ML20128K826

Summary of 921123-24 Meeting in King of Prussia,Pa Re Region I Positions on Operator Licensing Issues & Solicit Input from Util Training Staffs

ML20128K826
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek, Seabrook
Issue date:	02/09/1993
From:	Bettenhausen L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	J. J. Barton, Feigenbaum T GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP. (NAESCO)
References
NUDOCS 9302190019
Download: ML20128K826 (8)

Text

. . . . .- .. - - -.. -

February 9. 1993 -

Docket No. 50-219 License No. DPR-16 ,

Mr. John J. Barton Vice President and Director GPU Nuclear Corporation Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- NRC REGION I ANNUAL TRAINING MANAGERS' CONFERENCE CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 23 AND 24,1992 This letter summarizes the conference conducted at the Sheraton 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 negarding the content of this letter, please contact Mr. Richard J. Conte at (215) 337-5210.

Sincerely, , .

ft /n Id 4 .,

/ 4k.y. '% g ,i

~

H. Betten ausen, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:MTGSUMRY.TMM q l

9302190019 930209- i PDR ADOCK 05000219 l JB &

V PDR /

Mr. John J. Barton 2 February 9, 1993

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees

2. Meeting Agenda

3. Issues Raised cc w/encls.

M. Laggart, Manager, Corporate Licensing P. Czaya, Acting Licensing Manager, Oyster Creek J. Kowalski, Manager - Plant Training Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector State of New Jersey bec w/encls:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

L. Bettenhausen, DRS J. Joyner, DRSS R. Blough, DRP J. Rogge, DRP V. McCree, OEDO R. Conte, DRS A. Dromerick, NRR/PD l-4 F. Young, SRI, Three Mile Island L. Rossbach, SRI, Beaver Valley OL Facility File DRS File RI:DRS RI:DRS RI:DRS / - OLB:NRR Prell/dmg - Cgt , Bettenh u Lange @h ,

02/02/93 02/J793 02p3- o2/$193 p (

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:MTGSUMRY.TMM

4 4

ENCLOSURE 1 NRC POWER REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSEE MEETING November 23-24,1992 FACILITY ATTENDEES Beaver Valley Tom Burns ,

Ernie Chatfield Calvert Cliffs Norm Millis Bill Birney Bruce Heistand Tom O'Meara FiLPatrick 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 Mike Evringham Don Stevenson

Enclosure 1 -2 Millstone 1,2 and 3 Brad Ruth -

and Haddam Neck Rich Spurr .

Ron Stotts . --

Mike Bray Mike Brown Bob Heidecker Nine Mlle 1 and 2 Bob Sanaker Bob Smith Rick Slade Randy Seifried Jim Reid Gregg Pitts 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--

c i

. - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ = _ _ _ _

Enclosure 1 3 Susquehanna Art Fitch floward Palmer Jonathan Seek Bruce Stitt Thil 1 Shall Shalikashvill hiark Trump Daryl Wilt Jeff Bolts Randy liess Vermont Yankee lki llarms larry Amirault hilke Gofckamp Brian Finn hiark hiervine John lierron Sonalysts Brian llangensen General Physics Corp. Jerry Joullian John Galamback

. NRC - IIcadquarters hiaryann Diamonte John Kauffmaul Dave lange 4

m- mini i=

.I Enclosure 1 4 Operator IJecnsing - Region 1 Lee Ilettenhausen '

Ricli Conte Glenn Meyer ,

Todd Fish Don Florck Sam llansell Carl Sisco Scott Stewart hi Walker >

Herb Williams Paul flissett 12rry Ilriggs Joe D' Antonio Kerry thnen 11111 Maier Jim Prell Dave Silk Rob Temps

- Virgil Curley

?

n-r-, ce l- < m, , ,

I i'

i ENC 11)SURE 2 l

NRC REGION 1 -  !

j OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINERS / TRAINING MANAGERS MEETING NOVEMHER 23 - 24, 1992 i November 23,1992, Monday J

Noon - 1:00 PM Registration f

1:00 PM Welcome/ introduction - T, T, Martin {

i Regional Administrator, NRC R1 1:30 PM Keynote Speaker - Arthur.Orticelle Training Manager, PSE&O 2:00 PM Keynote Speaker - John Kauffman,AEOD "lluman Performance in Events" ,

F  !

- 2:45 PM Summary of Requal Changes to Examiner i Standards - James A. Prell, RI 1

3:15 PM Break

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

Revision 7 for Requalification Examinations  ; j

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

- 8:00 AM Breakout Sessions (continued)  ;

9:30 AM Break t i

e 6

f

....~~e-.

py-..,yr-y er,,ms--a y y .,w g --pw. :g--,--,- g , - ~ .. - 547,. -

,.,c- 5+.5 ,w',,jm',.yy-# w .. . .w[ U ,,E.--,- c. -- -#,-.1, . *,..-:-... . . , . , . d '4 . - . - , * . 3-r-

4 linclosure 2 2 November 24,1992, Ti esday (con't)  ;

L

- 9:45 AM Reports of Current Activitics: #

- Challenges and Changes D. lange, NRC,1101J! ,

Industry Secnario Guidelines WOG  ;

R. lleidecker, CYAPCO

- Training Rule implementation [

M. A, Iliamonte, NRC, lillEli

- Rev. 7 for initial Examinations T. Walker, RI and A. Shiever, IlliCO

- Region i Ugxiate L. Itettenhausen, R1

- 12:30 PM Lunch

?

- 1:30 PM Report of Ilreakout Sessions (

- 2:30 PM Meeting Summation

- 3:00 PM Adjourn h

i

n i

ENCIDSURE 3 ISSU13 RAISED ES . 601 ADMINISTRATIVE o 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: llow should simulator stand-ins be counted for program evaluation purposes?

A: Ik>th 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 sequal 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 pmgram 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 methodst using a number of different JpMs so that duplication of JPMs between operators does not exist or i

4 6.Jc- 2 i a random, using a modified form of sequestering by having the second crew report for work just prior to the first crew completing their JPhis, or some other mutually agreed upon scheme between the chlef examiner and the facility.

• 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 IE601 as that continuous period of time (not to exceed 24 months) within which the facility conducts its operator requalification program.

ES - 603 WA1,K-TIIROUGIl

• Q: Is there a minimum number of " faulted" JPMs which the facility must have in its JPM bank 7 A: No - however, the facility is expected to have some faulted JPMs in their JPM bank to select from for the examination.

• Q: Does the NRC expect that a minimum of one of the five JPMs given to each operator be a faulted JPM7 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 JPM7-A: No - but there should be enough shut ,own/ 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 Enclosure 3 3 e 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: No

• 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.

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

l 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 n , - - ~ - e

. 4

• Q: What is the minimum remediation requircd for someone in a crew which has failed but who has not been identified as having any problems?

A: The facility decides what, if any, remediation is required for that individual.

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

A: Yes

• Q: For large operating crews, do diose 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?

A: No. However, cach licensed operator must be a member of a simulator exam crew that successfully completes two dynamic simulator scenarios.

• Q: For an operator who has been identified as having possible weaknesses during the simulator exam, guidance is needed as to how extensive the follow-up evaluation should be, who should conduct this evaluation, when should dus 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 examiner 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 time to conduct the appropriate additional scenario or JPM.

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

A: If an examiner observes in operator Jemonstrate significant deficiencies performing a critical task, but cannot assess the deficiency due to a lack of-performance information, the examination team has the option to conduct a follow-up JPM or an additional scenario to obtain additional performance information. The examination team should use the time in betweer. scenarios to conduct individual follow-up questioning concerning deficient operator

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. He information obtained from the follor up questions may provide a sufficient basis to determine whether the 03 erator passes or falls the examinatioa without having to conduct an additional scenario or JPM. The examination team should consider the stress on the affected crew and the other crews participating 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 procedum 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. CB procedures that essentially perform the same function as those listed for Westinghouse (Optimal Recovery Procedures or Functional Rccovery 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 E4)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 understand the problems that could arise during low power operations are essential 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 required on each examination, rather, the scenarios should be included in the dynamic simulator bank and should be available for selection during the examination.

0 1

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 answer presented at the conference, frequently to reflect the specifics of the approved Revision 7,

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