ML20217F763

Insp Rept 50-416/98-301 on 980330-0403.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Competency of Reactor Operator & Eight Senior Applicants for Issuance of OLs at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station

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: ML20217F740 ML20217F763
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.: NPF-29

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

PDR ADOCK 05000416

G PDR _ . ,

-

1

-2-

l

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station

l NRC Inspection Report 50-416/98-301

i

NRC examiners evaluated the competency of one reactor operator and eight senior operator

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)

l

l

-

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 I

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.

l

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

l.

cues. Twenty-three job performance measures were submitted with two prescripted

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 l

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.

l

l X1 Exit Meeting Summary l

)

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

'

l

,

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

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

l

INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED l

NUREG-1021 " 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