ML20155G486
| 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: |
| References | |
| 50-454-98-301OL, 50-455-98-301OL, NUDOCS 9811090066 | |
| Download: ML20155G486 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000454/1998301
Text
, _ _._.-
_._ _ _ _
'
'
..
1
)
.
.
October 30,1998
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'
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
communications were good. In addition, the operators who performed examination validation
s
were knowledgeable and provided good insight and information during the simulator scenario
verification.
I
9811090066'981103
- r
ADOCK 05000454
V
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
,
.
.
.
.
_
. . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _
l
. . .
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
H. Stanley, PWR Vice President
C. Crane, BWR Vice President
R. Krich, Regulatory Services Manager
D. Greene, Licensing Director
DCD - Licensing
K. Graesser, Site Vice President
W. Levis, Station Manager
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
. - . -
_
. - .
,. -
,
.
..
.
-