IR 05000293/1989014
| ML20012A944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1990 |
| From: | Conte R, Sisco C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012A942 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-293-89-14OL, NUDOCS 9003130041 | |
| Download: ML20012A944 (14) | |
Text
=
-
.
b.
-
,
,
f
,,[
-
'
~'
,s
-.
- ,
d
-
)
-
-
I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
REGION I
i o
,
!
< Report No.
50-293/89-14 (OL)
[
Facility _ Docket No.
50-293'
,
^
Facility License No.-
DRP - 35
Licensee:-
Boston Edison Company
!
>
Facility:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
. Examination Dates:
' December 4 - 8 and 11 - 15, 1989 Examiners:
Carl Sisco, Operations Engineer
>
Don Florek, Senior 0perations Engineer Richard Miller, Sonalysts Marion Daniels, Sonalysts
~
nHannek,EG&G)
Chief Examiner:
/01/s. 26Ute 1 kfo
'
'
Carl Sisco,1perations Engineer IDath Reviewed By:
/
k
!9#
Richard J.-Co Re, Chief-Date
!
BWR Section, Operations Branch SUMMARY:'
Written'and operating requalification examinations were administered to nine-Reactor. Operators (RO) and eleven Senior _ Reactor Operators-(SRO).
These opera-
,
tors were divided into-four crews.
Each crew consisted of two SR0s and three
'
t i
R0s. The examinations were graded concurrently by the NRC and the facility
' training. staff. As graded by the NRC, one SR0 and one R0 failed the simulator portion of the examination and one R0 failed the written examination. One crew-was'found to be unsatisfactory by the NRC, and all operators passed the Job Performance Measures (JPM) portion of the examination. The requalification
. program was determined to be satisfactory, t
'
It is expected the operators and crew which failed will be given remedial training and returned to licensed duties. The NRC will re-examine'these N
. operators and crew within approximately six months.
.The.'NRC was concerned with the. lack of involvement of an experienced Senior
- Reactor Operator from the ope.ations staff in the developmental process of the crequalification examinations. The NRC was assured this was an isolated incident
-
and will not recur during future requalification program evaluations.
f
-
9003130041 900301 PDR ADOCK 05000293
.V PDC
<
4,
-
,
.
_
_
y (..
-
,
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Introduction and Overview An entrance meeting was held with the licensee on October 13, 1989 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 outline a prospective schedule for the requalification examination period.
An entrance meeting was held with the licensee on November 13, 1989 at the Chiltonville Training Center. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce
.
'
the NRC and licensee examination teams and make plans to prepare the NRC administered requalification examinations.
The examinations were prepared the week of. November 13, 1989.
The NRC team was concerned with the lack of an SRO licensed individual on the licensee examination team.
In a conference call with the licensee held on
,
December 21, 1989, the concern was discussed. The NRC was assured the lack i
of an SRO licensed individual was an isolated incident due to a scheduling conflict of the licensee.
Written and operating requalification examinations were administered to r
nine Reactor Operators (RO) and eleven Senior Reactor Operators (SRO).
i These operators were divided into four crews. Each crew consisted of two I
SR0s and three R0s.
The examinations were graded concurrently by the NRC.
and the facility training staff, i
As graded by the NRC, one SRO and one RO failed the simulator portion of the examination and one R0 failed the written examination.
One crew was
found to be unsatisfactory by the NRC, and all operators passed the JPM j
portion of the examination.
The requalification program was determined to
be satisfactory.
As graded by the licensee, one SR0 and two R0s failed the simulator portion of the examination and one RO failed the written examination. One crew was found to be unsatisfactory, and all operators passed the JPM portion i
of the examination.
The difference in grading was attributed to a higher standard of perform-ance expected of the operators by the licensee.
For that reason, the
'
licensee failed one RO more than the NRC. There was 100% agreement in all
!
'
other pass / fail decisions of the exainination teams.
'
The NRC team found the sample plan and examination material submitted by the licensee to be adequate.
The licensee proposed written examinations were found to be technical accurate and challenging.
The written examinations required only format changes.
.
_
,
.
,
-
,.
"
The NRC team identified that JPMs to perform actions required by the E0P satellite procedures were absent from the submitted examination materials.
,
[
The NRC team prepared a JPM to accomplish the actions and concluded the operators were trained in the use of E0P satellite procedures based on the
'
JPM examination results.
The NRC team determined the licensee examination team to be adequate, In m aition, the NRC team appreciated the cooperation and professional cour-
. tasks extended to them by the licensee.
j
.
2.
Itidividual Exam n..,t_ ion._Results
- - - - -
The following is a summary of the individual examination results. The NRC
'
results were used for the. program evaluation.
I I
I I
I l NRC l
R0 l
SRO l
TOTAL l
l Grading l
Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
l Written
8 / 1
11 /
0-l 19 /1 l
l
I l-I l
l I
I I
^
I Simulator I
8 / 1 l
10 / 1 l
18 /2 l
l l
l l
l l
I I
I I Walk-Through I 9 / 0
11 / 0
20 /0 l
l l
l l
-
I I
l-l l Overall l
7 / 2 l
10 / 1 l
17 /3 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I-l Facility.
l R0 l
SR0 I
TOTAL I
,
I Grading l
Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail l
I I
I I
I I
I
'l I
I l Written l
8 / 1 l
11 / 0 l 19 /1
l l
l l
l I
I I
I I
Simulator I
7 / 2 l
10 / 1
17 /3 l
l l
l
I l-
I I
I l Walk-Through l 9 / 0 l
11 / 0 1 20 /0 l
l
I I
I I
I I
I I
l Overall I
6 / 3 l
10 / 1 l
16 /4 I
I I
I I
l
. -
,
z-
_
$:.f
.'
-'i
-
r
.
lC
,
F
~4 r-
,
,
,
_,
r.
2.1 Programmatic Strengths and Weaknesses
,
L
. -
,
a.
Programatic Strengths i
- Good Sampling plan f
- Good Exam Material
- In-depth JPM's
- Good Examination security
'
b.
Programatic Weakness f
!
'
- JPMs on E0P satellite procedures were not part of examination
,
material-submitted by the licensee
- Crew communication training was weak-
- SR0 licensed operator input on exam preparation was not utilized
- Training on degraded Secondary Containment indications was weak i
2.2 Operator Strengths and Weaknesses l
These were strengths and weaknesses observed more'than once during the conduct of the ex:mination-.
2.2.1 Operating Examination a.
Operator Strengths
- Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure use
- Emergency Operating Procedure use
- Operating Procedure use L-
- Knowledge of E0P Entry Conditions
!
b.
Operator Weaknesses j
- Lack of consistency in communications between individuals
-
i
- Lack of. consistency in the Control Room command function
l
- Lack of consistency in crew briefings
e
,
-
.
.
.
'
.
s S
,
2.2.2 Walk Through a. Operator Strengths
'
- Ability to implement procedures to accomplish JPM's b. Operator Weaknesses Manually vent torus using SBGT t
--Transfer pressure control to the MPR
. 2.2. 3 Written a. Strengths
- Knowledge of Drywell Spray interlocks
- Knowledge of E0P bases b.
Weaknesses
- Resetting RPS with power loss
- Knowledge of degraded performance of recirculation system 3.0 Program Evaluation Overall Rating: SATISFACTORY
'
The facility program for licensed operator requalification training was rated as SATISFACTORY in accordance with the criteria established in Exam-
. iner Standards (ES)-601, paragraphs C.3.b.(1),C.3.b.(2), 0.1.C.(2)(c),
D.2.C.(2)(b) and D.3,C.(2)(b).
a.
At least 75% of all operators that are administered the examination must pass all portions of the examination.
/
85% of the operators passed all portions of the examination, b.
At least 75% of all operators must pass the written examination.
95% 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 i
90%.
There was 100% agreement on the grading of the written and operating examinations.
. - -
-
- -
-
-
m
,
L. _,. -
.['
L
.
t
d.
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, e.
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.
The facility failed one additional R0.
f.
If'more that 1/3 of the crews are determined to be UNSATISFACTORY by the NRC regardless of individual failures, the.overall program shall be judged UNSATISFACTORY.
Four crews were evaluated and one crew was determined to be Unsatisfactory.
Therefore, 25% of the crews were Unsatisfactory, g.
The program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(2),(3) and (4)
or is based on a systems approach to training.
l As reported by the licensee, the licensee's program meets the 10 CFR
'
55.59 criteria.
j i
h.
The pass / fail decision agreement between the NRC and the facility grading of the walk-through examination shall be at least 90%.
]
_
There was 100% agreement on the grading of the walk-through examination.
l 1.
At least 75% of all operators must pass the walk-through examination.
100% of the operators passed the walk-through examination.
j.
The pass / fail decision agreement between the NRC and the facility j
grading of the written examination shall be at least 90%.
j There was 100% agreement on the grading of the written examination.
I Additionally, if three (3) or more of the following are applicable to a requalilfication program, then that program shall be determined to be UNSATISFACTORY.
If one (1) or two (2) of the following are applicable, the program may be determined UNSATISFACTORY.
i a.
The same common JPM is missed by at least 50% of the operators.
l The maximum percentage of operators missing any of the common JPM's was 20%.
L
,
4.
,,
..
.
k
..
[
.7 b.
The same question about the same common JPM is missed by a least 50%
of the operators.
The maximum percentage of operators missing the'same question about the same common JPM was 20%.
c.
The. facility failed to train and evaluate operators in all positions permitted by their individual licenses.
The facility had trained and evaluated operators as required.
d.
Failure to train operators for "in plant" JPM's.
l The' facility trained operators for "in plant" JPM's.
e.
Less that 75% of the operators correctly answered 80% of the common JPM questions.
100% of the operators correctly answered greater than 80% of the common JPM question f.
More than one facility evaluator is determined to be unsatisfactory in at.cordance with " Evaluation of Facility Evaluations." (ES-601)
All facility evaluators were found to be satisfactory.
In summary, the facility program met all program evaluation criteria of l
ES-601; therefore, the program has be rated as SATISFACTORY.
!
4.0 Exit Meeting An exit meeting was conducted December 15, 1989, at the Chiltonville Training Center.
Personnel in attendance is noted on Attachment 1.
,
Preliminary results of the Requalification Program evaluation and opera-f tors pass / fail decisions were discussed.
l l
Attachments:
Attachment 1 Personnel Contacted Attachment'2 Requalification Examination Test Items Attachment 3 Simulator Fidelity Report
. Attachment.4 BECo Letter 90-015, dated January 15, 1990, Requalification Examination Reselts
.'
.'
,
,
,,s ATTACHMENT.1 PERSONNEL CONTACTED FACILITY PERSONNEL K. Highfill VP Nuclear Operations (4).
R. Anderson Plant Manager (4)
L. Schmeling Deputy Plant Manager (4)
T. Swan Operator Training Supervisor (1)(2)(3)(4)
L. Olivier 0perations Section Manager (3)(4)
J. Kelly Compliance Engineer (4)
J. Alexander Nuclear Trainia Manager (1)(2)(3)(4)
r
'H. Balfour Ops Training Section Manager (1)(2)(3)(4)
3. Loose Simulator Division (4)
R. buidoc Requal Program Instructor (2)(4)
G. Sherman Requal Program Instructor (2)
M. Santiago Senior Training Specialists (1)
S. Loose Simulator Instructor (2)
NRC PERSONNEL R. Gallo.
Chief, Operations Branch, DRS (1)
C. Sisco Operations Engineer (1)(2)(3)(4)
D. Florek Senior Operations Engineer (3)(4)
M. Markley.
Resident Inspector (Acting) (4)
M. Daniels Sonalysts (3)
R. Miller Sonalysts (3)
J. Hanneck.
EG&G (2) (3)
T. Hunt EG&G (2)-
(1) Denotes those present at Region I entrance meeting October 13, 1989
.(2) Denotes those present at entrance meeting November 13,.1989 (3) Denotes those present at entrance meeting December 4, 1989 (4) Denotes those present at exit meeting December 15, 1989
.
I
-
Ila in;.--
.,
.
o
.
x
,-
i
ATTACHMENT 2 l
'"
REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION TEST ITEMS
-
'
Simulator' Scenarios
,
SES - 003 Turbine Trip / Incomplete Scram / LOCA
.
<
'SES - 005-- Group I Isolation / HPCI Steam 11ne break l
SES-- 006 > Recire Seal Failure / Loss of Off Site Power-i SES -'008 Failed Open SRV / ATWS-
<
'SES
.012 HPCI _ Injection / Feedwater line break'
Job' Performance Measures N
'
'JPM - 2:. Suppression Pool Cooling JPM - 11 Start of~an' idle recirc pump JPM - 16' HPCI start from the alternate shutdown panel
-
.
JPM - 20 Charge an HCV accumulator ~
,
i JPM - 33 Removing EPR from: service JPM'- 41L Emergency-diesel generator operations outside the control room
'JPM - 46 Starting a. reactor feed pump
_
-JPM - 51 Restart Reactor Water Cleanup following auto isolation
.JPM - 59 'Depressurize the scram pilot air header
'
JPM -'60 Complete OPER-19 data prior to starting a recirc pump JPM-69 l Perform monthly Core Spray pump flow rate surveillance JPM
,'72 Manually start SBGT and vent torus
.
-
JPM 75 ! Manually start and load emergency diesel generator
'
JPM -81 Bypass MSIV LOW-LOW RPV water level isolation interlock JPM 82 -Restore. breaker lineup following RCIC surveillance
'
' Written Examinations SECTION A - PLANT PROFICIENCY
.
'
Reactor Operator (Scenario #1, 6A)
Reactor: Operator (Scenario #2, 3B)
Senior' Reactor Operator (Scenario #1, 6A)
Senior Reactor Operator-(Scenario #2, 3B)
,p i
,
i a
g-
'
- . a
.-
,,
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont.)
SECTION B - LIMITS AND CONTROLS R0 Examination #1 RO Examination #2 QNUM TASK NO.
QNUM TASK NO.
I 2760050101
2000500501
,
2590060101
2590060101
'3 2480110101
2480110101 4'
2050080101
2030040101
2050160101
2010030401 6'
2010020101
2610030101
2150020401
2120070101
2610030101
2130070101
'
2120070101
2000190501
2120070101
2000210501
2130070101
2160040101
200230501
2000400501
2990210301
2000290501
3440010302
2790030101
3430350302
2000010501 SRO Examination #1 SR0 Examination #2 QNUM TASK NO.
QNUM TASK NO.
1-2000500501
2590060101
2590060101
2480110101 3'
2480020401
'2050080101
2620040101
2050160101
2120070101
2010020101
-2130070101
2120070101
2000210501
2130070101'
'8 200210501
200230501
2160040101
2990210301 10-2000400501
3440010302
2990150301
3440010302
2000290501
3430350302 113 2790030101
3410180302
2150050101
3430040302
2990210301
2020070101
3440190302
'
f
!
'
=c '
-
.
'
- -
i
!
s
ATTACHMENT 3 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility License: DRP-21
,
f
. Facility Docket No.:
50-245 Operating Test Administered on: December 4 through 15, 1989
.
.
.
This form'is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of non-compliance with 10 CFR 55.45 (b).
1These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other1than to provide information which may be used in future evaluations.
No-licensee action is required in response to these
!
observations.
During-the conduct of the simulator portion of the requalification examinations, the.following items were observed:
'
ITEM DESCRIPTION
'NONE
.
-
.
,
.f'
ATTACHMEN '4"
,
.
.
.
)
l?$
M4 BOSTON EDtSON O4 Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
- Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 -
Ralph G. Bird January - 15, 1990 Senior Vice President - Nuclear BECo Ltr 90 015 Mr. William Russell, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission
'
~475 A11endale' Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Docket No. 50-293 License No. OPR-35 Subject:
REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION RESULTS
Dear Mr.-Russell:
During the weeks.of Decemb'er 4, 1989 and December 11 1989, a requalification examination was administered by the NRC and Boston Edison Company to-twenty (20)'
,
licensed operators and staff at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. As requested by the NRC examiners, the results of the examinations, any weaknesses identified, and lessons. learned follow:-
.!
Examination Results Heek 1:
Simulator Ooeratina Exam
!
l-Three (3) Senior Reactor Operators (SR0s) passed.
-
Six.(6) Reactor Operators (R0s) passed.
-
'
l One (1) SR0 failed one critical element-of one scenario, but passed l
-
the exam overall.
. Written Exam'
!
s Four (4) SR0s passed.
j
-
l-l Five (5) R0s passed.
-
i One (1) R0 failed.
-
j
ue
,
,
' -:
Page 2
,
...
L ob Performance M'easures (JPM)
~
J
.All ten (10) candidates passed at least 80% of'the JPMs-(practical-
-
demonstration) and 70% of the JPM questions, p
Two (2) SR0s failed two of the JPMs.
-
One (1) R0 failed two of the JPMs.
-
Two (2) R0s failed one JPM.
>
-
Walkthrouah four (4) SR0s passed.
-
o Six (6) R0s passed.
.
-
Heek 2:
Simulator Operatina Exam Six (6) SR0s passed.
-
One (1) R0 passed.
-
.
One-(l) SR0 failed.
-
1Two (2) R0s failed.
-
'One-(1) operating crew failed.
-
,
Hritten Exam Seven'(7) SR0s-passed.
-
Three (3) R0s passed.
'
-
Job Performance Measures All ten (10) candidates passed at least 80% of the JPMs (practical
-
demonstration) and 70% of the JPM questions.
One (1) SR0 failed one JPM.
-
.
Walkthrouah
<
i Seven (7) SR0s passed.
j
-
!
Three (3) R0s passed.
-
The NRC examiners made only minor changes to the technical content of the exam
]
material which Boston Edison considers a program strength.
i i
!
- - - - -
- -
-
.
-
.
-
y 7 3c L
" y Page_3
,
Weaknesses-Heaknesses were. identified during an analysis of the written examination and JPMs j
'
'
in the following areas: Mechanical Hydraulic Control System Standby Gas Treatment i
System, Reactor Water Cleanup System, and:the Emergency Operating Procedures
satellite procedures.
In-addition, further training will be provided for the Residual Heat Removal System precautions and limitations.
The lesson plans for
'
these topics will be revised-to insure the material is more thoroughly covered during the requalification cycle.
Lessons Learned
~
.
a The following enhancements will be incorporated in the requalification training i
program:
.
Utilization of videotaping in training sessions.
-
Tracking of simulator scenarios to insure software upgrades do not affect
-
-
the exam bank.
Pre-planning of examination security to insure a smooth exam
-
administration.
Utilization of Operations support during examination development.
-
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Harrison R.
.
~Balfour at (508) 747-8602.
!
JLK/bal
,
a
'
cc:
Mr. Robert Gallo-Operations Branch Chief i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'
475 Allendale Rd.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Richard Conte BHR Section Chief.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.475 Allendale Rd.
King of Prussia, PA 19406 Sr. NRC Resident Inspector - Pilgrim Station
,
,
-
.u-