ML20155B067

NRC Operator Licensing Exam Repts 50-338/98-301 & 50-339/98-301 (Including Completed & Graded Tests) for Tests Administered on 980817-21 & 31-0903

ML20155B067
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	10/02/1998
From:	Baldwin R, Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155B055	List: ML20155B053 ML20155B067
References
50-338-98-301, 50-339-98-301, NUDOCS 9810300054
Download: ML20155B067 (300)

See also: IR 05000338/1998301

Text

- --

, .,

'

!

l *. . - .

l

l

l

'

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION II

Docket Nos.: 50-338. 50-339

Licenw Nos.: NPF-4 NPF-7

~

Report ~No.: 50-338/98-301. 50-339/98-301

Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company

Facility: North Anna Power Station. Units 1 & 2

Location: Mineral. Virginia

Dates: August 17-21. and August 31-September 3. 1998

-

Examiners:

Richard 5. Baldnin

Chief License Examiner

Larry S. MellEq. License Examiner

Edwin Lea. Lice,'se Examiner

Approved by:

Thomas A'. Peebles. Chief

Operator Licens:ng and Human Performance Branch

Division of Reactor Safety

I

9810300054 981002

PDR AD0cK 05000338

V PDR

'

l l

l \

l '. . * '

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

North Anna Power Station Units 1 & 2 )

NRC Examination Report No. 50-338/98-301 and 50-339/98-301 l

During the periods of August 17-21 and August 31-September 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 i

of 10 CFR 555.41. S55.43, and 555.45.

l

l Seven Senior. Reactor Operator (SRO) candidates and eight Reactor Operator (RO)

'

candidates received written examinations and operating tests. All

examinations were administered by NRC operator licensing examiners. The I

written examination was administered by the licensee on August 27. 1998, and I

the operating tests were administered by the NRC the weeks of August 17-21 and

August 31-September 3. 1998.

l l

Ooerations

'

• Control room activities were observed during the examination validation I

and examination weeks. The operators were found to be attentive and

professional in their duties. (Section 01.1) l

l

• In general, the examiners found the as-submitted written examination and

operating tests met the requirements of NUREG-1021 with one exception in

the area of JPM follow-up questions which was noted to need improvement.

The examination quality was improved as compared to the 1996

examination submittal. (Section 05.1)

,

. Fourteen of fifteen candidates passed the examination. Overall

l

performance on the operat mg test was satisfactory with strengths noted

in the areas of 3-way communication, crew briefs and annunciator

response procedure usaje. Weaknesses were noted in the areas of

determining tail pipe temperature with a leaking PORV identification of

i radiological posting requirements, reluctance of R0s to take manual

action without SRO prior approval. and the willingness of two of the

four crews to enter Technical Specification 3.0.3 when it was

l preventable. (Section 05.1)

. Candidate Pass /Filil

SRO R0 Total Percent

Pass 7 7 14 93.3

i Fall 0 1 1 6.6

!

- 1

1

-

~.. .

l

l

l

Reoort Details l

Summary of Plant Status-

During the period of the examinations Unit 1 and Unit 2 were at 100 percent

! power.

l I. Ooerations

01 Conduct of Operations  ;

1

01.1 Control Room Observation l

'

l

During validation and administration of the examination the examiners

'

l

observed the conduct of operations by currently licensed operators in

the control room. The reactor operators (R0s) were attentive to the

evolutions in progress. The senior reactor operators (SR0s) limited

personnel for official business only, which contributed to a quiet.

professionally managed control room.

l

l

05 Operator Training and Qualifications

1

05.1 Initial Licensino Examinations l

l

a. Scope l

NRC examiners conducted regular, announced operator licensing initial )

examinations during the periods of August 17-21. and August 31-September

3. 1998. 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 i

Standards (ES). NUREG-1021. Interim Revision 8. Six Senior Reactor i

Operator (SRO) upgrade, one SRO instant and eight Reactor Operator (RO) l

applicants received written examinations and operating tests.

1

b. Observations and Find 1nas

The licensee developed the SRO and RO written examinations. three Job

l Performance Measure (JPM) sets, and four dynamic simulator scenarios.

with one spara scenario, for use during this examination. All materials

l were submitted to the NRC on schedule. NRC examiners reviewed, modified l

l as necessary and approved the examination prior to administration, The

!

NRC conducted an on-site preparation visit during the week of August 3.

i 1998, to validate examination materials and familiarize themselves with

the details required for examination administration.

,

l

l ,

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

,,

'

' '

..

2

(1) Written Examination

The examination review was expedited due to the organization of

the submitted examination materials. Relevant portions of the

reference materials were attached to each test item.

This was the licensee's second time developing the examination in

accordance with the Examiner Standards and the pilot program. The

quality of the licensee's submittal was good and had shown

improvement as compared to the 1996 examination submittal. The

number of technical errors noted were minimal. Most NRC comInents

were to assure clarity in the question stem and to enhance the

quality of the incorrect distractors. The NRC recommended

replacing only three questions due to quality of the questions.

The final examination was considered a good product. in that it

discriminated a competent from a less than competent candidate.

(2) Operating Test Development

The NRC reviewed three walkthrough examination sets submitted by

the facility. These were comprised of job performance measures

(JPMs) and administrative JPMs and administrative questions. The

, examiners found the JPMs were developed to the appropriate level

as described in NUREG-1021. Some minor technical errors were

noted such as the incorrect designation of critical steps. The

quality of some of the JPM follow-up questions were weak in that

several JPN questions were considered direct look-up and lacked

operational validity and some were non-discriminatory. These

questions were either changed or references were not allowed to

answer these questions. Increased attention in this area is needed

to supply JPM follow-up questions consistent with the guidelines

of NUREG 1021. Interim Revision 8.

The NRC reviewed four simulator scenarios (plus one spare)

developed for the examination. Some changes and additions were

made to the scenarios to enhance the examiners' opportunity to

observe candidates perform all required competencies. One

scenario set did not have the required minimum number of

malfunctions as required by NUREG-1021. This was corrected during

the examination preparation week. Overall. the scenarios were

'

,.

'

-

..

3

i found to be challenging and at the appropriate level of difficulty. The

l final scenarios were considered a good examiaation tool providing

l discrimination between satisfactory from less then satisfactory

l performance.

During the examination weeks the examiners found three procedures that

were confusing or hard to use. The facility acted promptly to resolve ,

these procedural issues. l

The facility administered the written examination on August 27, 1998 in

~

i

accordance with NUREG-1021 and by direction of the examination

l assignment sheet (Enclosure 7). The licensee during the course of the

! examination requested, by telephone, two. thirty minute extensions to

the four hour time period of the examination. The two extensions were

l

granted by the NRC Branch Chief, providing a total of five hours for the

l written examination. The facility requested the extension as the

candidates needed the extra time to adequately finish the examination. I

c. Examination Results and Conclusions

i

'

The facility licensee submitted post-examination comments for one

l written examination question, of which the NRC accepted (see Enclosures

3 and 4). The acceptance of this comment did not change the outcome of

the grading for any of the candidates.

, The quality of the licensee's proposed examination met the Examiners

l Standards. The licensee had improved the quality of the examination

l submittal when compared to their previous examination submittal (Report

i No.96-300). Some improvement in JPM question development is warranted

j in order to comply with the guidelines of NUREG 1021. Interim Revision

8.

l

!

The examiners reviewed the results of the written examination and found

'

that fourteen of fifteen candidates passed this examination. Overall

! SRO candidate performance on the written examination was satisfactory.

! RO candidate performance on the written examination was weaker than SRO

l performance with one candidate failing the examination and two R0

l candidates achieving a grade less then 82 percent. The licensee

! conducted a post-examination item analysis of the SRO and RO written

examinations. This analysis identified seven questions where both SRO

and R0 candidates exhibited knowledge deficiencies. The analysis also

identified three other SRO specific knowledge weaknesses and three other

R0 specific knowledge weaknesses. The examiners concluded that no

generic knowledge weaknesses existed. A generic knowledge weakness

exists when multiple questions on the same system or topic were missed

by a large number of candidates.

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

, ;.-

.

-

,.

4

Examiners also identified several seaknesses in candidate performance

during the operations portion of the examination. Details of the

weaknesses are described in each individual's examination report. Form

ES-303-1. " Operator Licensing Examination Report." Copies of the

l evaluations have been forwarded under separate cover to the Training

l Manager in order to enab k +.he licensee to evaluate tha weaknesses and

provide appropriate remedial training for those op:dators, as necessary.

In general, these weaknesses included the following: knowledge of

radiological posting requirements. tail pipe temperature determination,

and candidates appeared hesitant to take manual control of systems when

automatic controllers were not functioning properly prior to obtafning j

SRO verbal approval. This contributed to one of the four crews having

an unnecessary reactor trip when manual control of feedwater was i

required following a steam generator pressure transmitter failure. l

Additionally, two crews exceeded a Technical Specification Limiting

Condition for Operation time limit and voluntarily entered Technical

Specification 3.0.3 when it could have been avoided by placing the

bistables in a tripped condition.

During scenario performance NRC examiners noted strengths in the areas

of three-way communications. SRO crew briefing techniques, and use of

annunciator response procedures. Candidates consistently followed the

licensee's communications procedures, briefing procedures and reviewed

annunciator response procedures in accordance with operations standards

and expectations.

l

l

- . . . . .- - - - , - .

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

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

,,

.

.. . .

5

Manaaement Meetinas

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. No

proprietary material provided was provided.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED

-

Licensee

S. Crawford Senior Instructor. Nuclear

G. Crisman. Supervisor. Operations Support

J. Dauberman. Supervisor. Shift Operations

C. Funderburk. Manager. Station Safety and Licensing

A. Kozak Simulator Support Coordinator

H. Le. Nuclear Oversight

J. Scott. Supervisor. Operations Training

W. Shura. Nuclear Training Supervisor. Simulator

M. Whalen. Licensing Technical Analysis

l

MEC

M. Morgan. Senior Resident Inspector

L. Garner. Project Engineer. RII l

E. Lea Project Engineer / Examiner. RII l

L. Mellen. Examiner. RII

ITEMS OPENED CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED

Closeo

l

None.

l

i

!

.

l

l

l _ _.

._