View source for B14287, Discusses Requalification Exams Administered to 15 NRC Licensed Operators During Wk of 920921.Root Cause Assessment Subj of NRC Insp of Training Program Conducted During Wk of 921102

{{Adams
| number = ML20127P584
| issue date = 11/20/1992
| title = Discusses Requalification Exams Administered to 15 NRC Licensed Operators During Wk of 920921.Root Cause Assessment Subj of NRC Insp of Training Program Conducted During Wk of 921102
| author name = Opeka J
| author affiliation = NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
| addressee name = Hodges M
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION &amp; ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
| docket = 05000245
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| document report number = B14287, NUDOCS 9212030011
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 3
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:o ~.
NdRTMEAST UYlLITII?S cene c%s . se sw een connecuca l             ,3 .       .o     su 4 . , ~ * ~
P O DOX 270 k       L FJ ! . m m. , T.-
7.
HARTF ORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 R03) 66s-5000 Nuvember 20, 1992 Docket No_, 50-?_4J lil41EL7 P,e : 10CFR55 l        Mr. Marvin W. Hodges Director, Division of Reactor Safety Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission 475 Al'endaie Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

==Dear Mr. Nodges:==

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. I 1992 li_c3.nsed_0pf. rat or Requali fication Examinat ions During the week of September 21                           1992   requalification examinations were cdministered to 15 Millstone bnit No. I NRC licensed operators. The results of this examination are that five licence holders, including one ccew, failed. Per NUREG 1021, Operator Licensing Examiner St adards, the m results constitute in unsatisfactory licensed Operator Requalification (LOP) ..aining Program rating for Mil isb : e Uni t No.1.
On October 7, 1992, in LOR exemination exit meeting was held with the Staff to discuss ths: final exa unation results. the reasons for failure, a.1d the status of various correct ive actions. The contents of the exit meeting' are described in your letter dated dovember 2, 1992.
* At the October 7,                     1992, mcc. t i ng , Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) attributed the root cause of the crew faiiJre to examination environment stress.
We stated that the stressful circumstances associated #;th the examination resulted in atypically poor ;erformance by one crew during one scenario. The resultant observed performance deficiencies included the shif t supervisor (SS) beha' ring passively, other than in his normal, aggressive style; the crew's failure to reassess p. ant conditions; a degradation in the interaction betwer the SS and the supervising control operator: and the control operator's inef fect he communication of reactor vessel level.
This root cause assessment was a subject of the NRC inspection of the Millstone Unit Nc      1 LOR Training Program conducted during the week of November 2,1992, and the topic of co1versation between you and the Millstore Unit No.1 Director.
(1)     M. W.      Hodges letter to J.              F. Opeka, "Requal i fic ation Examination and Program Evaluation Report 50                  c. '/92-23(0L)," dated November 2, 1992.
jpf%
h2030011                                                                                  /
V           ADocK921120    05000g4g PDR                                                             l 1
1 0

L a .
t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B14287/Page 2' November 20, 1992 Based on these interactions with the Staff, we find it appropriate to clarify the part which NNEC0 believes examination stress played in the failure of the crew, and the part which is attributable to knowledge and skills w3aknesses.
Examination stress was called out to te the root cause of the crew failure because absent this stress, NNECO believes that the crew we>uld have performed satisfactorily. Especially affected was the SSc upon whout the crew had come to overly rely for strong leadership, Had the SS performed as he does normally, we believe that he would have compensated for the errors maae, and the crew would have been succes*,ful. This NNEC0 position was documented in the' materials used at the exit mteting and it remains NNECO's position that ' is crew's performance               >
was anomalous for that reson.
What may not have been as clearly and explicitly documented and communicated is                !
NNECO's conclusion that knowledge and skills weaknesses were uncovered during the conduct of the failed scenario. .hese weakresses prevented the crew as a whole.
from compensating for the atypical parformance observed of the SS and, at times, other crew members. It is, and has been, NNECO's intention to correct these weaknesses, and others which have been identified, in both an individual and programmatic fashion. Aggressive actions are under way in this regard. These actions will be the focus of our planned discussicn with the Staff to take place               ,
on Decuber 3, 1992.
Wa regret that we may have left the Staff with the impression that examination stress, and only examination stress, resulted in the crevs poor performance and the resulting unsatisfactory LOR Training Program rating.
L*e have come to uaderstand the Staff's perspective concerning the . role that stress did and did not play in the recent. poor examination resuitt We believe you will find our corrective actions responsive in .this regard.       We are fully committed to, and capable of, correcting. identified knowledge and' skills .                   ,
:          weaknesset, and strengthening our training programs and practices so that poor                 ;
examination performance is not repeated. Moreover, our primary objective. of                 J er,suring operator performance in the plant that malntains public health :and -
s.*ety remains sacrosanct.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss with you our plans for progranatic improvements..
F                                                       hry truly yours, NORTHEAST NOCLEAR ENERGY COMPNIY:
}
J. L~Lpeka U b (.-da/$t:-                         ,
Executive Vice President                         ;
cc:   See Page 3                                                                            '[
[                                                                                              '
M

r i
: U;S. Nucioar Regulatory Corrmission
                       - B14287/Page 3' November 20, 1992 cc:     T. T. Martin, Region I Administrator            _
J, W. Andersen, NRC Acting Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1.
P. D. Swetlano, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2,:
J                                   and 3 W. F. wane, Deputy Administrator, Region 1-R. J. Conte, Chief, BWR Section, Operations' Branch, Division of Reactor
                                                                                                                                           ~
Stfety, Region f t
1
                                                                                                                                                   'l i
I 6
i-d-
s                                      .-.
i.
                                                         ? l)
              ,; ,,              ,,            ,      ,       ,  , . . - _ _  ,              . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}