IR 05000458/1997301

Insp Rept 50-458/97-301 on 970728-0801.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Operations Examiners Evaluated Competency of Two Senior Reactor Operator & Three Reactor Operator License Applicants for Issuance of Licenses

ML20210N207
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	08/20/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20210N189	List: IR 05000458/1997301 ML20210N184
References
50-458-97-301, NUDOCS 9708250131
Download: ML20210N207 (9)

Text

- - _ _ _ _ _

..

.

ENCLOSURE

- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket No.: 50-458 License No.: NPF-47 Report No.:- 50-458/97-301

--- Licensee: . Entergy Operations, In Facility: - River Bend Station Location: 5485 U.S. Highway 61 St. Francisville, Louisiana Dates: July 28 through August 1,1997 Inspectors: - M. E. Murphy, Chief Examiner, Operations Branch -

R.- E. Lantz, Reactor Engineer (Examiner), Operations Branch J.= L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch Approved By: John L. Pellot, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety

-- ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1:- Supplemental Information

- Attachment 2: Facility Recommendations and NRC Resolution Attachment 3: Final Written Examination and Answer Key

..

J l

, I 9708250131 DR 970820 g ADOCK 03000458 PDR

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

_ _ - _ _ -

.

.

?

!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY River Bend Station NRC Inspection Report 50-458/97-301 NRC examiners evaluated the competency of two senior reactor operator and three reactor operator license applicants for issuance of operating Nenses at the River Bend Statio The licensee developed the initial license examinationa using the guidance in NUREG-1021, Interirn Revision 8, of January 1997. NRC examiners reviewed and approved the examinations. The initial written examinations were administered to all five applicants on July 25,1997, by facility proctors in accordance with the guidance in NUREG 1021, Interim Revision 8. The NRC examiners administered the operating tests on July 28-31,199 Onerations

• All of the applicants displayed a high level of the knowledge and skills required to satisfy 10 CFR Part 55, without significant individual weaknesses, and were issued the appropriate licenses (Sections 04.1,04.2).

• The licensee developed the initiallicense examinations using the guidance in NUREG 1021, Interim Revision 8, of January 1997. The submitted test materials were of high quality and superior to the licensee's previous submittal (Section 05.1.2).

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -- .____-_

3-l

,

Reoort E,etails l Summarv of Plant Status The plant was returning to power operation after a forced outage. The plant was operating in Mode 2 on July 28, Mode 1 ca July 29, and at 100 percent power from July 30 through August 1,199 LOptr_ations 04 Operator Knowledge and Performance 04.1 initial Written Examination Inspection Scone On July 25,1997, the facility licensee proctored the administration of the written examination, approved by the chief examiner and NRC Region IV supervision, to three individuals who had applied for initial reactor operator licenses, one individual who had applied for an initialinstant senior reactor operator license, and one individual who had applied for an initial upgrade senior reactor operator license. The licensee graded the written examinations and evaluated the results for question validity and generic weaknesses. The examiners reviewed the licensee's result Observations and Findinas '

The minimum passing score was 80 percent. The scores for the written examination ranged from 85 to 99 percent. The overall average score was 91.4 percent. Four out of five applicants missed the common question RO24/SRO34 and five out of five missed RO42/SRO43. Two out of the three

"

reactor operator applicants missed questions RO43, P049 and RO99. The licensee's post administration analysis identified one question, RO99, for deletion based on no correct answer. The licensee's substantiation and NRC disposition details are contained in Attachment 2. Reasons for missing the remaining questions were found to be related to question difficu;ty and isolated training weaknesses. No

- broad trainir.g or knowledge weakr. asses were identified during review of applicant performance on the administered examination Conclusions All five applicants passed the written examinations. No broad knowledge or training weaknesses were identified as a result of evaluation of the graded examination .

.

.. .

. . . ..

. . .

..

. . _ --_-__-_____ ___--_ _-_-_

-. .- .

. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .

.

04.2 Initial Operatina Test, Insooction Scoce The examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to the five applicants on July 28 31,1997. Each applicant participated in two dynamic simulator scenarios. Each reactor operator and the instant senior reactor operator applicant also received a walkthrough test which consisted of ten system tasks and four administrative areas. The upgrade senior reactor operator applicant was tested in five system tasks and four administrative areas, Observations and Findinos All applicants passed all sections of the operating test. The enminers noted, in the

- dynamic simulator scenarios, good oversight and effective communications that were routinely formal and three legged (supervisor directs, recipient repeats, and supervisor confirms before acting). The applicants displayed good knowledge of Technical Specifications and facility abnormal and emergency procedures. While acting as tne control board operators, the applicants displayed good knowledge of component controls and board awarenes Yhe applicants performed well on the walkthrough and administrative sections of the examination, Conclusions All five applicants passed the operating test, without significant individual weaknesse Ob Operator Training and Qualification 05.1 Initial Licensina Examination ~ Develooment The f acility licensee developed the initial licensing examination in accordance with NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors."

05.1.1 Examination Outline . Insoection Scoce The f acility licensee submitted the initial examination outline on May 27,1997. The chief examiner reviewed the submittal agair.st the requirements of NUREG 1021, interim Revision J

---____ -_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

=

~5- Observations and Findinas The chief examiner determined that the initial examination outline exceeded NRC requirements and advised the licensee to proceed with examination developmen Conclusions The licensee submitted a high quality examination outline in a timely manne .1.2 Examination Packaoe I Insoection S_ cope The facility licensee submitted the completed draft examination package on June 27,1997. The chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG 1021, Interim Revision Observations and Findinos The draft written examination contained 125 questions, 75 of which were designated to be included on both reactor operator and senior reactor operator examinations. The majority of the questions were developed for this examinatio The draft examination was considered technically valid, to discriminate at the proper level, and respor sive to the sample plan submitted by the licensee on

,. May 27,1997. Following a detailed review, the chief examiner provided '

enhancement suggestions for about ten percent of the questions. The suggestions generally related to clarity of the question stem, distractor plausibility, or level of knowledge required. After discussion of the suggested enhancements, the licensee modified the examinations as agreed. The chief examiner concurred with the _

resolution of the suggestions and the final product. Significantly fewer changes were required on this written examination than cn the licensee's prior submittal, especially with respect to deficiencies identified after the examination was administere The licensee submitted four scenarios, one of which was a backup. The four

- scenarios were reviewed and validated.during the week of July 14,1997, with only minor enhancement and editorial comments to facilitate administration. A subsequent change to the class size allowed the required number of scenarios to be reduced to two with one backup, which was not use To support the systems walkthrough section of the operating test, the f acility licensee provided job performance measures developed to evaluate selected

.

operator tasAs that contained well written task elements, performance standards, and comprtnensive evaluator cues. Eleven job performance measures were submitted with two prescripted followup questions each. One of the job

. _ _ _ _ - _ -

- - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _--_-_ - - .__

.

6-performance measures was used exclusively for the senior reactor operator upgrade examination. One job performance measure, for which the task was the surveillance test of a main steam isolation valve, provided limited evaluation of the operator in that it required few positive actions for observation. This job performance measure was modified to include an alternate path and enhance its discriminatory ability. The licensee also incorporated other suggested enhancements to f acilitate administratio The licensee submitted two sets of job performance measures and prescripted questions to cover the administrative section of the walkthrough test. One set was submitted for reactor operator applicants and another for the senior reactor operator applicants. The job performance measures and questions submitted were of high quality and acceptable. However, to facilitate administration, minor changes were made to two of the administrative jn performance measures during validatio Significantly fewer changes were required for this operating test compared to the licensee's prior submittal for previous initial examination Conclusions Overcll, the final written examination and operating test materials submitted were of high quality, discriminated at the appropriato level, and were adequate for administration. The submitted test materials were notably superior to the prior licencee submittal of an initial examination. Further, licensee staff were highly responsive to incorporating enhancement .]gestions developed during the review proces .2 - Simulation Faciiity Performance Inspection Scooe The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to fidelity during the examination validation and administratio Observations and Findinos The simulator performance was good. No fidelity problems were noted. The licensee's simulator support staff were very efficient, Conclusions The simulator and simulator staff supported the examinations well. No fidelity issues were identifie _ _ - - _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

.

.

. .. . .

.

-7- ,

V. Manaaement Meetinas XI Exit Meeting Summary The examiners presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on July 31,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presentei The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials exarnined during this inspectio ,

I '. ..

l

,

ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee D. Dietzt, Sr., Operations Instructor

J. Dimmette, Jr., General Manager D. Looney, Operations Training D.- Lorfing, Supervisor, Licensing W. O'Malley, Operations Manager J.,0'Neil, Technical Specialist NSRA

- A. Spencer, Operations Staff Supervisor M. Wagner, Operations Training J. Waid, Training Directo L. Woods,- Supervisor,- Operations Training NRG

.W. Smith, Senior Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES ED-NUREG-1021 " Operator Licensing Exemination S ndards for Power Reactors,"

Interim Revision 8 r

k

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

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

.

ATTACHMENI_2 FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS AND NRC RESOLUTIONS

,

we puestion RO 99: The question asks for Question RO-99: Licensee >

the MAXIMUM radiation dose an recommendation accepted. The question individual oan be authorized to receive is deleted due to no correct answe .

during the next quarter IAW regulatory limits given that the individual is 28 years '

old, has a current NRC Form 4, and an accumulated whe!e body dose to date of 48.25 rem. The question is recommended for deletion since there is no correct answer. The reference used for reference had not been updated. The proposed correct answer (d) was correct based on the old NRC Dose Limits (10 CFR 20) rather than the current dose limit, which is five rem per year Whole-Body (TEDE).