IR 05000344/1990005
| ML20034A362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1990 |
| From: | Miller L, Pereira D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034A359 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-344-90-05, 50-344-90-5, NUDOCS 9004230121 | |
| Download: ML20034A362 (32) | |
Text
-
.
,
'
.
.
'
O. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No. 50-344/90,05 Docket No. 50-344 b
License No.'NPF-1 N
Licensee: Portland General Electric Company
'
'121 S. W. Salmon Street-
'
Portland, Oregon 97204 Facility Name:
TrojanNuclear~ Plant Inspection at:
Rainier, Oregon Inspection Con ed:
eb u r 26, 1990 through March 2, 199 T
^
Inspector:
afd" d n'fk 7/.?/ 94 D.
P etra 1 ense Examiner Date Signed
'
Approved by:
.
7/2f/fC
,
I/f.. Miller, J r. fhief, Date Signed i
operations Sec(tjtn Summary:
i Inspection on February 26, 1990 through March 2, 1990 (Report No. 50-344/90-05)
Areas Inspected:
An unannounced special inspection by one regional license examiner of the 1989 requalification written examination, and verification-of the licensee's quality assurance audit conducted in January 1990 concerning discreaancies in-the 1989 requalification examination.
The corrective actions.for.t1e audit discrepancies were reviewed, and an inspection of the 1988 requalification examination results was also performed.
Results and General Conclusions:
The 1989 requalification examination (conducted in January and February,1989)
did not adequately determine whether all of Trojan's licensed operators had passed that examination.
The 1989 exam was compiled and graded by two contractors, who initially failed 11 out of 43 candidates.
A Quality Assurance department audit in January 1990 determined that four of these 11 licensed operators were subsequently regraded and passed by the Trojan Training Supervisor.
>
9004230121 900328'
PDR ADOCM 05000344 G
pw
,
A
.c,
[
,
{ ' [",
'
j(
r
.
e
,
,s
,
!
,
-
'
J
e The examiner noted that the examination's content appeared to be valid.
Each'
question had an adequate knowledge and ability basis.
The exam keys were such that it was sometimes difficult to consistently apportion proper credit for incorrect and correct answers.
The examination consisted of essay and short answer type of questions.
The two: contract examiners, who were experienced training personnel from another site,: appeared to have graded conservatively-and fairly with the given keys,.which resulted in the 11 SR0 failures.
The-licensee's regrade. process was conducted by Tro an's Training Supervisor without'
other management review and approval.
This sin le review and approval process resulted in four SR0's, out of the 11 initial f ilures,. passing theirm examinations, and their. subsequent return to licensed duties.
The Quality Assurance audit findings and observations were confirmed _by the license examiner.
The examiner reviewed the 1988 examination results and determined that.two-operators had failed this exam as well as the 1989 exam. -One other operator'.
who failed the 1988 exam had nearly failed the 1989 exam.
The licensee agreed to reexamine all three of these operators during the.1990 NRC'requalification-exam.
The licensee's corrective action appeared adequate with the exception that the repeated weakness of the three operators discussed above was not identified by the licensee.
Significant Safety Matters: Lack of management review and procedural controls
,
for exam grading.
Summary of Violations or Deviations:
None Open items Summary: One open item (90-05-01): review of the corrective actions for the referenced QA audit findings and observations.
.
-
",,
.
,
.
'
.
_Al u
~
,
')-
,
a
'k
)/
2
.,j
}.
..
,
l
-
..
e l
i
.
'
A
'
.
~DET E S
'
'
.
,
s i
,
1.
a.
Persons Contacted during the Inspection week
- D.. Cockfield. Vice President, Nuclear
,
- T., Walt, General Manager,- Technical Functionc'
e
- D. : Hicks, Geheral Manager; Plant Support
!
- C.
Seaman, GeneraltManager Nuclear Quality Assurance
.
- S? Nichols, Manager,iTrainIng
, *J.
Whelan, Manager, Maintenance-
. J.
Lentsch,. Manager, Personnel Protection Department-
-
- J.
Reinhart, Manager,' Operations
- P.
Nelson,~ Manager, Nuclear Safety and-Regulation Department
- R.
Russell, Branch Manager, Operations
- S.
Bauer, Branch Manager, Nuclear Regulation-
-
- G.
Zimmerman, Branch Manager, Radiological Safety
!
- D.
Nordstrom, Branch Manager Quality Operations Benjamin,pervisor,OperationsTraining
- G.
Ellis, Su
- J.
Supervisor, Quality' Audit
+
- J.
Thale, Supervisor, Emergency. Preparedness-
,
- J.
Pickett, Supervisor, Training Group
- W.
Williams, Compliance Engineer
- D.
Couch, Compliance Engineer t
Oregon Department of Energy I
- H.
Moomey, Reactor Safety Manager
.
- A.
Bless, Resident Inspector
- Attended the Exit Meeting on March 2, 1990.
In addition, the NRC Resident Inspectors attended the Exit Meeting,
,
The license examiner also discussed inspection related topics with other l
licensee personnel during the course of the, inspection, b.
Trojan Management meeting on March 5, 1990 with-Region'V NRC Personnel
,
J. B. Martin, Regional Administrator
-
R. Zimmerman, Director Divisionof-ReactorSafetyandProjects.
S.Richards,BranchChlef,ReactorProjects
- i M. Mendonca, Chief, Section-1
-
,
L. Miller, Chief D.B.Pereira,;Lic.0perationsSection~
.
ense Examiner Portland General Electric' Personnel
.
!
T. Walt, General Manager, Technical Functions
<
0. Hicks, General Manager, Plant Support
.
,
a
' i.
.
i
.
i[7 k
L a
.'
.
,
. -..
.
_
.
,,
,
?
.
.
C. Seaman, General Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance i
S. Nichols, Manager, Training g
Oregon Department of Energy
!
H. Moomey, Reactor Safety Manager
.
2.
1989 Requalification Examination Review
a.
. Chronology
.
ThelicenseexaminerreviewedTrojan's'1989requalificationwritten
examination and compared the results of the Quality Assurance (QA).
l Department audit conducted during January 15-26, 1990.
The license examiner's review determined the following sequence of events:
1.
During.the 1989 c itten requalification exams, conducted on
'
24, 1989,- 11 Senier January -27,' February 10')and Februaryfailed their examinations wh Reactor Operators (SRO'
by Trojan s contract examiners.
The contract examiners were otherwise employed in the training department of another nuclear power plant.
Subsequently, from March 9-13, 1989,.
.
'
. Trojan s Training'SRO' Supervisor regraded these failures and failed only seven of the s, allowing four to pass and return to
=
. licensed duties:
,
-
'
..
<
,
The Quality Assurance Department audit team, on' January 17-22, i
2.
>
1990, conducted a regrade of the four operators passed b Training' Supervisor:plus an additional operator who'had,y the
.
originally.. narrowly been passed by both previous gradings.. It-
' concluded that all five operators failed.
The audit team.
!
.
presented these findings to Trojan's management on January 22,
.
1990.
j
.
-
'3.
After the audit team findings,ision to remove these fiveTrojan
.on January 22, 1990,
senior management made the dec licensed operators from licensed duties. :In addition, as a
.
precaution. a sixth operator (Mr. X) who-had narrowly passed
the examination was removed until his-examination'could be reviewed.
,
4.
On January 22 through 23, an examination review; team comprised
,
of two Operations and two Training management personnel, with
-
revised examination keys, reviewed the six examinations.~ Five-
of the six examinations. were determined to have scores'of :less than 80% (i.e. failing).
i
5.
Based upon this combined Operations / Training management regrade
!
of these five individuals, in February 1990, these individuals:
were placed in Accelerated Retraining, ion, the individual (Mr; were reexamined and
-
returned to licensed duties.
In addit X) who was considered by this team to have passed was returned
,
to licensed duties.
'
..!
_
-
,
~
,
'
3-
.
l
'
'
6.
In addition, the. audit determined that ther( were three findings and four observations of programmatic weaknesses which are discussed in Paragraph 2 c. of this report.
b.
Examination Validity The examiner attempted to determine whether Trojan's written requalification examination was satisfactory. The requirements of an acceptable requalification program are detailed in 10 CFR Part 55.59.
The program must include comprehensive requalification written examinations and annual operating tests which determine areas in which retraining is needed to upgrade licensed operator and senior operator knowledge..
The examiner analyzed the 1989 requalification written examinations.
for the 11 individuals initially failing and several other candidates that had borderline passing grades. The results of this review indicated that the initial contractor grading was conservative and fair with the given exam keys.
Tne examiner's grading with the given exam keys failed nine SRO's, passed two, and found no failures in the borderline cases as compared to the 11 initially failed by the contractor.
The differences in iasults are s
,
indicative of the difficulty of applying the given exam keys, since
'
the keys did not apportion points for partial credit of incorrect answers.
,
The examiner concluded that the 1989 requalification exams were
<
valid with an adequate knowledge and ability basis for the r
questions.
The four section examinations were relatively short and
,
.
> had sections with point values of 12.75 and 13.25. -When a candidate'
"
missed four points in that section it meant a failure of the.
<,
section. The exam questions were essay and short answer with exam
,
-
keyssubjecttointerpretationastocorrectanswerandproper
'
credit for each question.
This made it more difficult to' apportion'
,
proper credit for incorrect and correct answers.
Two other weaknesses in this exam were noted.
The examiner,-in two cases, discovered answers to questions in the stems of other
'
"
,
questions.
Also, there were several True/ False questions in the'
.'
exams.
These are normally not used in NRC examinations duelto the -
50% chance of guessing the correct answer.
The inspector concluded that neither of these weaknesses invalidated the exam.
T
,
~'
Of greater significance, the examination regrading, conducted on-March 9-13, 1989 by Trojan's Training-Supervisor, was without other management review and approval.
This unilateral review and approval resulted in four SR0's passing and continuing licensed activities.
(The seven failures of this exam were placed in an accelerated-retraining program and examined again on March 28, 1989.
All seven of these operators passed their respective makeup examinations.)
The examiner agreed with the audit finding that the exam regrading did not document why additional partial credit had been given.
No procedure to control the allocation of partial credit existed.
J
e
-
..
'
.
!
'
,
,
,
The examiner reviewed the seven m deup examinations of March 28,
!
1989, as mentioned above, for similar audit findings and i
observations.
The examiner's review indicated that the March 28,
,
1989 makeup examination had a slightly greater overall point value
(68)thanthe1989Requalificationexaminations(55.75)Iewalso
~
and had an improved answer key which facilitated grading.
The rev indicated that the training department grading on one candidate was incorrectly summed, but the error was insignificant.
The knowledge and ability level of the SRO makeup examination was at the SRO level and the exam question format was multiple choice and s.hort answer.
No significant discrepancies were identified.
c.
Examination Records
The next issue examined was the naintaining of records.
The
-
licensee is. required to maintain records documenting the
.
participation of each licensed operator and senior operator in-
.,
the requalification program.
These records must contain copies of
!
written examinations administered, the answers given by the-
"
licensee..and.the results of evaluations and documentation of
'
operating tests and of any additional training administered in areas
in which an operator or senior operator exhibited deficiencies, i
The QA audit documented records deficiencies of the 1989 exam on
!
Nonconformance Activity Reports'(NCAR) P90-058, P90-052, and P90-051.
The examiner analyzed the forty-three 1989 re examinations'to review these additional audit findings. qualification
>
, NCAR P90-058 described evidence of grades covered by white-out, failure to initial and date grade changes, and failure to date final i
approval of examination grading.
-
-
,
The examiner concluded that seven examinations had evidence of grades covered by white-out.
The examiner ~ determined that the-
.
'
original contractors had probably made the white-outs, since the i
Trojan's Training Supervisor had crossed out their original grades
and substituted his regrade.
The examiner noted that 12 examinations did not have initials or date-grade changes when
~
regraded by the Training Supervisor.
The examination key answers did not have the additions initialed by personnel approving them.
Finally, there was no final approval date of examination grading for l
the 43 examinations to establish the date the examination became a Quality assurance record.
-.'
Another audit finding deficiency, NCAR P90-052, was the fact that no documentation of accelerated retraining attendance could be found
.
for six of seven licensees who received an ansatisfactory 1989 requalification examination evaluation.
The examiner verified the
!
reexamination results were the.only documentation available to
-
.
verify completion of accelerated retraining.
In addition, an audit
observation indicated that no documentation was evident to' determine
the content, duration, and testing of the accelerated retraining,
'
whichwasrequiredbyTrainingAdministrationProcedure(TAP)-320,
.
" License Retraining Procedure.
The examiner concluded that the
'
,
-.
,
v7
...,
-
.
Ar,
- *
i
^
'
'
.
,
,
'
...
-
~
,
.
,
'
reexaminationandkeysweretheonlydocumentationtoverify accelerated retraining had occurred.
This issue of recualification program documentation was supported by several other aucit findings and observations.
The most important findings and the licensee's resolutions were as follows:
1.
No documentation existed that notified licensees or.their-supervisors that they should not perform. licensed. duties if they failed their examinations.
The personnel were informed and removed as required from licensed duties.
The Operations Supervisor has since provided documentation for affected personnel.
TAP-320 will be revised by April 16, 1990 to require a letter informing the~ supervisors and individuals of removal from licensed duties if they fail'
the requalification exam.
2.
According to NCAR P-90-051, no documentation existed that verified that remedial' retraining had been performed.
In addition, the Supervisor, Operations Training, stated that no-Remedial Retraining had been performed for licensees who scored less than 80% in any single section, but did not fail the exam.
Remedial training was-verified to have been performed for operators who failed the exam.
Personnel responsible for the-program administration were told to ensure that remedial training was documented, and conducted as required.
The remedial programs for those personnel who only-scored less than 80% on a section of the exam have been developed and were to be conducted by March 31, 1990.
The licensee also stated that an overall review of all retrainirig program requirements to verify whether all requirements were met and properly' documented would be completed by May 31, 1990.
e
3.
Documentation'and verification of training was not organized.
matrixed, or filed in a manner which made all training-information readily retrievable.-
1 ;The Ilicensee agreed t'o complete the study of improvements. in.
reco,rd storage by December 31, 1990.
The examiner concluded that the above findings and observations were.
! correct.
Documentation and record keeping of the 1989 requalification
,
examination was inadequate regarding documentation of failed.
individuals.
The1 examiner initiated Open Item 90-05-01 to reviewL the c'ompletion of the above corrective actions of the QA audit *
findings and observationse
,
S
L
,,
l p
- g.,
-
"'
i
- i
-
,
..
a
.,
'
,
- 4 i.
<
,
hm (
'
,
'
,
'
d.
Management Corrective Action
J The examiner analyzed the corrective actions of Trojan's management c
+
after the QA audit's preliminary findings were presented on January 22, 1990.
-
3 -
,
.
After the January,1990.QA audit preliminary findings were expressed to management, corrective action was taken by.the Training-
Department to reevaluate the exams and keys in question.
A combined Operations / Training management team reviewed the 1989 examinations and revised the exam answer keys to better apportion correct and incorrect answers.
Based upon the revised exam keys.and resultc.
,
five operators were ) laced in an accelerated retraining program in
'
January,1990 and suasequently reexamined on February 2,1990.
Wt of the five operators, three operators were actively on shift manning in Operations (Shift Supervisor, Assistant Shift Supervisor and Control Operator), while two operators were in Training-administrative duties (SRO Instructor, and Simulator instructor),
The examiner reviewed the February 2 1990 examinations and noted-the following conclusions:
1.
The February 2, 1990 examinations had an adequate knowledge and ability basis,ith an overall point value'of.97.70. -Theand the four se point values w examination had multiple choice, short answer questions, and no True/ False.
The exam content appeared to be consistent with an SRO level examination.
2.
This examination had the authors of each examination section grade the exam with the Training Supervisor approving the final grades and dating the examinations.
All' candidates passed their examinations, and the examination key was-detailed to apportion partial credit for-incorrect answers.
The review and approval process was again conducted only by the Training Supervisor.
Each examination was annotated with the final date of review.
3.
The examination for one operator-for Section 8, " Administrative Procedures, Conditions, and Limitations," inadvertently deleted 7.5 points by leaving out several of the last questions.
The inspector concluded that the Training De)artment review of-the examination compilation process caused t11s omission.
No other g
examinations had shortened sections.
This error had no significant effect on the result.
.-
4.
Two out of the five examinations had errors in' addition of-scores, which were corrected by the Training Supervisor. 'These-errors had no significant effect'on the results.
As a result of the examiner.'s review of the 1989 Requalification program, and the confirmation of the QA audit findings and-i
,
,
.,
f Y
h
'
t
..
,l'
.
.-
'
'
.
.
observations, the NRC requested the following actions, and the licensee agreed to them.
1.
A representative selection (5-6) of personnel that failed the
-
1989-90 Requalification program would be represented in the April, 1990 Requalification examination.
2.
Based upon their past failures or near failures of the last two selectedfortheApril,threeoaeratorswouldbespecifically1990 NRC Req requalification exams 3.
All short term licensee corrective actions regarding the 1989 Requalification Program will be accomplished prior to the April,1990 Requalification examination.
3.
1988 Requalification Program Review
-
Since the 1989 requalification examination was found-by the QA audit to have some inadequate documentation, a single review and approval-process, and inadequate answer ~ keys, the examiner inspected the 1988-
-
requalification written examination for similar problems.
The license examiner reviewed the 1988 requalification program by reviewing four written examinations.
The review indicated the, examinations were similar to the 1989 examinations _in that the content was essay and short' answer questions.
However, the examinations were more comprehensive and had a larger point total than the 1989 Requalification exams, with a Senior Reactor Operator Examination #1 of 99.25 points, a Reactor Operator Examination #2 of 96.5 points :andia Senior Reactor Operator. Examination #3 of 103.25 points.
The knowledge and ability level for the' examinations appeared to be consistent with the level being tested. This' review indicated that grading was adequate.
The candidate's examinations did not have grader, or aparoval signatures blocks, nor dates for final grade results, similar to tie 1989. written examinations.' No other discrepancies were noted.
Theconclusionbytheficenseexamin'erwasthatthe1988requalification
program had the same. programmatic problems as the 1989, exam,-which were-discovered by the QA" audit in January, 1990.
However, no instances; of regrading.by the Training Supervisor, which passed an operator who initially failed, vere observed.
2 ;
No violations or deviations from_ regulatory requirements were identified; 4.
Trojan Management Presentation to NRC Region V On March 5,1990, Portland General Electric (PGE) made a presentation to Region V management personnel.
Mr..T.D. Walt, General Manager, Technical Functions, presented the introduction.
Mr. C.K.' Seaman, General Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance, presented the QA audit results as. discovered during the January 15-26, 1990 audit.
Mr. G.D. Hicks,-General Manager, Plant Support, presented the PGE corrective actions.
Enclosure'(2)-
provides the summary statements and corrective actions being performed by Trojan Nuclear Plant for the Licensed Operator Requalification Progra.
....-..
r.
,
-
,
+
- t,'
)
'
'
.
.
Mr. Walt began the PGE presentation with the introduction and the concern thatTrojanhasfortherequalificationprogramofitslicensed operators.
This concern was one of the stated reasons why Trojan management requested this meeting.
Mr. Walt detailed in the meeting that the Trojan Nuclear Operation Board (TN0B) would independently verify.the QA Audit results as determined in-January,her personnel who would. report.
1990.
This would be performed-via corporate legal counsel and several ot their results to the TN08.
.
.
..
Mr. Seaman presented the.QA audit process and QA audit results; which consisted of three Nonconformance Activity (Report (NCAR) findings, and four observations, presented in enclosure. 2).
Mr. Zimmerman stated that it is important that licensee management be aware of trends.of poor performance by licensed operators.on.
requalification exams so that it can serve as an input into the overall, ongoing assessment aimed at ensuring PGE supervision has the necessary-confidence in those personnel carrying out licensed duties.
Mr. Zimmerman also asked if the grading, review and approval process was not.nally conducted by one individual.
Mr. Nichols responded that this hadbeenthemethodusedtoreviewand-approvean. examination,sincethel Training Suaervisor was the individual most familiar with the exam.
PGE indicated t1at this procedure would no longer be used.
Mr. Seaman informed Region V personnel of the Task-Force Evaluation conclusions.
Root causes were described as weak controls on examination 11ength a.
-
and key.
There were also weaknesses.in the grading and review of the exams, in that a single individual reviewed,; regraded, and
,;
approved the exams.
White out on grades and cover sheets was
'
'
mentioned as an example.
b.
The results were inconsistent with other assessments of operator
,
knowledge and performance since the operators passed their oral examinations.
The licensee indicated that the problems and.
deficiencies in the licensed operator requalification program,did
>
'
not compromise plant safety.
y I
Mr. Martin questioned how it was possible to not discover these.pfoblems
'
and deficiencies before the QA audit of the 1989 Requalification c
>
examination.
Mr. Seaman indicated that the QA audit of 1988 training and:
.
.
.
operations and the 1989 audit of training did not evaluate the licensed I
j, operator requalification programs.
qO
>
>
Mr. Hicks presented PGE's corrective actions, applicable to the QA audit'
'
, findings and observations, to Region V management personnel asy #
' earlier in this report.
.
described'
,
Additionally, he stated that an Evaluation Task Force had been established, composed of Operations, Training, and Human Resources management, to determine the effect on plant safety, and determine the root causes of this situation.
y
,
-
-
,
.
~
.
,
,'y,pn yf ep 9-
. s
,
,
,
y[ i !' l-i
~;,
i
"
-
>
m.
.
y
._
,
..
,
-.
....
-
s;
"
I'
f o.
Finally, Mr. Hicks presente'd' additional corrective.' actions to' Region'V-
'
'
'
i
+ ; management personnel.
A brief summary of these corrective actionstandi'
'
'
,
-
,'
7-ji,,4 their completion dates-are presented-in enclosure (2).
'
,,.
',
,
~
+
t I
-.t
-.
.
.
- _
s f.
.
_
,
,The NRC requested, and received, the commitments detailed in Paragraph. 3,.
'
,
,
"
2.d of this report.'
L
'
i-
-,
,
T
.
_
L l c.
- -
-
fe' :~
5.
Exit Meetina 2 ' ;".
'
V s.7 p<j
-
,
'
,
The' examiner met with_. licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph Fon,,,
'
'
-
>-
.:3 March 2,.1990. -During this meeting the licensee presented a preliminary
-
'
answer to the QA's Audit findings and observations..The scope and findings of the inspection'were discussed as described in this_ reportc
,,
,
,
'
.i l
+
- >r 4,
r
.y A
s
=
'
..
y'
<
<
'
. $-
'. ',
,
,
,
p 1:-
' *
.y
,
k-e
,
5' M '
N'
_i, b.:
,
., 7 a-t:
' 3
' <>
..
,
J;
,.a-I f M.
_ _ ',
T
'
,, -w
-
,
,
,
'}"
1[
' * :c
,
,
.
.
i
.
.
-
.
~
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.
,
i TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT J
,
,
-
.
!
,
!
Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation
i i
!
NRC Region V
Walnut Creek, California March 5,1990
S '[dffCff h)
--
..
.
.....
..
...
..
. - - -.
-
-
-
.
..
..l;
-
.
l
-
.l
.
.
Licensed Operator Requalification
.
Program Evaluation
!
l AGENDA
!
i INTRODUCTION - T. D. Walt
,
l General Manager, Technical Functions
'
i j
QA AUDIT RESULTS - C. K. Seaman l
General Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance
l PGE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS - G. D. Hicks
!
General Manager, Plant Support i
i-PGE TNOB REVIEW - T. D. Walt
i
!
.
. -.
..
-
.
..
.
-
... - -
..
..
.
.
.
.
,
..
...
.
,
.
.
,
..
'
I
,
i L
1990 AUDIT OF
OPERATIONS / OPERATOR
REQUALIFICATIONS/
'
!
!
EMERGENCY OPERATING l
PROCEDURES i
-
m
.
.
n
,
j
,
,
JANUARY 15
- 26
l
'
,_.
.!
_...
. _ _ _
.
..... -... -
.. -
.
..
'
"~
.
,
,,,
.
'
-
.
,.
i
-
.
l AUDIT SCOPE
- SCHEDULED, PERFORMANCE-BASED AUDIT OF OPERATIONS
~
- TNOB REQUEST TO EVALUATE READINESS FOR NEW OPERATOR EXAMINATION PROCESS l
CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS
A.
CONTROL ROOM ACTIVITIES B.
PLANT ROUNDS
,
~
C.
CLEARANCES i
D.
EQUIPMENT LABELING OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION A.
1988/89 REQUALIFICATION CYCLE
'
B.
NEW EXAMINATION PROCESS C.
REACTIVITY MANAGEMENT TRAINING D.
EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION TRAINING l
E.
SOER IMPLEMENTATION
'
EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES A.
TECHNICAL ACCURACY l
B.
WRITERS GUIDE REVIEW BY AUDIT TEAM D.
VERIFICATION / VALIDATION INCLUDING FIELD WALKDOWNS E.
SETPOINT DOCUMENTATION / CALCULATIONS F.
EOP TRAINING
,
.,. -,.. - -,
y
. -
,.._,,...c w,,
.e...
, _..
,
, -,,
.-.-..--....4._,---.
.....,--,
, --. -..- -+.'
_ __--
.
._
. - -.
.-
-
,
_
,
.k
-
i'
j
-.
.
AUDIT TEAM
.
PGE AUDIT TEAM LEADER
- TRAINING AUDITS
,
!
PGE AUDIT TEAM LEADER
. AUX OPERATOR, OPERATIONS SURVEILLANCES l
i PGE AUDIT TEAM MEMBER
- STA, DEGREED ENGINEER
- SRO CERTIFICATION
- TRAINING EXPERIENCE I
i
TECH SPECIALIST
- EOP VALIDATION / VERIFICATION
- DEVELOPED PERFORMANCE-
,
l BASED EVALUATION CRITERIA l
- TROJAN SSFI TEAM MEMBER i
i TECH SPECIALIST
- VERMONT YANKEE. TRAINING MGR.
- CONSULTANT TO NRC ON NEW
!
EXAM PROGRAM
!
- CRYSTAL RIVER RECOVERY L
TECH SPECIALIST
- WESTINGHOUSE TRAINING ENGR.
!
elMPLEMENTATION OF NEW
!
)
LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINA-TION PROGRAMS
i i
.
....
-..
.
,! '
!
-
.
.,
.
-
'
-
.
l AUDIT CONDUCT REGARDING REQUAL
.
i
- MON. PM (1/15)
AUDIT ENTRANCE
<
l
'
- TUES. EVE. (1/16)
'89 REQUAL EXAMINATION GRADE CHANGE IDENTIFIED
FOR A SINGLE EXAM.
NQA MANAGER NOTIFIED.
i l
- WED. AM (1/17)
SENIOR MANAGEMENT NOTIFIED OF PRELIMINARY I
j CONCERN. (VP, GMs)
)
I i
- WED. - MON. AM INVESTIGATION OF EXAM l
(1/17-1/22)
REGRADING
- SCOPE OF EXAMS INVOLVED i
elNTERVIEW PERSONNEL INVOLVED l
- EVALUATE PROCEDURES
INVOLVED L
elNDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF i
!
EXAM GRADING (
I
!
t i
-.
-,.
,,
,.
_
.
._.
.
..,...
.
.......
. _.. -
..
~
.
_ _ _____.._________ __ j
-
.
.
.
.
--.
,-
,
.
-
.
!
AUDIT CONDUCT REGARDING REQUAL
.
\\
!
i
!
MON. PM (1/22)
MEET WITH GM, PLANT SUPPORT
!
(TRAINING), TO REVIEW AUDIT
,
i TEAM CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
'89 REQUAL.
l i
!
j MON. EVE. (1/22)
MEET WITH VP, GM PLANT i
l SUPPORT, GM NQA TO DISCUSS
{
!
'89 REQUAL j
i
.TELECON WITH PLANT GENERAL
i MANAGER i
. DECISION MADE TO REMOVE i
AFFECTED LICENSED OPERATORS FROM WATCH i
.
!
!
FRI. (1/26)
AUDIT EXIT
!
.
,
FRI. (2/9)
AUDIT REPORT ISSUED
.
t
Page 2 i
i
'
,
.su--
s
,,
u e.
.
-p-
,
w-
- .
,-w---,
. - -. - -
_
._.
- - _
.. - - - __
-
.
.;
_
.-
.
-
!
AUDIT RESULTS
.
l
'89 OPERATOR REQUAL i
THREE FINDINGS
.
- APPROVED PROCEDURES DID NOT ADEQUATELY ENSURE WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS MET NRC STANDARDS, i
TO CONTROL THE GRADING PROCESS, OR TO CONDUCT EVALUATOR TRAINING.
,
- DOCUMENTATION OF ACCELERATED RETRAINING COULD NOT BE FOUND FOR 6 OF 7 LICENSED OPERATORS WHO RECEIVED UNSATISFACTORY 1989 EXAMINATION RESULTS, EXCEPT FOR RE-EXAMINATION RESULTS.
,
,
- LICENSED OPERATORS WHO ACHIEVED GRADES ON INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS OF THE REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION BETWEEN 70 AND 80% DID NOT i
RECEIVE THE REMEDIAL TRAINING REQUIRED BY PGE PROCEDURE.
!.
o
-
-
!
l
\\
i
_
...
.
..
__
-.
-_
-
..
.
u
..
..
-.
.
.
.
AUDIT RESULTS
.
1989 OPERATOR REQUAL FOUR OBSERVATIONS
- DOCUMENTATION WAS NOT LOCATED TO INDICATE THAT THE TRAINING MANAGER AND OPERATIONS MANAGER JOINTLY DETERMINED THE CONTENT, DURATION, AND TESTING FOR THE ACCELERATED RETRAINING.
- DOCUMENTATION WAS NOT LOCATED THAT NOTIFIED LICENSED OPERATORS THAT THEY COULD NOT PERFORM LICENSE DUTIES FOLLOWING UNSATISFACTORY EXAM RESULTS - THIS HAD TO BE VERIFIED THROUGH REVIEW OF CONTROL ROOM LOGS.
- VERIFICATION OF LICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING WAS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING FILING SYSTEM.
- THE 1988 AUDITS OF TRAINING AND OPERATIONS AND THE 1989 AUDIT OF TRAINING DID NOT EVALUATE LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION.
'
>
_. _. _
--,
e.
.
.u-.-s-.
_g.s%-s,w
..#,_.a.
Aa_.m_asw 4.-,..a
-_ - _ - _ - _ _ -am._
a_-
..w_ms.__
maw
.wa_,w.u_mp._%A_a-e-s..-
m4su.._ m.wa w g4A_a,ay, emes. mms _mya._
-..s 4 e m ha., e as -p-_
mW.-----Jd
j
,
J l
,.
- .
L
-
.
!
I
!
)
)
$
l
!
O i
E
.
l
<
t
O_
_
<
@
D F-
'
,
O J
.
!
w D
i l
C
@
i W
I C
!
!
!
l-y
-
i
<
!
X
!
-
0]
W
.
2g
....
!
LLI
-
O
.
i Z
'
O
O
.
i
,
4 g
i
.. --
s.
,+,.-.,
n,-e
-..
,,.e,_,
-,a-.-..
, - -
-r%.=,
..-
e.
+,,,.-e.i
+-____, _..,-.._ _ -
-m -w m
__.e,_
--
,.-e-
... -, -.....
.~.-- -, - *
-.
-.
--
-
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
a
-
,
i Requalification Program Exams
-
i i
i i
i i
'
i December 88
-
Contracted to provide outside
!
assessment and augment PGE manpower
Jan/Feb 89
-
Exams and keys developed by
contract and approved by PGE Jan/Feb 89
-
Written exams administered i
l by PGE
!
i Feb/ Mar 89
-
Contractor graded exams and
l PGE reviewed / regraded to ensure consistency l
and accuracy
.
i
!
!
March 89
-
Oral exams administered by i
i contractor
!
!
i
.
h
'
_
. _ _ _
_
.
.
...
.
.
_ _ _, _
- -.
.
..
..
..
......
.
....;
-
.;
.
-l
.
.
..
Action Taken Based on Exam Results
-
March 89 i
43 Total SRO/RO exams
,
l t
.
All passed oral exams l
l
=
!
=
operators (11/26 SRO's) not passed
by contractor on written exams
!
.
l l
-
4 of these were passed upon PGE
review I
-
7 removed from licensed duties i
~ Accelerated Requal, re-examined by
!
PGE, returned to duty
!
t
L
=
Generic topic weaknesses included in
!
!
1989/1990 license requal program l
l
j
,
i L
. _..
_
.
.-
.
...
.
...
_
.
- - - - -
,
.,
.
.[
}~
-
I
To Address Significant Audit Concerns
-
l with Requalification Exam Results - 1990
.
!
I
l Mon. Jan
QA Audit entrance
!
i s
l Mon. Jan 22 Removed
operators where we had
!
disagreed with contractors grading i
l in overall (3) or section failure
(3) from watchbill/ licensed duties i
i Jan 22/23 Examination Review Team (Operations /
'
Training Management)
j Reviewed exams with contractor l
=
failing score I
6 exams reviewed
j 5 exams determined to be <80%
=
'
Fri. Jan 26
QA audit exit
.
!
!
.
.
.....
..
-
.
-..
..,
_.
.
-
..
-
.
..
-.. _. _... _... _ _,
_ _ _ _
_
-
_--
-
..
.,.
'
.
.
.
[.
Requalification Exam Results
-
!
Continued
i
!
!
!
Feb. 90
=
5 Personnel removed from watchstanding/
'
licensed duties completed Accelerated Retraining, were re-examined and
returned to License duties
i L
Feb. 90 e
18 Individuals assigned additional i
training with a completion date of
j April 20,1990 l
!
.
!
.
i i
i i
i
..
.
,.
_
-
.~
.
......
..
.
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _. _ _ _ _
-
.
..
.
e
-
.
.
.
Concern with Requalification
-
Exam Process Feb. 90
=
Evaluation Task Force
-
Management Personnel from Operations, Training, and Human Resources
-
-
Observed by Quality Assurance
.
Objectives
-
Effect on Plant Safety
-
Determine root cause of Examination Results
=
Failure Rate
=
__
__
..
..
.
e e
.
.
.
Task Force Evaluation
-
Conclusions Root Causes
Inadequate controls on the development
-
of the examination and key exam quality / length
prescriptive key
Inadequate controls on the grading and
-
review of exams single individual reviewing, regrading, e
approval errors / white out on grades / cover sheets
Results inconsistent with other assessments of
operator knowledge / performance The problems and deficiencies in the licensed
operator requalification program did not compromise plant safety
. --.
- - - - - -
--
. -
.
. -
_ -
_
_ _ _
_ _ - _
-.
.
.
..,
.
-:
..
-
.
.;
.
.
.
Corrective Actions
-
!
I Immediate L
=
<
-
Removed personnel from licensed
l duties j
'
-
Examination Review Team evaluated
.
!
examinations
i j
r i
-
Personnel with failing. exams
completed accelerated retraining L
-
Formed Evaluation Task Force.
e i
-
.
-
.=
--
.
- -
- - - -
- -
- -
.
.
...
.
,
.,
.
.
.
.
.:
.
.
Additional Corrective Actions
-
.
-
!
.
Develop and implement administrative controls i
on Examination Preparation, Administration
and Grading Specific requirements for License Operator a
,
Requalification. exam I
Train. the ' training personnel involved in
=
April examinations
Completion date
-
April 16,1990 i
-
.
i Complete / correct identified documentation i
problems.
Revise. applicable procedures to
.
specify. documentation requirements j
Completion date
-
April 16,1990
'
-
<
i
_
..
-
_
_
w
_
_
.
.
.,
.
l
Additional Corrective Actions I
Continued
~
!
Fully implement revised requalification
!
examination program Completion date
-
April 16, 1990
-
-
i Review of current procedures to ensure
j all retraining program requirements i
are met and accurately documented
Completion date
-
April 16,1990
-
,
Complete all remedial training programs
Completion date
-
April 20, 1990
-
i Verify requalification program meets all l
i applicable requirements / commitments.and
)
revise as-necessary
Completion date
-
May 31, 1990
-
.
.
..
.
.
-
,-
,,
- _
- -
~.
..
. -.,
. _, - _...
-
- - -
.
_ _
.
.
..
..
.
.
.,l
-
.
Additional Corrective Actions-
-
Continued
Develop and implement common administrative
controls on examination preparation, administration and grading for all training i
programs and train all personnel i
Completion date
-
June 30, 1990-I
-
Follow-up action.
QA revisit to determine
!
effectiveness i
l Complete record storage system evaluations.
implement new computerized -record storage
".
system
[
Completion date December 31, 1990
-
,
.
i
!
.
'
,
.
-
-
--
-..,
.. ~
-.
- - -
.
- __ - _ __________ ____-___________ __,,
_
3,
.;:.:.
,L.
g n
a w,eam-mn-6m
-.mm.,
amm_,s.
-wm
,
,
.
...
.
-
..
4-
.6 (
t
!
"O J
l u
L CO O~
'
CD l
v)C
,
.O
-
(D u-
.
@
'
uJ o.
.o_
'
'
O
-
>
l
O u
.
(Q
'
,
i O
-
-
,
!
DZ
!
C (0
-
O u
k
,
l
,
I i
l
.
-
. -... -
.