ML16341F281
| ML16341F281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1989 |
| From: | Johnston G, Miller L, Norrill P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341F280 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-OL-89-01, 50-275-OL-89-1, 50-323-OL-89-01, 50-323-OL-89-1, NUDOCS 8908170246 | |
| Download: ML16341F281 (12) | |
Text
Examination Report No.:
50-275/50-323/OL-89-01 Faci1 ity:
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2
Facility Docket Nos:
50-275, 50-323 Facility License Nos:
DPR-80, DPR-82 Examinations administered at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo, California.
Licensed Operator Requalification Program evaluation.
Gang H. Jo
- ston, xaminer Examiner hilip orr
, Examiner Other Accompanying Personnel:
Dat Date Francis Victor, Contract Examiner, Sonalysts Brian Smith, Contract Examiner, Sonalysts Keith Parkinson, Contract Examiner, Sonalysts Approved By:
/z)
Date n L,r L.. ti er, r.,
le Opera'tions Section Results:
Operating and written examination were administered to 36 licensed operators in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of NUREG 1021, Examiners Standards, ES-601.
Summary:
A NRC administered Requalification Program Evaluation was conducted at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant during the period of of Nay 15, 1989 through June 2,
1989 (Report No. 50-275/50-323/OL-89-01).
One crew was evaluated as unsatisfactory during the simulator portion of the examination by the NRC and facility evaluation teams.
One Reactor Operator failed the written portion of the examination as graded by the NRC and the facility graders.
One Senior Reactor Operator was determined to be unsatisfactory during a simulator exercise by the NRC and facility evaluation teams.
The facility evaluation team further determined that another Senior Reactor Operator had performed unsatisfactorily during the simulator portion;
- however, the NRC evaluators determined his performance to be satisfactory.
The final results are:
13 of the 14 Reactor Operators (93%) passed the examination, and 21 of the 22 Senior Reactor Operators (95K) passed.
This represents an overall pass rate of 94'/.
The facility Licensed Operator Requalification Program has been determined to meet all of the requirements of ES-601 for a satisfactory program evaluation.
8'r~v8 i 7O~E)F-!R fQL<vCc>
V
0
REPORT DETAILS Personnel NRC Personnel
- G..Johnston, Chief Examiner, RV P. Morrill, Examiner, RV F. Victor, Examiner, SONALYSTS B. Smith, Examiner, SONALYSTS K. Parkinson,
- Examiner, SONALYSTS
- K. Johnston, Resident Inspector, RV Diablo Canyon Personnel
- J.
- Townsend, Plant Manager T. Martin, Training Manager
- J. Molden, Licensed Operator Training Supervisor
- S. Fridley, Operations Supervisor
- L. Sawyer, guality Assurance
- L. Womack, Assistant Plant Manager Operations
- M. Angus, Assistant Plant Manager Station Services
- J. Becerra, Training
- J.
Leach, Training
- J. Melsch, Training
- B. Terrel, Training
- Denotes those present at Exit Meeting on June 2, 1989.
NRC Requalification Evaluation Program The evaluation was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the Diablo Canyon Licensed Operator Requalification Program and to evaluate operators for renewal of their six year term. licenses.
The evaluation of the Diablo Canyon Licensed Operator Requalification Program was conducted in accordance with NUREG-1021, Rev. 5, Examiners Standard ES-601, "Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations".
Prior to the evaluation the facility staff prepared a full set of simulator scenarios and Job Performance Measures as required.
The facility staff was also required to prepare a question bark of a significant number of questions, from which written examination questions would be selected.
The Chief Examiner reviewed the current bank of'uestions to determine that the facility staff was on schedule to produce the required 350 part "A" and 350 part "B" that will be required by October 1,
1989.
The staff is currently producing the target of 30 questions per part per month, and will easily meet the October date.
The facility had, at the time the written examination was finalized, over 300 questions in their bank which was sufficient to produce the examinations required for this evaluation.
0
Examination Development The NRC Evaluation Team conducted two separate working meetings to evaluate the preparation of the examinations.
These were conducted during the weeks of April 10, 17, and 24, 1989.
The NRC Evaluation Team conducted reviews of facility produced examination material to determine that it met the standards established in ES-601.
From this review, the Team concluded that-the facility had produced the prescribed material and that it was of sufficient quality to use for this evaluation.
The Chief Examiner then selected the material to be used in the examinations.
The facility training staff was asked to provide a systematic schedule that would completely exercise all of the Job Performance Measures (JPMs),
a total of 85.
- Further, the facility was requested to ensure that the selected fifteen common JPMs would be used such that each operator would have at least five of the selected common
The remaining JPMs, totaling 70 would be spread out among the operators in a random fashion..
This process was chosen by the Chief Examiner to ensure security and enhance the statistical evaluation of the operators performance.
The facility training staff had produced the required minimum of fifteen simulator scenarios.
To enhance the selection of scenarios, and ensure that each crew received different scenarios, the Chief Examiner requested that the facility training staff prepare six more scenarios.
The reasoning was that if only fifteen scenarios were available, with nine crews and a
minimum of two scenarios per crew, at least three scenarios would have to be repeated.
The staff obligingly provided those scenarios so that a
selection of twenty-one was available during the evaluations on the simulator.
Operator Selection The operators that were selected by the Chief Examiner were provided out of a pool of available personnel.
Thirty-six operators, approximately 50 percent of the licensed operators, were selected for the examinations.
A smaller group of substitutes was maintained to ensure that inadvertent absences would be covered.
One substitution was made in the third week with the concurrence of the Chief Examiner.
Examination Administration During the three week period the examinations were administered with the following schedule.
On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday the crews were given a simulator evaluation of from two to three scenarios in the morning.
In the afternoons of those days the individuals were evaluated in performance of JPMs, six JPMs each on the simulator, and four JPMs each in the plant proper or at training center equipment that allowed actual hands on demonstrations, The written examinations were administered on each Friday in a rotating fashion that allowed only four operators at a
time in the simulator for the Part A portion of the written examination.
6.
Examination Results A total of thirty six licensed operators were examined during the evaluation
( 14 Reactor Operators and 22 Senior Reactor Operators).
A. Simulator l.
One Senior Reactor Operator was determined to be unsatisfactory by both the NRC and the facility evaluation team during the simulator examination.
2.
One crew of the nine examined during the simulator examinations were determined to be unsatisfactory by both the facility evaluation team and the NRC.
The remaining three members of the team were determined to be satisfactory by the NRC.
The other Senior Reactor Operator on the crew was found to be satisfactory by the NRC, but the facility failed the individual and determined that some remedial training was required of him.
B. Job Performance Measures h~alk-Throughs l.
Of the thirty-six operators examined during the JPH walk-through portion of the examination 100K of the operators satisfactorily performed 805 or more of the ten JPHs they were assigned.
2.
Of the thirty-six operators examined during the JPM walk-through portion of the examination 100~ of the operators satisfactorily answered 70/ or more of the JPM related questions they were asked.
3.
The results of the review of the fifteen common JPHs revealed no apparent generic problems.
One problem with the scheduled number of common JPMs did occur in that one individual inadvertently. did not receive five of the common JPHs.
This was apparently due to a facility error in preparing the packages of JPHs when a similar JPM was substituted.
The Chief Examiner had established and approved a schedule for administration of the JPHs that assured that all of the operators would receive at least five of the common JPHs.
Another error occurred when a transposition in the schedule matrix allowed one common JPH to be performed 13 times and another ll times.
Each common JPH was to have been performed 12 times.
The Chief Examiner determined that these errors were not significant and still allow for a statistically significant analysis to be done per ES-601.
C. Written Examination 1.
The facility staff grading of the written examinations identified one failing score of less than 80% overall.
There were thirty-five passing scores greater than 80% overall.
2.
The parallel grading done by the NRC identified the same failure of an operator, with a score of.less than 80% overall.
7.
Facility Evaluations A rotating staff of eight facility licensed operator training instructors provided the four evaluators required for each day the simulator examinations and JPH walk-throughs were conducted.
A management representative, a supervisor of licensed operator training, and a 'senior training instructor were present during critiques of the simulator portion.
The facility evaluators, in general, conducted the evaluations professionally and with apparent forethought.
There were few occasions of performance that could be categorized as inadequate.
Instances did occur where the facility evaluator did inadvertently lead the operator to a correct action or response.
These instances, however, did not affect the-eventual final evaluation of the operator and did not involve critical tasks that would have invalidated the performance of a JPH.
The NRC examiners did not have to counsel any of the facility evaluators during the conduct of either the simulator or JPti portions of the operating
~
~
examinat)ons.
8.
Facility Evaluation The principal criteria for an evaluation of satisfactory are:
a.
90% of the pass/fail decisions agreement between the NRC and facility grading of the written and operating examinations (with no penalty for the facility being more conservative than the NRC.)
b.
At least 75% of all operators pass the examination; not including individuals selected who had previously passed the examination.
c.
The program is judged satisfactory in accordance with the guidance given,for the simulator evaluation in ES-601 D. 1.C. (2).
d.
The program meets the requirements of 10CFR55.59(c)(2),
(3),
and (4),
or, is based on a systems approach to training.
The evaluation determined that:
a.
There was 100% agreement between the NRC and the facility evaluations of the written and operati'ng examinations.
b.
94% of the operators passed the examinations.
93% of the Reactor Operators, and 95% of the Senior Reactor Operators.
~
c.
The facility team and the NRC judged one crew as unsatisfactory.
This is illof the crews.
The facility was allowed (per ES-601) to have one third of the crews judged unsatisfactory and still be eligible for a
satisfactory evaluation.
d.
The facility has implemented a systems approach to training.
ES-601 C.3.b.(2) outlines other criteria by which the program may be judged unsatisfactory.
The NRC evaluation.of these criteria indicated that none were exceeded.
Therefore, having met all of the requirements and guidelines of NUREG
- 1021, ES-601, the determination was made that the Operator Requalification Program at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is satisfactory.
9.
Exit Neeting The Chief Examiner and the Resident Inspector met with the facility staff denoted in paragraph 1.
The Chief Examiner discussed the evaluation process and conveyed preliminary information required for disposition of the failures that were identified during the evaluation at the time of the meeting.
The Chief Examiner indicated that the individuals could be returned to shift only after remedial training and an evaluation had been completed.
The crew that had failed could not return to duty as a
constituted unit until they had received remedial training as a crew, and had been evaluated as a crew..
The Chief Examiner also indicated that any individual failures would be reexamined at as early a date as possible, and most likely at the next scheduled replacement examination.
This was to ensure that the persons would be evaluated before the expiration of their six year term license.