ML20128F651
| ML20128F651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-027, SECY-93-27, NUDOCS 9302110496 | |
| Download: ML20128F651 (9) | |
Text
7" "%,i, sh/q3 cp 1
aati ina s~:
r rm f
..................s......
\\*ess /
e POLICY ISSUE (Information)
February 5, 1993 SECY-93-027 l
f_ol:
The Commissioners from:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations l
Subh_q1:
ANNUAL STATUS REPORT ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NRC'S REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM AND INITIAL OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS (WITS 8800098)
Purnon :
To inform the Commission of the status of the NRC's licensed operator requalification program and the results of the NRC's initial licensing examinations for reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SR0) applicants.
Backaround:
The staff issued its first periodic report on the status of l
the NRC's licensed operator requalification program on August 28, 1989, and continued to issue quarterly or semi-annual status reports through the end of calendar year 1991.
In a staff requirements memorandum of January 8, 1992, the Commission directed the staff to henceforth submit a single annual report and include the results of the NRC's initial R0 and SRO licensing and requalification examinations. On February 25, 1992, the staff issued the first combined report, SECY-92-066, " Semi-Annual Status Report on the NRC's Requalification Program and initial Licensed Operator Examination."
On March 19, 1992, the staff informed the Commission in SECY-32-100, " Status and Direction of the Licensed Operator 190007 Requalification Program," of improvements that it was considering for the NRC's licensed operator requalification CONTACT:
Robert M. Gallo, NRR NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 504-1031 IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM Tile 7
~~%
DATE OF TilIS PAPER l
I
]
i The Commissioners program.
Those improvements included using a crew-based method for evaluating operator performanco during the dynamic simulator portion of the operating test.
The staff evaluated the proposed method during a pliot examination program at six facilities and determined that it was a significant improvement over the historical individual-based evaluation method.
In a staff requirements memorandum of June 23, 1992, the Commission approved the use of the pilot examination method at each facility and noted the staff's intent to implement the pilot method at the facility's option until the Examiner Standards (NUREG-1021) are revised and formally issued.
The Commission requested the staff to continue to provide the Commission with information on the pass / fail rates for operator requalification examinations each year and to include a comparison of the pass rate for requalification examinations using the pilot method with the pass rate based on historical individual requalification criteria.
In July 1992, the staff issued the revised Examiner Standards for industry and public comment and plans to publish Revision 7 of NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," during the first quarter of calendar year 1993 with a scheduled implementation date of 180 days from the date of publication.
Discussion:
NRC Reaualification Examination Summary for Fiscal Year 3392 During fiscal year 1992, the staff evaluated 43 requalification programs and examined 751 operators.
The res.lts are summarized in the following table.
gives detailed results of the examinations at each facility.
Recualification Results sum.ary for fiscal year 1992 Element Water Pass / Fall Percent Evaluated Pass Programs 43 4?/1 98 trews 186 177/9 95 stos 467 43?/35 93 Ros 284 269/15 95 total (SRO + RO) 751 701/50 93 t
1 i*
l The Commissioners i i
The overall requalification program pass rate for fiscal years 1989 through 1992, inclusive, was 92 percent, and the overall individual operator pass rate during this same j
period was 89 percent.
3 At the beginning of this reporting period (October 1, 1991),
s four facilities (Vermont Yankee, Wathington Nuclear 2, FitzPatrick,-and Hillstone 1 had unsatisf6ctory
- requalification programs base)d on previous evaluations.
The staff' reevaluated the requalification programs.at Vermont Yankee FitzPatrick, and Washington Nuclear 2 in february, May, and November 1992, respectively, and determined that they were performing satisfactorily.
i In December 1991, the staff evaluated the corrective actions i.
that had been done at the Millstone 1 facility and reclassified its requalification program as provisionally i
satisfactory.
However, when the staff conducted a complete requalification program evaluation in September 1992,- it discovered that the licensee was again performing at an i
unsatisfactory level.
The staff conducted o)erational-i evaluations at the facility to ensure that t1e facility licensee could continue to operate the plant safely.
The staff concluded that the plant need not be shut down because (1) the NRC examinations administered since 1991 indicated that-the facility's program was improving,-(2) three of four operating shift crews' tested during September 1992 perfor_med satisfactorily, and (3) the-program weaknesses---involved a 1
level of individual operator proficiency for which the l
operators are receiving additional training. The staff will continue to conduct augmented ins ections at Hillstone 1 to monitor the effectiveness of the icensee's corrective action program. The staff has scheduled another.
j requalification program evaluation for the fall of 1993.
Summary of NRC Reoualification Examinations Usina the Crew-
[
Based Gradina Method I
At the facility's option, most facilities have chosen to use the crew-based grading method, which the Commission approved-on June 23, 1992,- and issued for comment in July 1992.
Since September 1992, the staff has evaluated 12 programs i
and examined 188 operators using the crew-based grading L
method. During the first quarter of fiscal year 1993, three l
other facilities chose the historical, individual-based L
4 l
l
t o
4-The Commissioners grading method. The staff will not require requalification examinations to be conducted in accordance with Revision 7 of NUREG-1021 until 180 days after its publication. The results of the crew-based examinations are summarized in the following table. gives the detailed results of those evaluations.
Crew sated Method D,es, ult _a $menary Element h@ber Poss/ Fall Percent Evaluated Pass Prcgrams 12 12/0 1(10 Crews 44 43/1 98 tRos 107 102/5 95 Ros 81 76/5 94 Total (tRD + RO) 188 178/10 95 The staff believes that the slightly higher pass rate observed for the crew-based method as compared to the historical evaluation criteria can be attributed to better teamwork among the operators during the dynamic simulator scenarios.
Operators evaluated using the crew-based method are more likely to support each other than those who were evaluated using the individual simlilator critical task (ISCT) method specified in the current version (Revision 6) of the Operator Licensing Examiner Standards (NUREG-1021).
Summary of Initial Examination Result 1 In SECY-92-066, the staff summarized the results of the NRC's initial operator licensing examinations for fiscal years 1987 through 1991 and the first quarter of fiscal year 1992.
The following table reflects the examination results for all of fiscal year 1992:
Inittet Examination Results tmunary Percent Passed During Fiscal tear 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Written 88.8 90.0 89.9 92.1 92.6 92.2 Operating 95.7 94.7 95.3 95.1 95.6 98.2 Weltten 91.0 91.1 93.5 94.2 96.8 97.9 SRO Operating 91.0 95.2 92.3 92.6 94.9 95.6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _
The Commissioners The staff finds that facility initial operator training programs produce applicants who can safely operate their facilities. These operators are then authorized by license to perform the function of a reactor operator or senior reactor operator.
Revision 7 of the Examiner Standards (NUREG-1021) incorporates minor changes to the initial examination process and are not expected to alter examination results.
The staff will not require initial examinations to be conducted in accordance with Revision 7 of NUREG-1021 until 180 days after its publication.
==
Conclusion:==
The staff concludes that the NRC's requalification examination program continues to be an effective method for assessing operator competence in performing licensed duties and for evaluating the adequacy of facility requalification programs.
The results of the examinations conducted in accordance with the crew-based dynamic simulator grading method have reinforced the conclusions that the staff reached during the pilot testing program and reported to the Commission in SECY-92-100.
_/
-esM.Tgflor ecutive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
Cornmissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP REGIOtUUL OFFICES EDO ACRS ASLDP SECY
=
o ENCLOSURE 1 FISCAL YEAR 1992 STATUS REPORT ON THE NRC REQUAllFICATION PROGRAM OCTOBER 1991 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1992 Facility Candidates i
Failed R0 SRO Crew Program DATE Evaluated Exhmined P/F WRT/0P P/F P/F Crews P/F SAT /VNSAT Calvert Cliffs 18 11/1 1/0 6/1 11/0 4
4/0 SAT 10-91 Fort Calhoun 12 12/0 0/0 4/0 8/0 2
-2/0 SAT 10-91 Ginna 7
5/2 2/1 2/0 3/2 2
2/0 (1) 10-91 Seabrook 8
8/0 0/0 1/0 7/0 2
2/0 (1) 10-91 I
Prairie Island 16 16/0 0/0 8/0 8/0 4
4/0 SAT 11-91 Nine Mile 1 13 13/0 0/0 7/0 6/0 3
3/0 SAT 11-91 Cooper 12 10/2 0/2 2/0 8/2 3
2/1 SAT 11-91 Millstone 3 8
8/0 0/0 1/0 7/0 2
2/0 (1) 12-91 J
Nine Mile 2 9
8/l 0/1 4/1 4/0 2
2/0 (1) 12-91 Sequoyah 19 16/3 2/2 9/0 7/3 5
5/0 SAT 12-91 Fermi 12 10/2 0/2 6/0 4/2 3
2/1 SAT 12-91 Davis-Besse 20 20/0 0/0 7/0 13/0 5
5/0 SAT 12-91 River Bend 12 9/3 1/2 3/1 6/2 2
2/0 SAT 12-91 Trojan
'6 16/0 0/0 5/0 11/0 4
4/0 SA1(5) 12-91 Susquehanna 12 9/3 0/3 4/2 5/1 3
2/1 SAT l-92 DC Cook 20 20/0 0/0 8/0 12/0 6
6/0 SAT l-92 Zion 20 19/1 1/0 8/0 11/1 5
8/0 0/0 6/0 2/0 3
3/0 (1) 1-92 Callaway 16 16/0 0/0 6/0 10/0 4
4/0 SAT 2-92 Vermont Yankee 12 12/0 0/0 4/0 8/0 3
3/0 SAT 2-92 Limerick 12 12/0 0/0 6/0 6/0 4
4/0 SAT 2-92 Kewaunee 3
3/0 0/0 1/0 2/0 1
1/0 SAT (2) 2-92
e facility Candidates Failed R0 SRO Crew Program DATE Evaluated Examined P/F WRT/0P P/F P/F Crews P/F SAT /UNSAT Turkey Point 20 19/1 0/1 2/0 17/1 5
5/0 SAT 3-92 Peach Bottom 7
6/1 0/1 2/0 4/1 1
1/0 (1) 3-92 Farley 16 16/0 0/0 3/0 13/0 4
4/0 SAT 3-92 Monticello 12 12/0 0/0 3/0 9/0 4
4/0 SAT 3-92 Palisades 8
8/0 0/0 3/0 5/0 2
2/0 SAT (2) 3-92 South Texas 28 28/0 0/0 16/0 12/0 6
6/0 SAT 3-92 Millstone 2 9
9/0 0/0 3/0 6/0 2
2/0 (1) 4-92 Brunswick 16 16/0 0/0 6/0 10/0 6
5/1 SAT 4-92 Braidwood 23 23/0 0/0 10/0 13/0 7
7/0 SAT-4-92 Big Rock Pt 5
2/3 1/3 0/2 2/1 2
1/1 (1) 4-92 Pilgrim 15 13/2 1/1 8/l 5/1 3
3/0 SAT 5-92 FitzPatrick 13 13/0 0/0 3/0 10/0 4
4/0 SAT 5-92 Haddam Neck 4
3/1 0/1 2/0 1/1 1
1/0 (1) 5-92 LaSalle 13 12/1 0/1 3/1 9/0 3
3/0 SAT 5-92 Catawba 22 17/5 1/4 4/2 13/3 6
6/0 SAT 5-92 McGuire 20 15/5 2/3 7/0 8/5 4
3/1 SAT 6-92 Vogtle 30 29/1 0/1 12/0 17/1 6
6/0 SAT 6-92 ANO 2 16 15/1 0/1 6/0 9/1 2
2/0 SAT 6-92 Duane Arnold 12 12/0 0/0 3/0 9/0 4
4/0 SAT 6-92 Byron 16 16/0 0/0 6/0 10/0 4
4/0 SAT 6-92 Clinton 11 11/0 0/0 2/0 9/0 3
3/0 SAT (3) 6-92 Oconee 24 22/2 0/2 9/1 13/1 6
5/1 SAT _
7-92 Susquehanna 12 11/1 0/1 3/0 8/1 3
3/0 SAT 8-92 Indian Point 2 12 11/1 0/1 3/0 8/l 3
3/0 SAT 8-92 Beaver Valley 212 12/0 0/0 5/0 7/0 3
3/0 SAT 8-92.
4 facility Candidates Failed R0 SRO Crew Program DATE Evaluated Examined P/F WRT/0P P/F P/F Crews P/F SAT /UNSAT North Anna 6
6/0 0/0 3/0 3/0 1
1/0 (1) 9-92 Dresden 20 19/1 0/1 7/0 12/1 4
4/0 SAT 9-92 Quad Cities 13 13/0 0/0 6/0 7/0 3
3/0 SAT 9-92 Praire Island 12 12/0 0/0 6/0 6/0 3
3/0 SAT 9-92 Millstone 1 15 10/5 0/5 3/3 7/2 3
2/1 UNSAT 9-92 liatch 24 23/1 0/1 12/0 11/1 6
6/0 SAT (4) 9-92 Notes:
1.
Program evaluation deferred until sample size melts the guidance of Examiner Standard ES-601 (12 operators;.
2.
Program was considered satisfactory based on both the results of this examination and the results of the previous examination.
3.
Program was considered Satisfactory with concurrence of NRR.
4.
Examination administered using NUREG-1021, Revision / method.
5.
Examination administered as part of the pilot testing program. I l
ENCLOSURE 2 STATUS REPORT ON THE NRC REQUAllflCATION PROGRAM USING THE CREW-BASED SIMULATOR GRADING PROCEDURE (SEPTEMBEP - DECEMBER 1992)
Facility Candidates Failed R0 SRO Crew Program DATE Evaluated Examined P/F WR'l/uP P/F P/F Crews P/F SAT /UNSAT Hatch 24 23/1 0/1 12/0 11/1 6
6/0 SAT (1) 9-92 Calvert Cliffs 16 16/0 0/0 6/0 10/0 4
4/0 SAT 10-92 Seabrook 16 16/0 0/0 4/0 12/0 4
4/0 SAT 10-92 Surry 12 12/0 0/0 6/0 6/0 3
3/0 SAT 10-92 St. Lucie 24 21/3 3/1 9/3 12/0 6
6/0 SAT 10-92 Nire Mile 2 15 14/1 0/1 9/0
-5/1 3
3/0 SAT (2) 11-92 Crystal River 15 12/3 1/2 8/l 4/2 3
2/1 SAT (2) 11-92 Millstone 2 5
5/0 0/0 2/0 3/0 1-1/0 SAT (3) 12-92 Millstone 3 4
4/0 0/0 2/0 2/0 1
1/0 SAT (3) 12-92 Wolf Creek 13 12/1 1/0 3/0 9/1 3
3/0 SAT 12-92 40 SAT 12-92 Browns Ferry 20 20/0 0/0 8/0 12/0 4
f Sequoyah 24 23/1 0/1 7/1 16/0 6
6/0 SAT 12-92 NOTE:
1.
This examination is also included in the fiscal year 1992 status report (Enclosure 1).
2.
One SR0 operator failed the dynamic simulator examination.
3.
Program was satisfactory based on both the results of this examination and the results of the previous examination.
1
~, _ _... _ _ _,
. ~
- _.. -, _.