ML20248H299
| ML20248H299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1989 |
| From: | Graves D, Pellet J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248H291 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-382-OL-89-02, 50-382-OL-89-2, NUDOCS 8910110259 | |
| Download: ML20248H299 (7) | |
Text
.
h*' "
}. . ,
$$he; 4 j, cy:
e
- 3. o
, . , 42 '
? WoJ . :t~. '- .
APPENDIX-r gr' J. 4 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. REGION IV: ,
LNRC Operator. Licensing Examination Report: 50-382/0L 89-02:
h^
- 0perating. License
- .NPF-38 u -
^ 5- E Docketh, 50-382'
., , ' Licensee: Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L) >
317 Baronne Street.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
' Facility Name: Waterford. Steam. Electric Station, Unit 3 (W3) ,
Examination at: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 1 >
Examination conducted: September.5-8, 1989 q
ChiefzExaminer: M - /e/v/ry D. N. Graves,.Ex~aminer D6te Operater Licensing Section ,
Division:of Reactor Safety
~. A'pproved: C) 1O/h6T J.' L. Pellet, Chief Date *-
Operator _ Licensing Section Division of Reactor Safety Summary' NRC Administered Requalification Examinations Conducted During-the Week of September 4, 1989 (Report 50-382/0L 89-07)
~NRC administered complete requalification examinations to six senior reactor operators (SRO) and six reactor operators (RO). One R0 Lq participated in the simulator crew' evaluation only. .One RO failed the written' examination. All other operators passed all portions of the examinations.
',. 89101102G9 891006 PDR ADOCK 05000382 V PDC
--" :2m _.-A . _ _ -
.i o .
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Examined CREW SR0 R0 TOTAL Requalification Examinations: Pass 3 6 5 11 Fail 0 0 1 1
- 2. Examiners D. N. Graves, Chief Examiner P. T. Isaksen F. S. Jagger
- 3. Examination Report Performance results for individual examinees are not included in this report since it will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and these results are not subject to public exposure,
- a. Examination Material Development The licensee submitted the requested developed examination material in early July 1989. The material submitted to the NRC included 350 written examination open reference questions,15 simulator scenarios, and 90 job performance measures (JPMs).
Review of the provided material noted several deficiencies, which are listed below. Facility representatives were informed of these deficiencies and attempted to correct as many as possible before examination administration.
(1) A number of the written examination questions did not meet the guidelines in NUREG 1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Section 601, pertaining to open reference question development. Several questions contained information that led the operator to the reference with no synthesis or analysis required by the operator. Several questions could be answered by simple recall of knowledge or finding the answer in a reference with no analysis of the situation or decisionmaking responsibility required.
(2) Many of the JPM questions were recall-level knowledge or provided infonnation in the question such that the examinee was not required to make any judgement or decision to answer the question. The questions associated with the JPMs should be written to the same standards as the written examination questions.
J r
(3) The performance standards for JPM steps were not specific enough. Several standards were listed for a given step, yet only one or two of the standards should have been identified as critical for satisfactory performance. Many steps of the JPMs were identified as critical steps although they were not I crucial to successful completion of the assigned task.
(4) The simulator scenarios submitted were poorly developed with regard to expected operator actions, evaluation standards, and identification of Individual Simulator Critical Tasks (ISCT), time critical tasks, and team dependent behavior.-
- b. Examination Development The facility representatives on the-examination development team were requested to assemble a written examination, wolkthrough examinations using JPMs. and simulator examinations from the material supplied NRC for use during the requalification evaluations.
The facility examination team members assenbling the examinations were brought under examination security at this time by signing the ES-601 security agreement form. Review of the proposed examination items indicated that four questions on the written examination had not been sent to NRC in the initial submittal of material . The examinations were compared to the facility provided sampling plan covering the requalification cycle and found to be.
in agreement.
During the week of August 14, 1989, one examiner reviewed the walkthrough examinations onsite by performing the JPMs on the simulator or simulating the tasks in the plant with a facility representative. A number of changes were made to the JPMs at
-this time with regard to the previously mentioned standards of performance, identification of critical steps, and questions.
One major procedure discrepancy was identified regarding the lineup of potable water to the instrument air compressors. The procedure had not been modified as of the examination week.
Two examiners were on site during the week of August 21, 1989, reviewing the final written examination, simulator scenario, and JPM development. JPM questions were in the process of being rewritten and reviewed. Agreement was reached regarding critical step identification in the JPMs. The written examination was finalized and time-validated. Extensive NRC involvement was required in developing adequate simulator scenarios for operator evaluation. Based on the initial scenarios submitted to NRC and the first rewrite of the scenarios, the facility scenario developers did not understand what was required regarding scenario content. <
I
. 'T .. ,.
At-the end of the week, the Chief Examiner met with the Operations Training Supervisor to inform him of the above problems in material development.
- c. Examination Administration (1) On September 5, 1989, the written examination was administered to 12 examinees. Six examinees were administered Category A, while the remaining six were administered Category B. The groups of examinees then exchanged rooms to complete the examination.
The facility licensee demonstrated a lack of attention to detail and coordination in preparation for the examinations.
The reference material for the written examination Category A had procedures copied incorrectly (every other sheet) and did not contain enough copies of the plant data book. The start of the static simulator portion of the written examination was delayed because of simulator problems.
The written examinations were copied, graded, and reviewed following completion by the examinees. On September 6, 1989, the facility licensee provided NRC with the results of their grading of the written examination. A comparison of facility grading with NRC grading indicated a 100 percent agreement with one R0 failing the written examination.
(2) The crew evaluations were performed on September 6, 1989, using a common set of simulator scenarios. The two crews not being evaluated were monitored and separated from each 4 other throughout the day to eliminate the possibility of examination compromise. A comparison of facility licensee grading with NRC grading indicated a 100 percent agreement in pass / fail recommendations with all crews passing the examination.
It was noted by NRC that the facility representatives had the same critique comments regarding different crew's communications even though performance was significantly i different from crew to crew. The facility evaluation of one scenario differed from NRC's evaluation with respect to communications and use of procedures. The facility evaluators made no negative coments during the critique despite several ,
instances of deficient conciunications and lack of use of procedures. This was brought to the facility evaluators' ,
attention following their critique and did not occur again. j l
1
- )
7 O .; -. : , .
5-(3) On September 7,:1989, the walkthrough portion of the evaluation was begun utilizing JPMs on the simulator. All tasks requiring the simulator were performed (five JPMs per.
examinett) with three examinees at a time performing'JPMs on the simulator. At the completion of the simulator JPMs, six examinees were administered the remainder of the examination
.(fivein-plantJPMseach). The examinees not being examined
- were monitored until the completion of their examination and then left the site.
(4)1 - On September 8,1989, the remaining examinees were administered five in-plant JPMs each to conclude their examinations. Following compilation of NRC examiner results, the facility evaluator results were received.
Again,100 percent agreement between facility evaluator and NRC evaluator pass / fail decisions ras achieved with all examinees passing the walkthrough portion of the examination.
- d. Examination Results One R0 ' failed the written examination. . All other examinees passed their requalification written examination.
Four examinees failed a total of five individual JPMs with two individuals failing two JPMs each. All examinees passed the JPM portion of the 'requalification examination.
No critical performance errors were observed during administration of the simulator examinations. One crew demonstrated communications and procedure usa noted in 3.c.(2) above.
ge deficiencies during However, all one scenario examinees and crewsas previously passed the simulator portion of the requalification examination,
- e. Site Visit Summary NRC met with the facility licensee staff to provide preliminary results and observations. Weaknesses noted during examination material review and examination development had been relayed to facility personnel throughout the development process and were noted again during the exit meeting.
The exit meeting was held on September 8, 1989, at the W3 Training Center. The following personnel were present:
NRC LP&L D. Graves J. McGaha P. Isaksen J. O'Hern F. Jagger W. Smith J. Pellet C. Toth v
.i ;
- s ..
a, p ,
y, c V. ,
'.~ The_ meeting was opened with NRC thanking the W3 staff for their cooperation in coordinating the arrangements for security and
' health physics / radiological protection nec'essary to provide -
' timely access to the plant when required.- It wss noted that the examination results were preliminary and subject to review by Region IV management. . The following items'were communicated to
_ the licensee staff as_ comments, observations, suggestions, or-deficiencies: 4 (1) Based'on the Observed individual and crew performances, and factoring in.the_ weaknesses observed during examination material development, the W3 requalification program meets the requirements for a satisfactory' evaluation.
(2) JPM questions did not meet the open-reference guidelines of NUREG 1021. " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards,"
Section 601.
(3) JPM text development was generally good. However, the specific standard for satisfactory completion of. critical steps was not identified in many instances. Many steps were
-initially identified as critical and changed to non-critical following review and discussion with NRC.
~
(4) Simulator scenarios were poorly developed with regard to.
expected operator actions standards for acceptable performance and identification of ISCTs. Not all scenarios initially identified time-critical required actions.
(5) Originally,'the scenario authors did not fully understand
'what.was required with regard to scenario content. NRC is presently much more confident in the licensee's ability to generate adequate scenarios in the future.
(6) The written examination material contain e,uert ons that were direct lookup type questions or gr inf ormation in the question that prevented requiring the or frator to comprehend and analyze information.
(7) A lack of coordination and attention to detail were indicated by the incomplete' reference material provided the examinees during the written examination. Procedure changes which should have been inserted into the simulator operating procedures had not been, this resulted in procedure changes being required during the performance of the JPMs. The' simulator was not ready to accommodate the written examination as scheduled because of a different training load in the computer; this caused the response of the machine to differ from the required examination response. A different individual was responsible for development
y ,
e ,
a.-
, . 2 _ *. :.,,
e', . , . .
<I pt ..
i - 7'-
h o of the written examination, the simulator scenarios,-and'the JPMs.
. The' licensee staff commented that during the 'next set of examina -
f:
[t .tions, a single ~ individual will supervise and coordinate'all areas
] . of examination development to minimize this problem.
(8) The facility evaluators'gave substantially the same critique comments to most crews although one crew exhibited communication weaknesses and deficient use of procedures.during one scenario.
(9) Valve PW9017A is not' required to' be opened during performance of-OP-901-004 in.accordance with the procedure.,which is' aligning-the potable water system to supply-the instrument air compressors.
This valve must be opened to obtain flow. All examinees observed this procedural deficiency and compensated for it during performance of that particular JPM. This procedure def_iciency had been.
identified several weeks earlier during the.JPM review.
(10) A valve not being lab'eled properly caused minor performance problems for the examinees with regard to equipment. location and identification.
~
-(11) Individuals taking the requalification examination will be mailed a letter from the NRC regional office with their
~
examination results. .,
(12) The examination' report regarding the requalification examinations and program evaluation will be generated as quickly as possible.
l l
l
_ _-___--_-____.. _-- _-___ _- E