ML020810756

Operator Licensing Workshop Meeting Summary

ML020810756
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde, Wolf Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Arkansas Nuclear, Columbia, River Bend, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Waterford, South Texas, San Onofre, Comanche Peak, Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	03/19/2002
From:	Gody A Operations Branch IV
To:
References
Download: ML020810756 (62)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064 MAR 19 2002 Name of Licensee:

Name of Facility:

Docket:

SUBJECT:

OP Entergy Operations, Inc.

Energy Northwest Nebraska Public Power District TXU Generation Company LP Union Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company Omaha Public Power District Arizona Public Service Company Southern California Edison Company STP Nuclear Operating Company Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Arkansas Nuclear One Columbia Generating Station Cooper Nuclear Station Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 Callaway Plant Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Fort Calhoun Station Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 River Bend Station San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station, Units 2 and 3 South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Wolf Creek Generating Station 50-313; 50-368; 50-397; 50-298; 50-445; 50-446; 50-483; 50-275; 50-323; 50-285; 50-416; 50-528; 50-529; 50-530; 50-458; 50-361; 50-362; 50-498; 50-499; 50-382; 50-482

'ERATOR LICENSING WORKSHOP MEETING

Dear Sirs:

This letter provides a meeting summary for the NRC sponsored Public Workshop conducted in Arlington, Texas, on March 13, 2002, at the Texas Health Resource Pavilion Auditorium. The workshop was open to public, participation and involved discussions between Region IV utility representatives, the public, and the NRC staff.

Enclosed is the workshop summary, including presentation handouts and a list of attendees.

We found the workshop to be a valuable opportunity for the exchange of ideas and concerns

All Region IV Licensees between the NRC staff and Region IV licensee representatives concerning the Operator Licensing Program policies and recent revisions.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http:llwww.nrc.qov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely, Anthony T. Gody, Chi Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosures:

1. March 13, 2002, Public Workshoo5 Agenda

2. List of Public Meeting Attendees

3. Presentation Handouts cc w/enclosures:

Craig G. Anderson, Vice President, Operations Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc.

1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, Arkansas 72801-0967 Sherrie Cotton, Training Manager Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc.

1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, AR 72801 Executive Vice President

& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995 All Region IV Licensees Vice President Operations Support Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 31995 Jackson, Mississippi 39286-1995 Manager, Washington Nuclear Operations ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Rockville, Maryland 20852 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse 100 West Main Street Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3502 Bernard Bevill Radiation Control Team Leader Division of Radiation Control and Emergency Management Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street, Mail Slot 30 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867 Mike Schoppman Framatome ANP, Inc.

Suite 705 1911 North Fort Myer Drive Rosslyn, Virginia 22209 J. V. Parrish Chief Executive Officer Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968; MD 1023 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 John Hanson, Manager Nuclear Training Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968, MD-1022 Richland, WA 99352-0968 All Region IV Licensees Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council P.O. Box 43172 Olympia, Washington 98504-3172 Rodney L. Webring (Mail Drop PE08)

Vice President, Operations Support/PlO Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Greg 0. Smith (Mail Drop 927M)

Vice President, Generation Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 D. W. Coleman (Mail Drop PE20)

Manager, Regulatory Affairs Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Albert E. Mouncer (Mail Drop 1396)

General Counsel Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Paul Inserra (Mail Drop PE20)

Manager, Licensing Energy Northwest P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 Thomas C. Poindexter, Esq.

Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 Bob Nichols State Liaison Officer Executive Policy Division Office of the Governor P.O. Box 43113 Olympia, Washington 98504-3113 All Region IV Licensees Lynn Albin Washington State Department of Health P.O. Box 47827 Olympia, WA 98504-7827 David L. Wilson, Vice President of Nuclear Energy Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 Dave Cook, Manager Nuclear Training Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 Brownville, NE 68321 G. R. Horn, Senior Vice President of Nuclear and Enterprise Effectiveness Nebraska Public Power District 1414 15th Street Columbus, Nebraska 68601 John R. McPhail, General Counsel Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499 D. F. Kunsemiller, Risk and Regulatory Affairs Manager Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 Dr. William D. Leech Manager - Nuclear MidAmerican Energy 907 Walnut Street P.O. Box 657 Des Moines, Iowa 50303-0657 Ron Stoddard Lincoln Electric System 1040 0 Street P.O. Box 80869 Lincoln, Nebraska 68501-0869 All Region IV Licensees Michael J. Linder, Director Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922 Chairman Nemaha County Board of Commissioners Nemaha County Courthouse 1824 N Street Auburn, Nebraska 68305 Sue Semerena, Section Administrator Nebraska Health and Human Services System Division of Public Health Assurance Consumer Services Section 301 Centennial Mall, South P.O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007 Ronald A. Kucera, Deputy Director for Public Policy Department of Natural Resources 205 Jefferson Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Jerry Uhlmann, Director State Emergency Management Agency P.O. Box 116 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Vick L. Cooper, Chief Radiation Control Program, RCP Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Air and Radiation 1000 SW Jackson, Suite 310 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1366 Daniel K. McGhee Bureau of Radiological Health Iowa Department of Public Health 401 SW 7th Street, Suite D Des Moines, Iowa 50309 All Region IV Licensees C. L. Terry, Senior Vice President

& Principal Nuclear Officer TXU Generation Management Company LCC, Managing General Partner for TXU Generation Company LP ATTN: Regulatory Affairs Department P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Elizabeth Meaders, Manager Nuclear Training TXU Generation Company LP P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, TX 76043-1147 Roger D. Walker Regulatory Affairs Manager TXU Generation Company LP P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 George L. Edgar, Esq.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1800 M. Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 G. R. Bynog, Program Manager/

Chief Inspector Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation Boiler Division P.O. Box 12157, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 County Judge P.O. Box 851 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control Texas Department of Health 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756-3189 John L. Howard, Director Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Office of the Governor P.O. Box 12428 Austin, Texas 78711-3189 All Region IV Licensees Garry L. Randolph, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Union Electric Company P.O. Box 620 Fulton, Missouri 65251 Jim Gloe, Training Superintendent Union Electric Company P.O. Box 620 Fulton, MO 65251 Professional Nuclear Consulting, Inc.

19041 Raines Drive Derwood, Maryland 20855 John O'Neill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 Mark A. Reidmeyer, Regional Regulatory Affairs Supervisor Regulatory Affairs AmerenUE P.O. Box 620 Fulton, Missouri 65251 Manager - Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission 301 W. High P.O. Box 360 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 Otto L. Maynard, President and Chief Executive Officer Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Dan I. Bolef, President Kay Drey, Representative Board of Directors Coalition for the Environment 6267 Delmar Boulevard University City, Missouri 63130 All Region IV Licensees Lee Fritz, Presiding Commissioner Callaway County Courthouse 10 East Fifth Street Fulton, Missouri 65251 J. V. Laux, Manager Quality Assurance AmerenUE P.O. Box 620 Fulton, Missouri 65251 Gary McNutt, Director Section for Environmental Public Health P.O. Box 570 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0570 John D. Blosser, Manager Regulatory Affairs AmerenUE P.O. Box 620 Fulton, Missouri 65251 Gregory M. Rueger, Senior Vice President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Power Plant P.O. Box 3 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Tim King, Manager Learning Services Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Power Plant P.O. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 David H. Oatley, Vice President Diablo Canyon Operations and Plant Manager Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Box 56 Avila Beach, California 93424 Lawrence F. Womack, Vice President, Power Generation & Nuclear Services Diablo Canyon Power Plant P.O. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 All Region IV Licensees Dr. Richard Ferguson Energy Chair Sierra Club California 1100 1lth Street, Suite 311 Sacramento, California 95814 Nancy Culver San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace P.O. Box 164 Pismo Beach, California 93448 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 370 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Truman Burns\\Mr. Robert Kinosian California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4102 San Francisco, California 94102 Robert R. Wellington, Esq.

Legal Counsel Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee 857 Cass Street, Suite D Monterey, California 93940 Ed Bailey, Radiation Control Program Director Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services P.O. Box 942732 (MS 178)

Sacramento, California 94234-7320 Steve Hsu Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento, California 94327-7320 Christopher J. Warner, Esq.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 All Region IV Licensees City Editor The Tribune 3825 South Higuera Street P.O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 Robert A. Laurie, Commissioner California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street (MS 31)

Sacramento, CA 95814 R. T. Ridenoure Division Manager - Nuclear Operations Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.

P.O. Box 550 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0550 Rick Wescott, Training Manager Omaha Public Power District P.O. Box 550 Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0399 Mark T. Frans, Manager Nuclear Licensing Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.

P.O. Box 550 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0550 James W. Chase, Division Manager Nuclear Assessments Fort Calhoun Station P.O. Box 550 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0550 David J. Bannister, Manager - Fort Calhoun Station Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station FC-1-1 Plant P.O. Box 550 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska 68023-0550 James R. Curtiss Winston & Strawn 1400 L. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-3502 All Region IV Licensees Chairman Washington County Board of Supervisors Washington County Courthouse P.O. Box 466 Blair, Nebraska 68008 William A. Eaton, Vice President Operations - Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Mike Shelly, Director Nuclear Training - Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, MS 39150 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway P.O. Box 651 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Sam Mabry, Director Division of Solid Waste Management Mississippi Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209 President, District 1 Claiborne County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 339 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 General Manager Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 The Honorable Richard leyoub Attorney General Department of Justice State of Louisiana P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 All Region IV Licensees Office of the Governor State of Mississippi Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Mike Moore, Attorney General Frank Spencer, Asst. Attorney General State of Mississippi P.O. Box 22947 Jackson, Mississippi 39225 Dr. F. E. Thompson, Jr.

State Health Officer State Board of Health P.O. Box 1700 Jackson, Mississippi 39215 Robert W. Goff, Program Director Division of Radiological Health Mississippi Dept. of Health P.O. Box 1700 Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1700 Director, Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 Gregg R. Overbeck, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 Mike Shea, Director Nuclear Training Arizona Public Service Company Mail Station 6156 P.O. Box 52034 Phoenix, AZ 85072 Steve Olea Arizona Corporation Commission 1200 W. Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 All Region IV Licensees Douglas K. Porter, Senior Counsel Southern California Edison Company Law Department, Generation Resources P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Chairman Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Aubrey V. Godwin, Director Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency 4814 South 40 Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Craig K. Seaman, Director Regulatory Affairs/Nuclear Assurance Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Mail Station 7636 P.O. Box 52034 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 Hector R. Puente Vice President, Power Generation El Paso Electric Company 2702 N. Third Street, Suite 3040 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Terry Bassham, Esq.

General Counsel El Paso Electric Company 123 W. Mills El Paso, Texas 79901 John W. Schumann Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Southern California Public Power Authority P.O. Box 51111, Room 1255-C Los Angeles, California 90051-0100 David Summers Public Service Company of New Mexico 414 Silver SW, #1206 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 All Region IV Licensees Jarlath Curran Southern California Edison Company 5000 Pacific Coast Hwy. Bldg. DIN San Clemente, California 92672 Robert Henry Salt River Project 6504 East Thomas Road Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 Paul D. Hinnenkamp, Vice President - Operations River Bend Station Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, Louisiana 70775 Bob Azzarello, Manager Training and EP Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box 220 St. Francisville, LA 70775 Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20037 Jerry Delezinski, Superintendent Quality & Compliance Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638-9799 Sacramento County Board of Supervisors 700 H. Street, Suite 2450 Sacramento, California 95814 Dana Appling, General Counsel Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S. Street P.O. Box 15830 Sacramento, California 95852-1830 All Region IV Licensees Cindy Buchanan, Site Document Control Supervisor Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station 14440 Twin Cities Road Herald, California 95638-9799 Harold B. Ray, Executive Vice President Southern California Edison Co.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, California 92674-0128 Rob Sandstrom, Manager Nuclear Training Southern California Edison Co.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 E-50A Nuclear Training Division San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 Chairman, Board of Supervisors County of San Diego 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 San Diego, California 92101 Gary L. Nolff Power Projects/Contracts Manager Riverside Public Utilities 2911 Adams Street Riverside, California 92504 Eileen M. Teichert, Esq.

Supervising Deputy City Attorney City of Riverside 3900 Main Street Riverside, California 92522 R. W. Krieger, Vice President Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, California 92674-0128 All Region IV Licensees David Spath, Chief Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento, California 94234-7320 Michael R. Olson San Onofre Liaison San Diego Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112-4150 Mayor City of San Clemente 100 Avenida Presidio San Clemente, California 92672 Dwight E. Nunn, Vice President Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, California 92674-0128 William T. Cottle, President and Chief Executive Officer STP Nuclear Operating Company P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 Russ Lovell, Manager Nuclear Training STP Nuclear Operating Company P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, TX 77483 J. J. Sheppard, Vice President Engineering & Technical Services STP Nuclear Operating Company P.O. Box 289 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 S. M. Head, Manager, Licensing Nuclear Quality & Licensing Department STP Nuclear Operating Company P.O. Box 289, Mail Code: N5014 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 All Region IV Licensees A. Ramirez/C. M. Canady City of Austin Electric Utility Department 721 Barton Springs Road Austin, Texas 78704 M. T. Hardt/W. C. Gunst City Public Service Board P.O. Box 1771 San Antonio, Texas 78296 D. G. Tees/R. L. Balcom Houston Lighting & Power Company P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77251 Jon C. Wood Matthews & Branscomb 112 E. Pecan, Suite 1100 San Antonio, Texas 78205 A. H. Gutterman, Esq.

Morgan Lewis 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 C. A. Johnson/R. P. Powers AEP - Central Power and Light Company P.O. Box 289, Mail Code: N5022 Wadsworth, Texas 77483 INPO Records Center 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339-5957 Bureau of Radiation Control State of Texas 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756 Jim Calloway Public Utility Commission William B. Travis Building P.O. Box 13326 1701 North Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701-3326 All Region IV Licensees Judge, Matagorda County Matagorda County Courthouse 1700 Seventh Street Bay City, Texas 77414 Joseph E. Venable Vice President Operations Waterford 3 Entergy Operations, Inc.

17265 River Road Killona, Louisiana 70066-0751 Tom Tankersley, Training Manager Entergy Operations, Inc.

P.O. Box B Killona, LA 70066 General Manager, Plant Operations Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, Inc.

17265 River Road Killona, Louisiana 70066-0751 Manager - Licensing Manager Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, Inc.

17265 River Road Killona, Louisiana 70066-0751 Chairman Louisiana Public Service Commission P.O. Box 91154 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-9154 Director, Nuclear Safety &

Regulatory Affairs Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, Inc.

17265 River Road Killona, Louisiana 70066-0751 Michael E. Henry, Administrator and State Liaison Officer Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 82135 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135 All Region IV Licensees Parish President St. Charles Parish P.O. Box 302 Hahnville, Louisiana 70057 Mike Westman, Director Nuclear Training Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411 Burlington, KS 66839 Vice President Operations Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.

P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Jay Silberg, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Supervisor Licensing Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.

P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Chief Engineer Utilities Division Kansas Corporation Commission 1500 SW Arrowhead Rd.

Topeka, Kansas 66604-4027 Office of the Governor State of Kansas Topeka, Kansas 66612 Attorney General Judicial Center 301 S.W. 10th 2nd Floor Topeka, Kansas 66612-1597 County Clerk Coffey County Courthouse 110 South 6th Street Burlington, Kansas 66839-1798 All Region IV Licensees

-21 Frank Moussa Division of Emergency Preparedness 2800 SW Topeka Blvd Topeka, Kansas 66611-1287

Arizona Public Service Company

-4 Electronic distribution from ADAMS by RIV:

Regional Administrator (EWM)

DRP Director (KEB)

DRS Director (ATH)

Senior Resident Inspector (JHM2)

Branch Chief, DRP/D (LJS)

Senior Project Engineer, DRP/D (RVA)

Staff Chief, DRP/TSS (PHH)

RITS Coordinator (NBH)

ENCLOSURE I Region IV Counterpart Workshop March 13, 2002 Location:

601 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011

Contact:

Anthony T. Gody, Chief - Region IV Operations Branch (817) 860-8159 Agenda: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 8:00 - 8:15 Opening Remarks Pat G*

8:15 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:15 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 10:00 10:00 - 11:00 11:30 - 12:30 12:30 - 1:45 1:45 - 2:00 2:00 - 2:45 2:45 - 3:00 3:00 - 4:00 4:00 - 4:30 Simulator Rule Requalification Inspections Break Examination Schedule for CY' 2002 and 2003 Current Events in Operator Licensing Lunch NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement I Break NUREG-1021 (Continued)

Break Requalification Significance Determination Process Questions and Answers and Closing Remarks

,ynn Tony Gody Steve McCrory Tony Gody Tony Gody David Trimble John Munro John Munro Dick Eckenrode Tony Gody (Panel)

ENCLOSURE 2 Attendees at March 13, 2002, Public Workshop Name Title Organization Howard Bundy Sr. Operations Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tom Stetka Sr. Operations Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tony Gody Chief, RIV Operations Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dave Trimble Chief, OL & Human Performance, NRR Nuclear Regulatory Commission John Munro MS, OL & Human Performance, NRR Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tom McKernon Sr. Operations Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paul Gage Sr. Operations Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mike Murphy Sr. Operations Engineer Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rob Slough TXU Generation Management Co.

Comanche Peak Michael K. Rasch Sr. Ops. Instructor Grand Gulf Stephen Humphries Operations Coordinator Grand Gulf Mike Wagner Supervisor, Operations Training River Bend Station Tom McIntyre Supervisor, Operations Training Grand Gulf Jerry Giles Supervisor, Operations Training ANO, Unit 1 Tom Mayfield Supervisor, Operations Training ANO, Unit 2 David Weaver Supervisor, Operations & Technical Trng Fort Calhoun Station Tony Palmer Superintendent, Operations Training Wolf Creek Jim Calvert Operations Training Manager South Texas Project Mike DeFrees Operations Training Supervisor South Texas Project Kurt Rauch Operations Training Manager San Onofre Alan Hagemeyer Manager, Operations Licensing & Simulator San Onofre Stan Putthuff Operator Training Callaway Plant Bob Barton Shift Supervisor, Operations Training Callaway Plant Steve Hutchinsen IL Training Columbia Generating Station Ron Hayden Requal Operations Training Columbia Generating Station David Burns Operations Training Supervisor Diablo Canyon

Mark Schaible Operations Training Supervisor Cooper Nuclear Station Victor Collins Ops Training Supervisor - Requal Waterford 3 John Wood Section Leader, Continuing Training Palo Verde Robert Fletcher Operations Training Supervisor Waterford 3 Ed Lessman Operations Training, SRO and Initial Comanche Peak D. W. McGaughey Supervisor, Operations Training Comanche Peak Jack Blackwell Senior Instructor - Operations Training Diablo Canyon Joe Haynes Supvervisor, Ops & Eng Training Diablo Canyon Fred Riedel Operations Training Dept. Leader Palo Verde

Licensed Operator Requalification Program Inspection NRC Inspection Manual Procedure 71111.11 Biennial review Two regional specialists one week on-site about 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> every two-years examination review may warrant additional inspector week either on site or in Region IV office Quarterly review One resident inspector about 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> per quarter 2

Inspection Objectives Biennial Verify requalification program adequate to ensure safe plant operation.

Assess the facilities effectiveness in tailoring requalification program based on operational performance.

Assess the facilities effectiveness in ensuring licensed operators satisfy the conditions of their licenses as specified in 10 CFR 55.53.

Assess facility performance in a manner to facilitate a decision on the need for additional NRC inspections or NRC-conducted examinations.

3

Facility Operating History Inspectors look for patterns of inadequate operator performance Review Plant Issues Matrix and Plant Performance Review Review recent examination and inspection reports Review Licensee Event Reports Review Performance Indicators Review facility internal indicators such as event review reports, human performance evaluations, self assessments, or quality assurance audits Written and Operating Examinations Review sample of exam material (Appendix A checklist)

Plant changes incorporated into examination materials Incorporation of unit differences into examinations on multi-unit sites Requalification examination sample methodology review retraining 10 CFR 55.59(c)(4)(i) operator performance deficiencies industry operating experience

"* requalification subjects 10 CFR 55.59(c)(4)(ii) operating tests consistent with UFSAR (e.g., expected operator response times) incorporation of PRA insights Ensure written and operating examinations are operationally valid examinations consistent with sample plan and repeatability issues addressed in accordance with NUREG 1021 appropriate comprehension level performance standards clear, objective, and relevant written examinations satisfy 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 and operating examinations satisfy 10 CFR 55.45 6

5

Examination Administration Assess facilities ability to conduct written and operating examinations.

Ensure any errors in administration are detected and corrected for subsequent examinations.

Use of performance standards in grading both written and operating examinations.

Assess simulator performance and fidelity to the reference plant. Complete simulator fidelity report as needed.

Conduct interviews of various personnel involved in administering examinations to facilitate the identification and assessment of any differences.

Review examination administration measures to ensure a fair and equitable examination as required by 10 CFR 55.49 and verify that corrective actions for previous issues are implemented Compare operating crew performance in the control room to operating crew performance in the simulator.

Training Feedback Evaluate use of employee feedback from operators Interview responsible individual to ascertain knowledge of program Review sample of employee comments and facility response Interview facility personnel to determine level of satisfaction Review facility quality assurance oversight Remedial Training Review examples of operator and crew performance and determine if facility identified root causes and implemented corrective actions Determine if facility evaluates effectiveness of corrective actions Review remediation plans as appropriate Observe simulator and job performance measure instruction if possible Interview personnel regarding effectiveness of remedial training 8

License Conditions Maintenance of operator licenses determine if licenses are maintained active reactivated licenses current and required operator functions conducted "under direction"

"* requalification training schedule maintained Medical fitness program and records

"* ensure physical examinations are being performed and documented

"* special license conditions being met Examination Results Operator failure rates consistent with NUREG 1021 Evaluate significance of failures in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix I, "Operator Requalification and Human Performance Significance Determination Process" 9

ATTACHMENT 71111.11 INSPECTABLE AREA:

CORNERSTONES:

INSPECTION BASES:

LEVEL OF EFFORT:

Licensed Operator Requalification Program Initiating Events (10%)

Mitigating Systems(70%)

Barrier Integrity(10%)

Emergency Preparedness (10%)

The inspection evaluates licensed operator performance in mitigating the consequences of events. Poor licensed operator performance results in increased risk through increased operator recovery rates and increased personnel-induced common-cause error rates assumed in the licensees' individual plant examinations (IPEs).

This inspectable area verifies the following key attributes for which there are no performance indicators:

(1) human performance (pre-and post-event human error) in the Initiating Event cornerstone as well as the Mitigating Systems and Barrier Integrity cornerstones;(2) procedure quality issues (post-event operating procedures),

in the event licensed operator performance issues are identified and human performance in the Initiating Events and Mitigating Systems cornerstone; and (3) emergency response organization performance

[self assessment, severe-accident management guidelines implementation and actual response] regarding initial and subsequent interactions by licensed operators [emergency action levels (EALs) and protective action recommendations (PARs)] in the Emergency Preparedness cornerstone.

Biennial Review bv Reaional SDecialist A biennial review of the licensed operator requalification program will be conducted by regional specialist at the facility licensee's site. The level of effort includes in-office review of tests that may be performed by the regional specialist.

Depending on availability, resident staff members may assist the regional specialist during the biennial review.

Reaualification Activities Review by Resident Staff Issue Date: 08/16/01 1 -

71111.11

A review of the licensed operator requalification testing and/or training activities will be conducted by the resident staff at least once each quarter.

71111.11-01 INSPECTION OBJECTIVES 01.01 To verify that the facility licensee's requalification program for licensed reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs) ensures safe power plant operation by adequately evaluating how well the individual operators and crews have mastered the training objectives, including training on high-risk operator actions with senior reactor analyst's (SRA's) input.

01.02 To assess the facility licensee's effectiveness in evaluating and revising the requalification program for licensed operators based on their operational performance, including requalification examinations.

01.03 To assess the facility licensee's effectiveness in ensuring that the individuals who are licensed to operate the facility satisfy the conditions of their licenses as specified in 10 CFR 55.53.

01.04 To supply regional management with the information necessary to assess the performance of the facility licensee's licensed operator requalification program and determine the need for additional inspections or NRC-conducted examinations.

71111.11-02 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 02.01 Inspection Composition. For biennial reviews, the inspection should include at least one qualified operator licensing examiner with expertise relevant to the plant(s) being evaluated. Normally, an inspection would include individuals with operations backgrounds and individuals with plant-specific knowledge. For quarterly reviews, the resident staff will use applicable portions of this procedure when completing the simulator review each quarter.

02.02 Sample Selections. When selecting sample areas to inspect within the licensed operator requalification process, a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory approach should be considered in which risk insights, engineering analysis and judgment, including the principle of defense-in-depth and the incorporation of safety margins, and performance history are used to (1) focus attention on the most important activities, (2) establish objective criteria for evaluating performance, and (3) develop measurable or calculable parameters for monitoring system and licensee performance.

I No specific number of comprehensive written examination or operating test samples is I recommended. Rather, the inspector should choose as many examples as warranted to I ensure a sufficient basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the licensee's requalification I program.

Issue Date: 08/16/01 2 -

71111.11

02.03 Facility Operating History.

Assess operator performance since the last requalification program evaluation (inspection or examination) to determine if performance deficiencies have been addressed through the requalification training program.

02.04 Licensee Requalification Examinations.

Assess the adequacy of the facility licensee's written examinations and operating tests for requalification.

02.05 Licensee Administration of Requalification Examinations. Observe examinations and tests in progress and interview personnel to assess the facility licensee's effectiveness in conducting written examinations and operating tests to ensure operator mastery of the requalification training program content.

02.06 Licensee Training Feedback System. Assess the effectiveness of the facility licensee's process for revising and maintaining its licensed operator continuing training program up to date, including the use of feedback from plant events and industry experience information.

02.07 Licensee Remedial Training Program. Assess the adequacy and verify the effectiveness of the remedial training conducted since the last requalification examinations and the training planned for the current examination cycle to ensure that it addresses weaknesses in licensed operator or crew performance identified during training and plant operations.

02.08 Conformance With Operator License Conditions. Review the facility licensee's program for maintaining active operator licenses and ensuring the medical fitness of its licensed operators. Assess the facility and operator licensees' compliance with the requirements for maintaining license conditions in accordance with 10 CFR 55.53.

02.09 Written Examination and Operating Test Results. For each requalification cycle, I

review the number of applicants and the pass/fail results of written examinations, individual I

operating tests and simulator operating tests.

1 02.10 Resident Inspector Quarterly Review of Licensed Operators' Requalification Testing and/or Training Activities. At least once each quarter, observe testing and training for SROs and ROs, identify deficiencies and discrepancies in the training, and assess licensed operator performance and evaluator's critique. Emphasis should be placed on observing training on high-risk licensed operator actions, operators' activities associated with the emergency plan and previous lessons learned items or plant experiences.

71111-03 INSPECTION GUIDANCE General Guidance Facility licensees are required by 10 CFR 50.54(1-1) to have in effect a

Commission-approved operator requalification program that must, as a minimum, meet the Issue Date: 08/16/01 71111.11 3 -

requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c). In lieu of paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of that section, the Commission may approve a program developed by using a systems approach to training (SAT), as defined in 10 CFR 55.4. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(a), each licensed individual must successfully complete the requalification program developed by the facility licensee and pass an annual operating test and a comprehensive written examination administered at the end of each requalification cycle, not to exceed 24 months in duration.

This baseline inspection procedure is intended to determine if a facility licensee's requalification program meets elements (4) and (5) of a SAT-based program as defined in 10 CFR 55.4. Inspectors should prioritize their activities to ensure that inspection requirements 02.03, 02.04, 02.05,and 02.09 are completed first. Inspection requirements 02.06, 02.07, and 02.08 are to be considered and performed to the extent necessary to conclude that the objectives of the inspection procedure have been met. In some cases a specific inspection requirement need not be addressed because the inspector is satisfied from inspections already conducted or from other information that the licensee's activities are acceptable.

If regional management determines that the facility licensee's licensed operator requalification program is not based on a systems approach to training as defined in 10 CFR 55.4, consult with the headquarters program office regarding the appropriate response. Regional management should submit all proposed enforcement actions related to 10 CFR Part 55 to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) staff for review before issuing them.

The region should announce its intent to conduct requalification inspection activities at a I facility. In order to better coordinate with the licensee's requalification examination I schedule, it is acceptable to conduct this inspection in two annual parts. This should be I carefully planned in order to maximize coverage of the inspection procedure while staying I within the allotted resources. Although most of the inspection activities will be conducted while the facility licensee administers its annual operating tests, the region may exercise discretion regarding where and when it completes some of the inspection requirements.

For example, if the region asks the facility licensee to submit specific examinations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before the site visit, the inspectors can complete portions of inspection requirements 02.03 and 02.04 before they travel to the facility. It is anticipated that two inspectors will then be able to complete the remaining inspection requirements during a one-week visit to the site. If the region does not ask the facility licensee to submit its examinations in advance, the region may send an inspector to the site to review the examination materials in preparation for the primary inspection. As a third option, the region may dispatch three inspectors to complete all the inspection I requirements during a one-week site visit. When planning inspection efforts, keep in mind that the regulations only require the facility licensee to administer a comprehensive written examination every two years unless its approved requalification program requires more frequent examinations.

In accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c), facility licensees are required to submit to the Commission, upon request, the annual operating tests or comprehensive written examinations used for operator requalification. The region may request those tests and Issue Date: 08/16/01 71111.11 4 -

examinations in writing by sending the licensee a corporate notification letter similar to the one that is used for NRC-conducted examinations. Usually, the region will ask the facility licensee to submit only those examinations and tests that will be administered during the week of the inspection. Other examination materials, such as previously administered examinations and tests, question banks, and sample plans, are normally reviewed on site.

Regional managers will consider overall facility performance in the findings of the NRC's inspection programs and initial examinations. Generally, only the inspection requirements of this procedure will need to be conducted; however, augmented activities can be initiated in accordance with10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(iii) and program office guidance when necessary to ensure safe plant operation. Those activities could include a full "Training and Qualification Effectiveness" inspection in accordance with Inspection Procedure (IP) 41500, "for cause" examinations in accordance with NUREG-1 021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," or operational evaluations of on-shift crews.

Since the inspection process relies on sampling a basically sound facility program, the NRC would conduct examinations at the facility only when it has lost confidence in the facility licensee's ability to conduct its own examinations or when the staff believes that the inspection process will not provide the needed insight. Regional management should consider conducting "for cause" requalification examinations or operational evaluations when any of the following conditions exist:

Requalification inspection findings that indicate an ineffective licensee requalification program(e.g. one yellow finding or multiple white findings based on the Operator Requalification Human Performance Significance Determination Process),

Operational problems to which operator error is a major contributor, or Allegations regarding significant training program deficiencies.

Implement "for cause" examinations through the normal resource planning process, since an inspection activity would be replaced with more resource-intensive examinations. Using the existing inspection planning process will ensure that the regional office and NRR consider the need for conducting examinations with alternative expanded inspection tools available, and will allocate the required resources. Operational evaluations should be considered as a reactive effort based on immediate safety concerns.

Most issues that meet the threshold as defined in IMC 0610*, Appendix B, for assessment using the SDP will relate to mitigating activities and should be assigned to the Mitigating Systems cornerstone. Should the finding clearly relate to the breech of a barrier, it should be assigned to the Barrier Integrity cornerstone. Should the finding clearly relate to an error by the operator that would cause an event had it been on the actual plant, it should be assigned to the Initiating Events cornerstone. In all cases, the inspector should provide a rationale for the cornerstone assignment.

Specific Guidance Issue Date: 08/16/01 5

71111.11

03.01 Inspection Composition. Refer to paragraph 02.01.

03.02 Sample Selections. Refer to paragraph 02.02.

03.03 Facility Operating History.

Review the following documents to determine the effectiveness of the facility's licensed operator requalification training program:

a.

Most recent plant issue matrix (PIM) report, and plant performance review (PPR) report.

b.

Recent examination and inspection reports [e.g., emergency preparedness or emergency operating procedure (EOP) inspections] related to operator training or performance.

c.

Resident inspector observations and reports regarding operator performance.

d.

Licensee event reports (LERs).

e.

Other indications of operator performance, such as technical specification (TS) violations, internal event reports, human factors information system (HFIS) reports, and NRC performance indicators [e.g., engineered safety feature (ESF) actuations and reactor scrams or trips].

In particular, look for patterns of operator performance that create concern regarding the continued safe operation of the facility. If safety concerns are identified, consider, in consultation with the operator licensing program staff, such actions as holding management meetings, conducting operational evaluations, ortaking appropriate licensing or enforcement actions.

03.04 Licensee's Requalification Examinations. Assess the facility licensee's examination materials [questions, scenarios, and job performance measures (JPMs) banks], sample plans, and proposed and completed examinations and tests, as described below.

NUREG-1 021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," contains additional information that may be useful to the inspector in conducting the evaluations.

I The inspector should use IMC 0609 Appendix I, "Operator Requalification Human I Performance SDP," to determine the significance associated with the inspection finding as I it relates to the sample size. The inspector should not interfere with the facility licensee's requalification examination process by suggesting modifications to test items or examination schedules. If there are significant concerns regarding the quality of the examinations, inform the facility licensee and refer the concerns to regional management as soon as possible.

The following activities facilitate this assessment:

a.

Review a representative sample of the facility licensee's examination materials:

1.

The checklists for open reference written test items, JPMs, and dynamic simulator scenarios in Appendix A provide guidance.

Issue Date: 08/16/01 71111.11 6 -

2.

Compare plant changes to examination materials to determine whether system and procedure changes are being incorporated into the appropriate written questions, JPMs, and dynamic simulator scenarios. The resident inspectors, other knowledgeable personnel from the Division of Reactor Projects, and the NRR project manager may be able to provide information regarding substantial procedure or system modifications that should have been incorporated into the continuing training and testing programs. The 10 CFR 50.59 periodic reports also contain information on plant changes.

3.

For plants at which operators hold multi-unit licenses, review the methodology for incorporating unit differences in the facility licensee's requalification examinations. Include both written examinations and operating tests using the simulator in this review. Review the extent to which unit differences are identified in training materials and the simulator as they are used in requalification training and examinations. Evaluate exceptions to training guidelines and simulatorfidelity standards taken in the requalification program for negative training potential. Verify that operators receive specific training on unit differences.

b.

Review the methodology (i.e., sample plan) that the facility licensee uses to construct its requalification examinations.

1.

Assess whether the facility licensee's comprehensive written examinations and annual operating tests point to areas in which retraining is needed [10 CFR 55.59(c)(4)(i)].

(a)

Determine if the facility licensee addressed the operator performance deficiencies identified under inspection requirement 02.03.

(b)

Determine if the facility licensee has incorporated current industry events applicable to the facility into training and testing, as appropriate.

2.

Assess whether the facility licensee's written examinations measure the operators' knowledge of subjects covered in the requalification program and provide a basis for evaluating their knowledge of abnormal and emergency procedures [10 CFR 55.59(c)(4)(ii)].

3.

Determine if the operating tests are consistent with activities described in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR). Determine if operator response times specified in the accident analysis are evaluated during the operating test. Be careful about determining if the simulator scenario accurately matches the assumptions in the accident analysis. Operating test scenarios may include equipment malfunctions beyond those assumed in the accident analysis. In such a case, the operating test scenario may not be a valid measure of UFSAR operator response times.

4.

Determine if the licensee has incorporated probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) insights into the comprehensive written examinations and annual 71111.11 Issue Date: 08/16/01 7 -

operating tests. Refer to NRC Manual Chapter 2515, Appendix C, "Use of Insights Derived From Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)." Coordinate with regional senior risk analysts (SRAs) to provide risk insights.

c.

Evaluate the quality and content of a sample of the facility licensee's comprehensive written examinations and annual operating tests for the current requalification program cycle. Assess the ability of the examinations to identify operators who possesses a satisfactory level of safety-significant knowledge, skills, and abilities. Ensure the examination items are operationally valid. If the facility is not administering a written examination during the current inspection and if examinations were not reviewed during the previous inspection, review a sample of the examinations that were last given. The following activities facilitate this evaluation:

1.

Determine if the examinations are consistent with the sample plan, and verify that test item repeatability issues are addressed in accordance with NUREG 1021.

2.

Analyze and compare the comprehension level tested on selected written examinations and operating tests administered during the period under review with the comprehension level tested on other examinations administered or planned during that requalification cycle.

3.

Determine whetherthe expected performance standards are clear, objective, and relevant.

4.

Verify that the RO and SRO written examinations adequately sample the items stated in 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 and that the operating tests adequately sample the items listed in 10 CFR 55.45.

03.05 Licensee Practices in Administering Requalification Examinations.

Observe examinations and test in progress and interview personnel to assess the facility licensee's effectiveness in conducting written examinations and operating tests to ensure operator mastery of the requalification training program content.

I The inspector should use IMC 0609, Appendix I, "Operator Requalification Human I Performance SDP," to determine the significance associated with the identified issues.

a.

Observe as many examination activities as possible to assess the facility licensee's effectiveness in conducting written examinations and operating tests. Focus on those activities that give the greatest insight into the facility licensee's ability to evaluate its operators' mastery of the training program content.

Resident inspectors should periodically observe simulator training for licensed operators noting deficiencies and discrepancies in the training and assessing operator performance. Coordinate with the resident inspector(s) to ensure that all pertinent issues are understood and that actions and staffing levels in the simulator are consistent with normal control room practices. The following activities facilitate this assessment:

-71111 11 8 -

Issue Date: 08/16/01 v

/ -L -L -L

1.

Determine whether the examinations are conducted as planned and whether any errors in administration are detected and corrected for subsequent examinations.

2.

Determine whether the facility licensee's examination practices gave proper consideration to minimizing undue operator stress (e.g., scheduling, timing of segments, security measures) and the potential for negative training (e.g.,

testing crew configuration different from operations).

3.

Assess the facility evaluators' use of performance standards by grading selected written examination questions and operating tests in parallel and assessing discussions regarding crew and operator performance following the administration of the operating tests. If there are concerns regarding the facility licensee's grading practices, inform the facility licensee of the concerns and refer the concerns to regional management as soon as possible. The following activities facilitate this assessment:

(a)

Determine whether the performance standards are applied consistently and objectively.

(b)

Determine whether crew and operator performance errors made during simulator evaluations are detected and adequately addressed by the facility's evaluators.

(c)

Determine whether any errors made by individual operators during the walk-through examinations are detected and adequately addressed by the facility's evaluators.

(d)

Determine whether the facility evaluators effectively identify individuals and crews requiring remediation, and appropriately indicate when removal from shift activities is warranted.

(e)

Determine whether post-examination critiques of operators and crews are effective in pointing out strengths and weaknesses and if they accurately appraise the observed performance.

4.

Determine whether plant events are factored into the requalification training program based on the review of LERs and plant performance indicators completed under inspection requirement 02.03.

5.

Determine the licensee's use of industry experience in the requalification training program.

6.

Assess the facility licensee's Operations Department level of involvement in the requalification testing.

b.

Assess the simulator's performance and its fidelity to the reference plant to determine if it is adequate to support the requalification program. Also assess the Issue Date: 08/16/01 71111.11 9 -

safety impact of any negative training caused by simulator deficiencies. Refer to 10 CFR 55.45.

1.

Record any simulator performance deficiencies noted during the inspection, particularly while observing the dynamic simulator operating tests.

2.

If any simulator deficiencies are noted that impact operator actions as described in the most recent version of ANSI/ANS 3.5, complete a simulator fidelity report, as outlined in ES-501 of NUREG-1 021, and document in the inspection report.

c.

Interview an operator, an instructor, a training supervisor, and an evaluator regarding the facility's policies and practices for administering examinations. If the interviews result in conflicting information, additional interviews may be needed to clarify the differences. Refer to the suggested interview topics in Appendix B when conducting these and other interviews. These interviews assist the inspector in determining whether:

1.

The training staff understands the operating test performance standards and how they are to be implemented.

2.

Management guidance and expectations parallel the actual conduct of testing as it was observed.

3.

The operators understand the facility licensee's policies and practices and what is expected of them during the examinations.

4.

The operators are aware of simulator performance deficiencies and the potential for negative training.

5.

The interviewees' perception and knowledge of examination security are consistent with administrative procedures.

d.

Review examination security measures to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 55.49, which prohibits applicants and facility licensees from engaging in any activity that compromises the integrity of any application, test, or examination required by 10 CFR Part 55. The following activities facilitate this review:

1.

Review the facility licensee's process for maintaining examination security.

Review facility guidelines on allowed overlap between examinations in current exam cycle tests and prior year examination.

2.

Monitor the examination while it is being administered and review the results to determine if there is any indication of examination compromise.

3.

If examination security problems were noted in the past, determine what corrective action(s) have been taken to preclude recurrence.

Issue Date: 08/16/01 10 -

71111.11

e.

Observe the activities of one or more operating crews in the control room and compare this performance with performance observed in the simulator on requalification examinations. Examples of activities to compare are performance of surveillances, supervisory oversight, command and control, communication practices, log keeping, crew assignments and responsibilities, staffing levels, shift turnover, and management presence. Coordinate this observation with the resident inspectors observations of control room activities.

03.06 Licensee Feedback System. Evaluate the effectiveness of the facility licensee's process for revising and maintaining its licensed operator continuing training program up IQ o1ate, including the use of feedback from plant events and industry experience information.

a.

Evaluate whether the facility licensee's use of employee feedback from operators, instructors, and supervisors is effective. The following activities facilitate this evaluation:

1.

Determine who is responsible for obtaining employee feedback and compare that individual's understanding of the program goals to the management expectations for the program.

2.

Review and evaluate a representative sample of the employee comments to determine if the program's consideration of the

comments, recommendations, and their implementation are appropriate. Determine if requalification program changes are backlogged and the cause for the backlog. Determine whether program changes are prioritized on the basis of safety. Compare these findings with management expectations.

3.

Interview facility personnel to determine whether they know of, use, and are satisfied with the system used to gather and implement feedback. Refer to paragraph 03.05.c for related guidance and to Appendix B for suggested interview topics.

b.

If warranted by previous facility performance, review the facility quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) oversight activities in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix B) and evaluate the licensee's ability to assess the effectiveness of its requalification program and to implement appropriate corrective actions.

03.07 Licensee's Remedial Training Program. Verify the adequacy and effectiveness of the remedial training conducted since the last requalification examinations and the training planned for the current examination cycle to ensure that it addresses weaknesses in licensed operator or crew performance identified during training and plant operations. The inspector should use IMC 0609 Appendix I, "Operator Requalification Human Performance SDP," to determine the significance associated with the identified issues.

a.

Remedial training includes the additional training provided to operators to correct deficiencies that prevent them from successfully passing the requalification examination and the training provided to operators to correct generic or individual 71111.11 Issue Date: 08/16/01 11 -

weaknesses observed during the previous requalification cycle examination. The following activities facilitate this review:

1.

Review examples of operator and crew performance weaknesses since the last inspection and determine whetherthe facility licensee identified their root causes and implemented appropriate corrective actions.

2.

Determine if the facility licensee confirms the effectiveness of its corrective actions at the completion of retraining with a suitable evaluation method.

3.

Review the remediation plans (e.g., lesson plans, reference materials, and attendance documentation) to assess the effectiveness of the remedial training.

4.

When possible, observe applicable simulator and JPM instruction to assess the effectiveness of the remedial training.

5.

Interview selected facility personnel to verify the effectiveness of remedial training. Refer to paragraph 03.05.c for related guidance and to Appendix B for suggested interview topics.

03.08 Conformance With Operator License Conditions. Review the facility licensee's program for maintaining active operator licenses and ensuring the medical fitness of its licensed operators. Sample the following activities during alternate inspections to verify the facility and individual licensees' conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55.

In orderto focus the review, the inspector is encouraged to solicit observations and insights in this area from resident inspectors.

a.

Review the facility licensee's program for maintaining active operator licenses and assess compliance with 10 CFR 55.53(e) and (f). The following activities facilitate this review:

1.

Sample records for at least one operating crew to determine if crew members are maintaining active licenses. Review records of licensed staff operators (i.e., those not assigned to shift crews) to ensure that their licenses have been activated before standing watch.

2.

Determine if any operator licenses were reactivated since the last inspection and verify that the operator's qualifications were current and the required operator functions were performed "under direction."

3.

Determine if all requalification training is completed on schedule or made up in accordance with the facility's program.

Sample training attendance records to include the end of the last 2-year requalification cycle.

b.

Review the facility licensee's program for ensuring the medical fitness of its licensed operators and assess compliance with 10 CFR Part 55, Subpart C, 71111.11 12 -

Issue Dater: 08/16/01

"Medical Requirements," and Subpart F, "Licenses," item 55.53(i). The following activities facilitate this review:

1.

Review a representative sample (i.e., approximately 10 percent) of the licensed operators' medical records to verify that the required physical examinations are being performed and documented.

2.

Verify that operator licensees are complying with special license conditions, as applicable, and that those operators who do not meet medical standards are precluded from performing licensed duties.

03.09 Written Examination and Operating Test Results. At the end of the testing cycle, review licensee requalification examination results. Assess whether operator failure rates are consistent with the guidance of the most recent version of NUREG 1021.

The inspector should use IMC 0609 Appendix I, Operator Requalification Human Performance SDP, to determine the significance associated with requalification examination failure rates.

03.10 Resident Inspector Quarterly Review of Licensed Operators' Requalification I

Testing and/or Training Activities. At least once each quarter, observe testing and/or training for SROs and ROs, note deficiencies and discrepancies, and assess licensed operator performance and evaluator's critique. Emphasis should be placed on observing testing and/or training on high risk licensed operator actions, operators' activities associated with the Emergency Plan, and previous lessons learned items or plant experiences. The inspector should use IMC 0609 Appendix I, "Operator Requalification I

Human Performance SDP," to determine the significance associated with the inspection I

finding as it relates to the sample size. -

I

a.

Review simulator evaluations for previously identified weaknesses, and observe those areas during control room activities. Suggested observation areas are:

Crew performance in terms of clarity and formality of communication Ability to take timely action in the safe direction Prioritizing, interipreting, and verifying alarms Correct use and implementation of procedures, including the alarm response procedures Timely control board operation and manipulation, including high-risk operator actions Oversight and direction provided by the shift supervisor, including ability to identify and implement appropriate technical specifications actions such as reporting and emergency plan actions and notifications Group dynamics involved in crew performance The inspector may observe different crews to gain an understanding of differences in personality, performance, and group dynamics involved. The inspector may factor this experience into daily observation of control room operation to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of simulator training. The inspector should discuss any concerns, findings, or insights with the applicable regional specialist.

Issue Date: 08/16/01 71111.11 13 -

b.

Compare simulator board configurations with actual control room board configuration for consistency, especially with recent modifications implemented in the control room.

71111.11-04 RESOURCE ESTIMATE It is estimated that approximately 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />, on average, of direct inspection effort (DIE) will be required to conduct the biennial review. The effort includes a regional specialist's in office review of tests. It is expected that the actual hours required to complete the inspection may vary from the estimate. The inspection hours allocated for the inspection procedure are budget estimates for the typical plant regardless of the number of units at the site. The hours expended during an inspection should be tailored for the facility licensee and accurately recorded. Depending on availability, resident staff members may assist the regional specialist during the biennial review. An additional 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> a quarter is estimated for the resident staff to review licensed operator requalification activities.

71111.11.05 REFERENCE IMC 0609, Appendix I, "Operator Requalification Human Performance Significance Determination Process" END Appendices:

A.

CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING FACILITY TESTING MATERIAL B.

SUGGESTED INTERVIEW TOPICS Issue Date: 08/16/01 14 -

71111.11

APPENDIX A CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING FACILITY TESTING MATERIAL (Circle yes [Y] or no [N])

Written Examination Questions Checklist Y / N 1.

Does each question have a documented link to important licensee tasks, knowledge and abilities (K/As), and/or facility learning objectives?

Y / N 2.

Is each question operationally oriented (i.e., is there a correlation between job demands and test demands)?

Y / N 3.

Is each question written at the appropriate level of knowledge (fundamental knowledge, comprehension, or application/analysis)? Refer to Appendix B, "Written Examination Guidelines," of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examinations for Power Reactors," for guidance.

Y / N 4.

Is the context of each question realistic and free of window dressing and backwards logic?

Y / N 5.

Does each question possess a high K/A importance factor (3 or greater) for the job position?

Y / N 6.

Does each question appear to have the ability to discriminate between an operator who possesses a satisfactory level of safety significant knowledge and an operator who does not?

Y / N 7.

Is each question appropriate for the written examination and the selected written examination format (e.g., short answer; multiple choice)?

Y / N 8.

Does any question have the potential of being a "double jeopardy" question?

Y / N 9.

Is each question clear, precise, and easy to read and understand?

Y / N 10.

Is there only one correct answer to each question?

Y/N 11.

Does any question pose situations and problems that differ from those presented during training?

Additionally, For Open-Reference Questions Y / N 1.

Does each question require an appropriate use of references (i.e., use of analysis skills or synthesis of information either to discern what procedures were applicable or to consult the procedures to obtain the answer)?

Y/N 2.

Is any question a "direct look-up" question (i.e., one that immediately directs an operator to a particular reference where the answer is readily available)?

Issue Date: 08/16/01 15 -

71111.11

Y/N 3.

Are there any questions given in a static scenario setup that takes advantage of the simulator control room setting?

Job Performance Measure (JPM) Quality Checklist Y / N 1.

Is each task supported by the facility's job task analysis?

Y / N 2.

Is each task operationally important (i.e., meets threshold criterion of K/A at 3 or above or as determined by the facility)?

Y / N 3.

Is each task designed as either SRO only, RO/SRO, or AO/RO/SRO?

4. Does each JPM include: (Refer to Appendix C, "Job Performance Measures Guidelines," of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examinations for Power Reactors," for guidance.)

Y/N

a.

Initial conditions Y / N

b.

Initiating cues Y/N

c.

References, including associated procedures Y/N

d.

Performance standards that are specific in that exact control and indication nomenclature and criteria (switch position, meter reading) are specified, even if these criteria are not specified in the procedural step Y/N

e.

System response cues in the performance standards that are complete and correct so that the examiner can properly cue the operator, if asked Y / N

f.

Statements describing important actions or observations that should be made by the operator Y / N

g.

Criteria for successful completion Y / N

h.

Identification of the critical steps and their associated performance standards Y / N

i.

Validated time limits (average time allowed for completion)

Y / N

j.

JPMs identified as time critical or not time critical Y / N

k.

Restrictions on the sequence of steps Simulator Scenario Review Checklist Qualitative Attributes 71111.11 16 -

Issue Date: 08/16/01

Y/N 1.

Y/N 2.

Y/N 3.

4. Does Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N 5.

Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Is each scenario of the appropriate scope, depth, and complexity with clearly stated objectives? (Refer to Appendix D, "Simulator Testing Guidelines," of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examinations for Power Reactors," for guidance.)

Are the initial conditions realistic?

Does each scenario consist mostly of related events?

each scenario event description include:

a.

The point in the scenario when it is to be initiated?

b.

The malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event?

c.

The symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew?

d.

The expected operator actions (by shift position)?

e.

The event termination point?

Is no more than one non-mechanistic failure (e.g., pipe break) incorporated into each scenario without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event?

Is each event valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics?

Is the sequencing/timing of each event reasonable, and does it allow for the examination team to obtain complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives?

Has the simulator modeling been altered?

Can each rating factor in each crew competency be evaluated?

Has each scenario been validated?

If the sampling plan indicates that the scenario was used for training during the requalification cycle, has the facility determined whether it should be modified or not used?

The following criteria list scenario traits that are numerical in nature. A second set of numbers indicates a range to be met for a set of two scenarios. Therefore, to complete this part of the review, the set of scenarios must be available.

Quantitative Attributes Y / N 1.

Total malfunctions inserted: 4 to 8 / 10 to 14 Issue Date: 08/16/01 17 -

71111.11

Y / N 2.

Malfunctions that occur after EOP entry: 1 to 4 / 3 to 6 Y / N 3.

Abnormal events: 1 to 2 / 2 to 3 Y / N 4.

Major transients: 1 to 2 / 2 to 3 Y / N 5.

EOPs used beyond primary scram response EOP: 1 to 3 / 3 to 5 Y / N 6.

EOP contingency procedures used: 0 to 3 / 1 to 3 Y/N 7.

Approximate scenario run time: 45 to 60 minutes (one scenario may approach 90 minutes)

Y/N 8.

Crew critical tasks: 2 to 5 / 5 to 8 Y / N 9.

Are Technical Specifications exercised during the test?

COMMENTS:

71111.11 18 -

Issue Date: 08/16/01

APPENDIX B SUGGESTED INTERVIEW TOPICS Activity Suggested Interview Topics/Questions General Former positions at the facility: How long? Licensed?

Current position and duties: How long? Licensed? Requalification program responsibilities?

Exams, Examinations: How developed? Sampling plan? Appropriate coverage?

performanc License level? Practiced/covered in training? Duplicate quizzes? Too e standards, easy/hard? Too long/short? Were references necessary? How compare simulator, with NRC exams?

and security Performance standards: How are they formulated? Operations versus training? Are they endorsed by management? Are they objective? How are they communicated to evaluators? Do the operators know what is expected of them? Are they applied consistently?

Performance feedback: Is it timely? Is it objective? What happens if you fail? How could feedback be improved?

Administration: Operating/training crew = test crew? What happens if you miss an exam? Measures to mitigate undue stress?

Simulator: Does it respond correctly? Is hardware current? Any negative training?

Security: Are exams common? How is security ensured? Are there formal procedures? Responsibility? Do you feel comfortable with process? Do security measures cause undue stress? Are you aware of any incidents?

What would you change if you could?

Feedback Feedback collection: How is it done? Who collects comments? Who is system solicited? Does the QA/QC Department oversee the program?

Comment resolution: Who does it? Is it timely? Safety basis for changes?

How is management involved? How are changes promulgated? Were they resolved to your satisfaction? Feedback to originator? Recent examples?

Overall, how effective is your training program? The examination program?

The feedback system? How would you improve it?

Remedial Program development: How are remedial training needs identified?

training Individual/crew exam results? On-the-job performance/events? Generic program weaknesses? Who develops remedial training programs? How is Operations involved?

Implementation: Is it appropriate? Is it effective? How is remediation verified? How would you improve it?

END Issue Date: 08/16/01 71111.11 19 -

REGION IV FACILITY EXAMINATION REQUESTS INITIAL EXAMINATIONS LICENSEE REQUEST: N-NRC AUTHOR, F-FACILITY AUTHOR, S-SPLIT DEVELOPMENT

[ E I~cW CP CGS___

DC___

FC P

IRON7 r1 W3~

FY02 F 8/19/02 F 2/11/02 F 7/29/02 F 8/5/02 F10/22/01 F 1/21102 F 12/10/0 1

SR 2U 7R lOU BR 21 1U 6R 31 3U Retake 8R 11 3U 3R 6131 F 918/02 F 6/26/02 2

6R 312U 7R 1U FY03 F 7/14/03 F 10/7/02 N 11/4/02 N 6/16/03 F 10/21-F 10/03 F 11/18/02 F 2/10/03 S 8118/03 F /25/03 6R 313U 6R 613U 10R 101 IL 6R 313U 102 7U 12S 6R 313U 6R 3U 31 3R21 3-SU F 7/21/03 2

5R 11 5U1 FY04 F 1/12/04 F 3/7/04 F 3/7/04 F 2/77/04 F 9/6/041 S 12115/03; F sl?/

1 4R 21 2U 6R 412U 6R3121 6R 21 12R 61 6R415U 3R613 FY05]

~

F 12/??/04 9/05 F 9/15/04 2/05 7124/05 F 8/7?/05 7/17/05 S 7/??/05 6R 31 3U 6R212U 4R 414U 10R 1_2U 6R312U 5R212U 5R115U1 6R 31 3U1 Y

I12/9/06

_____ II

_____ I

______ I

______II

_______6R__41___SU

Requal Observation and Review Schedule Arkansas*

Callaway*

Columbia Comanche Cooper Diablo Canyon*

Ft. Calhoun.

Grand Gulf*

Palo Verde River Bend San Onofre*

South Texas*

Wolf Creek Waterford Observations scheduled wk of 12/9/02 Observations scheduled wk of 3/3/03 Observations to be scheduled during 11-12/03 Observations scheduled wk of 9/23/02 Observations scheduled wk of 9/9/02 Observations scheduled wk of 5/13/02 8/4/03 OP test only (biennial 7-10/02)

Observations to be scheduled during 9/03

• Need updated information of requal schedule (written and operating tests) during CY '03

NUREG-1021, Revision 8 Supplement 1 (Changes)

ES-201 Exams developed per 55.40(b) lAW NUREG-1021 0

Deviations from intent of ES 0

All banks are treated equally Identity of pre-validated items Source 0

BC pre-exam call to licensee 0

Personnel restrictions clarified 0

Security and Integrity Guidelines attachment clarified Reference Material - Drawings and diagrams added Outline quality checklist updated I

ES-202 Background = RIS-2001-01 Take exam w/ medical pending ES-204 Regional deferrals of experience and training

.1.

ES-401 Audit Exam Independence, Includes Practice Exams and Quizzes Random/systematic sampling Documentation required SRO-only questions 75/15/10 30-question K/A match-up Tiers /groups +/- one New / modified forms 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

ES-301 No train

• no test Reasonable JPM times Instrument / component failures ES-302 Negotiate copies of test material Brief surrogates and STAs Station-keeping JPMs When to stop a JPM (303/E)

ES-402 Time limit extended to 6 hrs Extensions only when warranted ES-403 Fix questions before banking Copy answer sheet before grading I

I

ES-501 Facility submittal guidelines clarified BC lessons learned call Quality documentation thresholds Security measures/activities Resolve all facility comments Fidelity report only as required ES-502 Retrieve invalid questions Feedback to facility licensee ES-605 Temporary disability restrictions Appendix C JPM initial conditions Appendix E Written time limit 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> Answer questions based on plant When to stop a JPM 0

0 I

OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION HUMAN PERFORMANCE SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION PROCESS

Operator Requalification SDP

"* Exam Grading

"* Written Exam "o

Quality "o

Security "o

Performance

"* Individual Operating Test "o

Quality "o

Security "o

Performance

"* Simulator Operating Test o Simulator Fidelity o Scenario Quality o

Security o

Operational Test Performance Single/Multiple Crew Failures Remediation

"* Operator License Conditions o

Records Deficiencies

Operator Requalification Human Performance SDP (February 15, 2002)

Page 1 Issue Date: XX/XX/XX 0609, App I 1-9

Operator Requalification Human Performance SDP (February 15, 2002)

Page 2 No Yes compromise was discovered, were compensatory actions taken "immediateY/

No Issue Date: XX/XX/XX 0609, App I 1-10 arm

Operator Requalification Human Performance SDP (February 15, 2002)

Page 3

)m2 xl to NoHsscenro N

Related to NoDid

<75% of NoRelated to N<Hsseai NoNo No ednegrity been crew performance operators pass all operator licen lity compromise on simulator portions of conditions Yes Yes YYes Yes F Wite findig 262\\

5.

NWhen27 thncompromise was Moe than rn~in o

lr'nprdw~~

No 2%of recor Issue Date: XX/XX/XX 0609, Appl 1-11

Simulator Operational Evaluation September 21, 2000 Number of Crews with UNSAT Performance in the Annual Operating Test Number of Crews that took the Annual Operating Test (Includes Dual Units) 1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

4 G

W Y

Y NA NA NA NA 5

G W

Y Y

Y NA NA NA 6

NF G

W Y

Y Y

NA NA 7

NF G

W Y

Y Y

Y NA 8

NF G

W W

Y Y

Y Y

9 NF G

G W

Y Y

Y Y

10 NF G

G W

W Y

Y Y

11 NF NF G

W W

Y Y

Y 12 NF NF G

G W

W Y

Y 13 NF NF G

G W

W Y

Y 14 NF NF G

G W

W W

Y 15 NF NF G

G G

W W

Y 16 NF NF NF G

G W

W W

NF = < 20% Failure Rate - No Finding G = 20 - 34% Failure Rate W = >34 - 50% Failure Rate (NUREG-1021, Rev 8 - UNSAT Requalification Program)

Y = >50% Failure Rate NA = Not Applicable Note: If more than 16 crews are tested, or more than 8 crews are UNSAT in a given percentages above to determine the appropriate color.

cycle, use the Issue Date: XX/XX/XX 0609, Appl 1-8

Operator Requalification Human Performance SDP (February 15, 2002)

Page 4 31

/Failed crews No remediated before

- White finding eturn to shift Z

Yes Green finding Yes Yellow finding]

0609, Appl Issue Date: XX/XX/XX No Yes 1-12

First Year Experience Potential Color Yellow White Green Green Green Green Exceeded Criteria 4 of 7 (57%) crews fail simulator exam Exam compromise not immediately corrected 10 of 44 (22%) operators failed written exam 2 of 10 (20%) crews failed simulator exam Exam scenario compromised, but corrected immediately by selecting a different scenario Simulator setup saved on computer automatically uploaded to several other non-secure stations