ML20248J468
| ML20248J468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1989 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Shelton D TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248J471 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904140437 | |
| Download: ML20248J468 (2) | |
Text
,
nig:
'=
APR O '4 1999 l
Docket No. 50-346
- Toledo Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Donald Shelton
- Vice President Nuclear-Edison Plaza 1
-300 Madison Avenue-Toledo, OH ~43652 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
EXAMINATION REPORT On the week of January 30, 1989, the NRC administered examinations to
. employees of your organization who. had applied for licenses to operate your
~ Davis-Besse Nuclear _ Power Station. At the conclusion of the examination, the examination questions and preliminary findings were discussed with those members of your staff _ identified in the enclosed report.
I A specific concern is'~related to the. quality and thoroughness of your pre-administration review of the examination. As of the beginning of this
')
_ year, the NRC has returned to a policy which allows and. encourages licensees to review and comment on examinations prior to their administration. This review is to' ensure that examinations have technically _ accurate and understandable questions,. and have accurate and complete answers. All of this is to ensure the license candidates of a fair evaluation.
Individuals from
'your training department reviewed and commented'on this examination prior to its administration. After the administration of the examination we received numerous additional comments. We were surprised by the number of additional comments because your staff had already reviewed the examination.
- Further, some additional conr.ents were made indicating that the NRC had not incorporated all.of the-requested changes, but no specific examples were given. We recommend that you evaluate the review teams composition, training, experience, and length of time allotted for the review. This subject was 'a subject of a working meeting on March 28, 1989, where your staff indicated that such an evaluation l
would be performed. This evaluation should focus on maximizing the effect of l
the pre-examination review in achieving a technically correct examination and on minimizing post examination comments.
In'accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure (s) will be placed in the NRC Public Document l
Room.
h
'b 8904140437 8904o4 s
PDR ADOCK 05000346 V
PDC I\\
)
[
t APR 0..r jggg
- r
. e.
v' l'
Toledo Edison Company' 2
Should you have'any questions-concerning this examination, piccse. contact us.
-Sincerely, Difd3@l SIGNED Hy lwgEg], gj Hubert J. Miller, Director Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosures:
1.. Examination Report No. 50-346/0L-89-01' 2.
Facility Comments and NRC.
. Resolution of Comments 3.
Examination (s) and l Answer Key (s)-(SR0/RO) cc w/ enclosures:
,L.. Storz, Plant Manager DCD/DCB(RIDS);
Licensing 1 Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector,.RIII.
Harold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA James W. Harris, State of Ohio Robert M.-Quillin, Ohio
~
Department of Health State of Ohio, Public Utilities Commission R. Simpkins,' Plant Training Manager K. E. Perkins, Branch Chief, OLB l
.A. DeAgazio, Project Manager, NRR l
M. R. Johnson, EDO I
i t.
11 R
R 1 f
,Z, Q
i S epar cg Reidinger DeF tte rdick g
ler 1
4 if J
I