IR 05000261/1998300

NRC Operator Licensing Exam Rept 50-261/98-300 for Tests Administered on 980223-26.Exam Results:Out of Three SRO & Two RO Candidates,All Passed Written Exams Except One RO Candidate

ML20217G495
Person / Time
Site:	Robinson
Issue date:	03/26/1998
From:	Baldwin R, Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML14314A703	List: IR 05000261/1998300
References
50-261-98-300, NUDOCS 9804020368
Download: ML20217G495 (11)

Text

.. g

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-REGION'II Docket No.: 50-261 License No.: DPR-23 Report No.: 50-261/98-300 Licensee: Carolina Power & Light Company Facility: H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Location: 3581 West Entrance Road Hartsville. SC 29550 Dates: February 23-26. 1998 Exaniiners: * ##

Richard S. Baldwin. Chief. License Examiner Michael E. Ernstes. License Examiner Paul M. Steiner. License Examiner Approved by: ~

Thomat A. Feebles. Chie Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety 9804020368 980326 PDR. ADOCK 05000261

,

V PM

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant NRC Examination Report 50-261/98-300 During the period of February 23 - 26, 1998. NRC examiners conducted an announced operator licensing initial examination in accordance with the guidance of Examiner Standards. NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8. This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR 655.4 S55.43 and S55.45 Doerations

• Control room activities were observed during the examination validation week and examination administration wee The operators were found to be attentive and professional in their duties. (Section 01.1)

• The examiners identified discrepancies with one procedure. (Section 03.1)

• Two Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and three Reactor Operator (RO)

applicants received written and operating examinations. One SR0 applicant received an operating retake examination. (Section 05.1)

• The submitted written examination was acceptable with the exception of a limited number of written question distractors which lacked alausibility. The submitted operating examinations were acceptabl wever, five prescripted JPM cuestions contained incomplete answers, resulting in licensee generatec post-examination comments. (Section 05.2)

• The facility administered the written examination on February 27, 1998, and the NRC administered operating examinations February 23-26. 199 (Section 05.3)

• Applicant Pass / Fail Results SR0 R0 Total Percent Pass 3 2 5 83%

Fail 0 1 1 17%

• The examiners identified potential generic knowledge weaknesses, based on written examination evaluation, in the following areas: Technical Specification design of Spent Fuel Pool Reactivity, operator actions for seal failures, trip logic for S/G low level, adjustment of Power Range Nuclear Instruments during testing, reactivity control during reactor start up with both Source Range Nuclear Instruments failing, prediction of plant parameters following a Reactor Coolant Pump trip, effects of a safety valve failing open, basis for tripping the turbine following an ATWS, actions and basis for rod insertion limits following a turbine

. .

.

runback and boric acid addition following two stuck rod (Section 05.3)

e The examiners identified operating test generic performance weaknesses in the following areas: Subcooling Margin calculation, the use of plant curves to determine Emergency Diesel Generator Loading. and the prediction of plant response during nuclear instrument testing. (Section 05.3)

e The examiners identified generic strengths in the following areas:

communications and the use of plant announcement (Section 05.3)

e No violations or deviations were identified.

k

.

. .

.

Reoort Details Summary'of Plant Status During the period of the validation and examinations the unit was at 100'

percent powe I Doerations 01- Conduct of Operations 01.1 Control Room Observations During validation _and administration of the examination, the examiners observed the conduct of the operators in the control room. The R0s were attentive to evolutions in progress. The SR0s limited personnel access for official business. This contributed to a quiet, and professionally run control room. Operators adhered to communications standards and appeared attentive to evolutions in progres Operations Procedures and Documentation 03.1 Review of Ooerations Procedures Scope The examiners reviewed normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures during the examination development and administration for clarity. accuracy and ease of us Observations and Findinas The examiners observed operator license applicant performance utilizing licensee procedures. One procedure was identified as needing improvemen (1) EPRAD-03, " DOSE PROJECTIONS". Revision 3. Attachment 8.3. Attachment 8.3.5.5. requires the operator to evaluate the effectiveness of filtration systems in service. The attachment, as written, is confusing and did lead one applicant to determine that the filtration flow was not effective while it was effectiv Additionally, this procedure identifies a main steam line break as a main steam line rupture. This terminology is confusing and conflicting with termin31ogy_used in the Emergency Operating Procedure, Conclusion The licensee verbally committed to corrected this concern prior to the examiners leaving site.

..

'. .

.

05 Operator Training and Qualification 05.1 General Comments-NRC examiners conducted regular, announced operator licensing initial examinations during the period of February 23 - 26, 1998. NRC examiners administered examinations developed by members of the H. B. Robinson training staff in accordance with the guidelines of the Examiner Standards (ES). NUREG-1021 Interim Revision 8. Two SRO license-applicants and three R0 license applicants received written and operating examinations. One' SR0 license applicant received a retake operating examination onl '05.2 Pre-Examination Activities Scope The NRC reviewed the licensee's examination submittal using the criteria specifled for examination development delineated in NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8. This examination was the third initial examination-developed by the licensee used for the NRC's initial' operating licensing proces Observations and Findinas The licensee developed the R0 and SR0 written examination, three JPM sets, and five dynamic simulator scenarios. for use during the examination. All materials were submitted to the NRC on or before the pre-arranged deadlines. The NRC conducted an on-site preparation visit during the week of February 9.1998, to review and validate the examination. The training staff was very responsive to the NRC examiners' comments. The training staff met in the Region II offices to explain the examination submitta (1) Written Examination Development The initial submittal did not contain generic Knowledges and Abilities (K/As) for the Tier 1 and 2 groupings. The training staff reviewed this and modified the initial outline submitted to the _NRC prior to the deadline for the thirty day submittal. For the development of the sample plan the licensee utilized a newly acquired instructor that had no prior knowledge of the plants training history. This individual identified all K/As that were utilized on the last two NRC examinations and randomly selected topic-areas that were not covered previousl In general, the written examination was acceptable, however._ some

, of the distractors lacked plausibility. The NRC examiners proposed changes'to those distractors that did not meet requirements of NUREG-1021. Interim Revision Licensee response to examiner. changes and comments was prompt.

-

. .

.

The NRC examiners reviewed and validated the written examination prior to the preparation week. Although the examiners found many questions were of high quality, the NRC examiners ensured all questions provided the level of discrimination set forth in the Examiners Standards. The examination was validated to take hour The examination time.was pre-approved to allow the applicants 4.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> (2) Operating Test Development The NRC reviewed and validated all portions of the operating test on February 9 - 12, 1998. using the H. B. Robinson simulator and plant for the walkdown of the JPMs. In general, the JPMs were considered acceptable for applicant evaluation and at the appropriate level of difficulty. The NRC requested that a JPM developed for the systems portion of the examination be moved to the administrative portion of the examination where it was better suited. The NRC examiners determined that the Administrative portion of the examination contained direct look-up question These questions were re-written or replace The examiners considered the facility proposed simulator scenarios to be discriminating. The examiners worked with the training staff to re-arrange the as-written scenarios to place the required malfunctions prior to the major transient. This was done to ensure all required evolutions were observe The NRC received five post-examination comments concerning the prescripted JPM questions. One question was considered technically incorrect. One question was proposed to be s) lit into two questions in order to cover the question that was tecinically incorrect. Comments concerning three questions contained additional information for consideration when grading the applicants respons Conclusion The NRC concluded that the facility licensee's third effort at developing the NRC initial operator licensing examination was improved from last examination submitted. The NRC concluded that the sample plan development for this examination was acceptable, however, future sample plan submittals need to be more clear and scrutable. The NRC concluded that the answers to prescripted JPM question needed closer review in order to include necessary information to fully evaluate the applicants response. The NRC concluded that the submitted examination was above average for Region 11 facilitie ,

. ..

.

05.3 Examination Results-and Related Findinas. Observations. and Conclusions Scope The examiners reviewed the results of the written examination and evaluated the a-)plicants' use of plant procedures during simulator scenarios and J)Ms. The guidelines of NUREG-1021. Forms ES-303-3 and ES-303-4 " Competency Grading Worksheets for Integrated Plant Operations." were used as a basis for the operating test evaluation Observations and Findinas Five of six applicants passed the examination. Two of'the six applicants passed the examination but exhibited weaknesse The a)plicant that did not pass the written exhibited weaknesses on t1e administrative portion as well as on the JPM portion of the operating examinatio One applicant exhibited weaknesses on the administrative portion of the examinatio One applicant exhibited weaknesses on the JPM portion of the examinatio Detailed applicant performance comments have been transmitted under separate cover for licensee training department management review and to allow appropriate applicant remediation, as necessar Applicants were considered to have passed but exhibited weaknesses if they received an unsatisfactory grade on any one administrative topic area, completed only 80 percent of the JPMs successfully, or received a grade of 1.8 to 2.0 on any one competency during the dynamic simulator examinations. Applicants were considered to have passed the written examinations but exhibited weakness if they received a grade of 80 - 82 percen Written Examination The written examination was administered by the facility licensee on February 27. 1998, transmitted to the NRC in Region II. the next week and received March 5. 1998. The facility had no post-examination comments to the written examinatio The NRC's post-examination review of the written examiriation results identified seven SR0/R0 combined questions, one RO only question and two SR0 only questions that 50 percent or more of the applicants answered incorrectly. There are considered potential generic weaknesses and are being provided to the training staff for consideration and implementation into their Systematic Approach to Training based progra .

.. ..

.

5 Question Number Knowledge Weakness. Area

1. 5 R0/SR0 Technical Specification Spent Fuel Pool reactivity design. (3 R0s answered incorrectly)

1. 23 R0/SRO Operator Actions and basis for Reactor Coolant Pump seal failure. (2 R0s and 1 SRO answered incorrectly)

1. 43'R0/SRO Trip Logic for S/G low leve (3 R0s answered. incorrectly)

1. 56 R0/SR0 Adjustment of Power Range Nuclear Instruments IAW OST-010. (1 R0 and 2 SR0s-answered incorrectly)

1. 62 R0/SR0 Reactivity Control During Reactor Startup~

with both Source Range Nuclear Instruments failin (3 R0s and 2 SR0s answered incorrectly)

1. 67 R0/SR0 Steam Generator Pressure / Level / Loop 6T prediction following a Reactor Coolant Pump Trip. (2 R0s and 2 SR0s answered incorrectly)

1. 75 R0/SR0 Effects on plant parameters following a Steam Generator Safety Valve failing ope (3 R0s answered incorrectly)

1. 94 R0 only Basis for tripping the turbine following an ATWS (2 R0s answered incorrectly)

1. 82 SRO only Actions and basis for rod insertion limits following a turbine runbac (2 SR0s answered incorrectly)

1. 85 SRO only Boric Acid addition based on 2 stuck rod (2 SR0s answered incorrectly)

Ooeratina Test The operating test was administered during the period of February 23 -

26' 199 . Based on the examiners' post-examination review and discussion with the training staff. the NRC identified the following generic strengths and weaknesses:

Strenaths to .The applicants used good communications between crew applicants '

-and plant announcements. The applicants used 3-way communications

..

'. .

.

as delineated in plant procedures. The SR0 applicants. ensured detailed announcements to the plant during normal, as well as, abnormal evolutions and was considered excellen Weaknesses e Three of the applicants used Tavg for the calculation of

, subcooling margin vice Tho e Three of the applicants were not familiar with the Emergenc Diesel Generator Loading Figure 7.7 located in the plant curve boo e Three of the applicants were not familiar with the plant response during nuclear instrumentation testing resulting from out-of-sequence action c, Conclusion The examiners concluded that applicant performance on the written and operating tests was satisfactory with the exception of one applicant failing the written examination. The examiners concluded that there were potential generic weaknesses exhibited on the written examinatio V. Manaaement Meetinos X Exit Meeting Summary

'At the conclusion of the site visit, the examiners met with representatives of the plant staff listed on the following page to discuss the results of the examinations. The licensee's management representative provided no dissenting comment No proprietary information was identifie !.

.. - . .

.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee

'

LJ. Boska.' Manager. Operations-H. Chernoff. Supervisor. Licensing / Regulatory Programs T. Cleary. Manager.. Maintenance-J..Clements. Manager. Site Su) port Services J. Keenan. Vice President. Ro)inson Nuclear Plant R. Duncan Manager Robinson Engineering Support Services R. Moore. Manager. Outage Management J. Moyer. Manager. Robinson Plant-T. Natale. Acting Manager. Training D. Stoddard. Manager. Operating Experience Assessment R. Warden.-Manager. Nuclear Assessment Section-T.' Wilkerson, Manager., Regulatory. Affairs

-

D. Young. Director.-Site Operations EC B. Desai. Senior Resident Inspector ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Ooened NONE Closed NONE Discussed NONE

( !'

-__ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

'

. .

,

i

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED ATWS Anticipated Transient without Scram

.CFR Code of Federal Regulations i E0P Emergency Operating Procedure ES Examiner Standards i IAW In'accordance with K/A Knowledges and Abilities JPM Job Performance Measures ,

R0 Reactor Operator SRO Senior Reactor Operator S/G Steam Generator STAR Stop. Think, Act. Review TAVG Temperature Average

,

<

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _