
conditions.
I
Reference:
LOP-PC-03, pages 7 and 12.
Response: Comment accepted. Auswer key revised.
Comment:
I Question 3.18 Answer kay should be revised to accept all answers which imply that the ground resistance has increased, or that a system ground has been removed.
Response: Comment accepted. Answer key revised.
1 Comment:
Question 4.02 Answer key should be revised to accept d as the only correct answer. As Keff approaches 1, the time that it takes to achieve a steady state neutron population for a given reactivity addition increases.
Response
Comment accepted. Answer key modified.
l 1
Reference:
General Electric BWR Academic Series Reactor Theory.
l
-(
. (cont) l l
Comment:
i Questions 6.36 Answer c is incorrect, the Shift Foreman is the Fire Brigade Chief. Answer key should be revised to accept answers b and or d.
The A-mechanics do respond to a fire but technically are members of station fire company, not the fire brigade.
Response: Comment accepted, questions deleted (two correct answers).
Comment:
Question 6.37 Answer key should be revised to cccept answer c or d.
The answer to the question does not me.tch the choice in the questions (i.e. answer key states Shift Engineer, question states person in management). Per LAP 1600-10, if an individual is unable to transfer the call to the Shift Engineer, the correct action is to find out as much as possible. Depending upon how the candidate interpreted management, answer c or d could be correct.
' Response: Comment accepted, question deleted (two correct answers).
I i
2
g.
a 4 4
l
,1.-
ENCLOSURE 4 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: LaSalle County Nuclear Station Facility Licensee Docket Ho. 50-373, 50-374 Operating Tests Administered At: Braidwood Training Center (LaSalle Simulator)
During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed :
ITEM DESCRIPTION (1). Modeling (1). During Scenario 3-1, Loss of RBCCW, Recire Pump high temperature alarm was received immediately but CRT displayed temperatures below the alarm setpoint. The backpanel recorder indications were not verified. Applicants chose to believe the CRT rather than responding to the alarm.
(2) Modeling (2) During Scenario 2-1, Gross Fuel Element Failure with MSL "A" Failure to Isolate, RCIC Room Ventilation was lost and room temperature rapidly increased approximately 100 f in 10 minutes.
According to plant operators 20-30 F per hour would be more realistic. The increased room temperatures gave high area temperature alarms and caused one candidate to initially mis-diagnose the event as a steam leak.
,