ML20066D636
| ML20066D636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1990 |
| From: | Bailey J WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP. |
| To: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066D449 | List: |
| References | |
| NO-90-0288, NO-90-288, NUDOCS 9101150247 | |
| Download: ML20066D636 (16) | |
Text
-
ENCLOSURE 5 WQLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION John A Bdey ve. m a.m h
- 0Pr*to'*
lbvmber 10, 1990 10 90-0288 Mr. R. D. }hrtin, Regional Administrator U. S. !bclear Regulatory Ca mission Regico IV 611 Ryan Plaraa Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76011
Subject:
Docket !b. 50-482: Roguest to Oversee Dynamic Simulator Re-examinations
Dear Mr. }hrtin:
'Ihe purpose of this letter is to document Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation's (WCrOC) roguest to have lac Region IV oversee the re-examinatico of five licensed operators who failed to successfu1]y emplete the dynamic sinulator portion of the NRC evaluated licensed operator requalification l
examination.
'Ihe regualification examination was administered at Wolf Creek Generating Station (NOGS) October 22 through !bvmber 2,1990. On !bvmber 16, 1990, the request to have NRC oversee the re-examinations was discussed in a telecon.forence between NRC Region IV, NRR and NCNOC personnel.
Suc saful l
empletion of the re-examinations would be the basis for allowing these l
individuals to resume watchstanding activities, when necessary (e.g. illnesses I
or vacations) to supp1 ment the currently establishal crews.
As a result of the October licensed operator requalification examinations, NCIOC has reconstituted the NOGS operating shift rotation frm a six CIew rotation to a five crew rotation. 'Ihe five crew rotation will rmnin in place for the timo being. Although the above individuals will not be utilized to increase the number of operating crm, they represent an essential resource that could be used to suppl ment the five crew rotation.
NCIOC will not utilize nore than one of these individuals on any operating crew unless unusual circumstances exist or tac concurrence has been obtained.
WCtOC has thoroughly reviewed each of these individual's perfonnance during the original regualification examination, established the basis for his failure and the specific reediatico needed for each individual.
'Ihe specified rumdiation has been accmplished alcng with extensive review and i
evaluatico of each individual's per'omance on the simulator during several scenarios.
It has teen determined by NCIOC evaluators that these individuals are fully prepared for re-examination. Details of each individuals perfonance and Iumdiation have bean provided to your staff.
Po. Box 411/ Burtengto% KS 66639 / Phone. (316) 364 8831 9101150247 910100 e twa' owwy Enwyn wtcyrT PDR ADOCK 0D000482 V
PDH
70 90-0288 Page 2 o c is in the k vc ss of formalizing the root cause determination and the associated corrective actions raa4ai to restore the licarwed c requalificatico training pr%iam to the required IcVel of perfornance.perator W3C will discuss the ocuplete results of this offort in a nanagenent neeting with the NRC on December 6, 1990. Ibwever, two apparent causes of the programatic problems have currently been identified.
First, them was a failure to ensure that adequate human resources were available and awive lately applied to fully support the licensed operator r
ragualification program. mis limited the number of operator evaluations and examinations that could be perfomed prior to the formal examinations.
Cmprehensive practice examinations and evaluations would have aided in ensuring a high level of operator perfornance under the stress of an actual IRC examination.
% e licensed operator requalification training group curruntly consists of four positions. Since November 24, 1989 this group has experienced 150 percent turnover in qualified licensed operator requalification training instructors. mis nanpower loss ccrnbined with the heavy work load necessary to inplernent the guidance of the NRC Examirer's Standard, resulted in a shortage of qualified instructors for instruction ard evaluation puTrases.
Secondly, the corm ctive actions C OC took based on the results of the 1909 licensed operator requalification examinations were not ecmprehensive enough to prevent additional program problerns in 1990.
%e results of these examinations represented a p mcursor to the progmnatic problerns identified in the 1990 examtnation process.
As a result of these preliminary findings several immediate corrective actions have been instituted.
All licensed operators will be remediated in the generic weaknesses identified as a result of the dynamic simalator examinations. mis includes sinulator sessions on Power Operated Relief Valve
- controls, steam dump operation, use of functional restoration procedures, and innvxiiate boration requirm ents.
We five individuals.
proposed for re-examination have successfully canpleted this remediation.
Idditional simulator sessions will be provided to-each erw during
.the nornal requalification training cycle.
In addition intensive managment attention has been focused on filling the vacant positions in the licensed operator rugualification training group. Se of the three presently vacant positions will be filled in early Decernber 1990.
Although the long term corrective acticn plan has not been finalized, it will tentatively include a re-evaltation of the staffing levels and organizational structure of the Training Department. Proposed 1cng term enhancements to the requalification training g w - consist of ackiitional practice examinations and evaluations observed and critiqued by peer reviewers. 1dditionally a professional stress nanagenent coarse is being considered to ameliorate the impact of examination stress on operator performance.
3 l
i
10 90-0280 l
.o ge 3 a
l If you have any gaestions concerrdng this matter, please cantact m or Mr.
H. K. Chernoff of my staff.
Va truly yours,0N ND John A. Bailey Vice Pmsident thiclear Operations V
JAD/jra cci A. T. ! bell (tac)
J. L. Pellet (!BC)
D. V. Pickett (IRC)
M. E. Skcw (!MC) t I
l l
I l
l l
1
ENCLOSURE 7 HRC CONCURRENCE TO RETURN OPERATOPS TO LICENSED DUTY Wolf Creek Generating 3tation On November 18, 1990, HRC received a request from WCN00 for concurrence to reexainine five of the individuals who had failed the operating section of the requalification examination. The intent was to return the individuals to licensed duties as shif t reliefs upon successful completion of the reexamination. Documentation of the remediation process for each individual was provided to NRC for review.
Based on review of the documentation of the remediation provided for each individual, review of the weaknesses exhibited by individuals during the NRC examination, and review of the proposed reexamination, NRC agreed to observe the reexamination on November 21, 1990.
The reexamination was observed at the Wolf Creek simulator by J. Pellet.
As a result, concurrence was granted to return four of the five individuals to licensed duty with the stipulation that these individuals were subject to reevaluation during a NRC-administered requalification examination prior to license renewal.
l l
l l
l l
l l
ENCLOSURE 8 ftANAGEMENT HEETING SUI'rARY Cn December 0,1990, a management meeting was in the Region IV of fice. The following persons were in attendance:
hRC Facility L. J. C611an B. D. Withers J. P. Jaudon J. A. Bailey T. p. Gwynn J. Weeks D. pickett J. A. Zell L. Miller D. Fehr J. L. Pellet H. Chernoff A. Howell J. M. Keeton J. E. Whittemore W. B. Jones The itcensee presented their root cause analysis and corrective action plan.
The root cause was identified es a lack of operator training resources, which impacted requalification training program effectiveness, and a lack of ongoing performance monitoring to measure training effectiveness.
To correct these deficiencies, the licensee is aggressively acting to staff vacant positions in the training department.
Feedback mechanisms have been implemented to provide an ongoing assessment of requalification training effectiveness. These include interim dynamic simuletor evaluations and regular meetings among licensed operators, operations managerrent, and training management and staff.
HRC concluded that the identified root cause and proposed corrective actions appear to encompass the fundauntal reasons for the unacceptable operator performance on the NRC administered requalification examination. The proposed actions appear to be adequate to correct the identified root cause.
l l
l l
l l
_. ~. _,
WCNOC MANAGEMENT MEETING WITH NRC REGION IV MANAGEMENT i
LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING eWipO ey f
I!;
&ply*%g'i{ll,
lW
, y 0
t Q
- S
, sf
@Qj,ggh' Mugs December 6,1990 W4(NUCLEAR OPERATI LFCREEK
LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING JOHN BAILEY INTRODUCTION SELF-ASSESSMENT ROOT CAUSE DETERMINATION 1
JIM ZELL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IMMEDIATE ACTIONS-FURTHER ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN
~
OPERATOR PERFORMANCE JIM WEEKS GUIDANCE MONITORING l
SUMMARY
JOHN BAILEY-l q
BART WITHERS-CLOSING REMARKS 1
ASSESSMENT
~
i PERFORMANCE OF SELF-ASSESSMENT INDIVIDUAL EXAMINATION RESULTS l
OPERATOR PERCEPTIONS i
l PROGRAM CONDUCT AND ADMINISTRATION i
(
O ROOT CAUSE DETERMINATION ROOT CAUSE DETERMINATION a
ROOT CAUSE Failure to ensure that adequate human resources were available and appropriately applied to fully support the licensed operator.requalificailon training program I
i a_.a
_i___...
Manager Operations Training l
Supervisor Operator Training l
l I
I I
SRO Licensed SRO Licensed SRO Licensed SRO Licensed Supervising instructor Supervising Instructor Supervising Instructor Supervising instructor (Requalification)
(License)
(NSO)
(Simulator)
Licensed Instructor Licensed Instructer N on-lic e n s e d Licensed Instructor
-(SRO)
- (SRO)
-Instructor
- (S RO)
Licensed Instructor Licensed instructor N on-lic e n s e d Licensed Instructor
- (SRO)
- (S RO)
-Instructor
- (SRO)
Licensed instructor Licensed Instructor Non-licensed Licensed Instructor
- (S RO)
- (RO)
-Instructor
- (SRO)
Licensed Instructor
- (RO) o
4, M ANAGEMENTL ACTIONS IMMEDIATE ACTIONS AUGMENT TRAINING STAFFING CREW RETRAINING INCREASE SIMULATOR TRAINING TIME FURTHER ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WEEKLY EXAMINATIONS - AND -EVALUATIONS PERFORMANCE - MONITORING MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TRAINING STAFFING GUIDELINES STRESS MANAGEMENT-COURSE INSTRUCTOR DEVELOPMENT VERIFICATION. OF CORRECTIVE. ACTION
1 1
OPERATOR PERFORMANCE i
l CONDUCT OF - OPERATIONS STANDARDIZATION GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT-:
i
LICENSED OPERATOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS TO MANIPULATE PLANT COMPONENTS SHALL BE SPECIFIC AS TO WHICH COMPONENT AND HOW IT IS TO BE MANIPULATED.
WHEN MAKING A REPORT OR COMMAND, THE PERSON MAKING THE COMMUNICATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE INTENDED RECIPIENT HAS RECEIVED THE INFORMAT!ON.
COMMUNICATIONS TO MANIPULATE PLANT COMPONENTS SHALL BE ACKNOWLEDGED PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE. MANIPULATION.
(VERBATIM REPEAT-BACK IS RECOMMENDED BUT NOT MANDATORY) e
I*'
LICENSED OPERATOR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PL ANT STATUS AWARENESS i
EVERY CREW MEMBER SHOULD' MAINTAIN CONSTANT AWARENESS OF THE ENTIRE P L ANT STATUS.
THE BOP SHOULD ALWAYS BE AWARE OF OF THE S/G LEVELS, FEED FLOW, STEAM FLOW, STEAM PRESSURE AND THE TRENDS OF THESE PARAMETERS.
THE RO SHOULD ALWAYS BE AWARE OF THE RCS LEVEL, PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE AND THE TRENDS OF THESE PARAMETERS.
l l
o_;
OPERATOR PERFORMANCE 4
PERFORMANCE. MONITORING MEASURING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS WEEKLY EXAMINATIONS WEEKLY CRITIQUES
6 9
O!,
t 1
i
SUMMARY
t 1
l 1
l 1
I 1
l