IR 05000289/1984032

Forwards Exam Rept 50-289/84-32 of Exam Administered During Wks of 841022 & 1112 & Exam Rept 50-289/84-09.Consideration for Board Notification Recommended

ML20128L641
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/25/1985
From:	Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20127D730	List: IR 05000289/1984032 ML20127D725
References
NUDOCS 8505310404
Download: ML20128L641 (1)

Text

• ' UNITE] STATES

%

., g#p* *U .h NUCLEAR REIULATORY COMMISSION

$ ) e(f Sf nEci:N I

$31 PACK AVENUE KING OF PRUS$l A. PENNSYLV ANI A 19406

,

f

• ~'

mua Docket No. 50-289 MEMORANDUM FOR: Hugh L. Thompson, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR FROM: Richard W. Starostecki, Director, Division of Reactor Projects, Region I SUBJECT: POTENTIAL BOARD NOTIFICATION - TMI-1 RESTART HEARING Enclosed is a copy (Enclosure 1) of Examination Report 50-289/84-32 (OL)

regarding Operator Licensing examinations conducted at the B&W Simulator facility the week of October 22, 1984, and at the TMI-1 facility the week of November 12, 198 I recommend that it be considered for Board notificatio The report indicates that, in general, the candidates were well prepared for the written and operational examination Some weaknesses in understanding normal plant equipment responses were noted and were attributed to the extended period of plant shutdown (Sh years). Six candidates were examined; one Senior Reactor Operator license and four Reactor Operator licenses were issue In addition, the Enclosure 2 copy of Inspection Report 50-289/84-09, an earlier Examination Report, is also provided since it had not previously been provide Ir. this regard, the Region I staff, in general, had earlier determined that Examination Reports contained insufficient information to justify Board notification. However, in light of the increased sensitivity of the training issue, we have reconsidered our position and recommend the enclosed reports be provided to the Commission, the Boards, and all parties. We have also modified our procedures, adding the TMI-1 Hearing Service List to normal distribution for Examination Report , ,,

. ,

ftRichard f. Starostecki, 4 Director Division of Reactor Projects Region I Enc-lo sure s : Examination Report 50-289/84-32 (OL)

dated February 4, 1985 Examination Report 50-289/84-09 (OL)

dated May 6, 1984 cc w/encis:

G. Lainas, NRR J. Stolz, NRR J. Thoma, NRR V. Goldberg, OLD B505310404 850514 PDR ADOCK 05000209 G PDR

/ 'o,

• , UNITED STATES

P" o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

tm -

4-f REnlON I 631 PA%K AVENUE

%, ' ~ d ,e KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 194o6

.....

Docket No. 50-289 4 D3 GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. H. D. Hukill Vice President and Director of TMI-1 P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-289/84-32 (OL)

This transmits the Examination Report of Operator Licensing Examinations conducted by USNRC Region I at the B&W Simulator Facility the week of October 22, 1984 and at the TMI-1 Facility the week of November 12, 1984. At the exit interview held on November 16, 1984, the preliminary results of these examin-ations were discusse No reply to this letter is require Your cooperation in this matter is appreciate

Sincerely, try ter, Chief Projects Branch No. 1 Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

Examination Report No. 50-289/84-32 (OL) w/ attachments

REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT

EXAMINATION REPORT N /84-32 FACILITY 00CKET NO. 50-289 FACILITY LICENSE NO. OPR-50 LICENSEE: GPU Nuclear Corporation P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 FACILITY: TMI-1 EXAMINATION DATES: October 22-24, 1984 November 12-16, 1984 CHIEF EXAMINER: d'

Noel Dudley

'

t 4 '?f, / 2f- 8 8 Date Reactor Engine xamine[r)

REVIEWED BY:

Chief, Projects Section 1C

/!2.3 k Da'te APPROVED BY: I l 5 Ch'ief, Projht Branch N Da'te I SUMMARY:

Six candidates were examined and one SRO and four R0 licenses were issued. Candidates were well prepared for the written and operatir al examinations. Generic weaknesses in understanding normal pi equipment responses are believed to result from the extended perioc (Sis years) of plant shutdow y5(ft.cp W 'f] [~ ~ ~

~ . .-

.-

.

'

.

_ REPORT DETAILS TYPE OF EXAMS: Initial Replacement X Requalification EXAM RESULTS:

l R0 Pass / Fail l SRO l Inst. Cert l Fuel Handler l l l Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail l l 1 1 I I l- l l l l 1 l Written Exam l 5/0 l / l / I / l l l l l l l l l l 1 I I 10ral Exam l 5/0 I / I / I / I I I I I I I l- 1 I I I I ISimulator Examl 4/1 l 1/0 l / l / l 1 l l l 1 l I I I I I I l0verall l 4/1 1 1/0 l / l / l -

1 I I I I I I I l I I I CHIEF EXAMINER AT SITE: N. Dudley OTHER EXAMINERS: M. King, EG&G PERSONS EXAMINED W. Atherholt D. May G. Herneisey -

D. Gorse J. Boltz W. McSorley

. - . .

- - , - - - -

.

_1.- Summary of generic strengths or deficiencies noted:on oral exams:

.

, _

.-

Reactor operators relied on the Shift Supervisor or a Procedure Reader to provide all direction for console manipulations after immediate emergency actions were taken during the simulator portion of the examinatio Candidates during the oral portion of the examination had difficulty describing how some equipment would actual respond during normal power operation . Summary of generic strengths or deficiencies noted from grading of written exams:

Areas of the written examination where a majority of candidates received less than 70% credit included:

• Whether an LPI low flow alarm would be present if primary pressure was 1400 psig and decreasin *The reason for RCP elevation in relation to the rest of the primary syste *The required action on loss of all offsite power if only one diesel generator start . Personnel Present at Exit Interview:

NRC Personnel *

N. Dudley Facility personnel M. Ross Summary of NRC Comments made at exit interview:

The-names of the candidates who were definite passes on the simp]ator and oral portions of the examination were presente ed a l

8 4 NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION Y I

1. REZION I I IG1 PACK AVENUE l k..... KING CF PatsSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406

-

" Docket No. 50-289 hyp( 6 1984

!

.

GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. H. D. Hukill  !

Vice President and Director of TMI-l P. O. Box 480 Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: EXAMINATION REPORT NO. 50-289/84-09 This transmits the Examination Report of Operator Licensing Examinations conducteo by USNRC Region I at the Three Mile Island Unit 1 Facility the week of March 5, 1984. At the exit interview held with you and Messr M. Ross, and B. Leonard of your staff on March 8, 1984, the preliminary results of these examinations were discusse In accorcance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), copies of this letter and the enclosure will be made public unless you notify this office within 10 days of the date of this letter of your intent to request withholdin Such notification may be made to the Supervisor, Files, Mail and Records, NRC Region I (215-337-5223),'and must be followed by a written application consistent with 2.790(b)(1).

No reply to this letter is requi e Your cooperation in this matter is appreciate f & = -

f Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project anc Resident Programs

Enclosure:

Examination Report No. 50-289/84-09

'~

dQE.L d.c2r--

REGION I OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT EXAMINATION REPORT N /84-09 FACILITY DOCKET NO. 50-289 FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-50 LICENSEE: GPU Nuclear Corporation ATTN: Mr. H. D.~Hukil1 Vice President and Director of TMI-l P. O. Box 480 '.

Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 FACILITY: TMI-I DATES: March 6-8, 1984 CHIEF EXAMINER: kk *- z ' 3'7#'If N. Dudley Date APPROVED BY:

Chief, Project 5ection 10

$Pb!b Date

"

SUMMARY: Four SRO and three Instructor Certification exams were administered during the week of March 6, 1984 Three SRO candidates and one Instructor Certification candidate passed. One SRO candidate and two Instructor Certification candidates faile & (6f~2 [GY3 Y

l

.

.

. <; % > 2

~ . ./

y & {-j 'f:s

.

, ,

(y

, 4 REPORT DETAILS TYPE OF EXAMS: Initial Replacement X Requalification EXAM RESULTS:

l .R0 l SRO Inst. Cert l

l Pass / Fail Pass / Fail l Fuel Handler l l l Pass / Fail l Pass / Fail l 1 1 I I l I I .I I

'l Written Exam l / l 4/0 1 1/2 l

l / l l 1 I I I l l I I I I loral Exam l /- l 4/0 l 2/1 /

I l

l- 1 I l l

I I I I I I I i Isimulator Examl / l 3/1 l / l /

l l l l l l i i 1 l l 1 10verall l / l 3/1 l 1/2

I / l l l 1 l l I l I I I I i CHIEF EXAMINER AT SITE: N. Dudley OTHER EXAVINERS: B. Gere J. Huenefelc PERSONS EXAV'NED SRO McSorley, William Maag, Ronald Hass, David Wynne, Michael INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATIONS Feecerick, Ecward Wilt, Daryl Kacinko, : rank , _____.._ - - ___ , . , _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . _ . .

- _

- .

_-

-

.

1. Summary of generic strengths or deficiencies noted on oral exams:

None

.

2. Summary of generic strengths or deficiencies noted from grading of written exams:

Some instructor certification candidates were weak in the area of administrative procedures, conditions and limitation . .

4 _ >

e-3. Comments on availability-and candidate familiarization with plant reference material:

SRO candidates were very familiar with reference material available .in the main control roo i

Com ents on availasility and cancidate familiarization wit.* plant cesign, cro:ecure, T. 5. cnanges anc LERs:

N0ne

-

• w k

'. .

-

\

'

>: , Comments on interface effectiveness with plant training staff and plant

- operations staff during exam period:

Plant operations staff ensured ready access to the facility and expedited issuing dostmetr . Improvements noted in training programs as a result of prior operator licensing examinations / suggestions, ete:

None

'

,.-

t i

_. ,_.,,, , . _ . , ,. _ . . ._.,_y _ _ , _ . , , _,, . . . , , , _ , , , ,,, ,. , , . . , _ __ . . . _.. , .,

m.-. . ., ,,y...,.. __ - . _ , _ _ . ,-r_,__y ..__,y_.,_..,,

"

. .

-

4 . w - - - *

s Personnel Present at Exit Meeting:

NRC Personnel N. Dudley NRC Contractor Personnel

'J. Huenefeld Facility Personnel H. Hukill M. Ross B. Leonard Summary of NRC Comments mace at exit interview: '

S'x of the seven candicates were evaluatec as 02 finite passes on :ne oral exam' natio Two candidates per#cemed ext emely we.ll on :ne oral examination.

<-

D

<- -wwe,_ -g-wvy-+m-,w-wyw-----v.---m,--=m,,--%w--.eevem--w-w-----no-,-,---,-+-+-m-- em, a+ - ~ - - *-w-,.<

.. - ,

..

y A

w' > Summary of facility comments and commitments made at exit interview:

The written examination was difficul . CHANGES MADE TO WRITTEN EXAM Ouestien N Change Reason 7.10b Modify answer Answer key should require the information contained in Steo 12 of ATP 1210-5 rather than the recommendati ons for subsequent Emergency Di e: tor actions, Mocify re'e ence 75 or 10 CFR 50.72 or 73 mayse used as basis fo*

answering questie .12 Modify answer Operations supervisor senecules staff activities upon notification from the GM5 :ocedinator.

!

l l

l l

I I

, . -

,

g i

,

Attachment:

Written Examination (s) and Answer Key (s) (SRO/RO)

.

i l

L