ML20059D857

Discusses Arrangements Made for Administration of Initial Licensing Exams at Plant During Wk of 940404.Addl Info Encl

ML20059D857
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/28/1993
From:	Conte R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	J. J. Barton GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
References
NUDOCS 9401100112
Download: ML20059D857 (10)

Text

,

m I

)A i

Docket No. 50-219 Mr. John J. Barton Vice President and Director GPU Nuclear Corporation Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station P. O. Box 388 Forked River, New Jersey 08731

SUBJECT:

SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR INITIAL LICENSING AND REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS - OYSTER CREEK In a telephone conversation on December 8,1993, between Mr. A. Burritt and Mr. G. Cropper, arrangements were made for the administration of initial licensing l

examinations at the Oyster Creek Generating Station.

The one requalification examination, previously scheduled to be done with this initial examination, has been postponed. Assuming no change in NRC regulation 10 CFR 55, the regalification examination will be done in October 1994. The basis for this schedule change is to minimize licensee impact and maximize examination efficiency. This was discussed in a telephone conversation on December 27,1993, between Mr. Cropper and me, along with Mr. A. Burritt of my staff.

The written examinations and operating tests are scheduled for the week of April 4,1994. Your staff will be given an opportunity to review the licensing examinations

~

l in accordance with the guidelines in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," ES-201, Attachment 4, during the week of March 21,1994.

i To prepare the initial examinations and meet the above schedule, it will be necessary for your staff to furnish the reference materials identified in Attachment 2 of ES-201 by January 10, 1994. Any delay in receiving approved and indexed reference material or the submittal of inadequate or incomplete reference material may result in the examination being rescheduled.

1 0700II FFICIAL RECORD COPY G:OC4494 9401100112 931228 i

PDR ADOCK 05000219

)

V PDR j

i

j Mr. John J. Barton 2

DEC2P m3 The NRC will prepare and administer the written examinations in accordance with ES-401 j

and ES-402 of NUREG-1021. In order to conduct the requested examinations, it will be

')

necessary for your staff to provide adequate space and accommodations on the date noted j

above. The NRC's guidelines for administering the written examinations are described in ES-402, Attachment 1.

The NRC will prepare and administer the operating tests in accordance with ES-301 and ES-l 302 of NUREG-1021. In order to conduct the requested operating tests, it will be necessary for your staff to make the simulation facility available on the dates noted above. Your staff should retain the original simulator performance data (e.g., system pressures, temperatures, and levels) generated during the dynamic operating tests until the examination results are I

final.

ES-402, Attachment 2, and ES-302, Attachment 1, contain a number of NRC policies and guidelines that will be in effect while the written examination and operating tests are being administered.

Your staff should submit prehminary senior reactor operator initial license applications and waiver requests at least 30 days before the first examination date so that the NRC will be able to review the applications and the medical certifications and evaluate any requested waivers. If the applications are not received at least 30 days before the examination date, a postponement may be necessary. Final, signed applications certifying that all training has been completed should be submitted at least 14 days before the first examination date.

t This request is covered by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Clearance Number l

3150-0101, which expires %ber 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, includes gatheriw, xeroxing, and mailing the required material. Send comments l

about this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection ofinformation, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch, l

MNBB-7714, Division of Information Support Services, Office of Information Resources Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555; and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0101), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.

l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:OC4494 i

l l

l

.n.

l 4

Mr. John J. Barton 3

DEC 2 81993 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Mr. Cropper has been advised of the guidelines and policies addressed in this letter. If you have any questions regarding the NRC's examination procedures and guidelines, please contact me at (215) 337-5210.

Sincerely, br!-1::31 C1Lau _

3 RICHARD J. CONTE Richard J. Conte, Chief BWR Section Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety i

cc:

M. Laggart, Manager, Corporate Licensing G. Busch, Manager, Site Licensing, Oyster Creek J. Kowalski, Manager - Plant Training G. Cropper, Operator Training Manager C. Silvers, Instructor J. Sullivan, Plant Operations Division Public Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident hspector State of New 'c. :y bec:

Region I Docket Room (w/ concurrences) i A. Burritt, DRS J. Rogge, DRP OL Facility File Master Exam File DRS File bec w/encls (VIA E-MAIL):

W. Dean, OEDO J. Stolz, NRR/PDI-4 A. Dromerick, NRR/PDI-4 R. Gallo, Chief, OLB, NRR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:OC4494

l Mr. John J. Barton 4

DEC 2 81993 (NOTIFY VIA E-MAIL AND NO ATTACIIED DOCUMENTS):

L. Bettenhausen, DRS R. Conte, DRS A. Burritt, DRS l

i RI:DRS RI:DRS.

RI:DRS Bu d,mg Co Hodge y

12/27/93 12/[/93 12N/93 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:OC4494

ENCLOSURE 1 Reference Material Guidelines 1.

Provide test items to support all aspects of the requalification examination to the NRC 60 days before the examination date.

2.

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 (ITA). 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 l

industry and licensee events and procedural changes.

JPMs 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 JPM bank should expand at a rate of at least 10 JPMs per year until this goal is reached. It is i

estimated that 125-150 JPMs will be the final result.

A bank of at least 30 simulator scenarios that 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 (10/1/90) 3.

For all licensee requalification examination and program evaluation visits, the facility shall:

Submit an Examination Sample Plan, which meets the requirements of ES-601, Provide the associated examination banks (written, simulator and JPM) and associated reference material. At a minimum, the reference material should include Technical Specifications, abnormal and emergency operating procedures, and emergency plan procedures utilized in the requalification training; and i

i Provide additional reference material as requested by the NRC chief examiner.

ENCLOSURE 2 Administration of Requalification Examinations 1.

The NRC must evaluate at least 12 licensees to perform a program evaluation.

Normally, the decision to select a licensee or crew for the requalification examination is based on license renewal needs. The requalification examination may also 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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

l 5.

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.

6.

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, administrative procedures, and the emergency plans. The chief examiner will review the reference material before the examination begins.

7.

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 i

developers to make these distinctions.

l 8.

Prudent scheduling of examination week activities is important to help alleviate undue l

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.

i

2 The following are some suggestions for structuring the examinati objective:

on activities to achieve this e

Bring in licensees in accordance with their scheduled examinati on times.

the group oflicensees that are scheduled to start xamination, instead of m nation.

Follow'mg simulator scenarios, the facility evaluators and NRC ex members may be released to talk among thems aminers should ew o.

e Ensure that time validation of JPMs, particularly those perform d i simulator availability to complete their JPMs. accurate. Est e

ng for 9.

The NRC no longer requires the facility licensee to videotap d of the tape must be completed before the NRC l e ynamic simulator m nation, any use examination. If a disagreement over the grading of a licensee still e end of the the examination week, the facility licensee may retai exists ~ -he i 3f submitting it to support a request for regrade by the NRCn the tape for the p s

NRC will review only the portion of the videotape under c. During the regra requalification examination grades are finalized, including the ontention. After all requests, the facility licensee is expected to erase all video ta review of any regrade examination.

pes made during the

ENCLOSURE 3 Requalification Examination Feedback Form IntroductiQn The NRC is requesting feedback regarding the conduct of requalification examinations. The information provided 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 means of resolving technical or process concerns pertaining to a specific examination. Such concerns will be resolved using the guidance in NUREG-1021.

" Operator Licensing Examiner Standards."

Instructions Completion of this form is voluntary. If you choose to provide feedback, please answer the questions in accordance with these instructions:

The questions in this form regard the examination administered by (Recion) at (facility licensee) during {prm dates); however, comparisons with previous examinations may be approprate.

Any examinee or individual mvolved in the development or administration of this examination is encouraged to complete this form.

Mail completed forms to:

USNRC, Region I ATI'N: Richard J. Conte, Chief BWR Section, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Your Backeround i

Please check the boxes that describe your involvement in this examination.

I was:

an examinee other:

l involved in developing the examination involved in administering the examination i

an examination observer Please check the boxes that describe your current position.

(Check all that apply)

RO SRO Operating crew member l

training department operations department l

other i

2 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 stress without compromising the validity of the examination? If your answer is no, then no undue stress was present. (See point #1 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 #2 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 #3 on the rating scale below.)

Ratine Scale:

1.

No undue stress 2.

Some undue stress Inappropriate stress was present that could have been practically avoided but would not likely affect an individual's examination performance.

3.

Significant undue stress Inappropriate stress was present that could have been practically avoided, and it would likely affect an individual's examination performance.

Examination Feedback Ratines:

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 (1,2, or 3) in the space preceding 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

I k

3 Comments:

l Written Examination: Administrative Controls / Procedural Limits Comments:

Written Examination: Plant and Control Systems i

Comments:

Dynamic Simulator Comments:

Job Performance Measures Comments:

l Please comment on any practices that you believed were succescful in reducing undue stress.

Your cooperation in completing this form is appreciated.

t