ML19305B782

Submits Info for Use in Development of Insp Guidance for Regional Ofcs.Administration of One Quiz During 85 Lecture Hours Divided Into Four one-wk Cycles Does Not Meet Intent of 10CFR55,App A.Enforcement Action Indicated

ML19305B782
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	03/10/1980
From:	Skovholt D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Bryan S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
NUDOCS 8003200327
Download: ML19305B782 (2)

Text

7-. ;

TER/9 4

w p

=2%

~

%={y o

~

MAR I 01980

.m 1

.f

]q Docket No. 50-219

=me

& E MEMORANDuft FOR: Samuel E. Bryan, Assistant Director for Field Coordination Division of Reactor Operations Inspections

==5

==

FRGi:

Donald J. Skovholt, Assistant Director for Quality Assurance '

and Operations, Division of Project Management

~

SUBJECT:

OYSTER CREEK REQUALIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM

='

We have reviewed the infomation contained in your memo of Jariuary 31, 1980 and the following items are presented for use in the development

. = = -

of inspection guidance for the Regional offices.

EF The 0yster Creek Technical Specifications state that the licensee will meet

~

the requirements of 10 CFR 55, Appendix A.

This appendix contains two gg; requirements which are related to the requalification program and must be 2:5 included in the program:

a.

Annual written examinations which detemine areas in which retraining

=~

is needed to upgrade licensed operator and senior operator knowledge.

=.

b.

Written examinations which determine licensed operators and senior

='

operators knowledce of sub.iects covered in the requalification procram "E=

and provide a basis for evaluating their knowledge of abnormal and

==1 emergency procedures.

]!=}

In the Requalif.ication Program submitted by the licensee in November.1976 and approved by the NRC in December 1976, both of these requirements were

~

also stated: Section IV, Part A.1.d states; "The (annual) examination

.=

results will be used to identify specific lecture series topics to be covered by each licensed individual during the subsequent annual requal-

.

ification program cycle.

In Part B of Section IV the licensee states; "During the course of the lecture series, periodic quizzes will be conducted

.==.

to demonstrate' training effectiveness."

EE The approved requalification program (Part II Section A) also states that a

=5 minimum of nina different topics will be covered in the lecture series.

E==i From the information presented in the inspector's memo, it is quite obvious

= ;=id that one-eight question quiz does not satisfy the requirements of the

=f; l

anornv3d nrnoram enncarninn narindir n, 4vvae in add 4+4nn; 7 -~

an nnaratnr whn l

=

=

~ '

=

w :.

=

=

--=

==

_],

=

=

.:.g.;

~"_._

=;

=

=

... ~.... -..,

=

=

""r unr2

=. :.

'?

?

3 ' ' ~ "

s i,

yyl:.

}{

Q D

~

2-

'4

... =d H

scores less than 80% in a periodic quiz is required to review the material 5

='

and then be certified that his knowledge of the subject has been upgraded.

This is impossible unless comprehensive quizzes are given at the end of each lecture series.

Therefore we conclude that the administration of one quiz (in addition to the_ annual written examination) during 85 hours9.837963e-4 days <br />0.0236 hours <br />1.405423e-4 weeks <br />3.23425e-5 months <br /> of lectures divided into "tb four one-week lecture cycles does not meet the intent of Appendix A or. the

~~~

licensee's operator requalification training program. A quiz should have been administered at the end of each one-week lecture cycle to assure.that the operators in the requalification training program have benefited from attending the lectures.

If these periodic quizzes are not administered, along with the annual examination, it is very difficult to makia.Judg-ment on the overall effectiveness of the requalification program.

Rather than specify the precise scope and timing of each quiz, we have s

opted to pennit the licensees some flexibility in accomplishing the

==

overall effort.

i:f:f=

The guidance sent to the regional offices should include a requirement for the inspectors to make use of the approved Requalification Program during their review of the way in which the program is being conducted.

In the case at hand, the reported statement of the training supervisor that his action was adequate is ludicrous. The competence and/or veracity of anyone raking such a claim is called into question.

In our view, enforcement

~~

~- -

action is clearly indicated.

If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me.

' Driginal Signed by.

Donald J. S!:ovh+

Donald J. Skovholt, Assistant Director for Quality Assurance and Operations D* vision of Project Management

=.

DISTRIBUTION:

OLB R/F PF Collins OLB F/F DJ Skovholt

=

flRR R/F ZZ Central Files

=

PDR LPDR

3.c TERA flSIC RJ Campbell.

JI itc!!illen

. Pt AD.

bPri b

..(O[

DPM

..n(

y,,c.,

., g

..........N.....~

. 4............

...........h o,1.t.,

-}

CulwAu a >

....... 9.. ?...

..h[..W.Q0,.

cars >

ZGCPORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 Yl* a....o v e = = = e n,... vin....c..........,..

j b

-2.:._..:.

)[;:N

.