ML20148N118

Exam Rept 50-285/OL-88-02 on 880307.Exam Results:Two Senior Operators Failed walk-through Exam & All Others Passed Exams

ML20148N118
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	03/28/1988
From:	Pellet J, Whittemore J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20148N087	List: ML20148N118
References
50-285-OL-88-02, 50-285-OL-88-2, NUDOCS 8804060329
Download: ML20148N118 (6)

Text

______ -_ ___ _ _____-_

APPENDIX-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Operator Licensing Exam Report: 50-285/0L-88-02 Operating License: DPR-40 Docket No: 50-285 Licensee: Omaha Public Power District (0 PPD) 1623 Harney Street Omaha, NE 60102 Facility Name: Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) a Chief Examiner: 3!a3[f f JgE.Whitt~emore,ChiefExaminer Date Approved by:

a4/- d./L ' Pellet, Chief, Opera r Licensing

)

Date d

Section, Division of Re tor Safety Summary NRC Administered Requalification Examinations During the Week of March 7, 1988 (Report 50-285/0L-88-02)

Results: Written and walk-through examinations were administerad to two reactor operators and six senior reactor operators. Two senior reactor operators failed the walk-through examination. All others passed the examinations.

t 8804060329 080328 PDR ADOCK 05000205 PDR V

t.

u. .

DETAILS

1. Examination Results Requalification Examinations: SR0 R0 Total Pass TE7% F100% E:75%

Fail 2-33% 0-0% 2-25%

2. Examiners J. E. Whittemore, Chief Examiner D. H. 20e D. N. Graves S. L. McCrory

3. Examination Report Performance results for individual licensees are not included in this report as it will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and these results are not subject to public disclosure.

a. Examination Development (1) During two meetings in December 1987, the facility licensee agreed to conduct a requalification examination following the general guidelines of SECY-87-262 and an OLB memorandum describing the examinations at H. B. Robinson. During the December time period, the facility licensee proposed the systems for examination coverage, a list of eight licensees to be examined by the NRC, and two members of its licensed staff to become part of the NRC examination team (for additional information, see OPPD Letters LIC-87-833 and LIC-88-005). These proposals were agreed to b.y the NRC.

(2) During January and February 1988, the facility licensee developed items for the written examination (sections "A - Plant Proficiency" and "B - Limits and Controls"). The facility licensee also developed Job Performance Measures (JPMs) to utilize on the Walk-Through Examinations. It was originally agreed that the facility licensee would develop and provide the NRC 200 Written Section "A" items, 200 Written Section "B" items, and 100 JPMs for use on NRC examinations. All proposed written items and JPMs were subjected to review by the NRC. Due to problems arising from the facility licensee's inexperience with developing items for open book testing, problems with word processing equipment, and inexperience with JPM development, this commitment was not met. The final bank available for NRC examination development consisted of approximately 100 Written Section "A" items,100 Written Section "B" items, and 75 JPMs.

(3) During the development phase, the following occurred or were noted by the NRC to the facility licensee:

(a) The facility licensee spent about half the development time producing items without a development or sampling plan.

(b) Approximately halfway through the development phase the facility licensee informed the NRC that the Plant Specific Job Task Analysis was not current or complete as had been previously reported.

(c) During the second week in February the facility licensee informed the NRC that importance factors assigned to the list of tasks were not valid and could not be used. These were previously reported as valid factors.

(d) During the latter part of February the facility licenseo elected to give practice examinations to those individuals being examined by the NRC. During this process material that had been set aside for NRC use was used to administer these examinations. This caused the NRC to alter examinations to assure that the examination process was not compromised.

(4) During the latter half of February 1988 the NRC assembled and constructed written and walk-through examinations from facility licensee-developed and NRC-approved material. The written examinations were time validated and approved by the facil!ty licensee examination team members. JPMs were walked down and validated by the NRC examiners and facility licensee team members. Several changes were raade to the JPMs as a result of this final validation.

b. Examination Administration (1) Written Examination Sections "A" and "B" were administered to two groups of four licensees in two back-to-back sessions on March 9, 1988. At the conclusion of administration all examinations were copied to facilitate NRC-facility licensee parallel grading.

l Facility licensee team members assisted in proctoring these examination sessions.

(2) Walk-through examinations were administered to the eight licensees on March 10, 1988. Each licensee was evaluated in the performance of ten JPMs. Each examination was administered to two licensees during back-to-back sessions to eliminate compromise.

Each of the examinations contained five JPMs that were common.

c. Examination Results l

i (1) All licensees passed the written examinations. NRC and facility licensee grading results were reviewed with training department

personnel and found to be within 5 percent overall in each section. All pass / fail decisions agreed. This meets the requirements for a satisfactory requalification program as specified in the guidelines of "REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS," for written examinations and their parallel evaluation.

(2) Six of the 8 (75 percent) licensees passed the walk-through examinations. Two (25 percent) licensees did not successfully complete 8 of 10 JPMs. Questions asked at the end of JPMs were answered with an 87 percent success rate by all licensees. All licensees successfully answered more than 80 percent of the common questions asked. These results, along with specific performance problems encountered were reviewed with training department personnel.

d. Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the final site visit, the NRC met with facility licensee representatives. The following personnel were present:

NRC Facility D. H. Coe R. L Andrews D. N. Graves D. Darrow P. A. Harrell J. Fluehr S. L. McCrory J. K. Gasper J. L. Milhoan W. G. Gates J. L. Pellet L. L. Gundrum T. L. Szymanski W. C. Jones

'J. E. Whittemore D. Mamoran K. J. Morris J. J. Tesarek D. R. Trausch Mr. Milhoan, Director, Division of Reactor Safety, opened the meeting by summarizing the new program and noting the problems in Section 3.a of this report.

Mr. Pellet, Chief, Operator Licensing Section, then thanked those present for the facility licensee cooperation received during examination development and administration. He also offered the following:

(1) The new process is encouraging because it is operationally oriented, objective, and job content valid.

(2) Fort Calhoun Station team members D. Darrow and D. Mamoran significantly enhanced the process by contributing maximum effort toward successful completion.

(3) The JPMs used on the walk-through examinations were of high quality.

s. .

(4) Generic technical weaknesses noted during grading of the written and walk-through examinations included the following:

(a) Licensees did not understand that a loss of fire pumps was a loss of backup capacity to supply the EFW storage tank, resulting in the use of a nonconservative Technical Specification.

(b) Licensees did not know that blowdown sample flow to RM-54A was isolated when RM-54A alarmed.

(c) At least two licensees identified LCV-218-2 (VCT outlet) as an air-operated valve imediately after opening the motor breaker on the MCC.

(d) At least two licensees were not completely successful in an attempt to add blended makeup flow to the RCS.

(e) Several licensees were generally unfamiliar with local equipment location and operation.

(5) Mr. Milhoan summarized the week's events by noting the following to the facility licensee:

i (a) The new program provides an improved assessment of the facility licensee's ability to evaluate the ability of licensees to safely operate the facility.

(b) Satisfactory completion of an NRC administered requalification examination meets the regulatory requirements of license renewal for licensees with 6-year licenses.

(c) Satisfactory completion of the NkC administered requalification I examination coupled with satisfactory conclusions from other NRC assessments should lead to reclassification of the FCS program from unsatisfactory to satisfactory. NRC will not conclude its evaluation of the FCS requalification program until after completion of the simulator examinations and determination that the sample selected is both representative and large enough to be valid.

(d) The NRC believes there should be a time limit for an effective written examination. The licensee should be aware that the written examinations were time validated prior to administering.

(e) The reasons for licensee failure to successfully complete l JPMs appear to fall in general categories:

failure to follow procedures, poor or inadequate procedures, and

6 .. .

lack of familiarity with equipment outside the cortrol room.

(f) NRC is pleased with the facility licenJee's ability to develop high quality JPMs. There is much less confidence in '

the ability to develop and prepare written examination iter.;3, both in quantity and quality.

(6) The NRC examination team discussed with the facility licensee actions which could be taken to increase NRC confidence in the ability of the FCS training department to conduct a satisfactory requalification program. The actions discussed included:

(a) Submission of graded written, walk-through, and simulator examinations to NRC for each licensee as available.

(b) At the end of the requalification testing cycle, discussion with Region IV, Division of Reactor Safety, the results and assessment of the entire process. 1 (c) Development of a plan to assure a sufficient quality and quantity of material for testing prior to next requalification testing cycle.

(d) Submission of the remediation procedure for licensees failing ,

the requalification examination.

(e) Keepin7 NRC informed of all progress made toward improving the FCS requalification and evaluation program.

(7) Mr. Milhoan ended the meeting by expressing thanks to Messrs. D. Darrow and D. Mamoran for their effortc towards successful completion of the process.

i l

_--____ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . - ~ _ . . _ . _ _ ~