ML17285B253
| ML17285B253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1990 |
| From: | Zimmerman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Oxsen L WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17285B254 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005100156 | |
| Download: ML17285B253 (5) | |
Text
~yS <EC(p O
0'~
0O IIhp Cy
/4,/p Cy
+y**V UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION V 1450 MARIA LANE,SU ITE 210 WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94596 Docket No.
50-397 April 25, 1990 Mr.
Lee Oxsen Assistant Managing Director for Operations Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way Mail Drop 1023 Richland, Washington 99352 Dear Mr.
Oxsen:
Subject:
NRC Evaluation of Washington Nuclear Project, Unit 2 (WNP-2)
Licensed Operator Requalification Program During the period January 29, through February 8, 1990, the NRC conducted a
validation review of the WNP-2 Licensed Operator Requalification Program testing materials.
Subsequently, during the period of February 27, through March 9, 1990, the NRC conducted the formal program evaluation.
The evaluation was based on written and operating examinations administered to licensed operators in accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-601, Revision 5, "Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations."
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the effectiveness of the WNP-2 Licensed Operator Requalification Program and to evaluate individual operators for renewal of their six year term licenses.
Twenty-four operators, representing four operating
- crews, were evaluated.
Each crew was evaluated in an operational environment for team performance as well as individual operator performance.
It is a requirement of 10 CFR 55.57(b)(2)(iv) that all applicants for license renewal pass an NRC administered written and operating examination during the term of their six year license prior to the renewal of the operating license.
Details and findings of the evaluation are contained in Examination Report 50-397/OL-90-01, which is Enclosure 1 of this letter.
As specified in NUREG-1021, ES-601, the program may be evaluated as "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory".
Based on the NRC evaluation and the criteria established in NUREG-1021, ES-601, the WNP-2 Licensed Operator Requalification Program is satisfactory.
This is a significant accomplishment.
However, three findings of particular concern should be addressed.
First, the quality of the program's written examination and Job Performance Measure (JPM) question bank testing materials, received during the validation portion of this inspection, were initially inadequate to conduct objective operator examinations.
The question banks contained'subjective and open ended questions, to the degree that valid parallel grading determinations between the examiner staffs would have been difficult.
Furthermore, some of these questions were technically inaccurate since their reference base was not current.
P 0051001
'+
00 q97 900425 pod PDOCK 050 PDC V
April 25, 1990 These weaknesses resulted in an extensive administrative effort by the training staff to develop acceptable products in time for the formal program evaluation.
Your staff committed to improve these test banks, and to implement a formal system of maintaining these materials current by the next program evaluation cycle.
- Second, the program's JPH time validation process is imprecise.
This became evident during the formal evaluation period, under actual test conditions, when approximately twenty percent of the selected JPH's were completed by the operators in less than half the "validated" estimated time.
One safety related JPM, involving emergency plant shutdown from outside the control room, required twenty minutes longer to successfully complete than the time estimate given to the operators.
Your staff committed to correcting the JPH bank time validation
- process, such that valid completion times are indicated by the next program evaluation cycle.
Finally, the operating procedure validation system was found deficient.
Approximately twenty percent of your safety-,related operating procedures were sampled in this evaluation effort by the NRC.
Host of these procedures had some degree of deficiency (erroneous panel labeling, misplaced steps, obscure
- steps, or insufficient detail), to the extent-that correct and timely task performance by licensed operators under actual emergency conditions might be hampered.
Two examples of deficient procedure validation of safety related tasks were of particular concern during the program evaluation, as detailed in Enclosure 1 of this letter.
In addition, a number of copies of operating procedures used by your training department were found not to be the current revisions.
Your management staff committed to resolve this issue by upgrading the existing procedure validation program.
You are requested to respond to the above findings to confirm your plans and commitments for corrective actions.
Twenty-two of the twenty-four operator's individual performances were judged to be satisfactory by NRC examiners, and will be eligible for renewal of their six year term licenses.
We understand that the operators that were determined by the NRC as failing the written and operating portions of their respective examinations were removed from licensed duties, remediated in the areas of identified weakness and then reexamined by your staff prior to being returned to licensed duties.
This is in accordance with the requalification program.
The NRC will schedule.a reexamination of these two individuals in the areas of identified weaknesses within six months of the initial notification of failure letters.
All four of the operating crews were evaluated as satisfactory by the NRC and your staff.
One of these crews was marginal, in their application of operating procedures.
All crews exhibited some weakness in communications.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission.'s regulations, a copy of this letter and Enclosure (1) will be placed in the NRC public document room.
April 25, 1990 The response directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not subject to the clearance procedure of the Office of Management and Budget as required. by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
If, you have any questions or comments concerning the NRC identified deficiencies, or failure criteria for individual operators, please contact us.
Sincerely,
$ P R.
P.
Zimmerman, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects
April,25, 1990
Enclosures:
1.
Examination Report 50-397/OL-90-01 (w/Attachment A, Written Examination Answer Key Resolution) 2.
Requalification Results Summary Sheets (ES-601, Attachments 16 and 17) 3.
Individual Requalification Examination Reports (ES-601, Attachment 18) 4.
Simulation Facility Report (ES-501,, Enclosure 3) cc w/enclosures (1), (2), (3), and (4):
B. Barmettlor, Nuclear License Training Manager R. Cross, RV (2 copies)
Enclosure (2):
J. Lanning, OLB HQ Enclosure (4):
Niel Hunemuller, NRR/LOLB cc w/enclosure (1) (w/o attachment A)
K. Perkins, LOLB R. Satmworth, Project Manager NRR J. Martin, RV B. Faulkenberry, RV R.
Zimmerman, RV A. Chaffee, RV D. Kirsch, RV L. Miller, RV P. Johnson, RV C. Bosted,
- SRI, WNP-2 R. Moffitt, PNL R. Orton, PNL K. Mikkelson, PNL M. Morgen, PNL RV/jk REQUEST C
PY REQUEST COPY R
VEST COPY R
EST COPY E
/
NO YES /
NO E
/
NO E
/
NO R
UEST COPY E
/
NO MEADOWS.~
4/r "/90 RE ST/
NO LM LER KIRSCH PJOHNSON
, 0/i+90 4/g9)/90 4/I1./90 CHAFF
/90 ZIMMERMAN P. I'>
4/g.+90 SEND T PDR
[ YES /
NO
'p ~
+m+c tN'0 + +
~a~
April 25, 1990
Enclosures:
1.
Examination Report 50-397/OL-90-01 (w/Attachment A, lJritten Examination Answer Key Resolution) 2.
Requalification Results Summary Sheets (ES-601, Attachments 16 and 17) 3.
Individual Requalification Examination Reports (ES-601, Attachment 18) 4.
Simulation Facility Report (ES-501, Attachment 3, Enclosure 3) cc w/enclosures (1), (2), (3), and (4):
B. Barmettlor, Huclear License Training Manager J. Bianchi, RV (2 copies)
Enclosure (2):
J. Lanning, OLB HQ Enclosure (4):
Hiel Hunemuller, HRR/LOLB cc w/enclosure (1) (w/o attachment A)
K. Perkins, LOLB R. Sammworth, Project Manager HRR J. Martin, RY B. Faulkenberry, RV R. Zimmerman, RV A. Chaffee, RV D. Kirsch, RY L. Miller, RV P. Johnson, RV C. Bosted,
- SRI, MHP-2 R. Moffitt, PHL R. Orton, PHL K. Mikkelson, PHL M. Morgen, PHL