IR 05000354/1990006

Exam Rept 50-354/90-06OL on 900320-22.Exam Results:Two Out of Five Senior Reactor Operator Applicants Failed Exams & Licensee Submitted out-of-date Procedure

ML20055C626
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	05/16/1990
From:	Conte R, Walker T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20055C625	List: IR 05000354/1990006 ML20055C624
References
50-354-90-06OL, 50-354-90-6OL, NUDOCS 9005290143
Download: ML20055C626 (4)

Text

~

y,] ]

.a

'o U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I l OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT l

'

EXAMINATION REPORT NO.: 50-354/90-06 (OL)

FACILITY 00CKET NO..: 50-354

,

FACILITY LICENSE NO.: NPF-57  :

'

'

LICENSEE: Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station-EXAMINATION DATES: March 20 - 22, 1990 EXAMINERS: T. Walker, Sr. Operations Engineer '

C. Sisco, Sr. Operations Engineer R. Miller, Sonalysts H. Williams, Sr. Operations Engineer CHIEF EXAMINER: C7 l 7471 l[M 6//6/90 Tr icy Walker, Sr.00perations Engineer 'Da t(e ,

BWRSection, peratio s Branch, DRS >

/ j APPROVED BY: /u A/ Sfh/f' i g# Richard C Conte, Chief Da'te BWR Section, Operations Branch .

Division of Reactor Safety

'

'

, SUMMARY: Written examination and operating tests were administered to five senior reactor operator applicants. Four of the. applicants passed the written test and four passed the operating test. Two applicants did not pass the examinations. Overall, forty percent of the applicants did not pass the exami- ;

nations which reflected inadequate preparation on the part of the facility licensee and the candidates. During the operating portien of the exam, the examiners '

noted that housekeeping in the plant had improved over the last year. Several ;

of the facility comments on the written examination should have been, but were not identified during the pre-examination review. It appears that the pre-examination review performed by the facility was not thorough. Additionally, the licensee submitted an out-of-date procedure as a reference for one of the written examination comment .

!

,

<9005290143 900522 4 DR ADOCK O$00

s

w -c

'C.'

..

DETAILS 1.0 . INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The NRC examiners conducted this initial examination for five senior operator (SRO) applicants. The examinations were administered in accord-ance with NUREG 1021, " Examiner Standards (ES)" Revision 5, dated January 1,.1989. The results are summarized belo l SRO l Pass /Faill l .

l l Written 1 4/1 1 1 I I l Operating H 4/1 l J l l I I i l Overall- l 3/2 l l l l

. EXAMINATION RELATED FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS The following is a summary of generic strengths and deficiencies identified after grading the written and operating examinations. This

.information.is provided to aid the: licensee in upgrading--license and requalification training programs, No licensee reponse is require SRO STRENGTHS A. - Knowledge of hardware including operation, setpoints and trips- Knowledge of and ability to use Emergency Operating Procedures

. Knowledge of immediate operator actions required by abnormal procedures SRO WEAKNESSES . Knowledge of industrial safety practices in area of electrical compressed gas cylinder handling and fire protection alarm system-operation Knowledge of basic frisking requirements and methodology y

b-1 LU:

j- .- o l

[- _'O I

! , 3 f- Knowledge of the gaseous radweste system, including radiation moni-

, tors, isolation-signals and immediate operator actions for abnormal procedure OP-AB.ZZ-12 Knowledge of reactor pressure vessel water levei_ indications, set-points, and instrumentation.

i i Knowledge of operations department procedures for control of keys to i locked rooms and equipment. This weakness was identified during the F conduct of the operating tests, i Knowledge of procedural requirements for bypassing MSIV isolation signals. This weakness was noted during the conduct of the operating test *

,

By letter to the NRC dated March 22, 1990, the facility provided Revision 2 dated May 8, 1987 of OP.AB.ZZ-128 "Off-Gas System Malfunction" to support post-examination comments for question number 45. This procedure .

was out of date. The current revision was Revision 3 dated November 16, 1989, which was not provided with the materials for examination preparatio Of greater concern is the fact that the information provided in this procedure (Rev. 2) was inaccurate. The discussion section of the procedure listed a high hydrogen concentration off gas train isolation when, in fact no such isolation exists. None of the other reference material provided to the NRC for preparation of the examination, including drawings, lesson plans, and system operating procedures support the facility commen Based upon the information provided, it appears that operators, in this case, may have been trained with inaccurate informatio +

3.0 MANAGEMENT MEETING-EXIT 3.1 ATTENDEES U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T. Walker, Sr. Operations Engineer '

H. Williams, Sr. Operations Engineer T. Johnson, Sr. Resident Inspector S. Barr, Resident Inspector ,

'

pVBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY J.:Hagen, General Manager, Hope Creek G. Mecchi, Principal Operations Trainer W. Gott, Principal Hope Creek Operations Trainer R. Griffith, Hope Creek QA Manager D. Beckwith, Hope Creek Licensing Engineer B. O'Malley, Operating Engineer M. Sesok, Site Representative, Atlantic Electric

'

___

.. - _ __ _

.,

>

• ,

w t , !

I 3.2' SUMMARY COMMENTS-EXIT t NRC Comments

>

The exit meeting was held on site on Friday, March 23, 1990. During the exit, no generic strengths or weaknesses were identified because of the limited number of. exams, exam common areas, Land the status of the exam results.

l L All licensee personnel were cooperative. The simulator instructors

'

~ were particularly helpful in running the scenarios and making adjustments to accommodate the NRC prepared scenarios.

[ .. An improvement in housekeeping over last year was noted.in the plan In general .the reference material was presented to NRC in a care--

'

fully prepared manner which indicated improved licensee efforts in this area. Additional comments on.the reference material are included with the comment resolution section (Attachment 3).

The exam results were not discussed during-the exit meeting. The examiners stated every effort would be made to provide.the results in 30 day Attachments:.

' Senior Reactor Operator Written Examination and Answer Key Facility Comments on Written Examination after Facility Review-PSE&G letter to the NRC dated March 22, 1990 NRC Response.to Facility Comments Simulator Fidelity Report

.

'

y

.

,

-

F i

.