ML17290A553
| ML17290A553 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1993 |
| From: | Miller L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Sorensen G WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308100052 | |
| Download: ML17290A553 (12) | |
Text
ggS AEONS 0
ty 0O I
0 k**y4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION REGION V 1450 MARIALANE WALNUTCREEK, CALIFORNIA94596-5368 Docket No. 50-397
~llL 2
6 199j Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.
Box 968 3000 George Washington Way
- Richland, Washington 99352 Attention:
Mr. G.
C. Sorensen
- Manager, Regulatory Programs
SUBJECT:
RE(UALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION In a telephone conversation on June 21,
- 1993, Mr. Tom Meadows, Senior Licensing Examiner and Mr. D. King, Manager, Operations Development Training, arranged to evaluate the requalification program and licensed personnel at the Washington Public Power Supply System, Nuclear Unit 2 (WNP-2).
The program evaluation is scheduled for the period of December 6-10, 1993.
NRC examiners and evaluators from your facility will conduct requalifi cation examinations, and the NRC will evaluate your requalification program in accordance with Sections ES-601 through ES-604 of NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examiner Standards,"
Revision 7.
You are encouraged to ensure that your trainin'g staff and proposed examinees are familiar with these standards.
for the NRC to adequately prepare for the program evaluation, your staff will need to furnish the items listed in Enclosure 1, "Reference Material Requirements."
You are also requested to submit, at your option, a proposed examination for use during the program evaluation period.
However, if you do submit a proposed, examination, the personnel participating in its development may become subject to the security restrictions described in this letter.
Please review the guidance promulgated in Revision 7 to NUREG-1021 on the content and scope of simulator examination scenarios.
The scenario examination bank should cover the entire spectrum of emergency operating procedures (EOPs), including alternative decision paths within the
- EOPs, and it should incorporate a range of failures with various degrees of severity for the same type of event.
Each scenario should contain simultaneous events that require the senior reactor operator (SRO) to prioritize their actions and to assign other crew members particular tasks.
Each scenario should also require the SRO to decide when to transition between EOPs and decide which actions to take within EOPs.
You are requested to designate at least one employee to be a member of a joint NRC-facility examination team.
The employee is expected to be an active senior reactor operator (SRO) as defined by 10 CFR'5.53(e) or (f) from the WNP-2 Operations Department.
You are encouraged to designate a second employee from the training staff to be a member of the examination team.
This employee should also be an active SRO, but may be a certified instructor.
If PDR ADQCK 050 V
~gL
2
~
JUL 2
6 i993 desired and agreed to by the chief examiner, you may designate one additional employee from the training staff with appropriate qualifications to be a
member of the examination team.
In addition to these individuals, you wil'l need to designate a simulator operator for scenario preview and validation during the on-site examination preparation week.
In some cases, you may need to designate a simulator operator during the test item review period.
All these individuals will be subject to the examination security agreement.
The NRC restricts any facility licensee representatives under the security agreement from knowingly communicating by any means the content or scope of the examination to unauthorized persons and from participating in any facility licensee programs such as instruction, examination, or tutoring in which an identified requalification examinee will be present.
These restrictions apply from the day that the facility licensee representative signs the examination security agreement indicating that the representative understands that he or she has specialized knowledge of the examination.
The chief examiner will determine when a facility licensee representative has. received specialized knowledge concerning the examination and will execute an examination security agreement.
In most cases, the examination team members will not be required to enter into an examination security agreement more than 60 days before the examination week.
The simulator operator will normally become subject to the security restrictions during the examination preparation and validation week, however, this may occur as much as 45 days before the examination week.
Sixty days before the examination administration date, please provide the NRC regional office with a list of proposed licensees, including crew composition, for the examination and the current mailing address for each proposed licensee, if different from that listed on the most recent Form 398 submitted to the NRC., The facility licensee training staff should send this information directly to the NRC's chief examiner, ensuring that each licensee address is sent in a manner to ensure privacy.
The facility licensee may request that the NRC chief examiner or another NRC representative meet with the licensees to be examined and the licensee managers during the examination preparation week, normally two weeks before the examination.
However, if the schedule does not allow them to meet during the preparation
- week, they may meet at any mutually agreeable time.
The NRC examiner will explain the examination and grading processes and will respond to any questions that licensees may have about the NRC's examination procedures.
The facility licensee training staff should schedule this meeting, if it is desired, with the NRC chief examiner.
The facility licensee is requested to distribute the "Requalification Examination Feedback Form," attached as Enclosure 3.
This feedback form may be completed by all operators, evaluators and facility licensee managers participating the NRC requalificatio'n examination.
The feedback from this form will be used to measure the success of the NRC and facility licensee's efforts to reduce undue stress during the requalification examination.
The facility licensee staff is responsible for providing adequate space and accommodations to properly develop and conduct the examinations.
Enclosure 2,
"Administration of Examinations,"
describes our requirements for developing
3
~
and conducting the examinations.
- Also, a facility operations management representative above a shift supervisor level should observe the simulator examination process at the site.
This request is covered by Office of Management and Budget (OHB) Clearance Number 3150-0101, which expires Hay 31, 1995.
The estimated average burden is 7.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> per response, including gathering, xeroxing and mailing the required material.
Send comments about this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
- burden, to the Records and Reports Management
- Branch, MNBB-7714, Division of Information Support Services, Office of Information Resources Management, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0101), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
The request for responses to the Requalification Feedback Form is covered by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Clearance Number 3150-0101, which expires February 28, 1996.
The estimated average burden is 30 minutes per
- response, including copying, and mailing the completed responses.
Send comments about this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Records and Reports Management
- Branch, MNBB-7714, Division of Information Support
- Services, Office of Information Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0159),
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Hr. King has been advised of the NRC guidelines and policies addressed in this letter.
If you have any questions on the program evaluation
- process, please contact Hr.
Tom Meadows at (510) 975-0305 or Hr. Phil Horrill at (510) 975-0293.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
Reference Material Requirements 2.
Administration of Examinations 3.
Requalification Feedback Form L. F. Hiller, Jr.,
ief Reactor Safety Branch
JUL 2
6 1S93 I
cc w/o enclosures (1), (2),
and (3):
Hr. J. Swailes, WNP-2 Plant Manager G.
E.
C. Doupe, Esq.,
WPPSS Mr. Warren A. Bishop,
- Chairman, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Mr. Alan G. Hosier, Licensing Manager, WPPSS Hr. J.
V. Parrish, Assistant Managing Director for Operations, WPPSS Hr. James C. Gearhart, Director, guality Assurance, WPPSS
- Chairman, Benton County Board of Commissioners M. H. Philips, Esq.,
Winston
& Strawn cc w/enclosures (1), (2),
and (3):
Hr. J. D.'antrell, WNP-2 Acting Manager, Nuclear Training Mr.
D. King, WNP-2 Manager, Operations Development Training Hr. M. Baird, WNP-2 Manager, Operator Training
bcc w/enclosures (I), (2),
and (3):
T. Headows, RV R. Cross, RV Don Draper, PNL H. Horgan, PNL bcc w/o enclosures (I), (2), and (3):
L. Hiller, RV P. Johnson, RV K. Perkins, RV S. Richards, RV R. Barr, Senior Resident Inspector B. Faulkenberry, RV P. Horrill, RV D. Lange, NRR/LOLB T. Hendiola, NRR/LOLB J. Clifford, Project Hanager, NRR/PDV JljL 2
6 1993 CONCURRENCES:
MEADOMS ~mW 4 /zz/93 JOHNSON
/5~/93 HORRILL
/
LHILLER C /Ã/93
/
93 YES% NO 0 YES 0 NO REQUEST COPY REQUEST"COPY REQUEST PY YES NO 0 REQUEST COPY YES 0 NO SEND TO DCS YES/NO 0 SEND TO PDR YES~NO 0
Reference Haterial Requirements Enclosure 1
Provide test items to support all aspects of the requalification and the initial retake examination to the NRC 60 days before the examination dates.
The following reference material:
A minimum of 700 test items for use in the written examination equally divided between the two sections of the written examination and which cover all safety-related elements of the facility job-task analysis (JTA).
The facility licensee is expected to maintain a dynamic bank by reviewing, revising or generating at least 150 questions a year.
New questions should cover equipment and system modifications and recent industry and licensee events and procedural changes.
JPHs to evaluate each reactor operator and senior reactor operator safety-related task identified in the facility JTA, which meet the criteria in ES-603.
The JPH bank should expand at a rate of at least 10 JPHs per year until this goal is reached.
It is esti;.,ated that 125-150 JPHs will be the final result.
A bank of at least 30 simulator scenarios which reflect all abnormal and emergency situations to which a licensee 'is expected to respond or control.
At least 5 scenarios per year, should be generated until all aspects of the emergency operating procedures are covered with sufficient variation in the type and scope of initiating events and level of degradation.
Emphasis should be placed on scenarios that include applicable industry events.
These target levels are expected to be attained by the facility licensees on 10/1/95, five years after the implementation of Revision 6
of NUREG-1021 (10/01/90).
For all licensee requalification examination and program evaluation visits, the facility shall:
Submit an Examination Sample Plan which meets the requirements of ES-601, Attachment 2;
Provide the associated examination banks (written, simulator and JPH) and associated reference material.
At a minimum this shall include Technical Specifications, abnormal and emergency operating procedures, and emergency plan procedures utilized in the requali-fication training.
Provide additional reference material as requested by the NRC chief examiner.
Administration of-Examinations Enclosure 2
The NRC must evaluate'at least 12 licensees to perform a program evaluation.
Normally the crew scheduled for requalification training during the period selected for the program evaluation should be selected.
The evaluation will include other licensees who are not routinely performing shift duties or are not maintaining an active license as defined in 10 CFR 55.53(e).
The restrictions on crew composition in the simulator are described in ES-601 Section C.2 and ES-604.
The simulator and simulator operators need to be available for examination development.
The chief examiner and the facility representatives will agree on the dates and duration of time needed to develop the examinations.
The chief examiner will review the reference material used in the simulator.
The NRC will not authorize the use of reference material that is not normally used for plant operation in the control room to be used during the simulator test, The facility licensee will provide a single room for completing Section B of the written examination.
The examination room and the supporting rest room facilities will be located to prevent the, examinees from contacting all other facility and contractor personnel during the examination.
The chief examiner will inspect the examination room to see that it meets the minimum standard that will ensure examination integrity.
The minimum spacing standard consists of one examinee per table and a
3-foot space between tables.
No wall charts,
- models, or other training materials are allowed in the examination room.
The facility licensee is expected to provide a copy of each reference document for each examinee for Section B of the written examination.
The material should include documents that are normally available to the licensees in the control room such as the technical specifications, operating and abnormal procedures,'dministrative procedures, and the emergency plans.
The chief examiner will review the reference material before the examinations begin.
The NRC requalification examination will attempt to distinguish between RO and SRO knowledge and abilities to the extent that the facility training materials allow the developers to make these distinctions.
2
~
Enclosure 2
Prudent scheduling of examination week activities is important to help alleviate, undue stress on the licensees.
The facility training staff and the NRC chief examiner should attempt to formulate a schedule that will minimize delays while conducting the examination.
The following are some suggestions for structuring the examination activities to achieve this objective:
~
Bring in licensees in accordance with their scheduled examination times.
~'t is better to segregate the group of licensees completing their examination, instead of the group of licensees that are scheduled to start their examination.
~
Following simulator scenarios, the facility evaluators and WRC examiners should quickly determine whether follow-up questioning is required so that the crew members may be released to talk a"...ong themselves about the scenario.
Ensure that time validation of JPHs, particularly those perfor;".. d in the simulator, is accurate.
Establish a reasonable schedule to prevent licensees from waiting for simulator availability to complete their JPHs.
The NRC no longer requires the facility licensee to videotape dynamic simulator examinations.
If the faci.lity licensee requests to videota".e the examination, any use of the tape must be completed before the HRC leaves.the site at the end of the examination.
If a disagreement ove.
the grading of a licensee still exists at the end of the examination week, the facility licensee may retain the tape for the purpose of submitting it to support a request for regrade by the NRC.
During the
- regrade, the NRC will review only the portion of the videotape under
'ontention.
After all requalification examination grades are finalized, including the review of any regrade
- requests, the facility licensee is expected to erase all video tapes made during the examination.
Introduction Requalification Examination Feedback Form Enclosure 3
The NRC is requesting feedback reg=. ding the conduct'f requalification examinations.
The information pro"ided will be used to monitor, on a generic
- basis, the effectiveness of the NRC's and facility licensee's efforts to minimize undue stress in the examination process.
This form is not intended as a mea.-.s of resolving technical or process concerns pertaining to a specific examination.
Such concerns will be resolved using the guidance in NUREG-1021, 'gperator Licensing Examiner Standards."
Instructions Completion of th'is form is voluntary.
If you choose to provide feedback, please answer the questions in ace=."dance with these instructions:
The questions in this form r="ard the examination administered. by Re<elan V at MNP-2 during the==rind of December 6-10 1993.
Although comparisons with previous ex=-"..inations may be appropriate, responses to the questions should be base=
upon this requalification examination.
Any examinee or individual i."volved in the development or administration of this exaaination is encou.=ged to complete this form.
Hail completed forms to:
"nited States Nuclear Re ulator "ommission
~cion V
- 450 Haria Lane
walnut Creek Ca.
94596-5268
!c o:
Lewis F. Hi11er Jr.
Chief
"-.eactor Safet Branch Your Back round Please check the boxes that descri='e your involvement in this examination.
I was:
an examinee involved in developing the ex=-."..ination involved in administering he examination an examination observer other:
Please check the boxes that descri='our current position.
(Check all that apply)
RO SRO c= rating crew member train>ng deartment c= rations department other:
Enclosure 3
Stress vs.
Undue Stress The following questions require you to make a judgment of whether there was undue stress during the examination.
Examinations are inherently stressful events and therefore it is important that you make a distinction between stress and undue stress when making your judgments.
Undue stress is unnecessary or inappropriate stress which can be practically eliminated without compromising the validity of the examination.
The distinction between stress and undue stress is not a matter of whether the stress was extreme or mild.
When making your judgments you should follow these steps:
First, consider the cause of the stress.
Would it have been possible and practical to eliminate the cause of the stre'ss without compromising the validity of the examination?
If your answer is no, then no undue stress was present.
(See point 81 on the rating scale below.)
If your answer is yes, consider the magnitude of the stress.
A source of stress may be unnecessary but also sufficiently small in magnitude to be unlikely to affect an individual's performance in the examination.
(See point 82 on-the rating scale below.)
The alternative is that the source may be unnecessary and also of sufficient magnitude to be likely to affect an individual's performance in the examination.
(See point 5'3 on the rating scale below.)
Ratin Scale:
2.
No undue stress Some undue stress 3.
Inappropriate stress was present that could have been practically avoided but would not likely affect an individual's examination performance.
Significant undue stress Inappropriate stress was present that could have been practically avoided and it would l.ikely affect an individual's examination performance.
Examination Feedback Enclosure 3
~Ratio s:
Please use the rating scale described on the preceding page to indicate your judgment of the degree of undue stress that was present in each aspect of the examination identified below.
Write the number (I, 2, or 3) in the space precedinu the section.
Comments:
Please comment. about the source or cause of any undue stress, including who was affected (e.g.,
examinees, examiners) and suggested practical solutions.
Attach additional sheets if necessary.
Preexamination Interactions with NRC Comments:
Administrative Controls/Procedural Limits Comments:
Plant and Control Systems Comments:
Dynamic Simulator Comments:
,Job Performance Heasures Comments:
Please comment on any practices which you believed were successful in reducing undue stress.
Your cooperation in completing this form is'appreciated.