ML20246K064

Forwards Results of Evaluation of Operator Requalification Exam Given on Wk of 890501.Summary of Exam Results Provided W/Individual Results for Each Operator Examined.Results Indicate That Program Satisfactory Overall

ML20246K064
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	06/05/1989
From:	Miller D CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
To:	Gallo R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20246K049	List: IR 05000213/1989006 ML20246K045 ML20246K064
References
SS-89-062, SS-89-62, NUDOCS 8909050357
Download: ML20246K064 (9)

Text

- .. ._

5 Attachm:nt 4 4

CONNECTICUT V AN KEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY T

Q(f HADDAM NECK PLANT RRN1

• BOX 127E

• EAST HAMPTON. CT 06424-9341 June 5, 1989 SS-89-062 Mr. Robert M. Gallo, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~

Region l' 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Reference:

Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant Docket 50-213 Operator Requalification Exam De'ar Mr. Gallo:

Enclosed are the results of the Haddam Neck' evaluation of the Operator Requalification Examination given the week'of May 1,.

.1989. A summary of the examination"results is provided along with the individual results for'each operator examined. These examination tesults indicate that the Haddam Neck Requalification Program is satisfactory overall and that_ operator retraining is needed.in specific areas.

We are gtaking the necessary corrective actions based on the examination results. The. individuals who failed the examination ..

had been' removed from licensing-duty'and an upgrade program was

~

conducted. Details of the upgrade progr'am and the;results of the re-evaluation are. enclosed for your review.

In our view, the new examination process worked well. The NRC Examination. Team interfaced effectively with the Haddam Neck personnel to administer the examination. One issue that we encountered that increased the stress level on"thenoperator's.

involved._the sequestering the operators to maintain examination security control.

If there are any questions regarding our evaluat' ion'ofmthe examination or our corrective actions, pl e a s e c~on t'a c't Mre' Robert Heidecker, Supervisor, Operator Training at 203-447-5640.

Very*truly-your , j D. . Mil er Stat' ion Superintendent ,

Haddam Neck Power Plant cc: 7. W. Heidecker 9909050357 690828 PDR ADOCK 05000213 V PNU mea orv iou l i

s': <

4 HADDAM NECK EXAM

SUMMARY

1. EXAMINATION RESULTS RO SRO TOTAL PASS / FAIL PASS / FAIL PASS / FAIL WRITTEN 3/1 6/0 11/1 SIMULATOR 4/0 7/1 11/1 JPM 4/0 7/1 11/1 OVERALL 3/1 6/2 9/3

2. PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS Overall the Haddam Neck Program was evaluated as Satisfactory in accordance with our interpretation of ES-601.

Based on the Haddam Neck Results 75% of the operators passed the Requalification Exam. Only one candidate failed each part of the exam process which indicates individual vice programmatic weaknesses. This satisfies the requirements of ES-601 C.3.b.(1)(b).

All crews were evaluated as Satisfactory during the simulator

examination. This satisfied ES-601 D.1.c (2) (c) 1.1 and D.1.c(2)

( .c ) 1. 4 . Eleven out of the twelve operators passed the simulator examinations based on ISCTs as evaluated by the CY staff. All candidates were evaluated as satisfactory by the NRC. The NRC and CY were in agreement greater than 90% of the time with CY maintaining the higher standards. This satisfied D.l.c.(2)(c).

M fas.ted the simulator examination due to failing to emergency borate during a steamline break. Additionally, he had diagnosed the event as a LOCA instead of a steamline break.

ven of the tvelve operators passed the written exam. M failed the written exam with an overall score of Iess than

. RC written exam results are not available at this time.

This satisfies ES-601 program requirements D.3.c.(2)(b).

Eleven of the twelve operators were evaluated as Satisfactory by the Haddam Neck Training Staf f on the JPM walkthrough exala. 6 EEEEEk failed the JPM exam because of failing three JPMs. The NRC passed all twelve operators on the walkthrough exam. There was greater than a 90% pass / fail decision agreement between CY and the NRC. This satisfied ES-601 requirements D.2.c.(2) (b) (1) and D.2.c.(2) (b) (2).

Page 1 of 8

Yry?'. .

The major-weakness noted by the Haddam Nech staff involved the walkthrough exam' materials. . JPM 94 and 21.were missed by greater-than 50% of.the operators. JPM 94 was: missed when the operators attempted to quickly shift over from injection to recirculation-prior to' reaching a. low level in.the RWST where the SI pumps cavitated. The'JPM is valid ~and has been incorporated into the simulator training cycle'that started May 8th. JPM 21 must be rewritter. to insure proper procedure transitions to handle a contaminated injured man. The JPM will'be corrected when EPIP 1.5-11 is upgraded.

The same common' question on two JPMs-(21-2 and 48-1) were missed.

l by 50% of the operators. Both ' questions will 1xt revalidated with.

SMEs and modified if necessary.

1 One facility evaluator was evaluated as unsatisfactory by the NRC.

l The evaluator was counseled and will be upgraded prior to being assigned additional evaluator duties.

Overall the Haddam Neck Facility satisfied the requirements of

-ES-601-C.3.(2) and was evaluated as Satisfactory by the Haddam Neck Staff.

l

3. PROGRAMMATIC STRENGTHS The strengths noted by the Haddam Neck staff are summarized below:

i- * ' Simulator scenarios are challenging and properly validated.

• Simulator evaluations are conducted by Haddam Neck

g management / supervisors.

• Evaluation critiques are lead by upper Station Management (Ops or Unit Supt).

• -Program run in accordance with ES-601.

• Static Exams and open book exam questions were properly validated.

• Haddam Neck requires high standards for excellence.

• Tech Staff crews use strong communications and teamwork skills.

• Operating crewc overall exhibit good teamwork and communications skills. W s

Page 2 of 8

4

4. PROGRAMMATIC WEAKNESSES The Programmatic weaknesses noted by the Haddam Deck Staff include:

• JPMs have too many critical steps.

• JPM questions should be revalidated to assure the answer desired it obtained.

• JPM evaluhtors should be counseled on not cueing the operators during the evaluation.

Communications between SRO and RO should all be closed loop.

ROs close the loop; whereas, tne SROs do not. SROs should tell crew to monitor status trees when leaving E-0.

• SRO's ust slow down in EOP network and insure all RNO actions are taken.

5. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND PROGRAMMATIC WEAKNESSE

• All individuals that failed any portion of tne annual operating test were removed from licensing duties.

• Individualized Training Plans were developed in accordance with Nuclear Training manual. Individualized Training plans are attached for your review (Attachment (1)

The JPMs will be revalidated prior to the November - December requalification exam.

The critical steps and questions will be i

validated by the plant subject matter experts.

• Feedback from the lessons learned was input into the Operating crews were given additional requalification training program.More on JPMs. emphasis was given to the need to comply with the procedure vice complete the JPM as quickly as possible.

• The training staff will be counseled on the proper techniques for conducting JPM evaluations.

6. JPM MATRIX AND RESULTS

1. 3.

The matrix for JPM results are enclosed as Attachment The majority of the operators completed the JPMS within the The time for the 10 JPMs was validated time requirements.

validated for 147 minutes. The operators took on the average 134 minutes.

Page 3 of 8

The operators have to realize that JPMs are not a race against time but as measure of their ability to correctly perform the task being evaluated using the appropriate plant procedure.

The SRO walkthrough exam average was 88% while the RO average was 98%. These results are expected since the SROs job is more administrative in nature and he doesn't spend as much time manipulating the control panels as the ROs.

The SRO oral exam average was 97% while the RO average was 96%.

The SRO and RO knowledge in systems appear to be comparable. This is expected since all operators receive the same systems training at the SRO level.

7. SIMULATOR CREW EVALUATION SUMMARIES The overall crew evaluation summaries for the three crews are:

OVERALL CREW EVALUATION - CREW A All crew members were evaluated by the CY Staff to be safe, competent operators. All team / time dependent critical tasks were successfully completed. All individual ISCT's were successfully completed except one. The ISCT missed by Dave Rodgers involved

( stahting the fourth service water pump. The starting of the fourth pump did not prove to be critical as only two are required by the safety analysis to ensure adequate cooling for the EDGs.

The failure to start the pump was reviewed during the critique and no further training is required.

The SROs were counseled to sicw down when directing the crew in the EOP network. They cannot skip substeps and should complete all RNO columns regardless of it's applicability. The crew was briefed on allowing the PORV to cycle during an Emergency Boration.

Crew communications and Teamwork was excellent. Areas that were noted that would enhance team performance include; closed loop communications at all times in both directions, team members made aware of the need to monitor status trees when E-O is exited, anc proper annunciation / evacuation announcements made during emergency situations.

Team diagnostic skills vere excellent. The only alarm missed was L an air ejector alarm on the tube rupture. The overhead annunciator was already in alarm from the earlier LOCA. The crew l immediately noted the RMS alarm when the main stack alarmed.

1 i

Page 4 of 8 w __

4 The RO's effectively manipulated the controls during the exam.

The only problem noted was the stabilization of plant parameters after the drop rod. This delayed the drop rod recovery by 5 minutes; however, this had minimal inpact on overall operations.

The BOP operators should be a little more aggress",e when restoring SG 1evels to ensure an adequate heat sink.

Overall the crew operated well together. Excellent diagnostic and coordination skills were displayed at all times.

OVERALL CREW EVALUATION - CREW B

't - SCO M - RO Crew B was evaluated by the CY staff to be safe. All team / time dependent tasks were accomplished except for emergency boration during the steam line break accident. This task was not directed by the SCO in charge of the shift. E-0, step 18, was skipped by the SCO. The net result we have concluded that the shift never had the opportunity to input in this decision and this decision was soley made by the SCO. Based on this fact alone, the SCO 6 failed the simulator exam because of failing an ISCT which could have effected the health and safety of the public. Ttce SCO thought that he was in a loss off coolant accident and that no emergency boration was required by the procedure. The crew had some difficulty when the SS performed as the SCO.

When the crew was in the normal watchstanding positions, the crew

= demonstrated good teamwork, diagnostic, and communications skills.

Crew communications and teamwork was above average. Areas that were noted that would enhance team performance include: closed loop communications at all times in both directions, team members should be made aware of the need to monitor statos trees when leaving E-0, and concise announcements made during emergency situations.

Team diagnostic skills were good. However, once the diagnostics were made they weren't always communicated properly or acknowledged. The crew properly diagnosed steam line break; however, the SCO was thinking LOCA and made key decisions accordingly.

The RO's effectively manipulated the controls during the exam.

The borad operators were counseled on doing their immediate operator actions without delay. These actions include starting the fourth car f an and service water pump, and starting both l charging pumps. The BOPS were counseled on not initially feeding I the SGs so heavy on unit trip.

Page 5 oi 8

On the steam line break accident, this cooled down and depressurized the plant belov the RCP trip criteria.

Overall the crew works well together. With additional practice by the SS in the SCO position, overall crew performance will increase.

OVERALL CREW EVALUATION - TECH STAFF CREW B

- SRO i - SRO

- SRO

- SRO All staff crew members were evaluated by the CY Staff to be safe, competent operators. All team dependent / time dependent critical tasks were successfully completed. All ISCT's were successfully completed except one. The ISCT in the second scenario involving Tech Spec implementation was started but never completed because of higher priority problems such as EPLAN upgrade and loss of service and circ water which resulted in unit rip and disabling the EDGs.

Crew communications and teamwork was excellent. Very few areas were noted for improvement. Closed loop communications at all times should be practiced in both directions.

Team diagnostic skills were excellent. The only mis &.ake involved

, over quantifying the primary leak. The leak rate was estimated at i twice it's actual magnitude. This resulted in the conservative action of manual trip. M while balance of plant operator spent too much time observing key parameters on the CRT

~

and missed the feed water flow transmitter failure for 16 minutes.

dnce noticed, the problem was quickly identified and properly handled.

The SRO's ef fectively manipulated the controls during the exams.

There were minor problems encountered during the Blackout scenario when single line two transformer operations were attempted and when the off-site line was recovered. These problems were corrected by the operator M ) and power was recovered to the plant.

The Tech Staff used procedures properly throughout the exam. On the loss of vacuum scenario the SCO M initially had difficulty finding the AOP. EEEER was extremely nervous; however, ne calmed down and properly went through the EOP network on the Reactor Trip. and M did an excellent job on complex scenarios. could have set better priorities and protected the diesels on a loss of service water; however,EEEE was trying to conserve DWST inventory. M was a little reluctant to restart a second charging pump af ter depressurizing during the SGTR event.

Page 6 of 8 l - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Overall the crew operated well together. Excellent diagnostics and coordination skills were displayed at all times.

8. WRITTEN EXAM ASSESSMENTS The written exam results are enclosed as attachrent 64.

The following weak areas were noted on the written exams:

• Training is needed on the MODCOMP calorimetric program.

This will be incorporated into the next simulator cycle.

• Training is needed on the Steam Generator Level Control System. This will be covered in November cycle.

• Training is needed on RPS trip signals. This review will be covered as part of RPS upgrade during PDCR training.

Additionally, the LSSS will be covered as part of Standard Spec Training.

• Training is needed'on RCP shaft shear. A demonstration exercise has been built into the November simulator training cycle.

• Crews still appear weak on EOP rules of usage. Increased emphasis will be placed on this area during simulator training sessions. Additional exam bank questions will.be developed to further evaluate this area.

)

• Rod control system will be reviewed as part of the RPS upgrade. Pressure compensation will be removed. The rod speed signal inputs will be trained on at this time.

l l

l l

l

)

Page 7 of 8

(,

HADDAM NECK REQUALIFICATION EXAM MAY 1, 1989 - MAY 5, 1989

9. EXAMINATION

SUMMARY

Results Facility Evaluators SIMULATOR: 3 crews passed .

5/1/89 & 5/2/89 11 individuals passed 1 inclividual f ailed (SRO)

PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 11 individuals passed 5/2 & 5/3/89 1 Individual Failed (SRO) mummmmmmmmmmmmmmmma WRITTEN: 11 individwtr. pa;ssed 5/4/89 .1 individual failed (RO)

OVERALL: 9 individuals passed 3 individuals failed 's i

)

l Page 8 of 8 N_. - - _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __. _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

,