ML17292B530
| ML17292B530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17292B529 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-98-24, NUDOCS 9901120023 | |
| Download: ML17292B530 (10) | |
See also: IR 05000397/1998024
Text
ENCLOSURE
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket No.:
License No.:
Report No.:
Licensee:
Facility:
Location:
Dates:
Inspectors:
Approved By:
50-397
N.F.-21
50-397/98-24
Washington Public Power Supply System
Washington Nuclear Project-2
Richland, Washington
December 4-10, 1998
T. O. McKernon, Senior Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch
R. E. Lantz, Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch
J. L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
Attachment:
Supplemental Information
9901120023 990i04
R
ADOCK 05000397
POR
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Washington Nuclear Project-2
NRC Inspection Report 50-397/98-24
This inspection evaluated the licensed operator requalification program to determine whether the
program incorporated appropriate requirements for evaluating operators'astery
of training
objectives in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c).
The licensed operator requalification program
assessment
included an evaluation of the program's controls to assure a systems approach to
training and evaluation of operating crews'erformances
during biennial requalification
examinations.
This included review of the facilitydocuments, observation of operating crews
during dynamic simulator scenarios and plant walkthroughs, and an assessment
of the
examination evaluators'ffectiveness
in conducting examinations.
The inspection also evaluated
the plant referenced dynamic simulator used to conduct the examinations.
~Oerations
A deficiency in the requalification examination development process was identified in
that the process does not address the verification of 10 CFR 55.43 sampling for the
written requalification examination (Section 05.1).
A generic operator performance weakness was identified in the area of control board
awareness,
which involved repeated failures of operators to take appropriate responses
to changing plant parameters or system misalignments.
Also, inconsistent
communications were observed during crew briefings given during the dynamic
simulator scenarios (Section 04.1).
Training staff requalification evaluators performed their tasks in a professional manner
and detailed their findings and observations very well in order to support their
evaluations (Section 05.2).
0
Re ort Details
Summa
of Plant Status
The facilityoperated at full power during the week of the inspection.
I. 0 erations
04
Operator Knowledge and Performance
04.1
0 erator Performance on Annual Re uglification Examinations
a.
Ins ection Sco
e 71001
The inspectors observed the performance of two shift crews during the dynamic
simulator and job performance measure portions of the annual requalification
examination.
The inspectors also reviewed the results of the written examination.
Observations and Findin s
During the dynamic simulator and job performance measure portions of the examination,
the inspectors observed the following generic behaviors among operators:
Operators routinely exhibited three-legged communication with only a few lapses
into two-legged communication.
The operators failed to implement good control board awareness
and key plant
parameter monitoring as evidenced by failing to initiate drywell sprays in a timely
manner before reaching 285'F.
In the case of one of the crews, this observation
had been a repeat finding from previous training cycles and assessments.
Further,
the inspectors noted that similar control board awareness
issues had been salient
findings during plant events occurring earlier in the year (e.g., main steam isolation
valve closure event, low pressure core spray system misalignment identified during
the summer of 1998, and others).
~
= The crews were inconsistent in their communications during crew briefs. Some
control room supervisors were very structured in their briefs, while others were
unstructured and infrequent in giving briefs.
The inspectors reviewed the operators'esponses
on the written examinations.
All
operators except one passed the written examinations.
The inspectors noted a generic
emergency operating procedures knowledge weaknesses
related to Pump RFW-P-1A
nonusage, which would cause an unnecessary
pressure reduction and subsequent
reactor
vessel level reduction and inability to maintain level greater than -192 inches (top of active
fuel) ~ It was noted that most examinees missed this question on the written requalification
examination.
While the revision to the emergency operating procedures had been
reviewed during a prior training cycle, weakness
in the use of this leg of the emergency
operating procedure was evident.
Conclusions
The inspectors concluded that operators exhibited a generic weakness related to control
board awareness
in failing to initiate drywell sprays in a timely manner before reaching
285'F. This observation was considered significant in that the licensee had experienced
similar weaknesses
in prior plant events during the current calender year. While
corrective actions to review the events in requalification training had been accomplished,
they had not been effective in precluding recurrence.
Also, inconsistent communications
were observed during crew briefings given during the dynamic simulator scenarios.
05
Operator Training and Qualification
05.1
Review of Re uglification Examinations
aO
Ins ection Sco
e 71001
The inspectors reviewed the annual requalification examinations, which consisted of the
written and oper'ating tests, to evaluate general quality, construction, and difficultylevel.
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 staff.
Observations and Findin s
The operating examinations consisted of job performance measures and dynamic
simulator scenarios.
The job performance measures tasks were operationally important
and supported by the facility's job task analysis.
Each job performance measure included
irlitialconditions, 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 both preceding and following the major
The sequence
and timing of the events were reasonable
and allowed for the
evaluators to gather sufficient information on individual and crew actions to arrive at an
informed performance rating.
The inspectors noted that the written examinations were appropriately balanced with
respect to systems, procedures, and administrative areas.
The questions were generally
well written. Most questions tested at the application cognitive level ~ HoWever, during the
review of the training department's administrative procedures, the inspectors noted that
process controls for the written examination development did not ensure for the
verification of 10 CFR 55.43 representative sampling.
Interviews with training personnel
confirmed that the examination was developed by sampling from the 2-year requalification
training plan, which resulted in three of the seven categories sampled.
The inspectors
determined that although broader sampling would have been desirable, the examinations
satisfied the regulations for requalification examinations.
The licensee stated that this
area would be reviewed to ensure that sampling from 10 CFR 55.43 accurately
corresponded to the requalification 2-year sampling plan.
Conclusions
The inspectors concluded that, overall, all portions of the examinations were well
constructed, properly focused, and appropriately challenging.
However, the lack of
procedurally imposed detailed guidelines for verification of 10 CFR 55.43 sampling was
considered a programmatic deficiency.
05.2
Examination Administration
Ins ection Sco
e 71001
The inspectors observed the administration of all aspects of the requalification
examination to determine the evaluators'bility to administer an examination and assess
adequate performance through measurable criteria. The inspectors also noted the fidelity
of the plant simulator supported training and examination administration. The inspectors
observed two operations crews during conduct of the dynamic simulator scenarios and job
performance measure evaluations.
Six licensed operator trainers were observed
administering the examinations, including pre-examination briefings, observations of
operator performance, individual and group evaluations of observations, techniques for job
performance measure cuing, and final evaluation documentation.
Observations and Findin s
The evaluators conducted the examinations thoroughly and professionally and
documented observed weaknesses
and areas for improvement.
For the job performance
measures,
the evaluators provided appropriate responses
as necessary with no
inadvertent cuing. The inspectors attended the post-simulator examination debriefings
held by the licensee's evaluators for each of the scenario sets.
The debriefings were
comprehensive and candid with detailed discussions by each evaluator on relevant
subjects.
The evaluators documented their observations well to support their evaluation
findings and aid in any required remediation.
The inspectors observed that the
performance of the simulator in supporting the examination process was excellent.
Conclusions
'he facility evaluators effectively examined operators to identify deficiencies or
weaknesses
in the trainees and the training program.
The facilityevaluators administered
the examinations professionally and documented their findings well to support their
evaluations.
05.3
Review of Re uglification Feedback Process
Ins ection Sco
e 71001
The inspectors verified the methods and effectiveness of the licensed operator
requalification training program to ascertain whether assessments
of operator
performance were effectively incorporated into the requalification training.
b.
Observations and Findin s
The inspectors reviewed performance records and documents to assess
the nature and
effectiveness of the feedback process as a means of revising the licensed operator
requalification training program. These documents included training assessments/audits,
plant events, and training cycle evaluations. The training staff had incorporated lesson
plans and training scenarios related to two significant plant events:
main steam isolation
valves closure event and the flooding event. Other feedback included training cycle
evaluations and remediation evaluations.
While scenario remediation focused on crew
weaknesses
and the critical task failures, they did not necessarily followup on identified
weaknesses
in the remediation scenario.
For example, one crew remediated for a failure
to trend drywell temperature and initiate drywell sprays prior to reaching the 285'F did not
identify the failure of service water flowto the high pressure core spray diesel during the
remediation scenario.
No remediation was performed for this performance weakness.
C.
Conclusions
The inspectors concluded that the operations training organization responded to the
feedback in a timely manner and was incorporating plant events into training lesson plans
and simulator training.
V. Mana ement Meetin s
X1
Exit Meeting Summary
The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management at
the conclusion of the inspection on December 10, 1998. The licensee acknowledged the
findings and did not identify any information as proprietary.
ATTACHMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PARTIALLIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
D. Coleman, Manager, Regulatory Affairs
R. Hayden, Operations Training Requalification Lead
S. Oxenford, Operations Manager
P. Taylor, Operations Training Superintendent
W. Shaeffer, Manager, Nuclear Training
NRC
J. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch, Division of Reactor Safety
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
OTI 4.3, "Operator Training Material Development," Revision 7.
OTI 4.4, "Operator Training Exam Material Development," Revision 8.
OTI 5.4, "Licensed Operator Examination Security Requirements," Revision 4.
OTI 5.5.3, "Conduct of Simulator Training and Evaluations," Revision 5.
OTI 5.8, "Performance Deficiency Analysis and Remediation," Revision 4.
OTI 7.1, "Operations Training Program Responsibilities," Revision 4.
SWP-TQS-01, "Training, Qualification and Simulators," Revision 1.
TRG-TQS-01, "Training Administration," Revision 0.
D-9, WNP-2 Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program Description," Revision 11.