IR 05000424/1993018
| ML20059B218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1993 |
| From: | Aiello R, Lawyer L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059B194 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-424-93-18, 50-425-93-18, NUDOCS 9401040038 | |
| Download: ML20059B218 (9) | |
Text
!
UNITED STATES
. /pn nac,4 o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
y"
..
S REGION 11 g
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900
,
5-
- j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323-0199 k.....,o8 Report Nos.
50-424/93-18 and 50-425/93-18
,
Licensee:
Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Docket Hos.:
50-424 and 50-425 License Nos.: NPF-68 and NPF-81
,
Facility Name: Vogtle 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted:
NovemberI9-Dpcember3,1993
,
f'
/
/
.
Mh/
/2/22/(p f
Inspector:
Ronald F. Aiello Date Signed Accompanying Personnel:
E. Lea, RII P Isakson, INEL
,
F. Jagger, INEL
'
N Approved by:
'
e Lawi ence L. Lawyer, Chief'
/
Date Signed
>
Operator Licensing Section Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY Scope:
[
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of licensed
!
operator requalification training.
Its purpose was to ensure that the licensee's requalification program for licensed operators incorporated i
requirements for evaluating how well the operators have mastered the training
~
,
objectives and to assess the licensee's effectiveness in evaluating and
,
revising the requalification program for licensed operators based on the-i operational performance of licensed operators.
Results:
,
The inspectors identified one violation in medical records (paragraph 2.f).
]
The -inspectors identified one unresolved item in medical records
,
(paragraph 2.f).
'
The inspectors identified one weakness in operator knowledge of Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) seal injection operation, steam dump operation, Steam Generator swell effects, and the P-11 permissive logic (paragraph 2.c).
9401040038 931222 PDR ADOCK 05000424 O
PDR;
..
..
-. -
-
-..
.....
..
1
- i
)
,
I
F
'
~
'l The inspectors identified one strength in the area of facility evaluator i
simulator critiques (paragraph 2.d).
l
..
~
!
!
!
[
,
i
,
>
I
i
!
!
!
!
i f
f
'I r
i i
,
!
!
!
i
!
- i i
!
!
I h
t b
t
,
m
!
,,.
-
-
.
-
..
_
.
__
.. -_
_
_
i
!
i
.
,
REPORT DETAILS i
l 1.
Persons Contacted
!
- J. Beasley, General Manager
!
- R. Brown, Supervisor Operations Training l
- S. Chesnut, Manager Technical Support
!
C. Christiansen, Supervisor, SAER
[
- W. Copland, Supervisor Material i
- R. Dorman, Manager Training and EP
- C. Eckert, Senior Technical Specialist
J. Gasser, Unit Superintendent Operations
- B. Gabbard, Nuclear Specialist
- T. Greiner, Sr. Health Services Specialist t
- K. Holmes, Manager Operations l
G. Hooper, Engineering Supervisor W. Kitchens, Assistant General Manager
!
J. Lewis, Sr. Administration Assistant, Training
,
- G. McCarley, ISEG Supervisor-l T. Mozingo, Oglethorpe Power Corp.
L. Ray, Operations Training Supervisor
!
Other licensee employees contacted included instructors, techn'icians, i
operators, and office personnel.
-l
NRC Representatives j
- B. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector
!
- R. Starkey, Resident Inspector
.;
P. Balmain, Resident Inspector l
- Attended Exit Interview A listing of procedures reviewed is contained in appendi: A.
j
!
2.
Discussion (Temporary Instruction (TI)-2515/117)
!'
a.
Scope This was a routine, announced inspection conducted in the area of
!
licensed operator requalification training.
Its purpose was to ensure that the licensee's requalification program for licensed operators incorporated requirements for evaluating how well the operators have mastered the training objectives and to assess the licensee's effectiveness in evaluating and revising the requalification' program for licensed operators based on the operational performance of j
licensed operators.
b.
Examination Development
'
The inspectors reviewed procedures and documentation and conducted-non-technical interviews with licensee personnel in accordance with the guidance of TI-2515/117, Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation. The inspectors performed the above activities to i
!
'
__
!
,
.
' Report Details
i determine if the licensee's training program implemented regulatory i
requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.120, 10 CFR 55.4, and 10 CFR 55.59 l
which pertain to licensed operators.
)
i The procedures that the inspectors reviewed identified those elements,
!
subjects, and topics that were required to establish a requalification
program.
Each element or topic that the inspectors identified was
'
further emphasized and detailed in lower tiered procedures. The inspectors compared the written examinations, Job Performance Measures
(JPMs), and simulator scenarios to the licensee's sample plan. All of
'l the examination questions that the inspectors reviewed, contained l
adequate Knowledges and Abilities (KAs).
Furthermore, the inspectors i
were able to trace the examination questions to appropriate learning objectives contained in the lesson material. The inspectors concluded l
that the' licensee requalification program adequately encompassed the i
requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.120, 10 CFR 55.4, and
.
No violations or deviations were identified.
]
c.
Operator Training The inspectors observed license related activities and conducted technical interviews to examine Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)
knowledge of past Licensee Event Reports (LERs) and 1992 Licensed Operator Requalification (LORQ) examination deficiencies. The inspectors chose six SR0s at random to be interviewed. The inspectors identified knowledge weaknesses in the areas of RCP seal failures, Steam Generator (SG) swell effects, and the P-ll permissive logic.
The inspectors also identified a weakness with respect to the operation of the steam dumps while responding to a Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) event in the simulator. During the performance of E-3, SGTR, the operators failed to either place the mode selector switch to the Steam Pressure mode prior to operating the controller or to go to bypass interlock to clear the permissive P-12 (Low-Low Tave interlock at 550 degrees-F) before being able to operate the steam dumps.
No violations or deviations were identified.
d.
Examination Administration The inspectors assessed the facility licensee's effectiveness in examination administration. The inspectors performed the evaluation in accordance with the guidance cf TI 2515/117 to verify that the facility had adequately addressed licenserl operator and crew performance as required by 10 CFR 50.120, 10 CFR 55.59, and 10 CFR 5.I n
i i
.
1 Report Details
The inspectors identified a strength in the area of facility simulator critiques. The facility evaluators conducted an in-depth critique of i
crew performance following the simulator scenarios. The inspectors j
noted that these performance critiques were performed in a proactive, i
professional manner such that the comments were well received by the j
crew.
The inspectors identified a deficiency in communications which was also identified as a deficiency by the licensee's 1992 self-assessment. The operators demonstrated this by unacknowledged reports or orders, and non-verbatim repeatbacks. This communication deficiency was identified again by the facility evaluators and presented during the simulator critique debriefs. The facility also recognized this deficiency as an area for continued improvement.
No violations or deviations were identified.
e.
Simulation Facility The inspectors reviewed the licensee's record of simulator usage during calendar year 1992 in accordance with the guidance of i
TI 2515/117. The inspectors found that the simulator was available for a total of 6,288 hours0.00333 days <br />0.08 hours <br />4.761905e-4 weeks <br />1.09584e-4 months <br /> based on a Monday through Friday usage.
During these hours of availability, the simulator was used for operator training related functions 64 percent of the time.
It was used for nonoperator training functions 16 percent of the time, and it was idle 20 percent of the time. The inspectors concluded that the simulator availability for operator training usage was satisfactory.
The inspectors conducted a review of all outstanding simulator deficiency reports and backlog from 1992 to the present. The inspectors noted that the facility was making reasonable progress towards reducing the backlog of simulator Design Change Requests (DCRs) that had a significant impact on simulator fidelity. The inspectors identified no new fidelity or configuration deficiencies in
the simulator.
No violations or deviations were identified.
f.
Licensed Operator Medical Records Review
)
The inspectors reviewed all of the licensed operators' medical certifications in accordance with the requirements of ANSI /ANS-3.4-1983, " Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel
Requiring Operator licenses for Nuclear Power Plants." The findings included one cited violation and one unresolved item.
On February 16, 1993, the facility licensee's physician made the determination that one operator's license no longer met the minimum standards required by 10 CFR 55.33 (a)(1) as measured by the standards l
, _
,
. -
Report Details
of ANSI /ANS-3.4-1983. This operator's license should have been conditioned "no solo" because the operator did not meet the standards mentioned above.
The facility failed to notify the NRC within 30 days as required by 10 CFR 55.25 and 10 CFR 50.74.
This failure to notify the Commission of the change in medical status of this operator is identified as Violation 50-424, 425/93-18-01, " Failure to adhere to the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33 regarding the reporting of the medical status of a licensed individual."
The inspector identified three cases where improper "line outs" and
" write overs" were used to alter three of the physician's medical review signature forms. VEGP 00100-C, " Quality Assurance Records Administration," states "For a document, which is to become a Quality Assurance Record, an error may be corrected, before submittal to Document Control, by drawing a single line through it and writing in the correct information.
The person who makes the correction will J
initial and date the entry." The facility has taken measures to prevent any further occurrences in this area.
ANSI-ANS 3.4-1983 states that color vision must be adequate to
distinguish among red, green, and orange-yellow signal lamps, and any
.
Other coding required for safe operation of the particular facility as defined by the facility operator. The inspector identified that one i
operator had a history of color blindness. On June 1, 1991, the training department requested that the medical department administer an additional practical examination to the operator even though he successfully passed a follow-up color coated wire test. The training department wanted to further verify the effect of his color blindness i
on his ability to function as a licensed operator in the control room.
He correctly identified all components and conditions with the following exceptions:
-
Part A (Equipment Status)
Safety Injection (SI) pump running - identified RED switch flag as GREEN
-
Part B (Alarm Recognition)
Shutdown panel local control - it took approximatel,y 30 seconds for the operator to find and identify this P,ED alarm. He l
identified it correctly.
]
'
i
-
Part C (Emergency Response Facility (ERF) Status Indication)
'
Inventory - He erroneously identified the condition as a GREEN path instead of a YELLOW path.
,
i l
On February 11, 1993, the operator was given the "Farnsworth Dichotomous Test for Color Blindness (Panel D-15)" as part of his biennial NRC physical. The results were unacceptable.
Currently, if
'
!
l
__
.. _ _ _ _ _ _
. _ - -
__ - - _ _ _
.-
Report Details
,
,
the results are unacceptable, the operator is required, per Vogtle
,
Nuclear Administrative memorandum to R. Dorman from V. Agro dated November 18, 1993, to take a practical color blindness examination on the simulator. The medical department stated that the operator's color blindness would not change. The operator took a practical examination on June 1,1991, which led to the medical departments
'
conclusion that any additional testing by way of another practical examination would have been inconsequential.
.
The inspector noted that the acceptance criteria for the current practical examination, required a passing score of 100 percent on all i
'
of the practical factors. The previous practical examination contained no acceptance criteria at all. The facility failed to administer another practical examination under the new acceptance l
criteria following the operator's recent failure on February 11, 1993.
There is a question whether or not the operator is currently qualified to stand licensed duties. Since this issue has not been resolved, The inspector identified this open item as URI 50-424,425/93-18-02,
" Adequacy of a Reactor Operator's color vision for safe operation of the facility while performing license duties."
.1 g.
Remediation and Retesting
'
The inspectors reviewed the facility's evaluation of previously administered written and simulator remedial training (September 1992 i
to September 1993) in accordance with TI 2515/117 to verify that they-i have adequately addressed licensed operator and crew performance weaknesses as required by 10 CFR 50.120; 10 CFR 55.59; and 10 CFR 55.4.
The facility evaluators have effectively identified those individuals and crews requiring remediation. The facility appropriately indicated when removal from shift activities was warranted.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.
Action on Previously Identified Items (Closed) IFl 50-424,425/93-300-01, " Failure to provide operators tools to accomplish Emergency Procedure 19100-C, step 14."
Procedure 19100-C, i
"ECA-0.0, Loss of All AC Power," Revision 11,, step 14, required operators to open the doors of specified electrical bus rooms. The examiners93-300 i
examination tested the candidates' abilities to accomplish this task.
The l
examiners found that the operators were required to search for heavy objects (fire extinguishes, ladders, blank flanges, etc.) to prop open the l
spring-loaded doors. The current inspection verified that door stops were added to maintain the required Control Building electrical equipment room doors.
<
_ _ _ _ - _
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
___
,
- Report Details
rc 4.
Exit Interview l
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 3, 1993,
'
with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The NRC described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings. No proprietary material is contained in this report. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Item Number Status Description Paraaraoh 424,425/93-18-01 Open NOV
. Failure to adhere to the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33 I
regarding the reporting of the medical status of a' licensed individual (paragraph 2.f)
424,425/93-18-02 Open URI - Adequacy of a Reactor Operator's color vision for safe-operation of the facility while performing license duties (paragraph 2.f)
f L
.
k.. - - -- -
-....,,...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _., _
-
_ _.
_
_
,
.
.
APPENDIX A
,
LIST OF PROCEDURES
Procedure No.
Procedure Title Revision
,
.
00100-C Quality Assurance Records Administration
00414-C Operating Experience Program
00715-C Licensed Operator Requalification Program
!
12002-C Unit Heatup to Normal Operating Temperature
and Pressure
13003-1 Reactor Coolant Pump Operation
13503-2 Reactor Control Solid-State Protection
'[
System
'!
!
17008-1 Annunciator Response Procedures for l
ALB 08 on Panel 1A2 on MCB
!
q
'
19000-C E-0 Reactor Trip Or Safety Injection
19030-C E-3 Steam Generator Tube Rupture
60001-C Exam Administration Policy
60002-C Training Administrative Policies and
'!
Procedure
j
.
60004-C Training Center Facility Guidelines
60500-C Job and Task Analysis
l
!
60501-C Training Program Design
_
l 60504-C Training Program Evaluation
1A-60001-002 Licensed Operator Requalification Examination Guidelines (Instructor Aid)
1
!
!
!
i
!
I
- - - -
. -.
_
.. _..,.
.
,. _. _..
-
-,