IR 05000244/1990014
| ML17262A247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1990 |
| From: | Eselgroth P, Brian Hughes NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17262A245 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244-90-14OL, NUDOCS 9011200145 | |
| Download: ML17262A247 (29) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OPERATOR LICENSING REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-244/90-14 (OL-RQ)
FACILITY DOCKET NO.
FACILITY LICENSE NO.
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
CHIEF EXAMINER:
50-244 DPR-18 Rochester Gas And Electric 89 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14696 Ginna Brian ughes, enior Operations Engineer Date APPROVED BY:
Peter Eselgroth, Chief PWR Section, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety F Po Date SUMMARY:
The licensed operator requalification training program was rated as satisfactory.
Written examinations and operating tests were administered to eight senior reactor operators (SRO's)
and four reactor operators (RO's).
The examinations were graded concurrently and independently by the NRC and the facility training staff.
As graded by the NRC, all individuals passed the simulator, and walk-through (JPM) examination.
One reactor operator and one senior reactor operator failed the written portion of the examination.
It is expected that the individuals who failed the written examination will receive remedial training in accordance with the Ginna training administrative procedures before performing further licensed duties.
These individuals will be reexamined by the NRC at a later date.
90ii200fg5 901109 PDR ADOCN, 05000244 V
PNU
DETAILS l.
Introduction and Overview An entrance meeting was held with Rochester Gas 5 Electric on August 2, 1990, in the Regional Office.
The purpose of the meeting was to brief the licensee on the requirements of the new requalification program evaluation and to review the proposed schedule for the requalification examinations.
The examination team made'
site visit the week of August 27, 1990, to review the facility prepared examination material.
The NRC team deter-mined the sample plan and the examination material to be adequate.
The sample plan was complete; the Job Performance Measures (JPMs)
and simulator scenarios were job-related, challenging, and up-to-date.
The written exams required a significant number of changes.
Written and operating requalification examinations were administered to eight Senior Reactor Operators (SRO)
and four Reactor Operators (RO).
These operators were divided into three crews.
Each crew consisted of two SROs and two ROs.
The e'xaminations were graded concurrently by the NRC and the facility training staff.
As graded by the NRC, two individuals failed their requalification examination, and ten individuals passed.
All crews passed.
The requali-fication program was determined to be satisfactory.
As graded by the facility, two individuals failed their requalification examination.
All crews passed.
There was 100% agreement in all pass/fail decisions.
The NRC team determined the facility evaluators to be satisfactory.
The NRC team appreciated the cooperation and professional courtesies extended to them by the licensee.
2.0 Individual Examination Results The following is a
summary of the individual examination results.
The NRC results were used for the program evaluation.
NRC I
RO I
SRO I
TOTAL Gradin Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Written 3/1 7/1 10/2 Simulator 4/0 8/0 12/0 Walk-Through 4/0 8/0 12/0 Overal
3/1 7/1 10/2 I
I I
Faci 1 ity
/
/
SRO (
TOTAL Gradin Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Wr itten 3/1 7/1 10/2 Simulator 4/0 8/0 12/0 Walk-Through 4/0 8/0 12/0 Over al 1 3/1 7/1 10/2 2. 1 Pro rammatic Stren ths and Weaknesses
'a
~
Pro rammatic Stren ths Good Sampling Plan, which identified the training objectives
- Adequate staffing for operator training In-depth JPNs Good examination security
b.
Pro rammatic Weaknesses
- The point values for the written exam did not follow the
"Examiner's Handbook For Developing Operator Licensing Written Examinations,"
NUREG/BR-0122 Rev.
5.
. - Crew communication was not consistent crew to crew.
- The time validation for the written exam was not accurate', it was approximately twenty percent in error.
The NRC exam team commented to the facili.ty,on eight (8) of the ten submitted JPMs.
These comments included deletion of questions covered on other JPMs, setting standards for answer acceptance, and clerical errors in the JPM.
- The facility had difficulty in identifying ISCTs.
- The facility identified the wrong procedure for classification of events.
EPIP-1 was the correct procedure, not SC-100.
2.2 0 erator Stren ths and Weaknesses The following were strengths and weaknesses observed with more than one candidate during the conduct of the examination.
2.2.1 0 eratin Examination a.
0 erator Stren ths Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure use Emergency Operating Procedure use
- Knowledge of EOP Entry conditions b.
0 erator Weaknesses
- Lack of consistency in communications between individuals, in particular, the staff operators.
- Lack of consistency in the control room command and control function.
2.2.2 Walk-throu h
a.
0 erator Stren ths Ability to implement procedures to accomplish JPMs.
b.
0 erator Weaknesses
- Ability to synchronize the main generator
- Knowledge of effects of fuel burnup on rod worth Ability to interpret P&IDs for isolation points 2.2.3 Written a.
~Stree tha
- In-depth knowledge of integrated systems.
b.
Weaknesses
- A significant number of last minute changes to the examination were required.
(RG&E Ltr 9/10/90)
This was due to an inadequate review of the questions by the facility staff.
3.0 Pro ram Evaluation Overall Rating:
SATISFACTORY The facility program for licensed operator requalification training was rated as SATISFACTORY in accordance with the criteria established in Examiner Standards (ES)-601, paragraphs C.3.b.(l), C.3b.(2),
D. 1.C(2)(c),
D.2.C(2)(b)
and D.3.C(2)(b).
a a
At least 75% of all operators who are administered the examination must pass all portions of the examination.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of the operators passed all portions of the examination.
b.
At least 75% of all operators must pass the written examination.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of the operators passed the written examination.
C.
The pass fail decision agreement between the NRC and facility grading of the written and operating examination shall be at least 90%
.
There was 100% agreement on the grading of the written and operating examinations.
A program may be judged UNSATISFACTORY if the NRC judges at least one crew unsatisfactory and the facility evaluators judge the same crew satisfactory.
There was 100% agreement on crew pass fail decisions.
A program may be judged UNSATISFACTORY if there is less than 90%
agreement between the NRC and facility on the individual pass/fail determinations for the simulator examination with the facility evaluating fewer individuals as unsatisfactory.
There was 100% agreement with the NRC grading of individual pass/
fail decisions.
If more than 1/3 of the crews are determined to be unsatisfactory by the NRC regardless of individual failures, the overall program shall be judged UNSATISFACTORY.
All crews were evaluated satisfactory.
The program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(2),
(3) and (4)
or is based on a systems approach to training.
As reported by the licensee, the licensee's program meets the
CFR 55.59 criteria.
The pass/fail deci sion agreement between the NRC and the facility grading of the walk-through shall be at least 90%.
There was 100% agreement on the grading of the walk-through portion of the examination.
At least 75% of all operators must pass the walk-through examination.
One hundred percent ( 100%) of the operators passed the walk-through examination.
The pass/fail decision agreement between the NRC and the facility grading of the written examination shall be at least 90%.
There was 100% agreement on grading the written examination.
Additionally, if three (3) or more of the following are applicable to a
requalification program, then that program shall be determined to be UNSATISFACTORY. If one (1) or (2) of the following are applicable, the program may be determined UNSATISFACTORY.
The same common JPM is missed by at least 50% of the operators.
No common JPM was missed by more than 50% of the operators.
The same question about the same common JPM is missed by at least 50%
of the operators.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of the operators missed a
common JPM question.
c.
The facility failed to train and evaluate operators in all positions permitted by their individual licenses.
The facility trained and evaluated operators as required.
d.
Failure to train operators for "in plant JPMs."
The facility trained operators for in plant JPMs.
e.
Less than 7S% of the operators correctly answered 80% of the common JPM questions.
Forty-two percent (42%) of the operators correctly answered greater than 80% of the common JPM questions.
f.
More than one facility evaluator is determined to be unsatisfactory in accordance with "Evaluation of Facility Evaluations" (ES-601).
All facility evaluators were found to be satisfactory The JPM questions missed were a significant weakness in the Ginna Operator Requalification program.
However, the NRC exam team concluded that overall~ the program was sound.
A major upgrade to Revision 6 was in progress and the operators performed satisfactorily both in the field and in the simulator.
In summary, the facility program met the program evaluation criteria of ES-601; therefore, the program has been rated as SATISFACTORY.
An exit meeting was conducted September 21, 1990, at the Ginna Training Center.
Personnel in attendance is noted on attachment 1.
Preliminary results of the Requalification prdgram evaluation and operator pass/fail decisions were discussed.
Attachments:
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Personnel contacted Requalification examination test items RG&E Letter dated October 23, 1990 Requalification results
Attachment
Robert Carroll
¹*
Frank Maciuska
¹*
Norman Meeker Terry White
¹"
Rober t Gal l o
¹ Peter Sena
¹ Peter Eselgroth
¹*
Arturo Lopez, Jr.~
Larry Sherfey
James Nickolaus Gary Meier
Robert Mecredy Oan Hudnut
Neil Perry Thomas Moslak Training Manager RG&E Supervisor, License Training 'G&E License Instructor RG&E EOP Coordinator
-
RG&E Chief, Operations Branch NRC Reactor Engineer NRC Chief, PWR Section NRC Chief Examiner NRC Examiner
~
PNL Examiner PNL Examiner PNL Department Manager RG&E Vice President RG&E Supervisor, Simulator Trng.
RG&E Resident Inspector NRC Senior Resident Inspector NRC
¹Indicates this individual attended the 60 day pre-exam meeting held at Region 1 on 8/2/90.
- Indicates this individual attended the 9/21/90 exit meeting held at the.
Ginna training building.
ATTACHMENT 2
',. qryZur I.;;P<l'",,",I
'~II/Led</Ea~";wzz ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
~ 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14649-0001 Nay
$ CRA
$ $ A$t TKKKPNONK ARKA COOK 7$ d 546.2700 September 10, 1990 Brian Hughes U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19446
Dear Brian:
We appreciate your constructive criticism of the proposed Ginna Requalification Exam.
As a result of our meeting, we have made a
significant number of changes to that exam.
I think our revised, proposed exam will both meet your requirements and result in a better examination.
Enclosed are:
1.
The revised, proposed 1990 Ginna Station Annual Requalification Exam.
2.
The proposed exam schedule.
3.
Completed exam security forms.
The following changes were made to the initial proposed exam:
l.
All written exam questions were compared to NUREG/BR-0122 recommendations:
Chanche uestion Affected Changed from multiple choice to short answer.
SS31.2 Responses reordered.
Number of responses changed.
SS31.13 SS31 19 I SS31
~ 20/
SS35
~ 3 I B004
~ 30 I B000.139, B103.1
y chanche Question reworded for better clarity.
Deleted due to insufficient number of credible distractors.
Answer changed to provide acceptable ranges and/or partial credit.
Deleted because guidelines not explicit.
uestion Affected SS31 21I B034 1I B008
~ 4 I BOOO ~ 45 g BOOO ~ 275 I B320
~ 42 g B005
~ 5, J001
~ 002Dg J076. 001G, J016. 002C/
J016
~ 002Dg J001 001Dg J000.039A, J000.023B SS35.4 BOOO ~ 33 1 I JOOO
~ 023C~
J076
~ 001D B000.7 2 ~
The written exams were time-validated.
As you suspected, the exams required more questions.
The following questions were added:
Section A At Power SS35 19 ~
SS35
~ 20 g SS35
~ 2 1 Section A ESF SS31 5g SS31
~ 11I SS31
~ 17I SS31 18'S31
Section B
BOOO ~ 16 'OOO ~ 32 I BOOO ~ 299 I BOOO ~ 296 'OlO 14 I B320 ~ 29 3.
Questions deleted by agreement during your visit:
Sectio A - At Power SS35.5, SS35.9 Section A ESF SS31.8 Section B
B000.14 JPM's J005
~ 001Ag J001 002Fg JOOO ~ 029Ag J016
~ 002Eg J062
~ 002C~
J064
~ 004Cg J064
~ 004K'OO 1 ~ 00 1CI JOOO
~ 039CI J076
~ 00lA
4.
Questions added as replacements:
J005
~ 001Dg J001 002Dg JOOO
~ 029Cg J064
~ 004Lg JOOO
~ 039D 5.
Additional question changes include:
SS35.12 answer corrected SS31.22 reference corrected B000.332 answer corrected B012.9 point value corrected 6.
The following changes were made to JPM's:
J000.023'
J001.001,
- J001.002,
- Z016.002,
- J062.002,
- J064.004, Step 8 standard was established as
> 125 KW.
Step ll was split into two steps.
Step 3 cue was added.
Steps 3 and 5 were determined not to be critical; Step 4 "verify" was changed to "open";
Step 8 cue regarding terminating the JFM was deleted.
Steps 9 and 16 were determined not to be critical.
Step 4 frequency was changed from 60.6 to 58 HZ; Step 5 was changed to critical; Steps 6 and 7 were determined not to be critical.
7 ~
JPM's/Questions were added:
- Z000.013, Z000 ~ 017 I ZOOO ~ 035,
- Z012.001, J015.002,
- Z039.001, J061.003, J000.013D and Z000.013E J000.017A and J000.017C J000.035A and J000.035D J012.001A and J012.001B J015.002A and J015.002C J039.001A and J039.001B J061.003D and J061.003E 8 ~
The five common JPM's were determined'o be:
9 ~
- J000.023 JOOO
~ 039
- Z001.002
- J016
~ 002
- J076.001 General changes were made regarding dynamic scenarios:
- ISCTs are identified in the Plant Conditions column.
Procedure and step numbers were added for critical EOP transitions.
The section of EPIP 1-0 used to classify events was added.
Minor changes were made to better reflect EOP steps.
Typographical errors were corrected.
k
'I+
10.
Scenario 89-2 changes:
(Page 2) Identified CO taking manual control of A S/G FRV as time critical prior to RT as task standard.
(Page 2) Defeat of LT-461 not time-critical.
(Page 7) Added HCO/CO stopping RCP's when trip criteria satisfied as ISCT.
(Page ll) Added CRF determining SI termination criteria not met, in E-l, Step 12 as ISCT for CRF.
(Page ll) Stopping RHR pumps not time critical due to system modifications.
(Page 14)
Added CRF determining if subcooling is adequate for SI flow reduction as ISCT.
(Page 16) Added CRF determining if sufficient subcooling and PRZR level available to stop 1 SIP as ISCT (ES>>1.2, Step 12).
(Page 17)
Added determining if subcooling is adequate to isolate accumulators as a team ISCT if Th < 400 F.
11.
Scenario 89-4 changes:
Scenario events - added B D/G failure - all conditions-added auto SI failure.
Scenario events deleted malfunction STM-4D at 48M.
(Page 2)
Changed the SS directing A D/G be started per T-27.4 as time critical.
(Page 2)
Changed CO starting A D/G to ISCT.
(Page 3)
Changed CO providing service water for D/G cooling to ISCT.
(Page 4)
Changed CO tripping bistable to not time critical.
(Page 6)
Changed note to reflect 2 minute ramp for <
VAC.
(Page 6) Added AP-TURB.4 steps for < 0 VAC.
(Page 9) Added R-19 to HCO's indication of SGTR.
(Page 9) Added CRF directing manual SI/CI as ISCT.
(Page 15)
Changed to reflect removal of B
S/G ARV malfunction.
12.
Scenario 89-6 changes:
Scenario events
- malfunction STM-28 was changed, to condensate on RT + 30 seconds.
(Page 3)
Changes discovery of PT-449 failure from HCO to HCO/Team.
(Page 4)
Changed HCO taking manual control of PC-431K to time critical with task standard of prior to a RT.
(Page 5)
Changed CO tripping of bistables for PI-449 to not time critical.
(Page 6)
Changed SS determining required actions per Technical Specifications to not critical.
(Page 7)
Added note for evaluator to log time of steamline break.
(Page 8) Description included location of break.
(Page ll) Added that adverse containment not expected.
(Page 11)
Changed CO isolating B S/G to ISCT.
.(Page ll) Changed CRF determining allowable intact S/G pressure to ISCT with a
note for evaluator to mark correct value.
(Page 14)
Changed CO note/report of A MDAFP trip to not ISCTe (Page 15)
Changed CO aligning TDAFNP to supply the A
S/G to ISCT within task standard of maintaining heat sink.
13.
Scenario 90-4 changes:
Scenario events:
Added:
Malfunction PZR-5A (PORV-430 fails 15% open over 30 second ramp)
as event gl.
Malfunction STM-3 (Steam break downstream of MSIV's) to event N4.
Malfunction FDN-8A or B (Feedbreak on S/G with lowest level)
as event 411.
(Pages 1,2,3)
Added to reflect addition of malfunction PZR-SA.
(Page 2)
HCO closing block valve
>> time critical with task standard of prior to reactor trip (also ISCT).
(Page 7)
Changed CO rapidly decreasing power
< 504 to not part of ISCT.
(Page 8)
Changed manual reactor trip to ISCT for Team/HCO rather than HCO only.
(Pages 8,9,10,11)
Different procedural flow path than original scenario due to malfunction STM-3.
(Page 12)
HCO ISCT for transition to ES-l.l (SI termination).
(Page 13)
Changed CO reporting loss of AFW to not ISCT.
(Page 13)
Changed STA recognize/report of heat sink red path to Team ISCT.
(Page 14)
Changed HCO stopping RCP's to ISCT.
(Page 15)
Changed HCO/CO establishing bleed path to ISCT with task standard of opening PORV's and block valves.
Norm Meaker License Instructor Attachments Approved
~r F. Maciuska Supervisor License Training
ATTACHMENT 3
~l!Aillfkll~JIJI/fiPi!4 ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
>,rr Cru sr*re
~
~
89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER N. Y. 14649-0001 ROBERT C MECREDY Vice President Oinna Nuclear Production TELEPStONE AREA COOE 7 t 6 546 2700 October 23, 1990 Mr. Lee Bettenhausen Operations Branch Chief U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406
Dear Mr. Bettenhausen:
As required by the Operator Licensing Examiner Standards (NUREG-1021, Section ES-601, Rev 5),
enclosed you will find Rochester Gas and Electric's Requalification Program Evaluation summary.
The summary includes examination strengths and weaknesses as well as results.
Although there were a
few weaknesses identified in the summary, a
program designed on a
systems approach to training uses these weaknesses as feedback to improve training.
All of the self identified weaknesses, as well as those identified by your staff, will be addressed in the upcoming requalification cycle.
I would like to commend the members of the exam team on their efforts to ensure that the exam was a. fair assessment of our licensed personnel.
If there are any questions regarding this summary, please feel free to call Frank Maciuska at 716-724-8200, ext.
6651.
Very truly yours, Robert C. Mecredy Enc.
1990 R.E.
GINNA NRC REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION SUMMARY
A.
INTRODUCTION:
The 1990 NRC Regualification program evaluation was conducted at Rochester Gas
& Electric's R.E.
Ginna Station during the week of September 17.
The role of Rochester Gas 6 Electric during this evaluation was to adequately prepare written examination questions, Job Performance Measures (JPM's),
and simulator scenarios and to properly evaluate Ginna operators'erformance.
In addition, satisfactory completion of this examination process by individual operators would satisfy the recpxirement to pass an NRC administered requalification examination prior to license renewal.
The intent of this report is to summarize RGGE's evaluation results.
B.
EXAMINATION SUMMARY:
1.
Written Examination:
The written examination consisted of two sections in an open reference format.
Section A, "Plant and Control Systems",
was administered using a static simulator.
Section B, "Administrative Controls/Procedural Limits", was administered in a classroom.
Each section was designed such that it could be completed by a competent operator in one and one-half hours.
An additional on-half hour was allowed for review.
Each section of the exam lasted for two hours.
a.
Strengths:
(1)
The written examinations adequately reflected the sample plan.
In a post exam survey of exam participants conducted by the Ginna's Evaluation Group, 100~ of the respondents stated that the test questions covered the appropriate topics.
(2)
Time required to take the written examination was consistent with times obtained during time validation.
Although many of the examinees would have liked more time to research
answers, all were able to finish in the alloted time.
b.
Weaknesses:
(1)
Questions changed by the examination team during the preparation week did not receive the same level of review as those questions developed throughout the year.
A post exam item analysis of the written exam indicates that ten of the eleven questions having a difficultyindex of <0.8 were questions modified during the prep week.
Failure to follow the normal review process did not allow the facility Instructional Technologists to verify that each examination question adequately adhered to the guidance of Attachment 14 of ES 601 (Rev.5).
Examples of problems identified on the post exam review are:
questions did not elicit correct response, differences in length of distractors might draw undue attention to distractors, and lack of guidance in the question as to the number of responses desired.
(2)
Priority of procedure
"Transfer to Cold Leg Recircul-ation" (Procedure ES-1.3) in relation to the Functional Restoration procedures was identified as a
weakness.
The post exam item analysis indicates that this question is valid from both a
technical and instructional perspective.
The priority of this procedure has been trained on throughout the last Requal cycle.
A review of the
"EOP User's Guide" indicates that the guidance given is somewhat unclear.
A further review of the procedure and guidance needed will be conducted by the plant's Emergency Procedure Committee.
c.
Results:
The individual scores obtained on each section and overall are tabulated on Attachment I.
The two individuals who did not obtain an overall passing score of
>
80%
were im-mediately removed from licensed duties.
They will not be reinst-ated until they successfully complete a remediation program and makeup exam.
Cg
)
2.
Walk-through Examinations:
The walk-through examination consisted of
JPM's with two follow up questions associated with each JPM.
The ten JPM's were divided so that five of the JPMs were conducted on the Simulator, four were conducted in the plant, and one was conducted in the control room.
a.
Strengths none noted.
b.
Weaknesses (1)
Procedure adherence was noted as a weakness as six individuals failed to perform numbered steps of EOP Attachments pages in order as required by the Ginna EOP Users Guide (Procedure A 503.10).
(2)
Three individuals demonstrated a weakness in placing the Main Generator on the electrical grid.
Although only one individual failed the JPM, the errors made by the others indicate that this task should be reevaluated for training frequecy.
(3)
Knowledge areas identified as generic weaknesses are:
Tech Spec required actions if all Pressurizer heaters are lost use of PAID's to isolate Service Water Factors affecting xod worth over core life.
(4)
Selection of JPM's did not allow for the most efficient use of the simulator.
In order to cover all areas of the sample plan, almost every task required the simulator to be initialized in a different condition for completion of the JPM.
The time to I
set up each initial condition coupled with the inability to run more than two JPM's concurrently resulted in the simulator portion of the exam taking too long.
4,
~ i
(5)
JPM questions. developed or modified by the exam team members were not reviewed by Instructional Technologists.
As was the case with the written questions, these questions also had the lowest success rate.
c.
Results The overall results of the JPM section of the exam are tabulated on Attachme'nt I.
Performance for each JPM and question is tabulated on Attachment, II.
There were no failures for this section of the exam.
3.
Dynamic Simulator This portion of the exam consisted of two scenarios (four for the staff group) lasting approximately fifty minutes each.
a.
Strengths:
(1)
All SRO's correctly classifiied emergency events utilizing a relatively new classification procedure (EPIP 1.0).
This success rate demonstrates that the training conducted this year for this topic was effective.
b.
Weaknesses:
(1)
Communication skills of the Sta ff group, although satisfactory, were not at the same level as that of the operators.
This particular crew was newly formed after the facility requested that the majority of the Ginna Staff SRO licenses be dropped.
Prior to the NRC exam this crew had only worked together twice.
(2)
Two crews were observed to be weak on the operation of the service water (SW)
pumps during controlled diesel starts.
Incorrect anticipation of which pumps should be shifted resulted in the auto start of a SW pump on the forty second timer.
c.
Results:
The Dynamic Simulator exam results are tabulated on Attachment I.
No individual or crew failures were identified.
C.
PROGRAM EVALUATION:
The R.E.
Ginna Operator Requalification program uses a
Systematic Approach to Training as defined by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
Training Systems Design (TSD)
methodology.
The requalification program uses operator input, via the Operator Curriculum Committee, to analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate all areas of the operator program.
1.
Strengths:
a.
Operator involvement in the development of the exam materials is considered a
strength.
Operators assist the Instructional Technologists in the technical review, validation, and identification of cognitive levels for all exam materials as suggested in Attachment 14 of ES-601.
b.
The performance of the facility evaluators during the exam process was excellent.
All evaluators were attentive to the task at hand and were able to identify performance deficiencies.
2.
Neaknesses:
a.
The post exam survey revealed that.
JPM evaluations throughout the year should be more consistent with NRC exam practices vice RG&E training procedures.
Although operators were trained on the JPMs, they indicated that they were not exposed to the stringent exam atmosphere enough throughout the year.
b.
The exam material used at. Ginna Station is in transition.
Many of the materials used were recently converted over to the new requirements of ES601 (Rev.
6).
Some of the JPM questions listed specific references per Rev.
6 while the candidates were allowed to use any controlled reference available.
In a
few instances this caused confusion on the part of the NRC evaluators.
3.
Results:
(per requirements of ES-601 Rev.
5)
a.
90% pass/fail decisions agreement between the NRC and facility grading of the written and operating examinations.
[C.3.b(l)(a)]
b.
83< of all operators passed the examination.
[C. 3.b (1) (b) ]
c.
All individuals and crews performed satisfactorally on the simulator evaulation.
[C.3.b(1)(c)]
d.
The program is based on a systems approach to training.
[C.3.b(1) (d) ]
e.
No common JPM was missed by
>504 of the examinees.
[C.3.b(2)(a)]
f.
66< of the examinees missed the same question on a
common JPM. [C.3.b(2)(b)]
g.
All operators were trained and evaluated in all positions permitted by their individual licenses.
[C.3.b(2)(c)]
h.
All operators were trained for "in-plant" JPMs.
[C.3.b(2(d) ]
i.
424 of the examinees correctly answered 804 of the common JPM questions.
[C.3.b.(2)(e)]
j.
No facility evaluator was determined to be unsatisfactory.
[C 3 b(2) (f) ]
D.
OVERALL EVALUATION:
Based on the criteria of ES-601 (Rev.5), the performance of the operators on this exam indicates that. the R.E.
Ginna Operator Requalification program is satisfactory.
Facility developed exam material meets the requirements of ES-601 and the operators who successfully completed this exam meet the regulatory requirements for license renewal.
ATZACHMEPP I SIMULATOR EXAM PARP B OVERALL GRADE ss fail
~o est ss fail KQNI%% -A-87.5 99.0 85.7 89.2
EXAMINEE -B-EGS'II%K M-80. 6 61.3 80. 8 69.5 86.4 80.7 83.3 71.9
85 fail 80. 6 100 94.2 91.2
KGKIMK-E-87. 1 90.9 78.9 84.2
72.6 97.0 95. 5 88.5
EXAMINEE~
91. 9 97.7 95.5 94.8
90 87.1 72.6 76.8 96.7 79.7 85.7 81.4 84.0
85 EDMlINEZ M-ZDGQIINEE -K-100 87. 1 79.0 100 90.9 89.9 94.3 98.1 67.5 97.4 92.9 76.3
10
80
fail
ATZACHMENTII 1990 NRC EXAM JM RESULES SIM1 SIM2 SIM3 SIM4 JOOO J016 JOOO JOOO
.023
.002
.013
.035 DX'ATION SIMUIAIOR J001
.001 SIM6 SIM7 J005 J012
.001
.001 SIM8 SIM9 PLT1 J015 J062 J076
.002
.002
.001
) T.B.
JOOO
.029 I.B.
JOOO J039 J061
.039
.001
.003 A.B.
I.B. I.B.
J064 JOOO
.004
.017 J001
.002 SYSTEM PRZR XLTDN C.S.
N2 PP-1 RHR PRZR N-41 GEN S.W.
S G D G VER TASK P-PASS F-FAIL QUEST S-SAT U~SAT TQQ AUU SEE KSS T T TQQ AU U SEE KSS TT T Q Q T Q Q T Q Q T Q Q T Q Q T Q Q A U U A U U A U U A U U A U U A U U S E E S E E S E E S E E S E E S E E K S S K S S K S S K S S K S S K S S TT TT TT TT TT TT TQQTQQ AUUAUU SEESEE KSSKSS TT TT TQQ AUU SEE KSS TT TQQTQQTQQ AUUAUUAUU SEESEESEE KSSKSSKSS TT TT TT TQQTQQ AUUAUU SEESEE KSSKSS TT TT TQQ AUU SEE KSS TT A B EXAMINZZ -A-P S U A B PSS PSS PUS AB AB AB AB AB AB AB AB PSSPSS A B FSS AB AB AB PSS AB AB PSS A B PUU KGRINEE -B-P S S EXAMINEE M-P S S PUS P SU PSS PSS PSS P US PS S FUS FS S PUU PSS PSS PUS PSS PSS PSS F SU PSS EXAMINEE -D-P S S EXAMINEE -F-EXAMINER~
PSU PSS EXAMINEE -E-P S U PSS PSS PSS PSS FSU FSS PSS PSSPSS PSSPSS PSSPSU PSS PSSPSS PSU PSS PSSPSS PSU PSS PSS PSS PSS PSSPSS PSSPSS PSUPSS PSS F SU PSS PSS PSS EXAMINEE -H-P S U EXAMINEE -I-P S U KSMINEE M-P S U PUU PUU PSS PSSFSS PSSPSS PSSPSS PSS FSS PSS FSS PSS FSU PSU FSS FSS PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS EXAMINEE -K-P S U EXAMINEE -L-P S U PSU PSU PSSPSS PSSPSS PSU P SU PSU PSS PSS PSS PSS PSSPSS PSS PSU PSS
t v
C k~'