IR 05000482/1997003

Insp Rept 50-482/97-03 on 970414-17.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Operations

ML20138H632
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/02/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20138H629	List: IR 05000482/1997003 ML20138H626
References
50-482-97-03, 50-482-97-3, NUDOCS 9705070235
Download: ML20138H632 (11)

Text

__ ..

. . . . _ _ . .

.

.

. .

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

,

!

'

i I

.

\

l l

ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

i REGION IV l l Docket No.: 50-482 1

!  :

L License No.: NPF-42

Report No.: 50-482/97-03 i Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

Facility: Wolf Creek Generating Station '

Location: 1550 Oxen Lane, NE l l

Burlington, Kansas l Dates: April 14-17,-1997

]

inspectors: H. Bundy, Chief Examiner M. Murphy, Examiner l

!

)

Approved By: J. L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety l

,

'

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Supplemental Information '

Attachment 2: Simulation Facility Report Attachment 3: Final Written Examination and Answer Key

.I

l i

I l

l

!

\

I

,

I

,

i i-l

'

l 9705070235 970502 PDR ADOCK 05000482 G PDR c i

l

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

m_ _. _ . . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _. _ . ___ _ . _ . _ _ . _ .

i

'

1 .

i

t-2-  !

. 1

.

,

(

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

~

j i

Wolf Creek Generating Station ,

NRC Inspection Report 50-482/97-03 ( NRC examiners evaluated the competency of four senior reactor operator upgrade license i applicants for issuance of operating licenses at the Wolf Creek Generating Station facility.

! The licensee developed the initial license examinations using the pilot process program

guidance contained in Generic Letter 95-06 and NUREG-1021, Supplement 1, " Operating i

. Licensing Examiners Standards." NRC examiners reviewed, approved, and administered  ;

l' the examinations. The initial written examinations were administered to all four applicants ;

l on April 14,1997, by facility proctors in accordance with instructions provided by the i chief examiner. The NRC examiners administered the operating tests on April 15-16,

. 1997. All of the applicants displayed the requisite knowledge and skills to satisfy the l

requirements of 10 CFR 55 and were issued senior reactor operator license ,

> ,

Ooerations  !

1 * All four applicants passed the senior reactor operator written examination. No broad knowledge or training weaknesses were identified as a result of evaluation of ,

the graded examination ! * All four applicants passed the operating test. A strength was identified in the area i of event classification and protective action recommendation * The licensee submitted an examination outline which was adequate' for examination l developmen .

• The written examination, dynamic scenarios, and administrative and system and facility walkthrough tasks were acceptable for administration as submitted. The  ;

administrative and system walkthrough tasks were of high quality. It was necessary for the licensee to upgrade the administrative portion questions and the system walkthrough followup questions in accordance with the chief examiner's recommendations to meet minimum requirement i

• The simulation facility supported the examination administration wel l

!

i l

l

,

i

. _ _ _ _ ..

-3- 4

!

I

!

Report Details Surnmaly of Plant Status The plant operated at essentially 100 percent power for the duration of this inspectio . Operations

03 Operations Procedures and Documentation  !

An apparent deficiency in Procedure OFN EJ-015, " Loss of RHR Cooling," l Revision 4, is discussed in Section 05.1.2b.

04 Operator Knowledge and Performance 04.1 initial Written Examination I Inspection Scoce On April 14,1997, the facility licensee proctored the administration of the written examination approved by the chief examiner and NRC Region IV supervision to four l individuals who had applied for initial upgrade senior reactor operator licenses. The i licensee graded the written examinations and the staff reviewed its results. The l licenue also performed a post-examination question analysis which was reviewed by the examiners, Observations and Findinas The minimum passing score was 80 percent. The scores for the applicants ranged from 83.8 to 91.9 percent, with an average score of 85.8 percent. More than half the applicants missed Questions 7, 9, 20, 21, 30, 40, 42, 51, and 79. The licensee initiated Performance improvement Requests 971145 and 971142 to investigate the causes for excessive applicant error rate on these questions and any associated training or operational issues. The chief examiner reviewed the preliminary results of these investigations and as a result determined that Question 20 had no correct answer and that the correct answer on Question 40 was "C" j instead of "B". The examinations were regraded based on this determination. The !

licensee was performing additional analysis on Questions 7,9, and 79 with regard ;

to question construction and the range of assumptions the applicants may have 1 used in answering the questions. However, because the applicants had no clarification questions on these test items and the answer key provided the correct answers for reasonable assumptions, the chief examiner concluded that these questions were valid test items. The licensee determined that the four remaining questions (21,30,42, and 51) were technically accurate and valid job linked test items and that the answer key provided the correct answers. No broad training or knowledge weaknesses were identified. Reasons for missing the valid questions ;

-

!

1

.

I-4-

!

I appeared to be related to question difficulty and isolated training weaknesse l Overall, the licensee concluded that the questions on the written examination had :

the requisite job applicability and technical correctness and were covered in the !

training program. The licensee found the examination valid as administered and the chief examiner concurred with this determinatio I Conclusions .

All four applicants passed the senior reactor operator written examination. No '

broad knowledge or training weaknesses were identified as a result of evaluation of the graded examination .2 Initial Operatina Test Insoection Scooe j The examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to the four applicants on April 15-16,1997. Each applicant l

. participated in three dynamic simulator scenarios. Each also received a walkthrough test which consisted of five system tasks together with two followup questions for i each system and five subjects in four administrative areas. Three of the administrative areas were covered by questions and the remaining administrative area was covered by an administrative task, Observations and Findinas All applicants passed all portions of the operating test. During the dynamic simulator scenarios, there was one instance in which the applicant in the supervising operator position directed an unnecessary plant trip as a result of a failed steam generator levelinstrument because the applicant in the balance of plant operator position reported an excessive steam demand. After the trip, the balance of plant operator discovered and reported that he had misread increasing feedwater flow as increasing steam flow and that there was no excessive steam demand. The chief examiner determined that the position of these two indicators had been reversed in the plant in March 1996 and in the simulation facility in September 1996. The applicant described this modification in a post-scenario interview and stated that he had remembered the previous configuration when confronted with the instrument f ailure. Although this trip challenged the reactor protection system, the plant was not placed in an unsafe condition and the overall safety significance was minimal. Except for this one error, the applicants performed wellin the dynamic scenarios. Communications were clear and observed to be effective and !

did not deteriorate when problems were encountere !

!

!

All the applicants performed well on the walkthrough portion of the test. There l were no unsatisfactory grades for any applicant on any part of the test. One administrative task required the applicants to observe a series of events involving a '

i

- - .- .- -- . .- , . - - - -

.

.

-5-steam generator tube rupture followed by a main steam line break on the dynamic simulator and then classify the event level and provide protective action recommendations. Because all applicants performed this task flawlessly, it was considered an applicant strength, Conclusions All four applicants passed the operating test. A strength was identified in the area of event classification and protective action recommendations. A performance error in one of the dynamic simulator scenarios not sufficient for license denial was identified for licensee and applicant consideration and corrective action as appropriat ,

05 Operator Training and Qualification 05.1 Initial Licensina Examination Develooment The facility licensee developed the initial licensing examination in accordance with guidance provided in Generic Letter 95-06, " Changes in the Operator Licensing i Program."

05.1.1 Examination Outline j l Insoection Scoce -

.

The facility licensee submitted the initial examination outline on February 18, 1997. The chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG-1021, " Licensed Operator Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Supplement 1, and NUREG/BR-0122, " Examiner's Handbook for Developing Operator Licensing Written Enminations," Revision Observations and Findinas The initial examination outline was satisfactory as a guide for development of the examination. However, the chief examiner provided several enhancement suggestions for licensee consideration. Some of the suggestions related to the scope and depth of the administrative portion of the examination. The licensee made some revisions on the final submittal in response to these suggestions, it appeared that Job Performance Measures 1 and 2 were both closely related to !

indirect radioactivity release control, although Job Performance Measure 1 was !

referenced to reactor coolant system inventory control. The standards require that !

all job performance measures relate to different safety functions for this class of applicants. The licensee replaced Job Performance Measure 2 in response to this comment. The chief examiner also provided several enhancement suggestions on I

'

the scenario cutline, which were addressed by the licensee on the final submitta _ . _ .

.

.

-6-

. Conclusions The licensee submitted an examination outline which was adequate for examination development. Several enhancement suggestions provided by the chief examiner were incorporated in the final submitta .1.2 Examination Packaae inspection Scone

, The facility licensee submitted the completed examination package on March 17,

, 1997. The chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of

NUREG-1021, " Licensed Operator Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Supplement 1, and NUREG/BR-0122, " Examiner's Handbook for Developing Operator Licensing Written Examinations," Revision Observations and Findinas The draft-written examination contained 100 new questions. The draft examination was responsive to the knowledge and abilities sample plan submitted on February 18,1997, technically valid, and discriminated at the proper level, it was considered adequate for administration. The chief examiner provided comments on construction for 25 questions. Another 11 comments related to question references. The comments generally related to the suitability of question

-

distractors, construction of the question stem, or accuracy of the reference to the regulation item in response to the chief examiner's comments, the licensee revised or replaced 19 questions. Several of the revisions were minor editorial change Three of the questions commented on by the chief examiner were replaced because of similarity to a question on the audit examination. One other question was also replaced because of similarity to another question on the licensee's final audit examination to assure applicant readiness. The chief examiner concurred with resolution of the comments and the final product.. As discussed in Section 04.1b, as a result of the licensee's post examination ana!ysis and further review, the chief examiner deleted Question 20 and changed the key answer on Question 4 The licensee submitted five dynamic scenarios, including one backup scenario which was not used during the examination. The submitted scenarios were considered adequate for administration. The licensee subsequently developed detailed expected operator action lists in accordance with the standards as requested by the chief examiner. Also, Scenario 4 was enhanced as suggested by the chief examiner to make it more realistic and more challenging. During onsite preparation, the chief examiner observed that the norrnal events in Scenario Three and the backup scenario were not challenging enough to permit reliable evaluation of the applicants. They were essentially surveillance checks of control room indications, in response to these observations, the licensee replaced them with more performance-oriented evolution . _ - --- - - - . .

,

.

-7-To support the systems walkthrough section of the operating test, the facility licensee provided job performance measures developed to evaluate selected operator tasks that contained well-written task elements, performance standards, and comprehensive evaluator cues which were acceptable for administration as submitted. To facilitate grading, the licensee designated two additional steps as criticalin Job Performance Measure 4, as suggested by the chief examine Two followup questions associated with each task were also submitted by the licensee. The followup questions were generally unacceptable for administration as submitted. Most of the questions were written at the fundamental knowledge level and could not be expected to discriminate between a competent and less than competent senior reactor operator. All except Question 2 associated with Job Performance Measure 3 were either replaced or upgraded by the licensee prior to administration in accordance with the chief examiner's recommendations to meet minimum requirements. For example, Job Performance Measures 3,4, and 5, Question 1, were direct lookup questions. Question 4-1 asked the applicant when, in the emergency procedures, it was allowed to stop immediate boration of the reactor coolant system. Since the answer is explicitly listed in the procedure that would be used, properly answering this question required only reading the in-use procedure. This was considered a direct lookup question, which did not require higher cognitive skills, and to discriminate at too low a leve During administration it was discovered that the answer key was wrong for Job Performance Measure 1, Question 1. After research at the request of the chief examiner, the licensee discovered that the formula contained in Procedure OFN EJ-015, " Loss of RHR Cooling," Revision 4, for calculating the final accumulator pressure following a safety injection was not clearly written. The licensee initiated Performance Improvement Request 97-1135 to address this problem. Because all applicants correctly performed this calculation, it appeared that training had compensated for a lack of procedure clarit The licensee submitted a job performance measure and questions to cover the administrative section of the walkthrough test. The job performance measure, relating to plant emergency classification and protective action recommendations, was high quality. However, none of the questions were suitable for administration as submitted. A wrong answer was given for one question. The chief examiner evaluated the remaining questions as discriminating at too low a level for senior reactor operator applicants. Several were direct lookup questions, which were contrary to the guidance specified in the examiner standards. For example, administrative questions A1-1, A1-2, A1-3, and A1-4 were either direct lookup questions or discriminated at too low a level. Question A1-1 asked the applicant to j describe how one would determine if members of a fuel movement team were l qualified. This could be answered by reviewing the licensees administrative procedures for the one titled, " Fuel Handling Equipment Qualifications," which

'

describes personnel qualification. Properly answering this question required reading the index of administrative procedures. This was considered a direct lookup question, which did not require higher cognitive skills, and to discriminate at too low l

!

l

~ . _ . - - - -~

.

.

-8-l

a level. All questions were replaced or upgraded by the licensee prior to administration in accordance with the chief examiner's recommendations to meet minimum requirement Conclusions The written examination, dynamic scenarios, and administrative and system and ,

'

facility walkthrough tasks were acceptable for administration as submitted. The administrative and system walkthrough were of high quality. However, it was 1 necessary for the licensee to upgrade the questions associated with the administrative portion and upgrade the system walkthrough followup questions in ,

accordance with the chief examiner's recommendations to meet minimum 1 requirement .2 Simulation Facility Performance insoection Scoce The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to fidelity during the examination validation and administratio ; Observations and Findinas

!

The simulation facility supported examination administration well. No deficiencies I affecting examination administration were identified. One deficiency involving the main generator load rate circuit was identified during preparation week and is discussed in Attachment Conclusions The simulation facility supported examination administration wel V. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary ,

i The examiners presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on April 17,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined j during the inspectio l

.

.

ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee T. Damashek, Supervisor, Licensing R. Flannigan, Manager, Nuclear Engineering, Safety, and Licensing R. Guyer, Superintendent, Operations Training S. Hatch, Instructor, Training R. Hubberd, Superintendent, Operations O. Maynard, President and Chief Executive Officer B. McKinney, Plant Manager T. Morrill, Assistant to Vice President, Engineering D. Parks, Training Supervisor J. Pippin, Manager, Training G. Smith, Senior Instructor, Training C. Warren, Vice President Operations, Chief Operating Officer C. Younie, Manager, Operations NRC F. Ringwald, Senior Resident inspector ,

i

I

l l

l

.

,

.

.,- .- -.-.. - = . . .

.

b

.

>

l ' ATTACHMENT 2 i

-

SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT

.

Facility Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

Facility Docket

50-482

-

Operating Examinations Administered at: Wolf Creek Generating Station

Operating Examinations Administered on: April 15-16,1997 These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without d; further verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These l 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 l requireo in response to these observations.

F No simulator performance problems affected examination administration. One simulator

] fidelity deficiency was identified during preparation week. While performing a load

decrease using the load rate circuit, the average rate decrease was 0.5 percent every

.

l 2.5 minutes instead of the set 0.5 percent per minute. Simulator Deficiency Report 97-

.

. 045 was issued for followup of this problem.

.

.

i.

I

D e

t ATTACHMENT 3 FINAL WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND ANSWER KEY l

l l

i

1