ML20248B147

Forwards Requalification Exam Rept 50-305/OL-89-02 of Exams Administered During Wk of 890501

ML20248B147
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	06/02/1989
From:	Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Hintz D WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORP.
Shared Package
ML20248B152	List: ML20248B147 ML20248B164
References
NUDOCS 8906080277
Download: ML20248B147 (6)

Text

_

@ i

+

7

@ t :2 IBB9 7.

.[

Docket ~Ho.'50-305 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation ATTN: Mr. D. C.'Hintz

.Vice President-Nuclear Power

.700 North Adams

. Post Office Box 19002 Green Bay, WI '54307-9002

' Gentlemen:

s

SUBJECT:

- REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT

'During the. week of May 1, 1989, the'NRC administered requalification. examinations-e to employees of your organization who operate your Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant.

At the. conclusion of the examination, generic findings that evolved as a result of the examinations were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed' report.

Asia' result of this evaluation, your requalification program has been assigned an overall program rating of satisfactory in accordance with the~ criteria of

.NUREG-1021',.ES 601.. Individuals'with. unsatisfactory results should receive remedial upgrading according to your program requirements prior to being  ;

j, returned'to licensed duties.

- While your program has been judged as satisfactory, a number of concerns arose out-of the examination process. First is our' concern about Wisconsin Public-Service Corporation's commitment to the new requalification. program. During the discussion phase of the exam process, Region III was informed that Kewaunee.

would be unable to support Section A cf the written exam as insufficient questions had been-generated. Kewaunee was infctmed of the NRC's options at that' point and agreed to work on a set of static simulator questions. The.

questions developed were not appropriate and did not follow the guidance given in NUREG-0121, Examiner Standard 601. Extensive efforts by the NRC and Kewaunee iere required to ensure satisfactory questions were evailabis,for the examination.

We also have a concern regarding the: objectivity of grading and evaluation of-the examination. Im3rovements'need to be made in answer key development, evaluator's use of. tie answer key, and providing the NRC with justification where~ answers not given'in the key or incomplete answers are being accepted.

Examples of specific problem' areas include: failure to specify partial credit for multiple part answers, failure to clearly indicate whether setpoints are required, and failure to modify the answer key and justify additional answers where accepted.

er i p *oaos s ygs l j+

Wisconsin Public Service 2 Corporation Improvements in all these areas are necessary'so all parties can reach a consistent conclusion in grading the examination. These issues had been brought to the attention of your staff during the development of the exam.

A third concern involves the process Kewaunee chose to administer the examination for security purposes. While the process did provide for examination security, the amount of time spent administering the exam was excessive. Given that the exam was to be completed within one week the process required considerable amounts of overtime for all parties involved which is not consistent with ensuring sharp and alert evaluators.

A final item, not related to the examination process, was identified. During the examinations it was noted that numerous facility employees were not wearing their security badges in an appropriate manner. This item had been brought to the attention of Kewaunee management on a previous occasion. The Region III Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards has been made aware of this issue.

In regard to the three issues pertaining to the requalification examination process, we request that you respond within 30 days of receipt of this letter as to your evaluation of the issues and your proposed corrective action.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Dncument Room.

Should you have any questions, concerning this examination, please contact us.

Sincerely, i

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY GEOFFREY C. VlRIGHT j Hubert J. Miller, Director Division of Reactor Safety s Enc 1csures:

1. Examination Report No. 50-305/0L-89-02

2. , Exaninationr and Answer Keys (SR0/RO)

See Attached Distribution RI RII RI RI RIII RIII 3  % ff6/F Miller Damo ib/sm/lc Bu ick Cree D ayette 'Wriht 6/)/89 6/ 89 6/'J'/89 6/ h 89 6/2 /89 6/L /89

\ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

g . - -- - - - - ---- --

m c, . g -

r

..' I a w ,

IWisconsin Public Service .

3 3DN'

' ' Corporation; I

cc w/ enclosures:

K. W. Evers,' Plant ManagerJ.

'DCD/DCB'(RIDS)'

-Licensing' Fee Management Branch

Resident-Inspector, RIII-Virgil Kanable, Chief Boiler Section Charles Thompson, Chairman l <

Wisconsin Public Service

Commission

.R.'I'. Braund (SLO),

WI Div. of Emergency Government.- - >

Lawrence J. McDonnell, Chief.

Radiation Protection Section WI< Department of Health and-Social Services,' Division of, Health R. F. Zube, Plant Training Manager.

'J. G. Giitter, Project Manager. NRR

- T1 P.'Guilfoil, Contract Exam Supervisor M.' R. Johnson, EDO.

("

i i"

___._._...______.m___- _ _

M8i UNITED STATES f NU' CLEAR REGULATORY cOMMisslON bp @ 1 g aEcion m

'D f, 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD x (g .

corn ettvu ettimois sois7 aua 2 ms l

I Docket No. 50-305" L Wisconsin Public Service Corporation ATTN: Mr. D. C.-Hintz Vice-President' Nuclear Power 700: North Adams Post Office Box 19002 ,

. Green Bay, WI . 54307-9002 f'

/

Gentlemen: _

SUBJECT:

REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION REPORT During the week of May 1, 1989, the NRC administered requalification examinations

'to employees of your. organization who operate your Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant.

At the conclusion of the examination, generic findings that evolved as a result of the examinations were discussed with those members of your staff identified

-in the enclosed report.

As a result of-this evaluatirsn, your requalification program has been. assigned an overall program rating of satisfactory in accordance with the criteria of NUREG-1021. ES 601. . Individuals with' unsatisfactory results shculd receive remedial upgrading according to your program requirements prior to being returned to licensed duties.

While your_ program has been judged as satisfactory, a number of concerns arose out of f.he examination process. First is our concern about Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's commitmer:t to ths new requalificatios program. During the discussion phase of 'the exam process, Region III was inforned that Kewaunee would be' unable to support Section A of the written exam as insufficient

. questions had been generated. .Kewaunee was informed of the NRC's options at <,

that point and agreed to wurk on a set of static simulator questions. 'The questions developed were rnt ' appropriate end did not follow the guidance given in NUREG-0121, Examiner Standard 601. Extensive efforts by the NRC and Kewaunee

.i were required to ensure satisfactory questions were availabic for the ,

examination. '

We also have a concern regarding the objectivity of grading and evaluation of the examination. Improvements need to be made in answer key development, evaluator's use of the answer key, and providing the NRC with justification where' answers not given in the key or incomplete answers are being accepted.

Examples of specific problem areas include: failure to specify partial credit for_ multiple part answers. failure to clearly indicate whether setpoints are

-required, and failure to modify the answer key and justify additional answers where" accepted.

l Wisconsin Public Service 2 2 Corporation i Improvements in all these areas are necessary so all parties can reach a consistent conclusion in grading the examination. These issues had been brought to the attention of your staff during the development of the exam.

A third concern involves the process Kewaunee chose to administer the examination for security purposes. While the process did provide for examination security, the amount of time spent administering the exam was excessive. Given that the exam was to be completed within'one week the process required considerable amounts of overtime for all parties involved which is not consistent ith ensuring sharp and alert evaluators.

i A final item, not related to the examination process, was identified. During the examinations it was noted that numerous facility employees were not wearing their security badges in an appropriate manner. This item had been brought to '

the attention of Kewaunee management on a previous occasion. The Region III Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards has been made aware of this issue.

In regard to the three issues pertaining to the requalification examination process, we request that you respond within 30 days of receipt of this letter as to your evaluat.in of the issues and your proposed corrective action.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

Should you have any questions, concerning this examination, please contact us.

4 Sincerely, s L 0h/ ,

e ub6f tV Mi ler, Director Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosures:

1. Examination Report No. 50-305/0L-89-02 2 Examinations and l Inswer Keys (520/RO)

See Attached Distribution i.

' MiY

!Pm 4 J'UN 4 Wisconsin Public Service 3 2IBBB

, -Corporation. ,

t

.cc.w/ enclosures:.

.K..W. Evers, Plant

. o. Manager..

DCD/DCB_(RIDS) ..

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Virgil.Kanable, Chief Boiler Section:

z.o , Charles Thompson, Chairman

1. Wisconsin Public Service, p?'

Commission .

R. I. Braund (SLO), '/ '

WI Div. of Emergency Government -

Lawrence-J. McDonnell,. Chief '

Radiation Protection Section WI Department of Health and:

Social' Services, Division.

of Health R. F. Zube, Plant Training Manager

'J.LG.-Giitter, Project Manager, NRR T. P.'Guilfoil, Contract Exam Supervisor M.'R. Johnson, ED0 a

I i

l L

l

]

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