IR 05000445/1998301
| ML20236P221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236P220 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-445-98-301, 50-446-98-301, NUDOCS 9807160209 | |
| Download: ML20236P221 (8) | |
Text
- _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _
l.
l l
.
ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket Nos.:
50-445;50-446 License Nos.:
50-445/98-301;50-446/98-301 Licensee:
TU Electric Facility:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Location:
!
l Dates:
June 19-26,1998
!
L Inspectors:
Michael E. Murphy, Chief Examiner l
Steve L. McCrory, Senior Reactor Engineer, Examiner / Inspector i
l Ryan E. Lantz, Reactor Engineer, Examiner / Inspector l --
John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch l
Accompanying
'
!
Personnel:
Lawrence Vick, Reactor Engineer, Operator Licensing and Human Factors Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Approved By:
John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch
,
Division of Reactor Safety
'
,.
.
ATTACHMENTS:
!
L Attachment 1:
Supplemental Information l
l Attachment 2:
Final Written Examinations and Answer Keys l
l l
.
807160209 9g0710
'
G ADOCK 0500
L
- _ _
-
-
- - -
-
-
- - -
- - - - _ - - _ _
_
l L
-
,
-2-L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 i
NRC Inspection Report 50-445/98-301; 50-446/98-301
l
~
- NRC examiners evaluated the competency of three senior operator and six reactor operator
. license applicants for issuance of operating licenses at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. ' The licensee developed the initial license examinations using NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8, January 1997. NRC examiners reviewed, and approved the examinations. The l-initial written examinations were administered to all nine applicants on June 19,1998, by
!
. facility proctors in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1021, interim Revision 8. The NRC examiners administered the operating tests on June 22-25,1998.
\\-
Ooerations All nine (six reactor operators and three senior operators) license applicants passed
.
their examinations. The applicants exhibited good oversight, peer checking and effective communications (Sections 04.1, 04.2).
The administrative topics and control room systems and facility walk-through test
.
i I
materials were inadequate for administration as submitted (Section 05.1).
The licensee's staff was highly responsive to replacement and revision
.
recommendations developed during the review process. No significant changes to examination materials were required as a result of administration (Section 05.1).
l l
l
_ _ - _ - - _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ - - -
--
,,,,,,....
.
.
..
..
.
.
.
- - - - _ - _ _ _
- -. -
_
- -
-_
_. _ _
.
.-
-3-Reoort Details Summarv of Plant Status The plant operated at essentially 100 percent power on both units for the duration of this inspection.
I. Operations
Operator Knowledge and Performance 04.1 Initial Written Examination a.
insoection Scone On June 19,1998, the facility licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations approved by the NRC to six individuals who had applied for initial reactor operator licenses, and three individuals who had applied for initial upgrade senior operator licenses. The licensee proposed grades for the written examinations and evaluated the results for question validity and generic weaknesses. The examiners reviewed the licensee's results, b.
Observations and Findinos The minimum passing score was 80 percent. The scores for the written examination ranged from 87 to 98 percent. The overall average score was 93 percent. The licensee's post-administration analysis identified that Questions 4 and 23, common to both the reactor operator and senior operator examinations, were missed by more than 50 percent of the applicants. Analysis indicated this was due to isolated knowledge weaknesses. No broad training or knowledge weaknesses were identified during review of applicant performance on the administered examinations. There were no pest examination comments or changes to the written examination, c.
Conclusions All nine applicants passed the written examinations. No broad knowledge or training
,
!
weaknesses were identified.1s a result of evaluation of the graded examinations.
I-
04.2 Initial Ooeratina Test l
l a.
Insoection Scoce The examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to the nine applicants on June 22-25,1998. Each applicant participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios. Each reactor operator applicant l'{.a
-_
- __
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _-___--___-_-_ - - _-
..
.
-4-received a walktnrough test, which consisted of ten system and four administrative areas. The upgrade senior reactor operator applicants were tested in five system and four administrative areas.
b.
' Observations and Findinas All applicants passed all portions of the operating test. Overall, the applicants
_
. performed wellin the dynamic simulator scenarios with good oversight, peer checking, and effective communications noted by the examiners. The applicants displayed good knowledge of technical specifications and facility abnormal and emergency procedures. However, during one scenario, the applicants in the position of control room supervisor and reactor operator failed to monitor reactor plant pressure, resulting in automatic actuation of protection systems. This was
- considered to be a weakness in observation of plant conditions but was limited to the single cited instance. The plant was maintained within its design envelope.
The applicants performed well on the walkthrough and administrative sections of the
~ examination.
c.
Conclusions All nine applicants passed the operating tests. The applicants exhibited good oversight, peer checking, and effective communications.
Operator Training and Qualification 05.1 Initial Licensino Examination Development The f acility licensee developed the initial licensing examination in accordance with i
guidance provided in NUREG-1021, interim Revision 8, " Operating Licensing Examination Standards, For Power Reactors, January 1997."
05.1.1 Examination Outline a.
. Insoection Scoce The f acility licensee submitted the initial examination outlines on March 10,1996.
The chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG-
'
1021, interim Revision 8.
i
. b.
Observations and Findinas
The chief examiner determined that the initial examination outlines satisfied NRC i
,
' requirements. The chief examiner advised the licensee'to enhance the simulator i
l scenarios by replacing some component and inst! Jment f ailures to add
'
discriminatory value and realism within'each scenario from one event to the other.
1'
_ - - - - _ - _ - _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
. _ _
_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _
___
..
___
_
.__
_
-
.
.
5-c.
Conclusions The licensee submitted an adequate examination outline.
05.1.2 Examination Package a.
insoection Scoce The draft written examination was transmitted by the licensee to the NRC on April 13,1998. The licensee submitted the completed final examination package on June 4,1998. The chief examiner reviewed the submittals against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8.
b.
Observalituls and Findinas The draft written examination contained 125 questions,75 of which were designated to be included on both reactor operator and senior reactor operator examinations. All of the questions were developed for this examinat;on. The draft examination was considered technically valid, to discriminate at the proper level, and responsive to the outline submitted by the licensee on March 10,1998. However, the chief examiner provided enhancement suggestions for approximately one-third of the questions. The suggestions generally related to clarity of the question and stem, not soliciting a single answer, inadvertent cues, and distractor plausibility. After discussion of the chief examiner's suggestions, the licensee modified the examinations as agreed. The chief examiner concurred with the resolution of the suggestions and the final product.
The licensee submitted two dynamic scenarios and one backup scenario, which was not used during the examination. The chief examiner made suggestions to enhance the examination quality by replaag some component and instrument failures to better discriminate applicant performance. Other comments, which the licensee incorporated, included editorial and enhancements to f acilitate administration, such as adding more detailed expected actions, primarily for the unit supervisor. The licensee initiated minor additional editorial enhancements to facilitate the time-line running of the scenarios during the preparation week onsite on June 10-11, 1998.
To support the systems portion of the operating test,25 job performance measures with 2 followup questions each were submitted. The chief examiner provided comments concerning enhancement of the test, which were incorporated. The chief examiner challenged the critical step assignments for some of the tasks and the licensee revised these critical step assignments. Also, the licensee revised or replaced approximately 9 questions in response to the chief examiner's enhancement suggestions. However, during the examination week pre administration review, it was determined that further changes were necessary.
This review identified that 16 of the 40 questions required either substantial modification or change from open to closed reference. Further, there were three job
_ _ _ _ _.
..
- _ _
- _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _.
. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
.
.
performance measures that were identified as nondiscriminatory and required
.
replacement. These items were reviewed with the licensee and after agreement on the needed revisions, the licensee promptly instituted the changes.
The licensee submitted two sets of administrative tasks and questions to cover the administrative section of the operating test for the reactor operator applicants and one set of administrative tasks for the senior operator upgrade applicants. To facilitate administration, some minor changes were made to some administrative tasks during the review process. However, during the examination week pre-administration review, it was determined that the Section A4 questions of both reactor operator sets required revision or replacement because they were too easy or not related to the subject area of emergency preparedness. These items were also reviewed with the licensee and after agreement on the needed revisions, the licensee promptly instituted the changes.
c.
Conclusi2DS The aciministrative topics and control room systems and facility wall.through test mater.als were considered inadequate for administration as submitted. However, the licensee's staff was highly responsive to replacement and revision recommendations developed during the week of administration, outside the normal i
review process. No significant changes to examination materialc were required as a result of administration.
]
05.1.3 Licensina Conditions a.
insoection Scone The chief examiner verified that the applicants had conducted the proper number of reactivity manipulations for licensed operator qualification and that the scope of the manipulations were adequate in accordance with NUREG-1021, intarim Revision 8.
b.
Observations and Findinas The chief examiner verified that the f acility licensee properly identified the required five significant reactivity manipulations on the reactor operator final application.
)
The chief examiner also verified that the f acility had properly documented these l
manipulations and that they were significant in accordance with NRC Information Notice 97-67.
c.
Conclusions The f acility's program was adequate to ensure that initial applicants for reactor operator licenses met licensing conditions for performance d significant reactivity manipulations.
i
- _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _.
j
- __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.. _ _.
.
o-
-7-05.2. Simulation Facility Performance a.
Insnection Scooe The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to fidelity during the examination validation and administration, b.
Observations and Findinas The simulator performance was good. No fidelity problems were noted. The licensee's simulator support staff was very efficient and greatly enhanced the examination schedule. Turn around times between scenarios and job performance measures were very fast. This eliminated desd time and helped ease applicant stress levels.
c.
Conclusions The simulator and simulator staff supported the examinations well. No fidelity issues were identified.
V. Management Meetings X1 Exit Meeting Summary The examiners presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on June 25,1998. The licensee
. acknowledged the findings presented.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined
)
during this inspection'.
(1
..
m
_-______ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _
._ __
J
____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _._. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_-. _.
.
t
..
.
.
.
ATTACHMENL1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee M. Blevins, Vice President, Nuclear Operations S. Falley, Training Supervisor W. Guidemond, Shift Operations Manager P. Presby, Training Instructor C. Rice, Licensed Operator. instructor M. Sunseri, Nuclear Training Manager NRC H. Freeman, Resident inspector L. Vick, Reactor Engineer, Operating Licensing Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED NUREG-1021, NUREG 1021, Interim Revision 8, " Operating Licensing Examination Standards, For Power Reactors, January 1997"
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _