IR 05000458/1999010

Insp Rept 50-458/99-10 on 990830-0903.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensed Operators Requalification Program

ML20216F795
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	09/15/1999
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20216F792	List: IR 05000458/1999010 ML20216F788
References
50-458-99-10, NUDOCS 9909240113
Download: ML20216F795 (10)

Text

.

!

I

ENCLOSURE l

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

REGION IV

Docket No.: 50-458 l

License No.: NPF-47 Report No.: 50-458/99 10 Licensee: Entergy Operations, In Facility: River Bend Station

! Location: 5485 U.S. Highway 61 St. Francisville, Louisiana j Dates: August 30 through September 3,1999 Inspectors: Howard F. Bundy, Senior Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch

! Michael E. Murphy, Senior Reactor Engineer, Operations Branch Approved By: John L. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety

'

l j

,

l l

l

.

ATTACHMENT: Supplemental Information

'

l l

l l

l I

l 9909240113 990915 PDR ADOCK 05000450 0 PDR l

c 2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY River Bend Station NRC Inspection Report No. 50-458/99-10 This inspection assessed the licensed operators' requalification program to determine whether the program incorporated appropriate requirements for both evaluating operators' mastery of training objectives and revising the prograrnin accordance with 10 CFR Part 55. The licensed operators'

requalification program assessment included an evaluation of the program's controls to assure a j t

systems approach to training, and evaluation of an operating crew and a staff crew performances during annual requalification examinations. This included review of facility documents, observations of crews during dynamic simulator scenarios and plant walkthroughs, review of i licensed operator performance during the previous biennial written examination, and assessment l of licensee evaluators' effectiveness in conducting examination ]

Operations

• The inspectors observed excellent crew performance in the plant control room, which was comparable to that observed in the dynamic simulator portion of the operating examination (Section 01.1).

• The licensed operators performed at a high level during the annual operating tes Communications and teamwork were strengths. During the dynamic scenarios, the operators advocated appropriate responses to changing plant conditions and as plant l

'

conditions deteriorated the shift inanagement team conducted frequent briefings covering plant status and strategy for responding to events. The crews were sensitive to the impact of degrading plant equipment availability on core melt risk numbers and j implemented appropriate administrative controls to minimize increased risk i (Section O4.1). ,

!

- The inspectors determined that all portions of the examination were well constructed, I properly focused, and appropriately challenging. The licensee had developed and implemented appropriate examination security measures (Section 05.1).

• The licensee's evaluators demonstrated high performance expectations for operators and !

sustained high levels of competence in examination administration and operator performance assessment. Their threshold for generating constructive comments was lo ]

Operations' management participation in the evaluations was a strength (Section 05.2).

. The licensee continued to implement an effective feedback process as a key element to their overall systems approach to training (Section 05.3). j

!

. The licensee had implemented a formal and effective remedial training progra Observed weaknesses, as well as, examination failures were aggressively remediated and there were no repeated failures (Section 05.4).

(

-3-Report Details Summarv of Plant Status The plant remained at full power during this inspection period. No major equipment problems or transients were experience I. ODeratlOns 01 Conduct of Operations 01.1 Control Room Observations Inspection Scoce (71001)

The inspectors observed operator performance in the plant control room to compare to operator performance observed in the dynamic simulator scenario l Observations and Findinas The inspectors observed portions of shift turnovers and various main control board manipulations supporting plant maintenance, routine surveillances, and a reduction in power to support the determination of a suspected fuel element leak. The oncoming crew obtained a clear understanding of plant status during the turnovers, The crew and supporting personnel participated in the shift briefing and special briefing for the reduction I in power. The operators referred to procedures throughout the performance of the various tasks, and routinely performed self-verification and concurrent-verification activities while operating various equipment controls. The control room supervisor maintained close oversight of less frequently performed evolutions. The operators routinely used three-leg communication technique . The observed crew also performed in an excellent manner when the power reduction briefing was interrupted be a severe thunderstorm warning that resulted in entry into the Severe Weather Procedure AOP-0029. All other activities were suspended until the warning was lifted and routine activities could be resume Conclusion The inspectors observed excellent crew performance in the plant control room, which was comparable to that observed in the dynamic simulator portion of the operating j examinatio !

l (

p '

.

.

-4-  !

l I

04 Operator Knowledge and Performance 0 Operator Performance on Reaualification Examinations Insoection Scope (71001)

' The inspectors observed the performance of one shift crew, composed of three individuals

' with reactor operator licenses and two individuals with senior operator licenses, and one

= staff crew, composed of three individuals with reactor operator licenses and three individuals with senior reactor operator licenses, during their annual requalification evaluations.- The annual operating examination included two simulator dynamic performance evaluations and five job performance measures for each licensed operato The inspectors also reviewed the results of the 1998 biennial written examination Observations and Findinas

- The operators performed at a high level during the operating test. Both crews and all individuals passed. During the dynamic scenarios, communications, and teamwork were strengths. The inspectors observed consistent and frequent application of self- i

'

verification, concurrent verification, three-leg communications, and direct supervisory oversight. The operators provided good input to the control room supervisors on plant -

conditions and advocated appropriate responses to changing conditions. The shift superintendents made timely and accurate emergency action level classifications. The crews were sensitive to the impact of degrading plant equipment availability on core damage risk and implemented appropriate administrative controls to minimize this increased risk. As conditions deteriorated, the shift management teams conducted

- frequent briefings covering plant status and strategy for responding to the events. The inspectors observed similar operator performance during the plant walkthrough portion !

of the operating tes Because biennial written examinations were last administered in March-April 1998, the 1

- inspectors reviewed the results of those examinations. Operator performance on those examinations was good. There was only one individual failure, which was successfully remediate Conclusions

' The licensed operators performed at a high level during the annual operating tes Communications and teamwork were strengths. During the dynamic scenarios, the

- operators advocated appropriate responses to changing plant conditions and as plant

' conditions deteriorated the shift management team conducted frequent briefings

,

covering plant status and strategy for responding to events. The crews were sensitive to the impact of degrading plant equipment availability on core damage risk and implemented appropriate administrative controls to minimize increased ris .

,

- m -

o 4 I

!

-5-05 Operator Training and Qualification  !

05.1 Review of Reaualification Examinations Insoection Scoce (71001) i t

(

The inspectors reviewed the annual requalification examinations, which consisted of the operating tests, to evaluate general quality, construction, and difficulty level. The inspectors also reviewed the previous biennial written examinations. In addition, the insp::ctors reviewed,the methodology for developing the requalification examinations 1 and discussed various aspects of examination development and security with members j of the licensee's training staff, Observations and Findinas The operating examinations consisted of job performance measures and dynamic simulator scenarios. The job performance measure tasks were operauonally valid and satisfied the construction guidelines in NUREG-1021, Appendix C. The dynamic simulator scenarios satisfied the construction guidelines in NUREG-1021, Appendix D, and the sequence and timing of the events were preplanned to challenge the senior operators to prioritize their action The inspectors determined that the biennial written examinations administered March-April 1998 adequately sampled the training provided in the previous 2-year requalification training cycle and tested at the appropriate level of comprehension. An appropriate number of questions was taken from subjects not covered in that training period. The ,

questions were operationally oriented and realisti j The inspectors reviewed test items for Weeks 3 and 4 of the examinations and found minimal reuse of items. The inspectors discussed examinaticn security with training representatives and determined that adequate precautions had been taken to preclude unplanned disclosure of test items. Security aspects of the examination process were conducted in accordance with Procedure 98-02-02," Examination Security." Examinees having knowledge of test items were properly sequestered from those examinees who had not seen the test items on examination day, Conclusions The inspectors determined that all portions of the examination were well constructed, properly focused, and appropriately challenging. The licensee had developed and implemented appropriate examination security measures.

k

n

]

k,

-6-05.2 Recualification Examination Administration Inspection Scooe (71001)

The inspectors observed the administration of the annual operating examinations to i determine the evaluators' abilities to administer an examination and assess adequate I performance through measurable criteria. The inspectors also reviewed analyses and remediation documentation generated in response to operator performance on the ,

previous biennial written examination l

~ Observations and Findinas The licensee evaluators rated the examinees' competencies in accordance with NUREG-1021 by comparing actual performance during the scenarios against expected performance. The post-examination critiques by the evaluators were effective in identifying strengths and weaknesses of the individuals and crews and consistent with the performance observed by the inspectors. There was strong operations management participation in the evaluations. Evaluators were assigned duties so that they were not invoked with training the crew being evaluated. The examiner threshold for generating constructive comments was low and the expected performance standards were very hig The evaluators were thorough in their assessments of examinee performance and their cornments were of sufficient detail to assist in identifying futuro training improvement There were no crew or individual failures of the scenarios during this inspectio The inspectors observed the licensee evaluators and the requalification examinees during conduct of system-oriented job performance measures related to job tasks within the scope of their potential duties. These included equipment operator tasks outside the control room and performance of some of the teks in th( control room and in the control-room simulator in the dynamic mode. Communications between the examinees and the evaluators were observed to be good. The inspectors noted that the facility evaluators thoroughly reviewed the results of the individual walkthroughs and that none of the examinees failed the job performance measure portion of the examination during this inspectio Although there were no failures on the operating examinations, the evaluators analyzed all performances for weaknesses and generated appropriate remediation plans, which were implemented prior to the affected individuals retuming to license dut l The inspectors reviewed performance results on several previous biennial written examinations. The guidelines of NUREG 1021 were followed in all aspects and the )'

ltensee adhered to their administrative requirements. Although only one individual failed, the evaluators completed post-examination analyses and an assessments for each examination and developed suitable remediation plans for several individuals who exhibited weaknesse :

'

i e

i (

-

,

,

-7- Conclusions The licensee's evaluators demonstrated high performance expectations for operators and sustained high levels of competence in examination administration and operator performance assessment. Their thresheid for generating constructive comments was lo Operations' management participation in the evalt.ations was a strengt .3 Review of Trainina Feedback System Inspection Scope (71001)

The inspectors reviewed the methods and effectiveness of the licensed operators'

requalification training program feedback syste Observations and Findinas The inspectors determined that various avenues were available to the employees to provide input related to written materials, simulator scenarios, job performance measures, procedures, and job tasks. Plant operating events, as well as, industry events were reviewed for possible feedback material by the licensee. A review of actual feedback documentation indicated that feedback comments were appropriately dispositione Changes were noted in lesson plans and examination material. Interviews with selected licensed operators indicated that the feedback program was thorough and effective in addressing concerns. A review, by the inspectors, of the plant operating history for the last 2 years did not identify any operator-caused events that required a change in the training program. However, the licensee revised and/or developed training in anticipation of potential events or planned activities. Two examples were special training developed in support of suppression testing related to identifying fuel element leaks and training in contingency actions in the event of a failure in a leaking reactor recirculation flow control valv Conclusions i The licensee continued to implement an effective feedback process as a key element to their overall systems approach to trainin .4 Review of Remedial Trainina Proaram Inspection Scope (71001)

l l

'

The inspectors reviewed the licensed operator remedial training program and operator and crew remediations, which occurred during 1998 and 1999, b Observations and Findinas The inspectors reviewed all the remediation records generated since January 1998. Remediation plans had been implemented for all examination failures. In addition, several of the remediations involved weaknesses observed during examinations,

,

_

.

.

8-which did not result in failures. In each instance, suitable remediation plans were developed, examination failures or observed weaknesses were promptly and aggressively remediated, and re-examinations were administered prior to the licensees returning to licensed duty. Students were assigned additionalinstructor contact time and/or simulator practice time, as appropriate. The inspectors noted no examples of repeated examination failure The inspectors concluded from interviews with operators that the remediation process was highly respected and effectiv l Conclusions The licensee had implemented a formal and effective remedial training progra Observed weaknesses, as well as, examination failures were aggressively remediated and there were no repeated failure .5 Conformance With Operator License Conditions Inspection Scope (71001) .

l The inspectors reviewed conformance of the facility and individual licensees with the l requirements of 10 CFR Part 5 Observations and Findinas The inspectors observed that licenses were maintained in accordance with administratNo requirements. Conditions, which affected operators' licensed duties, were promptly recorded and notifications made in a timely manner. Individuals with inactive licenses were clearly identified and the required action plans for reactivation of the licenses were on file. These plans were reviewed and appeared to appropriately address the steps necessary, in each case, to reactivate the license Conclusions The inspectors determined that the facility adequately tracked and maintained the conditions of their individuallicensed operators in accordance with 10 CFR Part 5 V. Manaaement Meetinas X1 Exit Meeting Summary The examiners presented the inspection results to members of the licensee management at the conclusion of the inspection on September 3,1999. The licensee acknowledged the findings presente The licensee did not identify, as proprietary, any information or materials examined during the inspectio I .

ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee B. Azzarello, Manager, Training and Emergency Preparedness L. Ballard, Supervisor, Quality C. Bush, Superintendent, Operations M. Cantrell, Supervisor, Operations Training J. Clark, Operations Shift Superintendent D. Dawson, Lead Instructor, Operations Training D. Deitzel, Senior Operations Instructor J. Frahck, Senior Operations instructor B. Heikes, Supervisor, Simulator Support G. Huston, Operations Shift Superintendent R. King, Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance D. Looney, Senior Operations instructor R. Mayeux, Control Room Supervisor D. Mims, General Manager D. Myers, Senior Licensing Specialist W. Trudell, Corrective Action and Assessment Manager J. Waid, Senior Oversight Specialist, Arkansas Nuclear One M. Wyatt, Manager, Planning and Scheduling / Outage NRC N. Garrett, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED 71007 Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Procedures Reviewed Standing Order 41," Licensed Operator Restrictions," Revision 54 TPP 7-011. " Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program," Revision 12 98-02 02," Examination Security," effective August 23,1999 Remediation Records

>

15 remediation plans dated between March 19,1998 and August 5,1999 l

)

\ - 1

F

'

.'

a

.

.

i-2-

- 1998 Bienniai Written Examinations Rol-98-004 Revision 0 SROI-98-004, Revision 0 ROl-98-003, Revision 0 SROI-90-003, Revision 0 Spenarios RBS-1-SIM SMS-00801.00, validated August 3,1999 RBo-1-SIM-SMS-00806.01, validated August 4,1999

. RBS-1-SIM SMS-00803.01, validated August 5,1999 RBS-1 SIM-SMS-00804.00, validated August 5,1999 RBS-1-SIM-SMS-00805.00, validated August 11,1999 RBS-1-SIM-SMS-00808.01, validated August 10,1999 Job Performance Measures JPM-200-03, Revision 5 JPM-200-04; Revision 6 JPM-301-01, Revision 4 JPM-256-03, Revision 3 JPM-507-01, Revision 1 JPM-800-33, Revision 0 JPM-204-04, Revision 1 JPM-203-05, Revision 2 JPM 109-04, Revision 2

- JPM-053-06, Revision !

Operations Trainino Evaluations Reoorts January-February 1998, submitted March 25,1998 February-April 1998, reviewed May 4,1998 April-May 1998, submitted August 17,1998 June-July 1998, submitted September 17,1998 August September 1998, submitted October 19,1998 September-October 1998, submitted November 30,1998 October-December 1998, reviewed January 13,1999

' January-March 1999, reviewed April 7,1999 April-June, prepared July 27,1999 Ju!y August 1999, reviewed August 20,1999 Other Documents Reviewed i

L Lesson Plan RBS-1-LP-LOR-00505.00," Industry Events / Operating Experience"

! . Selected Personnel License Files Licensed Operator Requalification Training Biennial Training Matrix Sample Plan 1998/1999 l

r Licensed Operaior Requalification Training Biennial Training Matrix Sample Plan 1996/1997

!

Biennial Requalification Training Program, January 1999-December 2000, Revision 2 b