ML20247B540

Exam Rept 50-285/OL-89-02 During Wks of 890410 & 17.Exam Results:One Senior Reactor Operator Failed Written Exam But Passed Walkthrough & Simulator Exam.All Other Individuals & Crew Passed All Other Exams

ML20247B540
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	05/10/1989
From:	Pellet J, Whittemore J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247B531	List: ML20247B525 ML20247B540
References
50-285-OL-89-02, 50-285-OL-89-2, NUDOCS 8905240157
Download: ML20247B540 (6)

Text

_- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _

L APPENDIX t

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION REGION IV NRC Operator Licensing Exam Report:

50-285/0L89-02 Operating License:

DPR-40 Docket: 50-285 Licensee: Omaha Public Power District (OPPD)

Facility Name:

FortCalhounStation(FCS)

Examination at:

Fort Calhoun Station, Fort Calhoun, NE Combustion Engineering (CE), Windsor, Connecticut Examination conducted: Weeks of April 10 and April 17, 1989

/o!ff Chief Examiner:

6 J. E. Whittemore, Examiner Date Operator Licensing Section Division of Reactor Safety f//o h7 Approved:

h J. L. Pellet, Chief Date Operator Licensing Section Division of Reactor Safety Inspection Summary NRC Administered Examinations Conducted During The Weeks of April 10, 1989, and April. 17, 1989.

(Report 50-285/0L89-02)

NRC administered written, walk through, and simulator requalification examinations to a modified crew consisting of two reactor operators (R0s) and three senior reactor operators (SR0s) examination. One SR0 failed the written examination but passed the walk through and simulator examination.

All other individuals and the crew passed all other examinations.

8905240157 890510 PDR ADOCK 05000285 V

PDC

t

. DETAILS 1.

Persons Examined CREW SR0 R0 TOTAL Requalification Examinations:

Pass-1 2

2 4

Fail-0 1

0 1

2.

Examiners D. N. Graves J. L. Pellet J. E. Whittemore, Chief Examiner 3.

Examination Report Performance results for individual examinees are not included in this i

report as it will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and these results are not subject to public disclosure.

a.

Examination Material Development (1) The licensee began submitting developed material in November of 1988. NRC reviewers found continuing problems with new written examination items. The problems were discovered when comparing the developed items with NUREG 1021 ES-601, Attachment 11 checklist. The majority of the problems related to the low cognitive level of many of the items. That is, the items could be answered without analysis or evaluation but only recall or lookup of the required answer. The majority of the problems fell into two major categories, in that, the questions could be answered by simple recall of knowledge and comprehension level knowledge was not required to correctly answer the question, or it was aerely necessary to look up the correct answer and no decision making responsibility was required of the examinee.

(2) On December 28, 1988, Mr. C. D. Darrow of the FCS staff met with NRC personnel in Region IV to debrief on the written item deficiencies. Mr. J. E. Whittemore of the Region IV operator licensing section traveled to FCS during the week of January 9, 1989.

During this visit, FCS training department supervisory personnel were further briefed on the continuing deficiencies of the submitted written items.

During this same visit, minor problems on the walk through examination job performance measures were noted and discussed.

I

____.-__.._.____-________________m_

I

. t, 2 Examination Development (1) During the week of March 20, 1989, the Chief Examiner assembled the written examinations from items considered to be satisfactory.

The Chief Examiner traveled to the FCS site during the week of March 27, ~989.

During this period, the examinations were time validated by having the facility represt ntatives take the examinations, and subsequently sign preexamination security agreements.

After some modification of the examinations, the facility representatives and the Chief Examiner agreed on the final written examination varsions.

During this period, job performance measures (JPMs) were assembled into walk through examinations and simulator scenarios were selected and agreed to by the facility representatives and NRC.

(2) When examination assembly was complete, an additional facility evaluator and the designated clerical administrative assistant signed preexamination security agreements.

c.

Examination Administration (1) On April 11, 1989, written examination Sections "A" and "B" were administered to the R0's and SRO's separately in two back to back sessions with the group taking Section "A" located in the FCS control room mock up facility. After administration, the examinations were copied to facilitate NRC-facility licensee parallel grading. The NRC and facility representatives proctored these examinations.

(2) Walk through examinations were administered to the five licensed operators on April 12, 1989. Two different examinations were administered each containing five common JPMs. The NRC observed the facility evaluators administer these examinations.

(3) NRC observed and coevaluated the administration of simulator examinations to the five licensed operators on April 20, 1989, at the Windsor, Connecticut CE simulator facility. One CE instructor was used as a facility evaluator.

d.

Examination Results (1) One licensed SR0 failed the open book written examination. All candidates passed the walk through examinations. There were a total of six JPM failures among the cendidates. One JPM was failed all three times that it was administered. There were no critical performance errors observed during the administration of the simulator examinations.

l

1 i

h, L

?. i.

-;p ;

4 7

s

}

?

e.

Exit Meetings

+

(1) -An exit meeting was held at the FCS site at the conclusion of written and walk through examinations. The following personnel i

were present:

NRC OpPD P. Harrell D, Darrow J. Jaudon J. Fluehr J. Pellet J. Gasper T. Reis G. Gates J. Whittemore D. Mamoran G. Peterson C. Rennerfeldt J. Tesarek The following points were made at this exit:

(a) During the written examination, it was discovered that material ~needed by the operators was missing from one

' individual set and the common set of material.

(b).The operator failing the written examination as graded by the NRC was passed by the facility grading.

It appeared that the facility grading had not been in accordance with the facility supplied key and credit was given for answers not in the key.

(c) All five examinees had passed the walk through examination while failing a total of six JPM's. A common JPM was failed by three operators. The facility should determine if there is a problem with the JPM, a problem with the procedure supporting the JPM, or a weakness among the examinees.

(d) Training department personnel have been informed of all JPM technical problems discovered during walk through examinations. These problems should be corrected by procedure revision or JPM modification.

(e) The stated purpose of examinations administered under ES-601 of NUREG 1021 is to: assess individual performance,.

assess crew performance, and assess the licensee's ability to maintain the competence of, as well as, objectively evaluate the facility operators. Thus, pass / fail agreement is a point that must be considered in program evaluation.

.. l (f) The individual failing the written examination as graded by NRC must be removed from licensed duties and remediated in accordance with the facility licensee program before being returned to licensed duties. The NRC is required to 4

reexamine this individual within six months.

(g) The performance of the facility evaluators was good.

(h) FCS operating procedures are causing a problem, in that, they don't support verbatim :ompliance that is required of the operators. The procedure upgrade must continue to and past the point where it is not necessary to rely on the high experience level of the operators to overcome problems encountered with procedures.

(i) The licensed operators appear to feel detached from the procedures update process.

(2) An exit meeting was held at the Windsor, Connecticut Combustion Engineering Facility at the conclusion of simulator examination administration.

The following personnel were present:

NRC OPPD D. Graves J. Adams J. Jaudon J. Gasper J. Pellet D. Mamoran J. Whittemore J. Tesarek The following points were made at this exit:

(a) The facility evaluators need to improve their methodology.

One evaluator seemed to focus entirely on the performance of the shift supervisor when he was responsible for evaluating both of the SR0 positions. The other evaluator functioned as the in plant and offsite individuals responding to and communicating with the control room during the simulated events. This extra burden proved to be a significant distraction from his assessment responsibilities.

(b) The regular operating crew demonstrated a need to improve face-to-face communications. The modified crew demonstrated a significant weakness in this area, Although no critical crew or individual critical tasks were omitted or performed improperly, there is a large potential for crew or individual examination failure in this area.

h_m-_--__m._-_

m

~

j

.2.,

6.'-

v 1

(c) One facility submitted scenario contained a critical step which was not, identified,'nor was there any evaluation criteria for the step. Adjustments were made to the l

scenario prior to administration.

(d) A contributory' reason for the present satisfactory assessment.

of your' program ~1s the higher. than average. experience level-of.the FCS licensed control room operators.

(e) NRC is still-too much ' evolved in-what the FCS training and other support organizations should be doing.

The pattern of occurrences indicates that the FCS licensed operator training program continues to.be driven by NRC -

identified problems and concerns.

(f) The standards for operator performance are high.

Superior performance cannot be realized without the licensee's

. commitment to support.the licensed operator in.the areas of improved training, objective. performance evaluation. and good operating procedures.

(g) The standards' for operator perfomance are high.

superior performance cannot be realized without the licensee's commitment to support the licensed operator in the. areas of improved training, objective performance evaluation, and good operating procedures.

- _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - -