ML20203K283
| ML20203K283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203K272 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-98-301, NUDOCS 9803050040 | |
| Download: ML20203K283 (8) | |
See also: IR 05000482/1998301
Text
,.
-.
- . ~ .
.
.
- .
_ .
. _ .
-. -
- -.
. _ _ _ . . - - .
_
.'
- .
ENCLOSURE
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
REGION IV
Docket No.:
50-482
License No.:
NPF 42
Report No.:
50-482!98 301
Licensee:
Woh creek Nuclear Operating Corporation
Facility:
Wolf Creek Generating Station
Location:
1550 Oxen Lane, NE
Burlington, Kansas
Dates:
February 17,1998
inspector:
H. Bundy, Chief Examiner, Operations Branch
,
Approved By:
J. Pellet, Chief, Operations Branch
,
Division of Reactor Safety
,
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1:
Supplemental Information
Attachment 2:
Facility initial License Written Examination Comments
,
Attachment 3:
Final Written Examination and Answer Key
,
9803050040 900226
ADOCK 05000482
G
.-
,
.
. ~ .
-.
-
-_ -
. . . . - -
-
_ - . - -
.
. .
- .
-
._
'
.
'
.
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wolf Creek Generating Station
NRC Inspection Report 50-482/98 301
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of two retake reactor operators and two retake
-
senior reactor operator license applicants for issuance of operating licenses at the Wolf
Croek Station facility. The licensee developed the initiallicense examination using
NUREG 1021, " Operator Licensing Standards for Power Reactors," Interim Revision 8. The
initial written examinations were administered to all four applicants on February _17,1998,
by f acility proctors in accordance with instructions provided by the chief examiner. The
operating tests had been waived for these applicants.
.
- _
Ooerations
All four applicants displayed the requisite knowledge and skills to satisfy the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and were issued the appropriate operator licenses.
No generic weaknesses in knowledge or ability were idntified (Section 04.1).
The written examination was acceptable for administration ar submitted
(Section 05.1).
1
a
s
. , * - .
-_._-,ye_
p..
,a
w
y
.'
.
.
-3-
Beoort Details
L Ooerations
04
Operator Knowledge and Performance
04.1 Initial Written Examination
a.
Insoection Scope
On February 17,1998, the facility licensee proctored the administration of the
written exarnination approved by the NRC to two inf iduals who had applied for
initial retake reactor operator licenses and two individuals who had applied for initial
retake senior reactor operator licenses. The licensee graded the written
examinations and the staff reviewed its results. These individuals had previously
passed the operating test portion of the examination, and it had been waived by
Region IV. The licensee also performed a post-examination question analysis, which
was reviewed by the chief examiner. This inspection consisted of an in-office
review and approval of the examination rund results proposed by the licensee,
b,
Observations and Findinas
The minimum passing score was 80 percent. Both applicants for reactor operator
licenses passed with scores of 81 and 82 percent. Both applicants for senior
operator licenses passed with scores of 82 and 87 percent.
The above grades reflected the results after an examination change recommended
by the licensee as a result of post-examination question analysis was incorporated.
The chief examiner reviewed and accepted the recommendation to change the
answr key for Question 49 on both license examinations from "D" to "B" based on
its technical merits.
The chief examiner reviewed the licensee's questior analysis with particular
attention to those questions which were missed by more than half the applicants.
Questions 30, 39, and 65, which were common to both examinations, were in that
category. Questions numbered above 75 were unique to the specific examination.
Question 77 was missed by both reactor operator applicants in addition,
Questions 83 and 94 were missed by both senior reactor operator applicants.
Reasons for missed questions appeared related to isolated knowledge weaknesses.
The chief examinet determined that there were no significant interrelationships to
indicate generic weaknesses in knowledge or ability.
l
.
.
-4-
ci
Conclusions
All applicants passed the written examination. No generic weaknesses in knowledge
or ability were identified as a result of evaluation of the graded examinations.
05
Operator Training and Qualification
05.1 Initial Licensino Examination Develooment
The f acility licensee developed the initial licensing examination in accordance with
guidance prFv'dcd % NijREG 1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for
Power Reactors," Interim Revision 8.
05.1.1 Examination Outline
a.
insoection Scooe
The f acility licensee submitted the initial examination outline on Decembs. 22,
1997. The chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of
b.
Observations and Findinas
The initial examination outline was satisf actory as a guide for development of the
examination,
c.
Conclusions
The licensee submitted a satisf actory examination outline, which was used for
examination development.
05.1.2 Examination Packaae
a.
insoection Scoce
The f acility licensee submitted the completed examination package on January 22,
1998. The chief examiner reviewed the submittal against the requirements of
b.
Observations and Findinas
The licensee submitted 125 draf t written examination questions, of which 75 were
designated to be common to both the reactor operator and senior operator
examinations. Th 3y were predominant y newly developed questions. The draft
l
examination was responsive to the knowledge and abilities sample plan previously
submitted with minor exceptions which were adequately justified. The chief
.
_ . . _ _. _ . _ . _ .
_
_ . __
.
_ . _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - _
__
,
4
r
'
.
.S.
examiner provided comments or questions on 15 questions which were common to
<
both examinations,1 question which appeared only on the reactor operator
l
examination, and 5 questions which appeared only on the senior reactor operator
examination. In response to these comments and questions, the licensee modified
!
11 questions common to both examinations,1 question which appeared only on the
reactor operator examination, and 3 questions which appeared only on the senior
rea. 'or operator examination. In addition, the licensee replaced 3 questions which
were common to both examinations and 2 questions which appeared only on the
senior reactor operator examination in pursuing the generic implications of the NRC
comments and questions, the license modified 18 other questions common to both
. examinations,7 questions appearing only on the reactor operator examination, and
4
1 question appearing only on the senior reactor operator examination. These final
changes were rnostly enhancements to adequate questions. The examinations were
7
considered adequate for administration as submitted. However, the modifications
improved question clarity and overall discrim!natory value of the examinations. Also,
as discussed above, the answer for 1 question, which was common to both
examinations, was changed following the post examination review.
The pre examination changes to these examinations were explained by
Mr. George Smith to Messrs. Pellet and Bundy in the NRC Region IV office on
February 9 10,1998. This meeting was beneficial for our understanding of these
changes.
c.
Conclusions
<
The written examinations were adequate for administration as submitted. However,
'nodifications made in response to NRC comments improved question clarity and
overall discriminatory value of the examinations.
V. Management Meetinas
X1
Exit Meeting Summary
'
The chief examiner presented the inspection results telephonically to Mr. Guyer on
February 24,1998, and he acknowledged the findings presented.
'
Mr. Guyer did not identify as proprietary any information or materials examined
i
during the inspection.
,
s
1
._
_ _ . . . _ . - _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . . _ - _ _ .
.
__
_ . . . _ .
_ . _ . . . _ _ _ .
. . _ _ . . _ _ _
o'
_
.
ATTACHMENT 1
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
,
R. Guyer, Superintendent, Operations Training
G. Smith, Senior instructor, Training
>
NBC
I
I
F. Ringwald, Senior Resident inspector
4
f
1
(
t
-
-
d,
9
ATTACHMENT 2
FACILITY INITIAL LICENSE EXAMINATION COMMENTS
l
l
_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
l~
l:
Ques; ion Errors / Key Corrections
Question: # 49
he stem states that SP056A indicates a lilGil alarm on Gil RE-10A. Resultant
Comment:
actions from thic alarm fona the basis for the question.
Resolution: He question analysis indicates answer "d" is the correct answer. Per SY 1407300
a high on Gli RE-10A will only isolate waste gas discharge.
Action; answer "d" is incorrect and answer "b" is correct. Changed answer key for question
forty-nine.
.-
. . -
.-
- - . . . - -
- - - . - . . _ . . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
_