IR 05000458/1997012

Insp Rept 50-458/97-12 on 971203-12.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensed Operator Requalification Program Following Guidelines in Insp Procedure 71001

ML20197G700
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	12/29/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197G684	List: IR 05000458/1997012 ML20197G679
References
50-458-97-12, NUDOCS 9712310100
Download: ML20197G700 (8)

Text

._ - _ _ - _ _

..

.

ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket No.: 50- 6 8 License No.: NPF-4 7 Report No.: 50-458/97 12 Licensee: Entergy Operations, In Facility: River Bend Station Location: 5485 U.S. Highway 61 St. Francisville, Louisiana December 3 12,1997 -*

Dates:

Inspector: Michael E. Murphy, Reactor Engineer (Examiner), Operations Branch Approved By: John L. Pellet, Chief, Operi.tions Branch Division of Reactor Safety AlTACHMENT: Supplemental Inf ormt. tion 9712310100 971229 PDR ADOCK 05000458 G pg l

l l

.. .

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

_ _ _ - _ - __ _

--

.

2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY River Bend Station NRC Inspection Report 50-458/97 12 This inspection included a review of the licensed operator requalification program following the guidelines in Inspection Procedure 71001, " Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation." The inspection covered the period of December 3 12,199 Ooerations

• Crews observed practiced good, consistent commt"it Jtions and exhibited good teamwork during the dynamic simulator scenarios. Crews met all planned critical tasks and successfully passed the requalificatic:' rxamination. Ths licensee's remedial training program conformed to the administrative requirements and appeared to be effective (Section 04.1).

• The inspector concluded that the requalification e::aminations were well constructed and discriminated at the appropriate knowledge level. The hcensee responded promptly and ef fectively to an identified examination security vulnerability (Section 05.1).

• Licensee evaluators were consictent and objective in their evaluations and their overall performance was considered a strength. Critiques effectively identified strengths and weaknesses. The extensive involvement of operations management was considered a strength (Section 05.2).

• The licensee was effective in developing and using feedback from employees and other sources and the feedback program was well administered (Section 05.3).

.

m

- _m.h-_--_ __m.-_m_ . ..__ _ _ _ . _ _ _

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

_

.. -

,.: >

i+ .

_.,

_ .- 3 -

l/

<

Reoort Details

-

. Summarv of Plant Statuf The plant remained at 100 percent power during this inspection period. No major equipment problems'or transients were experience L_Qaerations

- 041 Operator Knowledge and Performance-0 OoeratoLEndgunnnce on Annual Reaualification Examinations-aj insoection Scone (71601)

The inspector observed the perfctmance of two shift crews during theit ann' sal requalification operating evalections. One staff t s was observed during their

~

retake examination scenario after cornpleting remoaial training required following a f ailure of their annual examination in a prior week. Each crew was composed of five licensed operators and a shift technical advisor, Observations and Findinas The inspector observed the third and fourth week of the 1997 annual operating

," requalification examinations. Both shift crews passed all portions of their eva;uations. The staff crew passed their retake examination with comments that required add onal remeditt trainin The additional remediation was prompted by the crew taking too long to decide that they could not place the turbine generator at less than 16,500 stator amps upon

. loss of isophase duct cooling. The delay appeared to be caused by a confusion in the interpretation of the alarm respons_e procedure. After the required manual scram, the crew a: lowed key parameters to get outside the control bands by a significant margin on at least three occasions and incorrectly transitioned to level power control when pla.t enndhions did not support this transitio One of the shift crews also had a problem with interpretation 41 the alarrn response procedure for the loss of isophase duct cooling. This crew assumed the responsibility to review and assess this procedure and revise as necessary to clarify i the power reduction requirements, since.the procedure appeared to provide two different directions on the time requirements to be me v l

Sp l

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

___ _--

.

L

Overall the inspector observed good, consistent communication practices. There was also a r'otable improvement in teamwork and basic team performance over what was noted in the inspection conducted in September 1996. Individual performance was also more readily assessed by the evaluators because of the increased number of evaluators and the practice of crew position assignments by the lead evaluato Conclusions Crews observed practiced good, consistent communications and exnibited good teamwork during the dynamic simulator scenarios. Crews met all planned critical tasks and successfully passed the requalification examination. The licensee's remedial training program conformed to the administrative requirements and appeared to be ef fectiv Operator Training and Qualification 05.1 Review of Reaualification Examinations Insoection Scoce (71001) ,

The inspector performed a review of the annual requalification operating examinations, to evaluate general quality, construction, and difficulty level, The inspector also reviewed the methodology for developing the requalification examination Observations and Findinas The operating examinations consisted of job performance measures and dynamic simulator scenarios. The scenarios followed the guidelines of NUREG-1021,

" Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Supplement 1, in complexity and quantitative event requirements. The scenarios were written with clearly identifiable objectives, critical tasks, expected operator actions, and competency standards for evaluation. The job performance measures were adequate in scope and dcpth and appropriately covered a range of topics required by the requalification training program and the regulations. The job performance measures also clearly identified critical steps in the job task During an interview with a licensee simulator technician, the inspector asked what security measures were in place for the " backtrack" feature on the simulator. This feature allows recall and playback of events most recently played out on the simulator for up to the last 60 minutes. After internal d:scussions the licensee I

____ ---

.

-5 advised the inspector .nat there were no safeguards in place for this feature. The licensee immediately instituted a practice of continued play that would overwrite the most recent hour of events following an examination scenario or scenario validation and was working on a permanent corrective action for the security weakness. The licensee also advised the inspector that they had contacted other plants in the Entergy system and were informed that the security vulnerability also existed at these sites and similar protective measures were being implemente Cnnclusions The inspector concluded that the requalification examinations were well construct 9d and discriminated at the appropriate knowledge level. The licensee responded promptly and effectively to an identified examination security vulnerabilit .2 Reaualification Examination Administration Insoection Scoce (710011 The inspector observed the administration of the simulator scenarios and the job performance measures to determine ths evaluators' abil; ties to administer an examination and assess licensed operator performance through measurable criteri The inspectors t.lso observed the plant simulator support of examination admi.1istration. Three licensed operator requalification training evaluators and one operations management evaluator were observed participating in one or more aspects of administering the examinations, including pre-examination briefings, observations of operator performance, individual and group evaluations, techniques for job performance measure cuing, and final evaluation documentation, Observations and Findinas The licensee evaluators conducted the examinations professionally and thoroughly documented their observations for subsequent evaluation. Job performance measure cues were provided, as needed, with no inadvertent cuing observe During the requalification examinations observed, the operations superintendent participated as an evaluator. The operations management involvement provided a balance to the training department evaluators' assessments. The evaluators were knowledgeable, candid in their assessments, and effective in identifying strengths and weaknesses of the crews and individuals. A formal evaluation method was used that rev:ewed crew and individual critical tasks fo! lowing the scenario observations and then competencies for the crew and individuals. The post-scenario evaluations were well organized and very well facilitated jointly by the lead evaluator l

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

_ _ _ _ _ -

.

i .

6-

and the operations management representative. Operations management was involved in assessing training program content, as well as exam development and validation. The operations superintendent, as an active evaluator, was directly invohsd with assessing crew performance. The inspector noted that the operations superintendent also conducted the post examination evaluation critiques with the crews, thus providing immediate feedback of management expectations and standard The inspector observed that the performance of the simulator in supporting the examination process was good No simulator modeling problems were experience Conclusions Licensee evaluators were consistent and objective in their evaluations and their overall performance was considered a strength. Critiques effectively identified strengths and weaknesses. The extensive involvement of operations management was considered a strengt .3 Review of Feedback Proaram Insoection Scoce (71001)

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's process for obtaining and incorporating employee as well as other sources of feedback in the training program. This review included plant operating history for the last year, various feedback documentation, and personnel interview Observations and Findinas A review of the feedback program and personnelinterviews indicated that various avenues were available to the employees to provide input related to written materials, simulator scenarios, job performance measures, procedures, and job tasks. Plant operating events, as well as, industry events were reviewed for possible feedback material by the licensee A review of actual feedback documentation indicated that feedback co nments were taken seriously, i raining changes such as increasing class time, adjing a subject area, changing a procedure, or improving instructor performance had been made as a result of feedbac Interviews with selected licensed operators indicated that the feedback program was thorough and effective in addressing concern A review, by the inspectors, of the plant operating history for the last year identified one operator caused event that resulted in recommended operator training. The event was an ina6vertent mode change curing a refueling outage. This occurred while placing the alternate decay heat rernoval system in service for initial scheduled

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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

. -

v

-- ,

'

74

~

,

acceptance testing. An increase in reactor coolant te;nperature beyond '

expectations exceeded Mode 4 limits.--This event was documented in Condition

-

Report 971390, and a root cause analysis report was generated along with a recommended corrective action plan which addressed operator training. The final corrective action plan had not been completed at the end of 'his inspection period, Conclusions

, ,.

.

The licensee was effective in developing and using feedback from employees and other sources and the feedback program was well administere _l

08 Miscellaneous operations issues (92901)

08.1 LClosed) Followuo item 50-458/96024-01: the final corrective action plan for Condition Report 961245 will be reviewed in a future inspection, i

The inspector reviewad the final corrective action plan and determined that it had been approved and iscued and that all but one of the corrective actions had been completed on their due dates. The remaining action is due to be complete by

- December 31,1997, and discussions with the individual responsible for closure disclosed that this completion date is expected to be met. There were no significant changes in the action items from the recommended corrective action pla P

08.2 (Closed) Followuo item 50-458/96024-02

the effectiveness of the corrective actions associated with Condition Report 96-1245 will be assessed in a future performance based inspectio The inspector observed a marked improvement in the overall operations crew performance in the simulator, improved evaluation techniques from the training department evaluators and the operations management evaluator, and a higher level of respect for the training department in general from the operators. The overall effects of the combination of corrective actions implemented by the licensee appear to have been very effective in improving the results of the licensed operator requalification training progra Y. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on December 11,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materibls examined

'

during the inspectio , _ , -

,

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

ATTACHMENI SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licenste M. Branscum, Senior Operations instructor, Training M. Cantrell, Senict Operations Instructor, Training M. Dietrich, Director, Quality Programs P. Felker, Instructor, Training H, Holikamp, Quality Assurance Specialist D. Lorfitig, Supervisor, Licensing ,

J. McGaha, Vice President, River Bend Site J. McGhee, Operations Super:ntendent W. O'Malley, Operations Manager J. O'Neil, Senior Technical Specialist, Licensing B. Scott, Senior Analyst, Training M. Wagner, Supervisor, Operations Training J. Waid, Director, Nuclear Training L. Woods, Supervisor, Operations Training

.

G. Replogie, Senior Resident inspecto-INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED 71001 Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation ITEMS CLOSED C101cd 50-458/96024-01 IFl Corrective Action Plan Review 50 458/96024-02 IFl Assess Corrective Action Effectiveness

_ _ - _ _ _