IR 05000445/1993031

Insp Repts 50-445/93-31 & 50-446/93-31 on 930601-0701.No Violations,Deviations,Unresolved Items or Inspector Followup Issues Noted.Major Areas Inspectedd:Qualification of Licensed Operators & Requalification of Training Program

ML20056C955
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	07/13/1993
From:	Barnes I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20056C943	List: IR 05000445/1993031 ML20056C942
References
50-445-93-31, 50-446-93-31, NUDOCS 9307300158
Download: ML20056C955 (9)

Text

- _ _ - _ ._ - _ _ _ - - ________

l

'

l .

APPENDIX 1- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l REGION IV 4 l Inspection Report: 50-445/93-31; 50-446/93-31 l

-

Operating Licenses: NPF-87; NPF-89

,

Licensee: TU Electric l Skyway Tower 400 North Olive Street

'

Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 i Inspection At: Glen Rose, Texas l l

l Inspection Conducted: June I through July 1, 1993

'

i Inspectors: T. O. McKernon, Reactor Inspector, Operations Section Division of Reactor Safety l John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Section l

Division of Reactor Safety -

Accompanying personnel: Keith L. Parkinson, Contractor i

Approved: ) bd

/Ian Barnas, Acting Deputy Director ldC6 Date i h Division of Reactor Safety Inspection Sumary

Areas Insoected: Announced inspection of the qualification of licensed operators and evaluation of their requalification training program. The examination team also observed the performance of onshift operators and plant conditions incident to the conduct of the examinee evaluations. The examiners used the guidance provided in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner-Standards," Revision 7, Sections 601 through 605 issued January 1993.

l Results:

i * The reference material provided by the training department for l examination development was ::atisfactory (Section 1.1).

• The draft examinations submitted were very good, requiring only very minor changes prior to administration (Section 1.1).

l 9307300158 930713 ~?

l PDR ADOCK 05000445 E PDR {d

'

G l

l ,

.

o-2-

• During the dynamic simulator scenarios, crew communications and teamwork along with supervisor command and control appeared strong (Section 1.2).

'

• Examinees performed well on the written examination, with an average score of 92.5 percent (Section 1.2).

• All licensed operators and the crews they comprised passed their requalification examinations (Section 1.2).

• The only generic weakness observed during the conduct of the operating examinations was a failure to immediately link high containment pressure with a containment integrity safety function challenge (Section 1.2).

r

• One potential negative training practice was observed, related to an apparent difference in unit supervisor oversight of panel operators during normal operations in the simulator versus while on shift in the control room (Section 1.2).

• Simulator fidelity appeared acceptable with no notable discrepancies observed (Section 1.5).

Summary of Inspection Findinas:

• No violations, deviations, unresolved item, or inspector followup issues were identified during this inspectio Attachments:

'

• Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting

• Attachment 2 - Simulation Facility Report l l

,

l l

I

!

i

I

P

. 1

.

. ,

-3-i DETAILS 1 LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINEE QUALIFICATION EVALUATION (NUREG-1021)

During the inspection, the examination team evaluated the qualifications of 26 licensed operators and the licensed operator requalification training program. Licensed operators were evaluated based on examination results. The program was evaluated based on observation of the facility evaluators during the coadministered examinations and by analysis of the results. The examination team performed the evaluations in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55 and NUREG-1021, " Operator License Examiner Standards," Revision 7, 1 Sections 601 through 605. Further, the inspection included evaluation of I facility materials, procedures, and simulation capability used to support development and administration of the examinations. These areas were evaluated using the guidance provided in the sections of NUREG-1021 cited i abov In addition, the inspection included the review of previously i identified inspection finding l Performance results for individual examinees are not included in this report because inspection reports are placed in the NRC Public Document Room as a matter of cours Individual performance results are not subject to public disclosur .1 Facility Materials Submitted for Examination Develocment The chief examiner reviewed the licensee's materials provided for development of the examination, which included station administrative and operating procedures, question banks, simulator scenarios, lessons plans, and job performance measures (JPMs). The procedures and question banks, as well as the lesson plans, appeared current and adequate to support the examination development. The examination material banks met or exceeded the quality and quantity guidelines in NUREG-102 The chief examiner also reviewed draft written examinations and operating tests proposed by the facility. The draft examinations were used as submitted with the following minor exceptions:  ;

• One JPM in one set was replaced with a JPN from another set to better equalize the total number of critical steps in each se * One ramp rate for one malfunction in one scenario was lengthened to allow additional time for operator actio * Two of the twenty JPMs proposed, one related to a reai: tor coolant system leak requiring safety injection and one involving manual realignment of safety emergency core coolant system valves, required minor revision to match the current procedur !

-

,

,

.

-4-The draft examinations met the scope and content guidelines in NUREG-1021. The changes above were to enhance the examination .2 Operator Performance The examination team evaluated the performance of licensed operators through written, plant walkthrough, and dynamic simulator examinations. Twenty-six licensed operators were examined by co-administering dynamic simulator examinations with facility evaluators. Twelve of the twenty-six were also co-administered written and plant walkthrough examinations. The twenty-six examinees comprised six crews, which were evaluated during the dynamic simulator examinations als All six crews and each individual were evaluated as satisfactory by the NRC and facility evaluators on all portions of the coadministered examination Average grade on the written examination was 92.5 percent. One examinee :

incorrectly performed one of his five JrHs and all others performed all JPMs )

acceptably. Crew and individual simulator performance was satisfactory i overall and with respect to all crew critical task l

Based on the individual and crew results above, the Comanche Peak Steam i Electric Station licensed operator requalification training program was j evaluated as satisfactory in accordance with NUREG-1021, with the following j observation l

• Individual and crew performance and teamwork was a strengt l

• Supervisory comand, control, and comunications were strong overal Exceptions were noted by facility evaluators as well as the NR * Some crews appeared not to recognize that high containment pressure sufficient to actuate containment spray constituted an orange path or safety function challenge for containment, requiring transition to the contingent emergency operating procedure (FRZ-0.1) for mitigation. This weakness may have implications for recognizing challenges to other safety function * Some shift supervisors appeared to have difficulty properly implementing the event classification procedure in a timely fashion. The classification procedure appeared cumbersom * During the simulator examination scenarios, the unit supervisor placed his full attention on directly supervising the panel operators on his crew during the entire scenario. It appears that this is potentially negative training since the plant normal shift activities often have the unit supervisor considerably removed from this direct oversight role during normal, planned evolutions. As a result, based on simulator examination scenarios, the unit supervisor may be expecting to have substantially more intimate knowledge of plant conditions at the start of an abnormal event than is likely to occur during a real even i i

. .

-

)

.

l

.

-5- l l

l

Further, panel operators may be conditioned to expect more supervisor awareness of their activities leading up to a transient than are likely to occu .3 Licensee's Reoualification Examination Particioants During these examinations, facility staff from training and operations departments participated as examination team members during the development I and validation of the examinations. As described above, the draft examinations prepared by the facility members were excellent and essentially used as is. The facility staff also supported the NRC examiner validation of the draft examinations in a professional and competent manne The facility evaluators administered all or part of their annual requalification examinations for 26 licensed operators comprising six crew During all of these examinations, these evaluators identified the same or similar performance issues as the NRC examination tea In all cases, facility evaluators used thorough and effective examination techniques to administer valid examination >

'

During these examinations, the facility operations manager observed all dynamic simulator crew examinations and was involved in facility evaluation of each crew's performance, indicating a close relationship between the two groups. The facility developed performance enhancement remediation programs ,

as applicable even when the observed performance was acceptabl ,

1.4 Examination Team Observations During the examinations, the examination team observed the performance of -

onshift operators and plant conditions incident to the conduct of the examinee evaluations. The observations below were presented to the facility staff as they were developed and at the exit meetin During administration of the plant walkthrough or JPMs, the examination team observed that completing the actions of the emergency operating procedure to i locally emergency borate the reactor coolant system required use of a special tool (T-handle) to remotely operate a valve. There did not appear to be a specific controlled, verifiable location where operators could rely on locating this tool for either uni Instead, procedures require only that the _

tool be in the area of the valve for one of the units.. This resulted in up to i a 5-minute delay in initiating emergency boration while lochting the too ;

Also during the JPMs, the examination team noted that a procedure (S0P-7028)

contained a reference to a control rod power supply cabinet label that did not match the actual label on the Unit 2 cabinet. This did not significantly

'

impede performance of the JPN tas l

.

During the examinations, housekeeping in the areas of the plant observed was very good. Conduct of operations in the control room and the rest of the physical plant appeared professional and controlled. Health physics,

!

l

.

l

.

.

-6-operations, and security personnel provided excellent support of the examination process and tea .5 Simulator Fidelity i During the preparation and conduct of the operating examinations, the examination team did not observe any discrepancies in simulator fidelit .6 Conclusions  !

The examination team concluded based on the examination results that the l performance of the 26 six licensed operators examined was acceptable. The i team also concluded, based on the individual results, the examination material ;

submitted, and observations during the co-administered examinations, that the licensed operator requalification training program was effectively maintaining proficiency of licensed operator The examination team also reviewed the most recent requalification examination '

report, OL 91-03, dated August 13, 1991, for previous findings. That report cited three weaknesses: examination bank material deficiencies, poor implementation of the emergency plan, and inadequate understanding of the nature of the rod insertion limit. The latter weakness directly led to all of the three individual and one crew failures of that examination set. None of these weaknesses was observed during the current examinations. Although the emergency procedures appeared cumbersome, they were implemented properl ;

In general, the examination team concluded that:

• The reference material provided by the training department for !

examination development was satisfactor * The draft examinations submitted were very good, requiring only very minor changes prior to administratio * During the dynamic simulator scenarios, crew comunications and teamwork along with supervisor command and control appeared stron '

• Examinees performed well on the written examination, with an average score of 92.5 percen * All licensed operators and the crews they comprised passed their 4 requalification examination * The only generic weakness observed during the conduct of the operating examinations was a failure to immediately link high containment pressure with a containment integrity safety function challeng * One potential negative training practice was observed, related to an apparent difference in Unit Supervisor oversight of panel operators

__

..

.

.

-7-during ncrual operations in the simulator versus while on shift in the control roo i

+ Simulator 'idelity appeared acceptable with no notable discrepancies observe l

!

-l l

!

l l

l J t

'

I

- -

'

.

,

o ATTACHMENT 1 1 PERSONS CONTACTED 1.1 Licensee Personnel

• J. Donahue, Manager, Operations

• J. Jank, Simulator Training Supervisor

• J. McMahon, Manager, Nuclear Training

• C. Rice, Examination Coordinator

• E. Schmitt, Operations Training Manager

• J. Stavely, Simulator Operations Supervisor i

1.2 NRC Personnel

• J. Pellet, Chief, Operations Section

• D. Graves, Senior Resident Inspector 1.3 Other

• K. Parkinson, Consultant In addition to the personnel listed above, the examiners contacted other personnel during this inepection perio * Denotes personnel that attended the exit meetin EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on July 1, 1993. During this ameting, the examination team reviewed the scope and generic findings of the inspectio The examination team provided preliminary results of licensed individual and program evaluations. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information provided to, or reviewed by, the examiner . - . . . . . .-. . - . _ _ , . _ . . -

,.

-

i

• !

.,

,

ATTACMENT 2 l SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT I

!

-Inspection Report: 50-445/93-31; 50-446/93-31 j Licenses: NPF-87; NPF-89 ,

!

Licensee: TU Electric

'

Skyway Tower l 400 North Olive Street  ;

Lock Box 81 Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 l

Inspection At: Glen Rose, Texas

!

Operating Tests Administered on: June 22 through July 1, 1993 This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do l not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further >

verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR  ;

Part 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 ;

observation While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following . !

items were observed:

'

IIfB DESCRIPTION none

.

.

?

!

!

c F

f

!

!

,

B

..- .y .