ML20155G486

Forwards Operator Licensing Exam Repts 50-454/98-301(OL) & 50-455/98-301(OL) Administered on 980914-22.Mgt Meeting Held on 981021 to Hear & Discuss Root Cause Evaluation & Corrective Actions Re High Rate of Exam Failures

ML20155G486
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	10/30/1998
From:	Grobe J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Kingsley O COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20155G468	List: IR 05000454/1998301 ML20155G466 ML20155G486
References
50-454-98-301OL, 50-455-98-301OL, NUDOCS 9811090066
Download: ML20155G486 (3)

See also: IR 05000454/1998301

Text

, _ _._.- _._ _ _ _

'

'

.. l

1

)

. .

l

October 30,1998 I

Mr. Oliver D. Kingsley -

President, Nuclear Generation Group

Commonwealth Edison Company

ATTN: Regulatory Services

Executive Towers West lli

1400 Opus Place, Suite 500

Downers Grove, IL 60515

SUBJECT: BYRON OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION REPORT 50-454/98301(OL); .1

50-455/98301(OL) )

!

Dear Mr. Kingsley: )

i

. On September 18,1998, the NRC completed initial operator license examinations at your Byron )

_ Nuclear Generating Station. The operating examination was administered from September 15  !

through September 18,1998, and the written examination was administered on September 14,

1998. .During the license examination, control room operations were observed and several 1

administrative and operating procedures were reviewed. The enclosed report presents the' I

results of the examination and the concurrent operations inspection. At the conclusion of the -

examination process, preliminary findings were discussed with those members of your staff

identified in the enclosed report during an Exit meeting on September 22,1998. The license 4

applicants' performance evaluations were finalized and members of your staff were informed of

the examination results on October 20,1998. Furthermore, a management meeting was held

on October 21,1998, to hear and discuss your root cause evaluation and corrective actions  ;

conceming the high rate of examination failures and training weaknesses.  ;

Examinations were administered to two Reacto.- Operator applicants and three Senior Reactor

Operator applicants. Both Reactor Operator applicants and two Senior Reactor Operator

applicants failed portions of their examination and were denied operator licenses. One Senior

'

Reactor Operator applicant passed all sections of his examination and was issued a Senior

Reactor Operator iicense to operate your Byron Station.

During the examination and preparation weeks, the examiners observed actual control room

( operations, as part of continuing assessment of licensed operator performance. The

observation included a shift tumover and a Heightened Level of Awareness (HLA) briefing.

Operators in the control room were noted to be attentive and knowledgeable of plant status

when' questioned by the examiners. Operators were also observed to be satisfactorily

referencing procedures and responding to annunciators.' During the shift tumover and HLA

briefing, the operators were observed to be actively involved in the discussions and overall

s communications were good. In addition, the operators who performed examination validation

were knowledgeable and provided good insight and information during the simulator scenario

verification.

I

9811090066'981103 *r

PDR ADOCK 05000454

V PDR

h

_. ._ . _ . .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

.

v

O. Kingsley -2-

This was the Byron Training Department Staff's second opportunity to develop an operator

license examination developed under the guidelines contained in NUREG 1021, " Operator

Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Interim Revision 8. The examiners

identified that the training department staff's attention to detail, knowledge of examination

development guidelines, and ability to develop technically accurate examination material

according to the guidelines were satisfactory. However, the submitted examination material

required NRC attention to correct some deficiencies to better conform with NUREG 1021

guidance. Examples of these deficiencies are as follows: (1) approximately 40% of the written

examination questions required some NRC effort that included correcting editorial problems

(grammar correction, typographical errors), clarify or enhance question stems and distractors,

and the rewriting or replacement of five questions; (2) two of the simulator scenarios required

some minor improvements and corrections; and (3) the Job Performance Measures (JPM)

walkthrough required the enhancement of five JPMs, replacement of two JPMs, and the

modification of eight out of 20 JPM questions. Overall, the examiners concluded that the

examination as a whole was average to above average in difficulty and satisfactorily

discriminated between competent and less than competent operators.

Several of the license applicants demonstrated weaknesses during the administration of the

operator license examination. A number of applicants demonstrated knowledge deficiencies

during the written examination and similarly during the systems JPM questions. During the

operating portion of the examination, applicants also displayed some weakness in event

diagnosis, system response interpretation, and use and understanding of operating procedures.

The four examination failures were directly attributable to deficiencies noted during the written

test, with two of the applicants also failing one of three areas of the operating test. The high

failure rate and low grades suggest that the training program did not ensure that the applicants

were adequately prepared for the examination nor ready to perform the activities of a licensed

operator.

Furthermore, based on your staff's presentation during the October 21,1998, management

meeting held at the Region lli office, it is our understanding that there were precursors to this

training problem, but timely and adequate corrective actions were not taken. In general, your

root cause assessment indicated the need to increase the training objectives to a higher

cognitive knowledge level, that Byron staff failed to keep up with industry's standards, and that

Byron staff failed to perform an overall comprehensive evaluation of the candidates. We

understand your root cause assessment and proposed corrective actions. No further response

is required on your part pertaining to this examination report. We acknowledge your initiative

and the timeliness in performing your root cause evaluation.

Overall, we are concerned about your Byron managers' lack of involvement and your staff's

apparent complacency in taking timely corrective actions when precursor indications of ,

inadequate license applicant performance were apparent prior to administration of the NRC

l examination. We will review and assess your progress concerning your root cause findings and

proposed corrective actions during future inspections.

I

,

.

. .

.

_ . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _

I

l . . . 1

*

l

O. Kingsley -3

In addition, it is our expectation that the Byron training department instructors will use the

applicant weaknesses outlined in the accompanying report as fsedback to improve the operator

license training program in accordance with your Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) i

program.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the

enclosures to this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Sincerely,

!

Original Signed by John A. Grobe j

John A. Grobe, Director j

Division of Reactor Safety

Docket Nos.: 50-454;50-455  :

- License Nos.: NPF-37; NPF-66

Enclosures: 1. Operator Licensing Examination Reports 50-454/98301(OL);

50-455/98301(OL)

2. Facility Post Written Examination Comments and NRC Resolution  !

3. Simulation Facility Report i

4. Licensee's Management Meeting Handout (Byron Nuclear Station Initia!

License Training Examination Meeting)

5. Examinations and Answer Keys (SRO/RO)

I

cc w/encls 1,2,3 & 4: D. Helwig, Senior Vice President i

H. Stanley, PWR Vice President

C. Crane, BWR Vice President l

R. Krich, Regulatory Services Manager  !

D. Greene, Licensing Director

DCD - Licensing

K. Graesser, Site Vice President  ;

W. Levis, Station Manager l

B. Adams, Regulatory Assurance Manager

R. Hubbard, MHB Technical Associates

M. Aguilar, Assistant Attomey General

State Liaison Officer

State Liaison Officer, Wisconsin

Chairnian, Illinois Commerce Commission

cc w/encls 1,2,3,4 & 5: T. Schmidt, Manager, Nuclear Training

DOCUMINT NAME: G:\DRS\BYR98301.WPD

v. e . ., m. - w m ec.co m .n.o-,n -. r.c .n ,w.n -.v =c.

OFFICE Rill l C- Rlli C' Rill _ > l C. Rill mVl

NAME Peterson:]p J9 Leach Oft '

Jordar# Grob4F

DATE 10/11/98 /4 V - 10/2798' 10/4/gb 10/,R98

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

. - . - _

. - . ,. - , . .. . -