IR 05000397/1992004
| ML17289A482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1992 |
| From: | Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17289A481 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-92-04, 50-397-92-4, NUDOCS 9204210073 | |
| Download: ML17289A482 (63) | |
Text
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Number:
50-397/92-04 License Number:
NPF-21 Licensee:
Facility Name:
Inspection at:
Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.
Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Rich) and, Washington 99352 Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Reactor Facility, Unit 2 (WNP-2)
WNP-2 Site, Benton County, Washington Inspection Conducted:
February 24-27, 1992 Inspectors:
T. Meadows, Senior Operations Engineer, RV (Team Leader)
L. Vick, Senior Operations Engineer, LOLB K. Mikkelson, Operator Licensing Examiner, PNL B. Orton, Operator Licensing Examiner, PNL Approved by:
~Summar:
er, r.,
Reactor Safety Branch a
gne Ins ection on Februar 24-27 1992 Re ort No. 50-397 92-04 d:
Onsite team inspection of the licensee's commitments to complete the short and intermediate term corrective actions to remediate their licensed operator requalification program.
These actions were detailed in revisions 7 and 8 of the licensee's corrective action plans (CAP), dated August 16, 1991 and January 14, 1992, respectively.
The inspectors emphasized a review of closure documentation provided by the licensee, interviewed applicable staff personnel, and then performed a
walkdown validation of two newly developed emergency support procedures (ESPs).
The inspection also involved an operational evaluation (OPEVAL) of the sixth remedi ated operating crew by a team of NRC examiners.
During this inspection, Inspection Procedure 92703 was used.
Guidance for administering the operational evaluation was provided by the Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, NUREG 1021, Revision 6.
Safet Issues Mana ement S stem SIMS 'Items:
9204210073 920402 PDR ADOCK 05000397
1
'f,
Results:
The inspection concluded that all of the licensee's short term CAP items were closed.
However, the inspectors verified that two licensee identified intermediate term CAP items remained open.
These two open corrective actions were:
a document describing how the licensee plans to schedule the requalification program and maintain operator skills; and procedures for requalification examination scenario development and simulator test administration.
At the inspection exit meeting on February 27, 1992, the licensee committed to close the two remaining CAP items by the end of April 1992.
On February 27, 1992, NRC examiners administrated an operational evaluation to a sixth crew.
The examiners determined that the crew passed the OPEVAL, exhibiting strong command and control, and communications competencies.
However, two operators were evaluated as marginal in event diagnosis and emergency operator procedure place keeping skills.
The licensee's staff concurred with these findings, and agreed to a remediation program for the two operators before assigning them to licensed duties.
~0 en ~tens:
Six open items, documented in inspection report, 50-397/90-20, were close I'
J
,
~er eorm el:
NRC:
NSPEC ON DETAILS 2.
- D. Kirsch, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch, RV
+P*T. Meadows, Senior Operations Engineer, RV (Team Leader)'L.
Vick, Senior Operations Engineer, LOLB
- K. Mikkelson, Operator Licensing Examiner, PNL
- B. Orton, Operator Licensing Examiner, PNL
- D. Proulx, NRC Resident Inspector Supply System:
~A. L. Oxsen, Deputy Managing Director
- J. V. Parrish, Assistant Managing Director for Operations
- C. Powers, Director of Engineering
- J. Baker, Plant Manager
- +S. McKay, Operations Manager
- W. Shaeffer, Assistant Operations Manager
- +B. Barmettlor, Manager, Nuclear License Training
- D. Kobus, Manager, Technical Training
- +D. Topley, Requalification Supervisor
- L. L. Grumme, Acting Director, Assurance 5 Licensing R. Conserriere, Operations Training Liaison D. Holmes, Senior guality Assurance Engineer Present at the February 27, 1992 exit meeting.
Involved in March 19 and March 24, 1992 followup telephone calls with the NRC team leader.
Chief Examiner for the February 27, 1992 OPEVAL Ins ection of Licensee's Corrective Action Plan CAP
- Back round and'co e
92703 The NRC defined the criteria for a provisionally satisfactory requalification program in the T. Murley memorandum, dated April 22, 1991,
"Revision Process for Restoring Unsatisfactory Requalification Programs to a Satisfactory Status." All of the licensee's short and intermediate term corrective actions must be completed before a
provisionally satisfactory requalification program status may be granted by the NRC.
This inspection was to determine a basis for granting this statu ns ection Findin s
a ~
CAP Item Closure Pro ress The corrective action items were documented in revisions 7 and
of the licensee's corrective action plans (CAP), dated August 16, 1991 and January 14, 1992, respectively.
The licensee identified these as short term, Sx, or intermediate term, Cx, CAP commitment items.
During the onsite inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's updated CAP Resolution Document, dated February 26, 1992.
This document was provided to the NRC inspection team by the licensee to expedite the location of closure documentation.
The lead inspector had planned this procedure with the licensee before the site visit.
This document correlated with the specific revision 7 and 8 CAP items, and provided updated resolution status and justification for each item.
The inspectors determined by reviewing this documentation, and by conducting staff interviews, that this document both correlated to previous CAP documents, and accurately reflected closure status.
This resolution document is attached for detailed reference, Attachment A CAP Resolution Document.
Based on this review, the inspectors determined that the licensee's CAP short and intermediate term corrective actions were completed, except for the intermediate term open items discussed below.
The inspectors determined that two licensee identified intermediate term CAP items remained opened.
These two open corrective'ctions are:
CAP item Cl-3:
The licensee was to develop a systematic approach to requalification program scheduling to maintain operator skills.
This program was also to provide adequate preparation for the operating crews.
The licensee stated that they needed more time to incorporate lessons learned, recent operator comments, peer review comments, and the results of their newly implemented Operation Management Task Force.
The inspectors determined that the licensee had generated various applicable inter-office-memorandums (IOMs) to ensure adequate interim scheduling is implemented.
However, management approved documentation for a comprehensive program plan was not available.
Therefore, this item remains opene ft t
i t'I I'
f I,,'j tf
CAP item C7:
The licensee was to revise Licensed Training Instruction, LTI 4. 1, "Simulator Scenario Development."
The inspectors determined that the licensee planned to expand this document into two separate procedures (LTIs).
One LTI would address dynamic scenario construction.
The other LTI:would describe how to conduct simulator training and evaluation scenarios, including a standard critique process and documentation requirements.
The inspectors determined that this was currently being implemented through the use IOHs.
The two procedures were not yet approved.
Therefore, this item remains open.
At the inspection exit meeting on February 27, 1992, the licensee management agreed to finish closure of the two remaining CAP items.
This included an agreement to provide the NRC with appropriate closure documentation by the end of April 1992.
The lead inspector stated that this would be necessary before a
provisionally satisfactory requalification program status would be considered.
Crew A 0 erational Evaluation On February 27, 1992, NRC examiners administrated an operational evaluation to a sixth crew, a revised crew A.
The remediation of this crew was a licensee short term CAP commitment.
One of the crew's three original SROs had been removed from shift support supervisor duties, because he had been physically injured.
One newly licensed RO had been added to the crew.
The NRC had previously approved this shift manning change.
The examiners determined that the crew passed the OPEVAL, exhibiting strong command and control, and communications competencies.
This was documented in the NRC master examination records, by the Chief Examiner.
Therefore, this item is closed.
However, two operators were evaluated as weak, in event diagnosis and emergency operator procedure place keeping skills.
The licensee's staff concurred with these findings, and agreed to a remediation program for the two weak operators before assigning them to licensed duties.
This remedial training would include further classroom instruction, simulator training, and a final simulator examination administered by the licensee.
On March 19, 1992, the Chief Examiner checked the status of the remediation process, in a followup phone conference with licensee management.
The licensee stated that neither of the operators were currently performing licensed duties.
The RO had just failed his licensee administered final evaluation.
Therefore, the RO's remediation training schedule and overall status were being reevaluated by licensee managemen On Harch 24, 1992, the licensee informed the Chief Examiner that the SRO had successfully passed his remediation evaluation.
The RO remained in a remediation program.
He was not performing licensed duties.
Performance of Licensee Trainin Pro ram Staff a d valuators The inspectors determined that the licensee training staff's ability to produce and validate simulator scenarios continues to improve.
However, the inspectors determined that the licensee's scenario bank consists of scenarios that have an excessive number of individual simulator critical tasks (ISCTs).
Each scenario typically contain 20-25 licensee identified ISCTs.
Current NRC evaluation scenarios usually contain less than half this number.
The inspectors determined that not all of the licensee identified ISCTs satisfy the ISCT methodology provided in the Examiner Standards, NUREG 1021, Revision 6.
Hany licensee identified ISCTs do not contain the four evaluation criteria necessary for a valid performance determination.
These four criteria are:
(I) the performance item is safety significant; (2) there are measurable performance indicators; (3) there are proper cues available to diagnose proper action; and (4) there is observed performance feedback.
Performance standards containing one or more of these criteria could adequately support training, where there is an active dialogue between the instructor and the operator.
A performance standard that is used for an examination should meet all four ISCT criteria.
The performance result must stand alone.
It cannot be equivocal.
Because of this, the licensee's requalification program has the potential to evaluate licensed operators with invalid performance criteria.
The licensee's Operations Hanager agreed to review their evaluation criteria.
The Operations Hanager said that he had lead responsibility in this area.
The Chief Examiner also determined that the licensee's written examination requalification test bank was of lower quality than the scenario bank.
The written exam bank still contained subjective and open ended questions that require instructor interpretation and dialogue.
In this regard, some written bank questions were also found more suited for training than examinations, since clear performance standards were not specified.
The Hanager, Licensed Training, agreed that more resources needed to be focused to upgrade the written bank.
The issues associated with the examination bank material and content will be followed up during future examination visits.
(Followup Item 92-04-01).
ii IJ
4
The examiners found the licensee's evaluators to be conscientious and thorough.
Their observations and judgment, during the Crew A OPEVAL were in good agreement with the NRC examiner's judgement.
However, during the debrief sessions with the NRC examiners, the facility lead evaluator did not discuss the particula'r details of operator performance.
The facility evaluators only offered the minimum required crew pass/fail decisions.
This was adequate for an NRC administered OPEVAL, but was different from what the NRC had observed on previous OPEVALS.
Upon further questioning regarding this issue, the licensee stated this conduct was to make the OPEVAL debrief process more efficient. It was meant to shorten the time between OPEVAL scenarios, resulting in less operator stress.
The facility's Manager, Licensed Training stated that there was no attempt to withhold information from the NRC.
The Chief Examiner stated that even perception of withholding necessary inspection information cannot be tolerated by the NRC.
The training staff acknowledged this and immediately made the information available to review.
Closure of 0 en tems:
50-397 90- 0-0 throu h 06 The six open items associated with the licensee's September 1991 restart issues, documented in inspection report, 50-397/90-20, were closed as follows:
0 en Items 50-397 90-20-01 throu h 03:
These three EOP deviations from the owners group guidelines were transferred to NRR for resolution responsibility (see Roy Zimmerman,
"Request for Licensee Response to NRC Inspection Report, Report No. 91-27, of MNP-2 Emergency Operating Procedures,"
dated January 9, 1992)."
These deviations were:
(1)
Primary Containment Venting; (2) Primary Containment Flooding; and (3)
Steam Cooling.
These items were closed because they were based on the evaluation of a previous licensee version of the EOPs.
The current, September 1991 restart version of the licensee's EOPs were significantly modified in response to NRC concerns from the original EOP Inspection Report, 50-397/90-20, and the licensee's requalification program failure.
This EOP version is also called the "phase one" EOP revision by the licensee.
NRC Inspection Report, 50-397/91-27, dated October 16, 1991, evaluated this EOP version.
That inspection also identified these three deviations as unjustified.
That report identified open item, 91-27-01, to track the licensee's further EOP corrective actions, including actions to adequately justify these three deviations.
Therefore, the original tracking numbers assigned to the three original deviations are redundant (closed).
0 en Item 50-397 90-20-04 Develo ment and Verification
al'dation of OPs and OP su ort rocedures SPs
This item was addressed, by the licensee, as a September 1991 restart commitment to the NRC.
The program adequacy continues to improve, as evidenced by the successful crew performances in the recent OPEVALs and licensee administdred annual examinations.
However, the licensee's phase one EOPs, as documented in Inspection Report, 50-397/91-27, still suffer from human factors and development deficiencies.
As above, this issue is now being tracked under opened item 91-27-01.
Therefore, the original tracking number is redundant (closed).
0 en Item 50-397 90-20-05 Im lementation of EOP Caution
"RPV Level
~t:"Tt 1 dl p t lkdd tk ll
'
ly developed ESPs that were produced to address the original NRC concern.
These abnormal event procedures were, PPM 4. 12.4. 1, "Fire," and PPM 4. 12.4. 1A, "High Energy Line Break (HELB)."
Fire and high energy line break abnormal events in the reactor building, were determined to be the only credible events that could raise area temperatures high enough to adversely affect RPV level instrumentation reliability.
The inspector walked down the reactor building reference leg runs for the narrow range and fuel zone range safety related RPV level instrument runs.
The inspector determined, from this sample, that the licensee took a conservative approach in dealing with this issue.
The procedures direct control room operators to consider RPV level instrumentation inoperable if the associated reactor building instrument run for the this instrumentation, is in the area involved in a fire or HELB.
The areas are adequately identified in the procedures, and ther e is ample communication resources available in the reactor building to report an adverse situation.
Attachment B,
EOP Caution 1 Affected RPV Level Instrument Runs, identifies the areas walked down by the inspector.
The NRC examiners also determined that the licensee's operating crews'se of the phase
EOP Caution 1 graph and direction for use of the above ESPs was adequate (closed).
0 en Item 50-397 90-20-06 Calculation Errors i EOP Gra hs:
The licensee's engineering staff had previously stated that they completed a
review of all EOP graphs.
They also stated that the current phase one EOP graphs were correct.
The lead inspector compared the licensee's original documentation of the errors, Problem Evaluation Report (PER)
290-698, and the original technical documents, identified as General Electric NE-02-89-20 and WNP-2 Engineering NE-02-89-27, to the current EOP graphs.
The graphs appeared to comply with the engineering technical guidelines (closed).
Exit Meetin 30702 An exit meeting was held by the NRC with representatives of the licensee's staff on February 27, 1992 to discuss the NRC examination results and CAP closure assessments, identified above.
The licensee acknowledged the NRC results and conclusion I
I
!
ATTACHMENT A WNP-2 LICENSED OPERATOR REQUAL PROGRAM CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN Resolution Documentation February 26, 1992
0
SUMMARY OF OPEN CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN ITEMS All short term corrective action items have been closed.
All intermediate term action items have been completed with the exception of the following:
~
Item C1-3 To be completed by the end of April, 1992
~
Item C7 To be completed by the end of Apiil, 1992 All long term term Item Y1-1 Item Y2-1 Item Y3-2 Item Y6-1 Item Y9-1 Item Y16 Item Y19 Item Y20 Item Y21 Item Y23 Item Y25 action items have been completed with the exception of the following:
To be completed by the end of July, 1992 To be completed by the end of July, 1992 To be completed by the end of July, 1992 To be completed by the end of, various dates in 1992 To be completed by the end of July, 1992 To be completed by the end of April, 1992 To be completed by the end of July, 1992 To be completed by the end of February, 1992 To be completed by the end of May, 1992 To be completed by the end of May, 1992 To be completed by the end of August, 1992 Note:
Short term action items designated with the S" prefix were completed prior to restart from R-6.
Intermediate term action items are designated with the "C" prefix.
Long term action items are designated with the "Y prefix.
Short term action items designated with the "R" prefix were completed prior to the June 5 & 6, 1991 NRC Re-examinatio S1. Conduct a Root Cause Investigation including an examination analysis to determine the causes for the failures of the NRC re-examinations and recommend corrective actions.
C d
~
The second root cause report was sent to the NRC 8/20/91 (GO2-91-156).
h ~py of CAP rev 7 was sent under the same cover letter as the root cause report.
~
A copy of the root cause report is available in H. McGiltons or R. Barmettlors office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Schumann, Topley S2. Reconstitute an additional crew and conduct team building training in preparation for an operational evaluation.
Cl d
Crew B configuration: Estes (SRO), Gallagher (SRO), Green (RO), Villarruel (RO) and kleven (RO)
Crew B training took place in the June, July and August 1991 time frame.
Training records are located in Central Training Services.
Training evaluation results are also available in the R/Q data base.
~
Crew B re-examination was conducted in September 9, 1991 (crew passed).
~
Refer to LTI 4.1 for outline of team building and communications training scope.
Refer to GO2-91-133 and 140 (WPPSS letter to NRC).
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay S3. Review all known EOP discrepancies (human factor related or technical).
Correct those which could have an impact on crew performance and safety.
C d
Minor EOP changes were made before the June 5 8 6 exam (prior to phase one EOPs).
After the examination the decision was made to perform an extensive EOP revision using assistance from CIEL corp.
Phase one EOPs were implemented in 8/16/91 and have been used in all subsequent exams.
Phase one EOPs are the current approved volume 5 PPMs.
Verification documents are located in the procedure writers group.
Contact Don Merhar for review of specific information.
Data consists of Control Room verification, Technical verification and Checklist verification Phase two EOPs are a separate CAP item (Y21).
The goal was to have usable EOPs prior to plant startup.
This goal was met.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Powers
S4-4.
Train the operators on changes to the EOPs that were identified in action item S3.
G
~
Training on minor EOPs changes prior to the June 5 & 6 exam was conducted with the operators in the simulator using a tabletop methodology during the conduct of dynamic scenarios.
Training records are located in Central Training Services.
Extensive phase one EOP training was conducted in formal classroom and simulator training for all operators in the five crews required prior to plant startup.
Training records are located in Central Training Services.
~
Curriculum content is available for review in D. Topley's office.
~
Outside experts in the instruction of rev-4 EOPs were brought in to assist the staff in conducting the training.
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley S5-4.
Train the operating crews on the lessons learned from the deficiencies encountered in the Operational Evaluation and NRC re-examination.
C d
~
Prior to the June 5 8 6 examination all required operators were trained on the lessons learned from the OPE and annual exam failures in February and March. A combination of classroom and simulator training was used.
Training records are located in Central Training Services.
Sources for identifying the lessons learned included the original root cause report, exam analysis of the original exams and an exam analysis of the re-placement operator exam conducted in March.
The exam analysis is available for review in D. Topley's office.
Curriculum content (remmediation program description) is available for review in D. Topley's office. Note, this information has already been provided to the NRC through written correspondence.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley
.SG. Complete the 1991 licensed operator annual examinations for the remaining operators.
G All annual exams for the five operating crews used for plant startup completed their annual exams prior to plant startup.
Exam records are located in Central Training Services.
To date, all annual exams have been completed with the exception of Herb Rockey who's exam is scheduled to be completed by the end of February 1992 (refer to CAP item C4 and C10).
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley
-S7-4. Conduct additional EOP training (including bases)
with the remaining crews.
~ ~
Cl d
~
This additional bases training was given during EOP phase one training, refer to the justification for CAP item S4-4.
To date, all licensed operators have received EOP phase one training with the exception of Mike Merring, Mac Conserriere, John Rueckertznd Ed Neasham (note, Mac, John and Ed have had the classroom portion). Training records are located in Central Training Services.
~
The training curriculum is available for review in D. Topleys office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley
~ S8-4.
Train the remaining crews on management expectations for EOP usage, including; communications, command and control, entry and exit conditions, STA responsibilities, interpretations and deviation process.
~
C d
~
Management expectations training was conductedby Operations Management.
Management expectations have been constantly reinforced during subsequent simulator training.
Refer to CAP item S4-4.
~
Independent observation addressing these issues was conducted by the L 8 A organization throughout the training process,
~
Various IOMs and other related documents are available which further address this subject.
These documents are located in D. Topleys office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay, Topley S9. Respond to the requalification program assessment conducted by the utility peer evaluators.
Cl
~
Refer to IOM dated 6/21/91 "Response to Operations Requal Training Program Evaluation industry Task Force Report'.
This IOM is located in Dave Topley's office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor, Topley S10.
Conduct additional EOP training (including bases)
for the simulator training staff.
C
~
Refer to item S7-4.
Instructor EOP training was conducted at the same time as that of the operating crews.
Training records are located in Central Training Service l jii
ill
e Additional EOP classroom training was presented to the instructors on 10/1/91 prior to the assumption of normal requal training.
Training records are located in Central Training Services.
~
Original CAP responsibility: Barmettlor S11-4.
Incorporate additional emphasis on "Transient Management"training.
Cl d
~
A significant number of new and revised scenarios were developed to address the operators ability to handle more complex and challenging events.
Approximately 16 transient management scenarios were initially developed in April and May 1991.
Since that time the simulator scenario exam bank has grown significantly.
Refer to the scenario exam bank to review scenario complexity.
Training records are located in Central Training Services to show how extensively. the transient management type scenarios have been utilized in training and evaluation.
~
Also refer to CAP item S5-4.
The inability of the operators to handle complex scenarios was identified as a major weakness after the March OPE.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley S12.
Prepare a letter to Region 5 detailing the additional pre-startup activities.
C d
~
A letter was not actually sent to the NRC, instead a formal presentation was made by the Supply System staff to the NRC addressing these issues.
Refer to NRC Region 5 presentation package.
A copy of this presentation is available in Dave Topley's office for review.
~
WPPSS to NRC letter G02-91-164 (9/9/91) responds to restart actions identified in CAL (NRC to Oxsen, 6/14/91).
G02-91-174 (9/25/91) provides additional information as a
result of the 9/9/91 failure of crew D.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Baker
'S13-4.
Conduct additional classroom and simulator training for CROs on the EOPs (including bases).
Cl Refer to CAP item justification S7-4.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley
S14-3.
Review the "Observation Evaluation" program simulator evaluation goals to ensure they are
~
~
d
~
~
~
~
h
~
~
d h
.
adequate for Plant Management to regularly observe simulator requalification training and evaluation sessions.
C
~
To address this action item refer to Jack Baker or Dave Kobus.
~
The Observation Evaluation Program was revised and a copy of the revised program was sent to the NRC 5/13/91.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Baker S15.
Ensure the operators are exposed to a variety of AC and DC electrical malfunctions during simulator training.
C
~
Classroom training was conducted as part of the lessons learned addressing AC and DC electrical distribution. Refer to training records in CTS.
~
There are a wide variety of simulator scenarios in the exam bank which cover many different types of electrical failures.
Each crew has been exposed to a major cross section of the exam bank. Refer to training records in CTS.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley S16.
Ensure the operators are exposed to a variety of simulator scenarios which will allow them to maintain proficiency in the use of ARPs and Tech. Specs.
Cl
~
There are a wide variety of simulator scenarios in the exam bank which cover many different types of plant condition which require the use of ARPs and Tech Specs.
Each crew has been exposed to a major cross section of the exam bynk.
Periodically less complex scenarios were run on the crews which focus more on ARPs and Tech Specs to ensure their proficiency in this arena was maintained at a high level.
~
Refer to simulator training records in CTS.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley S17.
Develop a document that identifies standards of performance for the use of EOPs.
d d
~
Operations management policies has been captured in an lOM which has been used by Operations and Training to establish consistent standards of performance in addition to the phase one
)J
revision of the EOPs.
A complete file of the IOMs is available with the Operations Training Liaison.
~
The latest IOM guidance is dated 12/17/91.
~
An lOM addressing CRO performance during emergencies dated 10/24/91 was issued addressing this subject.
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay S18.
Establish a set of evaluation criteria that will be used by management to determine whether the operating crews are consistently and effectively meeting managements expectations in the conduct of plant and simulator operations.
CI d
A set of criteria has been identified and used to determine whether a crew and/or individual is ready for a NRC examination.
A copy of the lOM which describes the standards used is available in Dave Topley's office. The IOM was dated 7/25/91 from D. Topley to S. McKay.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay
0 C
ip I"
C1-3.
Develop a more systematic approach to requaiification program scheduling to effectively maintain operating skills and provide adequate examination preparation for the operating crews.
R C
d QamrllpZfZ This action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of April, 1992.
~
This CAP item has been reopened as a result of the creation of the Operations Management Task Force.
Task force meeting minutes are available for review in D. Topleys office.
~
A number of interim actions have been taken to ensure quality scheduling takes place.
The applicable documentation (various IOMs) is available in D. Topleys office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley C2.
Develop the 24 month requalification program schedule including; major systems topics; simulator scenario schedule; static exam practice schedule; JPM practice schedule; update lecture schedule; annual exams; etc.
C A 24 month training schedule has been developed.
Dave Topley has the schedule located in his office. The schedule will be revised as appropriate base on the Operations Management Task Force actions.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley C3-2.
Evaluate the identified physical differences between the simulator and the plant to determine if short term changes are necessary, such as; location of fuse pullers, labeling keys, and identify the location of selected simulator back panels Cl d
~
Fuse pullers have been verified to be in their proper location in the simulator.
G. Richmond verified.
~
The back panels have been labeled in the simulator to assist the operator.
G. Richmond verified.
~
The key labels were modified to the the extent possible to reflect actual plant configuration.
G. Richmond verified.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor C4.
Develop and implement a crew training program for Crew "A". Crew performance must be evaluated by the NRC prior to allowing them to operate above Mode-4.
C d
I
l l
~
Training of crew "A" was formally completed February 24, 1992.
The OPE will be conducted on 2/27/92.
~
The OPE scenarios willbe used as part of H. Rockeys annual exam.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley C5. Conduct a team inspection of the nuclear license training programs to assess corrective action effectiveness and overall program adequacy.
G
~
A team inspection was conducted.
A series of reports were written that describes the results of the observations.
A copy of the reports are available from Herb McGilton or Bob Barmettlor.
~
A number of outside consultants were used to assist in the conduct of the inspections.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Bouchey C6. Deleted.
Refer to action item Y22.
C7. Revise LTI 4.1 'Simulator Scenario Development'
>P
~
~
~
~
Qgmo~.This action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of April, 1992.
The current version of the LTI has been reviewed and the determination has been made to divide it into two separate procedures.
One LTI will address dynamic simulator scenario construction.
The other LTI will describe how to conduct simulator training and evaluation scenarios, including the critique process and documentation requirements.
Also refer to Y16.
~
The scenario format has been revised.
Currently all existing scenarios are being reformatted.
All new scenarios are developed in the new format. The Requal exam bank currently contains approximately 50 functional simulator scenarios.
~
A number of interim actions have been taken to ensure quality simulator training occurs.
The applicable documentation (various IOMs) is available in D. Topleys office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley C8. Conduct a formal evaluation of the performance of each simulator instructor.
C d
~
A complete set instructor evaluations conducted in 1991 are available from Ron Anfinson.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Anfinson.
J
~
~
~
~
~
~
C9. Develop a formal set of criteria which identify acceptable STA job performances in support of the t
operating crews during abnormal and emergency conditions.
Additionally, develop and implement'a set of supporting evaluation criteria which will be used to evaluate STA performance in the simulator C
d
~
The Plant Manager has written an IOM dated 9/23/91 that identifies the role of the STA during emergency conditions.
The guidance in the IOM is being used by the STAs and training during simulator training.
A copy of the IOM is available from Dave Topley.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Talbert, Barmettlor C10.
Make arrangements for individual license holders who are not part of an identified crew to complete their 1991 annual exam.
Provide the necessary simulator team training for each individual prior to the conduct of their annual exam.
~
G d
~
A formal training program was provided to ail affected personnel (N. Hancock, W. Shaeffer and H. Rockey).
All records are located in CTS.
Also refer to CAP item S6 justification.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley C11.
Review and revise as necessary the licensed operator job task lists to incorporate the changes in the revised EOPs.
Revise the training to task cross-reference matrices in order to identify the training materials which support the EOP tasks.
G d
~
The EOP task list was revised (10/9/91) following the phase one EOP revision.
Refer to the TUS files for information concerning the task list revision.
Mark Westergren is the point of contact for information concerning the TUS.
~
Original CAP responsibility: Barmettlor, Westergren
t
Y1-1. Revise the JPMs to eliminate unnecessary critical steps and include negative response steps.
~
CC "
Cga~
AllJPMs are being reviewed and revised as necessary.
This action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of July, 1992.
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley Y2-1. Revise the written examination bank to reduce the number of negative response questions.
C" gd2mmaniZ This action is being completed as part of the on-going exam bank review and revision process.
This specific action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of July, 1992.
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley Y3-2.
Increase the use of video taping in order to evaluate operating crew performance during simulator sessions.
C Qgmmgrgz This CAP item has been reopened as a result of the Operation Management Task Force.
This CAP item is scheduled to be re-closed at the end of July, 1992.
~
The use of video has taping has significantly increased during the past year.
The tapes are
'I currently used to conduct detailed reviews of crew and individual performance.
The tapes are occasionally used by the instructors and operators to review specific details in a tape as part of training and evaluation critiques.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor Y4-2. Conduct static simulator examination practice as part of the on-going requalification program.
CI
~
As part of the on-going requal training practice time has been made in the schedule for the operators to practice taking static examinations in order to maintain their proficiency.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley Y5-3. Attempt to achieve more timely agreement on the content of future NRC examinations (i.e. at least 30 days prior to the examination).
~C'2
~
Prior to all future R/Q NRC examina tions the utility staff will attempt to arrange NRC review of the proposed examination materials at least 30 days prior to the examination.
The staff will travel to the NRC and formally present the exam package.
Further, the utility training staff will maintain regular contact with the appropriate NRC points of contact (RegIon 5 and NRR) to keep cognizant of any changes the Requal that could affect the examination process.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor Y6-1. Incorporate appropriate lessons learned into the Licensed Operator initial training curriculum.
~ Dp "
gamed~
The following lessons learned have been designated for incorporation into the initial training curriculum.
Each lesson learned will be incorporated into the affected training materials prior to their use for instruction.
~
Response to, and understanding of, level instrumentation failures.
This action has been incorporated into the components portion of the fundamentals training curriculum.
This action item is scheduled to be implemented in the current training class by the end of December, 1991
~
~
Operational knowledge of the CNTMT H2/02 analyzer.
This action will be incorporated
~
~
~
~
into the systems training curriculum.
This action item is scheduled to be implemented II in the current training class by the end of April, 1992.
~
Proper communications/crew interactions, command and control, and leadership.
This action item is scheduled to be implemented in the current training class by the end of May, 1992.
~
Use of, and understanding of, WNP-2 phase two EOPs, This action will be incorporated into the simulator training curriculum.
This action item is scheduled to be implemented in the current training class by the end of August, 1992.
~
<tater)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Po'well Y7-1.
Conduct a reverification and revalidation of the static portion of the exam to assure the scope of the exam is proper relative to the number of participants and availability of reference materials.
CI
~
The exam validation process has been revised to ensure there are appropriate resources and time available to ensure the operators will have a fair examination.
~
A review of the Fitzpatrick annual exam failure (May 1991 NUMARC meeting in St. Louis) has also been conducted and lesson learned were taken from that experience.
Also follow-up phone conversation with Mr. Fred Catella at Fitzpatrick.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley, Topley Y8-4. Conduct a Human Factors evaluation of WNP-2 EOPs.
dl d
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay, Messersmith Y9-1.
Upgrade the static examination process by linking the associated exam bank to specific learning objectives.~ dd QgrnmgziZ As part of the on-going revision and development process action is being taken to ensure a strong correlation between static test items, the appropriate learning objectives and the exam bank.
This action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of July, 1992,
~
(later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley Y10-2.
Review the update lecture material selection process to eliminate duplicate training received through the required reading process.
dl d
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley, OPS Liaison Y11-3. Obtain a copy of the NRC National Examination Schedule and assign responsibility to contact the utility after the examination for any lessons learned.
'd
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor Y12-3.
Evaluate continuing operator requalification training through future refueling outages.
d d
I '3l
~i~
C QgrnmaniZ Licensed operator Requal will be presented on an on-going basis including the refueling outages.
~ (later)
Original CAP responsibility:
Baker Y13-4.
Staff all crews with 3 Licensed Reactor Operators.
Cl d
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay Y14.
Evaluate possible improvements in the solicitation and utilization of student feedback in the requalification training program.
~CI d
~ (later}
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley, OPS Liaison Y15. Resolve remaining EOP issues by continuing to work through the BWROG to resolve EOP concerns such as the ATWS instability phenomenon.
~
Cl
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay Y16.
Evaluate the current measurement tools including the ES604 crew competency form for non-technical skills and implement improvements to enhance the training evaluator and management staff effectiveness in this area.
Cp QZDZgafZ Revised competency forms which are plant specific are being developed.
The revised forms will be used in place of the forms currently in ES604.
This action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of April, 1992.
This action items will be completed as part of the revision to LTI 4.1 refer to action item C7.
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley
Y17.
Implement a program to periodically send the WNP-2 instructional staff to other utilities.
Within the scope of the program ensure a process is also in place to periodically bring in peer evaluators from other utilities to observe training at WNP-2.
Cl d
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Kobus Y18.
Develop, and consistently apply, a comprehensive simulator evaluation grading and critique system to include adequate reconstruction of events and critical discussion of less than adequate performance.
'losed
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor, Topley Y19.
Revise the Requal dynamic simulator scenario exam bank to ensure all scenarios are technically correct, consistently formatted, reflect the revised EOPs and to ensure all requirements of
~
I
~
~ ~l
~
P
~
I LTI 4.1 are met.~
CP Qzglzzgf,l. This action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of July, 1992.
~
(later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley Y20. Respond to the requalification program assessment by outside peer evaluators that observed simulator training after the June 5 and 6 NRC re-take exam.
~
CP Qgmg~ This action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of February, 1992.
P
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor, Topley Y21.
Complete long term (phase two) EOP revision.
~'P QzZ~h; The phase two revision of the EOPs is scheduled to be completed by the end of May, 1992.
Training on the phase 2 EOPs will begin in June and will run until November 1992.
Each crew would get three requal cycles of training.
Ir I
l
I'
(later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Powers, McKay Y22.
Establish a program to monitor effectiveness of operator training by allowing shift management to feedback training issues and concerns to appropriate management levels.
Qgmmgnfz A weekly meeting between the Requal Supervisor, Operations Liaison.and the Shift Manager are held to discuss Requal training issues.
Comments and recommendations are included in a weekly report to Operations, Training and Plant management.
dl I
~
(later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Mckay, Topley Y23.
Develop and implement a formal process to document feedback from the operations and training staff during simulator training, resolve the comments and provide feedback to the originator.
I" I Qgmglarlh.'
written program will be generated that will capture the process to be utilized. This action item is scheduled to be fully implemented by the end of May, 1992.
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
OPS Liaison, Barmettlor Y24.
Complete all six training related corrective action plan (CAP) items as described in NRC letter GO2-91-171
"WNP-2 Management Evaluation of the September 9, 1991 crew D Exam Failure".
The six corrective action items identified address the following issues:
~
Ensure all critical EOP transition points are designed into the simulator training program.
Ensure the training program emphasizes the hazards of event based analysis of plant conditions during simulator training (i.e. emphasize symptom based approach).
~
Ensure the simulator training program incorporates the principles of effective teamwork and clear role identification of each member of the control room team.
~
Ensure that effective coaching techniques are always practiced by the simulator instructors.
When appropriate, ensure immediate feedback and remmediation is provided by the instructors during simulator training.
~
Setup a data base that tracks individual competencies on an on-going basis.
Use the results as part of a program to evaluate individual operator performance.
~
Ensure the simulator instructors always employ effective follow-up questioning techniques.
dl
t l
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley Y25.
Conduct a task analysis of all licensed operator EOP tasks.
Use the results of the analysis to revise where appropriate the EOP training materials.
~ Op QgmmaafZ This action item is scheduled to be completed by the end of August,1992.
The task analysis will not be completed until the phase 2 EOPs have been developed.
The results of the analysis will be used to revise EOP training materials as necessary.
~ (later)
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Topley
i f
R1-1.
Develop and implement a remedial training program for the identified operators.
Gl d
~
A three phase program was developed focusing on; plant systems review, EOP training and transient management.
Written examinations and skill performance evaluations. were used throughout to assess training effectiveness.
A copy of the training curriculum is available in D. Topleys office.
Additional remmediation training was conducted as short term GAP item S5-4.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor, McKay R2-1. Revise the current simulator scenario bank and develop new scenarios as necessary to meet the current management expectations.
Gl
~
Approximately 16 new simulator scenarios were developed as part of the remedial training program.
They were used to ensure operators able to evaluate, prioritize and handle complex emergency situations.
The new scenarios are of the complexity as expected by the NRC to meet ES-604 requirements.
The revised scenarios have been incorporated into the exam bank and are available for review there.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R3-1. Revise simulator lSCTs to meet the current management requirements.
~GI d
~
The ISCTs have been revised and they have been incorporated in a department instruction (LTI 4.2). The revised ISCT's are based upon the guidance provided in the examiners standards.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R4-2. Develop and implement dynamic simulator training that will heighten the level of intensity for crew training sessions to prepare the operators for the current management examination philosophy.
Closed I
~
Transient management scenarios were developed that reflect managements expectations concerning the level of challenge expected of the operating crews.
Refer to CAP action items R-R2-1
S11-4.
'
~
This action has become an on-going function of the simulator portion of the Licensed Operator Requal program.
Refer to the dynamic simulator scenario exam bank for a representation of simulator scenarios used on an on-going basis in Requal.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R5-2. Periodically revise the scenario structure to ensure variety so the scenarios do not become predictable to the operators.
C
~
Many new scenarios were added to the exam bank. ln March 1991 the bank had 20 scenarios.
As of February the exam bank held 60 scenarios.
~
Addition of new scenarios and revision of existing scenarios has become an on-going function of the simulator portion of the Licensed Operator Requal program.
Refer to the dynamic simulator scenario exam bank for a representation of simulator scenarios used on an on-going basis in Requal.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R6-4.
Review examination results with the licensed operators requiring remedial training.
~ ~
G
~
This recommendation has been completed as part of the formal remedial training program, Refer to the attendance records in Central Training Services.
A training curriculum outline is available in D. Topleys office.
~
Original GAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R7-4. Re-examine all affected operator candidates prior to NRC re-evaluation.
~
This recommendation was completed as a part of the formal remedial training program.
Refer to the attendance records in Central Training Services.
A training curriculum outline is available in D. Topleys office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R8-2. Conduct refresher training for the simulator training staff focusing on the identified needs from the examination process.
Examples are; operator monitoring and data collection, questioning techniques, conduct of scenario critiques, and use of root cause techniques
tg
,i lt
~
A formal training session was developed and presented to the simulator instructors.
This training included the evaluation program improvements recently implemented.
The possible use of root cause techniques has been evaluated and found to be, impractical due to timeliness requirements.
A training lesson outline is available in D. Topleys office. Attendance records are available in Central Training Services.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R9-2. Upgrade the simulator training techniques to emphasize operator performance as expected in the plant, spend more of the time coaching and provide for role reversals at the SRO level by; placing more emphasis on training versus evaluating, rewarding the control room staff for directing appropriate actions (i.e. through restoration of equipment) outside the control room, requiring completion of physical actions by the operators, and providing feedback to individual operators via critique sheets in both pass and fail situations.
dl d
~
A wide variety of scenarios have incorporated into the training curriculum to ensure different types of success paths were trained on.
~
The critique process for the evaluated scenarios has been revised in order to be more facilitative. The crews are expected to perform self evaluations along with instructor feedback.
~
Operations management expectations have been reinforced in both simulator training and evaluations, refer to CAP items R11-4, R12-4, R13 and R27-2.
~
Refresher training was provided to the simulator instructors, refer to CAP item R8-2.
~
A significant amount of independent oversight provided feedback on the quality of this effort. As appropriate changes in instructional technique and strategy were made based on the feedback.
~
This action has become an on-going function of the simulator portion of the Licensed Operator Requal program.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R10-2.
Brief the operators on changes implemented by Revision 6 of the Examiner Standards.
d
~
This action was taken prior to the annual exam administration.
Prior to each NRC exam a briefing is given to the operators explaining how each section of the exam is conducted.
The briefings are conducted in accordance with revision 6 of NUREG 1021.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor 11-4.
Issue a memorandum from plant and senior management to describe management expectations relative to procedure usage to all license holders, licensed operator trainers, shift technical
I I
,il fi
~
'
'4 I
advisors, applicable TSC emergency staff and licensing and assurance personnel who monitor operations and operations training activities.
~dl d
~
A formal IOM was sent out to all designated parties.
Refer to IOM, from McKay, Baker and Oxsen, to Licensed Personnel, STAs, LO Training, TSC Directors/Managers, NSAG, dated May 17,-
1991; "Procedure Usage" Additionally, the Operations Manager issued this IOM as required reading for all licensed operators.
A copy of the IOM was sent to the NRC. A copy of the letter is available for review in R. Barmettlors office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Baker, McKay R12-4.
Conduct a meeting with all license holders, trainers and STAs at which plant and senior management will describe the challenges of the current situation, the actions being taken to correct deficiencies and improve performance, and will entertain suggestions for additional actions.
d
~
The presentation was made and video taped on May 16, 1991.
A copy of the tape is available for review in D. Topleys office.
Instructors, operators, STAs and personnel for the Licensing Assurance organization were in attendance.
The presentation was given in two session to ensure maximum attendance.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Oxsen, Baker R13.
The remedial training program module on management expectations will require review to ensure there is appropriate focus on EOP performance.
G
~
The Operations Manager conducted a talk.to each remmediation class to address this subject.
An outline of the topics discussed are available in S. McKays office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay R14-4.
Review and revise PPM 1.3.1, "Conduct of Operations", to clarify direction to the operations personnel regarding the use of the 10 CFR 50.54(x) exemption.
~
G d
d d
~
PPM 1.3.1 was revised to address 50.54X (PDF 91-940).
Refer to revision ¹18 for a review of the actions taken.
Sections 4.3.2 and 5.12.3.1.d were revised.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay
k
~
,
i
R15-3.
Develop an improved monitoring plan for increased QA oversight of EOP training.
d d
~
d d
~
~
~
d
~
Gl
~
There was increased QA oversight.
Reports SS91-003,91-004 and 91-005 were filed as a result of the oversight.
Both permanent staff and outside consultants were used.to conduct the oversight.
The oversight focused on operator training, operator performance and EOP issues.
Copies of the reports are available for review in H. McGiltons office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Bouchey R16.
The analysis for the requalification, operational evaluation and the SRO involved in the replacement operator examinations willbe assimilated and sent to Region V NRC management.
Gl d
~
Refer to CAP item R32 (NRC letter GO-91-102).
The analysis by itself was originally sent to Phil Johnson of the NRC.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R17-3.
Improve the training management structure.
Gl d
~
The Nuclear License Training Department organizational structure was revised in May 1991.
Two supervisory positions were created and filled. One supervisor, Dave Topley, is responsible Licensed Operator Requal and the other supervisor, Tim Powell is responsible for all other operator training programs, Refer to current approved organization charts available in R.
Barmettlors office. The NRC was formally notified of these changes in a letter in May (R32).
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R18-3.
Write a department instruction that delineates the duties and responsibilities of the Operations Liaison.
G d
~
LTI 7.4 was developed to more clearly delineate the duties and responsibilities of the Operations Liaison.
A copy of the LTI is available in R. Barmettlors office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor 19-3.
Write a memorandum to the training staff to encourage continued feedback on procedure enhancements.
Gl
T
l
)
,I f
t i
'
~
~
~
An IOM dated May 6, 1991 from D. Kobus to the Technical Training staff was written addressing the issue of PPM revisions by training personnel.
A copy of the letter is available in R. Barmettlors office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor, Kobus R20.
Evaluate the support required for the remedial training process and obtain the necessary resources.
Assess the logistics for the possibility of increased training if our evaluation process indicates the need (ie. overtime, outage schedule impact, etc.).
C'
~
Additional contractors were brought'on board to support the remmediation effort. A copy of the contract records are available in R, Barmettlors office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor, McKay R21-3.
Conduct an assessment of the remedial training process with a team of experts drawn from other utilities.
Closed The peer observation occurred the week of 5/20/91.
Team members were from the following plants; Hatch, Quad Cities, Nine Mile Point, Fermi, and Clinton. A peer report was written and is available for review in R, Barmettlors ofhce.
A peer report was generated dated May 31, 1991.
A copy of the report is located ln R. Barmettlors office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Oxsen, Barmettlor, Little R22-3.
Increase management oversight to include the simulator remedial training process.
G
~
A specific schedule for management oversite was developed and implemented.
Each manager was specifically identified and assigned a specific number of simulator observations.
A copy of the schedule is available for review in R. Barmettlors office.
~
Copies of completed management Simulator Observation Sheets are available in the Plant Manager office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Baker 23-4.
Clarify the hierarchy of adherence to cool down rates relative to RPV level control.
~
G'
~
I
~G
~
~
Response to this recommendation has been incorporated into the remedial training as part of the lessons learned from the Operational Evaluation.
Refer to CAP action item R1-1 for implementation.
~
IOM, McKay to Barmettlor, May 29, 1991; "Response to Recent EOP Issues and Concerns".
Also related to later short term CAP items S5-4 and S8-4.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
McKay R24-4.
Clarify the use of HPCS versus the Operational philosophy that use should be minimized because of thermal shock, cool down and cold water reactivity addition concerns.
G d
~
Response to this recommendation has been incorporated into the remedial training as part of the lessons learned from the Operational Evaluation.
Refer to CAP action item R1-1 for implementation.
~
Additionally, this issue was again addressed in short term corrective action items.
Refer to CAP item S5-4, S4-4 and S7-4.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor 25-4.
Conduct training on the expected EOP deviation process and the expectations for
~
~
~
implementation when deviations are required.
G d
~
Response to this recommendation has been incorporated into the remedial training as part. of the lessons learned from the Operational Evaluation.
Refer to CAP action item R1-1 for implementation.
~
Additionally this issue was discussed by management as part of CAP action item R12-4.
~
Other references include; McKay IOM which addresses this subject and revision to PPM1.3.1
"Conduct of Operations" to more effectively address the issue.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R26-3.
Assign utility personnel to the simulator evaluation staff to prevent a lack of continuity due to the unforeseen departure of the current contract employees, G
~
Utility personnel are now regularly assigned to the lead evaluator role in simulator training and evaluation.
When simulator training occurs actions are taken to ensure their is a mix of permanent staff and contract instructors.
Refer to simulator attendance records for verification of actions taken.
0 Oi
~
~
Additional EOP training has also been presented to the permanent training staff in to strengthen their instructional capabilities in order to have less reliance on contract instructors.
Refer to CAP item S10.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R27-2.
Ensure that simulator instructors always enforce proper communications,d event diagnosis, command and control and procedural compliance in training and evaluation scenarios.
G d
This effectiveness of this activity was stressed as part of the management oversight and QA monitoring effort. Development and enforcement of management expectations is the role of the Operations management.
Part of the duties and responsibilities assigned to the Operations Liaison was to ensure that management expectations were met.
Additionally the Nuclear Ucense Training Manager conducted periodic observations of the simulator instructors conducting training and evaluations to ensure they were consistent in their instructional techniques addressing these topics.
Peer utility evaluators were also used to make assessments of the simulator instructors (CAP item 21-3).
Copies of the various oversite observations are available in R. Barmettlors office.
~ This action has become an on-going function of the simulator portion of the Licensed Operator Requal program.
One of the primary responsibilities of the Requal Supervisor is to ensure the instructional staff training and evaluate to managements expectations.
~
PPM 1.3.1 "Conduct of Operations" define a number of Operations Managements expectations associated with these topics.
Also refer to CAP items R11-4, R13 and R14-4 for identification of management expectations.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor R28.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the management expectations presentations.
~
G d
The managements expectation presentations were attended by the QA manager.
Follow-up interviews were conducted with several of the operators who were in attendance.
~
Documentation (observations 8 surveillances)
is available in H. Mcailtons office which indicated that managements expectations were effectively transmitted to the Operations staff.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Bouchey 29.
Evaluate the transient management training portion of the remedial training program.
G
I
~ ~
~
r
l
~
The presentation took place on May 20, 1991.
A copy of the presentation is available for review in R. Barmettlors office.
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Kobus R34.
Establish a process to trend evaluation results of each license holder.
~'C d
~
A computer data base was developed to track crew and individual performance on evaluated simulator scenarios.
The areas tracked are ISCT and competency performance.
Examples of the data runs are available in D. Topleys office. The data base is now being used on an on-going basis to track performance trends over long periods of time in normal Requal.
II
~
Original CAP responsibility:
Barmettlor
e)
r r
ATTACHNENT B EOP CAUTION
AFFECTED RPV LEVEL INSTRUNENT RUNS
- r f
I<<CC tt<<t<<t<<t Sltn>>t<<<<st AI<<<<<<<<NI<<<<<<a<<t tlt r--
II I(
~
v I
(tel (
I I It(
ltfI<<w<<(I<<<<<<t<<i(at I
at
~
at (
(ta<<(
I ta (
<<I
~
I (
~tt<<a I
~(talc<<I<<MIt I
a<<I w I<<<<
I
~<<wt 0+
CC<<I<<I<<II<<<<t I
(
-a-. e lS V
al~
<<<<<<e IIIII I III J V
as as
)
at I tla (IC tla tla I \\
'\\
'<<
'<<<<
as as (la aat
<<I I
~II
~ (
( I as I(
I la la (
I(
I I
r I
II as I
sa
~
IIIIIIIIII
~<<
t<<
~I<<W
~W
<<<<
at I<<a(
~a
~ w<<
I
<<I II I
I tl BIO ~Imtltll I
I I
I-I
~
I I
I I
I V
~ J so I
(II f
l<<<<l
<<<<tl IIII f plt4 p
(IH(
I I
>>ate<<
tat( ttltt<<Oilats I
II IC II.
aat l<<
Is 1'l~
ls tl~
~IC sc II (
L (n(
(nl I
I w<<l w<<I (<<I(
I<<<CC
)II5
<<CIIdstl It-IIO I'/A (55
'oval, 53<
I'lo g,.~iruff <,+p gath'la wa <<t b<<.ft/<<I<<u RGURE 4 NUClEAR BOILERlEVEl.INSTRUMENTATION
/vI(
Iyt<<
tv C.
/IID P(Ng
~g+P
~>~@~~ //l>ICI a. <<<<t ~lt<<tlt<<III(twtl<<ta a a<<t Iala<<<<lit <<t<<CI( tall<<<<<<<<I<<KL I tat I<<wtIIc<<<<<<<<aa<<<<<<CI<<<<a
~el<< 14<<alwa <<a<<I<<<<alla(i<<l ~
~-/Of W-I(3 I>>f
/<<s Ip C g
SSo (5 I55
/95 I'll g-/I5 jto
<<<<RI
<<<<W
R1
O<t e1 i
fl~~i
f I
0