IR 05000220/1991025
| ML17056B603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1991 |
| From: | Conte R, Sisco C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17056B602 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1021 50-220-91-25OL, NUDOCS 9201130082 | |
| Download: ML17056B603 (32) | |
Text
REPORT NO.:
FACILITY DOCKET NO.:
FACILITY LICENSE NO.:
LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
EXAMINATION DATES:
NRC EXAMINERS:
U. S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION 91-25(OL)
50-220 DPR - 63 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Unit
November 18 - 22, 1991 K. Mikkelsen, Pacific Northwest Lab B. Orton, Pacific Northwest Lab CHIEF EXAMINER:
Carl S sco, Operations Engineer Date APPROVED BY:
Richard J. Conte'hief BWR Section, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Date 9201130082 911231 PDR ADOCK 05000220 V
NRC EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-220/91"25(OL)
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Operating examinations were administered to seven ROs and eight SROs.
Written examinations were administered to seven ROs and 'six SROs.
These operators were composed of three crews, one staff crew, an operating crew, and the relief crew.
As graded by the NRC and facility staff, all operators passed all portions of the examinations.
The licensed operator requalification program is considered to be satisfactory based on the criteria established in Section 601 of the Examiners Standards.'he use of procedures, teamwork, and effective communications by the operators were generic strengths noted by the NRC.
The requalification program strengths noted by the NRC -were:
The facility evaluators ability to objectively evaluate licensed operators performance; Senior operations management involvement in the licensed operator training program by effectively communicating managements expectations to all licensed operators; and The facility training staffs implementation of the Individual Simulator Critical Task (ISCT) and Critical Step methodologies.
Minor enhancements were made to three plant. operating procedures during the examination development process.
DETAILS
'1. 0 INTRODUCTION
The NRC administered requalification examinations to 13 licensed operators (7 ROs and 6 SROs).
Two additional SROs were used in an RO capacity to
'omplete'he crew composition during the simulator examinations.-
The three crews consisted of a.staff crew, the relief crew, and an operating crew..
The examinations were conducted in accordance with NUREG-1021,
"Operator Licensing Examiners Standards,"
Revision 6.
The Job Performance Measures (JPM) portion of the examination was administered using Alternative B
methodology described in ES-603,
"Requalification Walk-through Examination," of NUREG-1021.
An entrance meeting was held with the licensee on November 5,
1991, during
'the on site preparation week.
The personnel contacted during the examination are identified in Attachment 1.
The facility submitted evaluation for this examination is Attachment 4.
2.0 RE UALIFICATION EXAMINATION RESULTS 2. 1 Individual Exami nati on Resul ts The following is a
summary o'f the individual examination results:
iNRC
'radin I(Written SRO Pass/Fail 6/0 RO Pass/Fa i 1 7/0 TOTAL Pass/Fail 13/0 I]*Simulator]
6/0 7/0 15/0 I/Walk-through 6/0 7/0 13/0
[Overall 6/0 7/0
. 13/0
"NOTE:
Two SROs were used in an RO capacity to complete the crew compositions.
( Facility Gradin I[Written SRO Pass/Fail 6/0 RO Pass/Fail 7/0 TOTAL Pass/Fail 13/0 I(*Simulator]
6/0 7/0 15/0 I
/ Wal k-through 6/0 7/0 13/0 (Overall 6/0 7/0 13/0
- NOTE:
Two SROs were used in an RO capacity to complete the crew compositions.
I'.2 Generic Stren ths The following is a
summary of the generic strengths noted during the
.
administration of the examinations.
The use of procedures, as well as transitioning between procedure groups was a generic strength noted during the simulator examinations.
F-Teamwork was demonstrated by effective communications and effective control room command function.
- Effective teamwork was demonstrated by the prompt reporting of plant changes to the shift management as well as shift management promptly informing the operating staff of plant changes'.
The facility evaluators'bility to objectively evaluate licensed operators performance during the simulator, JPM, and written examinations is a
requalification program strength.
The facility training staff's implementation of the Individual Simulator Critical Task ( ISCT) and Critical Step methodologies are a requali'fication program strength.
Senior operations management involvement in the licensed operator training program by effectively communicating management expectations to all licensed operators is a requalification program strength.
2.3 Generic Weaknesses No generic weaknesses were identified.
However; isolated instances of'ndividual weaknesses were noted by the NRC and facility examination team members.
3.0 RE UALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS 3.1 Examiner Standards Evaluation Criteria The licensee met the requalification program evaluation criteria contained in ES-601, Section C.2.b.
As a result, the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 licensed operator requalification program was determined to be satisfactory.
CRITERIA C.2.b.l.a.
The facility grading must be as conservative as the NRC
. grading on at least 90% of the pass/fail decisions for each'ection of the examination.
The facility gradi ng was in,100% agreement with the NRC grading.
'.2.b.
l.b.
At least 75% of all licensed operators pass the examination.
100% of the licensed operators passed the examination C.2.b. l.c.
No more than one-third of the crews evaluated fail the simulator examination.
100% of the crews passed the examination.
C.2.b.2.a.
The facility evaluators do not concur with the NRC evaluators on all unsatisfactory crew evaluations.
100% of the'rews passed the examination.
C.2.b.2.b.
The facility. failed to train and evaluate operators in all positions permitted by their individual licenses.
The facility trains and evaluates operators in all positions permitted by their license.
C.2.b.2.c.
More than one facility evaluator is determined to be unsatisfactory.
All facility evaluators were sati sfactory.
C.2.b.2.d..
A lack of administrative controls to preclude an SRO or
, RO with an inactive license to pe'rform licensed duties.
The faci lit'y has adequate controls to preclude inactive license holders from performing license duties.
C.2 '.2.e.
Post-examination changes to test items result in modifications or deletions of more than 10% of the questions on the written examination.
The were no -post-examination changes made to the written examinations.
C.2.b.2.f.
The facility's fai lure 'rate is excessive relative to the NRC's failure rate.
There was 100% agreement between the facility and NRC evaluators for all pass/fail decisions.,
3:2 Examination Pre aration The requalification examination was prepared on site the week of November 4, 1991.
The proposed JPMs and written examinations received minor wording changes to improve clarity.
The examination team prepared and validated one simulator scenario.
The proposed simulator scenario received minor changes during.the validation process to alter the success paths and clarify the. expected operator actions.
The static simulator scenarios required no changes.
3.3 Examination Administration The written examinations were administered using ES-602, "Requalification Written Examination."
The written examinations required no changes following administration of the examinations.
The examination test items are detailed in Attachment
~
4.0 PROCEDURE ENHANCEMENTS RESULTING FROM EXAMINATION PROCESS During the examination development, the following plant procedures were revised:
N1-0P-9,
"Nitrogen Inerting and, H2/02 Monitoring System":
The procedure was revised to clarify the containment venting criteria.
Nl-OP-14,
'he procedure was. revised to clarify that valve 80-118 be fully open.
Nl-OP-16,
"Feedwater System Booster Pump To Reactor":
The procedure was revised to clarify that both electric driven feedwater pumps flow control valves be placed in manual.
Nl-OP-30, "4.16KV,800V and 480V House Service":
The procedure was revised to clarify the synchronize key switch operation.
The facility took prompt corrective action to revise the procedures.
5.0 EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted November 22, 1991, at the facility training center.
Preliminary requalification program evaluation results were discussed.
Generic strengths of the examinees and the requalification program were discussed.
The examination team members discussed an observation'ade during the administration of the JPM examination.
The observation concerned a
possible misleading numbering scheme of the recently installed static battery chargers that may cause an operational error.
The facility stated the team's observation would be 'reviewed and the numbering scheme revised if appropriate.
Attachments:
1.
Persons Contacted 2.
Examination Items 3.
Simulation Facility Report 4.
Letter of December 5,
1991, "Evaluation Summary,"*Niagara Mohawk
ATTACHMENT 1 PERSONS CONTACTED Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration RE Sylvia, Executive Vice President (2)
S. Wilczek, Jr.,
Vice President Nuclear, Support ( 1)
K. Dahlberg, Plant, Manager Unit 1 ( 1) (2)
R. Tessier, Manager of Operations Unit 1 (1) (2)
R. Smith, Manager of Training (2)
R. Sanaker, General Supervisor, Ops Training Unit 1 ( 1) (2)
R. Slade, General Supervisor, Ops Training Unit 2 (2)
M. Meier, Training (1) (2)
. B. Bandla, Operations (1) (2).
B. Murtha, Operations (1) (2)
J.
Pavel, Site Licensing (2)
C. Roberts, PDCC Unit 1 (2)
M. Peterson,'raining ( 1)
B.
Wa 1 1 ace, Tra ining (1)
D. Morr, Training (1) (2)
T ~ 'tratton, Training (1)
U.
S. Nuclear Re viator Commission C. Sisco, Operations Engineer (1) (2)
K.
Mikkelsen, Pacific Northwest Lab ( 1)
B. Orton, Pacific Northwest Lab ( 1)
D. Prawdzi k, Idaho National Engineering Lab (1)
NOTES:
1) Denotes those present at entrance meeting 2) Denotes'hose present at exit meeting
SRO PART
"B'uestion
1
172 179 183 197 192 194 195
2 252
258 262 266
129 231 245 249 103
408 594
43
28 RO PART "B'I Question
1 109 172 179 183 197 192
26 2-224 252
258 262 266
129 231 245 249 103
408 594
43
'7
ATTACHMENT 2 EXAMINATION ITEMS SRO STATIC Question 455 995 456 457 458 461 462 463 464 538 529 246 4640 495
. 234 705 707 708 994 709 703 900 901 4641 628 4642 248 460 145 136 RO'TATIC Question 455 518 456 457 458 461, 462 463 464 538 529 246 4640 495 234-705 707 708 902 709 703 900 901 4641 628 4642 248 460 145
.136 JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURES 200-1-04 202-1-01 205-1-1 200-1-40 201-1"09 200-1-25 200-1-10 200-1-43 200-1-06 264-1-02 259-1-0-1 207-1-05 212-1-06 263-1-01 259-1-08 200-1-19 223-1-02 218-1-03 201-1-06 200-1-13
e
ATTACHMENT 3 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility License:
DPR - 63 Facility Docket No.
50-220 Operating Tests Administered on:
November 18, 19, 1991 During the conduct, of the simulator portion of the requalification examinations, the following items were "observed:
ITEM-NONE-DESCRIPTION
I
ATTACHMENT 4 NIAGARA MOHAWK LETTER OF OECEMBER 5, 1991,
"EVALUATION SUMMARY" (WITHOUT PERSONAL SCORES ATTACHMENT)
Y NlAGA A NMP-80089 NINE MILEPOINT NUCLEARTRAININGCENTER /RD 1 L 8OX 148/OSWEGO, NEW YORK 13126/TELEPHONE (315 ) 349 - 2P8P December 5,
1991 Mr. Thomas Regional Administrator Attn: Mr. Lee H. Bettenhausen Branch Chief United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
-
Dear Mr. Martin,
A 'Licensed Operator Requalification Examination was jointly administered at Nine Mile Point Unit One by the USNRC and the facility staff during the week of November 18, 1991.
Based upon the results of this examination, a program evaluation was conducted by the Training Department.
The summary of the evaluation is attached.
Sincerely, R. G. Smith Manager Training - Nuclear RGS/JS/dew Attachment
LICENSED OPERATOR REQUAL PROGRAM SELF-EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
II During the week of November 17, 1990, NRC monitored Requalification Examinations were administered at Nine Mile Point Unit One.
Thirteen individuals, comprising one control room, one relief and one staff crew, were examined.
One additional RO and one additional SRO participated during the simulator examination.
These two additional operators had been previously examined by the NRC, and the SRO was only utilized in the RO position during the simulator evaluation.
Results and open items for the exam are as follows:
All three control room teams were satisfactory Seven out of seven SROs passed the simulator evaluation Eight out of eight ROs passed the simulator evaluation All thirteen operators passed the walkthrough evaluation All thirteen operators passed the written examination All Program Evaluation Criteria were satisfied Licensed Operator Requalificahion is being conducted satisfactorily An evaluation of the position of the E.C.
Make-up Cross-tie valve needs to be performed Radioactive Release Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP-6) requirements for emergency depressurization needs to be re-assessed.
Nomenclature for equipment associated with recent Static Charger plant modification needs to be evaluated.
1.
EXAMINATION RESULTS:
RO PASS FAIL SRO PASS FAIL TOTAL PASS FAIL Simulator Walk-through Written Overall 8/0 7/0 7/0 8/0 7/0 6//0 6/0 7/0 15/0 13/0 13/0 15/0 I
Attachment 1 gives the grades, by candidate, for each section of the exam.
2.
PROGRAM EVALUATION:
The Nine Mile Point Unit One Requalification Program meets the criteria of ES-601 as follows:
a
~
b.
C.
d.
e.
100% of the operators passed the examination.
This exceeds the 75% required by C.2.b.(1)(b).
All control room crews were satisfactory, satisfying the requirements of C.2.b.(1)(c).
SROs are trained and evaluated in the RO and SRO positions.
By use of JPMs as a training and evaluation tool, SROs are trained and evaluated in panel operations as required by C.2.b.(2)(b).
Administrative Controls exist such that the requirements of 10CFR55.53 are adhered to as required by C.2.b.(2)(d).
No post examination changes or corrections were requested, thus meeting requirement C.2.b.(2)(e).
3.
SIMULATOR EVALUATION:
The following areas for improvement were. noted during the simulator portion of the examination.
These items will be addressed during future requalification training.
a.
Follow-up communications and repeat backs b.
EAL classification during an ATWS.
c.
Procedure use for injecting Raw Water to Core Spray d.
EVS system operation on loss of 162/172 MG sets.
e.
Secondary Containment Ventilation restoration following a spurious EVS actuation.
g ~
h.
RPV flooding establishment and maintenance Vocaliz'ation of 'execution and completion of SOPs.
Indications of a loss of Liquid Poison Pump.
4.
WALK-THROUGH EVALUATION:
The following areas for improvement were noted during the conduct of plant and simulator JPMs.
These items will be addressed during future requalification training.
a
~
Operation of recently installed Static Chargers b.
Sample flowpaths for H202 monitoring system.
c
~
Purpose for actions on establishing a Containment Spray
~Water seal with Reactor Building inaccessible.
In addition, areas for improvement in the development and administration of JPMs were noted.
These are as follows:
a.
JPM development STRICTLY in adherence and not above the scope of plant procedures.
f 5.
WRITTEN EXAMINATION:
The following is a
summary of areas for improvement noted from the grading of the written examinations.
These items will be addressed during future requalification training.
a.
Plant Operations Static Exam
~TO iC 461 Trip signals for Emergency Cooling Vent and drain valves 463 Purpose of Reactor Mode Switch position during an ATWS 709 ADS initiation Logic
\\
b.
Limits and Controls Exam uestion
~TO 1C 195 Tech.
Spec.
actions for two inop.
APRMs in same core quadrant.