IR 05000483/1997006

Insp Rept 50-483/97-06 on 970519-23.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensed Operator Requalification Program

ML20141C025
Person / Time
Site:	Callaway
Issue date:	06/20/1997
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20141C024	List: IR 05000483/1997006 ML20141C016
References
50-483-97-06, 50-483-97-6, NUDOCS 9706240273
Download: ML20141C025 (8)

Text

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

.

l l

.

ENCLOSURE l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket No.: 50-483

)

License No.: NPF-30

'

Report No.: 50-483/97-06 l Licensee: Union Electric Company l Facility: Callaway Plant l Location: Junction Hwy. CC and Hwy. O l Fulton, Missouri i Dates: May 19-23,1997 I Inspectors: T. O. McKernon, Reactor inspector, Operations Branch  !

M. E. Murphy, Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch l F. Brush, Resident inspector, Callaway Plant l Approved By: J. L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety  ;

!

i i'

t ATTACHMENT: Supplemental Information i

!

,

l I

'

.

J i

i

.

"

9706240273 970620 PDR G ADOCK 05000483 pg l

, . - - - . . -. - - - - - . - . . - - - . - . . - - . . . . - . . - - . . - . - . . .- - . . ~

. l

.

!-

2-J

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Callaway Plant NRC Inspection Report 50-483/97-06

1 This inspection included a review of the licensed operator requalification program. The inspection covered the period of May 19-23, 199 .

,

Occrations i l

l

Good communication practices were used by the operators during the dynamic i l simulator scenarios (Section 04.1). l

Licensee evaluators were consistent and objective in their evaluations. Critiques effectively identified crew and individual strengths and weaknesses (Section 05.2).

,

!

l' *

The training feedback system was effective in providing input to upgrade the j requalification training program (Section 05.2). l I

• The remedial training program was well administered (Section 05.3).  !

l j j * The licensee was effectively maintaining operator licenses and documentation l (Section 05.4).

l

l Plant housekeeping and material conditions observed coincident with plant l walkthroughs were good (Section F8.1).

l  !

r t

-

r

l

.

i i

i

I I_ , . _ _ _ _ ., _ _ . _ , . - *

l i I-3-( l l )

Report Details Summarv of Plant Status The plant remained at 100 percent power during this inspection period. No major equipment problems or transients were experience l. Operations

!

04 Operator Knowledge and Performance 04.1 Operator Performance on Annual Reaualification Examinations I Inspection Scope (71001)

)

l The inspectors observed the performance of one shift crew and one composite crew l during their annuel requalification evaluations. Each crew was composed of four l licensed operators and a shift technical adviser. The annual requalification i examination included simulator dynamic performance evaluations and five job !

performance measures for each licensed operato j Observations and Findinas The inspectors observed the third week of the 1997 annual operating requalification l examinations. Both crews observed passed all portions of their evaluation However, some individuals were passed with remediation for errors made during the dynamic simulator scenarios or during the performance of the job performance measure task l The cause of the remediations was primarily due to a shift supervisor making an overly conservative emergency action level declaration when it was not require Other individuals were remediated for not performing a step in a procedure while performing a job performance measure tas The inspectors observed good communication practices being used by the operators l during the examination. While formal three-legged communications were not always used, the operators attempted to always use repeat backs and made their annunciator alarm announcements audible for the entire crew to hear. The crews met all critical tasks, diagnosed event conditions well, and mitigated the simulated l events.

l Conclusions l

l l Crews evaluated practiced good communications during the dynamic simulator scenarios. Crews met all planned critical tasks and successfully passed the l requalification examinatio _ ._ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ . -

. . . _ - _ _ - . ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _

'

I

'

,

t e

,

i

'

! -4 l

l 05 Operator Training and Qualification

!

,

l 05.1 Review of Reaualification Examinations t

' insocction Scoce (71001)  ;

The inspectors performed a review of the annual requalification examinations, including operating tests and a draft biennial written examination planned for the

'

next training cycle, to evaluate general quality, construction, and difficulty leve l The inspectors also reviewed the methodology for developing the requalification  !

examinations.

I Observations and Findinas The operating examinations consisted of job performance measures and dynamic simulator scenarios. The scenarios followed the guidelines of NUREG-1021,

" Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," Revision 7, Supplement 1, in complexity l and quantitative event requirements. The scenarios were written with clearly identifiable objectives, critical tasks, expected operator actions, and competency standards for evaluation. The job performance measures were adequate in scope and depth and appropriately covered a range of topics required by the requalification i training program and the regulations. The job performance measures also clearly l identified critical steps in the job task The inspectors determined that the draft written examination reflected adequate l sample plan coverage, depth of knowledge, and discriminated at the appropriate i leve ] Conclusions The inspectors concluded that the requalification examinations were well ]

constructed and discriminated at the appropriate knowledge level, i

l 05.2 Reaualification Examination Administration insoection Scope (71001)

The inspectors observed the administration of the simulator scenarios and the job performance measures to determine the evaluators' abilities to administer an eemination and assess adequate performance through measurable criteria. The  !

inspectors also observed the plant simulator to support examination administration.

, Three licensed operator requalification training evaluators and two operations

management evaluators were observed participating in one or more aspects of ( administering the examinations, including pre-examination briefings, observations of

operator performance, individual and group evaluations, techniques for job l performance measure cuing, and final evaluation documentation. Additionally, the l

- -. -. - ._ -

,

e 5-training feedback system for inputting information into the requalification training program was reviewed. This included student course evaluations, the training action tracking system, instructor critiques, lesson plans, and the central action tracking syste b. Observations and Findinas The licensee evaluators conducted the examinations professionally and thoroughly documented their observations for subsequent evaluation. Job performance measure cues were provided, as needed, with no inadvertent cuing observe During the requalification examination observed, the operations and assistant operations managers were used as evaluators. The operations management involvement provided a balance to the training department evaluators' assessment The evaluators were effective in identifying strengths and weaknesses of the crews and individuals and the licensee held the remediation criteria for job performance measures at a high level. For example, the licensee had implemented a  !

zero-tolerance practice for job performance measures, in that, if the examinees missed a procedure step or operated equipment incorrectly, it became a critenon for failure of the task regardless of whether the performance step was a critical task. A ,

formal evaluation method was used that reviewed crew and individual critical tasks l following the scenario observations and then competencies for the crew and I individuals when appropriate. The post-scenario evaluations were well organized and conducted. The inspectors noted that the operations manager conducted the evaluation critiques with the crew j

The inspectors observed that the performance of the simulator in suppcrting l examination process was good. However, some delay in conducting ene scenario j was experienced when an annunciator panel power supply became inoperable. The l scenario was halted at that point. The crew was sequestered until the repair was )

made and the scenario continued. No simulator modeling problems were '

experience During the review, the inspectors noted that the training department provided j feedback to the student's course evaluations. This was evidenced by copies of the responses attached to the evaluations. Also, instructors identified weaknesses in operator knowledge as well as a procedure deficiency during simulator training. The weaknesses were tracked using the training action tracking system and addressed in requalification training. The procedure deficiency was tracked using the central action tracking system and promptly corrected.

.

A

i l

.

l lc \

a j l Conclusions Licensee evaluators were consistent and objective in their evaluations. Critiques effectively identified strengths and weaknesses. The inspectors concluded that the licensee was offective in developing and using feedback from employees involved in the licensee's operator training progra .3 Review of Remedial Trainina Proaram Inspection Scope (71001)

!

The inspectors reviewed the remedial training program to evaluate compliance with !

licensee program guidance contained in Section 5 of Procedure TDP-ZZ-00022 and to determine the effectiveness of the program. This review included remedial training documentation from the 1995,1996, and 1997 requalification cycle Observations and Findinas The licensee recently implemented a significant change in the acceptance criteria for the operating tests. It is now the policy to fail any individual or crew who fails to perform any step of a job performance measure or scenario regardless of it being a critical step or not. In support of this change, the licensee now has three levels of remediation, each with specific entry criteria and specific levels of remediatio Only Level 3 requires formal removal from and return to licensed dutie The documentation from the 1995 and 1996 training cycles of requalification failures with training and operations staff analysis of the individuals or crew weaknesses were sufficiently detailed and directed an appropriate means of remediation. When appropriate, individual operators were removed from licensed operator duties until successful completion of remediation training and a subsequent evaluation. As of this inspection, there have been no failures during the 1997 requalification training or examination cycle. The individuals who passed with remediation have been properly remediated and retested in accordance with the new guidelines. Interviews with selected licensed operators indicated that the remediation process was thorough and comprehensive in addressing weaknesses in operator and crew performance, Conclusions The inspectors concluded that the remedial training program was well administered.

i

!

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

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

'

\

.

a f -7-

! 05.4 Review of Conformance with Operator License Conditions Insoection Scope (71001)

The inspectors evaluated the adequacy of the requalification program's compliance with 10 CFR 55.53, " Conditions of License." The inspectors interviewed operators, training management, and examined the licensee's records to determine compliance

for conditions to maintain an active operator license, reactivation of licenses, and

! medical fitness, Observations and Findinas Operator license conditions were being accurately identified and tracked. Records ;

were maintained current and stored in a protected vault. The inspectors observed l

,

that, for those operators with conditioned licenses for corrective lenses, the licensee )

l had obtained special framed prescription glasses for self-contained breathing

~

apparatuses. The operators kept these glasses in a designated storage cabinet in

the control room. Additionally, other operators with permanent medical conditions j 'had their licenses conditioned. It was also verified that operators with reactivated i licenses had received the prerequisite training prior to resuming shift dutie Conclusions Th6 inspectors concluded that the licensee was effectively maintaining operator licenses and documentatio !

IV. Plant Support l

! F8 Miscellaneous Fire Protection issues

F General Comments l The inspectors observed general plant housekeeping incident to administration of ?

the inplant job performance section of the operating test. The facility was clean, i welllighted, and the floors were clear and free of debri V. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary

The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on May 23,1997. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.

l The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined ,

, during the inspectio I f

.

1 .

.

)

.

.

,

=o ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee R. Affolter, Manager, Callaway Plant G. Czechin, Superintendent of Training J. Dampf, Shift Supervisor, Operations Training  ;

J. Davis, Quality Assurance G. Hamilton, Supervising Engineer, Quality Assurance R. Lamb, Superintendent, Operations J. Laux, Manager Quality Assurance I S. Putthoff, Operating Supervisor, Training M. Redmeyer, Quality Assurance Engineer NRC F. Brush, Resident inspector l l

INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED IP 71001: Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation I

I l

l l

I I

I

!

l i

a l

<