ML20058M997

Forwards Description of Util Approach to Programmatically Address Simulator Scenario Weaknesses Noted in Section 3.2 of Operator Requalification Exam Rept 50-219/93-17.Finalized Biennial Exam Rept Also Encl

ML20058M997
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/13/1993
From:	J. J. Barton GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
C321-93-2361, NUDOCS 9312210184
Download: ML20058M997 (13)

Text

• '

m g GPU Nuclear Corporation

, QQg[

~

Q Post Office Box 388 Route 9 South Forked River, New Jersey 08731-0388 609 971-4000 Writer's Direct Dial Nurnber:

C321-93-2361 December 13, 1993 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 ,

Subject:

Dyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Docket No. 50-219 Response to Operator Requalification Examination Report 93-17 As requested, enclosed 'is a description of our approach to programmatically address the simulator scenario weaknesses identified in section 3.2 of your inspection report dated September 15, 1993.

Also being provided as discussed with your staff are three ES-601-1 Examination Security Agreement forms. Additionally, we have enclosed our finalized Biennial Exam Report.

If you should have any questions or require further information, please contact Brenda DeMerchant, OC Licensing Engineer at (609) 971-4642.

Very tr ly cursu /

200032 Jot n J. Ba t>n V e Presi nt & Director yster Creek JJB/BDEM:jc Administrator, Region 1 Senior NRC Resident Inspector DR ADObkbOh 9 gg3 GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsca<y of Genera! Puolic Uhaties Corporation fg,

1993 OYSTER CREEK BIENNIAL REQUALIFICATION

- EXAMINATION RESULTS RESPONSE TO DYNAMIC SIMULATOR SCENARIO DEFICIENCY  !

The Oyster Creek Dynamic Simulator Exam Bank will be revised to meet the intent of NUREG 1021 ES-604 quantitative and qualitative guidelines prior to the biennial requalification examination to be administered in 1995. Also, any dynamic simulator examination scenarios used during the 1994 annual operating examination will be revised to meet the intent of NUREG 1021.

Included in the process of revision will be enhancing the scenario description and scenario objectives, clarifying scenario end points and critical tasks, and adding additional malfunctions. The addition of malfunctions will enhance prioritization of actions especially while exercising the Technical Specifications, abnormal procedures and EOPs. A checklist for simulator scenario development has been generated to ensure that all of the above actions are completed. This checklist has been included as attachment ,

1.

I i

l l

l l

l 4

_l l

-)

_ - . . . - , a ., , , , , . . _ . _

^

Attachment 1 OYSTER CREEK

' SIMULATOR SCENARIO REVIEW CHECKLIST FORMAT

1. General Description accurately describes scenario

2. Setup information contained entirely in body of scenario

3. Multiple console instructor actions listed in bullet form

4. Plant parameter cues listed in appropriate operator actions

5. Critical tasks contain measurable performance standards ,

6. Scenario objectives are specific to scenario OUANTITATIVE ATTRIBUTES ,

1. Total malfunctions (4-8) ,

2. Malfunctions that occur after EOP entry (1-4)

3. Abnormal Events (1-2)

4. Major Transients (1-2) 1

5. EOPs used beyond primary scram response EOP (1-3) i

6. EOP contingency procedures used (O'3)

_ 7. Approximate scenario run time (45-60 minutes)*

8. EOP run time (40-70% of scenario)* l l

9. Critical tasks (2-5) ]

10. Technical Specifications used l

I OUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTE )

1. Scenario contains at least ' one event- that requires prioritization of operator actions indicates that this item will be ! checked ' during ' simulator validation l

i l

l ES-601 Examimtion Security Awec.minuit Form ES-601-1 l

1. Preexamimtion I acknowledge that I have aaguired srwinlized knowleckJe about the l requalification exammation scheduled for the week (s) indicated in this agreement as of the date of my signature and agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about this examination to any unauthorized pa w s. I understand that I am not to participate in any instnaction involvirry those licensees scbuhiled to be achinistered this roqualification exammation frm this date until cmpletion of examination nrhirtistration. I further urrierstand that violation of the mnditions of this a#eermut my result in cancellation of the examina-tion and/or an enforcumult action against me or the facility licensee by i whm I am employed or whm I tesesent.

2. Post-examination I did not, to the best of my knowledge, divulge arry information u.auu.ni2rf the examination (s) administered during the week (s) indicated to any unauthorized persons. I did not participate in instructing those licensees who were acininistered this regualification examination (s) frm the date that I entered into this security ay weiinent until the -

ocx:pletion of examination administration.

Dcamimtion Period ((jI[/ffl to [!/J[/If8 Printed Name Pre-examination Post-examination certification (1) Certification (2) i/SEs [ $2 a Ct./Mw StLveRJ MMf4%

/S Date4)f/hT Date 6AZFR 3 0f~ YI* &l+ %

. YS Date d'k//VJ Date '!-J145 0/ua n. itw->> y (/ftn ff hw Date hyy/q) CA%4te*Y Date f-t1-13 6m %m M% if Date Chn/11 KV Date alain J0 huksat ru niA Mt Date 6Dc/?3 MJ& Date tH<H.3 P1- heallow MW' Date ?hMS Th$9 h W m Date ll/3Pr3 S M % pl/ # W / n <iff Date 7//9/43 f/// 4%?/p% Date //YkM3 f.RwL f . '%in ,. - Date 7 b M ' sf Ww Date % 1Lnf LJsun.aL t)/h/4 A- Date '7 - n 9 3 JLJayA ' Date /1-It-b i). aPAc . iC _ Date w O M 3 t@Ah Date // ep f $

E .A pit h tL. S eYv)/- _. Date 7/O / G IALGf __ Date 4 l BlW M 5wa Hud d &M~ Date 4/n A 3 0(Lj/~ Date V/n/r3 74 l/dtt Atta  %. _. UU Date 7,i1.f5 M'W ii Date 4ftXin CeL %n&s M S2.f Date 4-r,.s s - \t1\ rW A Date '\ ~M'$

Mu A TJIen MfM%c - Date im -n "fl W S G % m -- Date 11 11A3 ITM dea \ -.rAl . Q~ Date >. r s . i t 4o M ' Date ie-n'1]

Examiner Starrlards 31 of 40 Rev. 7, January 1993 P

l

~~~ _ . . . . . . . . , . . ._ _

E:eination Smrity Acrent Fcm ES-601-1 ES-501

1. Preexamination I ackrowledge that I have acquired spcialized knowleiJe about the roqualification examination scheduled fcr the week (s) inlicatcd in this agrec:ent as of the date of ry signature ard agree that I will rot Prowingly divulge any information about this examination to any unauthorized persons. I urderstard that I am rot to participate in any instruction involving those licensees scheduled to be Mministered this requalification enmination frcn this date urrtil cccpletion of examination Mministration. I further understand that violation of the corxiitions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examim-tian nnd/cr an enfw.wt action against re or the facility licensee by whao I am caployed or whcn I represent.

2. Post-examination I did not, to the test of my knculedge, divulge arr/ infomation corcermng the examination (s) administered during the week (s) irriicated to any unauthorized persons. I did not participate in instructing thcce licensees who were administered this requalification en mination(s) frca the date that I entered into this security agreement until the ccrpletion of examination administration.

Examimtion Period Y !'l b'l?3 to 8!/ M$

Printed Na::e Pre-em mination Post-examination Certification (1) Certification (2)

Date /pf/>

> lbTI!TiUEA kh w

Date ['] +4 Mr Date um w~ mee ene

< Su ,,e Date-- >-tLw e44 % h , KM Date r: I!'/O '

@ Su cr4M /w ,-b-. -

Date n!' uk ; A1 V% Date (//u]'$ z s?2pn unny /r W < 0

<% Nd4 t 6f)% WlMb&fw / Date 17 W Wh! W( /WW14) ate Datew6mlll s w s~#s.. 'scnwj Date wm mwn

~~iAW 4( 'MM.lN' Lit p Date -y/>< /q 3 VGy1W /E., _ Date

Dates/5/9 dh%5g pu se<r b 1 N ACWU ' Date 7% s9s1% 6:A Sh A .,,,wy _ l M J ,.a Datt 4 Arf ~MLL_-. Date vinh s Date 3l-hAs k,w b & ~ w  %%hh J ~ Date %im f XM_L Date n-2.F %

euen wtate, W-%-A A A d_ Date m-q t, - LL-<w.Ain 4Q L 4rA l Date lt(D}U

[L9tD Nc41Q (J$~~{ ~ L 't:L Date ') 2t. .S 5

% Aa % et_ 5 CALL Date 7-tc.53 ,A MG _Date Date n-r1-q')

W%

N A- L-+-  %,h \A Date 1-v a g e;Q Gw.

?) & I %+f~ Date o no c $ c,Mihkk psLb.- Date u \ nM r

1EFVM l'usai Date AEh5

.JA M e S C DRMA lWrMw Date R-lO-D T,ML -

y 31 of 40 Rev. 7, January 1993 E h " Sta:Ilards

t

=

ES-601 Examiraticn Security Acreement Fcrm ES-601-1

1. Preexaminatien I acknculeck;e trat I have acquired specialized knculedge about tre recpHficaticn examiraticn scheduled fcr the week (s) iniicated in this agreement as of the dat of rf sigrature and agree that I will not kncvirgly divulge any infermtien aboat this examimtion to any crauthcrized perscns. I urxkrst.arri that I am not to participate in any irtwden irrmlvirg these licensees scru'nled to be n&inistered this requalificatien examiration frca this date until ccepletion of exa:rination n&inistration. I furtrar urrierstand that violation of the cx:xxiitions of this agreemnt ray recult in cancellaticn of the examina-tien and/or an enforcement acticn against me er the facility licensee by when I am enplayed cr whcn rI rew.

2. Pcstexaminatien I did not, to the test cf rf kncwledge, divulge any inferraticn wmuing the examiratien(s) n&inistered durirg the wek(s) indicated to any unauthcrized perr.crs. I did nct participate in irstructirg thcce licensecs who w.re n&inistered this requalificaticn examiration(s) frcn the date that I entered into this recurity agreement until the ccrpletion of examiraticn administraticn.

e m tmticn gericd eN ms to e/o/m>

Printed Name Pre-examiration Post-examiration Certifi tien (1) Certif'caticn (2)

Q, 1% l. W DateY!b_S Data s-to @ % , %

$A - Date A' 2$1.5 mte N M-9.'.a m sawy 6 avMs i vi e c+,w A., Isq u Ji W M Date c.m-,3 (#WW b_ foM F3 h & d Qcow .!NE l 'r kw Data P-/0-23 (S(A b -

t e fl.14 A 5 y l- A rcenov m%s Data s e m 0 %n- Data e - 2c -9.5 ku And

~

~ alib: C._ Date r/s/n 4fM , , Date hh?n)

"fou ca To s o /} /W Date Vin f '0V2n Date h/h h 3

!J &~ (/O Af Date VM3 0 DL AL Date u M d.

I McW r FMhw Date fL/o ' lyw A _ .Date e le T /1),'sI o i (K2WM Data WS.jco / Y7/nW Date ,,In/93 G%n um Q l'.n Date M as :M Date 'il-a.93

Gra v/4raec. 2W XM Date a-a-92 MM/ Data h M95 CAruIm+cAc)/ /rmfM Date V -w -12 C. t'all M ' Date //114 3 r:s.Gr M f M.-11w Date 8-12-99 /4,f % i Date n:2 A5'

<ga w i- pagg Date Date 31 of 40 Rev. 7, January 1993

( examiner Stanianis n w-.y ,, ,_ . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ m -. -

GPU NUCLEAR I OYSTER CREEK OPERATIONS TRAINING FINAL BIENNIAL EXAM REPORT Examination Dates: August 10 through September 10,1993 Examination Team:  ;

NRC EXAM TEAM GPUN EXAM TFAM T. Walker - Lead Examiner J. Sims - Lead Examiner

• A. Burritt B. Havens i C. Tyner C. Silvers -

S. Sowell  ;

H. Tritt  ;

G. Young  !

Submitted: M l'fik/T3 G. P. Young, Ilequal program Coordinator -

l Reviewed: -

// *

(L G. Tritt, Lead Instmetor Reviewed: Y maw " 7 3  :

N. L. Boulware, Lead Instmetor Approved:

. W. Cropfdf' Operations Training Manager Concurred: ' tw J ///u/f3

[D. kowalski, Manager Plant training Concurred: \ _ 2 H3 SO 9S P. F. scallon, Manager Plant dperations #

1993 OYSTER CREEK BIENNIAL REOUALIFICATION EXAAflNATION RESULTS .

EXAh1INATION

SUMMARY

l Biennial examinations were administered under the cognizance of the NRC to seven Reactor Operators and seven Senior Reactor Operators during the week'of' August 9, 1993. These operators 'were divided into three crews; two operating crews and one staff _

crew. The examinations were graded concurrently by the NRC and.GPUN. All three ,

crews performed satisfactorily during the simulator examination and no individual crew member required remediation. All fourteen operators passed both the JPM walkthroughs and the written examination. Oyster Creek's licensed operator requalification program was determined by the NRC and GPUN to be satisfactory based on the criteria established in E.S. 601 of NUREG 1021, revision 7. .,

Biennial examinations were administered by GPUN to sixteen Reactor Operators, nineteen Senior Reactor Operators and seventeen SRO Certs from August 16,1993 to. ]

September 10, 1993. There were eight crews; four licensed operating crews, one .

licensed staff crew and thme certified staff crews. Seven cmws performed satisfactorily 1 during the simulator examination and no individual crew member required remediation.  !

One certified staff crew failed the simulator examination and was successfully remediated 1 on November 12,1993. Fifty-one operators /certs passed both the JPM walkthroughs and the written examination. One Reactor Operator failed the written exam and then successfully passed a second written exam on September 7,1993.

I a

l l

l 1

I I

I l

_.-__ _ - . . . - , _ , _ . . . , . . . _ , , _ , , ,, . ~.

1993 OYSTER CREEK

. BIENNIAL REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION RESULTS INTRODUCTION On June 21,1993, all the Biennial Requalification Exam reference materials, including i the sample plan, were delivered to the NRC Regional Office. ,

On July 8,1993, the test outline and the proposed exam'were sent to the NRC Regional  !

Office.  !

On July 26, 1993, an exam entrance meeting was conducted by the NRC at Oyster Creek. Criteria for a satisfactory licensed operator requalification program was established ( 2 of the 3 crews and 75% of the individuals must pass the exam ). The l NRC exam team met with the GPUN exam team to validate the written, JPM and Dynamic Simulator exam materials. The validation was completed on July 27.

On August 2,1993, the revised exam was sent to the NRC Regional Office. On August 5, six test questions and one JPM were revised as requested by the NRC.

On August 10, 1993, the written exam was administered to founeen participants. . On August 10 and 11, the dynamic simulator exams were conducted for three crews. On ,

August 12, the JPMs were administered to fourteen participants.

On August 13,1993, an exam exit meeting was conducted by the NRC at Oyster Creek.

P NRC EXAM TEAM GPUN EXAM TEAM T. Walker - Lead Examiner J. Sims - Lead Examiner A. Burritt B. Havens C. Tyner C. Silvers S. Sowell H. Tritt G. Young From August 16 to September 10, 1993, biennial examinations were administered by GPUN to fifty-two operators /cens (eight crews).

i l

i

, - . , _ , ~ . . . _ _ - . _ . , . _ . _ . . . . , , , _ , . , , . . , _ , _ . .m_,_,,,,,__ _ . , . . . . . _:

1993 OYSTER CREEK BIENNIAL REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION RESULTS EXAM PREPARATION The following items were noted about GPUN's exam preparation process:

• Good detailed Sample Plan and Test Outline. Could be made more self-explanatory.

• Good cooperation and coordination with NRC exam team.

4 The following items were noted and incorporated into the administered exam as discovered by the NRC/GPUN exam preparation process:

JPM Standards were improved by adding detail to the actions required by the -

operator.

Dynamic Simulator Scenario difficulty was increased by placing ABN required -

a ctions at the beginning of the scenario and adding more malfunctions during the i scenario.

Written test items were revised to orient questions more toward required operator actions.

• All support information for each written test item was reviewed in detail to provide all required links to references, tasks, objectives and lesson plans.

1 l

v.- g-. , , , , ,

~

. 1993 OYSTER CREEK BIENNIAL REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION RESULTS EXAM RESULTS NRC MONITORED RESULTS m

Facility: Oyster Creek Overall Results Total Passed Failed Exam Dates: 08/10/93 # #  % #  %

to 'I 08/12/93 Ros 7 7 100 0 0 ,

NRC Examiners: SROs 9 9 100 0 0 l T. Walker TOTAL 16 16 100 0 0 t A. Burritt C. Tyner CREWS 3 3 100 0 0 ,

L OYSTER CREEK MONITORED RESULTS ,

.w:

Facili+y: Oyster Creek overall Results Total Passed Failed Exam Dates: 08/09/93 # #  % #  %

to 1 09/10/93 ROs 23 22 96 . 'l 4

[

SROs 26 26 100 0 0 CERTS 17 17 100 0 0 -

TOTAL 66 65 98 1 2 CREWS 11 10 91 :I 9 NOTES: 'A Reactor Operator failed the written exam, took it agair on 09/07/93 and passed it A Staff crew failed the simulator portion, took it again on 11/12/93 and passed it. >

t

1993 OYSTER CREEK BIENNIAL REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION RESULTS GENERIC STRENGTHS -

• EOP Suppon Procedures During Dynamic Simulator Transients; Anticipation of plant response was timely and well communicated to the crew.

• Effective cooperation between the NRC and GPUN exam teams contributed to a very smooth overall process. Good all-around biennial examination. Good performance by operating and staff crews.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMFET Knowledge of normal plant operating procedures for filling the Torus.

• Alarm recognition and panel awareness Complete three-point communication

• Consistent self-checking l Prioritization decisions when in multiple EOP legs l Re-evaluate. need for Support Procedure 30, Confirmation of Primary Containment Isolation.

Determining EOP actions based on Secondary Containment parameters Understanding of what constitutes a Primary system How a rod block is caused or cleared Procedure usage for Control Room HVAC JPM techniques were rusty for both evaluators and operators.

Ensure the conditions are the same in the Simulator and the Control Room (key placement).

Dynamic Simulator; Floor Evaluators must cover back panels to observe all operator actions.

7 1993 OYSTER CREEK BIENNIAL REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION RESULTS i

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (Cont.)

Simulator Fidelity; Performed well, however, the noise level was a concern (after the Biennial exam was completed, carpet was installed on the simulator floor)

Written Exam; Minor revisions, used some substitute questions. Orient questions to solicit required operator actions  !

JPMs; Minor changes in performance standards, substituted some JPMs to better .

evaluate tasks i Dynamic Scenarios; Bank did not meet guidelines in standard, Prioritization of actions were simplistic, shon on malfunctions after EOP entry, short on Technical Specifications exemised GENERIC WEAKNESSES Proper prioritization of the steps in Support Procedure 21, Alternate Insertion of Control Rods RAPS not always referenced -

Timely positive pressure control with the EMRVs was not consistent Knowledge of which RPV level instruments were usable .

Knowledge of effect of 125 VDC loss on 4160V/460V breakers Effect of pump switch position on auto-initiated Core Spray Interpretation of Tech Specs based on O.O.S equipment Knowledge of modification to Containment Spray logic Knowledge of when CRD pump interlocks are in effect

%+., e--, . - - - ,,4 3 , e ,,..e ,