IR 05000498/1998301

Insp Repts 50-498/98-301 & 50-499/98-301 on 980601-04.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Examiners Evaluated Competency of 6 Senior Operator Applicants for Issuance of Operating Licenses at Plant,Units 1 & 2 & Operations

ML20236P750
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	07/14/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236P721	List: IR 05000498/1998301 ML20236P720
References
50-498-98-301, 50-499-98-301, NUDOCS 9807170133
Download: ML20236P750 (11)

Text

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

..

.

ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Cocket Nos.: 50-498;50-499 License Nos.: NPF-76; NPF-80 Report No.: 50-498/98-301;50-499/98-301 Licensee: STP Nuclear Operating Company Facility: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: FM 521 - 8 miles west of Wadsworth l

Wadsworth, Texas

!

l Dates: June 1-4,1998 Inspectors: Howard F. Bundy, Chief Examiner Ryan E. Lantz, Reactor Engineer, Examiner / Inspector Approved By: John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety l

ATTACHMENTS:

l l Attachment 1: Supplemental Information Attachment 2: Simulation Facility Report Attachment 3: Post Examination Comments

.

Attachment 4: Final Written Examination and Answer Key r-9807170133 980714 g

DR ADOCK 05000498 PDR

=.

f g]'f

_ _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

!

t j l

^

I I-2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY l l

South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and ~2 NRC Inspection Report 50-498/98-301; 50-499/98-301 i

NRC examiners evaluated the competency of six senior operator applicants for issuance of operating licenses at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. The l licensee developed the initial license examinations using the guidance in NUREG-1021, Interim l Revision 8, January 1997. NRC examiners reviewed and approved the examinations, TM initial written examinations were administered to all six applicants on June 30,1998, by facility proctors in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8. The NRC examiners administered the operating tests June 2-4,199 Ooerations

. Five of the six applicants for senior operator licenses passed their examination . Applicants demonstrated effective oversight and good communication techniques during the dynamic scenarios. A common applicant performance weakness involving clearance order review was identified in that the majority of the applicants failed to or were slow in identifying that component cooling water had not been designated for isolation for overhaul of a residual heat removal pump (Sections O4.1 and 04.2).

. The examination submitted was adequate for administration and required only limited enhancement and editorial corrections. The senior operators assigned for examination validation provided valuable enhancement suggestions. The licensee staff was highly responsive to incorporating enhancement suggestions developed during the review process (Section 05.1).

l l

l c

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

.

.

-3-Reoort Details l Symmary of Plant Status Both units operated at 100 percent power for the duration of this inspectio I. Operations 04 Operator Knowledge and Performance 0 initial Written Examination Insoection Scoce On June 30,1998, the facility licensee proctored the administration of the written examination, approved by the chief examiner and NRC Region IV supervision, to six ,

individuals who had applied for upgrading their reactor operator licenses to senior I operator licenses. The licensee proposed grad . g for the written examinations and evaluated the results for qusstion validity and generic weaknesses. The examiners reviewed the licensee's result Observations and Findinas l

Five of the six applicants passed the written examination. Written examination scores ranged from a low of 73 to a high of 91 percent with an average of 84 percent overall and a lowest passing score of percent. Greater than 50 percent of the applicants missed 16 questions. Post-examination review by the licensee indicated that the questions missed were primarily due to isolated knowledge and training weaknesses. However, no broad scoped commonalities were determined from the missed question analysis. The licensee's post-examination review resulted in the recornmendation that the answer for Question 57 be changed to accept both choices 'A' and 'D' as correct. The proposed change was accepted based on the technical merits and the examinations were evaluated incorporating this change. The licensee's post examination comments are included in Attachment Conclusions Five of the six license applicants passed the written examinations. No broad knowledge l or training weaknesses were identified as a result of evaluation of the graded I examinations.

l l

I l

!

!

!

l

!

l I

! -4 04.2 Initial Ooeratica Test i

!

l Insoection Stape i The examination team administered the various parts of the operating examination to the six applicants on June 2-4,1998. Each applicart participated in three scenarios.

I_

However, each applicant was formally evaluated for senior operator license only for the l scenario in which he participated as the control room senior operator in charge. Each ;

applicant also received a control room and facilities walkthrough test, which consisted of !

five tasks with followup questions, and an administrative test, which consisted of five tasks in four administrative area Observations and Findinas All applicants passed all sections of the operating test. The examiners noted appropriate )

use of peer and self-checking practices in all areas of the examinations. When j

'

evaluated in the senior operator in charge position for the dynamic scenarios, all applicants demonstrated effective oversight and good communication techniques. The l applicants displayed effective application of technical specifications and emergency and abnormal procedures.

i

! The applicants generally performed well on the systems and facility walkthrough and administrative tasks. However, on one administrative task the majority of the applicants failed to or were slow in identifying that component cooling water had not been

, designated for isolation as reviewed during review of a clearance order for overhaul of a residual heat removal pum Conclusions All six applicants passed all parts of the operating test. Applicants demonstrated effective oversight and good communication techniques during the dynamic scenario The examiners identified a common applicant performance weakness involving clearance order review in that the majority of the applicants failed to or were slow in identifying that component cooling water had not been designated for isolation for overhaul of a residual heat removal pum Operator Training and Qualification 0 Initial Licensina Examination Development l

The facility licensee developed the initial licensing examination in accordance with j NUREG-1021, interim Revision 8, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors."

l l

l

.

.

. 1 l

i e

L -5- j l l I

,

l 05.1.1 Examination Outline t

I~ Insoection Scone l The facility licensee submitted the initial examination outline on December 17,199 The chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8.

l-l Observations and Findinas l Region IV approved the initial examination outline with minor comments for l enhancement, which were promptly resolved, and advised the licensee to proceed with I examination developmen l l

l - Conclusions

The licensee submitted an examination outline in a timely manner, which required only minor revisions for enhancemen ;

05.1.2 Examination Packaae i

insoection Scooe

' The facility licensee submitted the completed draft examination package on February 27,1998. Prior to formal submittal of the examination package, meetings were held in the Region IV office on January 27 and February 12,1998, to discuss  !

examination development issues. These meetings were attended by licensee l l representatives J. Calvert, Operations Training Manager, and M. DeFrees, Licensed ;

Operator Training Supervisor, and the chief examiner and operations branch chief. The !

chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG-1021, Interim l Revision 8. An onsite review of the revised examination was conducted during the ;

period March 20-23,199 l Observations and Findinas

. The draft written examination contained 100 questions. The questions were i predominantly new for this examination. The draft examination was considered technically valid, to discriminate at the proper level, and responsive to the sample plan submitted by the licensee on December 17,1997. The chief examiner provided

enhancement suggestions on 11 questions, which were appropriately incorporated by l the' licensee. The suggested enhancements generally related to clarity of the question stem and distractor plausibility. The chief examiner also identified an error in the answer for original Question 73, which related to the definition of core alterations. The licensee replaced this question and initiated a station condition report to investigate a potential discrepancy in fuel handling procedures. In addition, the licensee changed the wording

!

l'

l l ,

i-

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

.

-6-on several other questions in response to a generic chief examiner comment regarding minor grammatical errors. Finally, prior to administration, the licensee modified Question 37 to reflect deletion of the original reference and enhanced the distractors on Question 48. Minor editor.bl changes were made to 4 other question The operating test consisted of dynamic scenarios, administrative tasks, and system tasks with followup questions. The licensee submitted four dynamic scenarios, including one backup scenario, which was not used during the examination. The submitted scenarios conformed to NUREG-1021. The licensee subsequently incorporated several minor enhancement suggestions provided by the chief examiner and the licensee validation crew during the week of March 20,199 To support the administrative section of the operating test the licensee submitted five administrative tasks. Although the submitted tasks were satisfactory test items, enhancements, and clarifications were necessary for each task in response to chief examiner questions and comments. Also, during the onsite review it was discovered the answer for Job Performance Measure A3, " Review a Tagout," was not complete and further changes were necessary. la addhn, the onsite validation time for Job Performance Measure A3 was in excess of one hour, which required a reduction in task scope. Enhancements were made to otherjob performance measures during the onsite revie To support the systems walkthrough section of the operating test, the licensee submitted five system job performance measures with two followup questions associated with eac The chief examiner provided only one editorial comment on the job performance measures. However, several enhancements were made to the job performance measures during the onsite review. Also, it was necessary to modify the cues to clarify the scope of the task for Job Performance Measure 3, " Place a Class 1E 125V DC Battery Charger in Service."

Many of the enhancements made to the operating test during the onsite review were directly attributable to comments and suggestions by the validation crew, which was comprised of senior operator members of an off-duty shift cre Conclusions The examination submitted was adequate for administration and required only limited enhancement and editorial corrections. The meetings with licensee training representatives in the Region IV office were instrumental in achieving a satisfactory examination submittal. The senior operators assigned for examination validation provided valuable enhancement suggestions. The licensee staff was highly responsive to incorporating enhancement suggestions developed during the review proces ____

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

.

, .

-7-

0 Simulation Faciljtv Performance

l Insoection Scoce l

The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to fidelity during the examination validation and administratio b, Observations and Findinos The simulation facility supported the validation and administration of the examination well. However, as discussed in Attachment 2, there were general failures on two occasions for one scenario during the onsite review and an identical failure during examination administration. The failures had minimalimpact on the review effor However, the failure during examination administration required use of the backup scenario for one crew. No other fidelity problems were observe Conclusions The simulator and simulator staff supported the examinations well. General simulator failures had minimal impact on examination review and slight impact on examination administration.

!

0 Examination Security Scope The examiners reviewed examination security both during on site preparation week and examination administration week for compliance with NUREG-1021 requirement Observations and Findinos Members of the licensee's operations and training staff signed onto the NURF.G-1021 approved examination security agreement acknowledging their responsibilities for examination security. The licensee maintained secure areas for examination development, review, validation, and administration. Signs were conspicuously posted to avoid inadvertent unauthorized access, and doors were maintained locked with good key

,

control to ensure proper access to sensitive areas. Applicants were maintained under

'

constant supervision and were always escorted to and from examination point I Simulator security was strictly complied with.

l Conclusions

!

Effective examination security was maintaine _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

..

.

.

-8-V. Management Meetings X1 Exit Meeting Summary The chief examiner presented the preliminary inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the operating test administration on June 4, 1998. Final results of the inspection were presented by Mr. John Pellet during a telephone conference with Mr. Mike DeFrees on July 8,1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined during the inspectio _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

ATTACHMENT 1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED l

l Licensee J. Calvert, Manager, Operations Training G. Chitwood, Examination Lead K. Coates, Manager, Nuclear Training M. DeFrees, Lead Instructor, Licensed Operator Training W. Dowdy, Unit 2 Operations Manager J. Lovell, Manager, Generation Support K. Struble, Instructor, Licensed Operator Training NELG G. Guerra, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED NUREG-1021 " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,"

Interim Revision 8 e

___ _ -- - -

.

.

ATTACHMENT 2 SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT Facility Licensee: STP Nuclear Operating Company Facility Docket: 50-498, 50-499 Operating Examinations Administered at: STP Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Operating Examinations Administered on: June 2-4,1998 These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These 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 license action is required in response to these observation Deficiencv identified Durina Examination Preparation

+

During scenario validation, RCFC 11 A outlet air temperature indicator was reading 150 F when actual temperature was 62* F. Replaced sticking meter to correct erroneous readin +

The F.B. exhaust filter train isolation dampers took an unrealistically long time to close during realignment of F.B. VAC while performing POP 05-EO-E000, i.e.,13 to 17 seconds versus 7 seconds expected in the plant. The stroke time was adjusted in the simulato *

Du&g a LOCA the simulator stopped responding and the audible simulator trouble alarm ac'Jated on two occasions. On the third attempt, the simulator performed as expecte Deficiency identified Durina Examination Administration

+

Despite the simulator staff's unsuccessful attempts to reproduce the simulator failure several times prior to examination administration, it recurred at the identical point in the LOCA scenario during applicant evaluatio _ - _ _ _

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

.

.

ATTACHMENT 3 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT WRITTEN EXAM (6/30/98)

POST-EXAM APPLICANT COMMENTS QUESTION 57, ANSWER 'D'

REFERENCES: OPOP05-EO-F002, Core Cooling Critical Safety Function Status Tree OPOP05-EO-FRC3, Response to Saturated Core Cooling, Step 2 COMMENT: Use of High Head injection (Answer 'S') is also an ' appropriate method' to use under the specifiec circumstance RESOLUTION: Comment accepted. Accept choices 'A' and 'D'. Choice 'A' was originally thought to be incorrect based on not being applicable unless RCS pressure was below 1745 psig. The question stem specified an RCS pressure of 1785 psig. However, OPOP05-EO-FRC3, Response to Saturated Core Cooling, Step 2b, has the operators establish HHSI flow regardless of whether pressure is above or below 1745 psig. The importance of being above or below 1745 psig is related to whether charging flow should be established, not HHSI flow.

L