IR 05000313/1993025

Insp Repts 50-313/93-25 & 50-368/93-25 on 930802-16.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qualification of Licensed Operators & Evaluation of Training Program

ML20056G709
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	08/30/1993
From:	Pellet J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20056G696	List: IR 05000313/1993025 ML20056G695
References
50-313-93-25, 50-368-93-25, NUDOCS 9309070073
Download: ML20056G709 (8)

Text

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

.

.

f APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Inspection Report: 50-313/93-25; 50-368/93-25 Operating Licenses: DPR-51; NPF-6

<

Licensee: Entergy Operations, In Arkansas Nuclear One Route'3, Box 137G Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Inspection At: Russellville, Arkansas Inspection Conducted: August 2 through August 16, 1993 Inspectors: T. O. McKernon, Reactor Engineer, Operations Section Division of Reactor Safety Accompanying personnel: Gene Benjamin, Contractor Approved:

John, Pellet, Chief, Operations Section, ICNN Dite Division of Reactor Safety Inspection Sumary Areas Inspected: Announced inspection of the qualification of licensed operators and evaluation of their requalification training program. The examiners also observed the performance of onshift operators and plant conditions incident to the conduct of the examinee evaluations. The examiners used the guidance provided in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Sections 601 through 605 issued January 199 Results:

• The reference material provided by the training department for examination development was satisfactory (Section 1.1).

• The draft examinations submitted were good; however, several job performance measures were reworked and one scenario set was replaced

. prior to administration (Section 1.1).

• Crew communications and teamwork, along with supervisor command and control was strong during the dynamic simulator scenarios (Section 1.2).

9309070073 9308307 PDR. ADOCK 05000313 G PDR

. . .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

- - _ _ -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

-2-

• Examinees performed well on the written examination, with an average score of 90 percent (Section 1.2).

• Twenty three of the 24 licensed operators and all of the 5 crews they comprised (24 total operators) passed their requalification examinations. The exception was one senior reactor operator, who failed the walkthrough portion of the examination (Section 1.2).

• A generic weakness was observed in that some operators did not know the locations of the Alternate Shutdown Procedures cabinet and storage locker during the conduct of the operating examinations (Section 1.2).

• Simulator fidelity was acceptable with one minor exception noted I (Section 1.5/ Attachment 2).

Summarv of Inspection Findinos:

• No violations, deviations, unresolved items, or inspection followup items were identified during this inspectio Attachments:

• Attachment 1 - Persons Contacted and Exit Meeting

• Attachment 2 - Simulation Facility Report

,

__ __ _ _ _ . _ - . _ . . _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ -

.

. .

.. .. .. . . .

.

.

..

.

V-3-DETAILS 1 LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINEE QUALIFICATION EVALUATION (NUREG-1021)

During the inspection, the examiners evaluated the qualifications of 24 licensed operators, comprising 5 crews, and the licensed operator requalification training program. The licensee chose to remove one of the licensed operators initially submitted for full examination and to remediate and test the individual at a later dat Licensed operators were evaluated based on examination results. The program was evaluated based on observation of the facility evaluators during the coadministered examinations and by analysis of the results. The examiners performed the evaluations in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55 and NUREG-1021, " Operator License Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Sections 601 through 60 Further, the inspection included evaluation of facility materials, procedures, and simulation capability used to support development and administration of the examination These areas were evaluated using the guidance provided in the sections of NUREG-1021 cited abov Performance results for individual examinees are not included in this report because inspection reports are placed in the NRC Public Document Room as a matter of course. Individual performance results are not subject to public

. disclosur .1 Facility Materials Submitted for Examination Development The chief examiner reviewed the licensee's materials provided for development of the examination, .which. included station administrative and operating procedures, question banks, simulator scenarios, lesson plans, and job performance measures (JPMs). The procedures and question banks, as well as the lesson plans, were current and adequate. to support the examination-development. The examination material banks met or exceeded the quality and quantity guidelines in NUREG-102 The chief examiner also reviewed draft written examinations and operating tests proposed by the facility. The draft examinations were used as su' omil.ted with the following minor exceptions:

A number of the submitted JPMs had to have their initial conditions manipulated to be used in the simulator dynamically. For example, on the simulator in the dynamic mode while opening a main steam isolation-valve for the "A" once-through steam generator with the downstream piping partially depressurized, the pressure transient caused the main steam line isolation signal to actuate. The problem was resolved by pressurizing the downstream piping somewhat so that the main steam line isolation would not inadvertently actuate upon cycling CV-2691. In discussions with the training staff, it was noted that the simulator computer stored a limited number of initial conditions and no cross reference to the JPMs existed. The licensee stated that they would

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

_ - _____________________ ____

.

.

-4-evaluate a program to resolve the problems noted with the JPMs. The creation of an initial condition data base linked with specific JPMs would simplify the selection of JPMs from the bank and improve the validation and examinatior, construction proces * One set of dynamic scenarios (scenarios 5 & 11) did not meet the guidelines in NUREG-1021 on number of crew critical tasks and did not discriminate at the same level as the other scenario sets propose After discussion with the examiners, training staff selected alternate scenarios for use in the examination to resolve the inconsistenc * Some crew critical tasks in the dynamic scenarios did not explicitly describe objective success and failure condition These task measures were reviewed and revised with the training staf The draft examinations adequately met the scope and content guidelines in NUREG-1021. The changes above were made to enhance the examinations and constitute a minor fraction of the large amount of material used to construct the examination .2 Doerator Performance The examiners evaluated the performance of a total of 24 licensed operators, comprising 5 crews. Thirteen of these licensed operators were initially identified for full examination. However, the licensee removed one individual for remediation and later examination. As such, twelve licensed operators were fully examined by coadministering dynamic simulator, written, and plant walkthrough portions of the examinations. The remaining 12 licensed operators were evaluated as part of the operating crews during the dynamic simulator examination All crews and individuals, with one exception, were evaluated as satisfactory by the NRC and facility evaluators on all portions of the coadministered examinations. Average grade on the written examination was 90 percent. One examinee incorrectly performed two of five JPMs and failed to successfully complete the annual examination. One examinee incorrectly performed one of five JPMs. All other examinees performed all JPMs acceptably. Crew and individual simulator performance was satisfactory overall and with respect to all crew critical task Based on the individual and crew results above, the Arkansas Nuclear One licensed operator requalification training program was evaluated as satisfactory in accordance with NUREG-1021, with the following observations:

Individual and crew performance and teamwork was a strengt (

Supervisory command, control, and communications were strong overal * Some individuals had difficulty locating the alternate shutdown procedure cabinet and storage locker. The confusion appeared to have I

i  ;

___

e

..

-5-developed as a result of construction activities on the turbine dec To correct the problem, the operations manager issued an operations night order on August 11, 1993, advising personnel of the exact locations of the cabinet and locke .3 Licensee's Recualification Examination Participants During these examinations, facility staff from training and operations departments participated during the development and validation of the examinations As described above, the draft examinations prepared by the facility members were good and used substantially without revision. The facility staff also supported the examiner validation of the draft examinations in a professional and competent manne The facility operations representative's assistance proved essential in resolving problems during this validatio The facility evaluators administered all or part of their annual requalification examinations for 61 licensed operators comprising twelve crews. During all of these examinations, these evaluators identified the same or similar performance issues as the examiners. In all cases, facility evaluators used thorough and effective examination techniques to administer valid examination During these examinations, the facility operations manager observed or participated in dynamic simulator crew examinations and was involved in facility evaluation of a number of the crews' performance, indicating a close relationship between the two groups. The facility developed performance enhancement remediation programs for identified deficiencies, as applicable, even when the observed performance was acceptable, based on evaluation or the operations manager's recommendation. This was observed to be the case during the annual examinations as well as prior to the annual examinations during other simulator or shift observations by the facility operations manage .4 Examination Team Observations During the examinations, the examiners observed the performance of onshift operators and plant conditions incident to the conduct of the examinee evaluations. The observations below were presented to the facility staff as they were developed and at the exit meetin During the examinations, plant housekeeping observed was very good. Conduct of operations in the control room and the rest of the physical plant was professional and controlled. Health physics, operations, and security personnel provided excellent support for the examination process and tea .5 Simulator Fidelity During the preparation and conduct of the operating examinations, the examiners observed that during the conduct of Scenario ES-1-004, the simulator did not accurately model once-through steam generator (OTSG) water level in

. . . . .

.. . ..

. _ . ..

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

.___-_______

.

,

-6-the "B" 0TSG. The discrepancy was observed during a loss of offsite power when the "B" OTSG was overfed from main feedwater. This response is contrary I to the facility design since the main feedwater pumps are off due to the loss l of power. The licensee initiated a deficiency report to establish corrective actions. This infidelity did not impact administration of the examination .6 Conclusions The examiners concluded that the performance of 23 out of 24 licensed l operators was acceptable (11 of 12 on full examinations). Further, of the 5 l crews examined in the simulator, all were found acceptable. The examiners also

'

concluded, based on the individual results, the examination material submitted, and observations during the coadministered examinations, that the licensed operator requalification training program was effectively maintaining proficiency of licensed operator The examiners also reviewed the most recent requalification examination report, OL 91-02, dated September 3,1991, for previous findings. That report noted some minor weaknesses in control board operation and in performing immediate actions. During this examination, the operators performed control board operations well and implemented required immediate actions in a prompt manne In general, the examiners concluded that:

• The reference material provided by the training department for examination development was satisfactor * The draft examinations submitted were good, requiring only minor changes prior to administratio * A generic observation was that JPM validation for stored dynamic simulator initial conditions was lackin * Crew communications and teamwork along with supervisor command and control was strong during the dynamic simulator scenario * Examinees performed well on the written examination, with an average i score of 90 percen '

I

• Twenty-threc of 24 licensed operators and all of the 5 crews they comprised passed their requalification examination * A generic weakness observed during the conduct of the operating examinations was a difficulty in locating the alternate shutdown procedure cabinet and storage locke * Simulator fidelity was acceptable with one minor discrepancy observe * The licensed operator requalification program was satisfactor ..._-. -. . . - . .. -

_

I  !

(t

'

f l

'

ATTACilMENT 1

!

-

'

i 1 PERSONS CONTACTED j 1.1 Licensee, Personnel .

• Rc Byford, Supervisor, Operations Training, Unit 1

'

,

l *G. King, Superintendent, Operations Training j *R. King, Supervisor, Plant Licensing l- *M. Sellman, General Manager, Plant Operations  !

l

• D. Smith, Supervisor,-Operations Training, Unit 1 '

• J. Vandergrift, Plant Manager, Unit I  ;

• C. Zimmerman, Operations Manager, Unit I  ;

E. Jacks, Senior Operations' Specialist j i

1.2 NRC Personnel- l

!

• J. Pellet, Chief, Operations Section

• L. Smith, Senior Resident-Inspector

'

In addition to the personnel listed ebove, the examiners contacted other-personnel during this inspection perio ;

• Denotes personnel that attended the exit meetin I 2 EXIT MEETING )

.

An exit meeting was conducted on August 16, 1993. During this meeting, the examiners reviewed the scope and generic findings of the inspection. The examiners provided preliminary results of licensed individual and program evaluations. The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information provided to, or reviewed by, the examiners.

i l-

!

u

,

_ ._ . . _ . _ .. _ _. _ _ _ . _ ._ . - - ,

!

!

.

l

. I, ATTACHMENT 2 l

SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT ,

!

Inspection Report: '50-313/93-25 '!

Licenses: DPR-51  ;

&

Licensee: Entergy Operations, In !

Route 3, Box 137G l Russellville, Arkansas >

. Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit I f

. Inspection At: Russellville, Arkansas

,

Operating Tests Administered on: August 2 through August 16, 1993 j-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 noncompliance with 10 CFR Part 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 observation While conducting the simulator. portion of'the operating tests, the following item was observed:

ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 _During a loss of offsite power, the "B" Once Through Steam Generator over fed from the main feedwater system. This

- occurrence is incongruent with correct modelling since the main feedwater pumps are off due to no power. 'The licensee initiated a deficiency report on 8/3/1993 to resolve the problem.