ML20012C779
| ML20012C779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1990 |
| From: | Pellet J, Whittemore J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C776 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-298-OL-90-01, 50-298-OL-90-1, NUDOCS 9003230206 | |
| Download: ML20012C779 (5) | |
Text
f;,
i
,f f
APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV l
Operator Licensing Examination Report: 50-298/0L 90-01 l
Operating License: DPR-46 l
Docket: 50-298 Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 499 i
Columbus, NE 68601 i
facility Name: Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS)
Examination at: Cooper Nuclear tation Chief Examiner:
6 fS y E. Whittemore, Examiner Date Operator Licensing Section L
Division of Reactor Safety Approved by-W 6/'Jo
.fl. fe Det, Chief Date '
u peratbr Licensing Section l
Division of Reactor Safety 3
l L
' Summary:-
i NRC Administered Examinations Conducted During the Week of February 19, 1990 (Examination Report No. 50-298/0L 90-01)
Written and operating examinations were administered to four senior reactor operator (SRO) upgrade applicants. Two applicants passed the examinations and have been issued the appropriate license..-Two applicants failed the written, and one of these two also failed the operating examination.
Performance on the written examinations was marginal. The average score on the written examination was 77.7 percent with the lowest being 71.5 percent and the-highest.being 82 percent. All applicants performed poorly on the examination t a
items requiring knowledge of administrative tasks that are routinely performed by SR0s.. Performance on items requiring knowledge of system design features and response to abnormal conditions or signals was also poor.
9003230206 900316
~
PDR ADOCK 05000298 M
})
V PDC
co.
gs 3
z kv j
i r,..
l
[
'l 2
4' t
Finally, the applicants demonstrated poor ability to recognize Emergency j
Operating Procedure (EOP) entry conditions, Abnormal Operating Procedure -(AOP) immediate actions,- and the necessity to perform major functional recovery actions
- such as,
- Emergency Depressurize" or " Flood The RPV."
j
'l
[
e i
i 4
a'i i
i e
l 1
i
~t
[
- 1. -
lU I'
l
+
I o,
.'. h i
~!
n'
+
a
+
,,,m,,-
. +,,..,
- =
b ll.
I c
f DETAILS r
1.
PERSONS EXAMINED SRO Total Licensee Examinations:
Pass -
2 2
- i Fail -
2 2.
- 2. -EXAMINERS L
J. E. Whittemore, Chief Examiner T. B. Sundsmo 3.
EXAMINATION REPORT Performance results for the candidates are not included in this report, because examination reports are placed in the NRC Public Document Room as a matter of course. Individual performance results are not subject to public disclosure.
3.1 Examination Review Coment/ Resolution In general, editorial coments or changes made as a result of facility reviews prior to the examination,-during the examination, or subsequent grading reviews are not addressed by this resolution section. This section reflects-resolution of substantive coments submitted to the NRC by the facility licensee after the examination. The facility licensee post-examination coments, less the supporting documentation, are included in the report imediately following the master examination key. Unless otherwise indicated in this section, the facility licensee coments were incorporated into the answer key.
There were no coments requiring resolution. The facility licensee submitted a post-examination review coment on one examination question, which the NRC
- grader accepted and integrated into the examination key.
L 3.2. Site Visit Sumary
.The facility licensee was provided a copy-of the _ examination and answer key, as it was administered by NRC, for. the purpose of comenting on examination -
I content validity. The. facility was informed that written examination grading l-received at the end of the site visit. These comments were signed by the could not be started until these coments were received. Coments were nuclear training manager.
i l
s K
L L
.. :t
,I i
An exit meeting was held with the following persons in attendance:
4-NRC FACILITY G. Pick R. Black J. Whittemore, Chief Examiner J. Boyd R. Brungardt R. Drier J. tiescham D. Mueller J. Surette The Chief Examiner provided information to the licensee in the three areas delineated below.
3.2.1 Generic Weakness Noted During The Operating Examinations o
Two of the candidates demonstrated unfamiliarity with federal limits for whole body ionizing radiation exposure limits. They stated that an individual who received 3 Rem during the first quarter of the year could only receive 2 Rem during the second quarter regardless of exposure history or documentation, because of a 5 Rem / Year federal '.imit.
o Candidates demonstrated unfamiliarity with documents used to initiate or control maintenance. They were unable to determine if several boxes on the_ respective forms should be checked without referring to the detailed procedure ~for using the forms. Two candidates had to go to a glossary to ascertain the meaning of acronyms used on maintenance administrative forms.
o l Applicants were weak in their use of E0Ps. During a scenario in which an unisolable loss-of-coolant accident to the reactor building was ongoing and the reactor building ventilation system could not be isolated, the candidates could not exercise the E0Ps to the point of reactor pressure vessel depressurization. The applicants demonstrated that they understood what was necessary to mitigate the release, but could not make the procedures work to reach that end.
h 3.2.2 NRC Problems With Examination Preparation and Administration The lighting in the area where the written examination was administered o
E was poor. Examinees complained about ambient temperature and lighting I
conditions, o
System material supplied by the licensee and maintained in the NRC regional office that was used to write and to prepare for examinations was out-of-date.
o The examination question bank supplied to the regional office was also out-of-date. Two reasons for this were that recent plant modifications had not been integrated into the question bank, and items currently in the bank did not reflect the current NRC written examination methodology and format.
t
c u
!?.-
- i L
3.2.3 Information Requested of the NRC by the facility Licensee Licensee training staff representatives stated that they considered this examination to be above the level to which they taught, especially in the procedural area. The NRC Chief Examiner responded that it was not the intention of the NRC to make the examination more difficult but rather to evaluate the applicant's knowledge beyond mere recall of facts. The Chief Examiner further stated that future examinations will contain a majority of items that require synthesis and analysis in order to answer correctly, and the majority, if not all examination items, will be in the objective format (either multiple choice or matching).
3.3 Master Examination and Answer Key i
A master copy of the CNS SRO license examination and answer key is attached, j
The facility licensee coments, which have been accepted, are incorporated into the answer key.
j 3.4 Facility Examination Review Coments The facility licensee coments regarding the written examination are attached.
The one coment was accepted by NRC and incorporated into the examination answer key.
6
(
b l
.