ML18029A386
| ML18029A386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1985 |
| From: | Bemis P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8503040083 | |
| Download: ML18029A386 (22) | |
Text
January 7,
1985 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL This refers to the meeting held at our request, in Atlanta, Georgia on October 11 and 12, 1984.
The meeting provided a forum for Region II members to meet with members of all regional utilities and discuss operator licensing policies.
Enclosed is a Meeting Summary highlighting the topics discussed.
It includes a
synopis of those issues brought up by the meeting participants and the resolution of these comments.
It is our opinion that this meeting was very beneficial and will result in a better understanding and application of the rules and policies relevant to operator licensing.
It is our hope to have meetings such as this on an on-going basis to continue to develop a more efficient licensing process.
Should you have any questions, we will be pleased to discuss them.
Sincerely, (Original signed by PRBemis)
Enclosure:
Meeting Summary bcc w/encl:
(See page 2)
Paul R. Bemis, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety
.8503040083 850gQ7
'PDR ADQCK 05000259 I
~ i F
f
bcc w/encl:
H. L. Thompson,
- DHFS, NRR D. H. Beckman,
- OLB, NRR A. F. Gibson, RII B. A. Wilson, RII fach Examiner, RII
~Local PDR RII Reading Room CB+dckman: 11 12/gj /84 RI I lli1 son f/ /QC'I I
AFGibson 12/
/84
4
\\
o
~
r
ENCLOSURE 1
MEETING
SUMMARY
OPERATOR LICENSING POLICIES On October 11 and 12, 1984, the Operator Licensing Section of Region II hosted a
conference on issues and policies affecting the licensing of reactor plant operators.
Representatives from every utility in Region II, along with personnel from nummerous nuclear services
- vendors, participated in this conference.
An attendence list of all non-NRC participants is provided as Attachment A to this summary.
The agenda for the meeting, provided as Attachment B, covered topics which were perceived as being the most often misunderstood/misapplied.
Background infor-mation and all policies/interpretations of a unique nature were summarized by a staff member.
The floor was then opened to round-table discussion, and questions and answers.
A synopsis of the questions and concerns posed by the participants and the Region replies to these questions is attached as Attachment C.
It was the opinion of the staff, and concurred with by numerous participants, that the conference was very beneficial
.and provided a forum which allowed many previous misconceptions to be clarified.
It was a consensus opinion that such gatherings should continue on a regularly scheduled basis.
The conference adjourned at noon on October 12, 1984.
Attachments:
A.
Attendance List B.
Agenda C.
Comments and Responses
~ ~
r
~
v
ATTACHMENT A REGION Il OPERATOR LICENSING MEETING - OCTOBER 11-12, 1984 ATTENDEES ALABAMA POWER COMPANY Randy Wiggins Opns. Training Supervisor Farley THE ATLANTIC GP L. B. Curling Manager Trn. Services Atlantic GP BABCOCK AND WILCOX.
Ross E. Spalti James V. Watson Instructor Cert. Supervisor Manager, Operations Trainina BOW 85W COMBUSTION ENGINEERING Peter J. Dellarco Training Cert. Supervisor Combustion Eng.
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Charlie Bethea Steve Cashell Perry C, Hopkins Wayne Powell Jim Willis Director Training Licensing Director of Training Director of Training Plant Manager H. B. Robinson CPSL CP8L Shearon Harris~
Shearon Harris DUKE POWER COMPANY Wendell Barron Richard P. Bugert Steve Frye Gary Gilbert Henry R. Lowery Pam McAnultz Leonard Wright'enior Instructor Senior Inst.
Oconee Trng. Ctr.
Director, Ops. Training Operations Engineer Shift Oper.
Engineer Training tt Safety Coordinator Training Duke Power Oconee Duke Power McGuire Duke Power Catawba McGuire
Oper.
Supv. - Nuclear Corporate Nuclear Training Training Supervisor Licensed Instructor FLOR'IDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Terry Finn Howard Johnson Bill Miller Roger Weller FP8L FP&L FP&L FP&L FLORIDA POMER CORPORATION J.
T. Belzer Bruce E. Crane J.
R.
Cuneo Training Supervisor Manager, Training Training Supervisor FPC FPC FPC GEORGIA P017ER COMPANY Jeff Badgett Ken Holmes Dan Moore Paul Rushton
- Manager, Nuclear Training Supv. of Ops. Training Training Manager Supt. Training GPC GPC GPC GPC MISSISSIPPI POWER AND. LIGHT COMPANY Kenneth E. Beatty Training Supervisor Grand Gulf NRC Tom Burdick Ron Maines Examiner Operator Licensing Branch Region III HQ QUADREX L. R. Lacey Manager of Projects Quadrex SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY John Connel'ly M. B. Ililliams Dep. Dir. Ops
& Maintenance Manager, Training SCE&G SCE&G
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY J.
D. Allen Jarvis M. Anthony Hugh A. Arnold Clyde Brewer N. S. Catron R. Joe Johnson R.
G. Jones Ben C. Lake Jerry 0. Marshall C.
H.
Noe James E. Swindell Harry J. Voiles M. Willis Ass't Ops. Supervisor Operations Supervisor Training Training Section Supervisor Training Section Supervisor Chief, Nuclear Training Branch Training Section Supervisor Training Shift Engineer Training Section Supervisor Supervisor, Opr. Training Plant Supervisor (Opns/Eng)
Training Shift Engineer Ops.
8 Eng. Supt.
Browns Ferry TVA TVA TVA TVA TVA TVA TVA TVA TVA Browns Ferry TVA Watts Bar VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY Bruce Shriver T.
M. Williams Director, Nuclear Training Mgr.
Pwer Training Service VEPCO VEPCO
0' A
ATTACHMENT 8 REGION II OPERATOR LICENSING MEETING OCTOBER 11 and 12, 1984 AGENDA Thursda October 11 1984 TIME TOPIC DISCUSSION COORDINATOR 9:00 A.M.
9:20 A.M.
9:40 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
10:30 A.M.
10:45 A.M.
ll:30 A.M.
12:00 Noon P
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
2:45 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
4:00 P.M.
Introduction and Welcome Organization and Objectives of Operator Licensing in Region II Function of Operator Licensing Section and Introduction of Staff r
NURE6-1021, "Operator Licensing Examiner Standards" Including Examination Review Policy Break Oral and Simulator Examinations NRC Form-398 - Examination Application Form Lunch Written Examination Development Certification of Instructors Break Eligibility Requirements for Hot and Cold License Candidates Open Topics - (Schedule of Exams, Generic Letter 84-14)
John A. Olshinski, Director Division of Reactor Safety Albert F. Gibson, Chief Operations Branch Bruce A. Wilson Chief Operator Licensing Section S.
Fred Guenther, Examiner Timothy L. Norris, Examiner Thomas
- Rogers, Examiner==
Lawrence L. Lawyer, Examiner William G. Douglas, Examiner Bruce A. Wilson, Chief Operator Licensing Section Bruce A. Wilson, Chief Operator Licensing Section
Frida October 12 1984 TIME TOPIC DISCUSSION COORDINATOR 9:00 A.M.
9:10 A.M.
9:30 A.M.
10:30 A.M.
10:45 A.M.
ll:45 A.M.
Regional Administrator Remarks Certificate Presentation Requalification Examinations Brdhk 10 CFR 55.31(e) and 10 CFR 55.33(c)(2)(i); Actively Performing Licensed Duties Wrap-up and Adjourn James P. O'Reilly Regional Administrator Region II Albert F. Gibson, Chief Operations Branch Kenneth E. Brockman, Examiner John F. Munro, Examiner Bruce A. Wilson, Chief Operator Licensing Section
O.
I t
~
ATTACHMENT C COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1.
Comment:
Some utility representatives disagreed with the present NRC policy on Chief Examiners.
They requested that both the Chief and the Principal Examiners be assigned to one site to reduce exam turn around time and increase the predictability of examinations.
NRC reply:
The rotation of chief examiner assignments will be continued in the interest of maintaining exam objectivity, while maintaining uniformity in the administration of the examina-tion program.
2.
Comment:
Utilities requested that examination reviews be conducted prior to the exam being issued to the candidates; this would ensure that the exam questions are appropriate and the answers are correct.
NRC reply:
The current practice of delaying exam reviews unti'1 after all candidates have completed the exam will be continued, in order to maintain the integrity of the examination process.
In our view, the proposed change would reduce this integrity.
3.
Comment:
The utilities requested examination reviewers be allowed to interview the candidates after the exam and prior to the exam review.
NRC reply:
In accordance with ES-201, all candidates must leave the examination area when they complete the examination, if other candidates have not yet finished.
After candidates have completed the examination and turned in their papers, there will no longer be any restrictions between the candidates and the reviewers, prior to the exam review.
4.
Comment:
The utilities requested that candidates be allowed to review the exam as'part of the four person review team.
NRC reply:
Candidates will not be allowed to participate as reviewers.
Efforts by such reviewers to justify their personal answers could, inappropriately, bias reviews.
5.
Comnent:
The utilities requested that a copy of the exam and answer key be left at the facility, prior to issuance of formal exam results.
NRC reply:
Exams and answer keys have not been left at sites, since they are predecisional documents which are subject to change, based upon further review by the NRC of utility comments and candidates answers.
Modification of this policy, based on comments presented by utilities at this meeting, is under consideration.
Copies of final answer keys will be sent to candidates with their graded exams and will continue to be
~
~
'transmitted to the utilities and the public document rooms with examination reports.
6.
Comment:
Some utility representatives voiced concern over the length of oral examinations and asked if there was a maximum time allowed for an oral exams.
NRC reply:
Average times are specified in the Examiner Standards, although no maximum time limit exists.
Examiners take as much time as they deem necessary to reach conclusions regarding candidate qualification; thus, the time for an oral exam varies and is, somewhat, candidate dependent.
7.
Comment:
The utilities asked for clarification of the NRC. policy regarding Training Staff participation on the simulator portion of the exam.
NRC reply:
Staff participation is not desirable, as it can bias the candidate's responses.
The ideal mix is two RO and one SRO candidate.
When this cannot be achieved, staff participation is sometimes necessary; however, strict guidelines will be given to any staff participant and his performance will be
- excluded, as much as possible, from candidate evaluations.
8.
Comment:
The utilities requested to know why the NRC is reticent to use utility supplied simulator exams.
NRC reply:
The utility supplied simulator scenarios are considered in the development of exams, but NRC examiners cannot be restricted to "canned" scenarios supplied by the facility.
The scope of the examination will be supplemented with the lessons learned at all nuclear plants.
Also, the integrity of the evaluation process can not be maintained if only a
limited sample is available.
9.
Comment:
The utilities requested the NRC examiners to prepare the simulator exams at the site, using the simulator to verify responses prior to admini-stration.
NRC reply:
We believe this has considerable merit.
Region II will make every effort to implement this policy within the constraints of maintaining exam integrity.
10.
Comment:
The utilities requested to know why the NRC broke up the utility's designated groupings of simulator candidates (exam teams).
NRC reply:
Candidates should be able to stand the watch with any other operator.
The NRC policy is intended to prevent inten-tionally having a weak candidate rely on a strong candidate to pass the exam.
11.
Comment:
The utilities requested guidance concerning material false state-ments, specifically as they pertain to training course participation; (e.g.,
if, in a twelve week course a candidate misses several days due to illness, can the candidate take credit for the full twelve weeks')
NRC reply:
For minor, inconsequential
- absences, such as the above
- example, and when the learning objectives of the course are
- met, we believe it is proper to take credit for the full
'course.
However, the accuracy of reporting/recordkeeping is the utility's responsibility.
12.
Comment:
The utilities expressed a concern that the NRC Form 398 is in need of revision.
NRC reply:
Agreed.
Headquarters, OLB, is making a revision.
13.
Comment:
How does the NRC verify that reference materials supplied for exams are correct.
NRC reply:
The utility training department is obligated to supply correct material for license examinations, and is responsible for that accuracy.
14.
Comment:
The utilities requested clarification concerning transferability of Instructor Certifications.
NRC Reply:
Instructor certification is based primarily upon passing a
site-specific examination;
- thus, the policy in Region II has been to limit applicability of the certification to the facility to which the exam applied.
Region II acknowledges that NUREG-0737 requirements on this matter can be inter-preted differently; thus, we have requested NRR to provide guidance to assure uniform implementation of this program on a national basis.
Pending development of this policy, the Region II practice will not be changed.
15.
Comment:
The utilities requested that one document be developed to list all the eligibility requirements for RO, SRO and Instructor Certification.
NRC reply:
Reg Guide 1.8 is being revised to provide this information.
16.
Comment:
Utilities requested clarification on whether or not Auxiliary Operator experience should be applied toward "responsible power plant experience",
as is required for SRO eligibility.
NRC Reply:
Four years of responsible power plant experience is required
'or SRO eligibility.
Region II supports the position that Auxiliary Operator experience is valuable
- and, often, responsible.
Current headquarters policy does not accredit, generically, Auxiliary Operator experience as responsible.
~ ~
Specific guidance will be requested by Region II on this matter.
17.
Comment:
The utilities requested to know if the NRC will continue to administer annual requal exams at a utility which had done poorly at one time, but now had corrected the problem.
NRC reply:
The normal frequency for requalification exams administered by the NRC is once every two years.
This frequency can be increased, or decreased, based upon such factors as the most recent SALP
- rating, INPO accreditation, and current inspection findings.
Past poor performance will be considered to the extent that it reflects on present performance.
These criteria are specified in Examiner Standard ES-601.
18.
Comment:
There was discussion on whether it is necessary to put all licensed operators on watch once a month, whether proficiency requires eight hours of active watchstanding a month, and what are the duty requirements for multi-unit plants.
No s ecific questions were expressed, but there was generic concern as to what t e interpretation is for filling require-ments in this area.
NRC reply:
Regulatory Guide 1.8 will be revised to clarify NRC policy on this matter.
In the interim, applications for, those license'es who are not routinely assigned to shift duties, should include justification regarding their involvement in licensed duties.
0-o P
~