IR 05000266/1999015
| ML20212J759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J745 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-99-15, 50-301-99-15, NUDOCS 9910050280 | |
| Download: ML20212J759 (14) | |
Text
r1 l
.
l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION lil Docket Nos:
50-266; 50-301 License Nos:
50-266/99015(DRS); 50-301/99015(DRS)
Licensee:
Wisconsin Electric Power Company Facility:
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2
.
Location:
6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers,WI 54241 Dates:
August 30 - September 3,1999 Examiners:
M. Bielby, Inspector A. Stone, inspector Approved by:
David E. Hills, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety l
I 9910050200 990930 PDR ADOCK 05000266 G
r
,
!
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant NRC Inspection Report 50-266/99015(DRS); 50-301/99015(DRS)
This inspection report contains the findings and conclusions from the licensed reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) requalification training program inspection. The inspection included a review of training administrative procedures, and written and operating examination material; observation and evaluation of licensed operators and licensee evaluators during a requalification operating examination; an assessment of simulator fidelity; an evaluation of program controls to assure a systems approach to training (SAT); and a review of requalification training records. In addition, the inspectors observed a period of control room operations. The inspectors used the guidance in inspection procedure (IP) 71001.
Operations The control room operators were professional, maintained an appropriate focus on plant conditions, and performed appropriate panel walkdowns and shift turnovers.
(Section 01.1)
The operating crew skills demonstrated during the annual operating examinations and observed by the inspectors were satisfactory. (Section 04.1)
Trainina -
The requalification examination material contained the necessary quantitative and qualitative attributes to provide an effective evaluation of operator skills. (Section 05.2)
The licensee administered the annual requalification examinations and successfully maintained examination security in accordance with their program guidance. Licensee and inspector assessments of operator performance were in agreement. The inspectors did not identify any new simulator fidelity issues. (Section 05.3)
The licensee's licensed operator requalification training program had adequate controls in place to provide an effective systematic approach for incorporating training plan and program changes based on various sources of feedback. (Section 05.4)
The inspectors determined that the licensee's remediation training, administration and re-evaluation process was sufficient to correct identified performance deficiencies and assure operators could safely resume licensed duties. (Section 05.5)
The operators' license conditions for biennial physical examinations were in conformance with program guidance and regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 55.21.
(Section 05.6)
The licensee's program effectively maintained operator licenses active in accordance with 10 CFR 55.53(e) and (f). (Section 05.7)
l l
!
h
-
.
Reoort Details 1. Operations
Conduct of Operations
,
01.1 Control Room Observation
)
j a.
Inspection Scope (71001)
The inspectors observed routine control room activities during full power operation, performed a panel walk-down, questioned operators about plant and equipment status,
{
and observed a shift turnover between the Duty Operating Supervisors (DOSS).
b.
Observations and Findinos The control room environment was quiet and business like. Control operators (COs)
remained attentive to their panels and promptly responded to control panel alarms. No annunciator alarms were allowed to be left in a prolonged alarm state. Control room and remote communications were 3-way and consistent with management expectations.
The operators demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of plant conditions and equipment status when questioned by the inspectors. The off-going and oncoming DOSS l
conducted their turnover in part by performing a control room panel walk-down, reviewing logs, and discussing surveillances and plant evolutions. The control panel
{
ROs conducted the same type of turnover.
c.
Conclusions The control room operators were professional, maintained an appropriate focus on plant conditions, and performed appropriate panel walkdowns and shift tumovers.
Operator Knowledge and Performance 04.1 Examination Observations a.
Scope I
'
The inspectors observed the performance of one shift operating crew during Week 4 of the licensee ad....nstared annual licensed operator requalification (LOR) operating examination. In addition, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's evaluations of the previous three shift operating crews. The licensee evaluated each crew on three dynamic simulator scenarios and five job performance measures (JPMs). The i
inspector's evaluations referenced the following procedures:
NUREG-1021," Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,"
-
interim Revision 8, January 1997.
,
NRC Inspection Procedure 71001, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program
'
-
Evaluation," July 23,1998, t
I
.
'
<
.
l (Point Beach) Training Programs (TRPR) 33.0 NNSR, " Licensed Operator
.
Requalification Training Program," Revision 12.
l l
b.
Observations and Findings The inspectors observed the licensee administer three control room and two in-plant l
JPMs to licensed operators on one shift operating crew. During performance of the JPMs the operators adhered to the facility's three-way communications, alarm response, and procedural requirements, and correctly executed the assigned JPMs. The operators appeared to be knowledgeable of equipment locations, procedure usage, and annunciator causes and responses. The licensee determined that alllicensed operators who took the JPM examination during the inspection week successfully passed.
However, previous to the inspection week, the licensee identified unsatisfactory JPM performance by one individual. The licensee prepared a remediation package and re-evaluated that individual as satisfactory. The inspectors reviewed and concurred with the licensee's assessment of their operators' JPM performance.
The inspectors observed the licensee administer and evaluate one shift operating crew during three dynamic simulator scenarios. The inspectors observed that overall peer and self checking techniques, communications, briefings, alarm acknowledgment, and command and control were satisfactory. Overall, the operating crew successfully completed all critical tasks as originally identified in each of the dynamic simulator scenarios. The crew and individual operators were also graded satisfactory on competencies. The shift operating crew consisted of a Duty Shift Superintendent (DSS),
Duty Operating Supervisor (DOS), Duty Technical Advisor (DTA), Unit 1 Control Operator (CO1), assistant reactor operator (RO), and Unit 2 Control Operator (CO2).
The CO2 position was not evaluated, but addressed alarms and provided information j
from Unit 2 as required. The licensee only utilized Unit 1 of their two unit simulator because Unit 2 was not certified. The licensee used four floor evaluators, one of whom was in radio contact with the two simulator booth instructors and directed the progression of each scenario. The other simulator booth instructor was assigned as the l
" communicator" and portrayed selected plant operators and responded accordingly with l
proper communications and respons.es. During all three scenarios, either the Operations Manager or Operations Assistant Manager assumed one of the evaluator positions.
The inspectors observed the followhg it.olated communication deficiencies:
(1)
'On one occasion, the DOS requested to be relieved so he could enter the between-panel area to verify a jumper placement. Although he was relieved by another qualified licensed SRO for a short period of time, he failed to give a turnover of plant status.
,
(2)
Duty Operating Supervisor briefings were given frequently at appropriate times during two scenarios. The briefings required all operators to acknowledge the briefing opening and closing; provided a brief description of the sequence of events and NNre action plan; identified equipment out-of-service; and allowed input from other crew members. However, during one scenario the briefing was
.
not given at an appropriate time and became fragmented such that the planned actions were never completely communicated to the crew.
The licensee's evaluation team assigned an overall passing grade for the Week 4 operating crew and individuals based on their satisfactory performance during the operating examination. The individual writeups identified isolated deficiencies observed j
by the evaluators. The licensee evaluators graded all crew and individual operating examination performances prior to the inspection week as satisfactory. The inspectors reviewed the individual and crew evaluations through Week 4 and concurred with the licensee's assessment of operator performance.
c.
Conclusions The operating crew skills demonstrated during the annual operating examinations and observed by the inspectors were satisfactory.
Operator Training and Qualification 05.1 Operatina History f
a.
Insoection Scoce (71001)
The inspectors reviewed the following documents to assess the LOR training program's effectiveness regarding operator performance:
Initial licensed operator examination report (50-266/301-99301(DRS)) and
-
licensed operator requalification training report (50-266/301-97019(DRS)).
Select resident inspector observations and reports.
-
Select licensee event reports.
-
Plant Performanca Review, March 26,1999
-
b.
Observations and Findinas The inspector's overall review of the above documents indicated that operators had demonstrated deficiencies in the area of pmcedural adherence, communications, and command and control. Furthermore, the previous NRC requalification training inspection identified the licensee's intent to improve operator performance by emphasizing management expectations and evaluation of operator competencies during requalification training.
The recent initia operator license examination identified minor procedural adherence problems, and the inspectors did not identify any significant procedural adherence deficiencies during this inspection. Based on the observation of only one shift operating crew during the requalification examination, the inspectors observed improved operator performance in the areas of procedural adherence, communications, and command and control.
.
b
-
.
c.
Conclusions The inspectors concluded that the performance of the observed shift operating crew had improved in the areas of procedural adherence, communications, and command and control compared to the historical performance at the plant.
O5.2 Reaualification Examinations a.
Insoection Scope (71001)
The inspectors assessed the licensee's annual requalification examination JPMs and dynamic scenarios using IP 71001, Appendix A % ilists. No biennial written examination was reviewed during this inspection period because the licensee's written examination was scheduled for the year 2000. The following documents were reviewed:
TRPR 33.0, Revision 12," Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program,"
-
The current (1999) and previous (1998) annual requalification operating
-
examination sample plans, Current annual requalification operating examinations including JPMs and
-
dynamic scenarios.
!
b.
Observations and Findinos The inspectors noted that the current annual requalification examination consisted of r
seven packages of three dynamic scenarios and six packages of five JPMs. Duplication l
of dynamic scenarios and JPMs between examination packages were within procedural i
W limitations. Comparison of the previous year and current year material showed only one repeated JPM. The inspectors also noted good integration of risk insights into the operating examination. Half of the abnormal and emergency procedure related JPMs and all of the dynamic scenarios incorporated risk significant human performance activities as identified in the licensee's probabilistic risk assessment.
l The operating examination material contained the necessary quantitative and qualitative attributes to provide a satisfactory evaluation of operator skills. The dynamic scenarios
!
were appropriate and provided ample opportunity to evaluate the crew and individuals
'
based on critical tasks and competencies. Both the JPMs and dynamic scenarios had appropriate steps identified as critical based on the initial verification of expected
'
operator actions. However, only 2 of the 25 JPMs reviewed involved the use of an I
altemate path as defined in NUREG-1021," Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 8, Appendix C, Section C. Although this was acceptable,
the examination would have more challenging with an increase in alternate path JPMs.
Although the operating examination material was considered satisfactory, the inspectors l
identified a discrepancy with respect to JPM P001.026. COT," Respond to Inability to Drive Control Rods," Revision 6. The knowledge and abilities (KA) references were inappropriate for the required task. The KA values related to the ability to operate the control rod drive system with a stuck rod, ability to operate reactor / turbine power with a stuck rod, and required action if more than one rod is inoperable. The JPM task
.
l required the operator to initiate a normal orderly shutdown due to a stuck control rod.
However, the JPM steps were not dependent on the original problem. For example, a shutdown required due to exceeding a limiting condition for operation would have resulted in an identical JPM. Since the initiating cue directed the operator to shutdown the reactor, the KA values should have related to reactivity changes, not equipment fnilure.
c.
Conclusions The requalification examination material contained the necessary quantitative and qualitative attributes to provide an effective evaluation of operator skills.
05.3 Reaualification Examination Administration Practices a.
Insoection Scope (71001)
The inspectors performed the following to assess the licensee's policies and practices regarding requalification examination administration, simulator fidelity, and examination security:
Observed and evaluated the performance of one shift operating crew during
-
Week 4 of the current annual requalification operating examination.
Observed and reviewed the licensee's documentation of operator performance.
I
-
Observed simulator performance and reviewed the associated open items list.
+
Observed and reviewed the licensee's examination security practices.
-
b.
Observations and Findinas The inspectors observed the licensee evaluate the performance of one shift operating crew during three dynamic simulator scenarios and five JPMs. The inspectors' overall assessments of crew and individual operator performance agreed with the licensee's.
Although deficiencies in performance were identified, they appeared to be isolated. The inspectors noted no undue prompting by the evaluators during the performance of the JPM examination. The number of evaluators used during the dynamic simulator scenarios was adequate and included at least one member from operations management, either the Operations Manager or the Assistant Operations Manager. All crews and Individuals passed both portions of the operating examination during Week 4.
However, the licensee identified unsatisfactory performance on two of five JPMs by one individual during one of the previous annual operating examination weeks.
The inspectors did not identify any examination security problems during the examination administration. The licensee assigned individuals as escorts prior to the start of the examination. The escorts were ready at assigned times to provide security escort duties. The licensee instructed operators on where to meet and where to wait
'
between examinations. Both operators and instructors demonstrated a heightened sensitivity toward proper handling of examination material. The licensee implemented their examination security in accordance with their procedures.
.
No new simulator performance or fidelity issues were identified during the inspectors'
observation of the operating examination (Enclosure 2,"Simulatior: Facility Report").
The inspectors' review of the simulator deficiency list indicated that, in general, the licensee tracked and addressed simulator deficiency requests within a reasonable time period. The simulator group reviewed all plant modifications for hardware and software applicability. The licensee also tracked performance indicators for maintenance hours, simulator modifications and requests, and simulator down time. The simulator down time increased significantly in the July to August,1999, time frame, but was co-ordinated to ensure that licensed operator training was not affected significantly.
c, Conclusions The licensee administered the annual requalification examinations and successfully maintained examination security in accordance with their program guidance. Licensee and inspector assessments of operator performance were in agreement. The inspectors did not identify any new simulator fidelity issues.
05.4 Reaualification Trainina Proaram Feedback System a.
Inspection Scope (71001)
The inspectors performed the following to assess the licensee's training program feedback system effectiveness:
Interviewed licensee personnel (operators, instructors, and training
-
management).
Reviewed Quality Verification assessment performed for Cycle 99-2 Licensed l
.
Operator Requalification End of Cycle Report.
Reviewed licensee procedure TRPR 33.0, NNSR, " Licensed Operator j
.
Requalification Training Program," Revision 12.
j b.
Observations and Findinas The inspectors determined the licensee's feedback process was effectively implemented. The licensee had adequate controls in place to revise the LOR training
program based on audits and self assessments, industry and plant events, emergent I
needs, and operator feedback. The licensee's training department self-assessment activities included identification of individual operator and crew weaknesses, verbal and written operator training requests, management oversight and observations, course and l
Instructor evaluations. The licensee's Quality Verification group performed both periodic and requested assessments of the LOR training program. Their assessments appeared to be self critical and effective. Subsequently, the LOR Training Coordinators wrote End-of-Cycle (EOC) training reports to reflect the input gathered from various feedback i
sources. The EOC reports were used as a continuous assessment tool to provide
!
Operations and Training management a systematic approach to enabling training plan l
and program changes.
l l
l c.
Conclusions The licensee's licensed operator requalification training program had adequate controls in place to provide an effective systematic approach for incorporating training plan and progranichanges based on various sources of feedback.
05.5. Remedial Trainina Proaram j
a.
Inspection Sccoe (71001)
.
The inspectors reviewed the following documents to assess the licensee's LOR remedial
)
training program effectiveness:
Unsatisfactory JPM performance evaluation for one individual operator from one
<
of the previous completed examination weeks.
Remediation training plan for one individual operator unsatisfactory JPM
.
performance evaluation from one of the previous completed examination weeks.
Re-evaluation for one individual operator unsatisfactory JPM performance
-
evaluation from one of the previous completed examination weeks.
TRPR 33.0, NNSR, " Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program,"
.
Revision 12.
b.
Observations and Findinas The licensee identified unsatisfactory performance on two of five JPMs by one individual during one of the previous annual operating examination weeks. The inspectors reviewed the licensee's process for remediation as described in the licensee's training procedure, TRPR 33.0, NNSR, " Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program."
The inspectors noted that the individual was promptly removed from standing watch.
Training personnel prepared a remediation package to focus on the area of weak performance. The package consisted of self review of selected topics and discussion with an instructor. The licensee's requalification training staff administered five new JPMs, two of which focused on the previously identified deficient pefcinisnce areas, and evaluated the individual as satisfactory.
The inspectors determined that the licerisee's remediation training, administration and re-evaluation was in accordance witb. ineir training procedure, was sufficient to correct the performance deficiencies, and assured the operator could safely resume licensed duties.
c.
Conclusions The inspectors determined that the licensee's remediation training, administration and re-evaluation process was sufficient to correct identified performance deficiencies and assure operators could safely resume licensed duties.
.
L
05.6 Conformance With Operator License Conditions: Biennial Medical Examinations a.
Inspection Scope (71001)
The inspectors reviewed the following documents to assess the facility and operator licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 55.53 license condition requirements:
A sample (10) of licensed operator requalification training medical records.
- b.
Observations and Findinas The inspectors determined that the licensed operator biennial medical history included both the NRC required physical examination as well as the examination required by the licensee for individuals assigned to fire brigade duties. The inspectors also noted that the history file listed all licensed individuals, the date the last exam was given, and the dates of previous medical examinations. License restrictions were identified and the NRC notified in writing. The inspectors determined that alllicensed individuals had current / valid medical examinations, and when breathing apparatus use was approved eyeglass inserts were provided as required.
.
c.
Conclusions The operators' license conditions for biennial physical examinations were in conformance with program guidance and regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 55.21.
05.7 Conformance With Operator License Conditions: Maintenance of Active Operator Licenses a.
Insoection Scoog (71001)
The inspectors interviewed operations and training department personnel and reviewed the following documents to assess the facility and operator licensees' compliance with 10 CFR Part 55.53 license condition requirements:
TRPR 33.0, NNSR," Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program,"
-
Revision 12.
NRC Watchstander's Log (control room proficiency watch list for licensed
-
operators)
OM 3.10. " Operations Personnel Assignments and Scheduling," Revision 10
-
OM 3.1, " Operations Shift Staffing Requirements," Revision 8
-
Technical Specification Administrative Section 15.6.2
-
b.
Observations and Findinas The inspectors reviewed and determined that the licensee's program for maintaining RO and SRO licenses active, and for reactivating licenses, was in accordance with 10 CFR 55.53(e) and (f). The licensee's program accounted for licensed individuals assigned to control room duties as well as those assigned to duties outside the control room (e.g.,
1
-.
.
a individuals assigned to support work control activities). The inspectors reviewed the
,
i NRC Watchstander's Log and did not identify any examples of individuals who had not maintained their SRO or RO licenses active in accordance with 10 CFR 55.53(e). The l
inspectors also verified the licensee's control room manning discussed in OM 3.10 agreed with the technical specification required control room licensed positions.
c.
Conclusions The licensee's program effectively maintained operator licenses active in.accordance with 10 CFR 55.53(e) and (f).
Miscellaneous Operations issues 08.1. Closed) Inspection Followuo item 50-266/97019-02(DRSM 50-301/97019-02(DRSk
'
No operator timed response evaluation for design basis steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) accident analysis. The licensee re-analyzed the time required for the safety injection system to refill the reactor coolant system and operator action to equalize pressure between the faulted steam generator and the primary system. As a result of conservatism built into the original time estimate, the time was increased from 30 to 44 minutes. During LOR Cycle 99-1, the licensee timed all six shift operating crews in their response to a SGTR event using Revision 1C of the emergency operating procedures (EOPs). The objective of the timing was to demonstrate the capability of the crews to respond to a design basis SGTR in accordance with the EOPs by equalizing reactor coolant system to steam generator pressure and securing the safety injection pumps within 44 minutes of initiation of the break. The crews also demonstrated their ability to stop the tube rupture prior to the steam generator completely filling with water.
The licensee ran the evalut. tion on the simulator using scenario SES-0059, FSAR (Final Safety Analysis Report) SGTR Evaluation. The scenario started at 100% power with no equipment out-of-service. The evaluators started timing at the moment a 400 gpm leak
'
was initiated on the "A" steam generator. The recorded time to equalization and termination of safety injection ranged from 33 to 42 minutes, with an average of approximately 37.2 minutes. None of the crews overfilled the "A" steam generator.
V. Manaaement Meetin,gs X1 Exit Meetina Summary The inspectors presented the preliminary inspection results to members of licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on September 3,1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. No proprietary information was identified.
!
l
F
')
,
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee A. J. Cayla, Manager - Regulatory Services & Licensing R. G. Mende, Plant Manager - Point Beach B. J. O'Gmdy, Operations Manager M. E. Reddemann, Site Vice President C. R. Sizemore, Training Coordinator P. J. Sm.ith, Senior Training Specialist W. P. Walker, Training Manager NRC F. Brown, Point Beach Senior Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 71001:
Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation IP 71707:
Plant Operations ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED AND DISCUSSED Opened None Closed 50-266/301:97019-02 IFl No operator timed response evaluation for design basis SGTR accident analysis.
Discussed None L
12
)
j i
o
.
- ..
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CO Control Operator CO1 Control Operator Unit 1
'
CO2 Control Operator Unit 2 CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOS Duty Operating Supervisor DRS Division of Reactor Safety DSS'
Duty Shift Superintendent i
DTA Duty Technical Advisor EOC End of Cycle
'
EOP Emergency Operating Procedure FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report IFl Inspection Followup item IP inspection Procedure IR
Inspection Report
i
Knowledge and Abilities
Licensed Operator Requalification
Licensed Operator Requalification Training
NRC
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,
Nuclear Reactor Regulation
i
Reactor Operator
Systems Approach to Training
Steam Generator Tube Rupture
Senior Reactor Operator
<-
'
.
a
l
Enclosure 2
Page 1 of 1
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
Facility Licensee:
Point Beach
Facility Licensee Docket No.: 50-266;50-301
Operating Tests Administered: August 30 - September 3,1999
The following documents observations made by the NRC examination team during the licensee
administered annual licensed operator requalification examination. These observations do not
constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review,
- indicative of non compliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC
certification or approval of the simulation facility other than to provide information which may be
used in future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
During the conduct of the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were
observed:
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
1. None
i
[
.