IR 05000324/1998300

NRC Operator Licensing Exam Repts 50-324/98-300 & 50-325/98-300 on 980508-15.Six SRO & Four RO Candidates Tested.All Passed Exam.One Candidate Identified as Having Some Performance Weaknesses

ML20236H098
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	06/15/1998
From:	Payne D, Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236H084	List: IR 05000324/1998300 ML20236H080
References
50-324-98-300, 50-325-98-300, NUDOCS 9807070083
Download: ML20236H098 (11)

Text

.

• .-

.

.

,

(

,,

d U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION'11-

-

Docket Nos.:

.50-325' 50-324-License Nos.:

.DPR-71 DPR-62

,

l Report Nos.:

-50-325/98-300. 50-324/98-300 Licensee:

Carolina Power and Light Company Facility:

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 & 2-Location:

8430 River Road. SE-

-Southport NC 28461.

Dates:

May 8 through MayJ.1998:.

Examiners:

l

/h b.Tharles Payne. C[f License Examiner Ronald F. Aiello, License Examiner Richard S. Baldwin, License Examiner Paul M. Steiner. License Examiner Approved by:

-

N ThomasA.PeeblesMhief,

[/

Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety u

I $.

Enclosure 1 9907070093 990615 Ii PDR ADOCK 05000324 l:

u V

PDR

{

u-.

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

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

_.

.

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Units 1 & 2 NRC Examination Report Nos. 50-325/98-300. 50-324/98-300 During the period May 8-15. 1998. NRC examiners conducted an announced operator licensing initial examination in accordance with the guidance of Examiner Standards. NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8.

This examination implemented the operator licensing requirements of 10 CFR 655.41. 555.43, and 555.45.

Doerations Control room activities were observed during the examination validation

.

week and examination administration week.

The operators were found to be attentive and professional in their duties.

(Section 01.1)

Six Senior Reactor Operator candidates and four Reactor Operator

.

candidates received written examinations and operating tests.

The NRC administered the operating tests during the week of May 11-15, 1998.

The licensee administered the written examination on May 8,1998.

(Section 05.1)

In general, the examiners found that the as-submitted written

.

examination was marginal.

Extensive effort was expended to correct.

\\

enhance and optimize this portion of the examination.

The initial operating test submittal tested the proper areas of knowledge and was g

set at the appropriate level of difficulty.

(Section 05.2)

Ten of ten candidates passed the examination. One candidate was

.

identified as exhibiting performance weaknesses during the operating test.

(Section 05.3)

'

.

Candidate Pass / Fail

.

.

SRO R0 Total Percent Pass

4

100%

-

Fail

0

0%

Enclosure 1

-

,

..

-

_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

..

.

Plant Suonort The examiners identified a weakness in the facility's contamination

control and monitoring procedures that could allow workers to unknowingly remove potentially cross-contaminated hand carried items from the Radiological Control Area after being checked in the Small.

Article Monitor.

(Section R4.1)

l

<

Enclosure 1 l

'

t__._______.._

_ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _.

_

__

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

.

Report Details Summary of Plant Status During the period of the examinations the Unit 1 was shut down and Unit 2 was at 100 percent power.

I. Doerations-01 Conduct of Operations 01.1 Control Room Observation During validation and administration of the examination, the examiners observed the conduct of operations by currently licensed operators in the control room. The reactor operators (R0s) were attentive to the evolutions in progress. The senior reactor operators (SR0s) limited personnel access for official business only, which contributed to a quiet, professional atmosphere.

Operator Training and Qualifications 05.1 General Comments NRC examiners ccnducted regular, announced operator licensing initial examinations during the period May 8-15, 1998.

The examiners administered examinations developed by members of the Brunswick training staff under the requirements of an NRC security agreement, in accordance with the guidelines of the Examiner Standards (ES) NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8.

Six SR0 and four R0 license applican+s received written examinations and operating tests.

05.2 Pre-Examination Activities This examination represented the licensee's fourth effort at developing written examinations and operating tests for the NRC's operator licensing process.

In general, the examiners found that the quality and level of difficulty of the licensee's initial examination submittal fell below the licensee's previous development efforts.

Licensee response to examiner changes and comments was prompt and accommodating.

The operating tests were validated during the week of April 20-24, 1998.

l The written examinations were finalized and approved the week of May 4, 1998.

Enclosure 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

. _ _ _ _ _ _.

_

_

_____--___ _ _ _ _ -

.

.

-

L The facility examination developers submitted 134 multiple choice questions for NRC examiner review.

The R0 and SRO written tests were i

designed to share 66 questions with 34 additional questions for each test that were license level specific. The examiners had no comments on 72 questions.

Of the remaining 62 questions, comments on 43 questions were characterized as minor.

Editorial changes were made to assure clarity in the question stem and to enhance the quality of the incorrect i

answers.

The examiners requested that 10 questions be replaced because they were too simplistic for an operator licensing test, they tested at

,

the wrong level, or were too difficult to fix.

The examiners determined another nine questions to be good test items but each required significant effort before receiving final approval.

The facility examination developers submitted two simulator scenarios

and one spare for NRC review.

The examiners considered the simulator tests to be adequate, but not very challenging.

Operational limits'were not tested and the SR0 candidates were not required to pr ioritize their l

actions against limited resources. The examiners modified one scenario to add one instrument malfunction and one component malfunction before the major transient.

Other minor changes were made to enhance the test items of each scenario.

The walkthrough examinations sets submitted by the facility examination developers contained Job Performance Measures (JPMs) that met the guidelines of the ES and were of the appropriate level of difficulty.

One significant issue was that JPM sampling was too narrow and did not test enough safety function areas to meet the ES guidelines.

Minor JPM content additions were made to improve their usability by the examiners.

l The JPM follow-up questions required minor modifications but in general were adequate.

~ 05.3 Examination Results and Related Findinas. Observations. and Conclusions Ten of ten candidates passed the examination. The examiners determined l

that one SR0 candidate exhibited performance deficiencies on the

!

walkthrough portion of the operating test.

Detailed candidate

'

performance comments were transmitted under separate cover for management review and to allow appropriate candidate remediation. The examiners did not note any significant candidate performance weaknesses during the simulator or plant walkthrough examinations.

However, the communications demonst ated by the candidates during the dynamic simulator scenarios weie noted to be above average.

l l

Enclosure 1 I

l

-

- _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _,

.

,

.

Some problems were encountered with administration of the walkthrough examination.

Some administrative JPMs that were scheduled to be conducted on the simulator had to be done in the main control room.

Conversely, some JPMs that were scheduled to be performed on day 3 had to be delayed until day 4.

Also, one JPM planned to be admin'stered after each dynamic simulator scenario had to be delayed until the following day. All the above combined with inaccurate JPM validation times resulted in several exam days extending beyond the planned end time.

The licensee conducted a post-examination grading item analysis of both written examinations. _This analysis identified seven questions where both SR0 and RO candidates exhibited knowledge deficiencies. The analysis also identified three other SR0 specfic knowledge weaknesses and two other RO specific knowledge weaknesses. The examiners concluded that no generic knowledge weaknesses existed where multiple questions on the same system or topic were missed by a large number of candidates.

Following NRC grading of the written test. the examiners elected to perform a check of the candidate's final qualification audit written to evaluate question quality, difficulty, and degree of repetition. if any, onto the NRC licensing exam.

Prior to mailing the audit test, the-licensee notified the chief examiner that the facility exam writer had failed to-report that some questions from the audit test had been used on the licensing exam.

ES guidelines state that up to five questions may be repeated from an independently developed audit test with NRC approval Not' only did the exam writer fail to report the use of audit questions on the NRC exam but through a lack of understanding of ES requirements. the author allowed six questions to be used on the R0 exam

- one more than allowed the the ES.

Less significantly four audit test questions were used on the SR0 exam.

The examiners evaluated this information in light of the candidates performance.

They concluded that while neither ES requirements nor NRC expectations were met. the

!

candidates performed sufficiently well to negate this nonconformance.

Enclosure 1 1]

__ _ _ - - _

___

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _

_ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

1.,

.

'

IV. Plant Suonort-R4 Staff Knowledge and Performance in RP&C R4.1-Poor Contamination Control Practices Durina Candidate Use of the Small Article Monitor at the RCA Exit a.

Scope During.the' course of the examination..the examiners observed candidates during their use of the Small Article Monitor (SAM).

The SAM is used to monitor small hand carried items (e.g., books, papers, tools, etc.),

that had been used in the RCA and thus were potentially contaminated, prior to their removal from the RCA. Typically a worker exiting the RCA would place his small itemsin the counter, begin the count sequence'.and then frisk his hands for contamination.

Following the SAM count cycle the worker.would pass his articles into the clean area and then enter

~

the. body counter to check his/her whole body. The owner would then reclaim his/her items from the clean area pass through, b.

Observations The examiners observed the candidates use the' SAM to monitor their hand carried items'for contamination. The examiners noted that one candidate failed to not frisk his _ hands prior to handling the items that the SAM

. monitor had cleared. The candidate attempted to pass the items outside the RCA but was stopped by the examiner.

The cleared' items could have

_

been cross-contaminated by the candidate's hands ~and then released to the clean. area'.

c.

Conclusions The examiners did not note any other examples of this problem so this

-

instance appeared,to be an isolated' example.

However, the potential exists for similar' errors due to the configuration of the exit point and the apparent lack of visible guidance in the area requiring that hands

' be frisked clean prior to handling objects cleared by the SAM monitor.

The examiners concluded that a weakness existed in the facility's 1 contamination control and monitoring procedures that could allow workers to unknowingly remove potentially cross-contaminated hand carried items 1from the RCA after_being checked in the SAM.

l

..

Enclosure 1 a_____-______________-______

__.

_

_

-.

I

_ - _ _ _ _ _ -

_ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _

..

,

.

'

'V. Manaaement Meetinas

-. X1 ;

' Exit' Meeting Summary At~the conclusion of-the: site visit, the~ examiners met.with representatives of the plant staff listed on the following page to discuss the results of the examinations.

There were no dissenting comments.

No proprietary information

- was identified.

PARTIAL LIST OF_. PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee-LW.'Dorman. Regulatory Affairs Supervisor C, Elberfeld,. Regulatory Affairs Senior Analyst-

. M. Herrell Training Manager C. Hinnant.=Vice President Brunswick Nuclear Plant

G.'Ludlam Licensed Operator Requalification Supervisor J. Lyash Plant leneral_ Manager R. Mullis. 0peratims Manager W. Noll. Operations Training Superintendent T. Pearson. Operator Initial Training Team Leader EC~

C. Pattersen. Senior Resident' Inspector.

.

'W.. Smith.. Operator Licensir.g. Region II

.

ITEMS OPENED. CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Ooened None:

Closed-None

..

Enclosure 1

\\.

- _ - _.. _. -.

_ - - _ _ - - - - - _

.

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

_

_.

_.

_

h

'

'

,

.

..

Discussed None LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CFR.

Code of Federal Regulations ESL Examiner Standards (NUREG-1021)

JPM'

' Job Performance Measure NRC-

. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

RCA Radiological Control Area R0 Reactor Operator RP&C Radiological Protection and Chemistry Controls-SAM ~

Small Article Monitor SRO Senior Reactor Operator

,

I L

Enclosure 1

,

i l

)

t-

_

,

l

.

.

.

!

SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: P,runswick Steam Electric Plant Facility Docket Nos..

50-325 and 50-324

..

Operating Tests Administered on:

May 11-15. 1998 This form is to be used only to report observations. 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 provide information that may be used in future evaluations.

No licensee action is required in response to these observations.

While conducting the simulator partion of the operating tests, the following items were observed (if none, so state):

LIB DESCRIPTION None i

!

!

l l

!

l l

)

Enclosure 2 j

______ _.

.__.. -__

_ _ _ _ _.

_ - _

. - -

-_

-

- _

.

WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS AND ANSWER KEYS (SR0/RO)

,

Enclosure 3

'

u_-__._-----.

_ _ _ _ _