ML16342D336
| ML16342D336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1996 |
| From: | Pellet J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16342D337 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-96-11, 50-323-96-11, NUDOCS 9606200339 | |
| Download: ML16342D336 (20) | |
See also: IR 05000275/1996011
Text
ENCLOSURE
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Inspection Report:
50-275/96-11
50-323/96-11
Licenses:
DPR-82
Licensee:
Pacific Gas
and Electric Company
77 Beale Street.
Room 1451
P.O.
Box 770000
San Francisco.
Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant
~ Units
1 and
2
Inspection At:
San Luis Obispo. California
Inspection
Conducted:
May 20-24.
1996
Inspectors:
Thomas 0.
McKernon. Reactor
Engineer.
Operations
Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Thomas
R. Meadows'eactor
Engineers
Operations
Branch
Division of Reactor
Safety
Michael
E. Murphy. Reactor
Engineer.
Operations
Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Approved:
o n
.
e
et.
ie
,
perat>ons
rane
Division of Reactor Safety
4ll Q4
a e
Ins ection
Summar
Areas
Ins ected
Units
1 and
2
Routine,
announced
inspection of the
licensed operator requalification program
and followup to previously
identified operations-related
inspection findings.
Results
Units
1 and
2
Operations
~
Operations
department
support of the licensed operator requalification
examinations
was considered
a good practice
(Section 1.6).
9606200339
960bf8
ADOCK 05000275
8
-2-
~
The licensed operator requalification evaluators
per formed well and
provided meaningful
feedback
about crew and individual performances
(Sections
1.3 and 1.4).
~
Crews tested
performed thorough self-critiques,
which paralleled the
evaluators'indings
(Section 1.3).
~
Communication practices that did not meet the facility expectations
were
identified as
a generic
weakness
among all three licensed operating
crews observed
(Section 1.3).
The requalification program feedback
system
was considered
a strength
(Section 1.6).
Plant
Su
ort
Plant housekeeping
and material condition observed
during in-plant
walkthroughs
on Unit 2 was good and consistent with a similar unit
finishing an outage
(Section 1.4).
Summar
of Ins ection Findin s:
~
Deviation (275:323/9504-01)
was closed
(Section
2. 1).
~
Inspection Followup Item (275;323/9518-01)
was closed
(Section 2.2).
Attachments:
~
Attachment
1
- Persons
Contacted
and Exit Meeting
~
Attachment
2 - Simulation Facility Report
0
-3-
DETAILS
1
LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION (IP 71001)
During the inspecti on. the
1 icensee
'
requa 1 ificati on program was assessed
to
determine whether the program incorporated appropriate
requirements
for both
evaluating operator's
mastery of training objectives
and revising the program
in accordance
with 10 CFR Part 55.
The licensed operator requalification
program assessment
included
a review of training material for the past year.
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 the facility documents,
observation of
operating
and staff crews during dynamic simulator scenarios
and plant
walkthroughs.
and
an assessment
of the examination evaluators'ffectiveness
in conducting examinations.
1. 1
Review of Faci lit Licensee's
Re uglification Examinations
This portion of the inspection
was conducted to determine the effectiveness
of'he
methodology
used to develop
and construct the requalification examinations
and to assess
the effectiveness
of the examinations to identify retraining
needs
and measure
the examines's
subject
knowledge.
The examination
sampling
plan was also reviewed.
and training personnel
interviewed to ascertain
the
methods
used in developing the examination.
The inspectors
also determined
the validity of the examinations to provide
a basis for evaluating the
examinee's
knowledge of abnormal
and emergency
operating procedures.
The written examination questions
tested at the appropriate
level of
comprehension
and were linked to important learning objectives.
The questions
were operationally oriented
and realistic.
The requisite
number of questions
were taken from subjects
not in the current training period.
The written
examinations
were well structured
and comprehensive.
The inspectors
reviewed the licensee's
simulator scenarios
and job performance
measures
used in the examination observed.
The inspectors
also reviewed the
licensee's
administrative procedures
for developing,
administering,
grading,
and 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,"
were utilized for the development
and administration of
the licensed operator requalification examination.
The job performance
measures
were in accordance
with the guidance of
and contained
performance
standards
that were clear, objective,
and
relevant.
The job performance
measures
contained clear
and well defined
critical task acceptance criteria for measuring
the examinee's
performance.
The job performance
measures
adequately
supported topic areas
from the
licensed operator requalification program 2-year training plan.
The scenarios
were also developed
using the guidance of NUREG-1021
and
contained clearly stated objectives.
The initial conditions of the'scenarios
were realistic
and the scenarios
consisted of related events.
The scenarios
had been previously validated
by the training staff and allowed the evaluators
to measure
the examinees'ompetencies
commensurate
with the scenario
objectives.
The inspectors
further verified that the scenarios
had not been
used for training during the previous requalification cycle.
The licensee
used the Westinghouse
Owner's Group template methodology for
developing examination scenarios
and tracking critical tasks.
The inspector
found the licensee's critical task
bank items valid and well supported
by
bases
documents.
1.2
Written Examinations
The inspectors
reviewed the licensee's
Part-A and Part-B classroom
examinations.
Part-A covered
systems
topics identified as duty areas
and
Part-B covered procedural
topics.
The inspectors
determined that the
licensee's
written examination
process
was conducted in accordance
with the
guidelines of NUREG-1021
and the licensee's
program procedure
and that the
questions
were at an adequate
level of difficulty and comprehension.
1.3
0 namic Simulator Examinations
The inspectors
observed
one unit operating
crew composed
oF three groups'ach
group performing as
a single crew,
on two scenarios
each,
over
a 2-day period.
using the plant-specific simulation facility.
The inspectors
observed
the
licensee's
training department
evaluators
in thei r function of assessing
the
crews'ompetency.
One crew failed
a critical task in its scenario
by failing to properly
implement reactor coolant
pump restart
upon
a loss of heat sink event.
This
action could have mitigated the event, initiating the feed
and bleed strategy
in accordance
with the emergency
procedures.
Two individuals in this crew
also failed.
The evaluators
rated this crew's competencies
in communication
and crew operations
as particularly poor.
The crew was
removed from shift
duties,
received
remedial training and was successfully
retested
during the
week of this inspection.
The inspectors
observed
the licensee's
remediation
process
and the crew's retake examination
and found the program satisfactory.
The crew team
and individuals
passed
thei r retake examinations
and were
returned to shift duties.
The inspectors
also found the licensee's
scenario
bank adequate,
containing
a mix of challenging scenarios.
The other two crew teams
and all individuals performed satisfactorily
on the
dynamic simulator examinations.
Howevers
these other crews also demonstrated
weak communication practices
in that rigorous di rect repeat-backs
and frequent
crew briefings were not practiced.
The licensee identified these
weaknesses
Ih~
-5-
and documented
the issues for further remedi ati on and training.
The
inspectors
agreed with the above simulator evaluations.
In particular
~ the
exhibited weak communications
did not meet the licensee's
expectations
as
described
in Administrative Procedure
OP1.DCll, Revision 4.
The licensee
evaluators
rated the examinees'ompetencies
by comparing actual
performance
during the scenarios
against
expected
performance in accordance
with NUREG-1021.
The post-examination critiques
by the crew teams
and
evaluators
were effective in identifying strengths
and weaknesses
of the
'ndividuals
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'ompetencies.
The evaluators
were
thorough in thei r assessments
of examinees'erformances
and their comments
were of sufficient detail to assist
in future training.
The inspectors
concluded that the evaluators
performed well and provided meaningful
feedback
about crew and individual performances.
Evaluators
were assigned
duties
such
that they were not involved with training the crew being evaluated.
The
examinees
were briefed
and sequestered
at times appropriate
for examination
security.
1.4
Walkthrou
h fxaminations
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.
This included
nonlicensed
equipment operator tasks outside the control
room and the
performance of some tasks in the simulator in the dynamic mode.
Communications
between the examinees
and the evaluators
were observed to be
good.
as were the communications
practiced
by the observed on-shift operating
crew.
The inspectors
noted that the facility evaluators
thoroughly reviewed
the results of the individual walkthrouqhs
and that none of the examinees
failed the job performance
measure portion of the examination.
During the walkthroughs,
the inspectors
observed
housekeeping
and material
condition of the plant was generally good.
1.5
Remediation
The remedial training program was effective.
The licensee utilized
a two-tier
program for remediation.
The lower tier involved
a performance
enhancement
action and did not involve a performance failure or removal
from licensed
duties.
It was used extensively in situations
where licensed operators'r
crews'erformance
did not meet the expectations
of the training department
and/or operations
management.
These actions could be issued
by the program
review board.
which was comprised of management
representatives
from training
and operhtions.
Performance
enhancement
actions could involve practice
'
-6-
examinations
and re-examinations.
The inspectors
reviewed several
performance
actions
and found them appropriate for performance
weaknesses
identified.
Examinees
had achieved
scores of 90 percent or higher on most re-examinations.
Interviews with both instructors
and licensed operators
disclosed
a consensus
that the performance
enhancement
actions were effective in remediating
performance
weaknesses.
Unsatisfactory
performance in the requalification training program resulted in
assignment
by the classroom training supervisor of formal remediation training
to the individuals or operating
team demonstrating
unsatisfactory
performance
and was the higher tier of the remediation training program.
The program
review board determined the eligibility of an individual or operating
team
demonstrating
unsatisfactory
performance to continue licensed duties.
The
program review board also evaluated
any individual or operating
team
demonstrating
unsatisfactory
performance
on any assigned
remedial training
program.
The inspectors
noted that individuals had to pass
a full
re-examination
in the area of failure before returning to shift assignments.
1.6
Feedback
S stem
The inspectors
reviewed the licensee's
process for obtaining and incorporating
employee feedback'ocal
and industry events'nd
training evaluations
into
the requalification program.
The inspectors
determined that multiple methods
of feedback to the training program existed
and these
systems
appeared
to be
effective in adjusting the program to meet the needs of the licensed
operators.
The methods of feedback.
identified by training management
and confirmed
as
effective by licensed operator interviews'ere
personal
contact
between
training personnel
and operators'raining
critique sheets,
a comment
book
maintained in the simulator for operator comments'trength
and weakness
forms'anagement
observations'nd
the licensing department's
information on
industry and in-plant events.
The licensee
had
a training review group
composed of the operations
manager,
training manager.
and selected
senior
reactor operators
and shift technical
advisors that met periodically to assess
all feedback
information. consider appropriate
respons
st
and assign action
as
required.
The training staff ensured that the feedback
loop to the initial
submitter
was closed.
This was accomplished
by tracking action items to
closure
and reporting back to the training review group.
The inspectors
reviewed incident reports
and licensee
event reports of plant
occurrences
during the past year.
This review was to determine those
evolutions that were attributable to operator error and could result in the
need for specific or generic training.
Of the items reviewed'one
were
attributable to operator error.
0
-7-
Addi:ionally, the inspectors
observed
operations
department
management
involvement in crew evaluations
during the simulator scenarios.
The training
staff also utilized operations
department
assistance
in crew evaluations
during regularly scheduled requalification training weeks.
The inspectors
considered
the operations
management
feedback in the examination evaluations
as
a good practice.
The inspectors
concluded that the requalification program feedback
system
was
very effective and continued to be
a program strength.
1.7
Licensed
0 erator License
Conformance
The inspectors
reviewed the licensee's
records for tracking licensed
operator's qualifications
and status.
This included license reactivation
records.
medical records'nd
security logs for protected
and vital area
access.
The inspector s verified that the records for sampled individuals
supported
the current active status of thei r operator
license.
The inspectors
also verified that the licensee
maintained
an appropriate
program for
deactivating
and reactivating operator licenses.
The inspectors
concluded
that the licensee's
program met the requirements
of 10 CFR 55.53(e)(f)(i).
1.8
Simulator Fidelit
Operations
and training personnel,
interviewed during the inspection.
expressed
satisfaction with simulator performance
and stated that simulator
capabilities
had supported
performance of desired training.
The inspectors
observed
no simulator fidelity problems during the examinations.
2
Operations
Followup (IP 92901)
2. 1
Closed
Deviation
275 323/9504-01
Shift Crew Com osition and the
Senior
Crew 0 erator's
Command
and Control Function
This item involved
a conflict between the Final Safety Analysis Report,
Section
13. 1.2.3, "Shift Crew Composition."
and use of individuals holding an
NRC operator license instead of the described
senior operator license.
Additionally, inspector s observed
licensed operator requalification simulator
scenarios
in which the senior control operator
adopted
a role beyond that of
procedure
reader
as intended in Administrative Procedure
OP1.DC11,
Revision 1.
"Conduct of Control Operations."
During this inspection,
the inspector s observed
three crews in multiple
simulator scenarios
on the plant-specific simulator.
The inspectors
observed
good linkage between the senior control operator
and the shift foreman.
The
shift foreman
was responsible for command
and control with the senior control
operator acting
as the procedure
reader.
The inspectors
also reviewed
-8-
procedure
changes
to Procedure
OP1.0C11 that further clarified the shift
foreman's
command
and control responsibilities.
The licensee
has initiated
a
revision to the Final Safety Analysis Report that reflect minimum staffing in
accordance
with Technical Specification 6.2.2.
The revision is planned for
issuance
November
1996.
2.2
Closed
Ins ection Followu
Item
275 323/9518-01
False Antici ated
Transient Without a Scram Event
This item involved
a review of licensee corrective actions taken in response
to
a false solid state protection system annunciator actuation.
The event
occurred in December
1995 and resulted in the operators
diagnosing plant
conditions
and not tripping the plant even though the solid state protection
system annunciators
directed
a reactor trip.
During this inspection,
the inspectors
reviewed the licensee's
corrective
actions in reviewing the event,
reviewing and revising appropriate
procedures'onducti
ng followup training with the operating
crews.
and surveillance
testing the ci rcuit cards.
The licensee's
short-
and long-term corrective
actions were complete
and comprehensive.
3
REVIEW OF UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT
COMMITMENTS
A recent discovery of a licensee
operating their facility in a manner contrary
to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report description highlighted the need
for a speci a 1 focused revi ew that compares
pl ant practi ces.
procedures,
and/or
parameters
to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report descriptions.
While
performing the independent
inspections
discussed
Section
4 of in this report,
the inspectors
reviewed the applicable portions of the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report that related to the areas
inspected.
The inspectors verified
that the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report wording was consistent with the
observed plant practices.
procedu'res
~ and/or parameters.
ATTACHMENT 1
1
PERSONS
CONTACTED
PERSONS
CONTACTED AND EXIT MEETING
J.
Davis.
Lead Evaluator,
Learning Services
W. Fujimoto. Vice President.
Plant Manager
J. Griffin'irector, Learning Services
C. Harbor, Regulatory Services
J. Haynes'cting
Leader
~ Learning Services
R. Jett.
Learning Services
Supervisor
T. King. Operations,
Shift Foreman
M.
Lemke, Operations.
Dayshift Supervisor
R.
Powers,
Manager,
Operations
Services
G.
Smiths'uclear
Quality Services
Engineer
T. Swartzbaugh,
Learning Services
J.
Welsch.
Leader
~ Learning Services
In addition to the personnel
listed above,
the inspectors
contacted
other
personnel
during this inspection period.
2
EXIT MEETING
An exit meeting
was conducted
on May 24,
1996.
During this meeting.
the
inspector
reviewed the scope
and generic findings of the inspection.
The
licensee did not express
a position on the inspection findings documented
in
this report.
The licensee
did not identify as proprietary
any information
provided to. or reviewed by. the inspectors.
ATTACHHENT 2
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
Facility Licensee:
Pacific Gas
8 Electric
Facility Docket Nos:
50-275/323
Operating Test Administered on:
May 21-24.
1996
This observation
does not constitute
an audit or inspection finding and is
not, without further verification and review. indicative of noncompliance with
This observation
does not affect
NRC certification or
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 this observation.
None.