ML16342C275
| ML16342C275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1991 |
| From: | Johnston G, Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341G177 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-OL-91-01, 50-275-OL-91-1, 50-323-OL-91-01, 50-323-OL-91-1, NUDOCS 9107220048 | |
| Download: ML16342C275 (12) | |
Text
ENCLOSURE 1 Examination Report No.:
Facility:
Docket No.:
50-275/50-323/OL-91-01 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 50-275/50-323 Examinations administered at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Avila Beach, California.
Chief Examiner:
Gary W.
ohn ton, Operator Licensing Examiner c ~Wp Date Signed Accompanying Personnel:
B. Haagensen, Contract Examiner, Sonalyst Inc.
M. Stein, Contract Examiner, Sonalyst Inc.
Approved:
Lew'. Miller, r.
Chief, Operatio s Section C ~!
Date Signed Summary:
Examinations on Ma 7 17 1991 Re ort No. 50-275 50-323 OL-
~91-01 Pro ram Evaluation:
The facility retualification program was found to be satisfactory in accordance with Examiners Standard ES-601, "Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations."
Seventeen Senior Reactor Operators and eleven Reactor Operators passed all portions of the regualification examinations.
Safet Si nificate Issues:
No safety significant issues were identified.
5'107220048 Vi0705 PDR ADQCK 05000275 V
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Examiners G. Zohnston, RV (Chief Examiner)
B. Haagensen, Contract Examiner, Sonalyst Inc.
M. Stein, Contract Examiner, Sonalyst Inc.
2.
Persons Attendin the Exit Meetin NRC:
G. Zohnston, Chief Examiner L. Miller, Chief, Operations Section, Region V Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Z.
D.
D.
T.
S.'.
R.
M.
R.
S.
Z.
- Townsend, Vice President, Diablo Canyon Operations Miklush, Operations Services Manger
- Oatley, Support Services Manager Martin, Training Manager Fridley, Operations Manager Welsch, Training Supervisor Kohout, Safety, Health, and Emergency Services Manager
- Benson, Physicians Assistant, DCPP Medical Zett, Simulator Supervisor Michals, Senior Instructor
- Becerra, Senior Instructor 3 ~
Written Examination The facility prepared written examination material -submitted by the licensee on the whole met the requirements for administration as described in ES-602, "Requalification Written Examination."
The Chief Examiner did request some changes and substitutions for questions that did not meet ES-601, "Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations," Attachment 1, Table 1, which specifies that "Items that require only memorization or recall are not permitted. on open reference examinations."
Although some changes were necessary because of this requirement, the number of changes necessitated were not significant in nature.
The licensee representative in charge of the exam bank material acknowledged the need to review the exam bank periodically to ensure that questions of the recall or memorization level were flagged for change or deletion.
The examination team also identified that some questions did not relate to the appropriate portion of the exam bank; i.e.
questions relating to the Limits and Controls (Part B) portion of the written examination bank would be in the
Plant Systems (Part A) portion of the examination bank, and conversely.
Again, the licensee representative in charge of the exam bank material acknowledged that the exam
'ank should be reviewed to ensure that questions were in the
'ppropriate part of the examination bank.
The -facility grading appeared to be conservative, and did not differ in overall results with the grading of the Chief Examiner.
Two variances in grading were noted for the 28 examinees.
In both of these
- cases, the facility graders missed one incorrect response for two examinees.
None of the operators failed the written examination.
Job Performance Measures Examination The Job Performance Measure (JPMs) provided by the facility were reviewed and deemed to be adequate for administration.
The facility staff has been maintaining an addition rate to the bank of JPMs above the recommendations in the Examiners Standards.
The Chief Examiner informed the facility staff that ES-603 "Requalification Walk-Through Examination," C.l.a(4),
recommends that "Old JPMs should be maintained or modified as appropriate."
- Further, ES-603 C.l.a(5) recommends that "Questions should continue to be developed to be congruence with the number of knowledge items associated with the particular task, as stated in the JTA or NUREG 1122/1123."
This infers that the questions associated with each task need to have all pertinent knowledge items covered.
The facility's program did not fully address the. intent of these recommendations.
Also, the performance portion*of the JPM, and the questions in the JPMs, did not clearly identify whether the subject was at the Senior Reactor Operator level or the Reactor Operator level.
The questions did not always clearly elicit the answers that were provided, which resulted in the evaluator having to ask follow-up questions to expand the response of the examinee to satisfy the answer supplied for the question.
Further, the questions did not consistently require responses that may take several sentences to answer, see (ES-603 C.l.a(7)).
All operators passed the graded JPM walk-through portion of the examination.
Facility evaluators failed two operators on one JPM apiece.
One of the failed JPMs was determined, by the NRC examiner who observed, to not warrant failure.
The facility evaluator's determination was considered to be overly conservative.
The two failed JPMs were unrelated items.
Simulator Examinations The simulator scenarios supplied by the facility were reviewed and found to meet the minimum requirements as described in ES-604.
The facility training staff requested an early meeting with the Chief Examiner to go over their efforts to review the scenario bank and identify changes required as a result of Revision 6 of the Examiners Standards.
This early effort on the part. of the facility resulted in relatively few changes to the scenarios being necessitated.
However, the facility bank did contain many scenarios that were considered too simplistic in that they did not require significant transitions in the EOPs and did not involve multiple casualties.
- Further, some scenarios contained lead-in events that could cue the examinees to the major event(s) that will eventually occur in the scenarios.
The facility staff was encouraged by the Chief Examiner to explore modifications to the scenarios to provide novelty such that the operators would not be able to anticipate the events.
The examiner made changes to the schedule of scenarios arranged*by the facility training staff for the crews, to incorporate a selection of scenarios of various levels of challenge.
These 'changes did not constitute significant changes to the scenario sets themselves.
The examination team made the following observations during the simulator examinations.
0 The crews had difficultycontrolling and coordinating cooldown and depressurization of the Reactor Coolant System following a Steam Generator Tube Rupture.
The facility scenario bank has only one scenario associated with a SGTR event that involves a cooldown.
The supervisors on the crews typically did not monitor the cooldown closely to ensure that overshoot of the target temperature would not occur.
The Chief Examiner ensured a
cooldown was required for each of the SGTR scenarios during the examinations.
The Chief Examiner pointed out that the cooldown was an important step in any SGTR scenario.
The crew format of the Shift Foreman (SFM) monitoring and being responsible for the implementation of the EOPs by the Senior Control Operator (SCO) did not appear to be a problem during this evaluation.
However, there was an inconsistency regarding how crews were supervised from crew to crew.
The supervision varied depending on the experience and normal shift
0 position of the SCO (i.e., if the SCO for the scenario was a Shift Supervisor normally on shift, the person playing the SFM in the scenario was usually deferential.)
The c mmunications of the crews appeared at times to be~,uncoordinated.
No clear effort that assured communications were acknowledged were observed with any of the crews.
Further, the crews varied in their formality of communication considerably.
This did present several crews with challenges to their efforts to mitigate events when communications between crew members resulted in a failure to relay important information.
The crews demonstrated occasional problems in determining points of transition in the EOPs.
The attention that the SFM had to pay to the actions of the crew did provide a check on the use of the procedures and prevented several instances of inappropriate transitions from occurring.
The crew performance was collectively good with few significant problems other than the above observations occurring during the examinations.
Some crews did experience specific problems that were not of a generic nature.
No individuals and no crews failed the simulator portion of the examinations.
Re alification Pro ram Evaluation The facility requalification program was reviewed, as follows, in accordance with ES-601, "Administration of NRC Regualification Program Evaluations" C.2.b(l):
o The facility grading on all portions of the examination was as conservative as the NRC examiners grading on more than 90 percent of the examination.
0 There were no individual failures out of 28 examinees on the examination.
o None of the six crews failed the simulator portion of the examination.
- Further, none of the items of ES-601 C.2.b.(2)(a) to (f) were found.to apply.
The lack of specific deficiencies places the program well within the limits for a satisfactory program as provided in ES-601.
The requalification program for Diablo Canyon is satisfactory.
Exit Meetin The NRC representatives met with the persons identified in Paragraph 2 on May 17, 1991.
The Chief Examiner summarized the preliminary results of the examinations to date and indicated that the final results would await the final grading of the written examinations by the facility evaluators and the NRC examiners.
The Chief Examiner went over the findings identified to date in Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6.
J