ML16134A555
| ML16134A555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1998 |
| From: | Hopper G, Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16134A556 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-98-301, 50-270-98-301, 50-287-98-301, NUDOCS 9901210267 | |
| Download: ML16134A555 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1998301
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287
License Nos.: DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55
Report No.:
50-269/98-301, 50-270/98-301 AND 50-287/98-301
Licensee:
Duke Energy Company
Facility:
Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3
Location:
Seneca, SC
Dates:
November 30 - December 3, 1998
Written Exam December 7, 1998
Examiners:
deorgd T. Hopper, Chief License Examiner
Michael Ernstes, License Examiner
Larry Mellen, License Examiner
Approved by:
Thomas A. Peebles, Chief,
Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure 1
9901210267 981224
ADOCK 05000269
V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NRC Examination Report Nos. 50-269/98-301, 50-270/98-301 AND 50-287/98-301
During the period November 30 through December 3, 1998, NRC examiners conducted an
announced operator licensing initial examination in accordance with the guidance of Examiner
Standards, NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8. This examination implemented the operator
licensing requirements of 10 CFR §55.41, §55.43, and §55.45.
Operations
Five Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) candidates and two Reactor Operator (RO)
candidates received written examinations and operating tests. NRC licensing
examiners administered the operating tests during the period November 30 through
December 3, 1998. The written examination was administered by members of your
training staff on December 7, 1998.
Candidate Pass/Fail
Total
Percent
Pass
5
2
7
100
Fail
0
0
0
0
The NRC concluded that the licensee's examination submittal met NRC expectations
and was of significantly higher quality than the previous year's submittal. This is
indicative of improved performance in the licensee's licensed operator training and
evaluation program (Section 05.2).
The examiners concluded that RO candidate performance on the written examination
was weak and SRO performance was satisfactory. Overall performance on the
operating test was satisfactory with some weaknesses noted in the areas of diagnosis of
events and understanding integrated plant system response (Section 05.3).
Report Details
Summary of Plant Status
During the period of the examinations Unit 1 and 2 were at 100 percent power, and Unit 3 was
in an outage.
I. Operations
05
Operator Training and Qualifications
05.1
General Comments
NRC examiners conducted regular, announced operator licensing initial examinations
during the period November 30 through December 3, 1998. The written examination
was administered by members of your training staff on December 7, 1998. Five SRO
upgrade applicants and two RO applicants received written examinations and operating
tests. NRC examiners administered examinations developed by the licensee's training
department, under the requirements of an NRC security agreement, in accordance with
the guidelines of the Examiner Standards (ES), NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8.
05.2
Pre-Examination Activities
a.
Scope
The NRC reviewed the licensee's examination submittal using the criteria specified for
examination development contained in NUREG 1021, Interim Revision 8.
b.
Observations and Findings
The licensee developed the SRO written examination, one Job Performance Measure
(JPM) set, and two dynamic simulator scenarios for use during this examination. All
materials were submitted to the NRC on time. NRC examiners reviewed, modified, and
approved the examination prior to administration. The NRC conducted an on-site
preparation visit during the week of November 16, 1998, to validate examination
materials and familiarize themselves with the details required for examination
administration.
(1)
Written Examination Development
The written examination was submitted on time. The organization of the
examination material expedited the examination review process. The NRC
reviewed material and provided feedback to the licensee. Overall the NRC
considered the quality of the submittal to be above average. The final version of
the original written examination met the criteria specified in NUREG 1021,
Interim Revision 8 and contained an acceptable distribution of memory level and
comprehension/analysis questions.
2
(2)
Operating Test Development
The NRC reviewed one JPM set and administrative section of the examination
for the walk-through portion of the examination. Overall quality of the JPMs
was satisfactory and at the appropriate level of difficulty. The NRC also noted
that the quality of the JPM and administrative questions was satisfactory. Most
of the questions were operationally valid and discriminatory. Some changes to
the answer keys had to be made due to post-examination validation of the
candidate's responses.
The NRC reviewed two simulator scenarios for the examination. Some minor
changes and additions were made to the scenarios to provide the examiners
sufficient opportunity to observe candidates perform the required competencies.
Overall, the scenarios were found to be challenging and at the right level of
difficulty.
c.
Conclusion
The NRC concluded that the licensee's examination submittal met NRC expectations
and was of significantly higher quality than the previous year's submittal. This is
indicative of improved performance in the licensee's licensed operator training and
evaluation program.
05.3
Examination Results and Related Findinqs, Observations, and Conclusions
a.
Scope
The examiners reviewed the results of the written examination and evaluated the
candidates' compliance with and use of plant procedures during the simulator scenarios
and JPMs. The guidelines of NUREG-1021, Forms ES-303-3 and ES-303-4,
"Competency Grading Worksheets for Integrated Plant Operations," were used as a
basis for the operating test evaluations.
b.
Observations and Findings.
The examiners reviewed the results of the written examination and found that all of the
candidates passed. Review of the grading, however, revealed that the licensee had
incorrectly graded two examinations. One candidate's grade was changed from 85 to
82 and another from 84 to 82. The cause of the grading errors was due to the licensee
using a template to grade the answer sheets. A lined through answer was counted as
correct when viewed through the small hole in the template.
Overall RO candidate performance on the written examination was weak with both
candidates achieving grades of 82. The average of the SRO grades was 86.2. The
licensee conducted a post-examihation item analysis and identified 10 questions that 50
percent or more of the candidate's answered incorrectly. This indicates that generic
weaknesses may exist in the candidate's and /or the training program. Guidelines in
NUREG 1021, ES 403.D.3.a, state "If it appears that the training program was deficient,
3
determine the need for remedial training and/or a program upgrade." Examiners also
identified the following performance deficiencies during the operations portion of the
examination.
Candidates displayed weaknesses in understanding plant response when
manually controlling the Integrated Control System (ICS) at low power levels.
One candidate manually tripped the reactor because he incorrectly diagnosed an
event as an unexplained reactivity addition when, in fact, plant power was
responding to a decrease in Tave that was caused by the ICS responding to a
failed RCS pressure instrument.
During an Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) event, one candidate
did not manually decrease feed flow to the steam generators as power was
decreasing due to emergency boration and manual rod insertion. Feed flow rate
exceeded reactor power generation for approximately five minutes. This caused
generator levels to increase and steam generator 1 B pressure to decrease to
700 psig. The candidates overfilled the steam generators which caused
pressure in the 1 B SG to decrease and resulted in an incorrect diagnosis of the
system response as a faulted steam generator. The candidates then
unnecessarily isolated the 1 B SG which was needed for natural circulation
cooldown. The mitigation strategy of this transient was unnecessarily
complicated by the candidate's actions.
During a total loss of feedwater event caused by a loss of the running
Condensate Booster Pump (CBP) with a failure of the standby pump to
automatically start, two crews of candidates did not attempt to manually start the
available CBP and assumed none of the CBPs were operable. This resulted in
the need to initiate High Pressure Injection forced cooling which unnecessarily
breached the Reactor Coolant System, releasing primary coolant to the
containment.
Details of these discrepancies are described in each individual's examination report,
Form ES-303-1, "Operator Licensing Examination Report," which have been forwarded
under separate cover to the Training Manager. This will enable you to evaluate the
weaknesses and provide appropriate remedial training for those operators as
necessary.
During a scenario involving an ATWS in conjunction with a small break Loss of Coolant
Accident, candidates tripped the Reactor Coolant Pumps (RCP) after the two minute
criteria specified in OMP2-1 upon loss of subcooling margin. Candidates followed the
training recommendation found in OP-OC-EAP-E21 which states, "...if RCP amps are
steady, go ahead and secure the RCPs, since it is unlikely that significant voiding had
yet occurred, even though the operator is certain that it has been longer that two
minutes since shutdown cooling margin (SCMs) were lost ." NRC examiners noted that
candidates followed this training guideline. However, this training guidance is not
included in the Oconee Emergency Operating Procedures as a written instruction and is
inconsistent with the instructions contained in the B&W Owners Group Emergency
4
Operating Procedures Technical Bases Document Volume 1, Section lil.B, "Lack of
Adequate Subcooling Margin." This item will be reviewed during a future inspection.
c.
Conclusion
The examiners concluded that RO candidate performance on the written examination
was weak and SRO performance was satisfactory. Overall performance on the .
operating test was satisfactory with some weaknesses noted in the areas of diagnosis of
events and understanding integrated plant system response.
V. Management Meetings
X1. Exit Meeting Summary
At the conclusion of the site visit, the examiners met with representatives of the plant staff listed
on the following page to discuss the results of the examinations and other issues.
None of the material provided to the examiners was identified by the licensee as proprietary.
5
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
B. Ayers, Nuclear Instructor
T. Cotu, Superintendent of Operations
C. Eflin, Nuclear Instructor
J. Forbes, Station Manager
A. Hollingsworth, Operations Human Performance Manager
B. Jones, Site Training Manager
R. Lingle, Shift Operations Manager
R. Robinson, Operations Training Coordinator
P. Stovall, Operator Training Manager
NRC
M. Scott, Senior Resident Inspector
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
Closed
None
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
Facility Licensee: Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3
Facility Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287
Operating Tests Administered on:
November 30 - December 3, 1998
This form is to be used only to report observations.. These observations do not constitute audit
or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of a
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 that may be used in future
evaluations. No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
While conducting the simulatorortion of the operating tests, the following items were observed
(if none, so state):
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
No discrepancies were noted.
Enclosure 2