IR 05000289/1989020
| ML20006E317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1990 |
| From: | Norris B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006E316 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-89-20OLR, NUDOCS 9002220639 | |
| Download: ML20006E317 (10) | |
Text
g-
._
[
~
.
.
?
t
'
'
.
U.
8. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
"
REGION I
OPERATOR LICENSING
,
REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT REPORT No:
50-289/89-20(OLRQ)
!
FACILITY DOCKET No:
50-289
,
FACILITY LICENSE Not DPR-50 l
LICENSEE:_
GPU Nuclear Corporation i
FACILITY:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 EXAMINATION DATES:
November 6
- s7, 1989
!
'
EX? MINERS:
Barry S. Norris, NRC, Chief Examiner Bryan F. Gore, PNL
'
Thomas L. Morgan, EG&G K. Micheol Spencer, EG&G
!
M Ia I*
D SUBMITTED Bf)
/
...
'BRrr'y S Arris
- ~Date
'
Senior 4peletions Engineer APPROVED BY:
i M
2~ 7' d Peter W.
Eselgr th, Chief Date PWR Section, erations Branch SUMMARY:
As evaluated by the NRC, all four of the crews passed the simulator portion of the examination and nineteen of the twenty operators passed all portions of the examination.
As a result of the evaluation, the requalification program at TMI-1 has been assigned an overall rating of satisfactory.
The_ evaluation was i
conducted in-accordance with the criteria established in NUREG-1021, as cited above.
The operator who failed the f
examination was removed from licensed duties and enrolled in an
'
upgrade training program designed to address the individual weaknesses identified.
I 9002220639 900209'
FDR ADOCK 05000289 V
.
,
.,
,
.
EXNMINATION REPORT No.. 50-289/89-20(OLRO)
i
'
,
,
DETAILS i
1.
EXAMINATION RESULTSt HEC RO SRO Total i
Grading Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail-Written 10/0 10/0 20/0
Simulator 10/0 9/1 19/1
,
Walk-through 10/0 10/0 20/0 Overall 10/0 9/1 19/1 racility RO SRO Total
+
Pass /Fhil Pass / Fall Pess/Faii
Grading i
Written 10/0 10/0 20/0 l
Simulator 10/0 10/0 20/0 Ib/0 10/0 20/0 Walk-throu h Overall 10/0 10/0 20/0 Note:
The NRC and the facility agreed that all crews
'
had passed the simulator portion of the examinations.
2.
PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS:
.
Overall Rating:
Satisfactorv
.
The program for licensed operator requalification training at Three Mile Island, Unit 1, was rated as satisfactory in i
accordance with the criteria established in NUREG-1023, l
Those criteria are:
a.
A 90% pass / fail grading agreement between the NRC and the facility for the written and operating (job
,
performance measures (JPMs) and simulator)
examinations, with the licensee not being penalized for holding a higher standard of operator performance.
Both the NRC and the facility passed all twenty operators on the written examination.
Both the NRC and the facility passed all twenty operators on the JPM
+
f
.
.
.
.
EX5MINATION REPORT No. 50-289/89-20(OLRO)
'
portion of the operating examination.
On the simulator portion of the operating examination, the NRC passed nineteen of the operators while the facility passed all twenty.
The overall grading resulted in a 95%
agreement between the NRC and the facility.
Criterion
"a" is satisfied.
b.
At least 75% of all the operators must pass the examination.
NRC grading is the only consideration for this criterion.
Nineteen of the twenty operators passed the overall examination, which is greater than the minimum required of 75%.
Criterion
"b" is natisfied.
c.
Failure of no more than one-third of the crews during the simulator portion of the operating examinhtion.
DRC grading is the only consideration for this
,
criterion.
Four crews were examined and all crews
'
performed satisfactorily.
Criterion "c" in satisfied.
In addition, the prograu MAY be determined to be
'
unsatisfactcry if one or more of the following is not natisfied.
P d.
Esch JPM is performed correctly by at least 50% of the operators.
Each JPMs was performed satisfactorily by at least 80%
of the operators.
Criterion "d" in satisfied, e.
Each question about each JPM is answered correctly by at least 50% of the operators.
With two exceptions, each JPM question was answered correctly by at least 70% of the operators; two questions were identified as generic weaknesses, one at 60% and the other at 50%.
Crlterion "e" is satisfied, f.
At least 80% of the operators answer at least 75% of the JPM questions correctly.
All operators answered at least 85% of the questions correctly.
Critorion "f" is satisfied.
3.
PROGRAMMATIC WEAKNESSES IDENTIFIED:
a.
The facility's time estimates for the written examinations were not realistic for the " average" operator.
t
.
.
.
.
.
EXXMINATION REPORT No. 50-289/89-20(OLRO)
)
'
b.
During the grading of the written examination, the licensee provided additional acceptable answers for five questions.
The facility should have ensured that each question elicited one, and only one, correct answer.
c.
Although the simulator scenarios met the requirements established in NUREG-1021, these scenarios were net challenging.
Other than the major event, few perturbations were included to require the operators to take actions as opposed to verifying automatic actions.
d.
The facility evaluators for the in-plant JPMs had not received sufficient training with respect to how the test should be administered.
This resulted in one of the JPMs being invalidated after it had been administered and another being substituted in its placo, e.
The facility did not choose any SRO level JPMs for this examination; although a facility representative stated
.
that SRO specific JPMs did enist.
4.
WRITTE!L XXAMINATIOld EVALUATION:
There were no generic deficiencies noted from the NRC
,
grading of the written examinations.
Generic deficiencies
,
are those questions missed by 50% of the operators.
The
'
written examination summary sheets are provided as
'
Attachment 2 to this report.
5.
SIMULATOR EVALUATION:
The following weaknesses were noted during the simulator portion of the operating examinations.
A listing of the simulator scenarios is provided as Attachment 3 to this report.
a.
Two of the four crews had minor difficulty in locating and interpreting instrumentation and displays.
b.
Two of the four crews' indicated minor inaccuracies with respect to how their actions would affect the plant conditions.
c.
Two of the four crews had instances of failure to refer to the procedures; this, however, did not affect the overall plant status, d.
Three of the four crews had minor difficulty in correctly implementing the procedures, leading to slow recover _
\\
.
'
.
'
,
,
EXAMINATION REPORT No. 50-289/89-20(OLRO)
!
'
e.
Three of the four crews had difficulty in applying the
!
Technical specification correctly, f.
All four crews exhibited minor shortcomings in their
'
ability to manipulate the controls in a timely manner.
'
g.
All four crews exhibited instances of failing to respond to information from others.
h.
Three of the four crews had minor instances where information was acknowledged incorrectly.
,
i.
All four crews had difficulty performing the transfer from high pressure injection cooling to secondary heat transfer cooling.
6.
JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURES EVALUATIONS:
!
The following weaknesses were noted during the JPM portion of the operating examination.
A listing of the JPMs is provided as Attachment 4 to this report.
a.
Four of twenty operators wore not able to correctly establish a protected power supply for the remote i
shutdown panels.
- b.
7vo of ten operators were not able to correctly reenergize a reactor protection system cabinet.
7.
COMMENTS.MADE AT THE EXIT MEETING:
An exit meeting vcs held with facility representatives, at which time the NRC discussed the generic deficiencies and i
programmatic weaknesses identified above.
The NRC Team Leader also provided tc the facility the NRC preliminary results.
t ATIhCHMENTS:
1.
Personnel Cordacted 2.
Listing of Written Examination Areas 2.
Listing of Simulator Scenarion 3.
Listing of JPMs
.
.
.
.
EKkMINATIONREPORTNo. 50-282/89-20(OLRO)
[
k$?
'
ATTACHMENT 1 PERSONNEL CONTACTED
'
Facility:
J. V. Boyle -Instructor (2,3)
i T.
G.
Broughton - Director, Ops & Maint TMI-1 (3,4)
'
,
M.
S.
Coleman - Instructor (2,3)
J. J. Colitz - Plant Engineering Director (3,4)
R.
P. Coe - Director, Training & Education (4)
R. T. Glaviano - Supervisor, STAS (3)
D. V. Hassler - Licensing Engineer (4)
K.
E. Hampton - Trainee (validated written test) (2)
H.
D. Hukill, Jr. - Vice President & Director, TMI-1 (3)
F. J. Kacinko - Instructor (2,3)
L.
G.
Noll -' Shift Supervisor (2,3)
R. H. Maag - Supervisor of Operations Training (1,2,3)
W.
G. Ogle, Jr. - Trainee (validated written test) (2)
R. L. Parnell - Instructor (3)
M.
J.
Ross - Plant Operations Director (1,3,4)
O. J. Shalikashvili - Manager, Plant Training, TMI (4)
D..F.
Spath - Instructor (3)
W.
S.
Stanley - Instructor (3)
W. W. Thompson - Operations T-aining Manager (1,2,3,4)
M. A. Trump - Simulator Sut:
sor (1,2,3,4)
NRC:
'{
L.
E.
Briggs - Senior Opr sns Engineer, DRS (1)
i R. M. Gallo - Chief, Or" ns Branch, DRS (1)
B.
S. Norris - Senior i
. ions Engineer, DR3-(1,2,3,4)
NRC Contractors:
B.
F. Gore - Examiner, PNL (2,3)
!
T.
L. Morgan - Examiner, EG&G (2,3)
i K. M. Spencer - Examiner, EG&G (2,3)
Leaend:
(1) Attended entrance meeting on August 9, 1989.
(2) Participated in examination development.
Required signing Security Agreement.
(3) Participated in examination administration.
Required signing Security Agreement.
l (4) Attended exit meeting on November 17, 1989.
!
l
'
l-l:
'
!
_
,,
z-.
8
$.. #
. _..
.
'
'
EXAMINATION REPORT No. 50-289/89-20(OLRO)
ATTACHMENT 2 LISTING OF WRITTEN EKAMINATION AREAS
}Lqek'1, D cnd E Shifts:
Classroom Portion:
SEQ HQ
,
-Natural Circulation Heat Removal x
x Makeup and Purification System x-x Decay Heat Removal System x
x Emergency Feedwater System x
x Pressure / Temperature Plot Interpretation x-x Emergency Electrical System x
x.
Emergency l Diesel Generator x
x Rules for Protection on Electrical & Mechanical' Areas x
x Rules-for Bypassing of Safety Functions x
x Conduct of Operations x
x Event. Reviewing & Reporting Requirements x
Independent. Verification x
x Normal; Plant Startup x-x
Normal Power Operations x
x
]
Normal Plant Cooldown x
x-
Hand Calculation of Quadrant Power Tilt x
x
!
Unanticipated Criticality x
x l
Total Loss of ICS/NNI. Power x.
x L
Partial. Loss of'ICS/NNI Auto Power x
x Lack of Heat Transfer x-x OTSG Tube Rupture x
x-Large Break LOCA-x Recognizing Core Damage x
x-Emergency Plan Implementation x
Static Simulator Portion:
Dropped Rod due to Fire in CRD Cabinet x
x Blackout with a Stuck Open Main Steam Safety Valve x
x l
.
.
>
.
{
'
,
..
EXANINATION REPORT No. 50-289/89-20(OLRO)
'
ATTACHMENT 2 (cont.)
LISTING OF WRITTEN EXAMINATION AREAS Week 2.
F Shift and Staff Crew:
Classroom Portion:
EBQ EQ Natural Circulation Heat Removal x
x Decay Heat Removal System x
x Makeup and Purification System x
Non-Nuclear Instrumentation x
Emergency Safeguards Actuation System x
x Integrated Control System x
x Emergency Electrical System x
x Vital AC/DC Distribution x
x Rules for Protection on Electrical & Mechanical Areas x
Procedure Review & Approval x
x Rules for Bypassing of Safety Functions x
x
!
Conduct of Operations x
x Normal Plant Heatup x
x Normal Plant Startup x
x
Normal Power Operations x
x
Hand Calculation of Quadrant Power Tilt x
x j
Unanticipated Criticality x
x l
Pressurizer System Failure x
x Total Loss of ICS/NNI Power x
x j
Partial Loss of ICS/NNI Auto Power x
x
!
Reactor / Turbine Trip x
Excessive Cooling x
x OTSG Tube Rupture x
x Large Break LOCA x
x
!
ATPs - Rules, Guides & Graphs X
x Recognizing Core Damage x
x Emergency Plan Implementation x
Event Review & Reporting Requirements x
Static Simulator Portion:
i
'
Loss of
"A" DC Distribution with an ATWS x
x Lack of Heat Transfer x
x
.--
- -
..
,-
.
.
..
'
'
EXAMINATION REPORT No. 50-289/89-20(OLRO)
ATTACHMENT 3 LISTING OF SIMULATOR SCENARIOS Week 1.
D and E Shifts:
Main Steam Line Break in the Reactor Building Total Loss of Feedwater, High Pressure Injection / Power Operated Relief Valve Cooling & Recovery i
l Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure, Feedwater Masters in Hand, Total Loss of ICS/NNI Power Week 2.
F Shift and Staff Crew:
Total Loss of Feedwater, High Pressure Injection / Power Operated Relief Valve Cooling & Recovery 4KV Bus Trip, Loss of Make-up/ Seal Injection, and a Total Loss of Intermediate Closed Cooling Water Loss of
"B" DC Power, Reactor Trip with Stuck Rod, and Post, Trip Overfeed Main Turbine Trip, Failure of the Reactor Protection System, Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident, and Loss of Subcooled Margin (Staff Crew only)
2 i
-
v o-
.
EX5MINATION REPORT No. 50-289/89-20(OLRO)
'
ATTACHMENT 4 LISTING OF JPMs Week 1.
D and E Shifts:
Simulator:
Perform regulating rod group transfers to/from the auxiliary power supply Perform an emergency boration of the RCS Perform a hot bus transfer Respond to a loss of RC make-up (MU-P-1B)
Transfer ICS stations to automatic Reenergize an RPS cabinet In-Plant:
i Reset and manually control EF-P-1 speed locally Operate the main feedwater regulating valves manually At the remote shutdown panels, establish and make available, a protected supply of electric power Respond to a loss of
"A" DC distribution system Week 2.
F Shift and Staff Ctgwi Simulator:
Perform = regulating rod group transfers to/from the auxiliary power supply Throttle emergency feedwater l
Perform the required actions if emergency'feedwater does not i
operate properly in automatic Transfer ICS stations to automatic Reset ~an 9PS cabinet after a reactor trip Shift ruiriing make-up pumps In-Plant:
y
operate the turbine bypass valves locally
Respond _to a loss of instrument air, manual control of l
IC-V-3/4 i
At the remote shutdown panels, establish and make available, a protected supply of electric power Startup a station battery charger l
l
,
<