IR 05000412/1990011
| ML20058P403 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1990 |
| From: | Eselgroth P, David Silk NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058P396 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1020 50-412-90-11OL, NUDOCS 9008170020 | |
| Download: ML20058P403 (29) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- ________-_-____..
> , , , ,- .. ..: 1 ,
e F
:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION REGION I i OPERATOR LICENSING REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
.
REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT-NO = 50-412/90-11(OL-RQ) FACILITY DOCKET-NOS. 50-412 FACILITY LICENSE N0. NPF-73 LICENSEE: Duquense Light Company } Post Office Box 4 , Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077 1 FACILITY: Beaver Valley. Unit-2 Power St'ation
;
EXAMINATIVN DATES: May 29 - June'7, 1990-
*
!
CHIEF EXAMINER: 'E David M. Silk, Senior Operations Engineer-7/hd Dat6- '
' APPROVED BY: 1 3/f//d Peter Eselgroth, Ghfef, PWR Section . .
D~te-a . Operations Brancg( Division of Reactor Safety l- SUMMARY: The licensed operator requalification training program was rated as , satisfactory. The evaluation was conducted,in accordance 'with Revision 5 to
.
NUREG-1020, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, ES-601, " Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations." Requalification' examinations-were administered to eleven senior reactor operators (SR0s) and five reactor , operators (R0s). The examinations were graded concurrently 'and. independently ' by the NRC and the facility training s.aff. As graded'by the NRCfand'the facility, 15 of 16 operators passed.all portions of the. examination,and three ,
.of four crews were evaluated as satisfactory during the dynamic simulator; '
examination. One SR0 was unsatisfactory during his performance in the dynamic' i simulator examination.
l
!
,
h8170020900010 V
-
ADOCK 0300041:2 PDC ,
.f
-
,e
.. __ _
,
*
o. ,
. ;
.. .:
..
J DETAILS' TYPE OF EXAMINATIONS: Requalification EXAMINATION RESULTS:- NRC. 3 R0 SRO TOTAL l Grading l Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail' l l l E 5/0 11/0 l u 16/_0 > l' Written Simulator
'l Walk-through l
E
5/0 5/0 10/1 11/0-15/1 16/0 1 E E E E l Overall l 5/0 l 10/1- l 15/1 l E E E E Facility l R0 3. SRO- l TOTAL- l Grading l Pass / Fail.l Pass /Fai.1 l Pass / Fail- 3 g. g g' -g ' l Written B 5/0 l 11/0 l 16/0 , E E u- l L l l Simulato_r l 5/0 l -10/1 3 15/1 I E E E l l Walk-through 5 5/0 l 11/0 l 16/0 t E E E l l Overal1 3 5/0 l-10/1 -l 15/1 5 E E E E ' 1.0 PERSONNEL CONTACTED DURING THE EXAMINATION / EVALUATION CHIEF EXAMINER AT SITE: ~ David M. Silk, Senior Operations Engineer (1,2,3,4,) l: 0THER NRC PERSONNEL: Robert Gallo, Chief, Operations Branch,.DRS (3) Peter Eselgroth, Chief PWR Section, 08, DRS (3)- l' Brian Hughes, Operations Engineer (3,4) Peter Wilson, Resident Inspector Keith Parkinson (Sonalysts',
(4) j (1,2,4,) :
Michael Stein (Sonalysts) (1,2,4) ! DUQUESNE LIGHT PERSONNEL: T. Bean, Simulator Instructor. (1,2,4) R. Brooks, Training SRO :(1,2)' T. Burns, Training Supervisor (3,4) T. Gillot,- JPM Evaluator
-
(1,2).
.
..,..i- -,e -
- - , . . .. ..
.
Duquesne Light Personnel Continued: D. Haser, SRO, Unit 2' Operations Representative (1,2,3,4) C. Kirschner, Quality Services Supervisor (4) T. Kuhar; Training SR0 (1,2,3,4) T. Noonan, General Manager Nuclear _0perations (4) J. Oliver, Training (1,2)- , L. Schad, Training Supervisor (1,2,4)' ' F. Schuster, Unit 2 Operations Manager' (1,2,3,4) ' D. Spoerry, Training Manager (3,4) J. Vassello, Director Licensing
.
(4) '
'
LEGEND:
(1) Participated in examination development t-(2) Participated in examination administration (3) Attended entrance meeting on March 28, 1990 (4) Attended exit meeting on June 7, 1990
2.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS Overall rating: Satisfactory , The program for licensed. operator requalification training at the Beaver Valley Unit 2 Power-Station was rated as satisfactory in accordance with , the criteria established in NUREG-1021,-ES-601. Those criteria.are: , a. A pass / fail decision agreement between the NRC and facility. grading-of 90% for she written and operating examinations. j
'
~
NRC and facility grading determined that all-sixteen operators
.
,
passed the written examination,'thus satisfying-criterion a. ! NRC and facility grading determined that the same fifteen =of sixteen operators passed the operating examination, thus also satisfying criterion a.
b. At least 75% of all operators. pass the examination.
NRC grading-is the only consideration for this criterion. Fifteen operators passed the examination overall,-thus meeting criterion b. ' c. Failure of no more than one crew during the simulator portion of the operating examination. [' t Again, NRC grading is the only consideration for this criterion. l ' Only one of-the four crews-was evaluated as ~ unsatisfactory during the simulator portion of the operating examination, thus meeting criterion c.
,
..
.
.
n ... .
.i , ,. '3 ,
.
3.0 DYNAMIC SIMULATOR EXAMINATION The following items were noted regarding the dynamic _ simulator portion of the operating examinations. This information is being provided to aid the' licensee in upgrading licensed operator and operator requalification training programs.
> While reviewing the scenarios during the pre-exam visit, it was determined that several scenarios were acceptable except for the absence of Technical Specifications (Tech Specs) items. In some scenarios there were no events that would test the operators! ability _ , to identify or implement an limiting condition of operation (LCO),
~
For example, in several scenarios Tech. Spec related equipment was- i tagged out of service but was included in the shift turnover,-thus. , not testing the operators' knowledge.of Tech Specs. .The licensee t incorporated the NRC comment and made the necessary modifications to.
the scenarios prior to examination administration.
During the scenarios the crews performed well except for 'the- * unsatisfactory crew. Crews demonstrated familiarity and understanding _ of controls and plant systems. _ Procedures were referenced and correctly ; implemented to mitigate casualty conditions. Crew communications were acceptable but there were instances of communications not being acknowledged by the receiving individual (s). ' The unsatisfactory crew was evaluated as such due to failure to com-plete an ISCT (Individual Simulator Critical Task) that required tripping an RCP with a failed seal within 30 minutes and due to poor
'
communications and crew interactions. T L t l The unsatisfactory individual was a. member of the unsatisfactory crew.
This individual failed to complete two ISCTs. OneLISCT: involved the l ability to properly align Train .B-SIS equipment while the other IS'T
-
l was an incorrect transition within the E0Ps.
The NRC noted that there wnee significant periods of time.at the ends of some. scenarios during which neither the crew nor any individuals ~ had to complete an ISCT as the scenario progressed to its termination point. If all designated ISCTs have' been completed and there is no need for further evaluation, the licensee could end'the scenario prior to reaching the termination point.
4.0 WRITTEN EXAMINATION
,
The following paragraphs contain' items'that were noted from-various phases .1 of the written examination. This information is being provided to aid the ? licensee in upgrading licensed. operator and operator requalification , training programs. !
,
' . -.; . ,. .- ,
:
!
'
During the p're-exam Lvisit th'e NRC noted that there were several
. ; questions-in Section A that belonged in?Section B. Section A examinations includes systems and integrated plant operations as well ~ -
as component and hardware oriented questions. The simulator 1s a useful reference for answering Section A questions. Section B -i examinations contain questions related to administrative, normal,
-abnormal and emergency procedures.- A simulator is not'needed to answer Section B questions. The licensee correctly categorized these-several questions prior to examination administration.
' Also during the-pre exam visit, the questioned the licensee's-method of assigning point values to. c..e questions. The licensee would average ,the SRO and R0 Knowledge _ and Ability's (K&A) importance. rating - for the question.and divide by two to obtain theLpoint value;for the i
. question. There was no factor in the assignment of points for time l required to answer the question. -As a result,,several questions a requiring significant time to complete were worth.less points than j other questions that were time validated for. shorter time periods._ l Since there is no definite guidance for the assignment of point *
values- for open-book requalification examination q'uestions of varying time validation, the point values of.the questions remained as originally designated by the licensee. However,~ consideration
~
.
,
should be given to avoiding the above situation for point value- ' assignments in the future.
Based on the grading of the written examinations, there were no indications:of-knowledge deficiencies.
5.0 PLANT WALK-THRU (JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURES) The following items were noted regarding:the JPM portion of the operating.
. examinations. This information -is being- providedito aid the~ licensee in ' ! upgrading licensed operator and operator requalification training l programs: E During the pre-examination visit, the NRC walked down and reviewed all of.the JPMs and questions. Only minor ' changes needed to- be made. i For example, when performing mitigating actions, the : licensee had. t i designated' verification actions as critical' steps when in'actuali_ty the critical step was to. start a piece of eouipment. ' Also, many JPM
-
questions had answers that included " Grader discretion required."
The NRC stated that the questions should be refined to elicit a specific response to'be able to evaluate an operator's knowledge.so that grader discretion was not required. Before the requalification-examination '
.
L commenced,. the licensee had modified the JPMs by eliminating the ?! extraneous critical steps and rewording questions to elicit specific ' responses.
During the JPM administration, the operators performed the JPMs well. No generic performance deficiencies were'noted and no overall knowledge weaknesses were observed from re'sponses to the~JPM questions.
, N i
- ... .. > ... .. ,
, .The facility' evaluators performed well over the two week ~ examination period. There were no' examples of improper prompting or cuing; Evaluator.t asked appropriate followup questions when necessary.
.! 6.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE AT EXIT MEETING ON JUNE 7,1990 ;
,
Appreciation was expressed for the cooperation of all those involvedJ in the exam process, esfecially the. facility team members. The examination was well , scheduled and. ran smoothly during the entire? process. NRC examiners, licensee evaluators and examinees were made aware o.f scheduling and reporting assignments.
lhe' names of the' unsatisfacto'yr crewJmembers .and unsatisfactory individualL were announced to the licensee and the reasons forl the' unsatisfactory
. evaluations, t
,.
The= NRC encouraged the licensee to reconsider its method of assigning-point values to the written examination questions.to' include. time as a i factor to achieve a better. balanced point distribution. . t The NRC commented on some procedure readers during simulator scenarios that exhibited a weakness in relating performance of procedural steps'
.
with actual plant conditions.
. 7.0 FACILITY COMMENTS The licensee stated its f,inal results for the operating examinations by' detailing which crew and individual were unsatisfactory and the bases.for i those evaluations. The licensee then stated the corrective actions it planned regarding the individual operators' involved. The unsatisfactory , individual would be removed from shift, retrained,: evaluated,and returned-to shift upon notification of the NRC. The unsatisfactory trew would not - L return to shif t as a crew and no more than two.of the individual crew
- members would be assigned to .the same crew. The unsatisfactory crew would be retrained and evaluated prior' to returning to shift as a crew.
'
-
Attachments: i 1. Examination Items j l 2. Licensee Report of the Requalification Examination ; L
' .
a N
,
S %
.
- _ _ ~ _ ,
,
"
\
, .-
s,- a n
-
ATTACHMENT 1 EXAMINATION ITE9S
'
l , j ' WRITTEN EXAMINATION i: I Week 12-L - RO: Section A Plant Proficiency FSE 1 (15.3. pts)- ' SRO: Section A Plant Proficiency ~FSE 1 (17.5 pts)
,
L
~
RO: Section A Plant Proficiency)FSE 27 (12.5 pts) SRO: Section A Plant Proficiency FSE 27 (12.5 pts) , , RO: Section B Limits and Controls'(24.6 pts)
}
[ (Question Bank Question #)- .
.
!
021 301 231 136 535 S49 069- 064-L 370 105 173 374 545' 440 321, j SRO: Section B Limits and Controls (23.6 pts) ;
(Question Bank-Question #)
413 426534 - 121 '473 .507. 361- 165 226 -308 301 064 370' 105- 173 l.
[ Week 23 i RO n - Section A Plant Proficiency FSE 4 (18.51 pts): * SRO: Section A Plant Proficiency FSE 41(18.5 pts) RO: Section A Plant Proficiency FSE-5 (20.6' pts) SRO Section A Plant Proficiency FSE 5 (20.3 pts) RO ' Section B ' Limits- and Con trols (26 pts):
(Question Bank Question 1#)-
.021 105 4511 454' 424 536 501--183 583 582 '396 441 322 568' 206 311-SRO: Section B Limits and Controls (23.3' pts)'
(Question Bank-Question #)
.121 105 451 430 424 '533 502 487
,
542 183- 583 582 310 568 -i
;
.t NOTE: FSE - Frozen Simulator. Examination
;
!
l f '.
[
l
<k U ;O i 1 h.
, -
. . _. _ _ - - - - - - _ -
1 , l is .- JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURES-2CR-OO7 ENERGIZE 4KV EMG. BUS l2AE WITH~OFFSITE POWER' 2CR-013. START THE "A" REACTOR COOLANT PUMP 2CR-018 VERIFY THE TRANSFER TO RECIRCULATION ~ PHASE : FLOWPATH ' 2CR-019 RESET ~THE SAFETY INJECTION SIGNAL' 2CR-020 TRANSFER FROM BYPASS TO MAIN. FEED. REGULATING- * VALVE , 2CR-021 FEEDING THE STEAM GENERATORS USING THE BYPASS FLOW CONTROL VALVES 2CR-023 PERFORM A HOT BUS TRANSFERL l 2CR-024 SYNCH. & LOAD DIESEL GENERATOR NO.1' 2CR-044 FILL SIS ACCUMULATOR A ! 2CR-049 SHUTDOWN OF. RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL ! 2CR-059 PERFORM ESF.CHECKLISTL FWI- ! 2CR-060 TRANSFER FROM HOT LEG TO COLD LEG RECIRCULATION ' 2CR-061L DRAIN SAFETY' INJECTION' ACCUMULATOR 2CR-062 . ESTABLISH RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM FLOW , 2CR-065 VENTING SAFETY INJECTION ACCUMULATOR 2CR-071 . DETERMINE IF-SI' SYSTEM SHOULD BE LOCKED OUT [' 2PL-OO4 RESET THE TERRY TURBINE TRIP;AND THROTTLE VALVE' 2PL-OO6 LOCALLY START THE NO. 1 EMERGENCY, DIESEL GENERATOR
- - 2PL-OO9 PLACE A REACTOR PROTECTION CHANNEL IN THE TRIPPED CONDITION
! ' 2PL-011 RACK IN A 4KV BUS BREAKER 2PL-012 RACK OUT A 4KV BUS BREAKER ( 2PL-010 SERVICE WATER SUPPLY TO~ AUXILIARY FEEDWATER' PUMP l SUCTION 2PL-021 SHUTDOWN UNINTERRUPTIBLE: POWER SUPPLY
[UPS*VITBS2-33 L 2PL-025 RE?UCE DC LOADS FOLLOWING,A: LOSS OF--ALL.AC 2PL-048 SAFCGUARDS TEST OF-FEEDWATER . ISOLATION 2PL-060 BACKLA SEAL WATER SUPPLY TO 25WS*P21A 2PL-061 TRANSFERRING POWER FOR 2RHS*MOV702A-
>
NOTE: CR - Control Room PL - Plant q SIMULATOR SCENARIOS
!
Drill 4 (2) Drill 6 (1,2) Drill 10 (2) Drill 16 (1) Drill 17 (1) ) NOTE: 1 - First week 2 - Second week I i
+
6 *
e.. . i
' ' -) ,
ATTACHMENT 2'. LICENSEE REPORT OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION
,
f
.
!
..I l
l
! !
,
,' '
.- O
..- .
' i, ,T.
- '
N'-eva -
.
,
-
'
'At3 Teephone (4m 393-8000 Nuclear Group p.o son 4
,
stuppmgport PA 15077 0004 June 29, 1990 i NG2VPN: 6261 l I I Mr. Robert M. Gallo, Chief
"
l Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission*
. Region 1 -
475 Allendale Road j King of, Prussia, PA 19406 ; i
!
References : Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-412, Licensed NPF,73 Licensed Operator Requalification Examination Report i Dear Mr. Callos
!
The' purpose of this letter is to provide the results of Duquesne ; Light Company's evaluation of the Licensed Operator Requalification l Examination conducted at Unit 2 the weeks of May 28 and June-4, 1990.' I A summary of che examination results is provided along with individual results foc each operator examined. These examination results indicate ]~ ' that the Beaver Valley Licensed Operator Requalification Program'.is satisfactory overall and that some operator retraining is needed,in l defined areas. i
..
We have taken necessary corrective actions based on the examination < results. The individual who failed one part of the-examination has been '
~
successfully upgraded and re-evaluated t,o be satisfactory (references NG2VPN: 6259 dated-June 26, 1990). Also the crew that failed to meet their expected performance level'ha> een successfully upgraded and re-evaluated to be satisfactory. In (dition,1a list of areas i needing general training emphasis is atta .ied, and is being used to enhance the operator retraining program. ! I In our view, the. revised examination process continues to work
.
'
well. .The NRC Examination Team interacted effectively with Beaver i Valley personnel to administer-the examination.
,
!
\
.- .
-
,
14 .. Robert M. Gallo-June 29,--1990 NG2VPN: 6261 Page 2 If there are any questions regarding our evaluati on'of the Director-Operations Training atexamination (412) 393-5751, or our corrective actions, p r. T. W. Burns.
( Nuclear Training Manager at or Mr. D. E. Spoerry, (412) 393-5710.
Very truly yours,
:
, J. D. Sieber JDS/pgs Vice President, Nuclear Enclosure cca T.'P. Noonan F. D. Schuster D. E. Spoerry T. W. Burns Central File (2)
'
.
% _,.n d ' ' . -
*, -_ e -
,
-
;-
- 1
,
.4. f +
,
f
.; ,...
,l
_
. . .
4p f, - J, .;
-
,
,
.;
_i p 1 Robert,MbGallo ,
,
,
l
. June =. 29,-.- 1990f ;
NG2VPN:: 6261-
'
]
--Page 2- *
t
.If:there are any questions regarding our evaluation of;the
'
_
-examination or'our corrective actions,;please contact Mrl T.;W.: Burns, ; -Director-Operations' Training at (412)-393-5751, or Mr.:D.:E. Spoerry,, !
Nuclear Training Manager at (412):393-5710.. ,d i
!
Very.truly'yours,. q
.-
.
; >
...
-
, j J.'D.SSieber j Vice President, Nuclear d
,
JDS/pgs [
' Enclosure:
,
ce s - T. P. Noonan ; F. D. Schuster' gi
.D. E.-Spoerry .l T. W. Burns Central File-(2) _
-
I
.
'
.
.
e
.J
'.
I ri i
k F
'
n!
-l ll i' ,
l J (
. . -
.. . . -
. . - . - - . , , , , ,
. -- -- -.. ,
, .. .
<
a a
[ ' 1 **-
i BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM.
MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7, 1990
~!
The following areas, although not necessarily' generic weaknesses, were identified as needing additional training emphases in the Licensed ! Operator Retraining Program.
, WRITTEN EXAM , Responding to a failed shut Main Steamline' Isolation Valve at ; panel. ,
-t Specific unit responsibilities during implementation of the _f Abnormal Operating Procedure for a f?ood. [
~
'
Emergency-Plan classification for a station blackout coincident - with a Red Path condition.
PLANT WALK-THROUGH EXAM
>
- RHS flow transmitters and indications
! i
,
=!
I l
-
,
SIMULATOR EXAM ,
-
Crew communications with NSS as procedure reader-Maintenance of Delta Flex within-limits during performance of'AOP 2.51 (Emergency Shutdown Procedure) Reacter Coolant Pump' Trip Criteria associated with cooling water
'
flow.
Control Room damper alignment during.CREBAPS initiation
.-.
_ _ _ . . ._ .
.= :.
* v, ,,
l BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2= REQUALIFICATION EXAM
'
MAY 28.1990 - JUNE 7,1990_
<
EXAMINATION SUMMAP.Y Results Facility Evaluators' SINULATORs.
5/31/90 2 Crews passed F. D. Schuster !
[
8 Individuals passed Unit 2 Operations Manager
-!
6/6/90 1 Crew passed 1 Crew failed L.-G. Schad.
7 Individuals passed Simulator ; l' Individual failed; Training Supervisor PLANT WALK-THROUCH 5/29/90 - 5/30/90 8' Individuals passed T. E. Kuhar-Licensed Operator 6/4/90 - 6/5/90 8 Individuals passed Training Supervisor R. J. Brooks Senior Nuclear l Operation. Instructor- ! T. Cillot , l Senior Nuclear i Operation: Instructor T. W. Bean Simulator Instructor ' i WRITTEN l 6/1/90 8 Individuals passed T. E. Kuhar, Licensed Operator 6/7/90 8 Individuals passed' Training Supervisor
.T. W. Bean-Simulator Instructor D. M. Haser Nuclear. Station Operating Supervisor I OVERALL: 15 Individuals passed 1 Individual failed' .
1 Crew failed i
, ,
w' >y - -, ". cr
. .. . .-. .. .. 'l l
s, ..- l l
,
BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM' MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7 -1990
.
NAME: A f
. i SIMULATOR: PASS.
, , ' PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 9/10. JPMS SATISFACTORY 20/20 QUESTIONS SATISFACTORY' ; i
.
WRITTEN: 97.9%.
>
t l
'
l t OVERALL: PASS
l-lu . I! r.
l
- .
l.
, y 1, 'r b
.-, - , , , - e-.- ,
. . - . .
t ,, ..-
, BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2< ; .REQUALIFICATION: EXAM MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7,'1990 NAME: B s
i SIMULATOR: PASe i
!
PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory 18/20 Questions Satisfactory WRITTEN: 96.0%
+
.
OVERALL: PASS s h
' \ -
e i l l l l
.
._ _ _ . _ . _ _ __ _ ._ _ __ _ , _. ..
,- . ,, .. . ,. ..-
I
, BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATIO;4 EXAM MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE _7,'1990 ,
)
,
-NAME: C SIMULATOR: PASS PLANT WALK-THROUGH 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory ,
20/20 Questions Satisfactory ;
!
l WRITTEN: 98.1%
OVERALL: PASS
; .
e
'
i
'
i
)
. .
, s,
,.
;-
'
. BEAVER VALLEY UN17 2 ;
'
,
.REQUALIFICIATION EXAM MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7, 1990
: N!ME s D l
SIMULATOR: PASS
!
l PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory ' 20/20 Questions Satisfactory
\
-i WRITTEN: 99.7% 1 i
:
-1
' OVERALL: PASS i i
e
, - ~ -... . , . . :. -
i, s.
BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2
'
REQUALIFICATION EXAtt ~- MAY 28,-1990'- JUNE 7, 1V40
,
NAME: E-SIMULATOR: PASS
!
PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 JPMS Satisifactory 18/20 Questions Satisfactory
,
.
WRITTEN: 98.9%
!
--
,
.
, OVERALL: PASS j l -1
1 i
* l
'
= ,
l I t I t-i ' i
, w , ,
__ _ . .. i
: .- . ; . . .,.
I'
~l_, 5 ,4. ,
BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 4
'
REQUALIFICATION EXAM
'MAY.28, 1990~- JUNE 7, 1990
:
NAME : F t
!
,
)
SIMULATOR: PASS
:
PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory 20/20 Questions Satisfactory WRITTEN: 100%
1 t
~
OVERALL: PASS q
'
.
.
l
. . - , _ , , , .
. ..-
v,< s.
. BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM-MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7, 1990'
NAME: G r SIMULATOR: PASS I
!
PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 JPMS Satisifactory 20/20 Questions Satisfactory WRITTEN: 100% OVERALL: PASS
;
i
't .
,.-. . -
(
<
v, < 1 s.
. BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM MAY.28, 1990 - JUNE 7, 1990 i l NAME: H SIMULATOR: PASS . , i PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory 20/20 Questions Satisfactory
,
, WRITTEN: 96.2% ! OVERALL: PASS t
!
'
. '!
') .
:
. .. .. - - . . . . -. . ._-
+
-
.
.,
+
i
,
..c-
!
BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7,.-1990- t i NAME: I
!
SIMULATOR: PASS / CREW FAILED i s i-PLANT WALK-THROUGH 8/10 JPMS Satisfactory , 19/20 Questions Satisfactory L WRITTEN: 94.4% {
' '..
?
i i OVERALL: PASS l * .,
;
. 4 -
'
;
.;
. d
'
t
. .
W
'
.
F b
. - , _ ., _ ,-. , . .
i
's , "r .., . . - 6
'
~ BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION_ EXAM MAY 28,'1990 - JUNE:7,.1990 -
NAME: J l SINULATOR: PASS / CREW FAILED j-i
-i PLANT WALK-THROUGH 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory 20/20 ' Questions Satisfactory i
WRITTEN: 99.17,
OVERALL: PASS j
*
.
I
_ _ _ _ .
.. .; .- .,-...6 !
, BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM
' MAY 28,1990 - JUNE 7,1990
-
~
NAME: K: i l i i i SIMULATOR: PASS / CREW FAILED'
!
l l PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 .JPMS Satisfactory- _l 20/20 Questions Satisfactory-i WRITTEN: 100% OVERALL: PASS t
!
-
'
,
h h
$
i
1
. . , , , .
s,. -t e BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM MAY 28, 1990 .iUNE 7, 1990
.
NAME: L
:
i
!
I SIMULATOR: FAIL / CREW FAILIED
: ?
l . PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 -JPNS Satisfactory i 20/20 Questions Satisfactory 4
!
i WRITTEN: -95.1% !
'
-,
l OVERALL: FAIL ' I ! I i
.
.
i !
-
i I
!
-
t
-
<
.
--. . , . -
s,.. s ' BEAVER. VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7, 1990 d-MAME: M SIMULAMR PASS PLANT WALK-THROUCH: 9/10 JPMS Satisfactory 19/20 Questions Satisfactory
.
WRITTEN: 92.2% OVERALL: PASS
* .
I
. . - . . .- - - .-- .
. .
~.,
!
.. . , - , ,
I
-
t,e. e, i
! ,
BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 -{ REQUALIFICATION EXAN ; MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7, 1990 l
,
:
NAME: N j i t
.
SIMULATOR: PASS
,.
!
PLANT WALK-THROUGH: 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory , 20/20 Questions Satisfactory * t
>
l WEs7EN: 92.1% * r OVERALL: PASS I t t
*
. v i
'
,
+
i l s
> - . . - -
! . ,, ,
6,ea s l l BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION EXAM MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7, 1990 NAME: 0 I l l SIMULATOR: PASS i j I v PLANT WALK-THROUGh 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory 19/20 Questions Satisfactory ,
!
I P f WRITTEN: 89.4%
>
l OVERALL: PASS I
.
l ? i
.
. ,, ,
- 4,oe s BEAVER VALLEY UNIT 2 REQUALIFICATION E2AM MAY 28, 1990 - JUNE 7, 1990 NAME: P SINULATOR: PASS PLANT WAIK-THROUGH: 10/10 JPMS Satisfactory 19/20 Questions Satisfactory WRITTEN: 90.1% OVERALL: PASS
*
.
.
,
, , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , ,, , , , . , . , , , , , .
}}