ML20149D605
| ML20149D605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Dresden, Davis Besse, Palisades, Perry, Fermi, Kewaunee, Point Beach, Byron, Braidwood, Prairie Island, Callaway, Duane Arnold, Clinton, Cook, Quad Cities, Big Rock Point, Zion, LaSalle File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1993 |
| From: | Ring M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309210095 | |
| Download: ML20149D605 (29) | |
Text
- .
September 15, 1993 i l
l- LETTER DISTRIBUTED TO THE TRAINING MANAGERS OF THE REGION III FACILITIES: !
Big Rock Point, Docket No. 50-155' Braidwood, Docket Nos. 50-456/50-457 Byron, Docket Nos. 50-454/50-455 l Callaway, Docket No. 50-483 l Clinton, Docket No. 50-461 Donald C. Cook, Docket Nos. 50-315/50-316 Davis-Besse, Docket No. 50-346 Dresden, Docket Nos. 50-237/50-249 Duane Arnold, Docket No. 50-331 Fermi, Docket No. 50-341 Kewaunee, Docket No. 50-305 l LaSalle, Docket Nos. 50-373/50-374 ;
Monticello, Docket No. 50-263 Palisades, Docket No. 50-255 Perry, Docket No. 50-440 Point Beach, Docket Nos. 50-266/50-301 Prairie Island, Docket Nos. 50-282/50-306 Quad Cities, Docket Nos. 50-254/50-265 Zion, Docket Nos. 50-295/50-304
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- NRC REGION III ANNUAL TRAINING MANAGERS' CONFERENCE CONDUCTED ON JULY 8, 1993 This letter summarizes the conference conducted at the Holiday Inn Hotel, Glen Ellyn, IL, on July 8,1993. The purposes of this meeting were 1) to l provide a forum for discussion on Revision 7 of the Operator Licensing Examiner Standards, 2) to discuss operator licensing issues, and 3) to solicit input from utility training staffs.
The meeting attendance list and the agenda are Attachments 1 and 2 respectively. Significant issues raised during the meeting and the NRC's resolutions are Attachment 3, while issues raised before the meeting and submitted in writing and their resolutions are given in Attachment 4. The l Operator Licensing Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concurred in these resolutions. Finally, the overheads presented during the .
meeting are included as Attachment 5. ]
It is our opinion that this conference was beneficial and an excellent opportunity for open discussion of both groups' concerns with the operator I
9309210095 930915 k }( j PDR ADOCK 05000155 ,
V PDR ,
2 september 15, 1993 licensing process. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact Mr. Michael Jordan at (708) 790-5552.
Sincerely, jphY p ark Ring, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Attachments:
- 1. Attendance Sheet
- 2. Meeting Agenda
- 3. Questions Asked during the Conference
- 4. Questions Submitted before the Conference
- 5. Overheads Presented cc w/ attachments:
W. L. Forney, RIII/DRS B. Boger, NRR/DRCH L. Bettenhausen, RI T. Peebles, RII J. Pellet, RIV L. Miller, RV Region Public Document Room Greens bec w/ attachments: PUBLIC - IE42 RIII RI RIII I Jord n/cg Burdick Lange /M f f Gallo R g-09/jj/93 09//J93 09/pj/93 09/lf/93 09/O /93 ,
S/'Y/1j
I AGENDA FOR 1993 REVIEW OF REV 7 TO NUREG 1021 THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1993 8:00am-8:15am WELCOME/ OPENING REMARKS- Mark Ring 8:15am-8:45am OPERATOR LICENSING PROGRAM- Background on changes - Mark Ring
~
8:45am-9:30am Review of Major Changes to: ES201, ES202, ES205, Questions and Answers -
Tom Burdick 9:30am-9:45am BREAK 9:45am-12:00pm Review of Major Changes to: ES301 Category A, B, and C exams, ES401, Questions and Answers- Mike Jordan 12:00pm-1:00pm LUNCH 1:00pm-2:15pm Review of Major Changes to: ES602, ES603, ES604- Tom Burdick 2:15pm- 2:45pm Lessons Learned from Administration of Rev 7 Requal Exams- Dave Lange 2:45pm-3:00pm BREAK 3:00pm-5:00pm Review of questions submitted to region prior to conference, and followup question and answer period- Mike Jordan
Attendance Sheet for July 8, 1993 Name Title Facility Dennis Lacroix Training Administrator Big Rock Point '
David Staton Senior Nuclear Instructor Big Rock Point Mark Olson Principal Instructor Braidwood ;
Jeffrey Heaton Lic-Ops Training Supervisor Byron Steven Pettinger Simulator Instructor Byron Martin Wolfe Principal Instructor Byron l Gary Wolfe Operating Instructor Byron John F Dampf Operations Supervisor Call away Bill Jessop Shift Supervisor Callaway Scott Deprest Principal Instructor CECO i Ed Feury Supervisor Instructor CECO
]
Ken Gerling Productions Training Supv. Ceco l Kenneth Rach BWR Ops Training Supervisor Ceco Doug Antonelli Director Ops Training Clinton John Earl Shift Supervisor Clinton l l
John Owens Sup Ops Training Clinton '
Paul Telhorst Supervisor Operations Clinton Rich Anderson Operations Supervisor DAEC l Kevin Huber Operations Shift Supv. 'A' DAEC Wayne Render Senior Instructor DAEC Steve Swails Manager Nuclear Training 'DAEC Randy Patrick Ops Training Requal Lead Davis Desse Doug Ricci Supervisor Operations Davis Besse j Rick Simpkins Ops Training Supervisor Davis Besse l Paul Cartlaux Training Supervisor DC Cook I Bill Davidson Operations fraining DC Cook Ron Perrine Ops. Training Coordinator DC Cook Russ Scott Operations Training DC Cook i Jim Heck Training Instructor Dresden ,
Mike Korchynsky Senior Operat.ons Engineer Dresden 1
l
d f t
Attendance Sheet for July 8,1993 Name Title Facility David Schavey Training Supervisor Dresden i Rick Sitts Shift Eng/ Instructor Dresden-David Zehrvny Simulator Instructor- Dresden l Mike Casey Sup. ILO/NPPO Fermi Michael Hall Supervisor LOR Fermi Denny Ockerman Dir Nuclear Training Fermi !
George Baldwin Nuclear Instructor Kewaunee Dave Mielke Operations Supervisor Kewaunee Grant Hayden Principal Instructor LaSalle :
David Shore Operations Training Monticello Ronald Frigo Supv. Nuclear Instructor Palisades ;
Darrell Hensley General Nuclear Instructor Palisades l Carl 0 Oberlin Senior Nuclear Instructor Palisades j llank Johnson Requal Lead Perry l Ken Draska Training Coordinator Point Beach l Clay Hill Training Specialist Point Beach !
Patrick Matson Senior Training Specialist Point Beach !
James Reisenbuochler Operations Manager Point Beach j Terry Vandenbosch Training Coordinator Point Beach !
Terry Bacon Senior Tech Instructor Prairie Islan'd 1 Mike Schmidt Shift Manager Prairie Island 'l Mike Swegle Instructor Quad Cities ,
Chris Symonds Principal Instructor Quad Cities i Archie Lucky Training Instructor Zion
{
Thomas Weis Licensed 0p Instructor Zion l
l
-l l
2 1
i
l
- . Attachment 3
- Ouestions Asked durina the Conference GENERAL OVESTIONS Q: What are the NRC's expectations of shutdown and low-power operations during requal exams?
A: The shutdown and low-power evolutions are recommended evolutions that )
should be part of the facility's program, as applicable. The examination team may select these items as part of the testing requirements, !
Q: What are the anticipated Revision 8 changes caused by the change in the i requalification rule? l A: No direct changes are anticipated for the Examiner Standards, however, an inspection procedure is being developed that would be used to evaluate facility requalification programs.
Q: Will the use of Boiling Water Reactors Owners' Group (BWROG) guides affect simulator scenarios?
A: -The facility may use the " guides" to develop requalification scenarios,
- but the scenarios used for examinations must meet NUREG-1021. .
1 Q: What are the follow-up procedures for weaknesses found during a requalification inspection?
A: Inspecting to assure that the facility has appropriate procedures in place to correct the deficiency. Depending on the nature of the weaknesses, this could result in a comprehensive training program inspection or "for ,
cause" NRC examinations.
Q: What changes to the content of simulator scenarios are anticipated?
A: No major changes are planned. The NRC is not developing additional !
guidelines in this area. However, the owners groups are working through NUMARC to prepare generic guidelines.
Q: Will the NRC consider allowing the facility to administer the initial ;
examination? >
A: The NRC may consider alternate approaches over the next five years or so.
However, there are no plans to do this at the present time.
P 1
i 8
? l l
i
- Attachment 3
- Ouestions Asked durina the Conference Q: During a recent Region V requalification inspection, questions were asked ;
based on directives from the "Denton Letter." Are such questions '
required? i A: The "Denton Letter" was superseded by the rule change of 1987 and a '
systems approach to training. Unless the facility committed to certain items, the "Denton Letter" type of questions will not be asked. However, if your systems approach to training has deleted some of the training _'
identified in 10 CFR 55.59, we may ask you to justify why.
Q: Will the NRC inspect validation of job task analyses (JTA)?
A: The NRC inspection procedure for requalification programs does not focus ,
on the JTA. The procedure for requal inspections is to look _ at performance. If deficiencies are found, then we may evaluate the training '
program and look at the validation of the JTA through a comprehensive inspection using NUREG-1220. If more deficiencies are found, then it is likely an NRC reqJalification examination will be scheduled.
Q: What is the procedure used to inspect operator licensing, and how is feedback from the utilities on the inspection procedure provided?
A: Temporary Instruction (TI) 2515/117, " Licensed Operator Requal Program Evaluation," provides guidance to help inspectors determine whether the ,
training and evaluation programs assure safe power plant operation. ;
Feedback to NRC is encouraged; it may be given through the regions, ,
headquarters, or NUMARC.
i Q: What type of, if any, violations or civil penalties result from 1220 :
inspections? !
A: Violations may be against 10 CFR Part 55 or 10 CFR Part 50 requirements, '
not against NUREG 1220 inspection items. It is expected that deficiencies will be resolved directly by correction of identified weaknesses from the inspection program rather than through escalated enforcement.
Q: Will the initial exams be converted to open book?
A: No. We have no plans to convert initial exams to open book at this time. i h
2 i 1
t
. - . - -_. . - . -. . ~
- Attachment 3: Questions Asked durina the Conference ES-20I PREEXAMINATION ACTIVITIES FOR INITIAL EXAMINATIONS AT POWER REACTORS Q: May reference materials be sent electronically or on disk?
A: Yes, this should'be handled on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the chief examiner. Facilities need to Be cautious regarding controlled documents, i.e. plant procedures. '
ES-202 ELIGIBILITY RE0VIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS AT POWER REACTORS 1
Q: What defines a significant reactivity' manipulation? For PWRs, the ,
Examiner Standards suggest a change in temperature of 10 degrees, but-our program is only 12 degrees.
A: The temperature change is one example. The standard also suggests a-change in power of 5% and clearly observable plant changes.
.t ES-205 PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTERING THE GENERIC FUNDAMENTALS EXAMINATION PROGRAM Q: Will the facility be allowed to develop the GFES in the future?
A: No. The GFES i s a segment of the initial examination process. :
Approximately 40% of the ' exam is developed using INP0 catalogs,10% from i newly developed items, and the other 50% from previous GFES examinations.
The NRC may develop a NUREG with the GFES results of the last five years.
The advantage of sharing the item statistics with facility licensees is ,
being discussed.
Q: May the GFES examination be used for other purposes? '
A: Yes. There is no restriction on the facility use of previously l administered GFES exams for training, pre-employment screening, and entrance into the operator licensing program.
1 3
+
e
- Attachment 3: Ouestions Asked durina the Conference ,
ES-301 PREPARING OPERATING TESTS FOR LICENSE APPLICANTS AT POWER REACTOR FACILITIES Q: Regarding the two prescribed questions of Category B: will the questions be reviewed?
A: Yes. They should be available during the pre-examination facility review.
Verify with your chief examiner. l r
Q: Do you have any examples of low-power JPMs?
A: No specific examples are available. However, low-power is defined as less than 5% of full power. Alternate low-power JPMs may be proposed by the facility.
GENERAL OUESTIONS REGARDING THE INITIAL EXAMINATION Q: Is there a minimum number of examinees for an examination trip?
A: The Examiner Standards suggest 6. We try, however, to accommodate two ,
site visits per year. Facilities need to demonstrate the need for the '
examinations with fewer than 6 for continued safe plant operations.
Q: Will there be any changes in the composition of crews during the dynamic :
simulator exam?
A: No. The scope and function of the individual initial exams necessitates -
minimum technical specification shift manning requirements. In most cases this would be three people per crew.
ES-602 RE0VALIFICATION WRITTEN EXAMINATION Q: May the "A" and "B" sections of the test both be conducted in the simulator?
A: Yes. The candidates should turn in the "A" portions to the proctor before .
starting on the "B" portion.
4 .
i l
i i
_ , , . ~ . _ -. . - - - - - _. .
i
- Attachment 3: Questions Asked durina the Conference ,
l Q: If there is time after completion of the "B" test, may the candidate re- !
work the "A" test? 7 A: This is acceptable if the questions in the second section of the test do not provide answers or hints of answers for questions of the first section, and if the facility can handle the logistics without compromising the exam. This will be agreed upon by the chief examiner.
ES-603 RE00ALIFICATION WALK-THROUGH EXAMINATION Q: Please provide an example of a time critical task.
A: Technical specifications requirements, such as a two-minute action to close an open safety relief valve or place the mode switch in S/D. Timely ;
action required in accident analyses is another example.
Q: The ratings in the K/A catalog are not realistic, particularly in the area l of low-power operations. Will the ratings be revised?
I A: The NRC program office will evaluate the ratings during an upcoming revision of the K/A catalogs. NUREG 1122 and NUREG 1123 will be revised with facility feedback before going final. This should be done within the next year.
ES-604 DYNAMIC SIMULATOR REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION !
I l
Q: If an individual didn't do a crew critical task correctly, could the I individual still pass if he or she correctly answers follow-up questions? l l
A: Yes, this is possible. The follow-up questioning is done to confirm an l individual's weakness. Based on the results of follow-up questioning and i application of the individual competency factors, the individual may pass i the examination.
Q: If two of four candidates on a crew fail as a crew but pass as individuals, can the two be put back on shift after determining if and what remediation is required?
A: Yes. The licensee should get to the root cause of the deficiency and determine what, if any, remediation is required prior to returning the operators to licensed duties.
5
4 Attachment 3: Ouestions Asked durina the Conference ES-701/702 ADMINISTRATION OF EXAMINATIONS /RE0VALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIOR OPERATORS LIMITED TO FUEL HANDLING Q: What should the entry be for item 16.a. on NRC Form 398 for an LSR0 renewal application?
A: Zero or none would be appropriate. !
I h
6
p
. Attachment 4: Ouestions Submitted before the Conference l ES-201 PREEXAMINATION ACTIVITIES FOR INITIAL EXAMINATIONS AT POWER REACTORS l Q: ES-201 Attachment 2 page 9 last paragraph [ asks for reference material including " complete, operationally useful descriptions of all safety j systems interactions...."] What specifically is being asked for? Are :
these ' Operationally useful descriptions' supposed to be very detailed or more of an overview?
A: We need what you used to train your candidates.
l i
ES-202 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR APPLICANTS AT POWER REACTORS Q: There is still a problem with the directions of ES-202 section E.2.b.(1). l This section still requires that the initial or replacement candidate j complete 13 weeks as an extra person on shift in on-the-job training l (0JT). This time is not included in the requirements of ES-202 section i E.2.a(4) that states the candidate [must] also participate in control room activities at power levels greater than 20% for 6 (six) weeks. At the meeting in St. Louis last September this was discussed and was to be corrected; when will this correction be made?
A: This will be corrected to indicate that the 13 weeks of training is part of the experience of Sections E.2.a(1-3). However, your SAT-based programs may take precedence.
ES-205 PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTERING THE GENERIC FUNDAMENTALS EXAMINATION PROGRAM Q: Per ES-205 section C, the GFE examinations are administered three times a year, on the Wednesday following the first Sunday in February, June, and October. Is there a possibility of a facility requesting the NRC to generate a GFES examination when it is required to satisfy the completion of the course conducted at the facility instead of waiting until the administration dates specified in ES-2057 A: No. After October 1994, the NRC plans to administer the GFES only in October and April. The NRC plans to notify all facility licensees in advance through the next administrative letter requesting an update of your examination needs. The facilities may conduct their own fundamentals audit examinations from previously administered NRC examinations.
1 l
o 1
. Attachment 4: Questions Submitted before the Conference ,
ES-303 DOCUMENTING AND GRADING OPERATING TESTS ADMINISTERED AT POWER REACTORS I I
Q: How many forms need to be filled out for an instant SRO? Both the R0 and SR0 competency sheets?
A: Only one form for the SR0 competency needs to be filled out.
ES-601 ADMINISTRATION OF NRC RE0VAllFICAT10N PROGRAM EVALUATIONS !
Q: Out of a test group of 15, how many need to be "NEW" people? In the future it will become increasingly more difficult to arrange new people '
taking the exam to be ' half' of the test population. Will program ~
evaluations be consistently pushed back?
A: Only 12 candidates are needed for a program evaluation, and 50% or more ,
need to take the full exam for program evaluation. The Regional Branch '
Chief in consultation with the program office will decide on a case-by-case basis if fewer candidates provide a sufficient basis for a program evaluation. l Q: Will a requalification license renewal be extended if a candidate successfully completes all sections of the licensing process for requalification renewal (written, JPMs, and dynamic simulator crew ;
critical tasks), but is a member of a crew whose performance was :
unsatisfactory and is unable to be reexamined prior to the six year i expiration date? '
A: Timely renewal pursuant to 10 CFR 55.55(b) would be required for renewal.
License renewal is based on passing a current NRC exam as an individual ;
and as part of a crew that passes. The NRC will continue to process the application and use the results of the applicant's reexamination to determine renewal. The requal exam is designed to allow a re-exam under i normal conditions prior to renewal. However, under normal conditions the l NRC will only take licensing action on a third exam failure. )
l Q: With the " Training Inspection" (" Opt. C") and the NUREG-1220 inspection process, is the six-year licensing requirement going to be removed? Will there be any time frame that will replace the six-year renewal l requirement? '
A: No. The license will still be good for six years. The proposed rule removes the requirement for passing an NRC-administered exam, not the term !
of the license.
2 l
l ur ww-W ' - -
. _. - ~ _ _
Attachment 4: Ouestions Submitted before the Conference Q: To satisfy the six year requirement of NUREG-1021, will it only require !
that the license application be submitted prior to the expiration date or will it require a waiver if the expiration date is [before] the ;
examination date?
A: The six-year license renewal is a Part 55 requirement, not a NUREG-1021 requirement. Everyone will have an opportunity to pass an exam or a re-exam prior to renewal. ;
[S-602 RE00ALIFICATION WRITTEN EXAMINATION ,
Q: What is the intent of having both the "A" and "B" section exams [ worth] 15 to 20 points? Are these point values hard and fast or are they guidelines with the intent of equal point values for each section?
A: The exact number of questions and time allowed to complete each section will be determined by the facility licensee and the chief examiner based I on the requalification sample plan and the license level (R0 or SR0) of the operators taking the examination. Each section must be designed to '
last a minimum of one hour, including time for the licensee to review his '
or her work. Combined, the two sections of the written examination will :
be designed to last three hours.
Q: Can time from one section be carried over to another section? For example, if an operator completes the Section "A" in 60 minutes, would he/she be allowed 120 minutes for the "B" section? Along these same lines, would it be acceptable to have both sections of the exam in the ;
simulator with the simulator setup in the static condition, allow the operators to first take the static test, then when each individual has completed the static to come to the proctor for the "B" section and allow them the remainder of the time, up to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, to complete the "B" section? !
A: The exams should be designed for one hour to answer questions and one-half hour to review the answers per section. If the entire exam is conducted in the simulator then all 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> can be used, If the number and size of -
the crews requires giving the exam in the simulator and a classroom, then use one and one-half hours for each section. Wc are looking for a good mix of questions. )
i l
. . . . - - _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-- _._.~
p l
Attachment 4: Questions Submitted before the Conference Q: Is each question required to have an estimated time AND have the overall exam time validated? Would it be acceptable to just have an overall time 4 estimation for the exam? .
e A: It is acceptable just to validate time over the whole exam, but without ,
some time validation for each. question it is difficult to do an overall time estimate.
Q: Since one portion of the Section A examination has been eliminated, what I will happen to the requirement of 350 questions in both sections of the written exam?
A: This is still addressed in the " Corporate Notification Letter" referenced l in ES-601, paragraph C.I.a. The letter requests a minimum of 700 test ,
items for use in the written exam equally divided among the two sections. ,
The guidelines in both sections are to allow enough test items for an '
adequate sampling and meet the requirements of your SAT-based evaluation element and 10 CFR 55. The Section A, " Static Simulator", portion of the written examination may use either a " major transient" or " steady state "
situation so that all previously developed set-ups and questions may be used in this portion of the written examination. Additionally, the. ;
distinction between Part A and Part B questions will be governed by the requalification sample plan requirements and may overlap as necessary to meet those requirements.
ES-603 RE0VALIFICATION WALK-THROUGH EXAMINATION Q: How may time-critical JPMs are needed in the facility's JPM bank? Should '
it be a number, or a percentage of the total? How many " Alternate-Path" JPMs are needed in the facility's JPM bank? Should it be a number, or a ;
percentage of the total? NUREG-1021, section ES-603 states that the NRC expects the facility to have "some" Time-Critical and "some" Alternate-Path JPMs. Is there a specific number requirement that the "some" equates ~
to that the NRC expects to see for these types of JPMs in a facility's '
examination bank?
A: There is no specified number. The number of time-critical JPMs is based on the facility's regulatory requirements, a facility commitment with the -
NRC, or facility procedures and policies.
4
P Attachment 4: Ouestions Submitted before the Conference ,
Q: That standard states, " Licensees should not be informed of the expected completion time before commencing the JPM. Informing licensees of the expected completion time may increase tension as they approach the time limit. However, the examiner may inform a licensee that a JPM is time-critical, if it is normal practice to do so at the facility."
Our practice is to inform the licensee when the timed portion of a time-critical JPM commences, also. Is this acceptable?
A: Yes.
Q: In section D.l.e of page 5 of 17 states "JPMs that are directly related to a licensee's job tunction are preferable, particularly for SR0s." An example is then given on EAL classifications if not performed during the dynamic simulator or written examination. '
Section C.1.b. on page 2 describes what tasks should be highlighted for i exam use as JPMs that:
- are applicable to the facility;
- are at the appropriate level for the licensee being examined.
(Reactor operator (RO) is responsible for auxiliary operator A0/R0 tasks, and the senior reactor operator (SRO) is responsible for >
A0/R0/SR0 tasks);
- have a KA rating of 3.0 or higher. ,
These two statements seem to contradict eacS other. Feedback from the r 4
operators indicate the former statement in section D.I.e. should be how they are examined and not on a task that they will probably never do because it is not part of their job specification. An example of this would be to locally shutdown the Diesel-driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump. t A: The statements do not contradict. The NRC considers performing A0 and R0 .
tasks to be related to the SR0's function to direct licensed activities, I and doing A0 tasks to be directly related to the R0's job function. The :'
- key is that the preferable tasks are at the appropriate level for the licensee being examined.
i 5
t P
i b
Attachment 4: Ouestions-Submitted before the Conference !
ES-604 DYNAMIC SIMULATGR RE0VALIFICATION EXAMINATION Q: In order for a SR0 [to] be sufficiently evaluated must they be in the command and control position for a critical task? If yes, how can 3 SR0s ,
be sufficiently evaluated in 2 scenarios as listed in ES-604?
A: Each candidate must, as a. minimum, be in an SRO-licensed position for one of the two scenarios. Critical tasks are crew-based and not linked to an '
individual.
e Q: It is our . understanding that the ' qualitative' and ' quantitative' attributes of a scenario are only guidelines and do not have to strictly be followed. Also, if a scenario does not meet all of the attributes then it will have to be evaluated by the examination team to determine if the scenario is appropriate. Given that the previous statement is true, what t should be done, when it is the second scenario of a two scenario set, and the scenario does not require any contingency action procedures to be entered due to an unexpected operator action? The count per the quantitative attributes may not be met. Does an additional scenario have -
to be run?
A: The scenario would need to be evaluated to see if the crew critical tasks are valid. It is possible that some of the unexpected operator actions ;
constituted critical tasks. Additioral scer. rine may or may not be needed ;
based on the re-evaluation of the scenario. '
Q: In your estimation, would it be critical for the crew to take action to exit the instability region whether or not the scenario is designed for instabilities to occur?
A: Yes. The crew needs to properly respond to the simulator plant instrumentation . If the instrumentation indicates that the reactor power is in an unstable condition the crew needs to react properly and take proper action no matter what was planned.
Q: Regarding scenario follow-up questions, how is it possible to pass an individual if the responses to questions are correct even though adequate performance was not demonstrated?
A: The individual must be evaluated against competencies and, if he or she passes, then the utility needs to decide remediation or removal from i shift, but may not fail the individual. .The reason for the follow-up ;
question (on the observed performance of the critical task) is to detect I if the knowledge or performance deficiency is severe enough to warrant a )
failure of the NRC examination. !
6 )
1
Attachment 4: Questions Submitted before the Conference l
Q: Is it acceptable for an operator to obtain necessary information to answer i a follow-up question from other crew members? l A: No. During follow-up questioning of an individual, we are trying to evaluate the knowledge and ability of the individual, not the crew.
However, if there is a potential for a crew failure, it may be necessary for the exam team to pose questions to some or all members of the crew.
i Q: Do follow-up questions have to be asked before allowing the examinees to leave the simulator when the scenario is over? The NRC and the facility representatives have to come to some agreement on the content of the follow-up questions prior to asking the questions. While the examinees are waiting for the exam team to agree operator stress levels are increasing.
A: The examinees must be kept separated until proper follow-up is determined.
The examiners will minimize time to develop and ask follow-up questions.
We are always aware of reducing unnecessary stress. The candidates may be removed from the simulator, but must be prevented from talking to one another until proper follow-up is determined. '
i Q: Are the follow-up questions related to a critical task failure only asked of the individual assigned the critical task or the entire crew?
A: It would depend on the circumstances surrounding the performance deficiency. Follow-up questions will be asked of the individual for individual failures. Individuals or crews will be asked follow-up questions for crew failures.
Q: What would be considered E0P contingency procedures for a B&W unit?
A: It is our intention to observe each crew conduct operations using the procedures or actions listed in Part D of Attachment 3 to ES-604.
Procedures that essentially perform the same function as those listed for Westinghouse (0ptimal Recovery Procedures or Functional Recovery Procedures) may be proposed by the facility for use in the examination to meet this guideline.
6 7
[
E
~
r Attachment 4: Questions Submitted before the Conference ,
Q: What would be considered E0Ps for a B&W unit? i A: It is our intent to observe the crew responding to major plant events and emergencies. The emergency operating procedures they use to assure the public is adequately protected during these events may be proposed by the facility for use in the exam. In a March 4, 1993 letter to the NRC, the B&W Owners Group proposed changes to the examiner standards such that all .
B&W E0Ps, other than the reactor trip procedure, be categorized as E0P l contingency procedures, since the B&W E0P format, as described in the B&W ;
Owners Group Generic Emergency Operating Guidelines (74-1152414, dated !
12/31/91), does not lend itself to easy identification of E0P contingency ;
procedures. NRC's response to that proposal, on May 26, 1993, :
acknowledged the Owners Group's concerns, clarified the intent of scenario preparation guidance contained in ES-604, and explained that NRC examiners review facility scenarios and B&W E0Ps to identify actions and events analogous to those addressed by the Westinghouse contingency procedures (Emergency Contingency Action and Functional Recovery Procedures). To do otherwise, to categorize all B&W E0Ps, other than the reactor trip procedure, as contingency procedures, could lead to inconsistent complexity evaluations for similar events at different facilities.
i Q: Regarding: j Simulator Crew Evaluation Form Communications; i (b) Keep key personnel outside the CTRM informed of plant status:
Please define key personnel outside the Control Room and the conditions I requiring their notification. !
1 A: Key personnel outside the control room would be facility-dependent, based l on facility procedures. They are the plant management who are requested i by the operators, in accordance with your procedures, to take action or request information outside of your control room. They are typically played by simulator operators during a scenario.
Q: Regarding the above: What prompting (per rating of "2") is permitted and by whom?
A: There is normally a prompting by the simulator operator acting as an outside person. This would have to depend on things such as frequency and amount of prompting. There is no fixed amount of prompting specified, but it should be considered during the exam prep week and may be pre-scripted with NRC concurrence.
8
)
. . - = - . - - - . . . - - - - - .
Attachment 4: Ouestions Submitted before the Conferenco Q: Regarding:
Simulator Crew Evaluation Form; Communications; (c) Ensure receipt of clear, easily understood i communications from the crew and others. ,
Please clarify " Rating 1." We perceive its intent to be " Serious misunderstandings among crew members due to failure to request / receive ,
needed information." Is this correct?
t A: No. That is part of the rating factor, but not the complete rating factor. A "1" rating is " Failed to request needed information, or inattentive when information is provided; serious misunderstandings among crew members."
- Q: Regarding: ,
Crew Operations and Communications These competencies are not linked to a safety-significant ,
equipment or actions. ,
i Is the intent to evaluate these competencies during non-safety significant i evolutions?
A: They are linked to safety-significant action if the crew receives a 1 .
rating. They can reflect performance on all evolutions for a 2 or 3 l rating, but to receive a 1 they need to be related to the performance of :
a crew critical task. !
Q: If the answer to [the previous quest. ion) is "yes," what relative weight should be assigned to rating non-safety vs. safety-significant evolutions?
A: Weighted otily to a "1" rating for a crew critical task.
ES-701 ADMINISTRATION OF EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIOR OPERATORS LIMITED TO FUEL HANDLING '
Q: For LSRO, is it assumed that the knowledge from systems in Attachment 1 of ES-701 pertains to only the areas of the systems that are directly related to fuel Handling? Such as knowing how the RHR system may supplement fuel pool cooling rather than knowing all the RHR valve interlocks.
A: That is correct, except they should know interlocks which apply to fuel pool cooling.
9
i Attachment 4: Ouestions Submitted before the Conference t
Q: Assume for a moment that the facility's LSR0 JTA and associated learning i objectives are different from ES-701 Attachment 1. To which would the facility be obligated?
A: Any difference needs to be identified to the Chief Examiner, and the Chief-Examiner needs to be informed why it is not part of the facility LSR0 JTA.
The facility's JTA should be more detailed, so the site JTA usually takes precedence, but the NRC will make the final decision.
ES-702 ADMINISTRATION OF RE00ALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIOR REACTOR ,
OPERATORS LIMITED TO FUEL HANDLING l i
Q: What is " Facility Operating Hours" on NRC Form 398, for LSR0s seeking !
renewal?
A: This doesn't apply to LSRO.
f Q: ES-702 refers to "applicabie provisions" of the 600 series. Can you be more specific as to what provisions are applicable?
A: They are the administrative references to the 600 series that apply to the examination process. The Chief Examiner will answer specific questions on applicable provisions of ES-600 series. ;
Q: ES-702 page 3 of 8, paragraph 2.a(2) states that "The NRC will specify a j modified list of material requirements associated with LSR0 fuel handling ;
activities." What can we expect on the modified list?.
A: Your LSRO-training material (i.e. procedures, training, instructions, etc.).
J 10 l
~er
ES-201, PREEXAMINATION ACTIVITIES
- CORPORATE NOTIFICATION LETTER Mailed 120 Days Before Exam Date, Reference Materials Requested 90 Days Before Exam Date Enclosures Deleted From Letter (Applicable ES Referenced)
Reference List Includes Shutdown And Low Power JPMs & Scenarios (Critical To 5%)
e EXAMINATION PREPARATION TRIPS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED i
4
l ES-202, ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS & GUIDELINES l
e Verify Completion Of SAT-Based, Simulator Enhanced l>rogram
- Significant Control Manipulation - Clearly Oliservable Plant Response
-ES-205, GENERIC FUNDAMENTALS EXAMINATION
- Incorporate Onsite Administration 9
I ES-301, PREPARATION OF OPERATING TESTS
- CATEGORY A - ADMINISTRATIVE TOPICS Coinbined- Into 4 Topic Areas That Address 10 CFR 55 Sampling Requirennents:
- Conduct of Operations /2
- Equipment Control /l
- Radiation Control /l ,
- Emergency Plan /1 All Topics Evaluated For Each Applicant - Depth Of Coverage Determined -
By License Level Subject Area Requirements
- One JPM Per Subject Area or
- Two Prescribed Questions Per Subject Area Encourage Integration With Walkthrough And Dynamic Simulator Extun
'g
.g
-....__--.--_.__._.-.-..,.._--_.-_-----._u.---------,---an . -- - , , . ,.e,- w.,.. .+_ _ _ . .,,,,,...,w. ..,n.. ~. -,....ww,, - -e..r- .n,.r-. , v-.--. .-
ES-301, PREPARATION OF OPERATING TESTS
- In-Plant 3
- U-SRO - Control Room - 2
- In-Plant - 2 + 1 from Eather Systems Selected From Safety Function G roupings in K/A Catalog (NUREG-1122 or 1123)
At Least 1 Shutdown or Low Power JPM One or Two Alternate Path JPMs Two Prescribed Questions K/A/ or G's Per JPM
- Category C - Integrated Plant Operations Shutdowii And Low Power Operations j -
Reference To Qualitative Guidelines In ES-604 For Preparation l
ES-401, PREPARATION OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS T
Same 100 Point Exam Over 4 Hours l
No longer Use Of Short Answer Question All Matching Or Multiple Choice (Multiple Choice Preferred) t t
4 l
'4 9 m.__ ____m_____m_ . m., __m_m4,_ ..... . . _ _ . . - . . _ _ . , ~. ____..s.__ . . . - . -
- .s , -m... -._. - - , ~ . . _- . . . . . - . , , . .. r , , , ... , ._ _ <.. ., .. _.
ES 601-605, REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION ES-602 -
WRITTEN EXAM
'One Static Simulator - Section A 3 Hour Exam - System A & B Exam Team Determine Number Of Questions In Each Section Simulator Can Be Used For Both Parts ES-603 -
WALKTHROUGH EXAM -
l l
5 JPM's And No Prescribed Questions (4/5 Required For Pass) l l
l l
em 9
-_ __m_m_____.__m._.______________....___.________.,a-__m,_,...,,~..,,-_,-,_m. _ , . . , .. ..,,, - .. . ~,, .. .. . _ ,. _ _ . , , , . . , ..._ ,
ES-604 -
DYNAMIC SIMULATOR EXAM e Two Scenarios Minimum
- Must Have Crew Critical Tasks Identified
- Crew Grading Using the competency form (ES604-2)
One failed rating factor may / 2 failed rating factors in a competency will Performance linked to critical task
- Individual Grading Facility to document and grade individuals Exam team will followup on individual significant deficiencies linked to CT's Grade on NRC ES303-4 (competency form) if followup needed
- Pass /F.ailure Criteria Individual must pass individually and be on a passing crew Failures must be linked to performer of a crew critical task Individual MAY PASS - however FACILITY must identify any remediation required per 55.59(c)(4)
- SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Quantitative - Provides For A Italance Of Abnorinal Arul Einergency Events Qualitative - Provides A More Consistent Approach For Measuring Performance
- STRESS FEEDBACK FORM Voluntary and part of the Corporate Notification Letter Encourage feedback from both licensee and training department CRITERIA FOR SATISFACTORY PROGRAM SIMPLIFIED
> 75% individual PASS rate = Total number of PASSES e
e Total number in Dynamic Scenario or ,
> 2/3 of crew PASS
. . . , . - v-