IR 05000315/1998305
| ML17334B798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17334B796 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-98-305OL, 50-316-98-305OL, NUDOCS 9806150068 | |
| Download: ML17334B798 (12) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION III
Docket Nos:
50-315; 50-316 License Nos:
50-315/98305(OL); 50-316/98305(OL)
Licensee:
American Electric Power Company Facility:
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Energy Center, Units 1 and 2
'I Location:
500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Ml 49107-1395 Dates:
May 11-14, 1998 Examiner:
D. R. McNeil, Chief Examiner H. Peterson, RIII Examiner J. Ellis, Rill Examiner Approved by:
Melvyn N. Leach, Chief, Operator Licensing Branch Division of Reactor Safety 98061S0068 980610 PDR ADOCK 050003XS V
EXECUTIVESUMMARY Donald C. Cook Nuclear Energy Center NRC Examination Reports 50-315/98305; 50-316/98305 The D.C. Cook Station training department developed an initial operator licensing retake examination that was administered to four license applicants by NRC examiners.
BQR,ill%
Allapplicants passed their respective retake examinations and were issued a Senior Reactor Operator's or Reactor Operator's license.
Exa ination mm With the exception of the one administrative JPM rejected by examiners, facility instructors provided a balanced, acceptable examination tool to evaluate applicant competency.
The applicants appeared well prepared for this portion of the test.
(Section 05.2)
With the exception of several of the operating JPM followup questions, the facility examination development team provided a balanced, acceptable JPM examination tool for evaluating applicant competency.
Several of the submitted follow up questions were not useful for determining applicant competency.
(Section 05.3)
The facility's examination development team provided NRC examiners with a comprehensive, balanced dynamic simulator examination tool for evaluating applicant competency.
The applicants appeared well prepared for the examination and exhibited strengths in several areas identified as weaknesses during the July 1997 examination the applicants failed. (Section 05.4)
I. Operations
- 'perator Training and Qualification 05.1 nt An operator initial license retake examination was administered on May 11 -14, 1998, at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Energy Center to four operator license applicants that failed the initial license examination administered in July 1997. One Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicant was administered the administrative job performance measures (JPM)
portion of the license examination.
One Reactor Operator (RO) applicant was administered the dynamic simulator scenario portion of the operating examination.
The remaining two applicants (one SRO and one RO) were administered complete operating examinations.
Each applicant passed their respective retake examinations and was issued an SRO or RO license.
The D. C. Cook examination development team developed the retake operating test.
The test consisted of five administrative Job Performance Measures (JPMs), ten operating JPMs with associated follow-up questions, and two dynamic simulator scenarios.
The examination outline approved by the NRC contained five administrative JPMs, five operating JPMs and two dynamic simulator scenarios.
The initial submittal was developed using the approved outline and delivered to the NRC. When license applications were submitted to the NRC, it was determined that one RO applicant would be required to retake the entire operating examination based on a failure of the dynamic simulator examination and poor performance in the operating JPM examination.
The facilityexamination development team added five operating JPMs and two administrative JPMs to compensate for the change in examination scope.
Allchanges were discussed with and approved by the NRC chief examiner prior to implementation.
05.2 dmi i
a iv Job o
anc a
Using NUREG 1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,"
Interim Revision 8, January 1997, the examiners reviewed each administrative JPM for applicability, importance, and safety significance.
The aggregate of the administrative JPMs was reviewed to ensure all required areas of the administrative JPM examination were represented.
b.
The training staff selected a wide variety of administrative JPMs that examined the applicants in areas outlined in NUREG 102 Five administrative JPMs were developed by the training department examination developers and used to examine two SRO applicants.'wo replacement administrative JPMs were developed and used for the RO applicant where the original JPMs were specific to the SRO job function.
Four of the administrative JPMs for the SRO applicants were acceptable as submitted.
One administrative JPM was rejected by the examiners during validation when it was determined that the JPM had no safety significance upon which to base a license decision.
One of the proposed RO administrative JPMs was selected as a replacement JPM. Specifically, administrative JPM A.i.b, Key Control (for the SRO), was replaced with a JPM to calculate Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio.
During conduct of the administrative JPMs a source range nuclear instrument mode switch failed. Examiners were able to compensate for the failure of the switch and complete the administrative JPM examination.
The switch failure was documented and repaired by simulator technicians before dynamic simulator scenarios were conducted.
Three applicants (two SRO, one RO) were administered the administrative JPM portion of the examination.
Each applicant appeared well prepared to take this portion of the examination.
c.
~Con I sion With the exception of the one administrative JPM rejected by the examiners, facility instructors provided a balanced, acceptable examination tool to evaluate applicant competency.
The applicants appeared well prepared for this portion of the test.
05.3 e
'n J
rmance sur Using NUREG-1021, the examiners reviewed each JPM for applicability, importance, and safety significance.
The aggregate of the JPMs was reviewed to ensure all required areas of the JPM examination were represented.
JPM follow up questions were reviewed for applicability and to determine ifthey were considered direct look up or simple memory questions.
b.
s rv ti n and Findin Five operating JPMs were developed by the training department and used to examine one SRO applicant.
Those five operating JPMs plus an additional five operating JPMs were developed and used to examine the RO applicant.
The training staff selected a wide variety of operating'PMs that examined the applicants in all safety functional areas outlined in NUREG 1021. Allof the operating JPMs were acceptable as writte f f
. Several follow up questions provided with the original submittal did not meet the guidelines of NUREG 1021 and were rejected by NRC examiners.
The rejected questions were considered to be direct look up or easy memory questions.
The facility's examination development team provided suitable replacement questions.
Two applicants (one SRO, one RO) were administered the operating JPM portion of the examination.
The SRO displayed some minor weaknesses in system knowledge, but successfully passed the examination.
The RO applicant was well prepared for the examination.
'
Qzzlugj!~
With the exception of several of the operating JPM follow up questions, the facility examination development team provided a balanced, acceptable JPM examination tool for evaluating applicant competency.
Several of the submitted follow up questions were not useful for determining applicant competency.
05.4 D
i
'
~EE i
SS Using NUREG-1021, the examiners reviewed each dynamic simulator scenario.
Each scenario was reviewed for content, applicability, and safety significance.
b.
Ob ervat'
n Fi din s The facilityexamination team developed two scenarios for the dynamic simulator scenario examination.
The proposed scenarios met all guidelines of NUREG 1021 with the exception of one reactivity change requirement in scenario 9802R, Rev 2. The facilityexamination development team believed that a required reactivity change could be implemented by inserting a malfunction that would require operators to rapidly reduce reactor power. NUREG 1021 indicates reactivity changes are normal evolutions and not a rapid response to an abnormal condition. This was a minor case of misinterpretation of NUREG 1021 and was corrected by NRC examiners during scenario validation. A normal down power reactivity change was'inserted into the scenario to assure compliance with NUREG 1021.
During validation of the scenario it was determined that operators were required to align the make up and purification system in a blend mode to compensate for Xenon build up.
NRC examiners determined that this lineup met the requirements of a normal evolution and added the alignment to the scenario outline as a normal evolution. Since the resulting scenario contained a normal evolution for both of the RO applicants; the planned normal evolution (start the middle condensate pump) was deleted from scenario 9802R, Rev 2. The sequence of events was slightly altered in scenario 9801R to assure completion of the reactivity change before conducting malfunctions that might result in a reactor scra Three applicants (one SRO, two RO) were administered the dynamic simulator operating examination. 'With some minor exceptions, the examiners noted a marked improvement in the communications skills of the applicants.
SRO oversite (command and control) of simulator operations was significantly improved.
RO procedural use and compliance and system knowledge appeared to be improved.
C.
~n~li~
The facility's examination development team provided NRC examiners with a comprehensive, balanced dynamic simulator examination tool for evaluating applicant competency.
The applicants appeared well prepared for the examination and exhibited strengths in several areas identified as weaknesses during the July 1997 examination the applicants failed.
aae e
e i
it tin The chief examiner presented the examiner's observations and findings to members of the licensee's management on May 14, 1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
No proprietary information was identified during the examination or at the exit meetin PARTIALLIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
~icen~e R. Anderson, Operations Training P. Carteau, Operations Training D. Cooper, Plant Manager R. Dubs, Operations Training R. Gillespie, Operations Superintendent S. Heil, Operations Training D. Loope, Training Manager W. Nelson, Operations Training G. Tollas, Operations Production Manager S. Vince, Operations Training
~C B. Bartlett, Senior Resident Inspector
@~en None ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
~Cs~d None None
SI LATIONF C L
\\
Facility Licensee:
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Energy Center Facility Licensee Docket No: 50-315; 50-316 Operating Tests Administered:
May 11-14, 1998 Enclosure 2 The following documents observations made by the NRC examination team during the May 1998, initial retake license 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 facilityother 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 1A Source Range Mode Selector Switch Source range mode selector switch failed during the JPM examination.
Technicians determined the set screw was improperly seated and fixed the switch.