IR 05000498/1994002

Insp Repts 50-498/94-02 & 50-499/94-02 on 940428-29.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Eligibility Determination & Administration of Comprehensive Operating Tests

ML20149E345
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	05/19/1994
From:	Jeffrey Mitchell NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20149E335	List: IR 05000498/1994002 ML20149E330
References
50-498-94-02, 50-498-94-2, 50-499-94-02, 50-499-94-2, NUDOCS 9405310025
Download: ML20149E345 (7)

Text

-- .

.. .. .. -- _

- _ - - _ _ _ _

.

i APPENDJJ

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

'

Inspection Report: 50-498/94-02 50-499/94-02 Licenses: NPF-76 <

NPF-80

-

Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas Facility Name: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Bay City, Texas Inspection Conducted: April 28-29, 1994 Inspectors: John L. Pellet Ryan E. Lantz l

'

Phillip J. Morrill Approved: 07/9 [9 9 l Jocelyn A. Mitchell, Acting Deputy Director Date Inspection Summarv Areas In_spected (Units 1 and 2): Routine, announced inspection of the qualification of applicants for operator licenses at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Stations facility, which included an eligibili.ty determination and administration of comprehensive operating test The

,

examiners used the guidance provided in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Sections 201-203, 301-303, and 401-403, issued January 199 Results (Units 1 and 2): >

+ Individual applicants and crews performed satisfactorily and appropriate licenses have been issue * Communications and teamwork were noted strengths and represented improvements over prior examinations.

l e

! 9405310025 940524 PDR ADOCK 05000498

, G PDR;

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

>

Q l u i

.,-- j-2-

-) i Summary of Inspection Findinas:

• There were no findings that were assigned a tracking number. identified during the course of this inspectio Attachments:

• Attachment 1'- Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting

• Attachment 2 - Simulation Facility Report

. ,

l

_

_

______2___-.__2--.-_-L----- ---s -

g

.

-3-DETAILS 1 LICENSED OPERATOR APPLICANT INITIAL QUALIFICATION EVALUATION (NUREG-1021)

During the inspection, the examiners evaluated the qualifications of three license applicants: two for reactor operator (RO) and one for an upgrade senior reactor operator (SRO). The inspection assessed'_the eligibility and administrative and technical competency of the applicants to be issued licenses to operate and direct the operation of the reactivity controls of a-commercial nuclear power facility in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55 and NUREG-1021, " Operator License Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Sections 200 (series), 300 (series), and 400 (series). Further, the inspection included evaluations of facility materials, 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. Because these examinations were retake examinations conducted only on the dynamic simulator, the performance of onshift operators and plant conditions were not observe After completion of the examinations, the examiners determined that all applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) and recommended that all applicants be issued the appropriate license 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

'

l

disclosur l 1.1 Facility Materials Submitted for Examination Development The chief examiner reviewed the licensee's materials provided for development i of the examination, which included station administrative and operating i procedures, lesson plans, and simulator scenarios. The material was current and adequate. The facility bank of dynamic simulator scenarios was adequate in scope, depth, and variety. It was used extensively in developing the examination There is no regulatory requirement for a facility to develop and maintain a bank of valid test items (questions, JPMs, and scenarios) for NRC use to -l

'

develop examinations. However, because of the significant savings i development time, the NRC has expressed willingness to use such material if it is available and meets the standards of NUREG-1021, as was the case for these .

!

examination .2 Operating Tests

The examiners developed comprehensive simulator scenarios for the integrated plant portion of the operating tests, in accordance with the guidelines of f NUREG-1021, Revision 7, Section 301. The administered operating tests j l

l

- _ ____ __ _ - ___ . . .

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

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

.

-4-consisted of only the integrated plant portion, because of the applicants'

previous successful completion and subsequent waiver of the other portions of the examination. The chief examiner previewed and validated the various '

portions of the operating tests on April 28, 1994, with the assistance of facility training personnel under security agreement. The examination team administered the operating tests on April 29, 199 The examination team evaluated one crew (consisting of two R0 applicants and an SR0 upgrade applicant). The examiners compared applicants' actual performance during the scenarios with expected performance in accordance with the requirements of NUREG-1021, Revision 7, Section 303, to evaluate applicants' competency on this portion of the operating test The examination team noted good communication practices among crew members, with only minor isolated instances of open-ended and informal communication Communication practices observed during these examinations were improved over-those observed during previous examinations. The applicants normally employed echo and confirmation prior to taking action. Crew briefings by the SRO.were generally effective and timel The examination team noted that the crew, in response to a leaking pressurizer -

relief valve, closed the associated block valve. However, when relief valve tailpipe temperatures showed no decrease after about one minute, the crew ,

determined that closing the block valve had not ~ isolated the leaking relief -'

l valve and proceeded with the appropriate actions for that determinatio However, since the tailpipe-indications are not expected to decrease that "

l rapidly, the crew should have waited longer and monitored pressurizer pressure to confirm the slowness of the temperature indication response. Since.the relief valve was not isolated, this decision had no impact on the appropriateness of the subsequent action All applicants passed this portion of the operating test .3 Simulator Fidelity During the preparation and conduct of the operating tests, the examination team observed no discrepancies in simulator fidelity that affected the conduct

"

of the administered examinations. One event, not used during the administered examinations, may not be properly modelled,- as described in Attachment .4 Conclusions The examination team concluded that the performance of the three applicants for operator licenses satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) and recommended that licenses be issue ry h  ;- .

. . .

.

~

..

L

.

'

-5-In general, the examination team concluded that:

• Individual applicants and crews performed satisfactoril Communications and teamwork were noted strengths and represented improvements over prior examination * The crew may have overestimated the speed with which pressurizer relief valve tailpipe temperatures would have been expected to decrease after successfully isolating a leaking relief valv l

- - ________ - ______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

. _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

ATTACHMENT 1 1 PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee Personnel

• J. Bartlett, Operations Training

• H. Butterworth, Operations Manager, Unit 1

• J. Carlin, Training Manager

• T. Hurley, Operations Training

• K. Poling, Operations Training Division Manager

• A. Stover, Operations Training 1.2 NRC Personnel

• J. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch

• R. Lantz, Examiner In addition to the personnel listed above, the examiners contacted other personnel during this inspection perio * Denotes personnel that attended the exit meetin EXIT MEETING An exit meeting was conducted on April 29, 1994. During.this meeting, the chief examiner reviewed the scope and generic findings of the inspection. The chief examiner did not disclose preliminary results of individual evaluations, ,

since they are subject to change during the final review and approval process.

l The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information provided to, or reviewed by, the examiner. The licensee did not state any position on the findings presented during the exit meeting.

,

.

i

'

I'

l I

., .. .

. . . . . . .

. . ..

_

,-

, l n

ATTACHMENT 2 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT  ;

Facility Licensee: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Docket: 50-448; 50-499 Operating Tests Administered at: South Texas Project Operating Tests Administered on: April 29, 1994 These ooservations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, . indicative of noncompliance with i 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations do not affect NRC certification o o 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 observation * During preparation and validation, a 500 gpm steam generator tube rupture was in a scenario sequence of events after turbine generator isolation due to a loss of vacuum. When the steam generator tube rupture occurred, the only steam flow to the condenser was by the steam drains. The condenser air removal alarms initiated after the leak had been in effect for less than five minute It was unclear to the f

examiners or the licensee representatives whether this response was what would be expected in an actual event, given the increase in transport-i times due to the decrease in steam flow for the conditions-give This event was not used during the administered examinatio _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _