IR 05000336/1990010

Requalification Program Audit Rept 50-336/90-10OL-RQ on 900618-22.Audit Results:Training Program Rated Satisfactory

ML20056A357
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/20/1990
From:	Briggs L, Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20056A356	List: IR 05000336/1990010 ML20056A355
References
50-336-90-10OL, NUDOCS 9008070112
Download: ML20056A357 (10)

Text

= .

', '

_

v. .c

• t

'

>

p;; w a .< ,

.. , ,

'

t 4 .

-

, s bl.

'

. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. REGION I OPERATOR-LICENSING REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT

!:

L

'

'

_ EVALUATION REPORT NO. 50-336/90-10 (0L-RQ)

'

. . . FACILITY DOCKET NO. 50-336 FACILITY LICENSE.NO. DPR-65 LICENSEE: Northeast Nuclear Energy Company l P. O. Bo'x 270 l

_ Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270-i FACILITY: Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2 ,

<

EXAMINATION DATES: June 18-22,-1990 4 CHIEF EXAMINER: / //// [ eth tarrg. Briggs, SMior Operations Engineer

~0 ate O

,

APPROVED BY:

4 b /

Peter Eselgroth, Chief, PWR section 6dd/7A

'Date

'

'

Operations Branch, Division of Reactor Safety

SUMMARY: The licensed operator requalification' training progrcm was rated as satisfactory. .Written requalification examinations and operating tests were .

administered to seven_ senior reactor _ operators (SR0s) and six reactor '

operators (R0s). The examina'tions were graded concurrently and independently.

by the NRC and'the facility training staff. As graded by the NRC, all SR0s and R0s passed all portions of-the examinati_on. Facility. grading paralleled that of the NRC in all aspects of the. examination.

,

A

4 i

i 9008070112 900724 PDR ADOCK 05000336 V PDC

>

- . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _

, 3 , ,

i

. ,-

w

.

._

L i

,

ts

--

a DETAILS  ;

l

-

( TYPE OF EXAMINATIONS: Requalification ]

L ' EXAMINATION RESULTS: J NRC l R0 E SRO l TOTAL l

._ Grading- l Pass / Fail SPass/ Fail GPan/4il l l L* -

g E E E 'l R l Written l 6/0 l 7/0 l_ 13/0 l I I I I I l Simulator l- 6/0 5 7/0 l 13/0 l E I E E E  ;

-l Walk-through I 6/0 3 7/0 E 13/0 l

!

I E I E I E l Overall l 6/0 E 7/0 l 13/0 l ,

I I I I E

, .'

Facility l _ RO

_

E SR0 g TOTAL E Grading 5. Pass / Fail EPass/ Fail l Pass / Fail l l E E E E  !

l Written- l 6/0 3 7/0 l 13/0 l l l;

'

E= E E E E L 5 Simulator- l 6/0 5 7/0 E 13/0 l l L I- E E I I

! I walk-through '

l 6/0 -g 7/0 g- 13/0- .g E E E E~ E l_Overall 3 6/0 5 7/0 l 13/0 5 <

E E E E E

'

1.0 PERSONNEL CONTACTED DURING THE EVALUATION CHIEF EXAMINER AT SITE: '

o .

L. Briggs, Senior Operations Engineer (1,2,3)

p ,

l: OTHER NRC PERSONNEL:

P. Habighorst, Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit 2 (3)

J. Hanek, Principle Nuclear Operations Engineer, EG&G (1,2,3)

.F. Jagger, Principle Nuclear Operations Engineer, EG&G (1,2,3)

,

.

..

,

y us ]

v 3

,

-

a r m-

t p 3

.

LICENSEE PERSONNEL: ,

. S. Brinkman, Operations Engineer, Millstone Unit 2 -(3)

J. Keenan, Unit 2 Director (3)

J. Smith, Unit 2 Operations Manager (2,3)

R. Spurr, Senior Operator Instructor (Requal. Coord.)- (1,2,3)

R. Stotts, Operator Training Manager. (Acting)- (3)

M. Wilson, Supervisor of Operator Training, Unit 2 (1,2,3)

LEGEND:

(1). Participated in examination development-(2) Participated in examination administration (3) Attended exit meeting on June 8, 1990 at the Northeast Utilities Training Center 2.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS Overall rating: Satisfactory

=The program for licensed operator requalification training at Millstone Point Unit 2-(MP2) was rated as satisfactory in accordance with the criteria established in the revision 5 of NUREG-1021, ES-601. Those criteria are:

p a. A pass / fail decision agreement between the NRC and facility grading

'

of.90% for the written and operating examinations, with the licensee

'not being penalized for holding a higher standard of operator performance.

NRC grading resulted in thirteen operators passing.the written exami-nation. Facility grading also resulted in thirteen operators passing the written examination. This satisfies criterion a.

>

NRC grading resulted in thirteen operators passing the job perform- i ance measures of the examination. Facility grading resulted in ;

thirteen operators passing the job performance measures of the exami- :!

nation. This also satisfies criterion a.

NRC grading resulted in thirteen operators passing the simulator portion of the examination. Facility grading resulted in thirteen i' operators passing the simulator examination. This also satisfies '

criterion a.

b. At least 75% of all operators pass the examination.

NRC grading is the only consideration for this criterion. All !

thirteen operators passed the examination overall. This satisfies criterion b.

i

' *

. .

. 4

,

c.- Failure of no more than one crew during the simulator portion of the operating examination.

Again, NRC grading is the only consideratio.n for this. criterion.

Three crews were evaluated and all three crews passed the simulator portion of the operating examination. This satisfies criterion c.

3.0 SCENARIO EVALUATION The.'following concern was noted during the scenario portion of the operat-ing examinations. '

Scenario RQ2-900-42 was performed by two different operatino crews with different results. The major event in the scenario is a stwr, generator tube rupture (SGTR) with a stuck open stmospheric steam dump valve (ADV).

One crew followed the Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP) and allowed _the ADV.to remain open during cooldown. This crew also classified the event as an ALERT CHARLIE-ONE based on the symptom description in the emergency action level table which statec " leakage in excess of normal makeup AND air ejector or steam gen,erator blowdown radiation monitor alarm." These were the' plant indications at the time. 'The next higher classification symptom required the Main Steam Line (MSL) radiation monitor to be in alarm; it was not. In the condition column of the hioher classification level, it noted rapid SGTR failure with a radioacti u steam release to atmosphere which.was taking place through the ADV. Ouring subsequent- i discussion with the SRO, he did not classify the event as an SITE AREA EMERGENCY CHARLIE-TWO because the symptom column required the'MSL radia-tion monitor alarm, and it was not in alarm, and he did not consider the SGTR to be a rapid failure. Further discussion with the licensee staff indicates that what is being looked for when " rapid" is used is a large leak rate (gallons per minute value) not a'. rate of failure as implied by the word rapid. The EAL classification table is also currently being revised to make it easier to use. In the naw revision, the SGTR will not have an ALERT level, it will start at the SITE AREA EMERGENCY level.

Based on the conflicting information in the EAL classification table and the SR0s reasoning, the NRC examination team-decided that'aithough the SRO failed to classify the event at the predetermined level, he did not fail the overall operating portion (dynamic simulator) of the requalification examination.

The second operating crew to perform the same scenario took action to close the ADV and preclude the release of radioactive steam (via the SGTR). This action, isolating the faulted steam generator by closing the ADV is not in strict compliance with the direction contained within the E0P, which does not instruct the operator to close the valve. Further research'of by the examination team indicates that CEN-152, Revision 3, Page 6-46, allows the faulted steam generator to be isolated if there is forced reactor coolant system flow. During this scenario there was forced coolant flow. The examination team determined that the SR0 had taken action that was more conservative than that directed by the E0P and m

%

Y: .

g[ -

k ,*

v .

. 5

.,

). N k ' limited the simulated release of radioactive steam through the ADV. The facility staff agreed to evaluate 'the current E0P steps and to consider a

, ' change to the E0P to allow isolation of a' ruptured and faulted steam b generator if . forced coolant flow is available. ,

The Supervisor of _0perator Training 'noted that both SR0s would receive ,]

additional training to address the need for conservative.EAL classific- ;

ation-and procedural adherence matters. l

\

4.0 WRITTEN EXAMINATION EVALUATION j No problems were noted with section A or B of the written-examination. i The overall average grade for all thirteen operators was 95.2 percent. !

5.0 JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURES (JPM) EVALUATION JPM #012-500-01-018 I t

This JPM required the operator to manually calculate a shutdown margin.

It was performed incorrectly two of the four times it was conducted. This j

.I indicates a possible need for increased training in this subject area.

S JPM #123-727-01-01 .

!

This was a common JPM (performed by all 13 operators) and required the restoration of bus 24C from emergency diesel generator operation, Three of the 13 operators conducting this JPM failed to properly perform the required task. This indicates a possible need for further training in .

this subject area also.

i

'

No-other areas-of possible generic weakness were identified.

-6.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE AT EXIT MEETING ON JUNE 8, 1990 i

.i a. The NRC expressed appreciation for the level of effort expended by 1

' the training department representatives in accommodating the NRC ]

examination team. This level of effort helped in expediting the ;

review process and the conduct of the exam. Appreciation was also !

expressed for the cooperation and level of-effort expended by all those_ involved in the process, including the operators that were examined, and especially the facility examination team members who j

,

administered the examination.

'

b. The NRC discussed the topics addressed in Paragraphs 2 thru 5 above.

i_

> c. Examination scheduling was excellent. The length of examination days ,

were reasonable and no undue delays were experienced. i Attachinent: Northeast Nuclear Energy Compny Summary of NRC Requalification 1 Examination d

e

-

.ex 3

,,

3,,7- ,

.,

.

. :. -- , ,

. . ,

_t

1

!

.p i ' f' '-

, , :1

. l>

!!

t

~@

f A

Y

-l 1:

$

'

a t

a

'.'!.

.k}

'.f

r, k

t t

'f u

a i

Q t

i, s

t

..

,

&.. .) 3

. \': s

..g y

-

1. ATTACilMENT 1. l

.s l

'k

, . .

g.

.,

y

.

.,

,

\"{ j

,

,

3

.

s a. .

l

. '3

-

t

?.

7 .k r o

p, s @

"

L: 1

1. ~ r b

.l t ,

P

'

-?

.

$;I w .<

t-h i h

tyi '{

-- ,

.

C

[ '

(' ,

-

f S $

.

.'. .

[,

o  ;

i

~

s n.

U b..

m-,. .u_s s __ .mu .- __

, .

_ _ _ _ __

, - - .- -. .. .

" 4. -f

'l

~

Fec .

.. '

,oc ' .i

>f'

. *~

MM General Offices * Selden St'reet, Berlin, Connecticut

,

EstiNNUsIN

 '
 .ame ansa mta tw=

P.o. BOX 470

    ' HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT OS141-0270-

. k ' J CUCSY5%~, J203) 665-5000 RE: NUREG 1021, ES-601-July 12, 1990

     ~
 'Mr. Robert Gal'lo Chief,. Operations Branch  .
        ,

U.-S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, Region 1 475 Allendale' Road

..

King of Prussia, PA 19406 I REFERENCE: Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 s Docket No. 50-336 NRC Requalification Examination Summary L r l Dear Mr. Gallo E During the. Week of June 18, 1990, Licensed Operator Requalifi-cation Examinations were administered to thirteen Millstone Unit.2 Licensed ~ Operators and Senior Licensed Operators. These examinations were conducted in accordance with.NUREG 1021,. Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, section ES-601.

Accordingly, the' examinations were prepared, administered, and

, ' evaluated by both NRC and facility examiners.

Preliminary-results of the facility evaluations for all portions of the examination were provided to Larry Briggs, NRC Chief

 . Examiner, on June ~22, 1990. Based on our review of the exam grading, these preliminary results can be considered final.

Attached is a summary of our-grades.

An evaluation of.the examination results was performed to identify strengths and weaknesses, both individual and crew,.and l. to: identify necessary remediation and enhancements to the MP2 Licensed Operator Requalification Program content.

' The following  ; is a summary,.by examination environment, of the evaluation:. SIMULATOR EXAMINATIONS STRENGTHS (CREW): o In general, teamwork and communications were-good. Where appropriate, team members were involved in decision-making and shared with each other information concerning event strategy and inter-watchstation operations.

l l

E i i m_ - -- --

oy _, - ,

     ..a _
'
.'r ,
.. .
,

v.

+

 ,
     '

o Use of Abnormal Operating Procedures (AOP's). The.

appropriate AOP's were referenced in aLtimely fashion and

 :the actions carried.out showed good familiarity with the affected systems and procedural content.

o 'The fifth, or " spare", cperator, when available, was efficiently used to asstst the teams' efforts.

WEAKNESS (CREW):-

o The use of Plant Procents Computer . (PPC) displays to more effectively trend important process variables needs general improvement. 'tisparities among the shifts was noted; some were excellent; some poor.

WEAKNESSES (INDIVIDUAL):. o Operator r:

 - -Properly referencing and logging applicable Technical l Specification action statements o Operator J:

l

 -

Use of the Emergency Action Level (EAL) tables to arrive at the most conservative event classification l

 -

Proper sequencing of actions within EOP 2540, runctional Recovery o Operators A and B: l

 -

Strict compliance with the requirements of Emergency ; Operating Procedure steps l o Operator E:

 -

General lack of aggressiveness-and contribution.

Communications were not always-complete; actions were tentative.

l o Operator M

 -

Knowledge of integrated plant response associated with the development of natural circulation (tripping of RCP's) L Remedial programs will~be implemented for operators r, J, E, and-M.

E Counseling by Operations = Management has been conducted for Opera-Ia tors A and B with respect to EOP step deviations, Ld The. effective'use of PPC displays will be stressed in future simulator training sessions.

L ! l ,

     - - -
  -  -   -
~
,s s      ,
:p I'D -
      ,

i e

 '
> ,

ok _,

      .

h WALKTHROUGH' EXAMINATION

'

a In. general', the operators demonstratediexcellent proficiency and knowledge for-the-tasks examined.

ThreeJJPM's were performed unsatisfactorily by more than one examineek These JPM's are: o Restore Bus 24C from EDG Operations

.

o Calculate SDM Ak o Local, Manual Operation of the FRV

      ,

I ! Deficiencies noted during the performance of these JPM's will be addressed in upcoming Licensed Operator Requalification T.aining.

WRITTEN EXAMINATION

I Examinee performance _on the written examination was excellent, L . showing a sound mastery of the learning objectives examined. I u " A high percentage of examinees lost credit on four questions.

Two.of these questions, #2116 and #1939, warrant modification ir such that the questions elicit a complete, correct response. Two u questions,.#2313 and #2037 indicate deficiencies which will be

  -

- corrected ~in the Licensed Operator-Requalification Training Program.

, Yours truly, . u NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY L Fort Stephen E. Scace Station Director i, Millstone Nuclear Power Station By: S li MP1 Unit Director j.; Millstone Nuclear Power Station Attachment SES/MJW/rg i i c: Document Control Desk, US NRC L , B. W. Ruth, Manager, Operator Training, NU L R..M. Kacich, Generation Facilities Licensing, NU L. Briggs, US-NRC l l-l L

_ ____-. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . ____ _ _..__ . . -__ _ _ - _ __ - _

    --     -
               ~
    .- ,   -

a.

...

                . .
               ~ ' '

ATTACHMENT LORT EXAMINATION SUMMARY WEEK OF JUNE'18,- 1990 - , MILLSTONE UNIT 2L l-Simulator Static . Static Open Written JPM's JPM Questions Name P/F- 10 3 04- Reference Total No. Sat. No. Correct OPERATOR A P 24.2 22.1 49.45 95.75 9 19 OPERATOR B P' 21.95 22.1 47.8 91.85 9 20-OPERATOR C P 25 21.65 44.05

               ~

90.7- 9 -19 OPERATOR D P 25 25 49.79- 99.79 10 20 OPERATOR E P 25 22.1 49.015- 96.115 '8 20 OPERATOR F P '22.6 25 45.62 93.22 '10 20

              :

OPERATOR G P. 25 22.1 49.66 96.76 9 l 20 OPERATOR H P '21.8 25 47.06 93.86 9 20 OPERATOR I P 25 24.55 49.52 99.07' 10- '"

OPERATOR J P 24.2 24.6 50 98.8 10- ~19 OPERATOR K P 25 20.6 45.19 90.79 10 16 OPERATOR L P 22.5 20.6 47.29 90.19 10 19 OPERATOR M P 25 22.1 50 97.1 9- 20 _ m,

  -~w w  -w-h-- ,w"'s. --q;-  ,%:. ~,
    ,.   #

y,.43 ,

         ._ .L_ ._, ._ _ _ _ _ __ __. _ _ _ _, , _ _ , , _ __,,.ge,9p

}}