IR 05000285/1996015

Insp Rept 50-285/96-15 on 961111-22.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Operations & Plant Support

ML20135D750
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	12/06/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20135D735	List: IR 05000285/1996015 ML20135D733
References
50-285-96-15, NUDOCS 9612100120
Download: ML20135D750 (13)

Text

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

.

T

.

ENCLOSURE I

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

}

I Docket No.: 50-285 i

License No.: DPR-40 Report No.: 50-285/96-15 Licensee: Omaha Public Power District Facility: Fort Calhoun Station Location: Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Ad P.O. Box 399, Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun Fort Calhoun, Nebraska Dates: November 11-22,1996 Inspectors: Ryan Lantz, Lead inspector Howard Bundy, Reactor Engineer Tom Meadows, Reactor Engineer Tom McKernon, Chief (Acting), Operations Branch Approved By: Steve McCrory, Chief (Acting), Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Attachments: Supplemental Information 9612100120 961206 PDR G

ADOCK 05000285 PDR

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fort Calhoun Station NRC Inspection Report 50-285/96-15 This inspection assessed the licensed operator requalification program to determine

-

whether the program incorporated appropriate requirements for evaluating operators'

mastery of training objectives and revising the program in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c). The assessment included an evaluation of the program's controls to assure a systems approach to training and evaluation of operating crew performance during annual requalification examinations. This included review of the facility oocuments, observation of operating and staff crews during dynamic simulator scenarios and plant walkthroughs, and an assessment of the examination evaluators' effectiveness in conducting and evaluating examination The facility's annual operating test for licensed operator requalification was administered

November 19-21,1996. The biennial comprehensive requalification written examination

. was administered on November 21,1996. All operator.s passed their evaluated

'

examinations, with some remedial training recommended for a staff cre The inspection included extended control room observations of preparations for startup

following the shutdown refueling outag The inspection also included an evaluation of the plant referenced dynamic simulator used to conduct the examinations and the reference documentation used to produce the i examination Operations

!

• In general, licensed operators displayed good communication skills, teamwork, plant system knowledge, and ownership of plant equipment, with some exceptions noted during the simulator evaluations (Sections 01.1, 04.2, F8.1).

• Overall, the licensed operator requalification training program effectively implemented a systems approach to training and maintained the condition of licenses (Sections 05.1,05.2,05.3,05.4,05.5).

• Requalification annual examinations were comprehensive and discriminated at the appropriate level (Section 05.1).

• The licensed operator requalification f acility evaluators administered the examinations professionally and in accordance with accepted industry practices (Section 05.2).

• The licensee's training department was responsive to feedback and revised the training program as appropriate (Section 05.3).

Plant Support

• Plant housekeeping was good (Section F8.1).

_ _ _ . _ ___

.

l 2-l Report Details I 1. Operations 01 Conduct of Operations l 01.1 Observations of Ooerator Performance I l Insoection Scone (71715) l Using the guidance of Inspection Procedure 71715," Sustained Control Room and Plant Observation," the inspectors observed activities in the control room. The i inspectors compared the observed performance with expected performance as I described in facility policies and procedures. Between November 19 and l November 21,1996, the inspectors observed three different shift crews for continuous periods ranging from 4 to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. The inspectors observed four crew turnovers and approximately 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> of control room operations involving shutdown and startup activitie l

! Observations and Findinas The inspectors noted that the individual operator turnover briefings were thorough and detailed, and that both the oncoming and offgoing operators were alert and diligent in providing a professional turnover. Post relief crew briefs were thorough and comprehensive with each member of the crew providing a status of activities l

and equipment for their area ;

\

The inspectors observed consistently good and effective communications in accordance with management's expectations. Operator communications were clear

and unambiguous and communication support equiprnent appeared reliable and ,

l adequate. Communications outside the control room was generally formal and i consistently effectiv l

'

Control room conduct was formal. The shift supervisor was closely involved in shift operations. Access to the control room was formally controlled and noise levels i were maintained low and nondistracting to the control board operators. The licenced senior operator maintained a professional environment in the control room, which was noteworthy due to the impending startup and increased activity in the plant and the control roo Operators routinely exhibited good self checking and peer checking when manipulating controls. Special orange identifying tape on certain handswitches in the control room identified which components required a peer check prior to operation. The inspectors observed that the operators performed peer checks on the designated component ;

'

!

I i

_.._ _ ___._..__... _ . _ _._.._._._-__ .__ . -.__ _ ._.. - _-

L-

<

!

i i

i-I 3

. -3 -  !

I

!

1- i 4: i Conclusions '

The inspectors concluded that operators exhibited good communication, command '

l and control, annunciator response, procedure usage, self checking and peer

checking.

e W

'

04 Operator Knowledge and Performance ,

04.1 Operator Performance on Annual Reaualification Examinations

,

I Inspection Scope (71001)

I a

? The inspectors observed the performance of one shift crew of four active licensed j ' operators and one staff crew of four inactive and one active licensed operators j during the dynamic simulator and job performance measure portions of the annual

! requalification examination.

1 Observations and Findinas '

I g During the dynamic simulator and job performance measure portions of the

examination, the inspectors observed the following generic behaviors among f operators:

i k * Operators exhibited formal,2-legged communication. During more critical or

{ complex evolutions, the shift supervisor required use of 3-legged

! communications, which was then observed routinely during the evolution.

i i * Operators routinely referred to procedures when responding to annunciators i or manipulating the controls of the plan I j * Operators exhibited self checking routinely and peer checking when j' manipulating the orange taped controls on the control board j

~

i k The operations shift crew passed the examinations with no remediation. The staff j crew passed overall on critical tasks and competencies, however, they displayed j some performance deficiencies that were not linked to the identified scenario critical !

! tasks but were significant enough to warrant remediation. This " pass with l remediation" evaluation was a well-established practice to identify areas of crew !

weakness that did not reach the threshold of a license examination failure, i

Although the inspectors considered this a good practice, the " pass with l

remediation" was not described in the licensee's governing Procedure TAP-13, !

! " Licensed Operator Requalification Training," Revision 33. (See Section 5.5 below.)

l

$

!

l

4

$

l

.- -

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

-.

.

l'

-4-l The evaluators made the following observations concerning performance of the staff crew in the simulator:

l

They appeared more disorganized than the operations shift cre *

Command and control was indecisive at times, which slowed actions required to mitigate the simulated plant even * Communications were in general less formal than those observed for other crews; however, no miscommunications were observe The evaluators identified remediation of the staff crew in the areas of command and control and communication Although the inspectors were not formally co-evaluating the examinations, the inspectors concurred with the facility observations and evaluation Conclusions The inspectors concluded that licensed operators exhibited good knowledge and ability during the requalification examinations and had maintained an adequate ability to continue licensed duties. Operator performance in the simulator was consistent with that observed in the control roo Operator Training and Qualification  !

05.1 Review of Reaualification Examinations Inspection Scoce (71001)

The inspectors performed a review of the annual requalification examinations, including operating tests and biennial written examination, to evaluate general ,

quality, construction, and difficulty level. The inspectors also reviewed the l methodology for developing the requalification examination Observations and Findinas The operating examinations consisted of job performance measures and dynamic simulator scenarios. The f acility utilized the Combustion Engineering Owner's Group template evaluation scenarios as guidance in the development of the scenarios used for the requalification examinations. These were the first requalification examinations administered using these templates. The resulting scenarios were markedly more complex and challenging when compared to previously administered simulator examinations. During interviews following the examinations, operators commented that the scenarios were very busy and afforded little time for thorough evaluation of the plant conditions and applicable Technical

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

. _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _

. t

'

i a- )

i i

i -5-

l i

j_ Specifications prior to initiation of the next event. The scenarios followed the !

guidelines of NUREG 1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 7, j Supplement 1, in complexity and quantitative event requirements. The inspectors j noted that these more complex scenarios were more capable of identifying e

individual deficiencies than those previously administered at this facility during i requalification examinations. The scenarios were considered a significant improvement over the last requalification examinations.

J j The job performance measures were adequate in scope and depth and covered a

broad range of topics as required by the training program and the regulation ;

.

! Conclusions

} The inspectors concluded that the examinations were well constructed, challenging, l and discriminated at the appropriate level. Dynamic simulator scenarios were l challenging and improved in their ability to identify weak individuals in any given j Cre W.

!

05.2 Examination Administration Inspection Scope (71001)

,

The inspectors observed the administration of all aspects of the requalification j examination to determine the evaluators' ability to administer an examination and j assess adequate performance through measurable criteria. The inspectors also i noted the fidelity of the plant simulator to support training and examination j

~

administration. The inspectors observed two crews, one operations shift crew of four licensed operators and one staff crew of five licensed operators, during ,

i conduct of the dynamic simulator scenarios and job performance measure i

, evaluations. Six licensed operator trainers were observed administering the

examinations, including pre-examination briefings, observations of operator performance, individual and group evaluations of observations, techniques for job performance measure cuing, and final evaluation documentation.

j Observations and Findinas s The evaluators conducted the examinations professionally and thoroughly l documented observed weaknesses and areas for improvement. For the job i

performance measures, the evaluators provided appropriate responses as necessary with no inadvertent cuing. The inspectors attended the post-simulator examination i debriefs held by the licensee's evaluators for each of the scenario sets. The

_ debriefs were comprehensive and candid with detailed discussions by each i

n i

. . --

- _ _-- - _ .. - -

.

l l

evaluator on relevant subjects. The evaluators passed all of the operators on all i

'

portions of the examinations. The inspectors noted that the performance of the simulator in supporting the examination process was excellent. Minor simulator performance deficiencies observed by the inspectors during the operating tests are described in Attachment Conclusions The facility evaluators effectively examined operators to identify deficiencies or weaknesses in the trainees and the training program. The training staff was knowledgeable in the regulatory and f acility requirements for requalification. The facility evaluators administered the examinations professionally and in accordance with industry standard .3 Review of Trainina Feedback System Inspection Scope (71001)

The inspectors verified the methods and effectiveness of the licensed operator requalification training program feedback system, Observations and Findinas During interviews, licensed operators described several methods for providing feedback on the licensed operator requalification training program. Written requests could be made with either the training feedback form or request training form. Also, the operator could make training requests verbally to the instructors or the training department management. The training manager stated that, in the event of verbal requests for training, the instructors would sometimes fill out training request form Operators expressed overall satisfaction with the responses to their training requests. However, some of the requests competed with each other for training resources. For instance, some of the operators desired more simulator training time. One operator stated that more time should be devoted to teaching theory and less to covering plant and industry events. Other operators stated that coverage of plant and industry events was appropriate. The training manager recognized the allocation of resources as one of his primary challenge l In addition to feedback from individual operators, the licensee had aiso implemented a management observation program. The observations were scheduled by the assistant plant manager. The training manager stated that valuable information was being received from the field observations and that it would be desirable to increase the number of field observations. He also stated that significant feedback was received during weekly funcheons attended by training and operations personne One example of feedback received was a need for classroom training on fuel handling in lieu of self study. This example was cited by both the training manager and a licensed senior operator.

_

.

-7-The inspectors reviewed the condition reports listed in Attachment 1 to determine if appropriate corrective action training had been planned and implemented. In each

,

instance, the inspectors determined that appropriate training had been complete Conclusions Operations personnel utilized several diverse methods for providing feedback to the licensed operator requalificahn training program. The training department responded to the training feedback provided.

, 05.4 Review of RemedialTrainina Proaram Inspection Scope (71001)

The inspectors reswed the remedial training program to evaluate compliance with licensee program guidance contained in TAP-13, Section 3.8, and to determine the effectiveness of the program to identify completed corrective actions. The inspectors reviewed two randomly selected operator remedial training packages to determine whether adequate retraining and evaluation was performed based on the deficiencies identified.

' Observations and Findinas The inspectors determined that remedial evaluations were comprehensive and adequately tested the identified deficient areas. The supervisors for operations and training were responsible for determining if additional actions were necessar These determinations were documented in a formalletter to the training and plant managers. Following completion of the remediation, an individual would then either be allowed to return to licensed shift duties or removed from licensed duties for further action.

, Conclusions The licensee's process for operator remedial training was satisf actory within the following training cycle.

!

05.5 Review of Reaualification Proaram Guidance and License Conditions Insoection Scope (71001)

The inspectors evaluated the requalification program's ability to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59,"Requalification," and Elements 4 and 5 of a systems approach to training as described in NUREG-1220," Training Review Criteria and Procedures," Revision 1. These elements involve evaluation of trainee mastery of objectives during training and evaluation and revision of training based on the performance of trained personnelin the job setting, respectively. The

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

,

'

.

!

.

-8-

inspectors also evaluated the ability of the program to ensure that conditions of the operator licenses are met and maintained as required by 10 CFR 55.53," Conditions r

'

of Licenses." The inspectors conducted interviews with four licensed operators, I two trainers who were also licensed operators, the licensed operator training j supervisor, and the training manager. The inspectors questioned the staff to ;

'

determine their level of knowledge of the facility training program, and their I perception of the adequacy of the program to maintain licensed operator skills.

,

b. Observations and Findinas

The inspectors determined that TAP-13, the governing procedure for administration of the requalification program and other training department procedures listed in Attachment 1, adequately addressed 10 CFR 50.59 and Elements 4 and 5 of a l systems approach to training. The inspectors noted that TAP-13 did not address a ;

currently used evaluation of " satisfactory with remediation." The operations

]

,

training supervisor submitted a change request based on the inspectors' comments to address this more clearly in the procedure. The procedure contained all of the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33 regarding maintaining current senior operator / reactor operator active status and the steps necessary to upgrade an operator license from inactive to active status.

!

, The licensee had a total of 13 licensed operators (12 senior operators and one J

'

reactor operator) who were maintaining inactive licenses. All of the inactive licenses were in the training department. The inspectors found all requirements to

be satisfied for each licensee.

1 Operations and training personnel were very knowledgeable of program  ;

requirements and expressed general satisfaction with the effectiveness of the l l training department and its responsiveness to revise the program as needed based

'

on various feedback sources, including industry events, examination results, student comments, and self audit ;

c. Conclusions The licensee's requalification program met the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59. The '

,

i licensed operator requalification program effectively implemented a systems

>

approach to training to identify operator performance and training weaknesses and modify the training and evaluation program to correct the identified weaknesses.

• The licensee accurately tracked, maintained, and controlled the conditions of operator licenses and reactivation of inactive licenses in accordance with 10 CFR 55.53(e) and (f). Licensed operators interviewed were knowledgeable of program requirements and expressed general satisfaction with the effectiveness of the progra .

,

f

l I

08 Miscellaneous Operations issues  ;

I 08.1 Review of the Uodated Final Safety Analysis Report Commitments '

A recent discovery of a licensee operating their facility in a manner contrary to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report description highlighted the need for a special focused review that compares plant practices, procedures, and/or parameters to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report descriptions. While performing the inspection discussed in this report, the inspectors reviewed the applicable portions of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report that related to the areas inspected. The inspector verified that the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report section for licensed operator replacement and requalification training was consistent with the observed plant practices and procedure IV. Plant Support F8 Miscellaneous Fire Protection issues F General Comments The inspectors observed general plant housekeeping incident to administration of the in plant job performance section of the operating test. The facility was reasonably clean and welllighted and the floors were clear and free from debri The operators were conscientious to note discrepancies and inform the main control roo I

!

.

=

I

.

<

r

,

ATTACHMENT 1

, PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

i Licensee

1 i R. Conner, Manager - Training l J. Chase, Plant Manager

{ D. Dryden, Licensing Engineer 4 j G. Gates, Vice President - Nuclear

'

G. Guliani, Operations Training Supervisor  ;

T. Patterson, Division Manager, Nuclear Operations '

l M. Sandhoefner, Shift Supervisor  !

j R. Short, Manager, Operations

. C. Brunnert, Manager - Quality Assurance -

! C. Rennerfeldt, Operations instructor i

C. Simmons, Manager (Acting) - NSRG

. R. Huber, Reactor Operator ,

} R. Ward, Senior Operator '

{ R. Fisher, Reactor Operator j D. Darrow, Operations Instructor

l NRC

W. Walker, Senior Resident inspector i

i i DOCUMENTS REVIEWED i

i

Procedures Reviewed j

-

TAP-8, " Examination Control and Administration," Revision 21

!. t

] TOP-13. " Licensed Operator Requalification Training," Revision 5 l

,

I j TAP-13, " Licensed Operator Requalification Training," Revision 33  !

i l TAG-13, " Development of NRC Licensed Annual Requalification Examination Materials,"

l Revision 2 l  !

TAG-13A, " Licensed Operator Requal Sample Plan," Revision O A.

i l

i I .

I i i i l,

.

i

. . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ , . . . . , . ._ _ _ . , . _ . - . - . . , .

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

, .

'

.,

>

-2-Condition Reports

]

CR-199600320, April 16,1996 CR-199500430, January 25,1996 CR-199600340, April 16,1996 CR-199600496, July 18,1996 l

CR-199600549,May 1,1996 j CR-199600589,May 10,1996 i CR-199600757,0ctober 22,1996

'

CR-199600804, June 19,1996 i

,

i

.

?

ATTACHMENT 2 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: Fort Calhoun Station Facility Docket: 50-285 Operating Examinations Administered at: Fort Calhoun, Nebraska Operating Examinations Administered on: November 19-21,1996 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 approval of the simulation facility, other than to pavide information which may be used in future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observation Overall, the simulation facility displayed excellent fidelity, with only minor exceptions as noted below:

• Spurious Rhodium detector alarms were present on an emergency response facility computer during one scenario. The crew was told that they were spurious and to ignore them. The licensee issued Deficiency Report 96-6 * There were error messages on the emergency response facility computer during simulator initialization. The licensee stated that this had happened several times and he issued Deficiency Report 96-6 * An alarm for Pressurizer Safety Valve RC-141 tailpipe temperature came in during j one scenario with no malfunction present. The licensee issued Deficiency Report 96-6 l These c'eficiencies had no significant impact on examination administration or operator perform inc I

,

!

l l

)

i