ML20205A413
| ML20205A413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1999 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205A405 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-458-99-301, NUDOCS 9903300376 | |
| Download: ML20205A413 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000458/1999301
Text
. . - . - . - - . . . . . . . . - . . . . - _
l
1
l
,
.
'
ENCLOSURE
,
l
I
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket.No.: 50-458
License No.: NPF-47
Report No.: 50-458/99-301
Licensee: Entergy Operations, Inc.
Facility: River Bend Station
Location: 5485 U.S. Highway 61 i
St. Francisville, Louisiana
Dates: February 22 through March 3,1999 .
Inspectors: Michael E. Murphy, Chief Examiner
Howard F. Bundy, Senior Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch
Thomas R. Meadows, Senior Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch
Steve L. McCrory, Senior Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch
,
Tom O. McKernon, Senior Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch
John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch
Approved By: Arthur T. Howell 111, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Supplemental Information
l
Attachment 2: Final Written Examinations and Answer Keys j
l
i
!1
~'
9903300376 990323
PDR ADOCK 05000458
V PDR
J
, - , - _ _ _ -. . .. . -- - . - . -.. .
.
.
-2-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ,
I
River Bend Station 4
NRC Inspection Report No. 50-458/99-301
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of 6 senior operator and 8 reactor operator license
. applicants for issuance of operating licenses at the River Bend Station. The licensee
developed the initial examinations using NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8, January 1997. NRC
examiners reviewed and approved the examinations. The initial written examinations were
administered to all 14 applicants on February 19,1999, by facility proctors in accordance with
the guidance in NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8. The NRC examiners administered the
operating tests on February 22 through March 3,1999.
Ooerations
- All 14 applicants passed the examinations. No broad knowledge or training weaknesses ,
were identified as a result of evaluation of the graded written examinations. The 1
applicants exhibited good oversight, peer checking and communications. (Sections 04.1
,
and 04.2)
- The examination submitted was adequate for administration and required only limited
enhancement and editorial corrections. The licensee staff incorporated enhancement
suggestions developed during the NRC review process. (Section 05.1.2)
l
ef
l
l
l
'
i
-3- l
Reoort Details
l
Summary of Plant Status ;
I
The plant was at approximately 90% power at the start of the inspection and in power coast
down for the upcoming refueling outage during the inspection.
l. Operations
1
'
04 Operator Knowledge and Performance
l
04.1 initial Written Examination 1
a. Insoection Scope
1
On February 19,1999, the facility licensee proctored the administration of the written
examinations approved by the NRC to eight individuals who had applied for initial l
reactor operator licenses, three individuals who had applied for initial instant senior
'
operator licenses, and three individuals who had applied for initial upgrade senior
operator licenses. The licensee proposed grades for the written examinations and
evaluated the results for question validity and generic weaknesses. The examiners !
reviewed the licensee's results. ,
1
b. Observations and Findinas
The minimum passing score was 80 percent. The candidates' scores for the written
examination ranged from 84 to 94 percent. The overall average score was
88.9 percent. The licensee's post-administration analysis identified that nine questions
were missed by more than 50 percent of the applicants. The questions missed were ,
three common, numbers 36,49,55, and 59; three reactor operator, numbers 76,79,90
and 97; and, three senior reactor operator, numbers 79,90,92, and 97. The chief
l
examiner's review of this analysis datermined that the erroneous answers were
generally dispersed and no broad training or knowledge weaknesses were identified.
1 here were no post-examination comments or changes to the written examination. 1
c. Conclusions l
All 14 applicants passed the written examinations. No broad knowledge or training
weaknesses were identified as a result of evaluation of the graded examinations.
- . - _ - .- .- .- -.- -- . -. .
.
Z
.
4
. 04.2 Initial Operatina Test
' a. Inspection Scope
The examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to
the 14 applicants on February 22 through March 3,1999. Each applicant participated in
the appropriate number of dynamic simulator scenarios. Each reactor operator and
instant senior operator applicant received a walk-through test which consisted of ten
system and four administrative areas. The upgrade senior operator applicants were
tested in five system and four administrative areas.
'
b. Observations and Findinas
,
'
All applicants passed all portions of the operating test. Overall, the applicants
performed well in the dynamic simulator scenarios with good oversight, peer checks,
and communications noted by the examiners. Good crew briefs and status updates
were consistently practiced in a form meeting licensee expectations. Communications
clearly identified expected actions with consistent acknowledgment by the operators.
The applicants researched and applied technical specifications appropriately and
correctly applied abnormal and emergency procedure entry conditions.
Applicants correctly located and simulated operating local plant components during the
examination. The applicants also displayed alertness and ownership as evidenced
when one applicant noted a local fire alarm panel with a trouble alarm and immediately
notified the control room. The control room acknowledged the report and advised the
applicant that an auxiliary operator was being immediately dispatched to investigate.
The applicants prformed well during the walk-through examination, which indicated a
depth of associated system knowledge.
c. Conclusions
All 14 applicants passed the operating tests. The applicants exhibited good oversight,
peer checking and communications.
05 Operator Training and Qualification
05.1 Initial Licensina Examination Develooment
The facility licensee developed the initial licensing examination in accordance with
guidance provided in NUREG-1021," Operating Licensing Examination Standards,"
Interim Revision 8, dated January 1997.
,
.
. .
-5-
05.1.1 Examination Outline
a. Inspection Scope
The facility licensee submitted the initial examination outlines on October 23,1998. The
chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG-1021,
Interim Revision 8.
b. Observations and Findinas
The written examination outlines for both the reactor operator and senior reactor
operator met the knowledge and abilities distribution prescribed in NUREG 1021. The
administrative section outline was acceptable as submitted. The job performance
measure outline was acceptable except that the safety function distribution did not
comply with NUREG-1021 guidance. The chief examiner commented that the licensee
should review and comply with NUREG-1021 guidance prior to completing the draft
examination. The Scenario outlines were acceptable as submitted. The chief examiner
advised the licensee to be careful in differentiating between component failures and
instrument failures. The chief examiner determined that the initial examination outlines
satisfied NRC requirements.
c. Conclusions
i
The licensee submitted adequate examination outlines.
'
05.1.2 Examination Packaae
a. Inspection Scope i
l
The draft examinations were transmitted by the licensee to the NRC on
December 19,1998. The licensee submitted the completed final examination package ,
,
on February 8,1998. The chief examiner reviewed the examinations against the l
requirements of NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8. l
b. Observations and Findinas
The draft written examination contained 125 questions,75 of which were common to
both the reactor operator and senior reactor operator examinations. Of the 125
questions,116 were new, eight were modified and one was from the licensee's bank.
The draf t examination was considered technically valid, to discriminate at the proper l
level, and responsive to the outline submitted by the licensee on October 23,1998. i
Following two independent NRC examiner reviews, the chief examiner provided editorial i
and enhancement suggestions for 28 questions. The comments generally related to
grammar. spelling, clarity of the question stem and distractor plausibility. After
discussion of the suggested enhancements, the licensee modified the examinations as 4
agreed. The chief examiner concurred with the resolution of the comments and the final
product.
.
-6-
The licensee submitted five scenarios, two of which were designated as backups. The
five scenarios were reviewed and validated during the week of January 25,1999, with
some enhancement and editorial comments to facilitate administration.
To support the system walk-through section of the operating test, the facility licensee
provided job performance measures dev6loped to evaluate selected operator tasks that
contained written task elements, performance standa,Js, and comprehensive evaluator
cues. Thirteen job performance measures were submittej with three designated as
backups. Personnel assignments and scheduling precluded any day-to-day repetition of
operating tests. The NRC review identified several enhancement and editorial
comments related to improved cues, information clarification for the benefit of the
examiner and to facilitate administration. The licensee incorporated all comments.
The licensee submitted six administrative job performance measures and two
administrative topic questions. This provided one set of five administrative job
performance measures for the senior reactor operator applicants and one set of four
administrative job performance measures with two administrative topic questions for the
reactor operator applicants. The NRC review identified only minor enhancement and
editorial comments related to eliminating overlap with operator actions in one of the
scenarios, and improving evaluation capability in one of the tasks. The licensee
incorporated all comments.
c. Conclusions
The examination submitted was adequate for administration and required only limited
enhancement and editorial corrections. The licensee staff incorporated enhancement
suggestions developed during the NRC review process. 1
l
05.2 Simulation Facility Performance l
a. Inspection Scope
'
The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to fidelity during the
examination validation and administration.
b. Observations and Findinas j
The simulation facility supported the validation and administration of the exar.lination
well. There was one instance of two anomalies occurring during a scenario, but they fit
the flow of events and caused neither a disruption nor a compromise in the examination l
ovaluations. The problem was evaluated at the conclusion of the scenario by the
technical support personnel and a potentially bad power supply was idenutied and
replaced. The scenarios were resumed with no further problems and with minimal
delay.
Since the facility was scheduled to accomplish a major modification to the simulator at
the conclusion of this examination, no simulation facility report will be included in this
inspection report.
t
. . . . . - - .
..
.
'.
7-
c. Conclusions
The simulator and simulator staff supported the examination well. No fidelity issues ;
were identified.
V. Manacement Meetinas
X1 Exit Meeting Summary
The examiners presented the inspection results to members of the licensee
management at the conclusion af the inspection on March 3,1999. The licensee
acknowledged the findings presented.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined duri.1g
this inspection.
- . . . . . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . - . - . - . . - .
'
,
,
- .
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
C. Bush Jr., Operations Superintendent
4 M. Cantrell, Supervisor, Operations Training
B. Heikes, Supervisor, Simulator Support
R. King, Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs
D. Looney, Exam Developer
D. Mims, General Manager, Operations
W. O'Malley, Manager, Operations
J. O'Neil, Licensing Specialist -
M. Rasch, Exam Developer
M. Wagner, Supervisor, Operations Training
J. Waid, Director, Training
L. Woods, Supervisor Training Standards
- NRC
N. Garrett, Resident inspector
i
j
,
5