ML20042G514

Exam Rept 50-456/OL-90-01 on 900402 for Units 1 & 2.Exam Results:All Reactor & Senior Reactor Operators Passed Written Exam.Three of Six Reactor Operators & Thirteen of Fifteen Senior Reactor Operators Passed Operating Exams

ML20042G514
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	05/03/1990
From:	Burdick T, Reidlinger T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20042G512	List: ML20042G511 ML20042G514
References
50-456-OL-90-01, 50-456-OL-90-1, NUDOCS 9005150020
Download: ML20042G514 (9)

Text

p 77, 7

p/

ps : q, -

h.

.f:

e ;

P Q-

,4 5

a R'

R

'U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

s l7 REGI'ON - III -

.n g

w

[

ReportNo.150-456/0L-90-01 h*

Docket No. 50-456;L50-45.7 License No.(NPF-72; NPF-77

'Licenseei.~Braidwood b

Braceville,'ll 60407 f

. Facility Name:

Braidwoo'd f

g

Examination Administered At: Braidwood m

Examination-Conducted:: Requalification examinations'for 15 senior reactorn W,

operators and!six reactor' operators.

L

/ Chief Examiner:-

7tf(4 T. D ~ Leidi ger (/

Dath- ?

l-T.:Burdickf(/

(hfp?[

q g/

3 9

i Dat'e i

Examination Summary,

-y

[0

' Examination

• administered on week:of April 2,1990 (Report' No.::50' 456/0L-90-01)).

~J rconsisted of written and operating requalification examinations administered-("

to. fifteen senior reactor operators and six reactor. operators.:

Results:: A11Ereactor; operators'and senior reactor' operators:passedLther

_p, l written: examination ~.' ' Three of six ^ reactor operators and' thirteen'of.fif teen?

m c4

!. senior: reactor operators 3 passed'the'operati_ng' examinations.. The; t

1requalification. operating. examinations were administered to six; crews;,four crews were; satisfactory. ~ The licensee'sl requalification program 11s determined H

to be satisfactory in accordance with the program performance criteria. in NUREG-10211" Operator' Licensing Examiner Standards," ES-601:" Administration:of 0

'NRC"Requalification Program Evaluations."

H g

4

)-).

4 A

j

..v ik 4

m b

9005150020 900503 PDR ADOCK 05000456 "g

y PDC i

q;

p !;)

f q,

in:,

>y i

%m mi+un~ c, a

n, b

lgY

'l

,p 3:,,

4 s

. 7) I' 4

-,.g

'\\

I jhg,,j!. A Mg y ^ M (b

ggm

.s

Requalification Program Evaluation Report MW 4

p u-m Wg i y;c

l g

%>lf W,p oFacility:.C 1

-._ Braidwood

[

' Examiners: ET.IReidinger,-KJParkinson=

c d

DdtiofEvaluation': Week'of April:2-51990l 4

%s

! Areas' Evaluated:'-

~ Written X' c

c

'ral X-

? Simulator X}

O

t y

K'N

[c^

. Examination:Results:;

/;I R0>.

SR0

-Totali IEvaluai. ion

Pass / Fail Pass / Fail.

Pass / Fail' (S or U);

9

?J 3-LWritten Examin'ationi

_6/0 -

15/0 21/0 lS M

g:6 4

-Operating" Examination j

y

' f

Ora ~1s

3/3, 14/1-17/4.

S

- Simulator-;

6/0?

14/1 20/1s

.S L

@1 S"

<j

'u

~

wb

.Evaluatio'n:of'fidility written examination;gradingi Crew Examination.Results: '

j t

e s

.n

• = -

3 Crew-1 Crew 2 ~

Crew 3:

mn 6

. Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail' Lf c,

r fPass-

-Pass

. Pass.

]

l0perating4 Examination'-

a 1

p Crew 5 Crew 6..

-Evaluatione 47 Crew 4:.

LPass/ Fail

. Pass /Faili

-(S or'U)!

2 Pass / Fail:

ww q' 4~

50perating Examination:

Fail; Pass Fail' S:

I

,n,c

$6 I0vera114 Program Evaluation 1 i

(,#

0; 9

. Satisfactory j

c

,h.,

de 1)

SubmiEte -

A proved-f) g.

pH, N2

> T. ire inger T.

urdick

.-Wrig t

~

'JQ ?

LExamin'er Section Chief-Branch Chief a"

5/g/9.0 5/3/90 5/)/90

.I y

sy g,

3

+ii.; d'l h.,

d l@j( ;[

jj

[QMB 'M >

MW y

~ g-p g.4.

• 4 4

4 -,

+

'

~-

4 1b h l

lt,.' j!!,'

y )bj y). ', ):

in j hi TI

%i v

k j

\\

.I 1

.7m l REPORT DETAILS' h

a,' u d

0

1.

Examiners v

v T*T. D. Reidinger 4

m Keith Parkinson e,M 4

3

• Chief Examiner 1

ng _

- -Examination Development

' 2. :

,,g m

+

?

a< ~ Wr'itten1 Examination Q:

-+

I, The examination: team, which consisted of NRC. examiners and facility 3

t? '

representatives; was able to develop a11' phases of:the examination.

Eh

. entirely'from the facility's developed materials.during-:the'.

~tD

.requalification ~ preparation. week.. However, the. NRC identified some :

N mater,ialithat did not. meet the' requirements of ES-601 and could not be.ued-without rev.ision..The material deficiencies were-4 s

the examination-preparation week:1 4

gy,,

Some Part..B questions were direct "lo_ok.~up" type:questionsi S

3-This type' of.questionidoes not meet, as minimum,: the -

comprehension level of understanding, and therefore is not' appropriate for:open-reference examinations; p*

y 4 A

Some Part A and B-question's exhibited the fo110wingLdeficiencies:-

3 Ambiguous wording;' i.e., answers to the written question)

J:

a.

d 1did-not match the intent (of the writtensquestion.

j b.

Opsn ended questions that did n'ot have.one 'pecific s

answer.;

u

/

q c.

Multiple choice questions hadLnon-discriminate distractors; o

a

)

d-Superflous. wording - unnecessary informat_ ion, j

.g The' facility corrected all~the _ identified deficiencies and they:

should conduct a. thorough review of the written examination question-bank in order to identify'all the additional questionsi which contain the identified deficiencies and revise the 1

questions as necessary to meet the requirements of ES-601 prior

'l

'to future-examinations.

l y

d p

y 3

~

P

')

'N 3

4 7

i

.c I

}<]

Y>

i i

c e$h u

f.I[

N.

n';s y; p

k' h

Dynam.ic Simulator Scenarios l

L:

~

L A111theLdynamic scenarios were' highly integrated inJregards to:

t malfunctions and majorLtransients. The scenarios were-

[

' challenging for operator performance. evaluations.

lW T

IThe. facility iddntified all knowledge and abilities (K/A) as.

T' contained in NUREG 1122, " Knowledge and Abilities Catalog.for 9

. Nuclear Power Plants," with an importance rating of greater-than/ equal to 3.5.

~

q The facility representatives--incorporated th'e required-Team _

j Dependent and Time Critical tasks inta well developed formatD Lt

'i and exceeded the minimum standards invoked:by ES-601'. NRC'

_ genera 11y' accepted all the final recommendations made by the.

6

~

' examination team for. assigning the critical' tasks for the

. dynamic scenarios.

All the scenarios incorporated an overview of.the malfunctions d

~

and the transients which; comprised the scenario. This enhanced

)

m the simulator operator's comprehension of each scenario set, g

~

Also the simulator. setup guides for initializing,~1ining up control boards, and cues-for load swing instructions / sign-offs were. generally excellent.

All the; scenarios generally addressedEthe expe_cted actions for i

evaluating operator performance for.all emergency responses..

I However,'during initial. review and validation.of dynamicL

~

scenario'.s'several~ instances ~of incomplete procedural transitions'were noted on various scenarios e.g.'The FRGL0 range Path-expected and required operator actions?were not? developed...

.The.< scenarios were satisfactorily: modified to include'all thel

n

_ required operator actions.

The: facility included all' references to Technical: Specifications-W with a meaningfulidescription.of.the Tech / Spec LCO.and-action-L statements;

.The facilitynincluded al1~ references lto abno'rmal procedures.to j

incorporate an overview-of all the major action steps outlined-

~

in the applicable procedure.

The'NRC favorably notes the development of the peer review team-

.institu^ed by Commonwealth Edison for;the requalification examindion process.

However,'the peer review team table top-l review of--the developed dynamic scenarios should include a.

j dynamic validation process on the simulator for future j

requalification examinations.

i k

4 y

{i=t

p-m x

h%,

4 s

,._ kn::

i p,3 c.

x -

B-p Di c;

. Job Performance Msasures-kP\\?s

~

JPM technical subject areas were very job oriented, comprehensive

~

and' required good. system understanding. and application. _

L,

_ Several JPM's required correction prior to using the JPM's for.

e'xamination purposes. The' corrections were accomplished in all S

~

1 cases.3 y

i~

Generally all JPM's exhibitedDverifiable time validation for

,p' Lindividual completion, u

- Critical steps in the'JPM's, in general, were accepted by:the l

NRC.

Some critical steps were identified by the exami. nation; r-1 -

e team as non-critical for the JPM's successful; completion.

4 The required two: questions minimum-for:JPM's was addressed.by; l

the facility.-

1

@~

The-NRC favorably-views the use offa selected number of

'{

simulator-based JPM's for requalification examinations.c Thisi j

mini.mized. operator fatigue.and enhances. operator performance due~to the. operator not having to "talkLthrough" all the valven 1

- pump, and switch lineups required for that specific:JPM.. Itu also facil_itates a high degree of-on-the-job fidelity.

a 3..

Examination Administration t

t a..

-The1 facility was1 responsible for examination administration'with the.

NRC:observingLthe(process._ The following are a few specific program.

. strengths,. deficiencies and observations that were-identified by the'

. o NRC during examination administration._

0 Formalichecklists had been developed by -the facility which were utilized to'brief_the operators prior.to each phase of the' examination. The' formal. briefing' checklist enhanced the ability of the' f acility? representative to provide consistent '

information to each group of operators to ensure they fully:

understood the examination process..

1 Transportation ~ coordination and. security accommodations for-the-crews during the written examination, were excellent.. Fluid J

synchronization by the crews between the Training Center Simulator and'Braidwood station enhanced the timely completion of the written and operating examinations.

t f

Clerical support given during the preparation week and examination administration was excellent.

I h2

[

M%

e-

'R

~

x ~ ' >

Q m:.

Vy 3

iThe facility provided a sufficient number of examination C,

proctors during administration of the written examinations.

?"

The two-part-examination was administered in two separate-

~ 1ocations, with-two facility representatives available to

. proctor both examination rooms-while at the same time providing.

escortsLto'all individuals wanting'to leave the examination Y

area ensuri~ng 'that they did.notiinteract with any other

?

' individual participating-in the-examination.

Good-simulator execution and coordination was generally-displayed by all the simulator operators involved during'

-preparation. week.

r 1

~

Crew application:of Technical' Specifications and execution of; normal, abnormal :and emergency procedures.were generally very

-good.

~

Crew response;to' instrumentation and major; safety equipment malfunctions' was generally g'ood.

a The facility and training center exhibited. excellent.

l coordin'ation for JPM's completions at the plant'and at the'

-l 4

simulator', the scheduling of JPM's enhanced the' possibility 3 8

lthat only one operator would be stationed in'a particular.. area'-

or;needing a' specific procedure / equipment at any.'one-time.

.ThisJresulted in the' timely ' completion ~ of = this phase of the

)

examination.

' Operation and training personnel appeared to be highly!

supportive of'each other's effort in developing-and. designing, 2all. facets of-the requalification.examin~atinn. The training-1 and operations st'aff is to be commended forcthe critical review l

performed of the; examination' material' utilized for the-J examination, j

i I

'The scheduling for the; administration of requalification'_

examinations should be reviewed to minimize the extensive, daily hours.:for the: facility'requalification evaluators and support:

personnel.

1 x

\\

-- 4.. -Evaluation of Facility Evaluators 1

7 In addition to evaluating the operators performance, the NRC also J

evaluated the facility evaluators, using ES-601 as a guideline, in their

. ability to conduct consistent and. objective examinations.

Included in q

- this evaluation is the ability of the facility evaluators to provide-an unbiased evaluation of thel facility operators.

l o

i

?

6 e

r 4

q q

)

mg m-

=

W n

h5

, f s 't i

G f tT

[-dB y;

n;.;

- The following"are some examples o'f the observations made concerning the i

facility evaluators: -

M, N; During administration of the JPMs, a few of the facility: evaluators aticertain times used verbal cues and/or prompting which could lead the operator _ to a correct decision / action resultingzin'an inadequate -

is examination.-

L

+

$y When an operator. exhibited hesitation or difficulty in locating a component or piece of equipment,.the evaluators would move over and

('

position themselves in the direction of the component (body english -

1 which could assist the operator in_ locating the proper component.)'

W m

No operators were noted-to take advantage of this momentary. mental:

y, oversight, g

When this occurred, the NRC examiner vould point out to the facility-evaluator'the deficiencies in the examination administration 4

[,'

techniques. The facility evaluator's' generally did not-repeat the.

jj

~

e error.'

l d

Examiner's standards require that the crews shall be evaluated by.

1 both the_NRCland facility evaluator with the NRC observing the j

facility led critique. The crew and individual critique' with the:

4 crew present'was generally critical. in-nature' and generally to the d

. degree the NRC expected.for crew evaluations.

Significant _

d improvement in 'the facility's: simulator critique was noted af ter the-

?

NRCland Facility _ Training Evaluators reviewed the evaluation results -

of'theSfirst settof dynamic-scenarios.

- 0 Aslthe individual JPM task completion-progressed throughout the day; 7

.the'~ facility evaluators generally would require as thorough an.

answer as he required during the individual's first several JPM

. completions.

[

The' facility evaluators generally exhibited excellent judgement in grading the JPMs.

The facility-evaluators exhibited excellent judgement in~ several cases bysproviding additional correct cues when solicited by the operators but=were not originally = designed into.the JPM.

This enhanced the-performance of the JPM without distracting the operator >

q

.being examined, j

h The facility evaluators generally made very good observations of 1

what occurred on the JPMs and made an accurate assessment of those 1

. observations.

1 1

,The speed at which the JPM's were performed was consistent. There was no sense of being in a hurry to "get through" the JPMs.

1 E

7 1'

j y

.-i QY

?

t

y

=

~

q h.h 4

};

~

v g

W

)

The facility evaluators-ability to discern errors was generally: good.

Even though'.the. facility. evaluators exhibited lapses.in their evaluation R *.

techniques _dur.irig phases of the requalification examinations, the L

. evaluators were regarded as good overall.

The previously mentioned Y

observations point out the need to upgrade the formal. training on how to n

conduct-examinations to the personnel who will be utilized as evaluators-iduring requalification examinations.

1

' 5.:

Examiner Concerns

I M

_'During' administration of the operating examinations, the NRC identified

~ one, operational concern.

_l LThe inactive SR0 licensed crew members (2, crews) generically had F

demonstrated poor performance in successfully' controlling Steam r

p Generator levels from the main control. room auxiliary. feed pump.

station..

g bL 6.

Examination Evaluation Coevaluation by the NRC examiners-and the facility evaluators of the operators performance on the examination was performed.

Coevaluationsi-F

'provided the'NRC with the'necessary information to assess the individual.

operators _ performance'as well as the facilities. qualification program-performance.

j

/The overall evaluation on the operating examination which consisted of.

dynamic simulator. scenario operations and ' job ~ performance measure (JPM) plant walkdowns, were _ generally consistent between the:NRC examiners and-

' i the facility eval _uators for al.1 21 operators. Overall evaluation of the crews and individual performance strongly-correlated with'the NRC H

measured observations.

1

' The.overall evaluations on:the written examinations with parallel grading

.of the written examination by the NRC and the -facili.ty resulted in generally consistentievaluations for all,21. operators.

J

'Tlie following are observations-made by the 'NRC following.the operational examinations concerning: individual / crew evaluations.-

t 1

~-

m' Communications between crew members during dynamic simulator i

scenario events needs to be evaluated for improvement. 'There were!

3 several instances of "open loop" communications between the-crew.

members. 'Some individual crew members failed to ensure.that the crew members they were. addressing heard and understood the r

transmitted information which resulted in required actions being delayed.

4 i

si.

Y 8

l n

s 3

~ ^

~. - - -.

W n W;i 2 - u

^

~

Ngg W

'~

um.,

m-e.,s y

+:

. l

,"1

=

'WhileDimplementation wastinconsistent the facility evaluators had:*

/g cdeveloped a: good system of reading;all the JPM question's to the:

operator's'before. handing them the' written copy of the' question's and. subsequently reading the' operator's' answer'after the operator'si tf s

Nu

' notification of completion and return of the question sheet to the Mt'

> if acility. evaluator..'

1. m

..7.

Requ'alification Examination Results

" D NF, W

The NRCLand. facility

passed four of-six crews, NRC and f acility failed F ~

f,1ve: individuals.- Four out of the five NRC individual l failures were-4' consistent with the facility results.

k 8.=

-ProgramLEvaluation.

M.'

Per.NUREG '1021, ES-601, Braidwood requalification-program satisf actory

' met with.following criterial n

5 a.-

There was a'90% pass decisions agreement between the WRC and j

facility grading of the written and operating examination.

b2.

The program was judged satisfactory.in accordance with criteria -

.given for' simulator evaluations.

JAt Lleast' 75% off all' the operators passed the examination, c.

c

..9..

Exit-Meetinge N

- An exit nieeting was= held-on April-10,1990 between t'he facility and:the' i

NRC.to summarize'all of the observed requalification' program and

operatorc e

o strengths, deficiencies and concerns, u

Attendance List

'NAME-COMPANY POSITION

,y

E. W. Carrol1~

CECO-Reg. Assurance-R k.

P. G., Holland.

J CECO-_

Reg.~ Assurance:

y:

fR. Legner CECO 1 Services: Director LM.:01 son Ceco

' Training W.1B. McCue' Ceco 0peratingi 3

J. A.xHopkins-NRC Resident-Inspector _

i n'^

T.lD.EReidinger NRC ChiefLExaminer-

-K. L'.: Parkinson NRC Examiner Ken Gerling-Ceco Simulator Supervisor

.d Jim -Royston CECO Training Instructor-d

.R. E. Querio CECO Station Manager..

o s

-K. L. Kofron Ceco Production' Supt.

N; D. Huston CECO Training-

"?

G. Vanderheyden CECO Training. Supervisor j

d w4 i

aj 9

n