ML16154A675
| ML16154A675 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1994 |
| From: | Hopper G, Lawyer L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16154A673 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-94-25, 50-270-94-25, 50-287-94-25, NUDOCS 9410190061 | |
| Download: ML16154A675 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1994025
Text
1 p REG
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323-0199
Report Nos.:
50-269/94-25, 50-270/94-25 and 50-287/94-25
Licensee:
Duke Power Company
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Docket Nos.:
50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
and DPR-55
Facility Name: Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3
Inspection Conducted: August 22-26, 1994 and September 12-16, 1994
Inspector:
~
'5-~e~92
George
. Hopper
Date Signed
Accompanying Personnel: D. C. Payne
Approved
by:La
ence"LIawe_,______)
LarneL Lawyer, Chief
Date Signed
Operator Licensing Section
Operations Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area of the licensed
operator requalification (retraining) program during the period
August 22 - September 16, 1994. The purpose of the inspection was to (1)
verify that the licensee's requalification program for reactor operators (ROs)
and senior reactor operators (SROs) ensures safe power plant operation by
evaluating how well the individual operators and crews had mastered training
objectives; and (2) assess the 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. In addition, the inspectors
performed an audit of medical records against the requirements of 10 CFR 55
Subpart C (Medical Requirements).
Results:
The examination team concluded that -(1) the licensee's requalification program
for ROs and SROs was adequate to ensure safe power plant operations; (2) the
facility licensees program was not effective in ensuring that individuals who
are licensed to operate the facility satisfy the conditions of their licenses.
9410190061 941007
Enclosure 2
ADOCK 05000269
o
2
The inspectors identified one violation containing two examples for failure to
follow procedures (paragraphs 2.c and 2.e).
The inspectors identified one violation for failing to maintain adequate
requalification records of control manipulations (paragraph 2.d).
The inspectors identified 1 violation, with 16 examples, for failure to notify
the NRC within 30 days of a change in medical status of a licensed operator
and 3 examples for failure of the company physician to identify medical
results that fall outside the limits of NRC requirements (paragraph 3.a).
The inspectors identified one non-cited violation for failure to perform a
complete medical examination in accordance with 10 CFR 55.21 (paragraph 3.a)
The inspectors identified one violation for the failure of licensed operators
to perform a complete plant tour as part of an operator's reactivation process
(paragraph 3.b).
The inspectors noted a strength in the development of scenarios for the active
simulator portion of the operating test (paragraph 2.b).
Strengths were also
noted in the area of facility evaluator performance, remediation documentation
and supervisor's involvement in systematic evaluations of operator performance
(paragraphs 2.e and 2.f).
Enclosure 2
REPORT DETAILS
1. Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
- M. E. Bailey, Regulatory Compliance
- D. M. Covar, Nuclear Instructor
- B. J. Dolan, Safety Assurance Manager
W. E. Dukes, Corporate Physician
- J. W..Hampton, Vice President, Oconee Nuclear Station
P. E. Mabry, Operations Training Coordinator
- G. E. Rothenberger, Operations Superintendent
- P. M. Stovall, Director of Operator Training
Other licensee employees contacted included instructors, engineers,
technicians, operators, and office personnel.
NRC Personnel
- L. Keller, Resident Inspector
- W. Poertner, Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview
2. 'Licensed OperatorRequalification Program Evaluation (71001)
a. Summary
The NRC conducted a routine, announced inspection of the Oconee
Nuclear Station licensed operator requalification (retraining) program
during the period August 22 - September 16, 1994.
The purpose of the
inspection was to (1) verify that the licensee's requalification
program for reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators
(SROs) ensures safe power plant operation by evaluating how well the
individual operators and crews had mastered training objectives; and
(2) assess the 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.
Based on a
review of records and observation of simulator examinations, the
requalification examination activities appeared to be satisfactorily
conducted. The inspectors identified two violations in the licensed
operator requalification program in the areas of procedural compliance
and records of control manipulations.
b. Examination Development
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's requalification written and
operating examinations by comparing them to guidelines provided in the
licensee's procedures and NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examiner
Standards," Revision 7. The inspectors found that the licensee
developed examinations were adequate. The simulator scenarios
reviewed were challenging and at the appropriate level of difficulty.
This was considered a strength of the program.
The JPM sets contained
Enclosure 2
Report Details
2
an appropriate distribution of tasks and incorporated alternate path
and time critical elements. The Sample plan was comprehensive and
incorporated all of the guidelines contained in NUREG 1021 ES-601
Attachment 3. The inspectors concluded that the licensee's
administration of the requalification examination program was
adequate.
c. Requalification Program Procedures Review
The inspectors reviewed the procedures governing the administration of
the requalification program listed in Appendix A. The review found
that the procedures were generally satisfactory and incorporated most
of the guidelines of NUREG 1021. The inspectors noted several items
within OTG-004, "Conduct of Periodic Training Licensed Operator
Requalification" that needed further development. The inspectors also
noted a violation of 10 CFR Appendix B, Criterion V.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, required, in part, that
"Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented
instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the
circumstance, and shall be accomplished in accordance with these
instructions, procedures, or drawings." Procedure OTG 004, Step
5.3.D.3.c.3, required that students place their initials and date in a
roster in front of the Shift Review Schedule binder after reviewing
the required material,. This review represented approximately four
hours of requalification instruction for each week of classroom
instruction and was intended to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59
(c)(3)(ii-iv) within the scope of the licensees SAT program. The
inspector reviewed the records for this program on August 24, 1994,
and found 21 instances where licensed operators had not signed the
roster indicating this part of their requalification program was
complete. Two licensed operators had been delinquent since the
completion of Segment One in December 1993. One of these 21 licensed
operators had already taken his annual operating exam, indicating
completion of the annual cycle. In addition, the procedure required
that missed lectures be completed prior to taking the weekly quiz.
Since the self-study of the Shift Review Book represents 25 percent of
the material in the weekly segment's sample plan, the operators should
not have been allowed to take the weekly segment quiz until all
training had been completed. Interviews with several instructors
indicated that this was the training department's policy, but it had
not been properly enforced. This is an example of Violation (VIO) 50
269, 270, and 287/94-25-01, "Failure to follow procedural
instructions."
In addition, the inspectors noted the following other deficiencies
related to the lower tier Procedure OTG-004:
(1) The procedure did not describe the guidelines to be used for
administering and evaluating JPMs (i.e., in accordance with
Enclosure 2
Report Details
3
(2) The Sample Plan was not mentioned as a source document to be
used in the development and selection of JPMs and simulator
scenarios for the annual operating test.
(3) A coordinated review process had not been implemented to
ensure that each examination did not contain an excessive
amount of test item overlap and that each operating test
covered a comprehensive sample of items specified in
Interviews with individuals responsible
for test development indicated that this was not a routine
practice.
The inspectors also noted that the requalification program procedures
did not specifically describe or reference the document that listed
the required control manipulations that licensed operators must
perform during the requalifcation cycle. Procedure ETQS No. 2306
Revision 06 contained a listing of possible control manipulations that
may be included. The licensee maintained a listing similar to the
items in 10 CFR 55.59 in a data base, but this had not been formally
designated as required by their requalification program.
d. On The Job Training
10 CFR 55.59(c)(3) states, in part, "The requalification program must
include on-the-job training so that (i) Each licensed operator of a
utilization facility manipulates the plant controls and each licensed
senior operator either manipulates the controls or directs the
activities of individuals during plant control manipulations during
the term of the licensed operator's or senior operator's license."
10-CFR 55.59(c)(5)(i) states, in part, "The facility shall maintain
records documenting the participation of each licensed operator and
senior operator in the requalification program", and that the records
must contain "The results of evaluations and documentation of
operating tests
"
Procedure ETQS 2306, Step 5.3 stated, "Each licensed operator shall
participate in reactivity manipulations and plant evolutions during
nuclear plant simulator exercises to the extent not provided by actual
plant operation. Step 5.6.D stated, "Records of individual's
performance in the requalification program shall be maintained by the
Station's Training Support section in an auditable manner. Records
will be maintained that contain ...
records of control manipulations."
Contrary to these requirements, the records of individual performance
of required manipulations were not properly maintained. Records
maintained to document licensed operator completion of performance of
on-the-job training did not contain sufficient information to furnish
evidence that the activities were conducted in accordance with
regulations. The licensee used the attendance form from the simulator
segments as the documentation for control manipulations in accordance
with Procedure OTG-004, Step 5.7.A.5.d. The inspector found that in
Enclosure 2
Report Details
4
some cases it was possible to determine if these control manipulations
had been performed by using the simulator attendance sheets and cross
referencing the simulator exercises with a matrix. This matrix
related control manipulations to each simulator exercise. However,
since the licensee did not maintain records of individual performance
of control manipulations, it was not possible to determine which
operator performed or directly supervised individual performance
activities such as reactivity manipulations or manual steam generator
level control.
This was contrary to the requirements stated above.
This is an example of VIO 50-269, 270, and 287/94-25-02, "Failure to
maintain adequate records of control manipulations."
e. Examination Administration
The inspectors observed examination activities to assess the facility
licensee's effectiveness in conducting written examinations and
operating tests. The inspectors focused on operating test content,
evaluator's use of performance standards, security measures
implemented, and documentation of results. The inspectors concluded
that the licensee had maintained a strong requalification program.
One other example of a violation of 10 CFR Appendix B was identified
involving the failure to follow procedural guidance to maintain
examination security in accordance with Duke Power Company's ETQS
procedures.
(1) Procedure ETQS 703, "Test Development," was a standard that
applied to all oral, written, and/or performance tests
developed and administered by Production Training Services.
Step 5.3.4 stated, "When evaluating different groups of
trainees on the same training content at different times,
construct alternate tests which:
(a) Duplicate no more than two thirds of the test
questions from the previous test.
(b) Reorder questions duplicated from a previous test so
that no two consecutive tests have the same
structure."
The inspectors reviewed weekly quizzes that had been
administered at the end of each classroom segment. The
inspector noted that a quiz was given on both Thursday and
Friday of each week. The Thursday quiz was given primarily
to allow staff personnel working four day weeks to take the
test early. However, the identical quiz was administered on
both days contrary to the above procedural requirements.
The inspectors were concerned with the apparent lack of
security given that the consequences for failing a weekly
Enclosure 2
Report Details
5
quiz are removal from licensed duties and a remediation
program involving a retest. This practice also did not
conform to the requirements of ETQS 903.0, "Test
Administration and Security," which required that all tests
shall be written and controlled in a manner to preclude
compromise. This is another example of VIO 50-269, 270, and
287/94-25-01, "Failure to follow procedural instructions."
(2) The inspectors observed the training department evaluators
and licensed operators during simulator examination
scenarios to determine if the scenarios were administered in
accordance with procedural guidelines. Simulator crews
consisted of four licensed operators; two ROs and two SROs.
Three five man crews were also evaluated with the extra
licensed operator on the boards. The inspectors were
concerned that the licensee evaluated the operators under
unrealistic conditions. Only two ROs stand watch on the
control boards at any given time. The licensee was
evaluating the operators with three operators on the boards
because that is the way they trained rather than the way
they operate the units. This structure represents the
optimal crew compliment that would be available in the
control room to operate one of the units during a single
unit event. Recent events at other facilities occurred with
crew manning less than optimal.
During one recent dual unit
event, crew manning was at the minimum allowed by Technical
Specifications. The low staffing level combined with a dual
unit event led to complications during the implementation of
event mitigation procedures. Enhanced staffing during
training and evaluation provides a level of comfort and a
source of extra resources for the operators that might not
be available during an actual event. Additionally, enhanced
staffing during evaluations can allow some operators to
receive an evaluation in the simulator without necessarily
having to display their abilities in a manner such that they
are readily evident.
(3) The inspectors noted that the facility evaluators carefully
observed and recorded crew performance and individual
discrepancies. Two training department personnel conducted
the required crew and individual evaluations in accordance
with OP-OC-SAE-ROO. After the evaluators observed a crew
perform a scenario, the evaluators discussed the strengths
and weaknesses associated with individual and crew
performance. The evaluators identified weaknesses and asked
questions of the operators as needed to obtain clarification
of actions taken during the examination process. The
inspectors noted that the evaluators did not complete form
ES-604-2, "Simulator Crew Evaluation," immediately after the
simulator examination as required by Step 2.0 of the section
entitled "Crew Performance Evaluations."
Upon completion of
Enclosure 2
Report Details
6
the entire operating test, each crew was debriefed on the
results of the operating test. The inspectors reviewed
examination results documentation and found it to be
satisfactory. The inspectors concluded that the evaluators
administered the examinations using guidelines similar to
those contained in NUREG 1021.
f. Training Records
The inspectors reviewed the remediation documentation for individuals
who had performed poorly during evaluations over the last year. The
inspectors found that the documentation contained sufficient detail to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(5)(i). Most of the examples
reviewed contained sufficient detail including deficiencies noted,
root cause, remedial training required, and the results of retesting.
Interoffice memos were attached to the packages which indicated that
communication and cooperation between the Operations staff and
Training staff was excellent. The inspector noted the remediation
process to be a strength of the program. In addition, the inspectors
reviewed supervisors written evaluations and observations of crew
performance during simulator exercises. Management involvement in the
systematic observation and evaluation of the performance and
competency of licensed operators was satisfactory.
3. Conformance With Operator License Conditions (71001)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's program for ensuring the medical
fitness of its operators and for reactivating inactive operator licenses.
The inspectors identified management oversight problems in the area of
compliance with 10 CFR Part 55 license requirements. One violation and
one non-cited violation were identified in the medical records review.
One additional violation was identified in the area of activating inactive
operator licenses.
a. Medical Records Review
10 CFR 55.25 states "If during the term of the (an operator's)
license, the licensee develops a physical or mental condition that
causes the licensee to fail to meet the requirements of § 55.21 of
this part, the facility licensee shall notify the Commission within 30
days of learning of the diagnosis." Also, 10 CFR 50.74 states "Each
(facility) licensee shall notify the Commission in accordance with §
50.4 within 30 days of the following in regard to a licensed operator
or senior operator: ... (c) Disability or illness as described in §
55.25 of this chapter."
10 CFR 55.21 requires that a licensed operator (licensee) "shall have
a medical examination by a physician every two years. The physician
shall determine that the applicant or licensee meets the requirements
of § 55.33(a)(1)."
Enclosure 2
Report Details
7
On June 16, 1994, during routine NRC review of an operator's
application for license renewal, the inspectors identified a change in
medical condition as certified on Form NRC 396. The operator's
physical which documented this change had been conducted on
September 7, 1993; however, no notification in accordance with
10 CFR 55.25 and 10 CFR 50.74 was made to the Commission until the
application for license renewal was sent in June 1994. This failure
to notify the NRC within 30 days of a change in medical status of a
licensed operator is an example of VIO 50-269, 270, and 287/94-25-03.
Upon notification of this problem, the facility initiated a 100
percent audit of the licensed operator medical records. This audit
identified 15 additional licensed operator medical examinations,
dating from January 5, 1988, where changes in medical condition
requiring Commission notification were identified by the company
physician; however, no notification was made in accordance with
§ 55.25. The inspectors examined these medical records and found the
medical examinations for 12 operators were properly performed,
assessed, and documented. An NRC Form 396 was completed, but not sent
to the Commission. The licensee made the determination that
administratively restricting the operators for the identified medical
condition was all that was necessary. For the three other operators,
the inspectors noted that eye test results, as measured by
ANSI/ANS-3.4-1983, warranted an eye glasses medical condition be
placed on their licenses for future licensed operations. These
medical examinations were conducted on January 10, 1991, May 12, 1992,
and November 30, 1993; however, the licensee failed to recognize that
the eye examination test results were unsatisfactory. It was not until
the operators' medical examination two years later, that medical
restrictions were imposed on these three operators. This failure by
the company physician to identify medical results that fall outside
the limits of NRC requirements is another example of VIO 50-269, 270,
and 287/94-25-03.
During the facility audit of medical records, the facility staff
identified six operators who had not received a supervisor's
performance review as required by Section 3.2 of ANSI/ANS-3.4-1983.
This review assessed such areas as work performance, attendance,
behavioral changes, incidents of ineptness, poor judgement, lack of
physical or emotional stamina, unusual lateness or absence, and
accident experience. The report is done prior to the operator's
medical exam and provided to the company physician as an input for the
psychological or mental evaluation portion of the medical examination.
Five operators did not receive this supervisory review prior to their
most recent medical exam, dating from June 1, 1993. The review was
completed by the company doctor on August 16, 1994, with satisfactory
results. This failure to perform a complete medical examination in
accordance with 10 CFR 55.21 is an example of Non-Cited Violation
Enclosure 2
Report Details
8
(NCV) 50-269, 270, and 287/94-25-04. This violation will not be
subject to enforcement action because the licensee's efforts in
identifying and correcting the violation meet the criteria specified
in section VII.B of the Enforcement Policy.
b. Inactive Operator License Reactivation
10 CFR 55.53(e) states, in part, "If a licensee has not been actively
performing the functions of an operator or senior operator, the
licensee may not resume activities authorized by a license issued
under this part except as permitted by paragraph (f) of this section."
10 CFR 55.53(f)(2) states, in part, the requirements for activating an
inactive license:
"The licensee has completed a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />
of shift functions under the direction of an operator or senior
operator, as appropriate, and in the position to which the individual
will be assigned. The 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> must have included a complete tour of
the plant and all required shift turnover procedures."
The inspector's reviewed the facility licensee's program for
reactivation of inactive operator licenses and assessed compliance
with 10 CFR 55.53(e) and (f).
The inspectors also interviewed
licensed operators, senior operators, and operations management to
determine expectations and actual implementation of the process. The
inspectors made the following conclusions regarding the Oconee
reactivation process:
(1) Operators do not perform plant tours as part of their 40
hours on shift.
(2) Most operators did not actually perform the shift functions
of their license under direction of an active licensed
operator as required by 10 CFR 55.53(f).
Rather, they
simply observed the active operator during the course of
their 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> on shift.
(3) The length of time on shift any one day varied (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />
12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />).
(4) Enclosure 5.3 of OMP 1-12 did not contain sufficient
information to determine if all requirements of
10 CFR 55.53(f) had been completed and did not indicate the
actual date when the individual's license was reactivated.
The inspectors reviewed corporate procedure ETQS 2312.0 and operations
procedure OMP 1-12 for completeness and adequacy. Procedure ETQS
2306.0, was found to be adequate though the intent of "plant
familiarization and tour" was not defined. However, the inspectors
noted that OMP 1-12 deviated from the requirements of ETQS 2312.0 and
thus failed to comply with 10 CFR 55.53(f). Specifically for license
Enclosure 2
Report Details
9
reactivation, 10 CFR 55.53(f) requires a complete tour of the plant as
part of the operator's 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functions under the direction
of an active licensed operator or senior operator, as applicable.
Procedure ETQS 2312.0 requires complete familiarization and tour of
the plant before assuming the licensed position function. However,
OMP 1-12 does not contain this requirement nor does Enclosure 5.3,
"Certification For Return To All Licensed Duties," which the operator
uses as guidance during the reactivation process. During an inspector
interview, the Operations Manager stated his expectation that each
operator will conduct a complete plant tour as part of the
reactivation process. The inspectors also interviewed four licensed
operators who had recently completed the Oconee license reactivation
process. Each operator confirmed that he had not performed any tour
of the plant and was not aware of any expectation or requirement to do
so. The is an example of is an example of VIO 50-269, 270, and
287/94-25-05, "Failure of licensed operators to perform a complete
plant tour when reactivating a license."
f. Tracking Licensed Operator Special Conditions
The inspectors reviewed the facility's process for tracking special
license conditions on operators and senior operators. They found that
no formal system existed which provides on-shift management with the
current status of licensed operator qualifications and license
restrictions. As a result, there is no assurance that those operators
who do not meet medical or requalification training standards are
precluded from performing licensed duties.
4. Action on Previous Inspection Items
(92701)
(Closed) IFI 50-269/92-302-01, "Conflict between OMP 2-1 and CP-601 on
when to enter Section 507, Inadequate Core Cooling." Operations
Management Procedure 2-1, Step 1.3.8, required that if inadequate core
cooling conditions existed then immediate transition to Section 507,
"Inadequate Core Cooling," was necessary. This is in direct conflict with
the note preceding Step 1.0 of CP-601, "Cooldown Following a Large LOCA."
The inspectors reviewed both procedures and noted that there was no longer
a conflict between these two procedures. A transfer to Section 507 is now
required when Core Exit Thermocouples indicate superheat conditions.
5. Exit Interview
At the conclusion of the site visit, the inspectors met with
representatives of the plant staff listed in paragraph one to discuss the
results of the inspection. The licensee did not identify as proprietary
any material provided to, or reviewed by the inspectors. The inspectors
further discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below. The
licensee did not express any dissenting comments.
Enclosure 2
Report Details
10
Item Number
Status
Description and Reference
VIO 50-269, 270, 287/94-25-01
Open
Failure to follow procedural
instructions (paragraphs 2.c
and 2.e).
VIO 50-269, 270, 287/94-25-02
Open
Failure to maintain adequate
records of control
manipulations (paragraph 2.d).
VIO 50-269, 270, 287/94-25-03
Open
Failure to notify NRC within
30 days of a change in medical
status of an operator and
failure to identify medical
limits outside of requirements
(paragraph 3.a).
NCV 50-269, 270, 287/94-25-04
Open
Failure to perform a complete
biennial medical examination
(paragraph 3.a).
VIO 50-269, 270, 287/94-25-05
Open
Failure of licensed operators
to perform a complete plant
tour when reactivating a
license (paragraph 3.b).
IFI 50-269/92-302-01
Closed
Conflict between OMP 2-1 and
CP-601 on when to enter
Section 507, Inadequate Core
Cooling (paragraph 4).
Enclosure 2
APPENDIX A
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Corporate Level Documents
ETQS #202.0,
Rev. 4
Training and Qualifications System Development Model
ETQS #207.0,
Rev. 3
NRC Application Process
ETQS #302.0,
Rev. 6
Exemption and Bypass Criteria for Trainees with
Experience and/or Educational Background
ETQS #401.0,
Rev. 6
Instructor Training, Certification, and Evaluation
Program
ETQS #404.0,
Rev. 2
Selection and Training of OJT Trainers and
Qualifiers
ETQS #405.0,
Rev. 3
Periodic Training SRO/RO Certified Instructor
Continuing Training
ETQS #601.0,
Rev. 1 Needs Analysis
ETQS #603.0,
Rev. 2 Conduct of Job and Task Analysis
ETQS #604.0,
Rev. 5
Training Analysis
ETQS #702.0,
Rev. 1
Objectives
ETQS #703.0,
Rev. 1
Test Development
ETQS #801.0,
Rev. 5
Lesson Plan Format and Revision
ETQS #802.0,
Rev. 1
Simulator Exercise Guide Development and Revision
ETQS #901.0,
Rev. 10
Conduct of On-The-Job Task Training (OJT)
ETQS #903.0,
Rev. 2
Test Administration and Security
ETQS #904.0,
Rev. 4
Evaluation of Trainees
ETQS #1101.0,
Rev. 3
Training Program Evaluation
ETQS #1106.0,
Rev. 5
Selection of Candidates for License Preparatory
Training RO/SRO and NRC License Examination RO/SRO
ETQS #2301.0,
Rev. 5
Operations Training and Qualifications Overview
ETQS #2302.1,
Rev. 8
Basic Operations Training Program
ETQS #2303.0,
Rev. 7 License Preparatory Reactor Operator Program
Enclosure 2
Appendix
2
ETQS #2304.0,
Rev. 5
License Preparatory Senior Reactor Operator Program
ETQS #2306.0,
Rev. 6
Periodic Training Licensed Operator Requalification
ETQS #2312.0,
Rev. 5
Maintenance of an Active NRC License (RO/SRO)
Site Level Documents
OMP 1-12
Rev. 8
NRC License Maintenance
OP-OC-SAE-ROO
Rev. 07
Instructor Guidelines for Conducting Simulator
Training, Student/Team Critiques and Student/Team
Evaluations
OTG-004
Rev. 01
Conduct of Periodic Training Licensed Operator
Requalification
3/15/93
Problem Investigation Process (PIP) User's Manual
8/8/94
August-Operator Monthly Status Report
Oconee Nuclear Station Technical Specifications
Enclosure 2