IR 05000458/1993006
| ML20034G127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1993 |
| From: | Pellet J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034G103 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1021 50-458-93-06, 50-458-93-6, NUDOCS 9303090102 | |
| Download: ML20034G127 (9) | |
Text
.
l
~
,
I
'
,.
APPENDIX A l
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1-
REGION IV
Inspection Report:
50-458/93-06
l Operating License:
'
l I
Licensee: Gulf States Utilities
[
P.O. Box 220 i
St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 Facility Name:
River Bend Station Inspection At:
River Bend, St. Francisville, Louisiana e
.
'
Inspection Conducted:
January 25-29, 1993 l
Inspector:
S. L. McCrory, Chief Examiner, Operations Sectior.
Division of Reactor Safety Accompanying Personnel:
M. Mitchell, Examiner, Contractor Pacific Northwest Laboratories T. Bettendorf, Examiner, Contractor Pacific Northwest Laboratories Approved:
'byg
.
SL J,. L. Pellet," Chief, Operations Section D(td ~
Division of Reactor Safety i
Inspection Summary Areas Inspected: Announced inspection of the qualifications of applicants for operator licenses at the River Bend facility, which included an eligibility i
!
determination and administration of comprehensive written and operating
.
i l
examinations. The examination team also observed the performance of on-shift operators and plant conditions incident to the conduct of the applicant evaluations. The examiners used the guidance provided in NUREG-1021,
" Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 6, Sections 201, 202, 203, 301, 302, 303, 401, 402, and 403, issued June 1, 1990.
l Results:
All six of the applicants for reactor operator licenses satisfied the
requirements of 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2).
\\
L
Two of the three applicants for senior reactor operator licenses
,
satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2).
l 9303090102 930302 PDR ADOCK 05000458 G
-.--
.-
l
.
-2-j i
The third applicant for a senior reactor opertor license failed to
'
satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) in that the applicant l
demonstrated competency deficiencies during the dynamic simulator scenario portion of the operating examination.
(These results were
!
detailed in Section C of the individual Operator License Examination Report, form 157 and were sent to the applicant.
Individual performance l
'
results are not contained in this report because they are not subject to public disclosure.)
i The reference material provided by the training department for e
examination development was generally satisfactory. However, the facility developed test items (questions, job performance measures, scenarios) provided were out of date and/or inadequate for NRC's use on initial examinations. (Section 1.1).
.
r Applicants performed very well on the written examination, with scores
!
ranging from a low of 87.8 percent to a high of 94.9 percent with averages of 90.6 percent for reactor operator applicants, 92.4 percent
for senior reactor operator applicants, and 91.2 percent overall.
l (Section 1.2)
During the dynamic simulator scenarios, crew communications were a-l
noteworthy strength. Additionally, senior reactor operator command and
control in the supervisory position had improved over that observed in
the last evaluations of crew performance in the dynamic simulator.
!
(Section 1.3.1)
{
No generic weaknesses were observed during the conduct of the operating i
L examinations.
,
Simulator fidelity appeared acceptable with two minor discrepancies (
observed. The first discrepancy pertained to the reactor water clean up
'
pump trip annunciator and the second pertained to a breaker indication i
for the recirculation pumps. (Section 1.4).
[
t'
Summary of Inspection Findings:
!
There were no findings, that were assigned a tracking number, identified
[
during the course of this inspection.
Attachments:
!
Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting
- Attachment 2 - Simulation Facility Report
,
Attachment 3 - Written Examination Keys l
Attachment 4 - Facility Post-Examination Review Comments
!
Attachment 5 - Gulf States Utilities Company Letter dated February 19,
,
1993, RBG-38167 (
!
t
.
.-
-
--
-
.
.
-3-DETAILS 1 LICEIFED OPERATOR APPLICANT QUALIFICATION EVALUATION (NUREG-4021)
During the inspection, the examiners evaluated the qualifications of nine license applicants, six reactor operator (RO), two senior reactor operators (SR0s) currently licensed as R0s, and one SR0 not curren'Jiy licensed.
The inspection assessed the eligibility and administrat ve and I
technical competencies of the applicants to be issued licenses to c>erate ana I
direct the operation of the reactivity controls of a commercial nuciear power facility in accordance with 10 CFR 55 and NUREG-1021, " Operator Liceise Examiner Standards," Revision 6, Sections 200 (series), 300 (series), ani 400 (series).
Further, the inspection included evaluations of facility materia's, procedures, and simulation capability used to support development and administration of the examinations.
These areas were evaluated using the guidance provided in the areas of NUREG-1021 cited above.
Performance results for individual applicants are not included in this report because inspection reports are placed in the NRC Public Document Room as a matter of course.
Individual performance results are not subject to public disclosure.
1.1 Facility Materials Submitted for Examination Development The chief examiner reviewed the licensee's materials provided for development of the examination, which included station administrative and operating procedures, lesson plans, question banks, simulator scenarios, and job
'
"
performance measures (JPM).
The procedures and lesson plans were current and adequate to support examination development.
-
The JPMs, while relevant to the operator job task analysis, were not current with the latest procedure revisions.
In most cases, that only required a
,
minor validation effort to check for procedure revision impact.
In one instance, a JPM had to be substantially rewritten due to the significant operational revisions to the governing procedure.
The facility training staff explained that it was their policy to revise a JPM only when it had been identified for use in an evaluation. This approach has little impact on development of examinations for internal evaluations and is efficient for internal examinations since it precludes multiple revisions between use on examinations.
However, when a JPM is chosen for an NRC examination and the i
governing procedure has undergone significant revision, updating this JPM j
requires substantial time, usually late in the development cycle, which can i
deter evaluating operator tasks for which the governing procedure has I
undergone significant revision.
The f acility did not maintain a bank of questions or scenarios for evaluating initial license applicants.
At the request of the chief examiner, the j
facility provided the question banks and scenarios used in the requalification
I i
>i
.
L
.
.
-4-
,
I l
l l
program. These were of limited value in the development of the examinations.
The question bank was out of date with respect to the current procedure
l i
revision and the format of questions used in NRC examinations. The facility i
l training staff was aware of the state of the question bank and had scheduled I
it for major revision prior to the next NRC evaluation of their
,
!
!
requalification program. The scenarios used for requalification generally lacked the scope and complexity required for initial examinations but were useful in identifying the command instructions for some events which were not
covered in the simulator malfunction guide.
l There is no regulatory requirement for a facility to develop and maintain a l
bank of test items (questions, JPMs, and scenarios) for NRC use to develop
!
examinations. However, due to the significant savings in development time, the NRC has expressed willingness to use such material if it is available and i
meets the standards of NUREG-1021.
j 1.2 Written Examinations The chief examiner developed comprehensive written R0 and SRO examinations in
accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-1021, Revision 6, Section 401. Each
of the examinations consisted of 93 multiple choice or matching questions.
During the week of January ll,1993, members of the facility operations and training departments, under the provisions of NUREG-1021, which require
'
execution of a non-disclosure security agreement, reviewed the examinations onsite. The NRC considers the pre-administration review of the examination by i
the facility as part of the examination development process. Therefore, the
specific comments resulting from that review are not reported or otherwise retained.
The chief examiner incorporated the facility review comments and
administered the examinations to the license applicants on January 25, '.003.
The chief examiner provided the facility training staff with a copy of the "as administered" written examination and key along with the pre-administration review comments on January 25, 1993, immediately following the completion of the examination by the applicants. The facility took that opportunity to further review and comment on the written examination.
The facility's post-examination review comments are contained in Attachment 4.
,
After careful consideration of the post-examination review comments the chief examiner took the following actions:
The recommendation regarding question number 64 on the SRO examination
=
was rejected.
The remark that all items in the distractors "should" be logged does not establish a specific requirement.
The qualifier that a failed I&C surveillance must have Technical Specification significance
-'
before it is required to be logged excludes failed I&C surveillances from the general logging requirements of OSP-3, " Conduct of Operations."
__
_
.
.
-5-The recommendation regarding question number 85 on the S20 examination
was accepted and the key revised to reflect choices "a" or "d" as correct.
.
The chief examiner reviewed applicant performance on individual questions and observed that the following questions were missed by 50 percent or more of the applicants responding to the question. The questions are referenced here only by examination level and question number.
Refer to Attachment 3 for the complete question and answer.
Questions common to both examinations (Question numbers in parentheses indicate the SRO examination number for that question when it was different from the R0 examination.):
010, 022, 032, 042, 044, 090.b.(089.b)
Questions unique to the R0 examination: NONE Questions unique to the SR0 examination: NONE The chief examiner concludeo that no specific area of significant knowledge weakness was apparent in the responses to the above questions. Therefore, the information is provided to the facility training staff for consideration as feedback into future training needs.
Overall, applicants performed very well on the written examinations. Scores ranged from a low of 87.8 percent to a high of 94.9 percent with averages of 90.6 percent for R0 applicants, 92.4 percent for SR0 applicants, and 91.2 percent overall.
1.3 Operating Examinations
The examiners developed comprehensive operating examinations in accordance
)
with the guidelines of NUREG-1021, Revision 6, Section 301.
The operating
'
examinations consisted of two parts, a dynamic simulator scenario portion and a control room / plant walkthrough portion. The chief examiner previewed and r
validated the various portions of the operating examinations onsite with the f
assistance of facility training personnel under security agreement during the
{
week of January 11, 1993.
The examination team administered the operating examinations during the period of January 26-29, 1993.
,
I f
1.3.1 Dynamic Simulator Scenarios
The examination team evaluated three crews (each consisting of one SR0 and two i
R0 applicants) on two scenarios using the River Bend plant-specific simulation
facility.
A member of the examination team evaluated an applicant for an j
instant SRO license performing the duties of the panel operator responsible
for reactivity control with a third scenario. The examiners compared applicants' actual performance during the scenarios with expected performance j
in accordance with the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 6 Section 303, to l
evaluate applicants' competencies on this portion of the operating examinations.
I I
j
.
-.
..
-
-
,.
!
!
'
,
!
!
-
t-6-
!
l
The examination team noted that communications among crew members was a-strength in all three crews.
Additionally, the examination team concluded
that two of the three crews displayed effective command and control
{
attributes, specifically, prioritization of responses to concurrent events
{
competing for limited resources.
Examination Report 50-458/0L 91-03, j
January 15, 1992, cited communications and command and control as weaknesses during requalification evaluations conducted in December 1991. While the facility training staff reported that performance in these areas during this
>
I inspection was representative of currently licensed operators, the examination team had no opportunity for specific evaluations of operating crews during i
this inspection. However, the examination team observed on-shift control room
~
crews during the walkthrough portion of the operating examinations and i
concluded that the assertions of the training staff were generally confirmed.
!
The examination team observed no generic weaknesses during this portion of the
!
!
operating examinations. With the exception of ne SRO applicant, all applicants possed this portion of the operating examination.
Individuals and
crews generally performed very w.ll during the stenarios.
1.3.2 Walkthrough Examinations i
The examination team evaluated each of the six R0 applicants and the instant SR0 applicant using ten JPMs relating to tasks within the. scope of potential duties of a licensed R0 (which include non-licensed operator tasks outside the control room).
The examination team evaluated the remaining upgrade SRO
.
!
applicants on five tasks each.
The applicants performed most of the tasks in the simulation facility in the dynamic mode. They simulated (through
discussions) the remainder of the tasks in the plant integrated control room
,
and at local operating stations througt..t the plant.
Immediately following i
the performance of each task, the examiners asked pre-scripted questions relating to the system involved in the task.
The questions solicited "short-l answer" responses and permitted the applicants to use operationally concrolled
-
references to aid in their responses unless specifically annotated to require response from memory. The examiners combined the applicants' task performance
!
and question responses in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-1021, Revision 6, section 303, to evaluate performance on this portion of the
operating examination.
Overall, the applicants performed very well.
All applicants passed this portion of the operating examination with satisfactory performance on all
'
systems and tasks.
l.4 Simulator Fidelity i
During the preparation and conduct of the operating examinations, the l
i examination team observed only minor discrepancies in simulator fidelity. The facility staff noted the discrepancies for further investigation.
Attachment 2 contains the specifics of the discrepancies.
l
-
.--
-
-
.
b
.
-7-
l
.
1.5 Conclusions j
t The chief examiner concluded that the performance of eight of the nine l
applicants for operator licenses satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR j
55.33(a)(2) and recommended that licenses be issued.
The chief examiner
further concluded that the remaining applicant failed to satisfy the above i
requirements as a result of competency deficiencies exhibited during the
.!
dynamic simulator scenarios and recommended that a license be denied.
-l In general, the examination team concluded that:
!
t Individual applicants and crews performed well.
Crew communications were a strength and that response prioritization to
,'
concurrent events was noteworthy.
Both of these areas had improved over previously observed performance.
l
,
Facility practices regarding development and maintenance of test items
,
(question banks, current JPMs, and scenario banks) useful in evaluating
,
license applicants increased the time necessary to develop and validate
[
the various portions of the examinations.
-l The two minor fidelity discrepancies observed during dynamic operation i
of the simulator had no significant impact on the evaluations.
The applicants demonstrated no generic weaknesses.
!
i
!
!
!
h
!
!
i t
i
,
. -, _
.__
.
___________j
..
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1 1 PERSONS CONTACTED 1.1 Licensee Personnel
,
l
- R. Thurow, Director, Nuclear Training (outgoing)
- W. Trudell, Assistant Operations Supervisor
- J. Venable, Operations Supervisor
- R. Jackson, Nuclear Training Coordinator, License
- R. Godwin, Nuclear Training Representative
'
- W. Beck, Director, Nuclear Training (recently selected)
[
- J. Cook, Licensing Engineer D. Looney, Nuclear Training Representative 1.2 NRC Personnel D. Loveless, Resident inspector lei additio.. to the personnel listed above, the examiners contacted other
,
personnel during this inspection period.
- Denotes personnel that attended the exit meeting.
2 EXIT MEETING i
t An exit meeting was conducted on January 29, 1993. During this meeting, the examiners reviewed the scope and generic findings of the inspection.
The examiners did not disclose preliminary results of individual evaluations since they are subject to change during the final review and approval process.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information provided to, or reviewed by, the examiners.
.
i l
i
.
>
)
.
ATTACHMENT 2
,
t SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
,
facility Licensee:
Gulf States Utilities facility Docket:
50-458 Operating Tests Administered at:
River Bend (RB) Station Operating Tests Administered on:
January 26-29, 1993 i
l
.
These observations do not constitute 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 which
,
may be used in future evaluations.
No licensee action is required in response
.
!
to these observations.
During the conduct of simulator scenario portion of the operating tests, the
'
following items were observed:
ITEM DESCRIPTION RWCU Pump trip Following the partial closure of one of the valves in
!
Annunciator logic the common suction line to the reactor water clean up pumps, the pumps tripped on low pressure. _The pump
^
trip annunciator actuated but cleared immediately upon acknowledgement of the alarm.
The annunciator was l
supposed to lock-in until the logic is reset by
~
depressing the stop pushbuttons for each pump.
-
Recirc Pump breaker Following a reactor scram, the power supply breakers position indication for the recirculation pumps displayed simultaneous open and shut indications (both breaker position indicating lights lit). The actual (and desired)
breaker position was shut which was confirmed by other indications of pump operation. The anomaly was not observed after every scram but was observed during at t
least two of the seven total scenario runs.
These discrepancies were minor in that they had no significant impact on simulator performance otherwise and did not significantly distract or confuse the panel operators or affect evaluations.
.