IR 05000346/1998020

Insp Rept 50-346/98-20 on 981116-20.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Review of Licensee Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program

ML20198E690
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	12/17/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198E686	List: IR 05000346/1998020 ML20198E682
References
50-346-98-20, NUDOCS 9812240127
Download: ML20198E690 (14)

Text

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

l ,: j

.

'

'

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {

l REGION 111

!-

!

Dccket No: 50-346 i

. License No: NPF-3

,

i l

Report No: 50-346/98020(DRS) i i

Licensee: Toledo Edison Company i Facility: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Location: 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 Dates: November 16 - 20,1998 Inspectors: R. M. Bailey, Reactor inspector T. R. Jones, Reactor inspector Approved by: Melvyn Leach, Chief, Operator Licensing Branch Division of Reactor Safety

,

"

9812240127 981217 PDR ADOCK 05000346 g PM

. - -

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

!

.

-

!

..

'

! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station i NRC Inspection Report 50-346/98020 1 This inspection included a review of the licensee's licensed operator requalification training j program. The inspection included the following: selected training manual procedures; annual  !

written and operating examination material; evaluator performance during the administration of the operating examination; program controls to assure continued systems approach to training; and continuing training records. In addition, the inspectors observed a period of control room opestions. The inspectors used the guidance in inspection procedures 71001 and 7170 !

Operations Control room operators were knowledgeable of equipment status and effectively communicated plant conditions. (Section 01.1)

Trainina Proaram in general, operators assigned to the simulation control room executed their duties during abnormal and emergency conditions in a safe manner, and in accordance with station procedures and management expectations. Minor deficiencies in individual operator performance were promptly identified and discussed with the operating crew members. The

'

operating crew's ability to implement appropriate safeguards measures was not impeded by individual operator errors. (Section 04.1)

The licensed operator continuing training program provided appropriate instruction on lessons learned from significant industry events. (Section 05.1)

The requalification program examinations, which included an operating test and a written examination, were developed in accordance with program guidance and were consistent with regulatory requirements. (Section 05.2)

The requalification program evaluations for determining mastery of licensed operator skills were conducted in accordance with program guidance and were consistent with regulatory requirements. Experienced evaluators were utilized to verify individual mastery of required l

operator skills. (Section 05.3)

An appropriate feedback process was in place to provide input for the improvement of the L licensed operator continuing training program. The various mechanisms for providing operator feedback made the process very effective. (Section 05.4)

l Individual operators requiring accelerated requalification training were appropriately assigned a remediation package requiring completion prior to returning the operator to licensed dutie (Section 05.5)

!

I

,- 2 f

r

,, ,. - , , , , . - , , - - ~- .

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

. . , . .. . - -- .. . . - - . - . . .- . .. . . ~ . . . - -

.

.

!

'

L The requalification program process to ensure individual operators maintained a qualified status to perform licensed duties was being implemented consistent with program guidelines and in ,

compliance with regulatory requirements (Section 05.6) '!

In general, the plant specific control room simulator provided consistent, realistic plant conditions under abnormal and emergency transients. (Section 05.7)

)

)

. 1 j

!

!

~l

,..

..

,

, - . . _ . . ,

,- _

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

'

~

.

,

Report Details E

1._90erations L 01 Conduct of Operations i-i 01.1 Control Room Observations l Insoection Scooe (IP 71707 and IP 71001)

The inspectors observed routine control room activities during full power operation, performed a panel walk-down, reviewed control room logs, and questioned operators

!

about plant and equipment status.

l

' Observations and Findinas

' Control room operators performed routine reviews of plant indications per management l expectations. Expected annunciators were acknowledged and the supervising operator '

(, was informed of plant status in a timely manner.- Operator logs were complete and generally contained sufficient detail. Licensed operators demonstrated appropriate plant knowledge of equipment status. Operations personnel used clear and concise routine  ;

communication j Conclusions I i

l- - Control room operators were knowledgeable of equipment status and effectively L communicated plant conditions.

-

04 Operator Knowledge and Performance

,

04.1 Annual Evaluation Performance Review

,

.

L Inspection Scone (IP 71001)

l .s The inspectors observed the performance of one operating crew during the annual r L licensed operator requalification examination. The crew consisted of a shift supervisor (SS), an assistant shift supervisor (AS), and a shift manager (SM) (each holding a

! . senior reactor operator (SRO) license), and three reactor control operators) (each f~ holding a reactor operator (RO) license). The performance evaluation included an i observation of two of the three simulator evaluation scenarios administered and a review of the following:

l

• NT-OT-07001, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program," Revision 4, Section . DB-OP-00000, " Conduct of Operations," Revision 3, Section 6.0

.

. DB Operations Policy Manual

!-

,

.

!' 4 i

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

.

b. Observations and Findinas During both dynamic scenarios, the operating crew conducted a control panel walk down, and a shift turnover which included a crew briefing, then performed their duties, as assigned, in a professional manner which was consistent with main control room observations noted in section O1.1 of this repor The operations crew successfully completed all of the required critical tasks, but the inspectors noted a variation in the quality of crew briefings conducted by the SS and A In general, the briefings were one to three minutes in duration and the level of detail depended on current plant conditions. During implementation of emergency actions, the crew briefs were concise but lacked some detail and in one instance the SRO provided inappropriate direction. For example, direction was given to the primary RO to align core injection in the piggy back mode using the makeup pumps versus the high pressure injection pumps. This hampered the effective implementation of emergency ;

actions. On more than one occasion, a lack of attention-to-detail was noted on pad of the ROs in that safeguards equipment being out of the desired position was not identified until noted by another crew member, in addition, some SROs in the AS position had difficulty using the emergency procedures. These findings were documented by the licensee's evaluators. The inspectors agreed with the licensee's final determination of crew and individual operator performance. (See section 05.3 for additional comments.)

The individual operators successfully completed a minimum of four out of the required l five job performance measures. One operator failed to re-energize an electrical bus which prevented the start of a pump until the error was recegnized and corrected by that operator. An unsatisfactory performance was documented for that specific job task I performance. The inspectors agreed with the licensee's evaluation and I recommendation on each operator's performance. (See section 05.3 for additional !

comments.) 1 Each licensed operator was assigned a passing grade on the biennial written examination. The inspectors agreed with the licensee's determination on each operator's performance. (See section 05.3 for additional comments.)

c. Conclusions in general, operators assigned to the simulator control room executed their duties during abnormal and emergency conditions in a safe manner, and in accordance with station procedures and management expectations. Minor deficiencies in individual operator performance were promptly identified and discussed with the operating crew member The operating crew's ability to implement appropriate safeguards measures was not impeded by individual operator errors.

l

,

I

l

. . _ . _ ____ _ __ . _ ~ _ _ _ ___ _ _ .._

\~

.

05 Operator Training and Qualification I

05.1 Operatina Historv

. Inspection Scope (IP 71001)

,

l The inspectors reviewed the plant's operating history from November 1996 to November  ;

'

1998 to determine if any operator errors occurred that could be attributed to ineffective t

or inadequate training. . That review included the following- l I

l

.

Most recent Systematic Assessinent of Licensee Performance (SALP-12) report i l

issued February 27,1997

. Selected routine NRC inspection reports

. Selected Licensee Event Reports (LERs)

l Observations and Findinag I The licensee's documentation of previously identified knowledge weaknesses and performance deficiencies were appropriately addressed in the licensed operator requalification training material. Related licensee event reports involving operational

. Issues were also addressed during the current requalification training cycle, j Conclusiens

,

The licensed operator continuing training program provided appropriate instruction on i lessons learned from significant plant and industry event .2 Regualification Examination Material Insoection Scooe (IP 71001)

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's licensed operator requalification program sample plan, and compared that with the written examinations and operating tests administered during the annual evaluations. The following documents were reviewed:

. Inspection Plan IP-71001, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation," Appendix A

= Dynamic scenarios administered to one operating crew during the inspection period

. Job Performance Measures administered to one operating crew during the inspection period

. Part A and Part B written questions administered to one operating crew during

. the inspection period

.- One written examination and aa operating test that were previously administered during the current evaluation cycle

,

. Complete set of written' questions and operating tests administered during the l annuallicensed operator requalification program evaluation 1:

I l

l l

,

.

, , .-- , , - n. -.

-. - - . - . - - .... - . - . - . . - - . - . .-...

1

.

~

-

NT-OT-07001, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program," Revision 4, Section i l

. NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,"  !

Interim Revision 8 i Observations and Findinos Two different written examinations each consisting of a section A and B were j developed to test the ROs and SROs. Each examination contained job specific

'

questions wri ten at the appropriate RO or SRO level. The examinations contained an appropriate level of open reference questions that required the operator to demonstrate 1 required job skills relating to the use of plant specific reference material and control  ;

panel indications to derive a correct respons Three dynamic simulator scenarias were used during the annual operating test and incorporated diverse risk significant events, such as a Steam Generator Tube Rupture, a Loss of Subcooled Margin, and an Overcooling event. An appropriate number of critical tasks were incorporated into each scenario. The scenarios contained credible malfunctions which included necessary precursors. Major events were sequenced such that simultaneous malfunctions did not require outside operator assistance. Even though the scenario evaluation guides contained appropriate references between event initiation and procedural action, no reference was made to any specific operating position (SRO or RO) as having the responsibility for taking the expected actions noted in the body of the scenario guide. An NRC developed evaluation scenario would conform to the requirements specified in section ES-604 and Appendix D of NUREG-1021. In order to properly evaluate an operating crew including individual operator competencies, section B of Appendix D specified that, for each event listed on the scenario outline, an expected operator action (s) shall be noted which references the operating position anticipated to take that action. The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' observation and a review of this item for program improvement would be

' conducted at a future dat The in-plant walkthrough portion of the annual operating test contained diverse safety system' performance tasks. Each job performance measure (JPM) contained clearly defined task elements, such as the task standard and supporting evaluator cuss, and denoted critical steps needed to accomplish the task. Four of the five JPMs selected for each operator were common to both the RO or SRO examinees. One of the five JPMs administered to the SROs contained a job specific task for the SS, AS, or SM positio Conclusions The requalification program examinations, which included an operating test and a written examination, were developed in accordance with program guidance and were consistent with regulatory requirement _ _ .__ _ _ . . - - -

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

'

05.3 Reaualification Examination Administration Practices Insoection Scope (IP 71001)

The inspectors interviewed operations and training staff personnel, and performed the following to assess the licensee's practices regarding requalification examination administration, evaluation, and security:

.

Observed licensee's administration and evaluation of the annual operating and written examination for one operating crew

.

Reviewed NT-OT-07001, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program," Revision 4, Section .

Reviewed NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Interim Revision 8

-

Reviewed P-OPS-4, " Development and Conduct of Simulator Evaluations,"

Revision 6 .

1 Observations and Findinas The annual operating evaluations and the biennial written examinations were administered during training Cycle 98-04. The licensee implemented appropriate security measures throughout the administration process. No evidence of undue operator stress or examination compromise were observe The biennial written examination was administered in accordance with program guidelines and consistent with regulatory requirements. The licensee provided a complete set of the plant operating procedures and allowed access to the plant specific simulator control panel during the exam administration. In addition, an appropriate spacing between the operators was maintained which prevented operator interaction during the examination proces In general, the annual operating test was conducted in accordance with program guidelines and consistent with regulatory requirements with the following minor exceptions. The actual run time for the two dynamic scenarios observed was recorded at 95 minutes and 75 minutes, respectfully. The run time exceeded each scenario's anticipated run time of 50 minutes, but the crew's response to events in progress required extra time to complete performance objectives. In addition, both scenarios included an objective to exercise the licensee's Technical Specifications (TS), but the sequencing of events in one of the two scenarios did not permit an exercise of the TS prior to entry into emergency procedures. An NRC developed evaluation would require the SRO to comply with and use Technical Specification The licensee's evaluation team for the dynamic scenario portion of the operating test included the Superintendent - Plant Operations along with two operations training department instructors who performed the individual operator evaluations for the operations crew. Each evaluator possessed a current or previous senior reactor operator license to operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The evaluation team maintained diverse positions throughout the scenarios such that an overall

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

...

..

observation of the crew and individual performances were afforded under all circumstances. During the in-plant walkthrough portion of the examination, each evaluator was assigned to one operator to complete a set of five JPM tasks. The evaluators provided timely, prescripted response cues, as outlined, and appropriate responses to follow up questions asked by the operators. No evaluator prompting or improper cuing was note The licensee's evaluation team performed their duties in a professional manner and maintained an overall attentiveness to operator performance throughout the testing process, Conclusions The requalification program evaluations for determining mastery of licensed operator skills were conducted in accordance with program guidance and were consistent with regulatory requirements. Experienced evaluators were utilized to verify individual mastery of required operator skill ,

05.4 Reaualification Trainina Proaram Feedback Inspection Scope (IP 71001)

The inspsetors interviewed operations and training staff personnel, and reviewed the ,

following documents to assess the licensee's training program feedback system effectiveness:

l

.

Quality Assessment Audit Report, AR-98-TRAIN-01, addressing February - 1

' March,1998

.

Quality Assessment Audit Report, AR-97-TRAIN-01, addressing February -

March,1997 ' Observations and Findinas The licensee's program incorporated an evaluation process that involved classroom, control room simulator, and on-the-job training activities which required management feedback on operator performance. Licensed operators and instructors were required to provide program evaluation feedback at the end of each training sessio Computerized feedback was encouraged to promote an exchange of information. The .l

'

inspectors interviewed selected licensed operators and trainers, and received favorable inputs on the effectiveness of the feedback proces Conclusions l L ,

An appropriate feedback process was in place to provide input for the improvement of L the licensed operator continuing training program. The various mechanisms for l providing operator feedback made the process very effective.

!

. 9 b

o V - . . . -

- - .-. ~ . . -. . . -.

l

..

l .

05.5 Remedial Trainina Proara,m Insoection Scooe (IP 71001)

The inspectors performed a review of the following remediation records and procedures to assess the licensee's remedial training program effectiveness:

-

Completed remediation package for one licensed operator that failed two consecutive weekly exams in 1998

.

Completed remediation packages for two licensed operators that failed the annual written examination in 1998

Reviewed NT-OT-07001, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program," Revision 4, Section 6.17 Observations and Findinas Licensed operators were removed from licensed duties whenever individual performance was deemed to be unsatisfactory. The accelerated remediation packages were completed, as outlined, prior to returning the operator to licensed duties. Each package contained a discussion of the significant weaknesses identified and assigned appropriate training to improve performance, in addition, an appropriate evaluation action was assigned with management review and concurrence required at completio Each operator was allowed to review the individual evaluation summary sheet containing noted deficiencies. The accelerated remediation actions were consistent with program guidanc Conclusions Individual operators requiring accelerated requalification training were appropriately assigned a remediation training package requiring completion prior to returning the operator to licensed dutie .6 Qonformance with Operator License Conditions Inspection Scope (IP 71001)

The inspectors reviewed the licensed operator medical and active license qualification programs to assess licensed operator compliance with regulatory requirements and the following licensee procedures and records:

-

NT-OT-07001, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program," Revision 4, Section + NG-CS-00901, " Davis-Besse Health Center Operations," Revision 1, Section American National Standard Institute /American National Standard (ANSI /ANS)

3.4-1983

- Eight licensed operator medical records selected at random

. Licensed duties tracking program

.

" Observations and Findinas Medical examination completion dates and the documenting of test results were consistent with program guidance and in compliance with regulatory requirements to examine each operator on a biennial basi Operators assigned to perform licensed duties during routine plant operations possessed valid, active licenses based upon satisfactory participation in the licensed operator requalification training program and documented time on shift. An operator who failed to maintain an active license status was required to complete specific watch standing duties under instruction prior to resuming licensed duties. The licensee's program was maintaining operator status consistent with program guidelines and in compliance with regulatory requirement Conclusions

The requalification program process to ensure individual operators maintained a qualified status to perforrn licensed duties was being implemented consistent with program guidelines and in compliance with regulatory requirement .7 Simulator Fidelity I Inspection Scope (IP 71001)

The inspectors reviewed the effectiveness of the licensee to identify and correct simulator discrepancies, and noted any simulator fidelity issues identified during the operating examination. The inspectors observed administration of the annual operating examination on the licensee's plant referenced simulator Observations and Findinos The plant specific control room simulator performed the required component malfunctions and provided realistic plant response to changing conditions. Selected simulator fidelity concerns were identified by the licensee (See Enclosure 2. " Simulation l Facility Report"). The licensee acknowledged that a recent simulator software modification had contributed to an increased number of operator identified discrepancies ;

but no negative training concerns had been identified, Conclusions in general, the plant specific control room simulator provided consistent, realistic plant conditions under abnormal and emergency transient ,

..

.

..

V. Mananoment Meetinos X1 Exit Meeting Summary On November 20,1998, the inspectors presented their inspection results to members of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Station management. The licensee acknowledged the findings as presented. The inspector asked the licensee whether any materials examined during the inspection should be considered proprietary and none was identifie ;

I I

j

!

i

!

L 1

__, __ _ ..__ __ ._ . . _ . __.

..

.

"

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Centerior Service Comoany M. Beier, Manager, Quality Assurance R Coad, Superintendent - Radiation Protection S. Coakley, Manager - Work Management R. Donnellon, Director - Engineering and Services D. Eshelman, Manager - Operations J. Freels, Manager - Regulatory Affairs B. Hemminger, Maintenance - Master Mechanic D. Lockwood,. Supervisor - Compliance T, Myers, Director - Nuclear Support Services C. Price, Manager, Bus Services D. Schreiner, Maintenance - Piping Specialist H Stevens, Manager - Nuclear Safety and Inspections T. Swim, Supervisor - Mechanical / Structural Engineering J. Wood, Vice President - Nuclear NRC K. Zellers, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED

,

IP 71001: Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation IP 71707: Plant Operations ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED NONE-

,

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

..

.

.. l Enclosure 2 I SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT 3

!

Facility Licensee: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station  !

' Facility Licensee Docket Nos: 50-346

Operating Tests Administered: November 20,1998 This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit t

or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of j noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification or j 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 observation '

While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were  ;

observed (if none, so state): '

i l ITEM DESCRIPTION

Main Feed Pump While on the turning gear in preparation for start, the Turbine No.1 Trip MFPT 1 turbine tripped on two separate occasions for no f

(MFPT1) apparent reason. Licensee to investigate.

L l Auxiliary Feed Pump AFP 1 Low Suction Pressure Alarm was received during a  ;

'

,

. (AFP 1) Low Suction pump run for no apparent reason. Licensee to L Pressure Alarm investigat ;

l'

i

,

l-

,

.

i

<

'

_ . . - -_ --

. -_ _ . _ __