IR 05000263/1997004

Insp Rept 50-263/97-04 on 970310-14.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Review of Training Administrative Procedures,Operating Exam Matl,Observation & Operating Exam, & Assessment of Simulator Fidelity

ML20137V889
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/14/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137V872	List: IR 05000263/1997004 ML20137V865
References
50-263-97-04, 50-263-97-4, NUDOCS 9704170441
Download: ML20137V889 (10)

Text

_ . . _ . . - . _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ .

__ _ - _ . . . _ . - . - . _ . - . _ . . . . .__ . _ . . - _ . . . _ . . . ~ . .

.

,

t

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION lli I

Docket No: 50-263

License No: DPR-22

!

l l

Report No: 30-263/97004(DRS) j

! l l

Licensee: Northern States Power Company l Facility: Monticello Nuclear Generating Station

L 3 Location: 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 i i

Dates: March 10 - 14,1997 l

l Inspectora: M. Bielby, Rlli inspector ,

D. McNeil, Rlli inspector '

i Approvd by: M. Bielby, Acting Chief Operator Licensing Branch I

9704170441 970414 PDR ADOCK 05000263 G PDR

T 1 e

,

!

t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Monticello Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 NRC Inspection Report 50-263/97004  ;

i This inspection report contains the findings and conclusions regarding the licensed .

operator requalification training program inspection. The inspection included a review of l training administrative procedures, and operating examination material, observation and !

evaluation of operator performance and licensee evaluators during a requalification i operating examination, an assessment of simulator fidelity, an evaluation of program j controls to assure a systems approach to training, and a review of requalification training i records. Additionally, observation of control room activities, including a shift turnover and briefing, was conducte l The inspectors used the guidance in inspection procedures (IP) 71001 and 7170 Operations

)

Licensed operator requalification programs were implemented in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55 requirement Examination material was determined to be a program strength. All portions of the annual requalification examination were judged to be effective tools for determining operator weaknesse Licensee controls to revise the licensed operator requalification training program were satisfactor Facility control room operators demonstrated good attentiveness to the operating panels and maintained a business decoru Operating crew performance during dynamic scenario examinations was i.lentified as a significant weakness. Weak communications, poor command and control, and some lack of knowledge by individual crew members contributed to unsatisfactory evaluations of the crew and individuals in two scenario i

.- . . . ._ _ .. - _ . . -

._

. _ . . _ ._, _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ___ _ _ . _ _ . .

? . 4 f

I'

• Report Details e

!

i. Operations

l

,

01 Conduct of Operations

' Insoection Scone (71707)

,

l The inspectors observed routine control room activities durir.g full power plant i operation, attended a mid-shift to day-shift licensed operator turnover and crew

! briefing, performed panel walk-downs, reviewed the control room log and

{ questioned operators about plant and equipment status.

', Observations and Findinas

l The conduct of licensed control room operators was professional. The inspectors noticed good attentiveness to control room panels and indications. During shift .

'

j turnover, each operator performed front and bact:pnel walk-downs with their relief.

Face to face and phone communications were consistently good. The control room

! noise level was minimized and no annunciators were left in a prolonged alarm stat ,

J The operators were knowledgeable of tags on control room panels, plant conditions, !

} and equipment status when questioned by the inspectors.

! 05 Operator Training and Qualification 1 '

,

05.1 Oneratina Historv

{ jDA99ction Scone (71001)

i The inspectors reviewed the following documents to assess the licensed operator

{ requalification training program's effectiveness regarding operator performance:

e SALP Report No. 50-263/96001.

!

e initial license operator examination report (50-263/OL-96-01) and licensed

operator requalification training report (50-263/95004).

e Resident inspector observations and reports covering the time frame of i January 1996 to February 199 !

)

e Licensee event reports covering the time frame of January 1996 to February i 199 I I Dhagrvations and Findinas  !

The inspectors determined that no patterns existed that were attributable to ineffective training. The training program provided operators with the skills necessary to safely operate the Monticello reactor facilit . - . - _ _ - - _ . - - _ - - - - . - . . - . - - - - - - - - - - -

.

i i8 f

j 05.2 Raoualification Examinations

l a. Insnaction Scone (71001)

!

'

The inspectors reviewed the following using IP 71001, Appendix A checklists, to assess the licensee's examination material quality and content: l 1 o Sample plan prepared for the current annual requalification operating l

examinations, e Current annual requalification operating examinations.

o Biennial comprehensive written examinations from the previous annual

requalification examination.

j b. Observations and Findinas I The inspectors reviewed the sample plan, and the first five weeks of operating

! examination material administered during the current annual requalification

examination, and the entire six weeks of written examination material administered

! during the previous annual requalification examination.

The examination material conteined the necessary quantitative and qualitative

attributes to provide an effective evaluation of operator skills. The written j examination questions were of good quality and were written to the appropriate i

! difficJty level. A majority of the open reference questions were higher cognitive

! knowledge level questions. The static examination questions made good use of the j simulator as a reference. Less than ten percent of the questions were repeated  ;

i from week to week, and one hundred percent of the questions were new or  !

significantly modified from the previous examination cycle. The dynamic scenarios l were challenging and provided ampic opportunity to evaluate the crew and j individuals based on critical tasks and competencies. The inspectors noted that j shift supervisory personnel initially started the scenario outside the simulator until i

called in for assistance during a plant transient, which resembles actual operating j conditions in the plant. The job performance measures (JPMs) were considered good. Both the JPMs and dynamic scenarios had appropriate steps identified as critical. Furthermore, they clearly identified and incorporated PRA elements in the selection process. The operating examinations administered each week during this requalification cycle were prepared such that each examination item was used onc .3 Reaualification Examination Administration Practices a. Insoection Scoos (71001)

The inspectors performed the following to assess the licensee's policies and i practices regarding requalification examination administration, simulator fidelity and examination security:

!

- - - -- . - - . - - . - - . - - - - - - . - - - . - _ -

i .-

'

,

a f

$

e Observed the performance of, and evaluated, one shift operating crew during ;

'

week five of the current annual requalification operating examinatio l

?

e Observed simulator performance and reviewed the fidelity lo e inspected the examination preparation and storage room, and reviewed the

, administrative procedure for examination securit i

!

Observations and Findinas

i

'

The inspectors observed the licensee evaluate operating crew performance during  ;

two dynamic simulator scenarios. The licensee identified unsatisfactory .

i performance of both the crew and three individuals. The licensee also identified ^

unsatisfactory performance of an RO on JPMs during week five, and an SRO on a i dynamic scenario in a previous examination wee l The first scenario was a station blackout followed by a recirculation line break in the drywell. The shift manager / shift technical assistant (SM/STA) did not remain in a position of command and control because he provided oversight and assistance to  ;

an RO who was attempting to start the only available emergency diesel generato i A combination of poor diagnosis, inappropriately directing the securing of a source of injection, and coordination of emergency operating precedure (EOP) actions by I the shift supervisor (SS) allowed reactor water level (RWL) to needlessly go below top of active fuel. As a result, the crew, SM/STA and SS performances were evaluated as unsatisfactory by the license )

i The second scenario was a loss of rod position indication with anticipated transient l without scram. The SS demonstrated poor command and control, and poor  ;

communication of EOP actions to the crew. Although the SS correctly directed a I step from the EOPs for terminating and preventing all injection to the reactor, one

' of the panel RO's initiated feedwater to control RWL. This resulted in the crew, SS and RO being evaluated as unsatisfactory by the licensee. The other panel RO was evaluated as a pass with remediation for poor prioritization of rod insertion method The inspectors reviewed the final licensee written evaluations, and concurred with the licensee's grading. Critical tasks and competencies used by the licensee evaluators to grade the crew and individuals met the criteria contained in the licensee's administrative training procedure No new simulator performance or fidelity issues were identified during the inspectors' observation of the operating examination. See enclosed Attachment 1, Simulation Facility Report. The licensee's simulator Deficiency Reports and Condition Reports were properly prioritized and addressed in a timely manner. A i continuous review and upgrade program was utilized to address immediate and long range improvement initiative !

-. .- - . - . - - . . - . - _ _ . - - . - - . . .-.---.-.-.--- - .- -

,

, ,

(

i i i Good examination security was observed throughout the examination l administratio '

i s

'

05.4 Reamalification Trainina Pronram Faadhaelr Swatam

4 i Inanection Scona (71001)

!

.

The inspectors performed the following to assess the licensee's training program feedback system effectiveness:

e Reviewed operator feedback.

l' e Interviewed licensee personnel (operators, instructors, training management).

, ,

j e Reviewed licenses conducted requalification training program audits (AG !

1996-0-3 for 7/1/96-9/30/96, and AG 1996-0-4 for 10/1/96-12/31/96). l I

j i Ohaarvations and Findinna l

! l The inspectors determined that the feedback process was effectively implemente l The licensee assessed the identified individual operator and crew weaknesses, l

operator training requests, plant and industry events. Based on those assessments i

training material was selected for the upcoming training cycle during the periodic ;

meetings of the Ope, rations Training Assessment Committee (OTAC). The licensee l i had a satisfactory tracking program to incorporate changes to the examination bank l l

material when procedure changes or modifications were implemented by the plan j l The progi.am was current, up to date and flexible enough to incorporate emerging l j training issue i

l 05.5 Remedial Trainina Proaram

2 Insnection Scone (71001)

J

'

The inspectors performed the following to assess the licensee's remedi. training program effectiverwss:

e Reviewed individual operator and crew performance evaluations for the five completed examination week e Reviewed the remediation training plans for unsatisfactory operator performance for the five completed examination week e Interviewed licensee personnel (licensed operators, instructors / evaluators, and supervisors).

6 I

'

J

, . . - - - -

-. - --- . - . ._ - - .- - ._. - - .- -. .- -.---- .-.-

.

i

} Ohaarvations and Findinns

}

! The inspectors ecluded that the remediation plans addressed individual and crew performance weaknesses.' The development of remediction plans included a

comprehensive root cause analysis for past individual pi,dormance weaknesses and i possible programmatic breakdown. The licensee's coot cause analysis was not

reflected in the current administrative training procedure, but a new training

I procedure MTCP-03.32, "Requalification Examination Control" in the final approval process did contain the requirement for the remediation progra .6 Conformance With Ooarator Ucense Conditions Insoection Scone (71001)

The inspectors reviewed the following documents to assess the facility and operator licensaas' compliance with 10 CFR 55.53 license condition requirements:

e Licensed operator requalWcation training record e Ten licensed operator medic.18 rvcord .Qbaarvations and Findinas The inspectors concluded that the licensee satisfied the requalification attendance requirements from January 1996 through March 1997, and were in compliance with 10 CFR 55.53 for maintaining active licenses. The ten licensed operator medical records were in compliance with 10 CFR 55.21 for physical examination i 05.7 Conclusions on Onorator Trainina and nn.iification I l

The inspectors concluded the following: l e The licensee's overall implementation of the licensed operator requalification i training program was in accordance with 10 CFR 55 requirement !

• The licensee had good quality annual requalification examination materia l e A continuous simulator review and upgrade program was in place to address immediate and long range simulator improvement initiative e The licensee has adequate controls in place to revise the licensed operator requalification training program based on licensee audits, industry and plant events, system and procedure modifications, and operator feedbac l e The licensee's administration of the remedial training program and i subsequent reexamination of operators was considered sufficient to address j observed "formance deficiencie '

i i

_ , . _

. -

_ _ - _ -

0 I

.

! V. Management Meetings X1 Exit Meeting Summary

-

The inspectors presented the preliminary inspection results to members of licensee

management at the conclusion of the inspection on March 14,1997. The licensee j acknowledged the findings presente l

{ The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary. No proprietary information was identifie Attachment: Simulation Facility Report

l I

!

i j

!

I i

i

l l

i

!

l

. ._ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - - _ . - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

o  !

i i

l lJ t

i PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

3 B. Day, Training Manager D. Fousek, Senior Technical Instructor Operations W. Hill, Plant Manager

. P. Kissinger, Engineer Operations Training

M. Lechner, Acting General Superintendent Operations  !

K. Markling, Technical Instructor / Simulator Coordinator M. Mitchell, Senior Engineer Operations Training B. Sawatzke, Superintendent Training i 1

$ E

5

, A. Stone, Monticello Senior Resident inspector  ;

i

I' INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED  !

I

IP 71001: Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation IP 71707: Plant Operations l

l I

. . . . _ - . - - . ..

.

ES-501 7 Attachment 1 Enclosure 5 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Monticello Nuclear Generatina Station

'

Facility Docket N Operating Tests Administered on: March 11-13. 1997 i

This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further

,

verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b).

These observations do not affect NRC certification or a) proval of the simulation facility other than to provide information tlat may be used in future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observation While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed (if none, so state):

ITEM DESCRIPTION

'

None None

.

i i

A d

d l

'

.

i I I

Examiner Standards 14 of 24 Rev. 7. January 1993

.

,