IR 05000219/1993017
| ML20149D352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1993 |
| From: | Conte R, Walker T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149D346 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-93-17OL, NUDOCS 9309210013 | |
| Download: ML20149D352 (14) | |
Text
. _.
.
'
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMISSION REGION 1 OYSTER CREEK REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION
. EPORT NO:
50-219/93-17 R
i FACILITY DOCKET NO: 50-219 FACILITY LICENSE NO: DPR-16 LICENSEE:
GPU Nuclear Corporation P.O. Box 388 Forked River, NJ 08731
,
FACILITY:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station r
EXAMINATION DATES: August 10-12, 1993 EXAMINERS:
Tracy E. Walker, Sr. Operations Engineer Arthur L. Burritt, Operations Engineer
C. Tyner, NRC Consultant (EG&G)
!//
9!/V!f3 CHIEF EXAMINER:
Tracy INValker, Sr. Operations Engineer Date BWR Section, Operations Branch
'
Division of Reactor Safety
/
_f APPROVED BY:
.
+#
'"
r Richard J. Conte, pief Date BWR Section, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 9309210013 930915 PDR ADOCK 05000219
-
-.
.
..
.
'
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION EXAMINATION REIORT NO. 50-219/93-17 Requali5 cation examinations were administered to 7 reactor operators (ROs) and 9 senior i
reactor operators (SROs). The 16 licensed operators were divided into three crews. All sixteen licensed operators passed all portions of the examination that they were administered, and all three crews performed satisfactorily in the simulator. The results of the requalification examinations indicate a satisfactory requalification program at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Use of the Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP)
support procedures was noted as a generic strength. Development of simulator scenarios was determined to be a program weakness. An unresolved item related to evaluation of the
<
operations training programs was closed.
-
.
t
.
I
.
t
--
.
-
---
.
_
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.0 INTRODUCTION During the week of August 9,1993, the NRC staff administered requalification examinations to 16 licensed operators (7 ROs and 9 SROs). The examiners used the process and criteria j
described in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 7.
'
An entrance meeting was held on July 26,1993. The examination materials were reviewed and validated by a team of licensee and NRC examiners during the week of July 26,1993.
An exit meeting was conducted on August 13, 1993. Attachment I lists the examination
team members and those in attendance at the entrance and exit meetings.
2.0 SUMMARY OF EXAMINATION RFSULTS AND PROGRAM i
FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS 2.1 Requalification Individual Examination Results NRC GRADING OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION l
RO SRO TOTAL Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Written 7/0 7/0 14/0
,
Simulator 7/0 9/0 16/0
Walk-through 7/0 7/0 14/0 Overall 7/0 9/0 16/0 Seven ROs and 7 SROs took the entire examinations. Two SROs participated in the simulator portion only as part of their normal crew.
.-.
.
. -
-
-
?
'
.
'
,
FACILITY GRADING OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION i
RO SRO TOTAL Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail
Written 7/0 7/0 14/0
,
Simulator 7/0 9/0 16/0
,
Walk-through 7/0 7/0 14/0
.
Overall 7/0 9/0 16/0 t
GPU Nuclear Oyster Creek Operations Training Biennial Exam Report, attached, provided the facility licensee examination results. The licensee perspective on the examination results is consistent with that contained in the NRC report.
Based on both the NRC and facility grading, all three crews passed the simulator portion of the requalification examination.
,
2.2 Facility Generic Strengths and Weaknesses Based on Individual Operator
'
Performance on Requalification Examinations Strengths
- Use of EOP support procedures
- Anticipation of plant response during dynamic simulator scenarios Weaknesses
- Delays in initiation of torus cooling with heat input to the torus i
- Venting the drywell with an isolation signal present (JPM 223.02)
- Knowledge of the effect of a total loss of 125 VDC on electric plant breakers (Question 0127)
i l
i
. _ - -
.
.
- Understanding of the effect of rapid depressurization on indicated RPV water level (Question 0354)
3.0 REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALU.ATION RESULTS, FINDINGS AND
>
CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Examiner Standards Evaluation Criteria and Results Using the criteria of ES-601, " Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations,"
the program evaluation is as follows:
D.2.a.(1)
At least 75% of the licenses must pass all parts of the examination in which they participate.
The pass rate was 100% (16 out of 16) for all parts of the examination.
D.2.a.(2)
At least two thirds of the crews pass the simulator examination.
All three crews passed the simulator examination.
The results of the licensed operator requalification program review were satisfactory.
3.2 Requalification Examination Development and Administration The Sample Plan that was provided with the examinations materials was detailed and j
complete. The Test Outline for the examinations adhered closely to the Sample Plan. The f
l only modifications that had to be made to the Test Outline were done to cover low power operations on the operating portion of the examination.
Minor revisions and several substitutions were made to the proposed written examinations to increase the level of knowledge being evaluated and improve distractors. The written examination test items did not include estimated times, and some test items did not include references.
The proposed Job Performance Measures (JPMs) required minor changes to provide more detailed performance standards. Several of the proposed JPMs were replaced with JPMs that i
provided a better evaluation of the operators' knowledge and ability. The JPM bank contained the minimum number of JPMs specified in the Examiners Standards, and there were very few shutdown and low power tasks.
The dynamic simulator scenario bank did not provide a comprehensive evaluation of the operating crew's integrated plant knowledge and ability to safely operate the plant. The
.
scenarios did not contain simultaneous events that challenged the SRO's ability to prioritize actions and effectively direct crew operations. The severity level and types of events and
-
.-
-
_
_
.--
.
.
transients were not varied across the bank, and most events were slow moving transients.
Abnormal events prior to the major transient were limited, and there were very few malfunctions that occurred after EOP entry. There was very little concurrent EOP usage beyond monitoring of parameters. For example, none of the scenarios contained an event that would cause the safety valves to open, which would have required concurrent actions in the RPV Control and Primary Containment Control EOPs. Many of the identified critical tasks did not meet the Examiners Standards criteria for critical tasks for safety significance and measurable performance standards. The five scenarios that were used for the examinations were modified to meet the minimum guidelines for qualitative attributes defined in the Examiners Standards. The scenarios also required revisions to the objectives, operator actions, and termination points to meet the qualitative guidelines in the Examiners Standards.
Development of dynamic simulator scenarios was determined to be a program weakness.
in general, the administration of the examinations was smooth and as planned. One critical task was not observed because of a simulator fidelity problem, and one scenario had to be revised because it did not run as expected. The facility evaluators did not always observe i
operator actions on back panels, and the noise level in the simulator detracted from the evaluation process. A key that was normally in the keylock switch in the simulator was removed for performance of one JPM because the key is not normally in the switch in the Control Room. Operator difficulty in obtaining the correct key contributed to the generic weakness observed in venting the drywell with an isolation signal present.
,
,
3.3 Conclusions
The licensee's licensed operator requalification program was determined to be satisfactory.
'
The Sample Plan, Test Outline, written examination test items, and JPMs that were proposed for the examination required only minor revisions. However, development of dynamic simulator scenarios was determined to be a program weakness. Administration of the examinations was generally smooth.
4.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION (Closed) Unresolved Item (219/90-80-04): Deficiencies noted in the area of program evaluation were considered a program weakness. During a training program inspection in 1990, the inspectors noted that the individual methods for evaluating the operations iminir.g programs appeared to be adequate, but there was no systematic method used to U.tegrate the results into an overall evaluation of tiie program. They also noted that the admirJstrative procedures and the implementation of the evaluation tools did not ensure that a thorough, ongoing evaluation of training effectiveness was performed and that appropriate corrective actions were identified and implemented.
The licensee committed to perform integrated evaluations of the operator training / grams j
in 1991 and 1992. The inspector reviewed the results of these and other training piogram
.
- _
.
-
_. -.. _ - -
-
-
-
.-.
.. -
-
-. _.
.
.
evaluations. The inspector also reviewed administrative procedures and discussed the processes used for program evaluation with licensee personnel.
,
Administrative Procedure 6200-ADM-2682.01, " Training System Development," (TSD)
specifies a combination of continuous evaluation efforts and periodic (at least every four years) comprehensive reviews to evaluate training quality. The training department conducts annual program reviews of different depths based on their INPO accreditation schedule.
Every two years an INPO evaluation or a " mock" INPO evaluation is performed. Quality i
Assurance also performs an annual training audit. The Training Department uses a Project Tracking System (PTS) to track action items, including recommendations from program l
evaluations that have been accepted for implementation.
t
Operations training management determined that the Trainee Reaction Forms (TRFs) that
'
were being used to solicit operator feedback were not providing much useful information.
They plan to revise the TRF to make it a more useful evaluation tool. In the interim, trainee feedback is obtained from crew discussions led by the Group Shift Supervisor (GSS) and
Group Operating Supervisor (GOS) at the end of each training week. Feedback and action items from these meetings and other sources are tracked in the Operator Training Action Tracking System (OTATS).
6200- ADM-2682.01 directs evaluation of training effectiveness after trainees have returned to their jobs. For the continuing training programs (requalification), this is accomplished by
,
periodically soliciting input from the trainees and their supervision on the task lists. The
'
results of the licensed operator annual operating tests are also reviewed for generic problems as an evaluation of training program effectiveness.
i A technical review and interface process is used to maintain training current. Operations
'
'
interface meetings are held approximately every six weeks. Attendees include Operations management, training management, and the Operations Training Coordinator.
,
f The methods used by the licensee for evaluation of the operations training programs are in excess of the minimal guidelines provided in the TSD procedure. Corrective actions are being identified and tracked, and the Training Development Coordinator trends the results of evaluations. The unresolved item related to evaluation of the operations training programs is
considered closed based on these fm' dings (219/90-80-04).
5.0 EXIT MEETING
.
An exit meeting was conducted on August 13, 1993. Personnel attending are listed in
,
Attachment 1. The NRC presented results of the examinations and discussed examination related findings. Use of the plant specific simulator for an upcoming EOP inspection was
!
also discussed.
.
.,e_
, -.,
,
m
.-- -.-..
-
.
.
-
.
-
,
i
,
.
ATTACIIMENT 1 PERSONS CONTACTED
,
GPU Nuclear Corporation S. Levin, Director, Operations and Maintenance (1,3)
P. Scallon, Manager, Plant Operations (1,3)
J. Kowalski, Manager, Plant Training (1,3)
G. Cropper, Operations Training Manager (3)
,
H. Tritt, Lead Instructor (2,3)
C. Silvers, Simulator Instructor (2,3)
G. Young, Operations Instructor (1,2,3)
S. Sowell, Simulator Instructor (1,2)
B. Havens, Operations Instructor (2)
J. Sims, Operations Training Coordinator (1,2,3)
!
J. Bartleson, Training Development Coordinator B. DeMerchant, Licensing Engineer (1,3)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L. Bettenhausen, Chief, Operations Branch, DRS (3)
T. Walker, Sr. Operations Engineer (1,2,3)
A. Burritt, Operations Engineer (1,2,3)
D. Vito, Sr. Resident Inspector (1,3)
S. Pindale, Resident Inspector (1)
C. Tyner, Examiner (EG&G) (1,2)
1) Attended entrance meeting, July 26,1993 2) Examination team member 3) Attended exit meeting, August 13, 1993 l
'
1
.
ATTACIIMENT 2
SIMULATOR FACILITY REPORT l
Facility Licensee: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Facility Docket No: 50-219 Operating Tests Administered from August 10-12, 1993
'
This form is to used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit of inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information that may be used in l
future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
l While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were
<
observed (if none, so state):
ITEM DESCRIPTION Torus Level With an unisolable leak with a leak rate much greater than the capacity of the Core Spray system makeup, torus level increased rather than decreased.
Noise Level Ambient noir,e level in the simulator was very high. This require /, the evaluators to stand close to the operators when discuss.ons were being held.
Keys A key that is not normally left in a keylock switch in the Control Room was in the switch for performance of one of the JPMs until identified and corrected by the NRC.
l
l
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. l).
mNb
,
.
.
GPU NUCLEAR OYSTER CREEK OPERATIONS TRAINING BIENNIAL EXAM REPORT Examination Dates:
August 10 - 12, 1993 Examination Team Oyster Creek:
J.
J.
Sims - Operations Training Coordinator C.
J.
P.
Young - Requal Program Coordinator S.
M.
Sowell - Simulator Training Instructor H.
G.
Tritt - Lead Instructor B.
Havens - Contractor P.
F.
Scallon - Manager Plant Operations NRC:
T.
Walker - NRC Lead Examiner A.
Burritt - NRC C.
Tyner - Contractor Submitted:
/Mar.
8[76[ O G. P. Yourigh Redjhal Program Coordinator i
H.
G. TriEt,~///
EYN Reviewed:
,
.
Lead Instructor
^
M' ! *
Reviewed:
- W-N.'L. BouldfaYe, Lefd Instructor Approved:
/
%W-
/G.
W. Cfo%per, Operations Training Manager
/W o d 7/[I
'
Concurred:
'
,J D.'Kowalski, Manager Plant Training
P.
F.
~
3 M
Concurred:
~Scallon, Manager Plant Operati'ons'
-
.
.
- -
.
- -.-
.
. -
.
.S:
.
.,
.
EXAMINATION SUMMARY
,
Written and operating examinations were administered under the
,
cognizance of the NRC to seven (7) Reactor Operators and seven.(7)
-Senior Reactor Operators.
These operators were divided into three
(3) crews; two (2) operating crews and one (1) staff crew.
The i
examinations were graded concurrently by the NRC and GPUN.
All three (3)
crews (16 individuals) performed satisfactorily during the simulator examination and no individual crew member.
'
required remediation.
All' fourteen operators passed both the JPM j
walkthroughs and the written examination. Two (2) operators failed i
a single JPM as evaluated by.the NRC.
Three (3) operators failed'
a single JPM as evaluated by GPUN.
i Oyster Creek's.. Licensed Operator Requalification Program was-
,
'
determined by the NRC and GPUN to be satisfactory based on.the criteria established in E.S.
602 of NuReg 1021,' Revision 7.
i
!
I i
e i
<
t
_, _ _. _
-
...
__
-.
.
..
, _,...
_,,
.
-
,
.
.
.
.... ~. - - -. -
.
.
i
.
j
.
.
i i
I
'
INTRODUCTION I
On June 21, 1993, all the Biennial Requalification Exam reference materials, including the sample plan, were delivered.to the NRC l
Regional Office.
i On July 8, 1993, the test outline and the proposed exam were sent to the NRC Regional Office.
On July 26, 1993, an exam entrance meeting was conducted by the NRC l
at Oyster Creek.
The NRC stated that during the week of August 9, 1993, they will observe
.GPUN administer the Biennial
Requalification Exam to 14 individuals at Oyster Creek.
Two (2) of
the three (3) crews and 75% of the individuals must pass the exam.
After the entrance meeting the NRC exam team met with the GPUN exam
.
team to validate the written, JPM and Dynamic Simulator exam
'
materials.
The validation was completed on July 27th.
On August 2, 1993, the revised exam was sent to the NRC Regional Office.
On August 5, six (6) test questions and one (1) JPM were revised as requested by the NRC.
'
On August 10, 1993, the written exam was administered to all 14-l
';
participants.
On August 10 and 11, the dynamic simulator exams
)
were conducted for all three (3) crews (16 individuals). On August 12, the JPMs were administered to all 14 participants.
On August 13, 1993,.an exit meeting was conducted by the NRC at Oyster Creek.
]
i NRC EXAM TEAM GPUN EXAM TEAM
.
T.
Walker - Lead Examiner J.
Sims - Lead Examiner A.
Burritt B. Havens C.
Tyner C.
Silvers S.
Sowell i
H.
Tritt G.
Young
- -
-
.
.
.
__
-.
-.. -. -.
-
-
.
..
. - - -
...... - -.
...---
- - -. -..
_
a c -
!
!
!
EXAM RESULTS
The following is a summary of the 14 individual licensed operator i
examination results:
!
'
OPERATORS PASS / FAIL PASS / FAIL PASS / FAIL WRITTEN 7/0 7/0 14/0 SIMULATOR 7/0 9/0 16/0 i
i JPMs 7/0 7/0 14/0
{
OVERALL 7/0 7/0 14/0
{
!
!
l GPUN EXAMINED RO SRO TOTAL OPERATORS PASS / FAIL PASS / FAIL PASS / FAIL i
WRITTEN 7/0 7/0 14/0
!
i SIMULATOR 7/0 9/0 16/0 j
JPMs 7/0 7/0 14/0 f
OVERALL 7/0 7/0 14/0
.
All crews passed and all individuals passed all portions.
Written - All individuals passed.
!
!
Dynamics - All cts performed, no individual needed remediation,
,
JPMs - All individuals passed. Two (2) individual operators failed a single JPM as evaluated by the NRC.
Three (3)
individual
operators failed a single JPM as evaluated by GPUN.
~
l
!
...
-
-
-
-
-.
.-
-
.
,
.-
!
..
,
,
,
EXAM PREPARATION l
The following items were noted about GPUN's exam preparation-process:
-
Good detailed Sample Plan and Test Outline.
Could be
'
made more self-explanatory.
!
-
Good cooperation and coordination with NRC exam team.
l t
i The following items were noted and incorporated into the
administered exam as discovered by the NRC/GPUN exam preparation l
process:
!
l
-
JPM Standards were improved by adding detail to the
actions required by the operator.
-
Dynamic Simulator Scenario difficulty was increased by j
placing ABN required actions at the beginning of the
scenario and adding more malfunctions during the
.i scenario.
!
-
Written test items were revised to orient questions more toward required operator actions.
!
-
All support information for each written test items was reviewed in detail to provide all required links to
.
references, tasks, objectives and lesson plans.
The following Strengths, Areas for Improvement and Weaknesses will
'
be labeled " Preliminary" until all the required participants have completed the Biennial Requalification Exam.
At that time a
!
follow-up exam analysis and corrective actions will be available
,
for NRC review.
'
i
.
!
,
.
i
)
i
$
-
_
=
,.
.
.
.
~
...
-
.. - -.
..
.-
~.. -. ~.
. -.
,
.
-
PRELIMINARY GENERIC STRENGTHS i
.
l
-
'EOP Support Procedures
.
-
During Dynamic Simulator Transients; Anticipation of plant
,
response was timely and well communicated to the' crew.
l
-
Effective cooperation contributed to a very smooth overall process.
Good all-around exam.
Good performance.
-
Good team backup / checking
.
PRELIMINARY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
-
Examining Techniques: JPM techniques were " rusty" for both.
.
evaluators and operators.
'
-
Ensure the conditions are the same in the Simulator and the Control Room (key placement).
-
Dynamic Simulator; Floor Evaluators must cover back panels to observe all operator actions.
-
Simulator Fidelity; Performed well, however, the steady state
background noise level was a concern (a known ' deficiency i
i previously documented).
i
-
Written Exam; Minor revisions, used some substitute questions.
'
Orient questions to solicit required operator actions vs.
setpoint identification.
-
JPMs; Minor changes in performance standards, substituted some JPMs to better evaluate tasks.
-
Dynamic Scenarios; Bank did not meet malfunction numerical guidelines in standard.
Prioritization of actions were
,
simplistic and occurred in series vs. in parallel, short on
'
malfunctions before and after EOP entry, short on Tet'hnical Specifications exercised.
!
PRELIMINARY OPERATOR GENERIC WEAKNESSES
-
JPM; Venting the drywell during accident conditions.
-
Written Exam; Function of 125V DC to 4160V and 4 6,V breakers.
)
.
-
Written Exam; Effect of rapid depressurization on level l
instrumentation.
-
Written Exam; Reactor Operator understanding of what constitutes a Primary System.
'
i l.
l
'
i m...
.