ML18058A342

Requalification Exam Rept 50-255/OL-92-01 on 920323-27. Requalification Program at Plant Assigned Overall Program Rating of Satisfactory

ML18058A342
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	04/10/1992
From:	Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Slade G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
Shared Package
ML18058A343	List: ML18058A342
References
NUDOCS 9204160085
Download: ML18058A342 (13)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.Docke.t N().- 50-2 55 Consumer.s Power Cqmpany ATTN: Gerald B. Slade . Geneial Manager APR 1 o 1i12 Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant 27780.Blue *Star Memorial Highway Covett, MI 49043

SUBJECT:

.REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT During the week of March 23 - 27, 1992, the NRC.administered requalif icatiori examinations to employee~ of your organization

• who operate your Palisades Nuclear Plant.

At the conclusion of* the examination, any generic findings.that evolved as a result of the exa~in~ti6ns were discu~sed with those*.members of your staff identified in the encl_osed report. As a result of* this evaluation, and the previous ev.aluations performed during*tne week of March 25, 1991 and documented in . *Exam Report No. 50-255/6L-91-05 (DRS), *your requalification

• program has beeri_ assigned an overall *program rating of satisfactory in accordance with 'the criteria of NUREG-1021, ES 601.
• In accordance with 10 CFR 2. 790' of the C,emmission's regulations, a* copy of this letter and the enclosures -Will be placed in the' NRC Public Document Room~

Should. you have any questions concerning this examination, please contact us. Sincerely, ra~d* ~~

c. Wright, chief Operations Branch See Attached Enclosures and Distribution RI~

. r:v- ' Wa ker /cg. 04//0/92 RI(l. Burdick 04/(V/92 ~ I Jo gensen 04 /6 /92 .*~~ 04//~/92

Consumers Power Company Enclosures and Distributibn En.closures:

1.

Examination Report No. 50-255/0L-92-0l

2.

Simulation Facility Report

3.

Requalification Program

• Evaluation Report cc w/enclosures:

David P. Hoffman, Vice President Nuclear Operations -P. M. Donnelly, Safety and Licensing Director DCri/DCB (RIDS) OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, RIII James R. Padgetti Michigan Public Service Commission Michigan Department of Public Health SRI, Big Rock Point D. Rogers, Plant Training Manager B. E. Holian, Project Manager, NRR 2 APH 1 o 1992 T. Guilfoil, Contract Exam supervisor, Sonalysts R. M. Galloj Branch Chi~f, OLB

---* ~**- / U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III . Repo]:'.'t No. 50-255/0L-92-0l Docket No. 50-255 Licenses_No. DPR.,.-20 Licensee: Consumers Power Company 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway

• Covert, MI 49043 Facility Name:. Palisades Nuclear Generating Plarit Examination Administered At:

Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant Exa~i~ation Conducted: March 23 - 27, 1992 I~ I,.-{ * / /'d Chief Examiner:*

• lhJ(.;<..A.(4-Lt.tfl---* *.

J_* R. Walke: Approved By: . *~ ~ T. M. Burdick, Chief Operato.r. Licensing Section 2 Examination Summary '{-/0 -9 ~ Date Date Examination administered du~ing the week of March 23, 1992, (Report No. 50-255/0L-92-0l(DRS)) to five Senior Reactor operators and three Reactor operators. Crew performance a~ well as individual perfor~ance was evalu~ted on.the dynamic portion of th~ operating exa~ination. The written examin~tions were administered on March 24, 1992at the Palisades Training/Outage

• Building.

The operational examinations were administered at .Palisades simulator facility on March 25. The walk.,.-through portions. of the examination were administere.d. both at the Palisades simulator facility and in-plant on March 26, 1992. An exit meeting was conducted on March 27, 1992, with plant management. The full.examination was administered to three reactor operator and five senior reactor operators. Results: All three reactor operators and all five senior reactor operators passed all sections of the examinations. In addit~on, all crews received sati~factory*evaluations for their p~~formanca on the* dynamic simulator exami~ation.. 9204160095 920410 PDR ADOCK 05000255 ~ PP.R

The following are examples of the strengths and weaknesses identified by the NRC evaluators. Strengths Good use of.alaim response procedure~; operators and evaluators.* demonstrated a thorough knowlecige of plant equipment locations. Weaknesses ** Communications between.crew members during dynamic simulator examinations were weak.

• . Some SROs showed weaknesses in control board operations.

These events are addressed in.the r~port details. 2

• • e REPORT DETAILS

1.

Examiners

• • J. Walker, NRC

. T. B_urdick, NRC

• J. Ham;en, NRC G. ~heale, Sonalysts (SON)
• Chief Examiner

2.

Exit Meeting An exit meeting was held on March.27, 1992, with facility ~anagement and-training staff representatives, to discuss the examiner's observations. NRC Representatives in attendance were: J. Walker, Chief Examiner T. Burdick, Chief, OL Sectibn 2 J. Hansen, Examiner RIII* G. Wheale, Sonalyst J. Heller, SRI Facility Representative:s in attendance were: G. Slcide, Plant Generai Mariager ~.. Rice~ Operations Manager* D. Rogers, Training Superintendent P. Schmidt, *Supervisor Instructor. R. keimsath, Supervise~ Instructor

• T. Horan, Senior Nuclear Instructor W.

Pratt~ Seriior Nuclear Instructor B. Bauer, Supervisory Instructor B. Dusterhoft, Simulator Supervisory Instructor R. Scudder, simulator suppo~t Supeivisor J. Werner, NPAD Assessor R. Frigo, Operations Staff Suppori ~upervisor. D. Malone~ Operation:~ Support Coordinator J. Kuemin, Licensing Administrator L. Morse, Licensing Clerk 3.* Examination Development The NRC and licensee members of the examination team validated the proposed examination developed by the licensee.*

• during the examination preparation week of March 9, 1992.

3

The examination validation was accomplished by comparing the proposed examinations with the applicable guidance* of NUREG 1021,. "Operator Licensing Examiner standards.," Revision 6.

a.

Reference Material The 'reference ma'terial sent to the NRC for use during examination development of the requalif ication

• examination was adequate.

b.

Regualification Written Examination The licens~es' proposed written examination gener~lly met.the guidance as stated in*ES...,602. The following are specific observations that were made. by the NRC examiners regarding the written examination: In g~neral, the licensees' exa~ination continues - to improve in content an4 style of examination q~estions. Some d~ficiencies that were identified on pievious examinations still.exist such as:

1) non-discriminating distractors; 2) the use of the terms "best" or "most correct" in the stem of.

• multiple choice questions and 3) the* use of.a "yes, yes, yes, n_o" format in distractor of multiple choice questions.

Various questibns on bcith part A and patt. B .examinations had to be re~ritten to clarify* information being sought.

c.

Job Performan~e Measures (JPM)

d.

The-Job Performance Measures during the preparation week. provided in ES-603. (JPM) were evaluated . The JPMs. met the guidance. The use of alternate success path JPMs will continue. In the event the license has no JPMs of this.type in their examination bank, the NRC will make every effort to prepare them for validation by the facility as soon as practicable._

• .Dynamic simulator One of the proposed _simulator scenarios had to be replaced due to a conflict with the static simuiator examination.

The following are some examples of iteins that needed to be changed per Attachment ES...,604-1 of ES-604. 4

No simultaneous events w~re present during the scenarios. The depth of scenarios to test the EOPs were initially inadequate. One scenario' had no transitions beyond EOP-2 until modified. All scenarios are required to go* into depth in the EOPs. An improvement was.noted this year.as to the identification of critical tasks {ISCTs}. There were none that needed to be changed or modified. Some were added by the addition of events to the scenarios.

4.

Examination Administration The licensee was respon'sible f.or examination administration while NRC 6bserved ~he process which illowed the NRC.to evaluate the licensees.i requalif ication program as weti as the indi~idual operators. The following 6bser~ations were made by the NRC concerning examination administration: Written Examination The licensee did a good.job of scheduling the examination which reduced the amount of "dead time" associated with the

• .examination.. This. was a positive ~ttribute in reducing operator stress duririq the examination process~

The location for the Part.B written *examination required additional personnel for escort due to the possibility for inadvertent ex~minatioh compromise. Dynamic Simulator Examination Durin~.the dynamic simulator examinations, t~e events were well timed, and all of the facility and NRC evaluators were kept informed ~f each specific event initiation. Job* Performance Measures (JPM) The use of notebooks for JPM administration provided the. evaluators with a conc~se and easily managed evaluation

• package for each individual operator.

The use of "extra" training staff personnel at the simulator, to answer phones and role play as auxiliary. operators and other pl~nt personnel, enhanced the JPM examination process by adding realism to.the task being performed. 5

.e*.

5.

Evaluation* of Facility Evaluators During examination administration, the NRC assessed each licensee evaluator'~ abili~y to conduct consistent and objective axamination~, and thei~ ability to provide * .unbiasea evaluation~ of the op~rators. The follo~ing . observations were made regarding the facility evaluators: During a scenario the evaluators gave cues to the crew that the scenario should have already ended. ~his could d1stract the crew and add to the stress of the, operators. Followup q~~stions~ in a ~ew minor cases, tended to laad the. operator* to the ans~er looked for. Over~ll the facility evalUato~i did a good job of

• identifying individual op~rator and* crew performanc~

strengths and def iciericies during the dynamic simulator examinations.

6.

Examination Evaluations Co-evaluation of the.operators performance was pe:r:formed by

• the NRC and the facility.. -- This provided the NRC with the neces~ary information to assess the individu~l o~erator~s pe~form~nce, as well as ~rie licensees' r~qua1ification

- program performan6e. In general, the ove~all evaluation on all phases of the examination were consistent. between the NRC and the facility. *Minor differences we~e noted on the grading of a few JPM questions~ Two out of two SROs failed to successf~lly perform a Quadrant Power Tilt calculation JPM because neither operator checked to see.if the informa~ion they were. using was valid. 7~ Regualification Program Evaluation* The overall *program evaluation for the Palisades facility, based on the examinations-given the weeks of March 25, 19*91, artd*March 23, 1992 was satisf~ctory. A two y~ar evaluation was required per NUREG 1021,.ES-601 Revision 6, Section.C.1.b.4 since less than 12 candidates were examined in :*either year. 6

8.

Additional Examiner Observations The fOllo~irtg items are ~dditibnal observations made during the examination administration: Strengths: All crews showed good use of alarm response procedures. All individuals involved.in the examination as either operators or evaluators demonstrated a thorough knowledge of locations of plant equipment. All crews demonstrated ~n adequate ability to operate the new turbine cbntrol system. Weaknesse's: Communications. between crew members during.the dynamic* simulator examination were often incomplete or nonexistent

• as evidenced by the following examples. *This is similar to a concern in Section 8 of Examination Report 50-255/0L-91-0l (DRS).

This information is_being provided for evaluation by the facility's SAT based training program. Many "open ended" communications occurred *wherein _crew __ members receiving information frequently iesponded wi~h "OK" or "yes" and no effort was made by the* operator providing the information to ensure it was fully understood. In some cases this resulted in delays in accomplishing necessary tasks. Plant PA announcements were not made for start~ng and/or ~topping-major plant systems compon~nts. Plant PA announcements were_not made for major events such as reactor trips_ or satety injections. Thr~e of Five Senior Reactor operators gave incorrect responses on the written examination when asked to explain* the response of the inain f eedwater system following a turbine trip. General Comments: Two of. the' three SROs examined on the control_ boards showed weaknesses in board operators as demonstrated by the following examples:

1)

_One operator did not use the manual-control for the

• Pressurizer Spray valve properly.

7

2)

.3) Various* controllers when placed in manual were m~nipulated in the reverse of how they were required to be operated such as going open vice close oh valves. All6wing the Primary Coolant System to over-pressurize during an event by not monitoring plant parameters. 6pera~ors could not locate specitic tools ~esignated for use with the EOP/AOP procedures. This was evidenced by :their* inability to locate the tool for opening the air vent on the steam dump valves air controller. This also is a continuing concern from the previous requalification examination. 8

SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Palisades-Facility Licensee Docket No~ 56-255 Operating Tests Administered On:.Week of March 23, 1992 \\. Duririg the conduct of the simulator portion of the oper~ting tests, the following items were observed: 2.

3.

DESCRIPTION. Orientation of t.he auxiliary shutdown panels C150/1$0A was different from the - oiientation used iri the pl~nt. tise of the turbine control panel in th~ simulator was 16cked into the limiter* when in manual. In the plant the limiter. is not limited in *manual. Control board cabinet in the simulator* have doors lnstalled on back of the cabin~ts. These doors'do not exist' in the control room. 9

ENCLOSURE 3 . REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT F~cility: Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant Examiners: J. Lennarti[ J. Walk~r, G. Wheale, I. Kingsley* Dates of Evaluation: Weeks of March 25, 1991 and March 23, 1992 Areas Evaluated: Written, Oral, Simulator Examination Results: Written Examination_ Operating Examination Oral

• simulator RO Pass/Fail 7/0 7/0 7/0 SRO Total.

Pass/Fail Pass/Fail 9/0 9/0 9/0 16/0 16/0 16/0

• Evaluation cs or U) s s

s Evaluation bf facility written examination ~rading S Crew Examination Results: Operating Examination crew 1 Pass Crew 2. Crew 3 Pass Pass Overall Program Eviluation Satisfactory Crew 4 Evaluation Pass s This evaluation includes the results of the examination administered the weeks of March25, 1991 and March 23, 1992. This is in accordance with NUREG*l021 "Operating Licensing Examiner Standards", ES-601, Rev 6, Section c. 1. 6. 4.

• Reference Examination Report No.

50-255/0L-91-0l~DRS}. s~-

. R

Walker fExaminer 04/

/92 Forwarded: ~~ T. M. Burdick section Chief 04 l/'IJ /92 10 3!4k G. C. Wright Branch Chief 04/!fiJ/92

I M: l l_ l 1 Y:

.

:_ ! ~ ;) i

-~ : win Tl 11..~:ou:.." 1 or lACH lo m: ru:P1~0oucrn ---'5=*::::......--* _Lc.l l~1-* ~i. Ui c1111cu1-1-e11cc's. -...:/encl ( s)

---

.,CJ,_* __ Lclle1* -...:illiou:... C011CUITCilCCS, \\,*/encl('.;)

Letter *\\,*lo cone.and \\,1/0 enc ls. I') .-~ Her.art. *on 1 y Input

t. tc.

---

Lctte1-Only "*i ;_;; concu;-r**:::nces

---

~*Pc~~~~2g*2S COPIES \\..!11R COt~CORRI:,'.C::S I

CGP 1b 'n;11~0u: tu:;CORR;::;Ct::i. * ~ RIII Fil*2s* Phillips Langstaff Lougheed Maura Rescheske .Nej,felt - Yin*. Salehi ORS ORP Projects -~s~~~~) *. Oavis/Papcricllo. D0nn.:1 - D!~l' ~ CE_R _ _) . '* r "-, ,~ l l!\\1\\. _ _,, Sec :-e tc.i-y Green M.. Pearson-Jord2n . Bielby Pete1son Doornbos. Leach HcNcil Lcnna1*tz Osterholtz Rei di ngc 1- . Shembai-ger _5J1cr21*<:l. ( __ h*~~~}}