IR 05000213/1993020
| ML20059K531 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1993 |
| From: | Bissett P, Meyer G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059K504 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-213-93-20, NUDOCS 9311160088 | |
| Download: ML20059K531 (8) | |
Text
_,
,
,
'
.
>
,
..
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_
REGION I
,
. DOCKET NO:
50-213-l i
. REPORT NO:
93-20
LICENSEE:
Northeast Utilities
.;
FACILITY:
Haddam Neck
'
DATES:
October 4-8,1993
..
-1 INSPECTORS:
P. Bissett - Senior Operations Engineer K. Ihnen - Operations Engineer
]
.
!73 LEAD INSPECTOR:
ef
.i P. Bissett, Sr. Operations Engineer
'Date'
f PWR Section, Operations Branch
- !
Division of Reactor Safety
'
>
APPROVED BY:
IM be Ibk3
.
glenn'WP Meyer, Chief Dlte2 (/PWR Section, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
,
!
l
-
.l
'9311160088:931104
'
PDR -ADOCK 05000213 V
PDR-
.
__
.
>
l i
-
,
i INSPECTION SUMMARY: Inspection conducted October 4-8,1993 (Inspection Report No.'
'50-213/93-20)
q An announced safety inspection of the licensed operator requalification training program was
- l performed to ascertain whether the facility (Northeast Utilities) was effectively performing those activities necessary to evaluate and ensure an adquate level of competency for licensed operators who operate the Haddam Neck facility.
. [
The inspection included a review of the requalification examination that was administered to four licensed operators who made up one operating crew. The requalification examination was comprised of a written examination and an operating examination, which entailed a simulator segment and a job performance measures (JPMs) segment.~ The composition of the examination effectively assessed the competency of the licensed operators in the continued.
safe operation of the plant. Each segment of the examination was sufficiently challenging so
,
as to represent a valid evaluation tool in the examination process. It was noted, following
completion of the examination, that all four licensed operators satisfactorily pas: ? I all
'
segments of the examinaticn. In addition to the review and observation of the administered requalifict. tion examination, the inspectors also reviewed the appropriate programmatic aspects of the licensed operator requalification training (LORT) program. This review
,
included a review of previously-administered examinations, the results thereof, and the
remedial actions taken for any unsatisfactory performance, if applicable. The inspectors found the LORT program to be well established, correctly implemented, and well managed
~
with sufficient management oversight, both from an operations and training standpoint.
In summary, it was determined that the Haddam Neck requalification training program was being effectively implemented in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59 for e
J those areas reviewed. No violations or unresolved items were identified.
t
!
>
b I
,
!
,
-
t
!
<.
i
.#
DETAILS
'
1.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
An NRC Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/117, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program
.
Evaluation," had been developed because of proposed rulemaking that would delete the
!
requirement that the NRC staff examine each licensed opemtor for the purpose of license
'
renewal. The purpose of this inspection was to evaluate the acceptability of Northeast Utilities' (NU) licensed operator requalification training programs through a performance-
,
based inspection in the areas of operator evaluation process and, to some extent, NU's
,
subsequent program revision, if necessary, as a result of this evaluation process. This was
,
done in lieu of an NRC staff requalification examination oflicensed operators, which had been used to perform a requalification program evaluation.
!
The inspection involved many of the aspects normally associated with NRC staff administered requalification examinations. This included a review of the written examination
[
and operating tests from the Haddam Neck licensed operator requalification examination. It also included the observation of crew / individual performance during the conduct of simulator scenarios and job performance measures. Not ordinarily involved in the requalification examination process was the conduct of interviews with licensed operators, training
instructors and supervisory personnel. Associated documents involved with the ongoing
training program were also reviewed.
3.0 INSPECTION DETAILS
,
3.1 Simulator Requalification Examination
,
The inspectors observed the dynamic simulator requalification examinations and subsequent evaluations for an operating crew and concluded that this part of the examination was
,
effectively implemented in assessing the proficiency of the licensed operators. Two reactor operators (ROs) and two senior reactor operators (SROs) were examined as a crew during the conduct of two scenarios. Rotation of the ROs as board operators was observed;
~j whereas, the SROs remained in the same position for both scenarios. At the completion of
>
each scenario, operations and training evaluators reviewed the crew actions and documented
the results for both crew and individual evaluations using appropriate documentation sheets
'
for simulator evaluations. NU's administrative process specified the completion of
performance worksheets for individual and crew evaluations, which are completed by. the lead evaluator at the completion of each scenario or scenaric set. After the completion of the
,
scenario set, the crew was briefed on their performance by the evaluation team. This briefing was observed by the inspectors and was found to be complete, succinct and to the.
i point. The inspectors' informal grading of the crew's performance paralleled that of the
'
NU's evaluation team. Observed weaknesses and strengths were discussed by NU
-
representatives with the licensed operators, along with management expectations for all
situations covered.
-j
1 a
,
l
.
-
r..
!
.
Following a review of the scenarios to be used during the examination, the inspectors
.
concluded that the. scenarios were an excellent tool for measuring the competency of a crew and the individuals that made up the crew. The NRC inspectors found the scenarios to be challenging and to meet the quantitative and qualitative attributes specified in ES-604, Attachment 3. No crew critical tasks were missed by the crew during the performance of these two scenarios and all individuals passed the dynamic simulator portion of the -
examination. Minor weaknesses were identified by the evaluators, with communications among the crew, being the most significant. Management reemphasized the importance of
,
closing the communications loop in all instances and the need for formalization of repeatbacks.
,
Following the dynamic simulator examination, the inspectors reviewed the licensee evaluations of crew performance and noted that NU's evaluators adequately assessed the performance of the crew and associated individuals. Comments on c ew and individual performance were detailed and provided a complete summary of the performance of the
individuals in the examination. Management involvement in the examination process was evident, as the examinations were observed by the senior training and operations department managers. Also, the operations manager served as the lead evaluator for the dynamic
"
simulator examinations.
No simulator fidelity issues were identified by the NRC inspectors during the observations of the two scenarios.
3.2 Job Performance Measures (JPMs) Requalification Examination
'
The NRC inspectors observed the evaluation and performance of the JPM portion of the examination and concluded that this area of the examination was an adequate test for evaluating the performance and knowledge skills of an operator, both in the simulator and in the plant at Haddam Neck. Five job performance measures (JPMs) were provided for evaluating two reactor operators and two senior reactor operators. Four of the five JPMs were common for both the ROs and SROs. Three of the five JPMs were performed in the simulaer and the remaining two were performed in the plant at Haddam Neck. The inspectors reviewed the JPMs using Examiner Standards Form ES-603-1, " Job Performance Measure Quality Checklist," and found that all applicable quality attributes specified in ES-603 were met. One JPM was an alternate path JPM; however, none of the JPMs in the set were time-critical. Successful completion criteria for each JPM were specified, and included the following:
All critical steps completed;
,
All sequential steps completed in order; and, e
JPM completed within a validated time. (It is noted that completion time may exceed
the validated time if satisfactory progress is being made,)
>
..
r.
..
!
,
The evaluators adequately evaluated the JPM performance of each licensed operator in all instances observed by the inspectors. Following a review of completed JPM worksheets, weaknesses displayed by the licensed operators were adequately documented'isy the training.
department evaluators. Also, NRC inspector evaluations paralleled that of the training
,
department evaluators.
f 3.3 Written Requalification Examination The written portion of the requalification examination was reviewed by the inspectors and
-
'
was determined to be an adequate tool for testing the correlation between licensed operators'
job demands and test demands. Examiner Standards Form ES-602-1, "NRC Checklist for i
Open Reference Test Items," was used to evaluate the test items included in the examination
and all of the quality attributes were found to be appropriately implemented. Questions were i
at the comprehension level or higher, and an appropriate use of reference material for
~
evaluation of operator skills was evident. Test items were in accordance with the facility examination sample plan with a mix of subjects, theory, and practical skills. Both Part A and Part B of the written examination were conducted in the simulator; however, both parts l
were conducted as two distinct examinations. Both written examination segments met the
~t time constraints as specified in ES-602. In summary, preparation and conduct of the written.
requalification examination reflected a rigorous implementation of the related standards in j
this area.
3.4 -
Program Findings The inspectors concluded that the change in training program management to a unified company-wide approach represented NU's realization of the basic need for standardization between the four licensed operator requalification training departments located at the NU's '
,
training center. The licensed operator requalification program at Haddam Neck is now controlled by Nuclear Training Manual (NTM) 3.080, Northeast Utilities Licensed Operator
,
Requalification Training Program Implementing Procedure, Revision 0. This procedure,
'
recently developed, encompassed the requalification training programs for the four training departments (Millstone Units 1,2,3, and Connecticut Yankee) located at the Northeast
Utilities Training Center. Prior to the development of this procedure, each individual unit i
had their own distinctive training procedure, even though all four units existed under the same corporate training hierarchy. Each unit had interpreted.NRC rules, regulations and requirements differently and thus, each unit's procedure was different. For this inspection however, conduct of training activities was verified against the previously approved
'
procedure, NTM 3.004, " Connecticut Yankee Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program Implementing Procedure," Revision 8, which was in place at the time for the
,
majority of activities reviewed by the inspectors. The newly written procedure, for the most
}
part, paralleled the previously used unit procedure. The inspectors reviewed the procedure and performed checks of compliance of requalification training and evaluation with the procedural requirements. No problems were noted in this area of review.
'!
-_
_
-
-
.
,
!
The inspectors found the administration of requalification training to be implemented as r
specified in respective sections of the governing administrative procedures. The attendance of licensed operators at scheduled training was adequately controlled to ensure that all operators attend training sessions either as scheduled, or in makeup sessions. Makeup sessions were found to be completed either through attendance with other shift training cycles
-!
or self study, if deemed appropriate. Each training segment included a mix of classroom
'
lectures, simulator sessions, in-plant walkdowns, and independent study. Periodic quizzes and simulator performance evaluations were performed to ensure the level of training was adequate. The inspectors reviewed the content and results of a number of the interim quizzes and found the questions to be at the comprehension level or higher, traceable to learning objectives provided in the training, and appropriately graded and evaluated to ensure that training was effective. Poor performance on the interim quizzes was remediated by examination review or additional training, as appropriate.
>
I The inspectors found the operator / instructor feedback process in place to be an effective tool in not only improving the training process, but also improving the quality of training.
Operator feedback on training cffectiveness is a formal process, but this does not preclude an
';
individual from providing suggestions for improvement by any informal means. Many of the improvements to the training program over time were the result of operations and training department interaction and evaluation of completed training. Discussions with several licensed operators and a review of several monthly and yearly training assessment reports substantiated this cooperation between the two departments. Additionally, it was noted that the training department has demonstrated its desire to maintain a higher level of knowledge
of all licensed operators than may be required of them by 10 CFR 55.59a. An example of this philosophy is the future scheduled training plan that includes having operators know how
to draw one-line diagrams of various systems important to the continued safe operation of the
plant. Some resistance to this was exhibited by licensed operators, since they felt that this is
not considered to be a task necessary to maintain a proficiency in the area of plant operations. However, many training instructors had noticed over the past couple of years.
during various instructional training sessions, a diminishing level of knowledge of various safety-related systems or their interrelationship to other safety-related systems. The training department had determined that no longer requiring the operators to know how to draw the systems had resulted in a decrease in level of knowledge for certain systems; thus, the q
training department decided to institute corrective measures, which included the standard of
'
knowing how to draw, from memory, one-line diagrams of selected safety-related systems.
The inspectors determined, through interviews and reviews of administrative standards and applicable records, that an effective review of industry and plant-specific events was part of the regularly scheduled cycle training. The inspectors substantiated this determination _
through a review of the process by which the training department incorporates current industry events, plant specific events, and design modifications into classroom training and testing activities. Several lesson plans were reviewed by the inspectors in this regard.
Industry event training classes were held'during each training segment to discuss events at l
-
_ - _ _
.
,
other sites that could be relevant to operations at Haddam Neck. Also, discussions were held with both instmetors and licensed operators, who indicated that appropriate training, including subsequent testing material, was part of this process.
l The inspectors determined from their observation of the annual operating and written examination for the operating crew that adequate measures were taken in order to prevent any possibility of examination compromise. Appropriate procedural requirements were in place that emphasize the importance of examination integrity. During the inspectors review of this area, the NRC inspectors questioned whether contr-Is were in place that _would preclude the operators from practicing on an exam that would be administered as part of their -
annual examination. The training department personnel presented to the inspectors various matrices that tracked what could and could not be administered for practice. Also, matrices were utilized to ensure that, for retake examinations, previously administered exam material fell within mathematical guidelines for subsequent examinations.
The inspectors determined that acceptable monitoring controls were in place to evaluate'the degree to which past and present training has been successful. Progress review examinations were administered during weekly training sessions to evaluate not only the effectiveness of scheduled training, but also to evaluate the knowledge level of licensed operators. Results of these progress review examinations were documented on Performance Comment Summary Sheets. These forms were ultimately reviewed by the licensed operator requalification-training coordinator for determining future training subject areas as a result of identified generic weaknesses found throughout the week of training. A review of several of these documents by the inspectors revealed that one subject area of the form was not being adequately addressed. The inspectors' concern centered around the fact that the summary at.
the end of the form, which dealt with areas needing additional training or emphasis, was-often left blank, even though many weaknesses were documented elsewhere within the form.
The inspectors stated that additional training in the areas of previously identified weaknesses might not be scheduled if the form is not completed as intended. The training department representatives acknowledged the inspectors' concern and stated that appropriate corrective actions would be taken.
4.0 EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was held at the Northeast Utilitics Training Center on October 8,1993. The NRC reviewed the scope and results of the inspection. Those personnel in attendance are noted in paragraph,
_ _ - - _.
_
..
-
,
.. '
-
(,
' '...
-
y
5.0 Personnel Contacted Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Plant l
- B. Ruth Manager, NU Operations Training
!
- R. Heidecker Training Supervisor, Unit I N. Young Training Instructor
.,
'
M. Ewers Training Instructor
'
- M. Bray Acting Training Supervisor
,
- J. Deveau Training Instructor J. Rein Simulator Training Instructor M. Brothers Operations Manager K. Dingle Reactor Operator R. Willis Senior Reactor Operator W. Bausman Reactor Operator
!
Nuclear Reculatory Commission
.,
-
t
- P. Bissett Senior Operations Engineer / Examiner
,
- K. Ihnen Operations Engineer / Examiner W. Raymond
. Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
!
-!
-
!
'I
'i i
.
l
')
a