IR 05000498/1999015

Insp Repts 50-498/99-15 & 50-499/99-15 on 990920-24.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensed Operators Requalification Program

ML20212J724
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	09/29/1999
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212J718	List: IR 05000498/1999015 ML20212J714
References
50-498-99-15, 50-499-99-15, NUDOCS 9910050273
Download: ML20212J724 (13)

Text

-

ENCLOSURE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket Nos.: 50-498;50-499 License Nos.: NPF-76; NPF-80 Report No.: 50-498/99-15;50-499/99-15 Licensee: STP Nuclear Operating Company Facility: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: FM 521 - 8 miles west of Wadsworth Wadsworth, Texas Dates: September 20 to 24,1999 Inspectors: Howard F. Bundy, Senior Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch Gilbert L. Guerra, Jr., Resident inspector, Projects Branch A ,

Approved By: John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety ATTACHMENT: Supplemental Information 9910050273'990929 i PDR ADOCK 05000498 G PDR j i

_

i

-

!

2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 NRC Inspection Report No. 50-498/99-15; 50-499/9915 This inspection assessed the licensed operators' requalification program to determine whether the program incorporated appropriate requirements for both evaluating operators' mastery of training objectives and revising the program in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55. The licensed operators' requalification program assessment included an evaluation of the program's controls to assure a systems approach to training, and evaluation of operating crew performance during annual requalification examinations. This included review of facility documents; observations of two shift crews and a staff crew during dynamic simulator scenarios, plant walkthroughs, and written examinations; and assessment of licensee evaluators' effectiveness in conducting examination Operations a The inspectors observed good crew performance in the plant control rooms, which was comparable to that observed in the dynamic simulator portion of the operating examination (Section O1.1).

. The licensed operators performed at a high level during all portions of the biennial examinations with no crew or individual failures during the week of the inspection and only one crew failure during the previous four weeks, which was an overall improvement i from that observed during the previous inspection. Communications and teamwork I were strengths. During the dynamic scenarios, the oporators advocated appropriate responses to changing plant conditions and as plant conditions deteriorated the shift management team conducted frequent briefings covering plant status and strategy for responding to events (Section 04.1).

. The inspectors determined that all portions of the examination were well constructed, properly focused, and appropriately challenging. The licensee had developed and i implemented appropriate examination security measures (Section 05.1). )

. The licensee's evaluators demonstrated high performance expectations for operators and sustained high levels of competence in examination administration and operator performance assessment. Their threshold for generating constructive comments was low. Examination security was effectively maintained (Section 05.2).

. The licensee continued to implement an effective feedback process as a key element to their overall systems approach to training. Operations was proactive in requesting training, which satisfied specific needs (Section 05.3).

. The licensee had implemented a formal and effective remedial training progra Examination failures were aggressively remediated and there were no repeated f ailures (Section 05.4).

g a

l l

l*

-3-I I Report Details i

I Summary of Plant Status Units 1 and 2 remained at full power during this inspection period. No major equipment problems or transients were experience l 1. Operations j j

01 Conduct of Operations 01.1 Control Room Observations Inspection Scope (71001)

The inspectors observed operator performance in the plant control rooms to compare to operator performance observed in the dynamic simulator scenario Observations and Findinas The inspectors observed the control room licensed operator shift turnovers and the unit operations crew turnover meetings. Representatives from the various support groups were present to communicate their activities for the shift. The oncoming crews obtained a clear understanding of plant status during the turnover. The operators referred to i procedures throughout the performance of the various tasks, and routinely performed i self verification and concurrent-verification activities while operating various equipment controls. The control room supervisors maintained close oversight of fewer frequently l performed evolutions. The operators routinely used three-leg communication ,

technique Conclusion

'

The inspectors observed good crew performance in the plant control rooms, which was comparable to that observed in the dynamic simulator portion of the operating examinatio Operator Knowledge and Performance 0 Operator Performanc.p on Annual Reaualification Examinations Inspection Scoce (71001)

The inspectors observed the performance of two shift crews and one staff crew during their annual requalification evaluations. One of the evaluated crews was composed of

three individuals with reactor operator licenses and three individuals with senior operator licenses; the other shif t crew was composed of two individuals with reactor operator licenses and three individuals with senior operator licenses; and the staff crew was

-

-4-composed of six individuals with senior operator licenses. The annual operating examination included two simulator dynamic performance evaluations for each shift crew, three dynamic simulator evaluations for the staff crew, and five job performance measures for each licensed operator. The inspectors also observed administration of the open reference biennial written examinatio b. Observations and Findinas '

'

The inspectors noted that all operators performed at a high level during the operating test administered during the inspection. All crews and individuals passed. This was an improvement from overall performance observed during the previous inspection (Inspection Report 50-498; -499/97-20) during which one shift crew failed the dynamic j scenarios test. During the dynamic scenarios, communications and teamwork were I

'

strengths. The inspectors observed consistent and frequent application of self-verification, concurrent-verification, three-leg communications, and direct supentisory oversight. The operators provided good input to the control room supervisors on plant I conditions and advocated appropriate responses to changing conditions. The shift I technical advisors monitored plant parameters and ensured that the crews were performing the correct response procedures and advised the unit supervisors on the plant technical specifications. The shift superintendents made timely and accurate emergency action level classifications. As conditions deteriorated, the shift management teams conducted frequent briefings covering plant status and strate lJy for responding to the events. The inspectors observed similar operator performance during the plant walkthrough portion of the operating test. Operator performance on the written examinations was very good in that all individuals passed with an average score of 9 percen The inspectors reviewed the results of the previous four weeks of the biennial examinations and determined that the only failure involved performance of one crew during the dynamic scenarios. This failure had been successfully remediated. Overall performance during the biennial examinations was very good, c. Conclusions The licensed operators performed at a high level during all portions of the biennial examinations with no crew or individual failures during the week of the inspection and only one crew failure during the previous four weeks, which was an overall improvement from that observed during the previous inspection. Communications and teamwork were strengths. During the dynamic scenarios, the operators advocated appropriate responses to changing plant conditions and as plant conditions deteriorated the shift management team conducted frequent briefings covering plant status and strategy for l responding to event i

!

. r -

,

\-

!' . 5-0 Operator Training and Qualification

' 05.1 Reviewof Reaualification Examinations . inspection Scoce (71001)

!

The inspectors reviewed the biennial requalification examinations, which consisted of the written and operating tests, to evaluate general quality, construction, and difficulty level. The inspectors also reviewed the methodology for developing the requalification examinations and discussed various aspects of examination development and security with members of the licensee's training staf ,

I Observations and Findinas The operating examinations consisted of job performance measures and dynamic simulator scenarios. The job performance measure tasks were operationally important and supported by the facility's job task analysis. Each job performance measure included initial conditions, initiating cues, references, performance standards, criteria for successful completion and identification of critical steps. The dynamic simulator scenarios contained realistic initial conditions, clearly stated objectives, and related events. The scenarios had multiple instrument and component failures. The sequence and timing of the events were preplanned to challenge the senior operators to prioritize their actions, while allowing the evaluators to gather sufficient information on individual and crew actions to arrive at informed performance rating The inspectors noted that the written examinations tested at the appropriate level of comprehension and were linked to important learning objectives. The questions were operationally oriented, realistic, and appropriately balanced with respect to systems, procedures, and administrative areas. An appropriate number of questions were taken from subjects not in the current training perio The inspectors reviewed test items for Weeks 4 and 5 of the examinations and found minimal reuse of items, which was well under the limits allowed by the licensee's procedures. The inspectors discussed examination security with training representatives and determined that adequate precautions had been taken to preclude unplanned disclosure of test items, Conclusions The inspectors determined that all portions of the examination were well constructe'd, properly focused, and appropriately challenging. The licensee had developed and implemented appropriate examination security measure l l .

.

O5.2 Reaualification Examination Administration 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 criteri Observations and Findinas Evaluators were assigned duties so that they were not involved with training the crew being evaluated. The evaluators properly sequestered examinees having knowledge of test items from those examinees who had not seen the test items. After completion of their examinations, examinees signed security agreements to not discuss test items until all examinations had been complete The licensee evaluators rated the examinees' competencies in accordance with their Procedure LOR-GL-0002 by comparing actual performance during the scenarios against expected performance. The post-examination critiques by the evaluators were effective in identifying strengths and weaknesses of the individuals and crews and consistent with the performance observed by the inspectors. The examiner threshold for generating constructive comments was low and the expected performance standards were very high. The evaluators were thorough in their assessments of examinee performance and their comments were of sufficient detail to assist in identifying future training or performance improvement opportunities. Because there were no crew or individual failures of the scenarios during this inspection, no remediation documentation was generate The inspectors observed the licensee evaluators and the requalification examinees during conduct of system-oriented job performance measures related to job tasks within the scope of their potential duties. These included equipment operator tasks inside and outside the control room and performance of some of the tasks in the control room simulator in the dynamic mode. Communications between the examinees and the evaluators were observed to be good. The inspectors noted that the facility evaluators thoroughly reviewed the results of the individual walkthroughs and that none of the examinees failed the job performance measure portion of the examination during thic inspectio The inspectors observed administration of the written examinations. The guidelines of Procedure LOR-GL-0002 were followed in all aspects. The applicants were appropriately spaced and sufficient examination reference materials were provided to avoid any examination efficiency or security concern . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . .

.

.. .

. . .

.

.

t-7-

!

1: Conclusions -

!

j The licensee's evaluators demonstrated high performance expectations for operators l

and sustained high levels of competence in examination administration and operator I performance assessment. Their threshold for generating constructive comments was l low. Examination security was effectively maintaine .3 Review of Trainina Feedback System Insoection Scooe (71001)

The inspectors reviewed the methods and effectiveness of the licensed operators'

l requalification training program feedback syste Observations and Findinas-The inspectors determined that avenues were available to employees for providing input

! related to written materials, simulator scenarios, job performance measures,

, procedures, and job tasks utilizing training department evaluation forms or the licensee's l corrective action program. Plant operating events, as well as, industry events were reviewed for possible feedback material by the licensee. Generally, review of such

'

events was performed by instructor initiative. However, actions generated by the

licensee's corrective action program included training requests by the operations l department, which were evaluated for inclusion in the training progra The inspectors reviewed the plant operating history for the last 2 years and identified i operator-caused events that merited evaluation for inclusion in the training progra l Discussions with instructors on these recent plant events revealed that these items were l appropriately dispositioned. Interviews with selected licensed operators indicated that l the training departments feedback program was effective in addressing their concern The inspectors observed that the operations department was proactive in requesting ,

'

training to address identified operating problems or vulnerabilities. For example, the operations managers had determined that there was a need for training in performing startups for which the fuel xenon concentration was rapidly changing. The training i

'

department was developing dynamic simulator initial condition setups, which addressed these situation j

..

I Conclusions 1 The licensee continued to implement an effective feedback process as a key element to their overall systems approach to training. Operations was proactive in requesting

, training which satisfied specific need .

7;

.o l

l

.

'

8-

<

05.4 Rcview of RemedialTrainina Proaram Inspection Scooe (71001)

The inspectors reviewed the licensed operator remedial training program and operator and crew remediations, which occurred during the current 2-year requalification training perio Observations and Findinas The inspectors reviewed all the remediation records, which were generated for examination failures during the current requalification training period. Remediation plans had been implemented for all examination failures. In each instance, suitable remediation plans were developed, examination failures or observed weaknesses were promptly and aggressively remediated, and re-examinations were administered prior to the licensees returning to licensed duty. Students were assigned additionalinstructor contact time and/or simulator practice time, as appropriate. The inspectors noted no examples of repeated examination hilure The inspectors concluded from interviews with operators that the remediation process was effectiv Conclusions The licenses had implemented a formal and effective remedial training progra Examination failures were aggressively remediated and there were no repeated failure O5.5 Conformance With Operator License Conditions Inspection Scope (71001)

The inspectors reviewed conformance of the facility and individuallicensees with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55.

'

b.' Observations and Findinas The inspectors reviewed the results of licensed operator biennial medical physicals and compared these to the individual license conditions. No discrepancies were observe Conditions, which affected operators' licensed duties, were promptly recorded and notifications made in a timely manner. Records for tracking license initial activation or reactivation were properly maintained. All records indicated that each individual had completed the required supervised time on shift. Individuals with inactive licensee were

! clearly identified and the required action plans for reactivation of the licenses were on file.

t

n

[+

'

.

i-9-c. Conclusions The inspectors determined that the facility adequately tracked and maintained the conditions of their individual licensed operators in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55.

I 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 September 23,1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente The licensee did not identify, as proprietary, any information or materials examined during the inspectio :

l j

l

r o

ATTACHMENT l SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee R. Barr, Quality S. R. Consultant

J. Calvert, Manager, Operations Training G. Chitwood, Examination Lead, Licensed Operator Requalification Training T. Cloninger, Vice President, Nuclear Generation K. Coates, Manager, Training W. Cottle, President and Chief Executive Officer M. DeFrees, Lead Instructor, initial Operator Licensing W. Dowdy, Unit 2 Operations Manager T. Hurley, Lead Instructor, Licensed Operator Requalification Training R. Lovell, Generation Support Manager B. Mookhoek, Licensing Engineer R. Nowell, Examination Lead, Licensed Operator Requalification Training J. Phelps, Unit 1 Operations Manager P. Serra, Manager ERD J. Sheppard, Vice President, Engineering and Technical Support D. Towler, Operations Quality Manager NRC N. O'Keefe, Senior Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED 71007 Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Procedures Reviewed OPOP01-ZA-0014, Licensed Operator License Maintenance, Revision 12 LOR-GL-0001, LOR Training Program Guidelines, Revision 2 LOR-GL-0002, LOR Annual and Biennial Evaluation Guidelines, Revision 4 ,

LOR GL-0003, LOR Exam Bank Guidelines, Revision 0 l LOR-GL-0004, LOR Two Year Training Plan Guidelines, Revision 1 l

l Remediation Records 3 Memoranda, Walter F. Smith, Jr. to licensees titled " Licensed Operator Requalification Cycle 976 Biennial Exam," dated November 13,1997 Memorandum, Walter F. Smith, Jr. to licensee titled " Licensed Operator Requalification Cycle 976 Biennial Exam," dated December 1,1997 l

Remediation Exam Grade Sheet for LOR 976,4SRO (Biennial), dated December 15,1997

h .

-2-l

'

Memorandum, Jim Calvert to licensee titled " Licensed Operator Training Cycle 982 Periodic

! Exam," dated March 9,1998 Memorandum, Walt Smith to licensee titled " Licensed Operator Training Cycle 982 Periodic Exam," dated April 14,1998 Memorandum, Walt Smith to licensee titled " Licensed Operator Training Cycle 982 Periodic Exam," dated April 20,'1998 Memorandum, Walt Smith to licensee titled " Licensed Operator Training Cycle 983 Periodic

' Exam," dated April 20,1998 Memorandum, Walt Smith to licensee titled " Licensed Operator Training Cycle 992 Periodic Exam," dated March 11,1999

- 2 Memoranda, Walt Smith to licensees titled " Licensed Operator Training Cycle 992 Periodic Exam," dated March 15,1999 l-Memorandum, Tim Hurley to licensee titled " Licensed Operator Training Cycle 993 Periodic Exam," dated June 3,1999 Memorandum, Tim Hurley to licensee titled " Licensed Operator Training Cycle 993 Periodic Exam," dated June 10,1999

' 5 Memoranda, Jim Calvert to licensees titled ." Licensed Operator Requalification Training Cycle 995 Biennial Simulator Exam," dated September 7,1999 Written Examinations

.

995 Biennial RO Exam 12, approved September 15,1999 995 Biennial SRO Exam 11, approved September 15,1999 995 Biennial RO Exam 02, approved August 30,1999 995 Biennial Exam 01, approved August 30,1999 Scenarios -

Exam 995-12,' Licensed Requalification Scenario Exam Exam 99514, Licensed Requalification Scenario Exam

! Exam 995-15, Licensed Requalification Scenario Exam Exam 995-16, Licensed Requalification Scenario Exarn Exam 995-6, Licensed Requalification Scenario Exam Exam 995-17, Licensed Requalification Scenario Exam Exam 995-10, Licensed Requalification Scenario Exam i Exam 995-18, Licensed Requalification Scenario Exam l I

i

,

-3-

' Job Performance Measures

'JPM 079.01, Verify Core Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio, Revision 4 JPM 089.01, Restore Control Room HVAC to Normal Alignment, Revision 09 JPM 063.01, Respond to Vibration Monitor Trouble Alarm, Revison 04

- JPM 010.01, Complete immediate Actions for ATWS, Revision 04 JPM 007.01, Initiate Post-Loca Cooldown and Depressurization JPM 023.02, Restore Power to Stripped 480V MCCs and Restore RCB HVAC, Revision 5 JPM 070.02, Verify AMSAC is in Service, Revision 06 JPM 012.02, Pull the Control Power Fuses for the Auxiliary Sprat Valve, Revison 6 JPM 001.02, Locally Start Essential Chiller, Revision 9 JPM 121,02, Locally Reset the Turbine Driven AFW Pump Following an Overspeed Trip, Revison 4 JPM 007_.02, Restore Power to Accumulator Isolation Valves, Revision 08 -

JPM 034.02, Shed Non-Essential DC Loads Following a Loss of All AC (Addendum 4: " Vital DC

. Bus Monitoring), Revison 7 JPM 026.02, Locally Open RWST to Charging Pump Suction isolation Valve, Revision 07 JPM 036.02, Locally Operate any SG PORV, Revision 04 JPM 057.02, Locally isolate Steam Supply to the TDAFW Pump, Revision 5 JPM 004.01, Re-Establish Letdown, Revision 07 JPM 019.01, Establish S/G Main Feedwater Flow per OPOP05-EO-ES01, Revision 6

.

-

i JPM 102.01,- Start the RCB Supplementary Purge System, Revision 04 l

!

JPM 082.01, Manual Make-up to the VCT, Revision 07  ;

JPM 001.01, Cooldown RCS to Establish RCS Depressurization Criteria, Revision 06 i

r '-

.

+4 o-4-

.,

i Other Documents Reviewed L

j -. R'

e port, Question Summary by Training Title, Cycles Covered: 981 to 995, dated September 15,

.

! 1999 l

p L

i

..

l'

l l

(

l i.

r

I

!

!. ,

i

.

i .-

l l

!

i-i i

k_ j