IR 05000334/1990014

Requalification Program Evaluation Rept 50-334/90-14OL-RQ on 900709-19.Exam Results:Nine Senior Reactor Operators & Seven Reactor Operators Passed All Portions of Exam.One Crew Failed

ML20059E756
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	08/23/1990
From:	Eselgroth P, Brian Hughes NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059E755	List: IR 05000334/1990014 ML20059E753 ML20059E763
References
50-334-90-14OL, NUDOCS 9009100306
Download: ML20059E756 (8)

Text

_

,

,

j ,

^*\ , Ae-

_Q (;i ,

-

.

V.S. NUCLEAR REGULAT,0RY' COMMISSION OPERATOR LICENSING REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT p

REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-334/90-14 ' (0L-RQ)

FACILITY DOCKET N FACILITY LICENSE N '

OPR-66

.

LICENSEE: Duquensne Light Company

, Post Office Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077'

FACILITY: Beaver V 11ey Unit 1 ,

CHIEF EXAMINER: tt * Af 23!ff Br d ar Hughes,Seniof0perationsEngineer 04te' ,

'

APPROVED BY: . 8/2Mf/

PeterEselgroth,gief 'Da te'

PWR Section, Operations Branch Division of Redctor Safety

>

SUMMARY: The licensed operator requalification training program was rated as satisfactory. Written examinations and operating tests were administered to nine senior reactor operators (SRO's) and seven reactor operators (R0's). -The examinations were graded concurrently and independently by the NRC and the facility training staff. As graded by the NRC, allLindividuals-passed the simulator, written and.walkthrough (JPM) examination. One crew was evaluated as unsatisfactory during the simulator portion of the examination due to-

' deficient communications between the Nuclear Shift Operating Foreman and the

.

Nuclear Shift Supervisor. The NRC was concerned that the particular Nuclear -

Shif t: 0perating Foreman and Nuclear Shif t Supervisor could be reconfigured onto another crew, but received assurances that this combination would not be together until remedial-training and' management evaluation has been complete !

. .

It'is axpected that the failed crew will receive remedial training, in accord- '

ance with the Beaver-Valley training administrative' procedures. Due to the satisfactory program evaluation, NRC re-examination of this crew will not be require During.the examination process a problem was noted with one of the Emergency Operating Procedures in that the possibility exists of starting the Recircula-tion Pumps manually, before the system would support proper operatio The licensee has agreed to resolve this issue as soon as possibl '

9009100306 900824 PDR ADOCK 05000334 V PDC

m,,

'

.

a

- .

i

, _. <

L i

.

DETAILS r Introduction and Overview An entrance meeting was held with Duquesne Light Company, on March 28, 1990, in the Regional Office. The purpose of the- me. Ing was to brief the licensee on the requirements of the new requalification program evalu-

. ation and to review the proposed schedule for the requalification examination *

The examination team made a site visit the week of June 25, 1990, to review the facility prepared examination material. The NRC team deter-mined the sample plan and the examination material to be of high qualit The sample plan was complete, the JPMs and simulator scenarios were job related, challenging, and up to date. The written exams required only format change '

Written and operating requalification examinations were administered to

.

-

nine Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) and seven Reacto'r Operators (RO).

These operators were divided into four crew Each crew consisted of two SR0s and two R0s. The examinations were graded concurrently by the NRC and the facility training staf As graded by the NRC, all individuals passed _their requalification exami-nation, One crew was found to be unsatisfactory in crew communication The requalification program was determined to be satisfactory. As graded by the facility all individuals passed their requalification examinatio One crew was found by the facility to be unsatisfactory in crew communi-cations. There was 100%-agreement in all pass / fail decisions made by the facility and the NR The NRC team determined the facility evaluators to be satisfactor The

.

NRC team appreciated the cooperation and professionalism shown to them by the license . Individual Examination Results The following is a summary of the individual examination results. The NRC results were used for the program evaluatio ' '

g'{}0l 9 q :- .

,

,

'

-

w s C .

,

s 1%

c mfew g -r - + - ,  % , _

,- ,  ;'

jfyl frq: *

,

' "

,M ,  % M

$hc ?

'

x .

.

- <

..

gr W W

.

a

'

.

.g .:

T; 3 '] -

. i

_ _ ; :e 7 -Q

..

. ;u

+ ~

~

,

'l NRC, l , R0 , l; >SR0 l: TOTAL- ll

<

l- .Gradingl I .i : Pass /Failils Pash/ Fail-li Pass /Fai1JJJ

, <

'

1 .l: l l

-

'

>

-l .. - : .

l .

- , -

J 's '

' Written

.

l- /10_ l .9dt 0 - ll '-l 6s/ 0 ~ -l  ;

a n; .l- :l l , '

l' . . . l- . . .l! ,

j L ' Simulator l

-

7 / 04 -l 9 /i0 li . 1 6 /'0~ -l- l

"3, I' 'I i 1- .

.l l  !

+ l' Walk-Throughl "7 /.0 :

l 9/0 l'6 /,0' 4

'- Ll:

14 l -l 1 -

% l- - .

.I ._ -

l- .

'

. l; Overall 1: 7J/ 0 l 9 /_0- l -- 16/0- - l =?

l: . -l l l .l

-

r,

' e 't

>

.l: . Facili ty.- l: .RO_ l SR0 _l, . TOTAL l [

lt : Grading

. Pas ~s/ Fail l - Pass / Fail lt Pass / Fail l  ;

I I I I .d y'

-l l: .

Written '-l l

'7/0

.-

l /0 'l'

_

1 6 / 0,

.

l_ ')

-l- -l m l- 7

-

l .l l il l- ..

I - -

-l -

l'  :

<

1 Simulator /0 , -9_/ 0 ;l 1,6l/.0- 1 {

l -l I i l .

l: -

-l -- . l l

'

-l~ Walk-Throughl- 7/0 .l- .9 / 0 . l- 16/0 l zi l l I I 1 l _ -- I' I_ .

-l .

'

,

'l Overall _l 7/0 l; 9/0 _ l 1 6:/ 0 l'

"

y

. l: ' l- l j '. ,

'

2.1c Programmatic Strengths and Weaknesses

.1 a..'Programmatichtrengths

- Good SamplingLP1an- ' E

, ,

- Good' Exam l Material

-)

- In-depth iJPM's --;

V: 4

--- Good Examination securit l

'b, Programmatic' Weakness -

.

- Crew communication was not consistent

.;

If

!..

< f

!

-!

'

p,

..

, ,, , ,,o

F5 m

; -

< 4

-

,

N

'

2.2. Operater Strengths and Weakness These were strengths and weaknesses observed more than once during the conduct of the examinatio .2.1 Ope-ating Examination Operator Strengths

. - Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure use

.

- Emergency Operating Pror dure use

,

-Knowledge of E0P Entry conditions Operator Weaknesses

- Lack of consistency in communications between individual Lackofconsistencyinthecontrolroombommandandcontrol  !

functio ,

2.2.2 ' Walk Through -

t Operator Strengths

!

' - Ability to implement procedures to accomplish JPM b, Operator Weaknesses

- None Noted 2.2,3 Written

.

. Strengths In-depth knowledge of integrated system Weaknesses

- None Noted 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 Examiner Standards (ES)-601, paragraphs C.3.b.(1), C.3b.(2),

D.1.C(2)(c), D.2.C(2)(b) and 0.3.C(2)(b).

,

ut h, k

"

, ,

F

-

5 7

. At least 75% of all operators that are administered _the examination-must pass all portions of the examinatio ,

100% of the operators passed all portions of=the examinatio At least 75% of all operators must pass the written examination. .

100% of the operators passed the written examinatio ' 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% ogreement on the grading of the written and operating examination , A program may be judged UNSATISFACTORY if tiie NRC judges at least one crew unsatisfactory and the facility evaluators judge the same crew sati sf actor There was 100% agreement on crew pass fail decision .A' program may be judged ONSATISFACTORY 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 evalu-ating fewer individuals as unsatisfactor There was 100% agreement with the NRC grading of indivdual pass fail decision 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 UNSATISFACTOR Four crews were evaluated and one crew was determined to be unsatis-factory. Therefore, less than 1/3 of the crews were unsatisfactory, The program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(2),(3)and (4)

or is based on a systems approach to trainin As reported by the licensee, the licensee's program meets the 10 CFR 55.59 criteri ' The pass / fail decision 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 examinatio . At least 75% of all operators must pass the walk-through examination.

100% of the operators passed the walk-through examination, i

l

.

et < .

Et >

.

M

[';

-

,

,

h.

o>

..

d

.;

.. 6-3;

'

,-:

i a

. .

f Theipass.fai.1' decision' agreement between:the NRC and,the facility e

m grading. of the written examination shall'be at least 90%: . j{

.,

t There was:100% agreement on grading the written examinatio !

'

.Additianally, if three (3) or more of the following are applicable to a f requalification program, then that program shall be determined to be '!

UNSATISFACTORY. -If one (1) or(2) of the following are . applicable, the- 4 x

. program may be determined UNSATISFACTOR ,

, The same common JPM is missed by at'least 50T of the operator No common JPM was missed by more than one operato ,

J The' same question about the same common JPM is miaa:d by at least 504 q of the operator q No: common JPM question was missed, a The facility failed to train and evaluate operators in all positions' S

. permitted by their individual license }

The facility trained and evaluated operators as require ' Failure to train' operators for "in plant #1s". 1

-

Tne facility trained operators for in plant-JPM . Less than 75*. of the operators correctly answered 80% of the common KJPM question ,

100% 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). 1 i

All facility evaluators were found to be satisfactor q, In summary, the facility program met all program evaluation criteria of-ES-601; the program, therefore, has-been rated as SATISFACTOR .l 4.0 -Emergency Operating Procedures a i

'During the examination process, a problem was noted with Emergency e Operating Procedure, Attachment 1-E, in that the possibility exists !

of starting' the Recirculation Pumps manua?ly, before the system would support proper operation. The licensee has agreed to resolve this

. issue as soon as possibl t l*;

h,. ;% g~

-.

..

u

, ,

q ,s

..

.

'%

m

. ", e

, . i r, #u ,-um e,.

EMD n" '.. , ,^^^

IR& ? ~W

'

o 4 un ' , ,

"..

,Q $ :q ~

'

.

7-q'<^

g.(k *

>

"

+

,

'

{l W-6. <. ,

' 5.0- Exit Meeting

_ . am .-

..

.

fe .

["

~

An exit; meeting was conducted: July 19.-- 1990, at)thelBeaverValley-:

A Training Center = Personnel in attendance:are'noted oncattachment g'

"

, . Preliminary results of'the Requalification program avaluationland operator pass / fail decisions were discussed, u <

!N .

f.i. >

E

. Attachments:~

U Personnel: contacted

, 2. .DLCo Letter NGIVPN: 6302, dated August 1,31990 Requalifications results'.

v ,

• • j . .

, .w P N1 i

'f 5-i e

-' *

'l

, 7 I?' , )

=

i ,.W .

'j (

'

..\- , 4 Y,

a \

.,l

>

e ft

,- 1

• ? '

s

'

' .'

. '

, .

,7b ') .'

.

l

.

a

,

'I"

,

'

i 2.it'

,.[

,4

, 4 , 4 - , - - . . . - - . , . .

. , - , . . . . . . - , - m., ,,-, - - - , ,

. _ _

$ ,

4 j,: .; S'~ l

';' L

,

'

,,f .' ; 4 m .A ,

w

,

,

y e

[. x ATTACHMENT 11 IW =1.0 PERSONNEL CONTACTED DURING THE EXAMINATION EVALUATION km b<' -CHIEF EXAMINER

,

B.'.Hughes, Senior Operations Engineer '('I',2,3,.4')- -

10THER NRC PERSONNEL-l:L 'R. Gallo,~ Chief Operations Branch, . DRS (3)

i" P. Eselgroth, Chief PWR-Section, 0B,=DRS (3)

J. D' Antonio,E: Operations Engineer

. 'DRS ~( 1, 2, 41)

D.-Silk, Senior Operations' Engineer DRS (3)

1F, Victor- (Sonalysts)- _(-l'.2~ 4 ).

, ,

'J. Beall, Senior Resident DRP- ('4-)-

P. Wilson, Resident- DRP DUQUESNE LIGHT PERSONNEL-T. Burns, Director' Operations Training- ( 2, 3, 4') . I- *

T.Kuhar, Training SR0 .

('1, 2, 3,~4 )

F. Shuster, Unit.2 Operations Manager- (3)

p[ '

3 D._ Spoerry, Training Manager ( 3 )-

!

, "J.1Vassello, Director' Licensing _ (4)

D.-Haser; Operations- ( 2, 3, 4-)

e KL Ostrowski,' Operations ( 1, 2, 4 )

P

'

A. Beckert, Training ( 1,2 2 )

LD. Topper, Training ('1, 2 )--

J. Oliver,- Training _

.(-1,:2, 4 )

.L. Freela'nd,. Unit one: Operations MGR . -( 4 )

'

1T. Gillot _ . T ra i ni ng' -( 1, 2, 4L.)

R.' Brooks- Trainings  ;(:1,-2-)

LEGEND-(1) ~ Participated in-examination developemen '(2) Participated'.in examination administration 7 (3)' Attended-March:28,1990 entrance meeting  !

= (4). Attended July- 19, 1990 exit meeting -1 e 1

-

i .r i,

'..

!

>

.j

!

c

.

.

'

h a

w

'

.