ML20203K283

Insp Rept 50-482/98-301 on 980217.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Operations,Including Evaluation of Competency of 2 Retake RO & 2 SRO Retake License Applicants for Issuance of Operating Licenses at Facility

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: ML20203K267 ML20203K283
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

PDR ADOCK 05000482

G PM

, -.

-_ - . . . . - - - _ - . - - . . . - . - ._

'

.

'

.

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

NUREG-1021.

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

NUREG 1021,

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 predominantl y newly developed questions. The draft

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

examination, and 5 questions which appeared only on the senior reactor operator

l

!

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

4 . examinations,7 questions appearing only on the reactor operator examination, and

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

Comment: he stem states that SP056A indicates a lilGil alarm on Gil RE-10A. Resultant

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.

. . -

.-

.- - - . . . - -

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