IR 05000387/1990001
| ML17157A069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1990 |
| From: | Conte R, Pullani S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157A068 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-90-01OL, 50-387-90-1OL, 50-388-90-01OL, 50-388-90-1OL, NUDOCS 9003200449 | |
| Download: ML17157A069 (37) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION COMBINED REPORT NOS ~
FACILITY DOCKET NOS.
50-387 and 50-388 FACILITY LICENSE NOS.
FACILITY:
EXAMINATION DATES:
NRC EXAMINERS:
Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Penn syl vani a 18101 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station January 22-26, 1990 S. Pullani, Senior Operations Engineer T. Walker, Senior Operations Engineer D. Draper, Examiner, PNL M. Riches, Examiner, PNL CHIEF EXAMINER:
S. Pullan
,
Se 'perations Engineer 2 -27-9o Date APPROVED BY:
>chard J.
Cont
, Chief, BWR Section Operations Branch, DRS Date
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Written and operating examinations were administered to five crews consisting of 10 Reactor Operators (ROs)
and 10 Senior Reactor Operators (SROs).
The examinations were graded concurrently. by the NRC and the facility training staff.
The results of the NRC and the facility grading were identical.
Eight of the
ROs and all of the
SROs examined passed all portions of the examination.
Two ROs did not perform satisfactorily on the simulator portion.
These two ROs passed the remaining two portions of the examination.
All five crews that were evaluated performed satisfactorily on the simulator portion of the examinations.
The licensee's licensed operator training program was determined to be satisfactory based on the criteria established in section ES-601 of NUREG-1021, Revision 5.
In accordance with the Commission approved staff paper (SECY 89-55)
on four alternatives for reducing the level of examiner resources necessary for conducting requalification examinations under
CFR 55,'he approved
"Alternative B" (i.e.,
one examiner evaluating two candidates on selected portions of the examination)
was used for this requalification examination.
This requalification examination is the first in Region I using Alternative B.
This examination also evaluated the largest number (20) of candidates in Region I for a one-week requalification examination.
The results indicate that this alternative is a viable method for reducing the examiner resources.
DETAILS l.
Introducti on During the examination period the NRC administered requalification examina-tions to 20 licensed operators (10 ROs and 10 SROs).
Sixteen of the
.operators belong to two regular plant operating shifts (eight/shift) and the remaining four belong to four different shifts.
The 20 operators were divided into 5 crews for the simulator part of the examination.
The examiners used the process and criteria described in NUREG 1021,
"Operator Licensing Examiner Standards,"
Revision 5, section ES-601, "Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations'
"
The examiners also reviewed the licensee's procedu'res for conducting licensed operator training and the results of, the requalification examinations administered by the facility.
Two meetings were held with the licensee in NRC Region I office at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, on October 31, 1989, and December 27, 1989.
The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the plan and schedule for the examinations.
An entrance meeting was held with the licensee on January 8,
1990, at the site.
The purpose of this meeting was to brief the licensee on the, requirements of the requalification program evaluation and to outline a
prospective schedule for the examinations.
The licensee personnel contacted during the examination are listed in Attachment 1.
The members of the combined NRC/facility examination team, and the facility 'evaluators are also identified in Attachment 1.
2.
Examination Results 2.1 Individual Examination Results The following is a
summary of the individual examination results:
NRC i
RO i
SRO f
TOTAL Grading )Pass/Fail (Pass/Fail(
Pass/Fail Written 10/0 10/0 20/0 Simulator)
8/2 10/0 18/2
)Walk-Through 10/0 10/0 20/0 Overall 8/2 10/0 18/2
Faci1 ity (
RO (
SRO (
TOTAL Grading
[Pass/Fail (Pass/Fail(
Pass/Fail Written 10/0 10/0 20/0 Simul ator]
8/2 10/0 18/2 (Walk-Through 10/0 10/0 20/0 Overall 8/2 10/0 18/2 2.2 Generic Stren ths and Weaknesses The following is a
summary of generic strengths and weaknesses noted by the NRC from the results of the individual requalification examinations.
This information is being provided to aid the
'icensee in upgrading the requalification training program.
No
licensee response is required.
2.2. 1 Simulator Examinations
~Stree the:
~
.
Responding to alarms, including use of the Alarm Response procedures
~
Control Board Manipulations
~
Understanding of Plant Response Weaknesses:
~
Relaying and receiving, relevant information:
Acknowledgement of information was inconsistent; alot of information was supplied, some of it irrelevant, in an unorganized manner and the SROs did not hear or ignored communications at times because of this; crew members often had to be prompted to supply information.
~
Monitoring of primary containment parameters during challenges to the containment:
It appears that this deficiency is due to a weakness in training on dynamic implementation of primary containment control.
Crews very seldom provided updates of containment parameters without being prompted.
Although followup questioning indicated that there were no knowledge deficiencies, timely implementation of the primary containment control Emergency Operating Procedure'EOP)
was weak.
Note: During the exit meeting, the licensee stated that, to address the above two weaknesses, more emphasis will be placed on the control room communications and primary containment monitoring during the next requalification training cycle.
2.2.2 Job Performance Measures JPMs
~Stree the:
~
Overall performance of the JPMs, both in plant and simulator, Weaknesses:
~
JPM question related to slow transfer of the auxiliary busses (262.002.01 Question 2): This common JPM question was missed by 4 out of 10 individuals who were asked this question.
The licensee stated that this weakness will be corrected during the next requalification training cycle.
2.2.3 Other Observations Evaluations
~
Facility evaluations asked appropriate followup questions and clarified prewritten questions when necessary during administration of the JPM.
Simulator Evaluations Scenarios were modified during the examination preparation week to facilitate evaluation of critical tasks (licensee stated during the preparation week that they had not previously used technique of failing automatic equipment during evaluations).
Method utilized to run the simulator evaluations (events inserted by simulator operator as written in scenario rather than directed by one of the evaluators on the floor) occasionally cut short the evaluation of the task before it was completed to the satisfaction of all the evaluators (e,g.,
rods were allowed to insert before the crew had demonstrated the ability to control reactor water level during level/power control).
Capabilities of the simulator, especially with respect to primary containment challenges, limited the task that could be evaluated during the dynamic simulator examinations and appears to have limited the effectiveness of training on primary containment control.
3.
Re uglification Pro ram Evaluation Results The facility program for licensed operator requalification training was evaluated based on the criteria of ES-601, Paragraphs C.3.b. (1),
C.3.b.(2),
D. l.c.(2)(c), D.2.c.(2)(b),
and D,3.c.(2)(b).
3.1 Re uglification Pro ram Re uirements The review of the licensee's procedures for conduct of licensed operator training indicated that the requalification program meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(2), (3),
and (4) for lectures, on-the-job training, and evaluations'he program is also based on a
Systems Approach to Training (SAT) and, therefore, meets the criteria of ES-601, paragraph C.3.b.(1)(d).
3.2 Examination Results On an individual basis, 90% of the operators passed the overall examination as graded by the NRC which meets the criteria of 75%
established in ES-601, paragraph C.3.b(l)(b).
All five of the crews were determined to be satisfactory by the NRC and the facility which satisfies the criteria for the simulator evaluation provided in ES-601, paragraph D.l.C(2)(c)(4).
For a
program to be judged satisfactory, no more than one third of the crews may be evaluated as unsatisfactory by the NRC.
All of the individual operators passed the walk-through examination which satisfies the criteria of 75% established in ES-601, paragraph D.2.c.(2)(b)(2).
3.3 With respect to the written examination, 100% of the operators passed, as graded by the NRC (also 100% as graded by the facility)
which meets the criteria of ES-601, paragraph D.3.c.(2)(b) that at least 75% of the operators must pass the examination for the program to be judged satisfactory.
A reement on Pass/Fail Decisions Both the NRC and the facility passed eight ROs and
This resulted in 100% agreement on pass/fail decisions between NRC and facility grading which meets the criteria of 90% established in ES-601, paragraph C.3.b.(1)(a).
Both the NRC and the facility found all the crews satisfactory on the simulator evaluations; and, therefore, the criteria of ES-601, paragraph D. l.c.(2)(c)1 was met.
The program may have been judged unsatisfactory if the NRC evaluated one crew unsatisfactory and the facility found the same crew to be satisfactory.
The final results of the individual simulator evaluations were identical between the NRC and facility grading which meets the criteria for 90% pass/fail deci sion agreement established in ES-601, paragraph D. l.c.(2)(c)2.
There was 100% agreement between the NRC and the facility on pass/fail decisions on the walk-through examinations which meets the criteria of 90% agreement from ES-601, paragraph D.2.c.(2)(b)(1).
There was 100% agreement between the NRC and the facility on a
pass/fail decision on the written examination.
This met the program criteria for 90% agreement established in ES-601, paragraph D.3.c.(2)(b).
3.4 Common Job Performance Measures Of the five common Job Performance Measures (JPMs),
none was missed by any examinees as graded by the NRC and as graded by the facility.
None of the common JPMs were missed by at least 50% of the examinees; therefore, paragraph C.3.b(2)(a) of ES-601 is not applicable.
Only four of the ten examinees missed the same common JPM question (JPM 262.002.01, Question 2).
Although thi s result meets the require-ment in paragraph C.3.b(2)(b) of ES-601 that the same common JPM question should not be missed by more than 50% of the examinees, this result is indicative of a weakness in training.
The licensee plans to take appropriate corrective actions for this weakness.
(See Section 2.2.2)
Seventeen of the 20 (85%) the examinees correctly answered at least 80% of the common JPM questions which meets the criteria of ES-601, paragraph C.3.b(2)(e) that at least 75% of the examinees score over 80% on the common JPM questions.
3,5 Licensed 0 erator Trainin The results of the requalification examinations and review of the requalification program indicated that the facility trains and evaluates operators in all positions permitted by their individual licenses; therefore, paragraph C.3.b.(2)(c) of ES-601 is not applicable.
The facility had trained operators for the in-plant JPMs as evidenced by a review of training records and the 100% pass rate on the walk-through examination; therefore, paragraph.C.3.b.(2)(d) of ES-601 is not applicable.
3.6 Faci 1 it Evaluators All of the facility evaluators were found to be satisfactory in accordance with the standards established in Attachment 5 to ES-601; therefore, paragraph C.3.b(2)(f) of ES-601 is not applicable.
3.7 Summar of Results The Susquehanna licensed operator training program was evaluated as satisfactory.
The program met all the criteria of ES-601, paragraph C.3.b(l) for a satisfactory program.
ES-601 further requires that a
requalification program be determined to be unsatisfactory if three or more of the items in paragraph C.3.b(2) are applicable.
A program may be determined to be unsatisfactory if one or two of the items are applicable.
The licensee's requalification program was determined to be satisfactory because none of the items from paragraph C.3.b,(2)
was applicable.
The facility's program also met all the criteria for a satisfactory requalification program for the simulator, walk-through and written portions of the examination.
These criteria are described in ES-601, paragraphs D. l.c.(2)(c),
D.2.c.(2)(b)
and D.3.c.(2)(b).
Re uglification Examination Pre aration The licensee submitted reference materials, test items, and a Sampling plan approximately 60 days before the examinations were administered.
These materials were reviewed in the Regional Office and the specific test items proposed by the facility were reviewed on-site by the combined NRC/facility examination team.
The facility then revised the items and produced the examination that was administered to the examinees.
The test items that were administered to the operators are listed in Attachment 2.
The NRC-facility examination team spent considerable amount of time in improving the quality of the simulator scenario proposed for the examina-tion.
A number of unnecessary operator action evaluation steps and Individual Simulator Critical Task ( ISCT) steps were deleted from the scenarios.
The ISCTs were reviewed against the "four-fold criteria" in the proposed ES-601, Revision 6 as additional guidance.
The team's effort in this area helped identifying valid ISCTs for the examination.
Only minor revisions were required to the JPNs proposed for the exami-nation.
However, several JPM questions had to be replaced because they were simple "look up" types for which answers would be found easily by looking up the related procedural precautions or steps.
The JPMs were generally of good quality.
The JPMs that were submitted for NRC review required a generic revision to include maximum allowed time for performance, actual time taken by the candidate, K/A valve for each JPM, and a place to write the second examinee's name because of the "Alternative 8" approach used for administration of the JPMs.
The Sampling Plan submitted for the examination was adequate for the purpose.
The plan indicated the emphasis that each topic received during the most recent requalification cycle and included a
summary of the specific examination subject requirements.
The written examination questions submitted for NRC review were generally satisfactory.
Some questions had to be reworded for clarity, and a few questions had to be deleted or replaced.
guality control was excellent for the examination materials that were submitted to the NRC following the review by the combined NRC/facility examination team.
The facility had a week to make changes and review the corrected materials prior to submittal to the NRC for final review.
The examination materials that were submitted contained the specific test items and the required revisions that had been agreed upon by the examina-ti,on team.
Re uglification Examination Administration The dedication of the facility training personnel during the extensive hours that were required for administration of the examinations was a
strength of the program.
The stress of the long hours did not affect the quality of the evaluations.
Training and operations personnel were very cooperative throughout the examination process.
Administration of the examinations was generally satisfactory except that static simulator part of the written examination appeared to be requiring much more time than planned for when the examinations were scheduled.
The licensee is reconsidering its method of time validating the static simulator examinations.
Th'e simulator portion of the examination was conducted smoothly and efficiently.
The scenarios required minimal setup time and the simulator operator did not allow any delays to occur during performance of the scenarios.
However, the time of introduction of malfunctioning by the simulator operator during scenario should be sufficiently flexible and coordinated by one facility evaluator. to allow all evaluators complete all required evaluations (see Section 2.2.3).
The fidelity of the simulator was sufficient for administration of the simulator and walk-through portions of the examinations.
The logistics of the walk-through examinations (JPMs) went smoothly.
The time validation of the JPMs was reasonably accurate, but could be improved using the data collected during administration of the examination.
Some of the prewritten JPM questions required clarification which indicated that question validation was not performed as thoroughly as it should have been.
However, this did not result in any problems because the facility evaluators provided the required clarifications to the examinees.
The evaluators knew that it was not only acceptable, but expected practice to clarify questions.
Examination Gradin and Anal sis of Results Crew performance on 'the simulator portion of the examination was critiqued by the lead facility examiner immediately following completion of both scenarios.
These critiques were brief, and there was little input from the licensed operators.'he NRC and facility evaluators discussed the results of the simulator examination and the followup questions (if any)
to be asked the examinees following each individual scenario.
In the majority of instances, the NRC and facility evaluators agreed on all the areas that were evaluated.
The required followup questions were asked as necessary to clarify operator actions.
The results of the individual JPMs were discussed immediately following administration of the walk-through examinations.
In most cases, the NRC and facility evaluators agreed on the evaluations.
In one case, the NRC and facility evaluator s did not agree on the evaluation of an individual JPM and another JPM question, but the facility was more conservative, which is acceptable.
A summary of facility grading on all parts of the examination is included in Attachment 4 to this report.
Comparison of the NRC grading and the facility grading indicated general agreement between the two, in most cases.
In general, the facility grading was found to be more conservative.
It is acceptable for the facility to have higher performance standards than the NRC; therefore, these differences did not indicate any deficiency in the facility's grading techniques.
Exit Meetin An exit meeting was held at the conclusion of the examinations on January 26, 1990.
The personnel in attendance are indicated in Attachment 1.
The NRC results of the simulator and walk-through portions of the examinations were presented.
Examination preparation and administration were discussed along with the results of the facility administered examinations.
The examiner noted that, in accordance with the Commission approved staff paper (SECY 89-55)
on four alternatives for reducing the level of examiner resources necessary for conducting requalification examinations under
CFR 55, the approved "Alternative 8" (i.e.,
one examiner evaluating two candidates on selected portions of the examination)
was used for this requalification examina-tion.
This requalification examination is the first in Region I using Alternative B. This examination also evaluated the largest number (20) of candidates in Region I for a one-week requalification examination.
The results indicate that this alternative is a viable method for reducing the examiner resources.
Attachments:
1.
Persons Contacted 2.
Requalification Examination Test Items 3.
Documents Reviewed 4.
Licensee Results
Attachment
Persons Contacted 1.
Penns lvania Power and Li ht Com an PPKL J. Blakeslee, Assistant Superintendent of Plant (1), (2)
R. Chin', Simulator Instructor (1), (4)
W. DiDomenico, Simulator Instructor ( 1), (4)
J. Jones, Evaluator (4)
T. Logsdon, Unit Supervisor, Operations (2), (3)
W. Lowthert, Manager Nuclear Training (1), (2), (5)
H. Palmer, Jr., Superintendent of Operations (1), (2), (4), (5)
R. Peal, Operations Training (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6)
J.
Seek, Simulator Instructor (1), (2), (4)
E. Stanley, Plant Superintendent (1)
B. Stitt, Simulator Instructor (2), (4)
2.
Nuclear Re ulator Commi ssion NRC S. Barber, Senior Resident Inspector ( 1), (2)
D. Draper, Examiner, PNL (1), (3)
S. Pullani, Senior Operations Engineer ( 1), (2), (3)
M. Riches, Examiner, PNL (1), (3)
T. Walker; Senior Operations Engineer (1), (2), (3)
Notes:
(1) Attended Exit Meeting, January 26, 1990 (2) Attended Entrance Meeting, January 8, 1990 (3) Member, Combined Facility/NRC Examination Team (4) Facility Evaluator (5) Attended Region I Meeting, October 31, 1989 (6) Attended Region I Meeting, December 27, 1989
Attachment
Re uglification Examination Test Items
EXAM ITEM MATRIX NAME CANDIDATE 1 CANDIDATE2 CANDIDATE3 CANDIDATE4 CANDIDATE5 CANDIDATE6 CANDIDATE7 CANDIDATE8 CANDIDATE9 CANDIDATE 10 CANDIDATE 11 CANDIDATE 12 CANDIDATE 13 CANDIDATE 14 CANDIDATE 15 CANDIDATE 16 CANDIDATE17 CANDIDATE 18 CANDIDATE 19 CANDIDATE20 SIM EXAM (PM EXAM WRITTEN EXAM SRO
RO1 RO1 SRO
RO1 SRO 2 SRO 2 RO2 RO2 SRO 2 SRG 2 RO2
SIM EXAMS EXAM 1 Scenarios 101 104 EXAM 2 Scenarios 115 107 EXAM 3 Scenarios 108 105
JPM EXAM 1 JPIVI¹ 262.002.01 205.017.01 223.009.01 200.014.01 200.070.01
'00.014.02 200. 1 52.02 264.002.01 205.018.01 202.011.01 Simulator Simulator In Plant In Plant Control Room In Plant In Plant Simulator Simulator Simulator
JPM EXAM 2 JPIVIP 262.002.01 205.017.01 223.009.01 200.014.01 200.070.01 200.014.04 200.134.01 263.011.02 206.007.02 202.012.01 Simulator Simulator In Plant In Plant Control Room In Plant In Plant In Plant Simul ator Simulator
)PM EXAM 3 iPV¹ 262.002.01 205.017.01 223.009.01 200.014.01 200.070.01 200.014.05 200. 149.01 212.001.02 217.003.02 259.007.01 Simulator Simulator ln Plant In Plant Control Room In Plant
='imulator In Plant Simulator Simulator
>PM EXAM4 JPM4 262.002.01 205.017.01 223.009.01 200.014.01 200.070.01 200.014.09 200. 034.01 264.005.02 218.002.01 259.006.02 Simulator Simulator In Plant In Plant Control Room In Plant In Plant Simulator Simul ator Simulator
WRITTEN EXAM RO-1 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R7 R8 R10 R11 R12 R1 R2 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 RO-1 B
294-01R 200-01R 200-22R 200-55R 002-09R 002-02R 223-22R 239-02R 223-03R 223-06R 261-06R 215-15R 202-02R 211-02R 2 16-01R 2 i 2-02R
WRITTEN EXAM SRQ-1 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R8 R10 R11 S1 S3 R1 R2 RS R6 R7 R8 R9 R11 S1 S3 SRO-1 B
004-035 200-48S 002-09R 239-02 R 004-16R 218-03R 223-06R 223-03R 261-06R 300-34S 215-15R 299-16S 202-05S 211-02R 216-01R 204-07R
WRITTEN EXAM RO-2 R1 R2 R3 R4 RS R7 R8 R9 R11 R12 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R9 R10 R11 RO-2 B
,294-01R 200-01 R 200-22 R 002-09R 002-02R 223-22R 239-02R 004-09R 271-04R 300-14R 223-03R 223-06R 261-06R 21S-15R 212-02R 202-02R
WRITTEN EXAM SRO-2 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R7 R8 R9 R12
R1 R2 R4 R5 R6 R7 R10 R11 S1 S2 SRO-2 8 004-03S 200-485 002-09R 285-02R 239-02R 004-16R 271-04R 300-14R 223-03R 223-06R 261-06R 300-34S 299-16S 212-02R 202-055 211-02R
Attachment
Oocuments Reviewed Number NTP-gA-31. 2 OP002 Title Licensed Operator Requalification Program Licensed Operator Requalification (Information Sheets)
Revision
Attachment
Licensee Results
0
Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company P.O. Box 467
~ Berwick, PA 18603-0467
~ 717/542-3350 Susquehanna Training Center January 31, 1990 Mr. Robert Gallo Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 SUSQUEHANNA TRAININGCENTER Facility Grades - Requalification Examinations PLA 33/0 File A14 13D
Dear Mr. Gallo:
Attached are the facilitygrades forthe NRC requal exams administered at Susquehanna during the week of January 22, 1990, a summary of our results as compared to the program evaluation criteria of ES-601, and our evaluation of our Licensed Requalification Program.
We look forward to your evaluation of our program.
I-'VG.S anley '~
Superintendent of Plant - SSES Response:
No Attachments cc:
J. A. Blakeslee w/a A. S. Fitch w/a W. H. Lowthert w/a T. R. Markowski w/a H. J. Palmer w/a R. M. Peal
.
w/a
. K. M. Roush w/a NTG File w/a SRMS-DCC: Site w/o MP/Facility Grades RMP/HGS/vah
'
LICENSED OPERATOR REQUAL PROGRAM SELF-EVALUATION Executive Summary During the week of January 22, 1990, NRC administered Requal Exams were given at Susquehanna.
Twenty individuals comprising five control room teams were examined.
Results are as follows:
~
Allfive control room teams were satisfactory.
~
Ten out of ten SROs passed the simulator exam.
~
Eight out often ROs passed the simulator exam.
~
Alltwenty operators passed the walkthrough exam.
~
Alltwenty operators passed the written exam.
~
All Program Evaluation Criteria that can be evaluated. by the facilitywere satisfied.
~
More emphasis is needed on primary containment monitoring and control room communications.
~
The Licensed Operator Requalification is being conducted satisfactorily.
1.0 Exam Results 1.1 Individual Exam Results Written Simulator Walkthrough Overall RO Pass/Fail 10/0 8/2 10/0 8/2 SRO Pass/Fail 10/0 10/0 10/0 10/0 Total Pass/Fail 20/0 18/2 20/0 18/2 R
A more detailed summary by candidate is attached. Attachment 1 gives the grades, by candidate, for each section ofthe exam. Attachment 2 is a matrix showing all exam items given to each candidate.
1.2 Generic Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths Use of alarms Understanding of plant response Weaknesses Monitoring of primary containment parameters Recognition of "rods full in" after an ATWS transient Communications
~
Acknowledgement of information by the Unit Supervisor
~
Atendency by PCOs to give information without assessing its relevance, and then move on without getting acknowledgement Lack of understanding of the slow transfer of 13.8 KVauxiliary buses
2.0 Program Evaluation I
The Susquehanna Requal Program compares to the criteria of ES-601 as follows:
2.1 Ninety percent of all operators passed the exam. This exceeds the 75 percent required by C.3.b.(1) (b).
2.2 The program is based on a systems approach to training and meets the
'equirements of 10 CFR 55.59 (c) (2), (3), and (4), as required by C.3.b.(1) (d).
2.3 Allcommon JPMs were performed satisfactorily, exceeding the requirement of C.3.b.(2) (a).
2.4 One question on a common JPM was missed by four of ten people.
No other common JPM question was missed by more than one operator.
This meets the requirement of C.3.b.(2) (b).
2.5 SROs and ROs were rotated into both of the licensed positions that they would be expected to fulfillat Susquehanna, satisfying the requirement of C.3.b.(2) (c).
2.6.
Operators were trained for in-plant JPMs as required by C.3.b.(2) (d).
2.7 Seventeen oftwenty operators (85 percent) answered at least 80 percent oftheir common JPM questions correctly, satisfying the requirement of C.3.b.(2) (e).
2.8 Allcontiol room crews were satisfactory, exceeding the requirement of D.1.c.(2) (c)4.
2.9 Alloperators passed the walkthrough exam, satisfying the requirement of D.2.c.(2) (b) (2).
2.10 Alloperators passed the written exam, satisfying the requirement of D.3.c. (2) (b).
3.0 Lessons Learned 3.1 Exam Preparation The following items became apparent during the exam process, and willbe corrected in preparing for our next exam:
Simulator Critical Tasks must be modified to meet the new definition.
Some critical tasks were suggested by NRC and used. These types of tasks had not been considered by Susquehanna, and using them will add a degree of flexibilityto our simulator scenario development.
JPM questions must be reviewed to ensure that they are not direct look-ups.
Static simulator exams need more questions per setup to allow greater flexibilityin exam construction.
Our method of time validating written exams must be reconsidered.
Our static simulator exams ran longer than they should by design.
One JPM has an 'allowed time'hich appears to be too short. Itwill be reconsidered and adjusted ifnecessary.
3.2 Exam Review The following items willbe changed to make better use oftime during the exam review week:
Exams willbe time validated before the review week.
Another person willbe added to the exam review effort to allow quicker correction of any errors.
More simulator time willbe scheduled, since this seemed to be the limiting area.
3.3 Exam Administration We willschedule five hours for each JPM exam instead of four.
3.4 Plant Operations EO-100-103, Primary Containment Control, willreceive more emphasis in the coming year.
Control Room communications willbe emphasized; particularly acknowledgement of information by the Unit Supervisor and PCOs, ensuring that their information is received.
Use of the full core display willbe reviewed.
In a failure to scram situation, PCOs took longer than necessary to confirm inward rod motion due to misunderstanding information on the full core display.
WRlTTEN STATIC
]PM AVERAGE PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS SIM Candidate 82.5
100
100 100
80
80 92.5 100 97.5 100 92.5
100
95 98.75 100 83.75 87.5 91.25 87.5 87.5 96.25 91.25 98.75 83.75 91.25 97.5
98.5 Avg 86.25 91.25 88.75 96.9 91.9 89.4 87.5 93.75 91.25 94.4 96.75 100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Common 8/8 2/2 1/2 8/8 8/9 8/8 2/2 2/2 8/8 Overall 10/10 10/10 9/10 10/10 10/11 10/10 10/10 8/10 10/10
97 5 100 98.75 97.5 98.1 100%
3/4 9/10
13 87.5 100 77 5 100 100 100 93.75 87.5 88.75 83.75 100 100 90.6 86.25 100 80%
100%
100%
2/2 4/6 2/2 10/10 8/10 10/10
100
100 100
100 100 100 97.5 100 10P%
1PP 7/8 7/8 9/10 9/10
90
80 98.75 89.4 100%
2/2 9/10
90 100
97.5 96.25 100%
6/6 10/10
100
90 93.75 91.9 100%
2/2 9/10
90
90 100
100%
4/4 11/11
100
.
100 97.5 100%
8/8 10/10 94/101 191/202