IR 05000272/1999301
| ML18107A166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18107A165 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-99-301, 50-311-99-301, NUDOCS 9904160278 | |
| Download: ML18107A166 (10) | |
Text
Docket Nos:
Report Nos:
License Nos:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Chief Examiner:
Examiners:
Approved By:
9904160278 990409 PDR ADOCK 05000272 V
PDR U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 1 50-272, 50-311 50-272/99-301, 50-311/99-301 DPR-70, DPR-75 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Units 1 and 2 Hancock's Bridge, NJ February 22 - March 5, 1999 (Operating and Written Test Administration)
March 8 -12, 1999 (Grading)
P. Bissett, Senior Operations Engineer/Examiner
. D. Silk, Senior Operations Engineer/Examine T. Fish, Operations Engineer/Examiner
- Richard J. Conte, Chief Human Performance & Emergency Preparedness Branch Division of Reactor Safety
1-----
Operations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salem Nuclear Facility Units 1 and 2 Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/99-301 and 50-311/99-301 Eight reactor operator (RO) and eight instant senior reactor operator (SRO) applicants were administered initial licensing exams. Seven of the eight RO applicants and all eight SRO applicants successfully passed all portions of the exam. One RO applicant failed the written portion of the examinatio The applicants performed well on the operating portions of the exam. Performance was very consistent between, not only individuals, but crews alike. The applicants consistently demonstrated formal communications and teamwork during the simulator scenarios in both the routine and emergency conditions. Referral to abnormal operating procedures occurred on a routine basis during any abnormal plant operating condition. The applicants consistently demonstrated self-checking practices. Crew briefings were concise and to the point, however, the timing, in some instances, resulted in short delays in implementing recovery action The as-submitted written examination was of acceptable quality overall. Enhancements were made and one question had to be replace All job performance measures (JPMs) and simulator scenarios were properly validated before the NRC staff review. The proposed simulator scenarios and JPMs were acceptable, with one in-plant JPM being replaced due to an inability to open an electrical breaker cabinet. Not being permitted to open the cabinet was conservative decision. making on part of the operations department as a result of a change in plant conditions from those during the validation perio ii
'"
Report Details I. Operations
Operations Procedures and Documentation As a result of the examiners review of material developed or used in the administration of the initial examination process, the examiners observed implemeritation and related adequacy of Salem facility procedures. No problems were noted during the development or administration of the examination Operator Training and Qualifications 0 Reactor Operator (RO) and Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) Initial Exams Scope The NRC examiners reviewed the written and operating initial examinations submitted by the Salem staff to ensure that they were prepared and developed in accordance with the guidelines of Interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Exam Standards for Power Reactors." The review was conducted both in the Region 1 office and at the Salem facility. Final resolution of comments and test revisions was conducted during the onsite preparation week. From February 22 - March 5, 1999, the NRC examiners administered the operating portion of the exam to all applicants. On February 26, 1999, the written exams were administered by Salem's training organization, with NRC oversigh * Observations and Findings Grading and Results I
The results of the exams are summarized below:
Written Operating Overall SRO Pass/Fail 8/0 8/0 8/0 RO Pass/Fail 7/1 8/0 7/1 Total Pass/Fail 15/1 16/0 15/1 Attachment 1 reflects the NRC staff resolution of facility post-examination comments in Attachment 2. Six formal comments were submitted by the Salem training facility subsequent to the exam concerning the written examination content. Five of the six comments dealt with questions having more than one correct answer and one comment revealed that the answer key was incorrect. For five questions, alternate answers were accepted. The sixth question, based upon NRC review, was deleted, which resulted in the RO exam consisting of 99 question Examination Preparation and Quality The written exams, job performance measures (JPMs) and simulator scenarios were developed by Salem and their contractor representatives. The exam development team was comprised of Salem training and operations representatives. All individuals signed a security agreement once the development of the exam commenced. The NRC subsequently reviewed and validated all portions of the proposed exams. Several changes and/or additions to the proposed exams were requested by the NRC during the onsite review. Salem personnel subsequently incorporated the agreed to comments and finalized the exams..
The NRC review of the written examination resulted in the replacement of one question because it did not pertain to an operationally related task. Approximately* 25 changes were also made to question stems to make the question clearer in soliciting the correct answer and to distractors to ensure they were plausible, but incorrec During the preparation week, one in-plant JPM was replaced because it could not be adequately simulated in the plant, due to the inability to open some electrical breaker cabinet doors. The JPM had previously been validated, however, under different plant conditions. The assumption had been made that the door could be opened, however, upon checking with the operations department for authorization, the decision was made not to allow entry to prevent the possible inadvertent actuation of safeguards equipmen Written Test Administration and Performance The RO and SRO written exams and answer keys are in Attachments 3 and 4, respectivel The Salem training department performed an analysis of questions missed on the written exam for generic and individual weaknesses. For feedback to the initial licensed operator training program, the examiners noted, as did the facility, that the following questions were missed by at least half of the applicant Question#
- 2RO
- 3SR0/#4RO
- 16SRO
- 38RO
- 49RO Question Topic Knowledge of control room log review responsibilitie Knowledge of actions to be taken for correcting control room log Knowledge of monitoring frequency for Critical Safety Function Status Tree Knowledge of how core exit thermocouple readings are affected by temperature changes in the area of the reference junction boxe Ability to predict the response of the EHC controls as a result of an impulse pressure channel failur.I
- 62SR0/67RO
- 88SRO
Basis for stopping a depressurization following a LOCA when pressurizer level reaches 33%.
Knowledge of the status of the alternate sources to the Salem fire water heade Operating Test Administration and Performance
. The operating test consisted of the performance of ten JPMs and three scenario exercises for all RO and instant SRO applicants. Each SRO applicant perfor_med twice at the control room supervisor position and once at the reactor operator position. Each RO applicant performed one scenario at the reactor operator position and two scenarios at the balance-of-plant position. *
The applicants consistently demonstrated formal communications and teamwork during the simulator exercises in both the routine and emergency portions of the exercis Referral to abnormal operating procedures occurred on a routine basis during any abnormal plant operating condition. Crew'briefings were routinely called for by the applicants when in the control room supervisor (CRS) position. The briefings were well structured and ensured that all crew members knew the status of the equipment under their control. It was noted that the briefings primarily involved the reactor operator and balance-of-plant operator briefing the CRS as to the status of their equipment. On a couple of instances, the timing of the briefings was during degrading plant condition The examiners concluded that, in these instances, recovery actions were delayed somewhat, but without significant consequences. Control* board awareness by all of the applicants was evident throughout each of the scenarios observed by the NRC examiners. Self-checking practices, utilizing STAR (Stop, Think, Act, Review)
'
'
techniques, were consistently applie Each applicant was also given an administrative exam, as part of the operating test, which consisted of administrative questions and JPMs. Several of the RO applicants experienced difficulty during the performance of one JPM that dealt with a change to a
_surveillance procedure utilizing the On-The-Spot-Change proces Conclusions Eight RO and eight instant SRO applicants were administered initial licensing exam Seven of the eight RO applicants and all eight SRO applicants successfully passed all portions of the exam. One RO applicant failed the written portion of the examinatio The applicants performed well on the operating portions of the exam. Performance was very consistent between, not only individuals, but crews alike. The applicants consistently demonstrated formal communications and teamwork during the simulator scenarios in both the routine and emergency conditions. Referral to abnormal operating procedures occurred on a routine basis during any abnormal plant operating conditio The applicants consistently demonstrated self-checking practices. Crew briefings were concise and to the point, however, the timing, in some instances, resulted in short delays in implementing recovery action The as-submitted written examination was of acceptable quality overall. Enhancements were made and one question had to be replace All JPMs and simulator scenarios were properly validated before the NRC staff revie The proposed simulator scenarios and JPMs were acceptable, with one in-plant JPM being replaced due to an inability to open an electrical breaker cabinet. Not being permitted to open the cabinet was conservative decision making on part of the operations department as a result of a change in plant conditions.from those during the validation perio V. Management Meetings X1 Exit Meeting Summary On March 19, 1999, the Chief Examiner discussed the observations from the exams with Salem's operations and training management representatives via telephone. The Chief Examiner discussed generic candidate performance and comments on the written exam and the operating test. The Chief Examiner also expressed appreciation for the c.ooperation and assistance that was provided during both the preparation and exam week by the licensee's ex:amination tea *
Since there were no observed discrepancies between the simulator and the plant, none were discussed at the exit meeting or in this repor Attachments:
. NRC Resolution of Facility Comments
- 2:
Facility Comments on the Written Exam Salem RO Written Exam w/Answer Key Salem SRO Written Exam w/Answer Key
l PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED SALEM G. Blinde, Nuclear Training Supervisor - License Training Salem D. Jackson, Salem and Hope Creek Training Manager J. Konovalchick, Operations Superintent-Training J. Lloyd,* Senior Training Instructor P. Bissett, Senior Operations Engineer, Chief Examiner D. Silk, Senior Operations Engineer/Examiner T. Fish, Operations Engineer/Examiner
)..
Attachment 1 NRC Resolution of Facility Comments Question No. 1 RO Facility Comment: The original intent of the question was to elicit that there are times when the RO is authorized to take MANUAL rod control and make adjustments~ However, those selecting a) did so because b) does not indicate that an abnormal or emergency condition exists. Under normal plant conditions, the CRS would be consulted before taking the rod selector switch out of AUTO (SH.OP-DD.ZZ-0004, 4.1.1.D). Those selecting b) answered it according to their responsibility under abnormal conditions (SH.OP-DD.ZZ-0004, 4.1.38 and 5.8.2).
Facility Recom.mendation: Accept either a) orb) as correct answer NRC Resolution: Agree with the facility's comment. Answers a) or.b) will be accepted as being correc * Question No. 60 R0/55 SRO I
Facility Comment: Per answer d), WG41 is designed to limit flow to 32 scfm at the 100% settin However, the procedure step reads "slowly set WG41_::: 100% position which corresponds to a maximum release rate of 32 scfm." The symbol_5 makes it seem that WG41 must be adjusted to a specific position in order to achieve the desired flowrate. This makes answer c) *also correc Facility Recommendation: Accept either c)_or d) as correct answer NRC Resolution: Agree with the facility's comment. Answers c) or d) will be accepted as being *
correc Question No. 63 RO Facility Comment: Answer b) is correct as described in the Explanation of Answer. Ind), the term "just" was intended to incorrectly locate the SW Accumulator piping tie-in on the CFCU outlet and "flow" was intended to imply the purpose of the accumulator was to maintain SW flow for containment cooling purposes. However, "just" is non-specific and therefore could be interpreted as anywhere upstream of SW223 and "flow" is required to maintain the CFCU full; the water-hammer prevention design purpose of the SW Accumulator Facility Recommendation: Accept either b) or d) as correctanswer NRC Resolution: Agree with the facility's comment. Answers b) or d) will be accepted as being correc L Attachment 1 (Cont'd).
NRC Resolution of Facility Comments Question No. 66 R0/59 SRO Facility Comment: Answer key was incorrect. Should have said b) instead of a).
Facility Recommendation: Change answer key to b) from a) to reflect the correct answe NRC Resolution: Agree with facility comment and recommendation. Answer key to be revised to reflect the correct answer as being b) in accordance with applicable facility reference Question No. 68 RO Facility Comment: This question was developed as a replacement question during the NRC review week. Conditions were intended to indicate a reduced gas volume and therefore lesser volume injected. However, accumulator pressure is specified at a higher value than the technical specification (TS) value. There is no technical analysis available for an accumulator discharge with a higher than TS water volume and pressur Facility Recommendation: Accept either a) orb) as correct answer NRC Resolution: Disagree with facility recommendation. Question will be deleted. Impossible for both answers to be correct (one being more, the other being less); there can only be one correct answer. Since the facility did not provide any technical data to substantiate which answer is correct, the only alternative is to delete this questio Question No. 93 R0/89 SRO Facility Comment: Per the abnormal procedure, a) is correct. Candidates selecting d) recalled the LOPA-2 steps and training materi~ls for restoration flow. In that case, thermal barrier cooling is restored first, then seal flow. Given the information in choice d), one could assume there had been no seal injection or thermal barrier cooling. Candidates making that assumption would be thinking about the best means of restoring seal flo Facility Recommendation: Accept either a) or d) as correct answer NRC Resolution: Agree with the facility's comment. Answers a) or d) will be accepted as being correc Attachment 2 Facility Comments on the Written Examination