ML20128H310

Summarizes 921123 & 24 Region I Annual Training Managers Conference in King of Prussia,Pa Re Positions on OL Issues & to Solicit Input from Util Training Staff.List of Attendees, Meeting Agenda & Issues Raised Encl

ML20128H310
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	02/08/1993
From:	Bettenhausen L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Denton R BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 9302170003
Download: ML20128H310 (14)

Text

.r Dbh s

u .

6 FED 8 1933 Docket Nos. 50 317/50-318 Licen= Nos. DPR-53/DPR-69 Mr. Robert E. Denton Vice President - Nuclear Energy Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, Maryland 2 % 57 - 4702

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- NRC REGION I ANNUAL TRAINING MA'NAGERS' CONFERENCE CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 23 AND 24,1992 This letter summarizes the conference conducted at the Gheraton Hotel, King of Prussia, Pa.,

on November 23 and 24,1992. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Region l's positions on operator licensing issues and solicit input from utility training staffs. A summary of the meeting agenda is enclosed. Significant issues raised by the attendees during the presentations and their resolutions are incorporated into Enclosure 3, Issues Raised. Our headquarters program office concurred in these resolutions. The resolution was delayed until Revision 7 to NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," was issued in order to incorporate final positions into the resolutions.

It is our opinion that this conference was beneficial and an excellent opportunity for open discussion of both group's concerns with the operator licensing process.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact Mr. Glenn Meyer at (215) 337-5211.

Sincerely, . .

$6 vlb

%Lfglff*dv43 )n/'

NLee H. Bettenhausen, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 9302170003 93020s PDR :ADOCK 05000317 P PDR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:MTGSUMRY.TMM i

/Ipb \

4 2

Mr. Robert E. Denton

Enclosures:

1. Lis, of Attendees

2. Meeting Agenda

3. Issues Raised cc w/encis:

G. Detter, Director, Nuclear Regulatory Matters (CCNPP)

R. McLean, Administrator, Nuclear Evaluations D. Holm, Assistant General Supervisor - Operations Training N. Millis, General Supervisor - Nuclear Training J. Walter, Engineering Division, Public Service Commission of Maryland K, Burger, Esquire, Maryland People's Counsel R. Ochs, Maryland Safe Energy Coalition Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident inspector State of Maryland (2) bec w/encis:

Region 1 Docket Room (with concurrences)

L. Bettenhausen, DRS C. Cowgill, DRP J. Yerokun, DRP L. Nicholson, DRP S. Greenlee, DRP P. Wilson, SRI - Calvert Cliffs V. McCree, OEDO R. Capra, NRR D. Mcdonald, NRR D. Holody, EO OL Facility File (2)

DRS Files (2) eh RI:DRS RI:DRS RI:DRg[4[ OLB:NRR .

Prell/dmg Meyer Bettenhau n Lange 02/2/93 02/N93 02/[/93 b 02/[/93 jy 0 i

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:MTGSUMR . iM i

i

ENCLOSURE 1-NRC POWER REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSEE MEETING -

P November 23-24,1992 FACILITY ATTENDEES Beaver Valley Tom Burns Ernie ChatDeld Calvert Cliffs Norm Millis Bill Birney Bruce Heistand Tom O'Meara FitzPatrick Dave Topley Gary Fronk Bob Madden -

Drew Rogers Ginna Robert Carroll ,

Frank Maciuska Ron Ruedin.

Hope Creek / Salem Art Orticelle Greg Mecchi Robert Hovey Vince Polizzi Jim Lloyd Bill Gott Indian Point 2 Frank Inzirillo Mark Miller Indian Point 3 Richard Robenstein William Flynn Limerick Jim Kantner -

Bob Ruffe Vince Cwietniewicz Steve Carr Maine Yankee Jon Kirsch l Mike Evringham Don Stevenson

~

p .:

Enclosure 1- 2 Millstone 1,2 and 3 Brad Ruth and Haddam Neck Rich Spurr Ron Stotts -

Mike Bray Mike Brown- 1 Bob Heidecker Nine Mile 1 and 2 Bob Sanaker Bob Smith.

Rick Slade Randy Seifried Jim Reid

• Gregg Pitts s Oyster Creek Gil Cropper '

Clint Silvers-

. Jay Sims Sam Sowell Jerry Hollingsworth Darrell Wire Mark Heller

- Joe Kowalski '

Peach Bottom John Stankiewicz Dennis McClellan Phil Nielsen Paul DiRito Phila. Electric E.S. Bright Chesterbrook Office Dennis-Knepper Pilgrim - Paul Gallante Tom Swan.

Jack Alexander Seabrook Bob Hanley Gene St. Pierre Laurits Carlsen 3

- - - - - - - r-__. - ae_,_-- -__ - _ _ _ _ _ . , _ , _ _ _ _ ,

Enclosure 1 3' Susquehanna Art Fitch lioward Palmer Jonathan Seck Bruce Stitt TMI-l Shali Shalikashvili Mark Trump Daryl Wilt Jeff Bolts Randy liess Vermont Yankee Ed llarms Larry Amirault Mike Gofekamp Brian Finn Mark Mervine ,

John lierron Sonalysts Brian llaagensen General Physics Corp. Jerry Joullian John Galamback NRC - licadquarters Maryann Biamonte John Kauffman Dave Lange

{

..K - - - - - - - , - - __ --- .- -a- ---- - _ - - ---- as

Enclosure 1 4 Operator Licensing - Region 1 1.xc Bettenhausen Rich Conte Glenn Meyer Todd Fish Don Florck Sam Hansell Carl Sisco Scott Stewart Tracy Walker Herb Williams Paul Bissett 12rry Briggs Joe D' Antonio Kerry lhnen Bill Maier Jim Prell Dave Silk Rob Temps Virgil Curley

4 4

FECIASURE 2 NRC REGION 1

~ OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINERS / TRAINING MANAGERS MEETING NOVEMBER 23 - 24,1992 November 23,1992, Monday Noon - 1:00 PM Registration

- 1:00 PM Welcome/ Introduction - T. T. Martin Regional Adnc m. itor, NRC R1

- 1:30 PM Keynote Speaker - Arthur Orticelle Training Manager, PSE&G

- 2:00 PM Keynote Speaker - John Kauffman,AEOD "fluman Performance in Events"

- 2:45 PM Summary of Requal Changes to Examiner '

Standards - James A. Prell, R1

- 3:15 PM Break

- 3:30 PM Breakout Sessions (4 parallel sessions)

Revision 7 for_Requalification Examinations

- 5:00 PM Adjourn November 24,1992, Tuesday

- 8:00 AM Breakout Sessions (continued)

- 9:30 AM Break i

I 1

' Enclosure 2 21 ,

November 24,1992, Tuesday (con't) -

- 9:45 AM = Rcports of Current Activities:-

- Challenges and Changes D. Lange, NRC, HOLB -

- Industry Scenario Guldelines-WOG R. Heidecker, CYAPCO

- Training Rule Implementation M.- A. Biamonm. NRC, HHEB

- Rev.- 7 for Initial Examinations T. Walker, RI-and A. Shiever, BECO

- Region I Update

' L. Bettenhausen, RI -

- 12:30 PM Lunch

- 1:30 PM Report of Breakout Sessions

- 2:30 PM Meeting Summation

- 3:00 PM Adjourn

ENCLOSURE 3 ISSUES RAISED ES - 601 ADMINISTRATIVE

• Q: Is there a limit to the number of people that can be put onto the security agreement?

A: No, but the facility and NRC should try to minimize the number of people which have to be added to the security agreement.

• Q: How should simulator stand-ins be counted for program evaluation purposes?

A: Both the stand-ins who are determined to be Satisfactory and those who are found to be Unsatisfactory are included in the numbers used for determining if a facility has a satisfactory program or not.

• Q: If the past year's requal program had less than 12 operators so that a program evaluation could not be performed at that time, and this year's requal program has more than 12 operators, do you include last year's count and results in this year's program evaluation?

A: A program evaluation will be performed using only this year's results with 12 or more operators.

• Q: When there are less than 12 operators left to be examined within the six year cycle, will program evaluations continue to be conducted?

A: Yes, the NRC intends to continue program evaluations, and the Region will work with the facility to design an examination that can be used for a program evaluation.

• Q: The guidance related to JPM sequestering in order to prevent compromising the walkthrough exam has been removed in Revision 7. Why was this done?

A: Since a minimum number of common JPMs are no longer mandated, sequestering of the operators is not as big a concern. It is the chief examiner's responsibility to assure that adequate security is provided to prevent exam compromise. This is achieved through several methods; using a number of different JPMs so that duplication of JPMs between operators does not exist or

r 6

Enclosure 3 - 2 is random, using a modified form of sequestering by having the second crew report for work just prior to the first crew completing their JPMs, or some other mutually agreed upon scheme between the chief examiner and the facility.

E

• Q: The examiner standards need to address what is meant by "the most recent cycle" with regards to using simulator scenarios for training purposes. Does the most recent cycle refer to the previous six week training cycle or the previous 24 month requal cycle?

A: The most recent training cycle has been defined in ES-601 as that continu'ous period of time (not to exceed 24 months) within which the facility conducts its -

operator requalification program.

ES - 603 WALK-TIIROUGII

• Q: Is there a minimum number of " faulted" JPMs which the facility must have in its JPM bank?

A: No - however, the facility is expected to have some faulted JPMs in their JPM -

bank to select from for the examination.

I

• Q: Does the NRC expect that a minimum of one of the five JPMs given to each l

operator be a faulted JPM7 l

A: No - The NRC expects that the examination for each operator be an appropriate balance among the items listed in Part 55.45(a), so that tasks contained in normal, abnormal and emergency procedures are evaluated. ~ It is up to the examination team to determine whether alternate-path JPMs will be -

used to accomplish this goal.

_* Q: Are shutdown / low power JPMs required to be administered on each exam?

• A: The JPMs selected for each examination should reflect the sample plan for the

- requalification cycle, plus selected topics from outside the sample plan (not to exceed 20% of the examination). Shutdown / low power JPMs may be used but are not required for each examination.

• Q: Is each operator required to perform at least one shutdown / low power JPM?

A: No - but there should be enough shutdown / low power JPMs administered during the examination so that the NRC is assured that the operators have been trained to respond to events while in these modes of operation.

4 i Enclosure 3 3

• Q: What is the NRC's intent of having time critical JPMs which are based on maximum acceptable times established by subject matter experts at the facility?

A: Time critical JPMs established by subject matter experts have been deleted from the approved version of Revision 7. Time critical JPMs should be based solely on regulatory requirements or facility commitments with the NRC.

• Q: Because the amount of time allotted for performing the JPMs has remained the same between Rev 6 and Rev. 7 while the number of JPMs and the number of prescripted questions have been reduced or eliminated respectfully, does this imply that longer JPMs are now required?

A:  ?

• Q: Are there any minimum time requirements that a JPM takes to perform?

A: No - the facility will determine the technical basis for the JPM validated time.

ES - 604 SIMULATOR

• Q: If the operating crew does not normally rotate crew members among the various licensed positions, are they required to rotate these operators during the dynamic simulator?

A: The crew should be tested as they operate and train. Accordingly, if an RO splits his operating time between positions, the RO should rotate during the exam. However, an SRO or an RO need not rotate to address a position infrequently held.

e Q: How should licensed STAS be rotated into the crew to which they are assigned for requalification purposes?

A: The STA is not recognized as a " licensed" crew position for purposes of requalification examinations. Each licensed operator must participate in two scenarios in a licensed crew position to complete the requirements for requalification. Rotation will be required for licensed operators who participate in scenarios as STAS.

• Q: What is the minimum number of scenarios in which each individual must be tested?

A: Two

e Enclosure 3 4

• Q: What is the minimum remediation required for someone in a c % which has failed but who has not been identified as having any problems 7 i

A: The facility decides what, if any, remediation is requ* red for that individual. .

• Q: Do all members of a failed crew need to undergo an NRC reexamination before their license is renewed?

A: Yes l-

• Q: For large opemting crews, do those members of the crew, who were not -

participating in a particular scenario because of simulator crew size restrictions, have to be reexamined by the NRC if the simulator exam crew fails?

l l

'

• A: No. However, each licensed operator must be a member of a simulator exam I

crew that successfully completes two dynamic simulator scenarios.

• Q: For an operator who has txrn identified as having possible weakmesses during the simulator exam, guidance is needed as to how extensive the follow-up evaluation should be, who should conduct this evaluation, when should this evaluation be conducted, and what the impact on stress is, while the evaluation .

process is being determined.

A: The purpose of the follow-up evaluation is to determine the scope and breath of the operator's deficiency demonstrated during the scenario. If an examiner observes an individual who demonstrates significant deficiencies performing a -

critical task, the NRC examicer and the facility evaluator will discuss those deficiencies at the completion of the scenario. The facility evaluator or NRC examiner will then ask follow-up question (s) to determine the cause of the performance deficiencies. Following the conduct of both scenarios, if the examination team determines that additional follow-up performance evaluation is necessary. to make a pass or fail decision, the examination team will agree -

upon a time to conduct the appropriate additional scenario or JPM.-

e Q: When should the follow-up scenario or JPM be given for reevaluation purposes?

A: If an examiner observes an operator demonstrate significant deficiencies ~ .

performing a critical task, but cannot assess the deficiency due to a lack of performance information, the examination teun has the option to conduct a t follow-up JPM or an additional scenario to obtain additional ped:n =-

information. The examination team should use the time in between scenarios to conduct individual follow-up questioning concerning deficient operator-

4

.4 4

j Enclosure 3 5 performance. The examination team should wait until the crew has completed the scenario set before deciding whether an additional scenario or JPM will be necessary. The infonnation obtained from the follow-up questions may provide a sufficient basis to determine whether the operator passes or falls the examination without having to conduct an additional scenario or JPM. The examination team should consider the stress on the affected crew and the other crews panicipating in the examination when conducting follow-up questioning, JPMs, or scenarios.

• Q: Is it necessary that all the quantitative criteria of Rev. 7 for scenarios be met?

A: No - these criteria are only guidelines. Nonetheless, the facility should be able to justify acceptability if not meeting them.

• Q: Since Combustion Engineering type plants only have one EOP contingency procedure, are they required to enter this procedure at least once during each scenario set?

A: It is our intention to observe each crew conduct operations using the procedures or actions listed in Part D. of Attachment 3 to ES-604. CE procedures that essentially perform the same function as those listed for Westinghouse (Optimal Recovery Procedures or Functional Recovery Procedures) and are not listed for Combustion Engineering, may be proposed by the facility for use in the examination to meet this guideline.

• Q: Is it allowable to count E-0 in meeting the EOP criterion?

A: No. ES-604 Attachment 3 states that E-0 will not be counted in the overall EOP total.

• Q: What is gained by requiring the use of low power scenarios versus scenarios at 100 percent power?

A: The NRC has identified a number of high risk events that have occurred at facilities during low power operations. The NRC considers that operators who are properly informed and who undershnd the problems that could arise during low power operations are essenual in reducing risks associated with these activities. Through comprehensive training programs, operators can gain such knowledge and understanding, thus increasing the level of safe operation at nuclear plants. The level of knowledge and abilities are qualitatively measured by a comprehensive examination. It should be noted that low power scenarios are not aqujml on each examination, rather, the scenarios should be included in the dynamic simulator bank and should be available for selection during the examination.

9 l

Enclosure 3 6

• Q: Are low power scenarios required to be made a part of the facility's scenario bank?

A: low power operations should be included in either the facility's scenario bank-or JPM bank or both.

• This answer has been revised or updated from the answ:r prescrited at the conference, frequently to reflect the specifics of the approved Revision 7.

- - - - - - - - _ . _ _ . - _ - - - _ _ _