IR 05000387/1991001
| ML17157A580 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1991 |
| From: | Conte R, Easlick T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17157A579 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-91-01OL, 50-387-91-1OL, 50-388-91-01OL, 50-388-91-1OL, NUDOCS 9102280081 | |
| Download: ML17157A580 (17) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FEB 14 ~9~
REGION I
REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION Combined Report Nos.:
Facility Docket Nos.:
Facility Licence Nos.:
License:
Faci 1 ity:
Examination Dates:
Examiners:
50-387/91-01 (OL)
50-388/91-01 (OL)
50-387 50-388 NPF-14 NPF-22 Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company 2 North Ninth, Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 Susquehanna Steam Electric Station January
18, 1991 B. Wetzel, Operations Engineer D. Odland, Sonalysts M. Daniels, Sonalysts J.
Munro, Operator Licensing Branch, NRR (Observer)
J.
Canady, Operations Engineer (Observer)
Chief Examiner:
Theo e A. Easlick, Operations Engineer Date Approved By:
Richard J. Con, Chief, BWR Section Operations Branch, DRS Date gl0228008i 0500 38~
q102i+
50-387/388//91-01 (OL)
SUSQUEHANNA REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION SUMMARY Ten of the Reactor Operators (ROs)
and ten of the Senior Reactor Operators (SROs)
passed both the written and operating portions of the requalification examination.
These operators were divided into five crews, which consisted of four operating and one staff crew.
The examinations were graded concurrently by the NRC and the facility training staff.
The results of the NRC and the facility grading were identical.
All operators examined passed all portions of the examination, and all'ive crews that were evaluated performed satisfac-torily on the simulator portion of the examination.
The strengths and weak-nesses were identified as feedback to the licensee's training program.
The licensee's self assessment of the strengths and weaknesses were consistent and more conservative than that found by the NRC staff.
The operators were well trained and prepared for the requalification examination.
The licensee's licensed operator training program was determined to be satis-factory, based on the criteria established in section ES-601 of NUREG-1021, Rev.
6.
One violation and one unresolved item from a prior training program inspection were closed in this report (Item Nos. 89-80-002 and 89-80-003, see Section 7).
DETAILS 1.0 Introduction During the examination period the NRC administered requalification exami-nations to 20 licensed operators (10 ROs and 10 SROs).
Four operating crews and one staff crew were evaluated.
The examiners used the process and criteria described in NUREG 1021,
"Operator Licensing Examiner Standard,"
Rev.
6.
An entrance meeting was held with the licensee on November 15, 1990, in the Regional Office.
The purpose of the meeting was to brief the licensee on the requirements of'he 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 ~
.
2.0 Examination Results The following is a summary of the individual examination results:
NRC GRADING I(Written I
RO I
Pass/Fail 10/0 SRO Pass/Fail 10 / 0 TOTAL Pass/Fail 20 / 0 I)Simulator 10/0 10 / 0 20 / 0 I
J Wa1 khrough J
I(Overall 10 / 0 10 / 0 10 / 0 10 / 0 20 / 0 20/0
FACILITY GRADING I[Written I
RO I
Pass/Fail 10 / 0 SRO Pass/Fai
10 / 0 TOTAL Pass/Fail 20 / 0 I(Simulator 10 / 0 10 / 0 20 / 0 I
]Walkthrough]
10 / 0 10 / 0 20 / 0 I(Overall 10/0 10 / 0 20 / 0 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 licensee in upgrading the requalification training program.
No licensee response is required.
STRENGTHS
- Diagnosis of events/conditions based on control room indications.
- Control board manipulation by reactor operator Command and control function exhibit by senior reactor operator Overall Job Performance Measures (JPMs) performance.
WEAKNESSES Use of E0-100-102, RPV Control, specifically, the pressure control leg of the procedure.
SROs frequently neglected to provide operators with pressure control guidance during 'scenarios.
Team decision making. ROs were often not conferred with when making team decisions.
Use of ON-070-001, Abnormal Radiation Release - Gaseous, procedure.
This procedure was not referenced or used when required by plant conditions.
Checking MSIVs shut.
During the 'performance of a JPM to bypass a low vacuum isolation for the MSIVs, operators neglected to check shut the MSIVs as require Closing MSIV's prior to resetting isolation.
JPM question referring to why the MSIV switches are closed prior to resetting an isolation si gna1 el ici ted a variety of answers.
3.0 Re uglification Pro ram Evaluation Results The facility program for licensed operator requalification training was rated as SATISFACTORY in accordance with the criteria established is ES-601, paragraph C.2.b.(l)(a-c)
and C.2.b.(2)(a-f).
Examination Results The facility grading was as conservative as the NRC grading on 100% of the pass/fail decisions, satisfying the criterion of C.2.b.(1)(a).
All of the operators passed the examination, satisfying the criterion of C.2.b.(1)(b).
All crews evaluated passed the simulator examination, satisfying the criterion of C.2.b.(1)(c).
There was no unsatisfactory crew evaluations so that the criterion C.2.b.(2)(a) is not applicable.
The facility trained and evaluated the operators in all the positions permitted by their individual licenses, satisfying criterion C.2.b.(2)(b).
No facility evaluator was determined to be unsatisfactory so that criterion C.2.b.(2)(c) is satisfied.
The facility administrative controls to preclude an RO or SRO who does not possess an active license from performing licensed duties are incorporated in procedure, OI-AD-044, Return To On Shift Duty.
This procedure provides adequate controls satisfying criterion C.2.b;(2)(d).
There was only one change.to a test item after the examination so that criterion CD 2.b.(2)(e) is satisfied.
No operators were failed either by the NRC 'or facility so that the criterion C.2.b.(2)(f) is not applicable.
4.0 Re uglification Examination Pre aration The licensee submitted reference materials and a sample plan approximately 60 days before the examinations were administered.
The material included a >700 question examination bank, 18 simulator scenarios and 75 job performance measures.
All the materials were well organized, which greatly aided in'he review process.
At approximately 30 days before the examinations, the licensee submitted the 'proposed requalification exami-nation that included two complete written examinations and four JPM books, with ten JPMs per books.
These materials were reviewed in the Regional
Office and again on-site by the combined NRC/facility examination team.
The test items that were administered to the operators are listed in Attachment 2.
The Examination Test Outline/Sample Plan was reviewed and the plan met and exceeded the standards of ES-601 Attachment 2.
The topics that were reviewed during the recent requalification cycle were listed along with the percentage of time devoted to each topic.
This time was then equated to the percentage of examination coverage and, therefore, the number of questions per topic.
The written examinations were reviewed and found to be generally satis-factory.
They sampled'
good cross section of information covered during the requalification year.
A few questions needed to be reworded to ensure the question solicited the complete answer required.
Seven questions were deleted and replaced with others from the facility bank, due to being to simple or unclear.
Six simulator scenarios were selected by the NRC team for the examination.
These scenarios were reviewed during the validation week.
The changes that were made to the scenarios included the addition of critical tasks and the removal of some previously identified critical tasks, using the
"four step criteria" of Rev.
6, ES-604.
All the scenarios were run as is, with the exception of one that needed to be changed in order to make a
particular critical task safety significant.
Overall, the simulator scenarios met all the requirements of ES-604.
The licensee selected three sets of JPMs (ten in each) for the examina-tion, which met the requirement that no individuals or group of indivi-duals perform more than five of the same JPMs during the examination.
The JPMs were generally of good quality and reflected the required steps in the procedures used to perform the task.
The only changes to"the JPMs included the addition of critical steps in some cases.
The JPM questions were considered to be a strength in the preparation of the examination, with at least 5-7 questions available per JPM.
Some JPM questions were deleted due to the requirement of ES-603, paragraph C. l.a.(7), which states the nature of the JPM questions shall be such that the answer cannot be determined simply by looking it up in a procedures This did not result in a problem during the validation week since only two questions are required per JPM and there were ample questions available from which to select.
Although the JPM questions were not time validated for this examination, as required by Rev.
6, ES-603, the examination team agreed on a ten minute time period for answering JPM questions.
Overall, the validation week went very smoothly and the NRC examiners noted excellent cooperation by the facility examination tea. 0 Re ua1 ificati on Examinati on Admini strati on The examination as conducted without any major problems or delays.
For the most part, the examination ran on schedule, with slightly longer days during the JPM administration.
The large group of operators evaluated in the one week time frame required considerable planning and logistical support.
The fact that the examination was administered on schedule is a
credit to facility training staff and a strength of the program.
During the dynamic simulator and the JPM portions of the examination, the NRC/facility examiners utilized the "Alternative B" method of evaluation.
One examiner evaluated two individuals during the examination.
Addition-ally the facility examiners decided to critique the crews after each set of scenarios, rather than after each scenario.
These measures saved a
considerable amount of time in the examination administration.
The post-scenario reviews that were conducted by the combined NRC/facility teams went very smoothly, with 100% agreement between the facility and VRC staff.
One issue that arose as a result of these reviews was the develop-ment of critical steps for future requalification examinations.
The examination team recognized that with the new definition of critical steps, in Rev.
6, ES-604, additional work would be required to ensure that the current simulator scenario bank captures the intent of the existing revision, with regard to critical steps.
This issue was also discussed at the Exit Meeting, and the licensee agreed to review the scenario bank and make the necessary changes.
The written portions of the examination were conducted without any problems.
The time validation of the written examinations was adequate, as evidenced by all operators completing the examination in the allotted time.
The entire examination process went very smoothly, considering the large number of operators evaluated.
Good cooperation between the exami-nation teams allowed any problems that arose to be'mmediately resolved and prevented them from impacting the examination.
7.0 Licensee Action on Previous Ins ection Findin s
Closed Violation 378/89-80-002 388/89-80-002
"Un uglified o erator, erformin licensed duties.
This item concerned an apparent violation in that a licensed senior reactor operator, who had not satisfied the condition of his license pursuant to
CFR 55.53(h),
was designated by the licensee to perform licensed duties.
The examiner reviewed the licensee responses dated January 22, 1990, and March 16, 1990, and current Licensed Operator Requalification Program.
Nuclear Training Procedure-
/A-31.2, "Licensed Operator Requalification Program - Implementation,"
has been revised to require a licensed operator be removed from licensed duties following the failure of the annual requalification examination.
Based on the licensee's actions, this item is considered close Closed Unresolved Item 378/89-80-003 388/89-80-003 :'Lack of roce-dural consistenc
."
This item concerned the lack of consistency of licensee training and qualification commitments, resulting in the appli-cation of inconsistent requirements in licensee documentation.
The exami-ner reviewed the revised training procedures, FSAR changes and proposed amendments to SSES Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
These documen'ts indicate a consistent commitment to
CFR 55 and Regulatory Guide 1.8, Rev.
2, with respect to the licensed operator requalification program.
The licensee actions are adequate and this item is considered closed.
An exit meeting was held at the conclusion of the examinations on January 18, 1991.
The personnel in attendance are listed in Attachment l.
The NRC results of the simulator and walk-through portions of the exami-nations were presented.
Requalification Examination preparation and administration were discussed along with generic strengths and weaknesses of the program.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Persons Contacted 2.
Requalification Examination Test Items 3.
Simulator Fidelity Report 4.
Licensee Results
PERSONS CONTACTED ATTACHMENT 1 Penns lvania Power
& Li ht Com an G. Stanl'ey, Superintendent of Plant (2)
W. Lowthert, PP&L/Training (2)
T. Markowski, Dayshift Supervisor ( 1) (2) (4)
A. Fitch, PP&L/Training (1) (2) (3)
R. Chin, PP&L/Training (1) (2) (3)
J.
Seek, PP&L/Training (2) (4)
J. Jones, PP&L/Training (2) (4)
P. Bartel, PP&L/Training (3) (4)
R. Wehry, PP&L/Compliance (2)
Nuclear Re viator Commission L. Bettenhausen, Branch Chief, Operation (2)
T. Easlick, Operations Engineer (1) (2) (3)
N. Conicella, Senior Operations Engineer (1)
B. Wetzel, Operations Engineer (3)
D. Odland, Sonalysts (3)
M. Daniels, Sonalysts (3)
J.
Munro, Operator Licensing Branch, NRR J.
Canady, Operations Engineer (2)
Notes:
(1)
Attended Entrance Meeting, November 15, 1990 (2)
Attended Exit Meeting, January 18, 1991 (3)
Member Combined Facility/NRC Examination Team (4)
Facility Evaluator
ATTACHMENT 2 RE UALIFICATION EXAMINATION TEST ITEMS Written Examination
"A" - Part Static Simulator Examination No.
1 - MF01 -
LOCA with Cl adding Oamage Examination Number: 90-08-MF01-Sl/Rl QNUM
2
4
6
8
10 TEST ITEM NO (Sl)
R 006 S 003 S 001 R 001 R 016 R 008
/245-003/R 001
/223-016/S 001
/261-005/S 001
/200-035/S 002 Rl)
-
R 006
-
R 011
-
R 013
-
R 003
- R015
-
R 008
- /200-042/R 001
- /300-023/R 001
- /245-003/R 001
/205-014/R 001 Static Simulator Examination No.
2 - ASOl Inadvertent HPCI Initiation Examination Number:
90-08-AS01-Sl/Rl QNUM
2
4
6
8
10 TEST ITEM NO.
(Sl)
R 009 R 006 R 001 S 005 R 004 S 004 R 007 R 003
/262-010/R 001
/292-001/R 001 Rl R 003 R 007 R 004 R 001 R 006 R 009
/200-071/R 001
/294-002/R 001
/262-010/R 001
/292-001/R 001 Written Examination
"A" - Part Open Reference Examination No. 90-8-LAIC-S1/Rl QNUM
2
4 TEST ITEM NO (Sl)
/200-071/R 001
/200-011/R 001
/004-002/S 001
/300-022/R 001 Rl)
- /234-010/R 001
- /216-001/R 001
- /215-039/R 001
- /211-011/R 001
Attachment
gNUM
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
/200-018/S 001
/300"024/R 001
/289-014/R 001
/202"012/R 001
/003-002/S 001
/002-027/S 001
/273-001/S 001
/255-001/R 001
/241-004/R 002
/218-002/R 001
/273-005/R 001
/223-015/R 001
/211-002/S 001
/215-039/R 001
/216-001/R 001
/234-002/S 001
- /223-015/R
- /273-005/R
- /218-002/R
" /248-004/R
- /004-016/R
- /255-001/R
- /223-003/R
- /299-008/R
- /285-002/R
- /223-023/R
- /002-009/R
- /202-012/R
- /289-014/R
/300-024/R
/200-011/R
- /200-036/R TEST ITEM NO.
Cont'd 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 Written Examination
"B" - Part Static Simulator Examination No.
AS09 - Loss of AUN BUS llA and FW Examination Number: 90-08-AS09-Sl/Rl NUM
2
4
6
8
10 TEST ITEM NO.
Sl R 007 R 005 S 003 S 001 R 006 R 010 R 004 R 003
/004-016/R 001
/239-010/R 001 (Rl
-
R 007
- R005 S 003
-
R 006
- R010
- R003 R 004
- /004-016/R
- /002-009/R
- /239-010/R 001 001 001 Static Simulator Examination No. 2-MF16-RPS Level 1/ECCS Initiation Examination Number: 90-08-MF16-Sl/Rl NUM TEST ITEM NO.
S1)
R 007 R 010 R 006 R 003 R 004 R 013 R 015 Rl R 007 R 010 S 005 S 006 R 003 R 004 R 013
Attachment
gNUM TEST ITEM NO.
Cont'd.
"
R 002 R 015
-
R 001 R 002
-
/255-001/R 001
-
R 001 Written Examination
"B" - Part B
Open Reference Examination No. 90-8-L&C-S2/R2 QNUM
23'
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20 TEST ITEM NO.'S2)
/004-007/S 001
/004-002/S 001
/300-024/R 001
/234-002/S 001
/205-014/R 001
/202-002/R 001
/002"027/S 001
/002-029/S 001
/003-007/S 001
/002-002/R 001
/004-006/S 001
/271-003/R 001
/262-007/R 001
/261"001/R 001
/216-001/R 001
/283-003/R 001
/218-001/R 001
/273-008/R 001
/223-003/R 001
/223-015/R 001 (R2
/294-002/R
/200-091/R
- /300-024/R
/205-014/R
" /202-003/R
- Deleted
/002-027/S
/299-009/R
- /002-002/R
/004-045/R
- /223-022/R
- /271-003/R
- /262-007/R
- /261-001/R
/216-001/R
" /234-010/R
- /218-001/R
- /273-008/R
/223-003/R
/223-008/R 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 001 Job Performance Measures Exam Code "A" No.1" 2-3-
5-6-
7-8-
9-10-Job Performance Measures Perform HPCI manual startup Manual synch and load DG A Initiation RHR SPC w/LPCI signal in Establish auto FW control Reset Recirc runback ¹2 Bypass MSIV isolation Change flow control station
"B" to "A" Bypass U. 1 LOCA isol. for CIG valves Transfer instrumentation to RSDP Establish and maint.
press at RSDP Task No.
206.007.02 264.003.01 205.017.01 259.007.01 202.011 '2 200.184.03 201.025.02 200.034.02 200.014.01 200.014.04 Location Control Room Control Room Control Room Control Room Control Room In Plant In Plant In Plant In Pl ant In Plant Job Performance Measures Exam Code "C" No.
Job Performance Measures 1 - Initiation RHR SPC w/LPCI signal in 2 " Perform RCIC manual startup Task No
~
Location 205.017.01 Control Room 217.003.01 Control Room
Attachment
No.3-45" 6-7-
8-9-
10-Job Performance Measures Cont'd.
Transfer FWLC from single element Reset recirc scoop tube lock up Bypass Rx low water level isol.
Bypass RSCS rod blocks Hydraulically disarm an HCU Transfer instrumentation to RSDP Establish and maint. level at RSDP Perform a manual start of a DG locally Task No 259.007.02 202.012.01 200.184.01 200.156.01 201.012.01 200.014.01 200.014.02 264.002.02 Location Control Room Control Room In Plant In Plant In Plant In Plant In Plant In Plant Job Performance Measures Exam Code "E" No.1-2-
3-45-6-
7-8-
9-10-Job Performance Measures Perform HPCI manual startup Manual synch and load DG A Override RHR injection Transfer FWLC from single element Reset Recirc runback ¹2 Initiate Containment Spray Bypass Rx low water level isol.
Bypass RSCS rod blocks Establish and maint. level at RSVP Hydraulically disarm an HCU Task No 206.007.02 264.003.01 200.149.01 259.007.02 202.011.02 205.018.01 200.184.01 j 200.156.01 200.014.03 201.012.01 Location Control Room Control Room Control Room Control Room Control Room Control Room In Plant In Plant In Plant In Plant D namic Simulator Examination Scen No.
111 117 106 104 116 113 Scenarios ATWS Following a Turbine Trip Without Bypass Valves EHC Osci llations and Rad Release Inadvertent HPCI Followed by MSIV Isolation with no High Pressure Injection Available Steam Line Break in the Drywell HPCI High Temperature Isolation Core Spray Surveillance With B Recirc Line LOCA
ATTACHMENT 3 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee.
Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company Facility Docket Nos.
50-387 50-388 Requalification Examinations administered on the simulator January 14, 15, 1991.
This form is to used to repbrt observations.
These observations do not consti-.
tute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of non-compliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b).
These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information which may be used in future evaluations.
No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
During the conduct of the simulator portion of tne operating tests, the following items were observed. '(if none, so state).
ITEM DESCRIPTION, NONE
ATTACHNENT 4 FACILITY RESULTS Licensee letter dated January 28, 1991.
(w/o Attachment, 1. -
Names/Grades)