IR 05000309/1989005
| ML20246P559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1989 |
| From: | Eaton R, Prell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246P526 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-89-05OL, 50-309-89-5OL, NUDOCS 8907200247 | |
| Download: ML20246P559 (4) | |
Text
_
.
.
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT l
REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT NO.
50-309/89-05 (OL)
FACILITY DOCKET NO. 50-309 FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-36 LICENSEE: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336 FACILITY: Maine Yankee Atomic Inwer Plant EXAMINATION DATES: May 15-18, '989 EXAMINERS: Spade Cooley, Section Chief, OLB, NRR Bill Dean, Senior Operations Engineer, OLB, NRR Bob Gruel, Pacific Northwest Laboratory b!l ['
CHIEF EXAMINER:
/w
/
Jim Prell, Senior Operations Engineer
'Odte'
j-/N APPROVED BY:
Rod Ea'thn, Acting Chief Uate PWR Section, Operations Branch, DRS SUMMARY: Requalification written examinations and operating tests were administered to seven senior reactor operator's (SR0's) and five reactor operator's(RO's).
Seven SRO's and five RO's passed these examinations.
There were no failures.
The licensed operator requalification program was rated satisfactory.
a I
-
--
._.
_
.-
_ - - _
.
,.
.
DETAILS TYPE OF EXAMINATIONS:
Requalification
'1.
EXAMINATION RESULTS:
lNRC l
RO l
SRO l
TOTAL l
l Grading l
Pass / Fail l
Pass / Fail l
Pass / Fail. l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l Written
5/0
7/0 l
12 / 0 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l Simulator l
5/0 l
7/0 l
12 / 0 l
.
I I
l l
l
'
l l
l l
l l Walk-Through l 5/0
7/0 l
12 / 0 l
l
I l
i l
l I
l l
l0verall l
5/0 l
7/0 l
12 / 0 l
l l
l l
l These results reflect 100% agreement between the facility and NRC evaluators.
2.
PERSONS CONTACTED:
Maine Yankee Personnel
- R. Blackmore Manager, Operations Dept.
- E. T. Bouletto Vice President Operations / Plant Mgr.
- A. J. Cayia Assistant Manager, Operations Dept.
- M. D. Evringham Section Head, Operations Training
- J. Kirsch Supervisor, Operations Training G. Marshall Training Dept. Instructor B. Plummer Training Dept. Instructor
- A. R. Shean Manager, Training H. Siercks Training Dept. Instructor
- H. M. Swartz Supervisor, Simulator Group U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C. Holden, Senior Resident Inspector
- R. Freudenberger, Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting conducted on May 18, 1989.
!
l
!
- _____ __- ___
--
-
.
!
.
.
- .
i 3.
PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS:
T1 Overall Rating: Satisfactory The facility program for licensed operator requalification training was rated satisfactory in accordance with the criteria established in
.ES-601, " Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluation."
j Those criteria are:
a.
Ninety percent pass / fail decision agreement between the NRC and'
the facility grading the written and operating examinations. As noted in paragraph 1. above, there was 100?J agreement on this criterion.
b.
At least 75?; of all operators pass the examination; not includ-ing individuals selected who had previously passed the examina-tion.
NRC grading is the only consideration for this criterion.
There were no individuals who had previously passed the examination.
Twelve of 12 operators passed the examination.
-c.
There shall be no more than one crew failure during the simu-lator portion J the operating examination, although the failure of one crew MAY cause the program to be considered unsatisfact-
,
o ry.
'
NRC grading is the only consideration for this criterion.
Three crews were evaluated and all three crews passed the simulator portion of the operating examination.
d.
The requalification program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59 (c)(2), (3) and (4) or is based on systems approach to training.
The licensee's requalification program meet these criteria.
3.2 Programmatic Strengths and Weaknesses The following strengths and weaknesses were noted, a.
Strengths:
l.
The facility instructors did a good job of identifying indivi-I dual and crew strengths and weaknesses occuring during the scen-arios.
They also did a good job of relaying these strengths and weaknesses during the post-scenario critiques.
l The training department did a good job of planning and admini-stering all phases of the requalification exam.
Both the opera-ting and written phases of the examination went as planned or when minor problems developed they were quickly resolved.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__
_
_
i
- _ - _ -
-
.
..
.
b.
Weaknesses:
There were no programmatic weaknesses noted.
3.2 General Observations a.
Simulator portion of the exam:
All three crews demonstrated proficiency in the use and know-ledge of Technical Specifications and the Emergency Plan.
They were also able to quickly recognize the entry conditions into the Emergency Operating Procedures and the symptoms related to plant casualties and equipment malfunctions.
Generally communications between the crew members was timely and professional.
There were instances however where crew members tended to assume the functions for positions for which they were not responsible. These instances mostly occurred during scenar-ios in which crew members were asked to assume positions for which they were not normally responsible.
b.
Walk-through portion of the exam (JPMs):
No generic weaknesses were noted.
c.
Written exam:
The facility tended to have too many memorization type of ques-tions for the static simulator portion of the examination. An effort should be made to generate more questions that require analytical skills.
Overall both portions of the written exam went as planned with few problems.
4.
EXIT MEETING On May 18, 1989, the chief examiner conducted an exit meeting at the conclusion of the examination.
Those facility personnel in attendance are noted in paragraph 2 of this report.
Examination development and exami-nation conduct, general observations noted during the exam process, and programmatic strengths and weaknetses were discussed. At the exit meet-ing, the licensee provided the NRC with the final requal test results for each candidate.
Attachments:
1.
Simulator Examinations (cover sheets only)
2.
Job Performance Measures (cover sheets only)
3.
Written Examination and Answer Key (RO)
l 4.
Written Examination and Answer Key (SRO)
l L
_ ___ _ ___ -
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _.
_ _ _a