ML20217F763
| ML20217F763 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217F745 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-416-98-301, NUDOCS 9804280262 | |
| Download: ML20217F763 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000416/1998301
Text
f
..
.
'
ENCLOSURE
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Docket No.:
50-416
License No.:
Report No.:
50-416/98-301-
Licensee:
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Facility:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station
. Location:
Waterloo Road
'
Port Gibson, Mississippi
Dates:
March 30 through April 3,1998
Inspector (s):
M. Murphy, Chief Examiner, Operations Branch
H. Bundy, Senior Examiner, Operations Branch
T. Meadows, Senior Examiner, Operations Branch
Approved By:
John Pellet, Chief, Operations Bianch
!
Division of Reactor Safety
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1:
Supplemental Information
Attachment 2:
Simulation Facility Report
Attachment 3:
Final Written Examination and Answer Key
l
l
9804280262 980420
ADOCK 05000416
G
_ . ,
I:-
1
-2-
l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station
l
NRC Inspection Report 50-416/98-301
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of one reactor operator and eight senior operator
i
applicants for issuance of operating licenses at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. The licensee
developed the initial license examinations using the guidance in NUREG-1021, Interim Revision
8, January 1997. NRC examiners reviewed and approved the examinations. The initial written
i
examinations were administered to all nine applicants on March 27,1998, by facility proctors in
accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8. The NRC examiners
administered the operating tests March 30 through April 2,1998.
Operations
All nine (one reactor operator, eight senior operators) license applicants passed their
-
examinations. Applicant communications and oversight of control room operations
during the operating test were very strong. Peer and self checking were used
extensively by the applicants. Senior operators effectively directed crew activities.
(Sections 04.1, 04.2)
The examination submitted was adequate for administration and required only limited
-
l
enhancement and editorial corrections. The licensee staff was highly responsive to
incorporating enhancement suggestions developed during the review process.
(Sections 05.1)
1
!
.
l
!
l
t
'
i
-3-
Reoort Details
Summarv of Plant Status
The plant operated at 98 percent power for the duration of this inspection.
I, Ooerations
04
Operator Knowledge and Performance
04.1
Initial Written Examination
I
a.
Insoection Scooe
On March 27,1998, the facility licensee proctored the administration of the written
examination, approved by the chief examiner and NRC Region IV supervision, to one
individual who had applied for an initial reactor operator license, six individuals who had
applied for initial instant senior reactor operator licenses, and two individuals who had
applied for initial upgrade senior operator licenses. The licensee graded the written
examinations and evaluated the results for question validity and generic weaknesses.
The examiners reviewed the licensee's results,
b.
Observations and Findinos
The minimum passing score was 80 percent. The scores for the written examination
ranged from 85 to 98 percent. The overall average score was 94.2 percent. The
licensee's post-administration analysis identified that question 86 in the senior operator
category was missed by six of the eight applicants. A post-examination evaluation
determined that this was a combination of failing to properly read the stem information
and an isolated training weakness in this area. No broad training or knowledge
weaknesses were identified during review of applicant performance on the administered
'
examinations.
c.
Conclusions
!
All nine license applicants passed the written examinations. No broad knowledge or
training weaknesses were identified as a result of evaluation of the graded examinations.
l
04.2
Initial Ooeratino Test
a.
Insoection Scone
!
The examination team administered the various portions of the operating examination to
the nine applicants on March 29 through April 2,1998. The reactor operator and two
senior operator upgrades participated in two scenarios. The six senior operator instants
were administered three scenarios each. Eachef the instant senior operator applicants
m
l
t
-
{
.
-4-
l
l
and the reactor operator applicant also received a walkthrough test, which consisted of
i
l
ten system tasks and four administrative areas. The two upgrade senior operator
applicants were tested in five system tasks and four administrative areas.
b.
Observations and Findinas
All applicants passed all sections of the operating test. The examiners noted extensive
use of peer and self-checking practices in all areas of the examinations. The examiners
also noted in the dynamic simulator scenarios, good oversight and effective
communications that were routinely formal and three legged (i.e., request or direction,
j
verbatim repeat back, acknowledgment of repeat back). The senior operators effectively
directed crew activities. The applicants displayed good knowledge of technical
specifications and facility abnormal and emergency procedures. While acting as the
control board operators, the applicants displayed good knowledge of component controls
and board awareness.
The applicants performed well on the walkthrough and administrative sections of the
examination,
c.
Conclusions
All nine applicants passed the operating tests, without significant individual weaknesses.
Communications and oversight of control room operations were very strong. Peer and
self checking were used extensively. Senior operators effectively directed crew
activities.
05
Operator Training and Qualification
05.1
Initial Licensina Examination Develooment
The facility licensee developed the initial licensing examination in accordance with
NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power
Reactors."
05.1.1 Examination Outlines
a.
jnsoection Scoce
The facility licensee submitted the initial examination outline on January 30,1998. The
chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of NUREG-1021, interim
Revision 8.
.
,
.
4
-5-
b.
Qbservations and Findings
The chief examiner determined that the initial examination outline met NRC requirements
and advised the licensee to proceed with examination development.
c.
Conclusions
The licensee submitted an acceptable examination outline in a timely manner.
05.1.2 Examination Package
a.
Insoection Scoce
The facility licensee submitted the completed draft examination package on
March 2,1998. The chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of
NUREG-1021, Interim Revision 8. The examination material also received an
independent review by another examiner against the same standards.
b.
Observations and Findinas
The draft written examination contained 125 questions,75 of which were designated to
be included in both reactor operator and senior reactor operator examinations, with
25 each to be used exclusively for each examination. Eighty-nine of the questions were
new,16 were from the licensee's question bank, and 20 were from the bank, but met the
criteria as modified questions. The draft examination was considered technically valid, to
discriminate at the proper level, and responsive to the sample plan submitted by the
licensee on January 30,1998. Following two independent NRC examiner reviews, the
chief examiner provided enhancement suggestions for about 16 percent of the questions
and identified editorial corrections for an additional 8 percent. The suggested
enhancements generally related to clarity of the question stem and distractor plausibility.
After discussion of the suggested enhancements, the licensee modified the examinations
as agreed. The chief examiner concurred with the resolution of the comments and the
final product.
The licensee submitted six scenarios, two of which were designated as backups. The
six scenarios were reviewed and validated during the week of March 16,1998, with only
minor enhancement and editorial comments to facilitate administration.
To support the system walkthrough section of the operating test, the facility licensee
provided job performance measures developed to evaluate selected operator tasks that
contained written task elements, performance standards, and comprehensive evaluator
cues. Twenty-three job performance measures were submitted with two prescripted
l.
i
followup questions each. This provided two sets of ten job performance measures for
the reactor operator and senior operator instants and one set of five for the senior
operator upgrades with three backup tests. Personnel assignments and scheduling
precluded any day-to-day repetition of operating tests. Two independent NRC examiner
!
.
l
l*
-6-
,
reviews resulted in two enhancement and four editorial comments for the job
performance measures. The same reviews also produced three enhancement and three
editorial comments Dr the associated prescripted questions. The licensee incorporated
l
all comments. One job performance measure was replaced following validation when it
l
was identified that it provided limited evaluation of the applicant.
3
l
The licensee submitted 13 administrative job performance measures and
!
2 administrative topic questions. This provided two sets of 5 administrative job
performance measures for the senior reactor operator applicants and one set of
4 administrative job performance measures with 2 administrative topi:: question for the
{
reactor operator applicant. The two independent NRC reviews produced two
l
enhancement and six editorial comments for the administrative topics section of the
'
examination. The licensee incorporated all comments.
c.
Conclusions
The examination submitted was adequate for administration and required only limited
l
enhancement and editorial corrections. The licensee staff was highly responsive to
l
incorporating enhancement suggestions developed during the review process.
05.2
Simulation Facility Performance
a.
Insoection Scoog
The examiners observed simulator performance with regard to fidelity during the
examination validation and administration.
b.
Observations and Findinos
The simulation facility supported the validation and administration of the examination
well, except, as described in Attachment 2, for one component failure that interrupted
one scenario. The problem was identified and fixed by the simulator technical support
personnel with minimal delay and no compromise in the examination evaluations. No
fidelity problems were noted.
c.
Conclusions
The simulator and simulator staff supported the examinations well. No fidelity issues
were identified.
l
05.3
Examinatian Security
l
a.
Sr&Rg
The examiners reviewed examination security both during on site preparation week and
examination administration week for compliance with NUREG-1021 requirements.
l
l
l
-
.
4
i
-7-
b.
Observations and Findinas
Twenty-one members of the licensee's operations and training staff signed onto the
NUREG-1021 approved examination security agreement acknowledging their
responsibilities for examination security. The licensee maintained secure areas for
examination review, validation, and reproduction. Signs were conspicuously posted to
avoid inadvertent unauthorized access, and doors were maintained locked with good key
l
control to ensure proper access to sensitive areas. The licensee installed deadbolts with
j_
no key access on all simulator access doors for positive traffic control. Applicants were
'
maintained in one controlled area under constant supervision, and were always escorted
to and from examination points. Simulator security was strictly complied with.
!!
c.
Conclusions
l
1
l
Effective examination secunty was maintained.
l
1
V. Management Meetings
l.
l
X1
Exit Meeting Summary
)
The examiners presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management
l
at the conclusion of the inspection on April 3,1998.' The licensee acknowledged the
findings presented.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined during
the inspection.
l
I
I
'
,
j
i.
.
l
ATTACHMENT 1
l-
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
!
!
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
!
j
B. Bryant, Operations Training Supervisor -
,
j.
D.' Cupstid, Technical Assistant, Operations
'
L. Daughtery,' Licensing Technical Coordinator
l
W. Eaton, General Maruger
'
J. Hagan,.Vice President
D. Janacek, Director, Training
M. McDowell, Technical Assistant, Training
M. Rasch, Senior Operations instructor
S. Reeves, Senior Operations Instructor
J. Roberts, Director, Quality
NRC
K. Weaver, Resident inspector
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
" Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,"
Interim Revision 8
T
d
.
ATTACHMENT 2
SIMULATION FACILITY REPORT
Facility Licensee:
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Facility Docket:
50-416
Operating Examinations Administered at: Grand Gulf Nuclear Station
Operating Examinations Administered on: March 30 through April 2,1998
These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further
verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b). These observations
l
do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facility, other than to provide
information, which may be used in future evaluations. No license action is required in response
to these observations.
Deficiencies identified Durina Examination Precaration
l
None
Deficiency identified Durina Examination Administration
During the conduct of the first scenario on Thursday, April 2,1998, just as the crew had
-
completed placing a reactor feed pump on line and were preparing for rod withdrawals to
raise power, a component failure in the simulator caused the simulated loss of two
buses, LCC 13BD1 and 13BD2, causing complete loss of instrument air and condenser
vacuum. The crew responded to this event and since all other elements of the scenario
appeared to be in order, the chief examiner elected to allow the new sequence to
continue and evaluate the crew on their response to the new conditions. This worked
until interference was detected in components of the RCIC system that would not allow
continued valid simulation. The scenario was then terminated.
The simulator technical support personnel promptly responded, determined the cause
and replaced the failed component. After a short checkout run the simulator was
declared operable and those required missed portions of the scenario were run without
compromise to the applicant evaluations.
,
l
l
l
!
!
l