ML20155K287

Exam Rept 50-440/OL-88-01 on 880516-19.Exam Results:All Senior Reactor & Reactor Operators Passed as Individuals & Crews During Exams,One Crew Failed Simulator Evaluation & One Senior Reactor Operator Failed Written Exam

ML20155K287
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	06/13/1988
From:	Bjorgen J, Dave Hills, Nejfelt G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155K249	List: ML20155K244 ML20155K287
References
50-440-OL-88-01, 50-440-OL-88-1, NUDOCS 8806210162
Download: ML20155K287 (3)

Text

, . .- - -- .. -

. 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i.

REGION III Report No. 50-440/0L-88-01 Docket No. 50-440 License No. NPF-58 Licensee: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating '

Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, OH 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant <

Examination Administered At: Perry Nuclear Power Plant Examination Conducted: May 16-19, 1988

.b Examiners: 0. Hills C//3 88 Date

[-n,

, BJo (b3 T[

Datt /

lw G. Ne] felt i

_ 4, DaV ~ '

J ((  ;

3. Keeto &W h3 '

'T l Date Approved By: T. Burdick Chief, Operator Licensing Date Section 2 4

Examination Summary Examination administered on May 16-19, 1988, Report No. 50-440/0L-88-01.

)

Simulator and plant walkthrough evaluations were administered to seven Senior Reactor Operators (SRO) and five Reactor Operators (RO). Written examinations i were administered to only six SR0s and five R0s. One SRO was unable to take '

the written exam. l Results: The NRC passed all the SR0s and the R0s as individuals and as crews 1 during the examinations. The facility evaluators failed one of the '

crews on the simulator evaluations and one of the SR0s on the written examination.

i

8806210162 880614 PDR i

' V ADOCK 05000440 DCD l

REPORT DETAILS

1. Examiners D. Hills, Chief Examiner G. Nejfelt J. Bjorgen J. Keeton

2. Exit Meeting and Conference Call At the conclusion of the examinations, an exit meeting was held on May 20, 1988, to discuss the examination process and elicit initial comments on the process. The results of the written exam were discussed in a conference call on May 31, 1988, including a comparison of the parallel grading process. The following personnel were present:

Facility Representatives A. Kaplan, Vice President, Nuclear M. Lyster, General Manger, Perry Plant Operating Department R. Stratman, Manager, Operations

• R. Tadych, Manager, Training E. Buzzelli, Manager, Licensing and Compliance

• M. Lazar, Unit Supervisor, Operations Training

• C. Persson, License Trairing J.nstructor M. Haskins, License Training Instructor NRC Representatives G. Wright, Chief, Operations Branch M. Jordan, Chief, Operator Licensing Section 1 T. Burdick, Chief, Operator Licensing Section 2

• D. Hills, Chief Examiner J. Bjorgen, Examiner l

G. Nejfelt, Examiner i J. Keeton, Examiner ,

K. Connaughton, Senior Resident Inspector I

• Present for conference call. The following items were discussed:

a. The NRC passed all individuals and crews on the simulator and plant walkthrough portion of the examination. The facility evaluators, however, failed one of the crews. This indicated that the facility evaluation criteria was at a higher level than the minimum required safety standards required by the NRC. This is viewed positively as applied to evaluation of the facility licensed operator requalification program.

2 t -

~

0

b. The NRC passed all individuals on the written portion of the examination. The facility evaluators failed one individual. A comparison of NRC and tecility grading of this individual shows close correspondence. The difference between the NRC and facility pass / fail detennination on this individual was due to his marginal performance on the written examination,

c. The facility licensed operator requalification program passed all evaluation criteria and was assigned an overall program rating of satisfactory.

3. Program Deficiencies

a. During development of the examinations, the facility representatives ir.dicated that training is not specifically provided in the licensed operator requalification program on the ability to operate the facility's auxiliary and emergency systems in the plant (i.e.

outside the control room) other than the remote shutdown panel, tacility representatives indicated that such operations are performed by non-licensed operators and that these in-plant system operating abilities are, therefore, not included in the licensed operatcr's job task analysis. This is considered a serious program deficiency per 10 CFR 55.59(a)(ii), 55.45(a) and 55.45(a)(8). It is NRC policy that these tasks be included in the licensed operator's job task analysis and that licensed operators receive training and be evaluated during the requalification program on those tasks with sufficiently high importance ratings. )

b. During the administration of the simulator portion of the ext , the NRC did not rotate the individuals in the Unit Supervisor and Shif t Supervisor positions, because the licensee's requalification prograra did not rotate individuals in these positions. The NRC finds this practice to be a serious program deficiency. Moving from the Unit Supervisor (US) position to the Shift Supervisor (SS) position results in the SS being one step removed from direct involvement in licensed activities. The Unit Supervisor position on the other hand is at the forefront of licensed activities, and from i a proficiency and competency standpoint, examining the SS in this l position would be more meaningful and would more closely meet the I intent of 10 CFR 55.45. l 3