IR 05000482/1997012
| ML20216C883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216C858 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-97-12, NUDOCS 9709090161 | |
| Download: ML20216C883 (10) | |
Text
.__ _ _... _ _ __ _.
. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ - _. _.. _.. ~. _ _.. - _....
...... _.,_ _._
,..
i
..
,
c ENCLOSURE 1 -
4-
- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
p
REGION IV
,
,
- Docket No.
50-482
'
-
Licer,se No.:
- _
Report No.:
50-482/97-12 c
Licensee:
- Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation l'
4-Facility:
Wolf Creek Generating Station
'
Location:
1550 Oxen Lane, NE
,
j Burlington, Kansas l
Dates:
August 11-15,1997 a-
!-
Inspectors:
T. R. Meadows, Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch
,
R. E. Lantz, Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch i'
- -
T. O McKernon, Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch
' Approved By:
' John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch
-
Division of Reactor Safety
- --
I
{.
ATTACHMENT: LSupplemental InRmation
,
'
i-J
)-
E t
t.-
ij'-
,
1 --
,'
.;
i
'
t
9709090161 970904 i-
-PDR ADOCK 05000482 G
- -..
-
-.-
~...,
m,
.. -, - _,-
,--r
-, -,
r..,i- -
-~_-
,-
.
2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wolf Creek Generating Station NRC Inspection Report 50-482/97 12 i
This inspect on assessed the licensed operator requalification program to determine i
whether the program incorporated appropriate requirements for evaluating operators'
l mastery of training objectives in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c). The assessment included an evaluation of the program's controls to assure a systems approach to training and evaluation of operating crew performcnce during annual requalification examinations.
This included review of the facility documents, observation of one operating crew during dynamic simulator scenarios and plant walkthroughs, and an assessment of the examination evaluators' effectiveness in conducting and evaluating examinations. The inspection also included an evaluation of the plant referenced dynamic simulator used to conduct the examinations and the reference documentation used to produce the examinatior s and some control room observations.
Ooerations Operators exhibited good communication, annunciator response, procedure usage, f
self checking, and peer checking. Unit supervisors demonstrated effective oversight
'
of shift priorities (Section 01).
Overall, the licensed operator requalification training program effectively
implemented a systems approach to training and maintained the condition of licenses. The licensee's training department was responsive to feedback and revised the training program, as appropriate. The licensee's process for operator remedial training was comprehensive (Sections 05.1,05.3,05.4).
Annual requalification examinations were comprehensive and discriminated at the
appropriate level. However, the inspectors found approximately half of the scenarios reviewed in the requalification scenario bank had acceptable, but limited, discriminating value for the senior operator position. Further, the inspectors noted that the licensee did not have expectations or procedural guidance to explicitly verify that each senior operator examination was appropriately challenging (Section 05.1).
The licensed operator requalification facility evaluators administered the
examinations professionally and in accordance with accepted industry practices (Section 05.2).
Plant Sucoort Plant housekeeping was good (Section F8.1).
- i
..
___.
_ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _ _ _. -
,
e-v
-.
j-3-
1-k Reoort Details
!I l.- Operations
- -
Conduct of Operations
ij -
01.1 Observations of Operator Performance
L.
].
a.
Insoection Scope (71001)
t The inspectors observed activities in the control room during normal plant
-operations. The inspectors compared the observed performance with expected
performance, as described in the facility policies and procedures, i;
i-
- b.
Observations and Findinas The inspector noted that the individual operators were alert and diligent in performing their duties. The inspector observed consistently good and effective
'
communications in accordance with management expectations. Operator i
communications were clear and unambiguous, and communication support
'
equipment appeared reliable and adequate Communications outside the control
- -
room were generally formal and consistently effective.
fr l-
. Control room conduct _was formal. The shift manager was closely involved in shift -
j operations. Access to the control room was formally controlled and noise levels f
- were maintained low and non-distracting to the control board operators. -- The unit
!.
shift supervisors maintained a professional environment in the control room.
I[
Operators routinely exhibited good self and peer checking when manipulating i
controls. The inspector observed that the operators performed peer checks on the a
!=
designated components. The inspe'ctors also interviewed licensed operators
i regarding the services received from theirLfacility's operator requalification program.
The operators consistently said that the quality of their requalification training wa l
- good and improved their ability to perform their licensed duties.-
i '
c,~
Conclusions -
1 Operators exhibited good communication, annunciator response, procedure usage, self checking, and peer checking. Unit supervisors demonstrated effective oversight a
_. of shift priorities.
.
L
't
,
__
..
.
-...
...
__
..
-
.
,
n
--. - -. -
-.. - - - -. -
-. -.-. ~.
... _.
_~ -..-,
.n -.-..
.
,
,
,
i
!
-4-t-
t
+
i-
Operator Knowledge'and Performance
_
- 04.1_ Operator' Performance on Annual Reaualification Examinations
!
.a.
Inspection Scoce (71001)
l The inspectors observed the performance of one shift crew during their annual
-
F requalification evaluations. The crew was composed of four active licensed'
!
- operato_rs and one' licensed shift technical engineer. The first_ week of the Licensed
'
.
,
Operator Biennial 1997 1998 Requalification Cycle 97 5 began on July 14,1997,
..
and was scheduled to end September 12,1997. The annual operating examination
{
included simulator dynamic performance evaluations and five job performance
[-
- measures for each licensed operator. The biennial written examination was
scheduled fnr-1998 and, therefore,'was not observed during this inspection.
l --
b.
' Observations and Findinas
F On August 12 13,'1997, the inspectors observed the dynamic simulator and job l performance measures for one shift crew. The crew and allindividuals passed their '
,
annual operating evaluations.
- Operator. performance in the simulator was consistent with that observed in the
~
control room. The inspectors observed that formal communication practices were-
_ generally maintained with the exception of some instances of a lack of expected
'
communication practices during stressful simulator scenario conditions.
c.-
.. Conclusions -
The inspectors concluded that the licensed operators exhibited good knowledge and
' ability during the requalification examinations _and that they maintained formal good-
'
l
_ communication practices with minor lapses.
' Operator Training and Qualification
'05.1 Review of Facility Licensee's Reaualification Examinations f a. -
Insoection Scope-The inspectors evaluated the effectiveness of the methodology used to develop the requalification examinations and assess the effectiveness of the examinations in identifying retraining needs and measuring the examinee's plant-specific knowledge.
The examination sample plan was reviewed, and training personnel interviewed to ascertain the methods used in developing the examination. The inspectors also evaluated the validity of the examinations _to provide a basis for evaluating the examinee's knowledge of abnormal and emergency operating procedures.
i
~
-
-. --
_
. -.
_
-
---
-
.
.-
- -...
-,.
-,_
_
.
~ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ __ _ _ _ -._ _.
__
-.... _
_,
j-
.5-b.
Observations and Findinos
- :
L
.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's simulator scenarios and job performance-
-measures used in the observed examinations. The inspectors also reviewed the
.
'
Llicensee's administrative procedures for developing, administering, grading, and i
evaluating the examinations and conducted interviews with training management, instructors, evaluators, and examinees. The licensee's training staff indicated
that-the guidelines of NUREG 1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards,"
- .
. Revision 7, Supplement 1, were utilized for the development and administration of 1-the licensed operator requalification examination.
i The job performance measures were in accordance with the guidance of
NUREG 1021 and contained performance standards that were clear, objective, and rclevant. The job performance measures contained clear and well defined critical-task acceptance criteria for measuring the examinee's performance The job n
' performance measures also adequately supported topic areas from the licensed
' operator requalification program 2 year training plan.
The inspectors found that the scenarios contained clearly stated objectives. The initial conditions of the scenarios were realistic. The scenarios had been previously
-
validated by the training and operations staff and allowed the evaluators to measure
the examinees' competencies commensurate with tLe scenario objectives. 'The inspectors further verified that the scenarios had no been used for training during i
r the previous requalification cycle.
- .
!
However, the inspectors determined that event sequencing in some scenarios
'
provided limited opportunity for evaluation of _the senior operator's. ability to
-! -
prioritize actions to mitigate the simulated transient. The inspectors noted that in i
some of the examination scenarios, the events were sequenced-such that some of iI the senior _ operator's command responsibilities were challenged at an acceptable,
- but lesser degree. These command responsibilities include skills, such as coordinating crew actions, to effectively mitigate a major event. The inspectors -
observed one senior operator administer a scenario that was acceptable, but less of a challenge to his command responsibilities. Alsoithe inspectors found that the facility's requalification scenario bank was vulnerable in that it contained a large
'
number of minimally acceptable scenarios relative to the criteria of NUREG 1021.
<The inspectors also found two scenarios in the licensee's bank that did not meet F
these minimum standards.
- -
-
! Furth_er, the inspectors noted that the licensee did not have expectations or -
4-procedural guidance to explicitly verify _that each senior operator examination was
{
appropriately challenging.
I The inspectors discussed these vulnerabilities with the licensee's staff for consideration. The licensee's staff acknowledged -these observations.
,
-
.,,r
-'., _.,
..
g.m.,
p.m,,,,.,
.,.,
,
.-_7..ryv 13-w--.-
y
.-
.
.
-6-c.
' Conclusions The licensee's requalification test materials were acceptable. However, some -
dynamic scenarios created evaluation vulnerabilities, in that, they had acceptable, but limited, discriminating value for senior reactor operators.
05.2 Reaualification Examination Administration a.
Inspection Scope (71001)
The inspectors observed the administration of all aspects of the requalification examinations to determine the evaluators' abilities to administer an examination and assess adequate performance through measurable criteria. The inspectors also observed the plant simulator in support of examination administration. Four licensed operator requalification training evaluators and one operations management observer were observed participating in one or more aspects of administering the examinations, including pre-examination briefings, observations of operator performance measure cuing, and final evaluation documentation.
b.
Observations and Findinos The licensee evaluators evaluated the examinees' competencies with forms that were consistent with NUREG-1021 by comparing actual performance during the scenarios against expected performance. Individual performance was also evaluated during the crew evaluation and after each evaluator made an assessment on his assigned _ examinee using licensee guidance for individual evaluations, also consistent with NUREG 1021. The post-examination critiques by the crew teams and evaluators were effective in identifying strengths and weaknesses of the individuals and crews and were consistent with the performance observed by the inspectors. The inspectors observed that the evaluators used a systematic approach in assessing the examinees' competencies. The evaluators were thorough in their assessments of examinee performance and their comments were of sufficient detail to assist in future training.
The inspectors noted that the licensee evaluators thoroughly observed and evaluated the results of the individual walkthroughs. The evaluators provided meaningful feedback to the operators about their crew and individual performances.
c.
Conclusions The inspectors concluded that the evaluators performed well and provided meaningful feedback about crew and individual performanc..
.
)
'
7._
05.3 - ' Simulation Facility Performance i
a.-
Inspection Scope
'
_
The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to fidelity during the
_ inspection, b.
Observations and Findinos The simulator performance was good. The licensee's simulator support staff were.
very efficient. The inspectors identified no fidelity issues.
c.
Conclusions
?The simulator and simulator staff appropriately supported the examinations and the
'
simulator support staff were very efficient. No fidelity issues were identified.
,
^5 4 Review of Remedial Trainina Proaram
,
a.
-- Scope 171001)
The inspectors assessed the adequacy of and verified the effectiveness of the
. remedial training program.
',
Observations and Findinos o
The inspectors reviewed a number of remedial training records of individuals
_
remediated between April and June.1997.' The majority of individuals had -
difficulties implementing the emergency plan by either diagnosing the incorrect
-
emergency action level or by selecting th_e incorrect protective action
' recommendations.
In discussions with the training staff, it was determined _that because several senior operators had difficulty with the new formats for implementng the emergency plan,
- additional hours were dedicated to emergency plan training and it was targeted for testing in the annual requalification ex oination. This was dos e by incorporating -
the emergency; declaration into a job performance measure. Thi examinees were then required to analyze the plant conditions and _make the appr 3priate declaration and protective action recommendations, c.
Conclusion The inspectors concluded that the licensee's remedial training program was acceptable and focused training on operators' weaknesses.
.
. _
- - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - - - - _ - - _ - - -
.
'.,:
8-05[5 Licensed Operator License Conformance E
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's records for tracking licensed operator's qualifications and status - This computerized datebase contained current status on
. the reactor operatorsi senior operators, arid the shif t supervisors. -The database j
contained infor. nation and status on active and current licenses, the number of
-
watches stood each quarter, hazardous waste management training, and other relevant information from the training' departments, medical department, licensing, and the operations department. The inspectors verified that the' sampled records for individuals supported the current active status of their operator licenses. The
-
inspectors also verified that the licensee maintained an appropriate program for deactivating and reactivating operator licenses. The inspectors concluded that the licenset program met the requirements of 10 CFR.55.53 (e)(f)(i).
- Miscellaneous Operations issues (92900)-
-08.1 (ClosedI Notice of Violation (50-482/9710 01h Licensed Ooerators Did Not Have Self-contained Breathino Accaratus Corrective Evewear Readily Available On May 8,' 1997, NRC inspectors found that several licensed ' operators, who were required to wear corrective lenses, did not.have ready access to the appropriate
. lenses for use with self-contained breathing apparatus. The unavailability'of appropriate lenses for licensed operators requiring corrective lenses would-compromise their ability to perform their licensed duties during those conditions.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's response. letter, WO 97-0065, dated July 2, 1997, and found that the licensee had taken the following actions to correct and -
prevent recurrence of these conditions:
'
All active licenses were reviewed for restrictions. A folder listing each crew
member's restrictions, if any, was completed., The shift supervisors --
reviewed their crew's appropriate folders prior to assuming ntch, to insure proper crew staffing.
The operations department verified licensed operators who wear corrective -
. lenses as a' condition of their license, understood the requirements of maintaining self contained breathing apparatus eyewear or contact lenses
readily available. The licensee also provided such eyewear where it was
'
found missing.
A computerized tracking system to monitor adherence of licensed operator
restrictions was developed and periodically monitored by the site's head nurse at least once a month.
i
.
Other measures were also taken by the licensee, such as the issuance of appropriate night orders, management directives, and additional training to licensed operators.
The inspectors determined that these corrective actions were adequate.
IV Plant Suppo_rtr F8 Miscellaneous Fire Protection issues F8.1 General Comments The inspectors observed general plant housekeeping incident to administration of the in plant job performance section of the operating test. The facility was reasonably clean, welllighted, and the floors were clear and free from debris. The operators were conscientious to note discrepancies and inform the main control room.
V. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary The examiners presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on August 14,1997, The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined during the inspection.
-.
- --.
. -.
.-
..
f
.-
,
ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
,
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
'
i
- Licensee ~
.i
D. Dees, Operations Training Supervisor
R. Guyer, Operations Training Manager
,
R. Hubbard, Operations Supervisor O. Maynard, President and Chief Executive Officer
B. McKinney, Licensing Senior Specialist
"
J.' Pippin, Training Manager C. Warren, Vice Presidant of Operations J. Weeks, Emergency Planning Manager C. Younie, Operations Manager NBC-F. Ringwald, Senior Resident INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED inspection Procedure 71001, Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation -
ITEM CLOSED Closed l 50-482/9710-01
. VIO One violation for a. failure to ensure that appropriate glasses for use with self-contained breathing apparatus were available for licensed operators (Section 08).
,,
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
' Final Safety Analysis Report, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation :
- Al 308-006, " Licensed Operator Requalification Examination G," Revision 3 -
Al-30B-005, " Conduct of Simulator Activities for Licensed Operator Training" Al-308-001,." Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program" Al 30E-010,L" Computer Documentation of Required Reading" AP 308-004,_" Required Reading," Revision 2
~ Al 30E-005, " Instructor Training,- Qualification and Certification and Continuing Training"
_
AP 30E 002, " Training Effectiveness Evaluation Program" Revision 3 AP 30G-001, " Training, Qualification, and Certification of Audit Personnel" i