IR 05000285/1993017
| ML20056H583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1993 |
| From: | Pellet J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056H581 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-285-93-17, NUDOCS 9309100126 | |
| Download: ML20056H583 (10) | |
Text
.
.
APPENDIX A
~
U.S. NUCLEAR RE6ULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Inspection Report:
50-285/93-17 License: DPR-40-Licensee: Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.
P.O. Box 399, Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun Fort Calhoun, Nebraska Facility Name: Fort Calhoun Station Inspection At: FCS site, Fort Calhoun,. Nebraska.
Inspection Conducted: July 26 through hugust 13, 1993 Inspectors: Ryan Lantz, Lead Examiner, Operations Section Division of Reactor Safety Joseph Tapia, Reactor Inspector, Operations Section Division of Reactor Safety Accompanying Personnel: Art Lopez, Contract Examiner Battelle Pacific NW Labs Approved:
M 9-3-93 W
g John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Section Date Division of Reactor Safety Insoection Summar.y Areas Insoected:
Routine, announced inspection of the qualification of licensed operators and evaluation of their requalification training program.
The examiners also observed the performance of on shift operators and plant conditions incident to the conduct of the examinee evaluations. The examiners used the guidance provided in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Sections 601 through 605 issued January 1993.
Results:
The reference material provided by the training department for
examination development was satisfactory, although full implementation of Revision 7 guidelines' had not yet been achieved (Section 1.1).
.
J'
9309100L26 930906
gDR ADOCh 05000285 hf ppg
,a,
.
-
-.. _.
..
,
i
i-l!.
i-2-The draft examinations submitted were acceptable. Only minor changes i
'
were made prior to administration to improve the examinations (Section 1.1).
During the dynamic simulator scenarios, crew connunications, teamwork,
and supervisor command and control was strong (Section 1.2).
'
,
Examinees performed well on the written examination, with an average
'
score of 94 percent (Section 1.2).
All licensed operators and the crews they comprised passed all portions
taken of their requalification examinations (Section 1.2).
j
No generic weaknesses were observed during the conduct of the operating
examinations (Section 1.2).
.
Facility evaluators performed well with minor exceptions (Section 1.3).
'
i During the inspection, a health physics technician and a licensed senior
reactor operator reached across posted contaminated area boundaries from outside the posted boundarios (Noncited Violation) (Section 1.4).
Simulator fidelity appeared acceptable with one discrepancy observed
that had no impact on examination validity (Section 1.5).
l Summary of Insoection rindinas:
A noncited violation was identified (Section 1.4).
- Attachments:
.
e Attachment 1-Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting
Attachment 2-Simulation Facility Fidelity Report i
r
,
,
. - -
_ _ _
_ _., _ _._
... _ _...,,. ~,,
,,..
, _..
-
l
-
\\
"
-3-
'
DETAILS 1 LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINEE QUALIFICATION EVALUATION (NUREG-1021)
During the inspection, the examiners evaluated the qualifications of 12 licensed operators and the licensed operator requalification training program.
Licensed operators were evaluated based on examination results. The program was evaluated based on observation of the facilii.y evaluators during the co-administered examinations and by analysis of the results. The examiners performed the evaluations in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55 and NUREG-1021, " Operator License Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Sections 601 through 605.
Further, the inspection included evaluation of facility materials, procedures, and simulation capability used to support development and administration of the examinations. These areas were evaluated using the guidance provided in the sections of NUREG-1021 cited above.
In addition, the t
!
inspection included the review of previously identified inspection findings.
Performance results for individual examinees are not included in this report l
because inspection reports are placed in the NRC Public Document Room as a matter of course.
Individual performance results are not subject to public disclosure.
1.1 Facility Materials Submitted for Examination Development The lead examiner reviewed the licensee's materials provided for development of the examination, which included station administrative and operating procedures, question banks, simulator scenarios, lessons plans, and job performance measures (JPMs). The procedures and question banks, as well as the lesson plans, appeared current and, in general, adequate to support the examination development. The examination material banks met or exceeded the quantity guidelines in NUREG-1021; however, full implementation of the qualitative guidelines of Revision 7 had not yet been achieved.
The sample plan did not meet Revision 7 guidelines in that it was not
specific to task knowledge / abilities, did not identify special topics / priorities, and did not identify topics not covered during the requalification cycle to be included in the examination. The sample plan consisted only of a broad summary of topics covered during the requalification cycle, and did not appear to be a very effective tool for examination development; however, as noted below, the examinations submitted were adequate, including scope and depth. The examiners considered the sample plan a potential vulnerability in the creation of valid requalification examinations.
The facility is revising the sample plan format.
The dynamic simulator banks did not contain low power scenarios. This
had been identifien by the training staff, who were in the process of developing low power scenario._
.
.
.---.
.
l
'
.
i
~
-4-
'
Critical task identification on JPMs was inconsistent in that some
critical tasks were not identified as critical, and conversely, some
non-critical tasks were identified as critical.
JPMs that were simulated in the control room lacked specific guidance
i j
for the evaluator to give appropriate cues to the operator.
l The lead examiner also reviewed draft written examinations and operating tests
!
'
I proposed by the facility.
The draft examinations were adequate to be used-as submitted. The following changes were made to improve the examinations:
,
One JPM in one set was modified due to lack of simulator fidelity to
prevent negative training. An evaluator cue was added to ensure the correct indication was received at the correct time. (See Attachment 2)
j Two dynamic simulator scenarios required minor revision:
one to meet
'
Revision 7 quantitative guidelines, the other to add additional crew critical tasks based on the similarity of critical tasks between the two'
scenarios of one set.
.
'
Two of the JPMs required revision to add operator action steps as
indicated in the current procedure.
Additional minor modifications were made to the JPMs and dynamic
'
'
scenarios to meet Revision 7 qualitative guidelines.
1.2 Operator Performance
,
The examiners evaluated the performance of licensed operators through written,
[
plant walkthrough, and dynamic simulator examinations. Twelve licensed
,
operators comprised three crews, which were evaluated by co-administering dynamic simulator examinations with facility evaluators. Five of the 12
!
operators were also co-admini:tered written and plant walkthrough
_.
examinations, j
All three crews and all individuals were evaluated as satisfactory by the l
examiners and facility cvaluators on all portions of the co-administered examinations. The average grade on the written examination was 94 percent.
All examinees performed all five JPMs acceptably. Crew and individual simulator performance was satisfactory overall and with respect to all crew critical tasks.
'
Based on the individual and crew results above, the Fort Calhoun Station licensed operator requalification training program was evalueted as satisfactory in accordance with NUREG-1021, with the following observations:
No generic weaknesses were observed during the conduct of the operating
examinations.
l T m work among the crews was a noted strength.
- __
_
__
.
i
~
,
.
i
-5-Supervisory command, control, and communications were very strong, with l
the anomalous exception of one crew.
1.3 Licensee's Reaualification Examination Participants
'
facility staff from training and operations departments participated as
,
!
examination team members during the development and validation of the examinations. As described above, the draft examinations prepared by the facility members were adequate, and only minor revisions were required prior to administration. The facility staff supported the examiner validation of the draft examinations in h professional and competent manner,
f The facility evaluators administered all or part of their annual requalification examinations for 12 licensed operators comprising three crews.
.
During all of these examinations, the evaluators identified the same or l
'
similar performance issues as the examiners and used thorough and effective
examination techniques to administer valid examinations, with the following i
observations:
'
The significance of observed deficiencies in one individual's
'
performance during dynamic simulator scenarios did not reach the same level of concern as that held by the examiners. After discussions with the examiners, the facility evaluators administered an additional JPM to the individual.
Two potential vulnerabilities in the facility's evaluative techniques
were observed. The first involved the practice of not providing confirmatory cues to the examinee when his simulated actions resulted in expected results.
The second involved the providing of a "stop" cue at the end of each JPM. Both of these practices have the potential of providing steering cues to the examinee indicating an incorrect action was taken. No inadvertent cueing was observed during the examinations.
During these examinations, the facility operations manager representative, an operations engineer, observed all dynamic simulator crew examinations and a majority of the JPMs, and was involved in facility evaluation of each crew's performance, indicating a close relationship between the operations and training departments. The examiners considered this level of involvement very beneficial to the conduct of the examinations.
1.4 Examination Team Observations
,
During the examinations, the examiners observed the performance of on shift operators and plant conditions incident to the conduct of the examinee evaluations. The observations below were presented to the facility staff as they were developed and at the exit meeting.
During administration of the plant walkthrough or JPMs, the examiners o'oserved that breaker position labeling caused some minor confusion and hesitation for some operators.
The examiners also observed several burnt-out breaker
- -
-
.
.
.
,-
-6-l l
positions indicating light bulbs. These observations did not significantly impede performance of the JPM tasks.
During the conduct of the walkthrough examinations, two instances of individuals reaching over posted contaminated area boundaries from outside the posted area were observed, apparently in violation of the facility's l
radiological work practices program, and specifically Section 7.2.2.F of l
Procedure RP-904 which states, "Do not reach across contamination boundaries
'
for tools, equipment, or communications."
In the first instance a health physics technician was observed reaching across a posted contaminated area boundary defining an area in Corridor 4, outside Rooms 21 and 22, whero decontamination of ventilation ducting was ongoing. The technician reached across the boundary to catch a plastic spray bottle of cleaning fluid which was dropped from the overhead by a decontamination worker.
In the second instance a senior reactor operator examinee was observed reaching across a posted contaminated area boundary to simulate the operation of electrical breakers on motor control centers 4C2 and 3A2.
During a conversation with facility management representatives concerning the apparent radiological work practices violation, the representatives stated that the intent of " communications" in Section 7.2.2.F of Procedure RP-904 was to prevent personnel from reaching out of a posted area from within the posted area to use comunication equipment, specifically, the Gaitronics announcing system. The representatives indicated that the actions of the health physics technician met their expectations, since they were a reasonable reaction to l
prevent a possible spill in a contaminated area, but that the actions of the examinee reaching across a barrier to point to a breaker were not in
'
accordance with their expectations. The examiners were concerned that the radiological work practices procedure did not reflect management expectations, and fostered a less formal attitude toward procedural adherence.
In response, the facility representative stated that clarifying guidance on management's expectations had been issued as a " nite note" for all cperators to read and comply with. This violation will not be subject to enforcement action because the licensee's efforts in identifying and correcting the violation meet the l
criteria specified in Section VII.B.1 of Appendix C to 10 CFR 2.
In response to examinee comments during the administration of the written examination, the facility identified a reference drawing (EM-115, Sheet 1)
l that was incorrect and caused confusion for the examinees. The facility evaluators deleted that question from their grading of the written examination based on the misleading reference; however, the examiners did not delete the question t'ased on adequate additional reference material and the validity of the question. The facility has responded to correct the referenced drawing.
l f
During the examinations, housekeeping in the areas of the plant observed was
!
very good. Conduct of operations in the control room and the rest of the physical plant appeared professional and controlled. Health physics, operations, and security personnel provided excellent support of the
'
examination process and team.
l
. _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _.
.
.
.
-7-1.5 Simulator Fidelity During the preparation and conduct of the operating examinations, the examiners observed one dise.repancy in simulator fidelity, as described in Attachment 2, which had no impact on the examination.
,
1.6 Conclusions The examiners concluded based on the examination results that the performance of the twelve licensed operators examined was acceptable. The team also concluded, based on the individual results, the examination material submitted, and observations during the co-administered examinations, that the licensed operator requalification training program was effectively maintaining the proficiency of licensed operators.
The exaniners also reviewed the most recent requalification examination report, OL 91-01, dated November 18, 1991, for previous findings. That report cited these general weaknesses: minor examination bank material deficiencies, definition of objective performance standards and critical tasks, procedural adherence, communications, and command and control. Development of objective performance standards for crew critical tasks and JPM critical task identification remain as areas in need of modification to meet the standards of NUREG-1021. The areas of communication and command and control were an observed strength during these examinations, a significant improvement over the last NRC requalification examinations.
The examiners also observed one violation of radiological work practices procedures involving reaching across posted contaminated area boundaries, which was not cited. The examiners were concerned that procedural guidance in radiological work practices did not meet management expectations and had led operators to adopt a less formal attitude toward radiological procedural adherence.
In general, the examiners concluded that:
The reference material provided by the training department for
examination development was satisfactory, although still requiring modifications and additions to meet the guidelines of NUREG-1021, Revision 7.
The draft examinations submitted were adequate, requiring only minor
l changes prior to administration.
During the dynamic simulator scenarios, crew communications and teamwork
along with supervisor command and control appeared strong.
Examinees performed well on the written examination, with an average
score of 94 percen.
.
-8-i All licensed operators and the crews they comprised passed their
requalification examinations.
i No generic weaknesses were observed during the conduct of the operating
examinations.
Simulator fidelity appeared acceptable with no significant discrepancies
observed.
t l
!
.
.
-
.
.
e
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1
PERSONS CONTACTED 1.1 Omaha Public Power District Personnel
- R. Andrews Division Manager, Nuclear Services
- D. Bannister Operations Engineer
- J.
Chase Plant Manager D. Daily Senior Instructional Technologist D. Darrow Senior Instructional Technologist
- S. Gambhir Division Manager, Engineering
- J. Gasper Manager, Training
- W. Gates Vice President, OPPD
- G. Guliani Supervisor, Operator Training
- W. Jones Senior Vicr ' esident, OPPD L. Labs Operationa' Ti 'ning Specialist M. Lazar Supervisor, * ;e 'ations and Tech. Training J. Michael Supervisor, Simulator Services
- T. Patterson Division Manager, Nuclear Operations C. Rennerfeld Operational Training Specialist
- R. Short Manager, Nuclear Licensing
- C.
Simmons Station Licensing Engineer
- J.
Tills Operations Supervisor J. Welchert Secretary 1.2.
NRC Personnel
- R. Mullikin Senior Resident Inspector
- J. Pellet Chief, Operations Section
- Denotes personnel that attended the exit meeting conducted on August 13, 1993.
EXIT MEETING
-
An exit meeting was conducted with licensee management personnel on August 13, 1993. During this meeting, the lead examiner reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to, or reviewed by, the examiners during the inspection.
.-
.__
_
..
-
-
--
..-
. - - - -
... -
-
.
._
.. -
-
i
l-t
.
!
.
,
ATTACHMENT 2
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
~
,
!
t Inspection Report:
50-285/93-17 Licenses: DPR-40 Licensee: Omaha Public Power District
,
'
Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.
l P.O. Box 399, Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun Fort Calhoun, Nebraska
-
.
,
Facility Name:
Fort Calhoun Station
Inspection At: FCS site, Fort Calhoun, Nebraska
,
Operating Tests Administered on: August 10-12, 1993
{
This form is to be used only to report observations.
These observations do i
not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further
verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR
Part 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval r
of the simulation facility, other than to provide information that may be used f
in future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed:
,
i ITEM DESCRIPTION 1.
The simulator failed to indicate oscillating automatic ~ input to
[
~
pressurizer pressure. controller PRC-103X until the transfer switch was taken from MANUAL BALANCE to AUTO. The oscillating signals
,
should be visible in MANUAL BALANCE.
.
!
!
I i
n s
(
!
,
w-