ML20035F013
| ML20035F013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1993 |
| From: | Martin T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035F014 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304200175 | |
| Download: ML20035F013 (2) | |
Text
l l
t i
1 EER 121933 Docket No. 50-254 Docket No. 50-265 Commr;awealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. L. O. DelGeorge, Vice President Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Services Executive Towers West III 1400 Opus Place, Suite 300 Downers Grove, IL 60515
Dear Mr. DelGeorge:
SUBJECT:
EXAMINATION REPORT (INITIAL /LSR0 REQUALIFICATION)
On March 4, 15 - 19, 1993, the NRC administered examinations to employees of l
your organization who had applied for licenses to operate and direct fuel.
I movement at your Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. During the _ same period, a requalification examination was administered to one employee who directs fuel i
movement at the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station. The results of the l
requalification examination were discussed with your staff.
Results of the j
initial examinations were not disclosed.
l l
Your staff conducted a pre-exam review and recommended a number _of' revisions to the R0 and SR0 written examinations, all of which were resolved by the NRC and reviewed by your staff before the examination team left the site. The l
pre-exam review is the preferred mechanism for identifying concerns with the l
NRC's written examinations.
Your post-exam comments identified 11 questions as being invalid or having more than one correct answer. The fact that Quad Cities' previous initial examination (see NRC Report No. 50-254/0L-92-01 dated April 20, 1992) also resulted in a large number of post-exam comments indicates a generic weakness in your staff's ability to validate written examination questions during pre-exam reviews. We are concerned that this problem could jeopardize the validity of future NRC-administered examinations r
at Quad Cities, as well as those administered by your own training department.
As a result, we request that you provide a written response to us within 30 days describing your assessment of the identified weakness, the corrective action, if any, you have taken or plan to take, and the expected completion date.for implementation of the corrective actions.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
1 9304200175 930412 PDR ADOCK 05000254
{h%
V PDR
!)i
i t
Commonwealth Edison Company 2
APR 1 2 1933 Should you have any questions concerning this examination, please contact us.
Sincerely, ORIGilML SIGijED BY T, O, MARTIN T. O. Martin, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
1.
Examination Report No. 50-254/0L-93-01 2.
Facility Comments and NRC Resolution of Comments 3.
Examinations and Answer Keys (SR0/R0/LSR0) 4.
Simulation Facility Report 5.
Requalification Program Evaluation Report cc w/ enclosures:
l R. Pleniewicz, Site Vice President l
R. L. Bax, Station Manager A. Misak, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory Services Manager OC/LFDCB Resident Inspectors LaSalle Dresden, Quad Cities Richard Hubbard J. W. McCaffrey, Chief, Public Utilities Division Robert Newmann, Office of. Public Counsel, State of Illinois Center State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission J. P. Hoeller, Plant Training Manager C. P. Patel, Project Manager, NRR F. Jaggar, Contract Exam Supervisor, INEL R.- M. Gallo, Branch Chief, OLB
' Jcc: LPUBLIC-IE42J RIIIk ' RIIIYl 15 0
RIII RII RI J Zelig/
Shembarddr44 Jor #
[tiiland -
ing 04/ t/93 04/f2/93 04//t/93 04//z./93 04/jt/93 f
\\
-