IR 05000331/1996012

Insp Rept 50-331/96-12 on 961216-20.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Operator Training & Qualification

ML20147B811
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	01/29/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20147B808	List: IR 05000331/1996012 ML20147B803
References
50-331-96-12, NUDOCS 9702030236
Download: ML20147B811 (9)

Text

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

.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION lli Docket No: 50-331 License No: NPF-49 Report No: 50-331/96012(DRS)

Licensee: lowa Electric Light & Power Company Facility: Duane Arnold Energy Center Location: RR #1 Palo, IA 52324 Dates: December 16-20,1996 Inspectors: D. R. McNeil, Reactor Engineer P. C. Cataldo, inspector Approved By: J. A. Lennartz, Acting Chief Operator Licensing Branch I

i l

i i

.

9702030236 970129 PDR ADOCK 05000331 G PDR

_ , , - - - .

.

l i

l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Duane Arnold Energy Center l NRC Inspection Report 50-331/96012 j This inspection report contains the findings and conclusions regarding the licensed reactor l operator and senior reactor operator requalification training program inspection. The l inspection included a review of training administrative procedures and operating l examination material, observation and evaluation of operator performance and licensee evaluators during a requalification operating examination, an assessment of simulator l fidelity, an evaluation of program controls to assure a systems approach to training, and a I review of requalification training record The inspectors used the guidance in inspection procedure (IP) 7100 Ooerations Licensed operator requalification programs were implemented in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55 requirement i i

All portions of the annual requalification examination were judged to be effective tools for determining operator weaknesses. The requalification written examination was judged to be a program strength in that the questions were challenging and examined at the proper dif ficulty leve Licensee controls to revise the licensed operator requalification training program were satisfactor The remedial training program administered to operators that failed the written requalification examination was judged to be a significant weaknes I

!

,

l l

__ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

!

,

.

Report Details 1. Operations  ;

I 05 Operator Training and Qualification 05.1 Ooeratina History Insoection Scoce (71001)

The inspectors reviewed the following to assess the licensed operator requalification training program's effectiveness regarding operator performance:

e SALP Report No. 50-331/9500 I e Resident inspector observations and reports covering the time frame of January 1995 to December 199 e Licensee event reports covering the time frame of January 1995 to December 199 Observations and Findinas No significant errors during the inspection period were attributable to ineffective j training. The training program provided operators with skills necessary to safely ;

operate the Duane Arnold Energy Cente '

05.2 Reaualification Examinations Insoection Scope (71001)

The inspectors reviewed the following using IP 71001, Appendix A checklists, to assess the licensee's examination material quality and content:

• Sample plans e The requalification operating examinations administered during the examination cycl Observations and Findinas The dynamic simulator scenarios contained all the quantitative and qualitative attributes necessary to provide an effective evaluation of operator skills. The job performance measures (JPMs) satisfied an NRC quality checklist and were considered good. The inclusion of an administrative JPM was considered appropriate and revealed a significant weakness when four of five Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) failed the JPM. The written examination was considered a

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

.

strength of the requalification program. The written examination questions were written to the right difficulty level and provided an excellent evaluation tool for determination of operator weaknesse Examination item control was considered a minor weakness. The following were examples of examination item control weaknesses: (1) there were no examination construction controls to prevent repeated use of an examination item during the requalification examinations, (2) trainers were unable to determine which items or how many items in their examination banks had been modified or reviewed during the current requalification cycle, and (3) there were no controls to prevent a crew from receiving the same operating examination they were administered during the previous annual examinatio The inspectors determined that the examinations administered each week during  ;

this requalification cycle were constructed of newly written material. Sufficient 1 material was written such that each examination item was used once and only l repeated during retake examination l 05.3 Reaualification Examination Administration Practices Insoection Scooe (71001)

The inspectors performed the following to assess the licensee's policies and practices regarding requalification examination administration and simulator fidelity:

l e Obscrved the performance of and evaluated one crew of mixed composition (shift and management licenses) during dynamic simulator scenarios and the JPM examination o Observed written examination administration (Category A and B).

e Reviewed the simulator fidelity lo e Reviewed Training Administrative Procedure Observations and Findinas The facility evaluators adequately identified operator performance errors during dynamic simulator scenarios. The facility evaluators failed the crew and two individuals on one scenario. In comparison, the NRC inspectors concurred with the two individual failures, but would have passed the crew. The inspectors determined that the critical task used by facility evaluators to fail the crew did not meet all the requirements to be classified as a critical task. The crew failure was considered conservativ The examination failure rate was higher this year than during previous annual requalification examinations. In addition to the dynamic simulator scenario failures, one operator failed the JPM section of the examination and two operators failed the

-

.

written examination. The higher failure rate was attributed to the increased difficulty level of the examinations and was anticipated by the training departmen The inspectors compared the administered examinations with previous examinations and with requalification examinations administered at other facilities. The comparison revealed that the written examinations were more difficult than any examinations previously reviewed by the inspecton. The examinations revealed several operator weaknesses and were considered an excellent tool for evaluating operator skills. The training staff anticipated a decrease in the failure rate as operators become better prepared for the more difficult examination Adequate examination security measures were noted throughout the examination administratio No unidentified simulator fidelity deficiencies were noted by the inspector .4 Reaualification Trainino Proaram Feedback System Insoection Scooe (71001)

The inspectors performed the following to assess the licensee's training program feedback system effectiveness:

e Reviewed recorded changes to the requalification progra e Reviewed operator feedbac e interviewed licensee personnel (operators, instructors, training supervisor), Observations and Findinas The inspectors determined the feedback process was correctly implemente Operator and crew weaknesses as well as operator training requests were used to select training requirements for the upcoming training cycle. The licensee had a c'tisfactory tracking program to incorporate changes to the examination bank material when procedure changes or modifications were implemented by the plan The program was current and up to dat l 05.5 Remedial Trainina Proaram Insoection Scone (71001)

The inspectors performed the following to assess the licensee's remedial training program effectiveness:

l e Reviewed remediation training plans for severalindividual i l

1

j

.

. Observations and Findinas Execution of the remedial training program was determined to be a significant weakness. The following were noted to support this conclusion:

The same generic remedial training program was assigned to all operators who had failed an examination. The remedial training program was customized to address the individual weaknesses only when an operator failed a retake examinatio * An instructor communicated an informal remedial program to an operator that had failed the written evamination. The operator had nearly completed the remedial training withou. a formal remedial training program assigned to hi l e Retake examinations for operators who had failed the static simulator examination were classroom examinations, rather than a static simulator examination. The skills required for an operator to pass a classroom examination are not necessarily the same skills required of an operator to pass a static simulator examination. Administering a classroom retake examination in the place of a failed static simulator examination may not adequately address an operator's weaknesse i

• 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2) requires each operator to pass a comprehensive written j examination associated with the requalification program. It was determined i that retake examinations for operators who had failed the written examination only covered the areas of demonstrated individual weaknesses plus a few questions from other common operator weaknesses. Operators who failed both the static simulator examination and the written examination (approximately 40 questions) were administered only a 15 cuestion classroom examination for their retake. The inspectors judged the retake examinations to be an ineffective tool for judging overall competency of an operator. It is not clear that the operators have met the requirement of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2) to pass a comprehensive written examination when they complete the shorter, less compreher:sive retake examination. Until further guidance is received from Headquarters Operator Licensing Branch (HOLB),

this issue will be considered an unresolved item (URI 50-331/96012-01(DRS)).

05.6 Conformance With Operator License Conditions Insoection Scone (71001)

The inspectors reviewed the following documents to assess the facility and operator licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 55.53 license condition requirements:

e Records pertaining to maintaining active operator license . _ .. _ _ _ _ _ .

• j

.

l

• Individual operator medical records (representative sample). Observations and Findinas The inspectors determined that Operators were in compliance with 10 CFR 55.53 for maintaining active licenses and were in compliance with 10 CFR 55.21 for

physical examinations.

!

05.7 Conclusions on Ooerator Trainina and Qualification

The inspectors concluded the following:

• The licensee's overallimplementation of the licensed RO and SRO requalification training programs were in accordance with 10 CFR 55

~

requirements, i

,

• The licensee's controls to revise the program based on feedback from

various sources were satisfactory.

!

• The licensee's administration of the remedial training program and i subsequent reexamination of operators was considered a significant weakness. Administration of less comprehensive retake examinations following remediation was considered unresolved (URI 50 331/96012-01 (DRS)).

i

• Administrative controls over the examination banks and examination

'

construction need minor attentio !

~

V. Manaaement Meetinas

X1 Exit Meetina Summarv The inspectors presented the preliminary inspection results to members of licensee

,

management on December 20,1996. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented and indicated that the materials reviewed were not considered proprietary.

5

,

.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee J. Franz, Vice President, Nuclear G. Van Middlesworth, Plant Manager A. Steen, Operations Supervisor K. Young, Manager, Nuclear Training C. Kress, Training Supervisor K. Putnam, Licensing Supervisor G. Thullen, Senior Instructor, Operations E. Vann, Senior instructor, Operations NRC K. Riemer, DAEC Senior Resident inspector C. Lipa, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 71001 Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED Ooened 50-331/96012-01 URI Comprehensive retake exams for licensed operators

_ Closed None Discussed None Attachment: Simulation Facility Fidelity Report

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

,

i O

,

Attachment i Page 1 of 1 i

l

SIMULATION FACILITY FIDEllTY REPORT

,

Facility Licensee: Duane Arnold Energy Center >

Facility Licensee Docket No.: 50-331 f

, Operating Tests Administered: December 16-20,1996 This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute j 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 I may be used in future evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these j observations.

(

) While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following item was j observed:

.

ITEM DESCRIPTION i

None i'

.

)

I

1 1