View source for BSEP-85-0717, Suppls 850405 Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-325/85-01 & 50-324/85-01.Corrective actions:TI-202 Revised to Require Score of Greater than 70% in Each Category w/80% Overall Average in in-house Final Exam

{{Adams
| number = ML20127F231
| issue date = 04/19/1985
| title = Suppls 850405 Response to Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-325/85-01 & 50-324/85-01.Corrective actions:TI-202 Revised to Require Score of Greater than 70% in Each Category w/80% Overall Average in in-house Final Exam
| author name = Dietz C
| author affiliation = CAROLINA POWER &amp; LIGHT CO.
| addressee name = Grace J
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION &amp; ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
| docket = 05000324, 05000325
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| document report number = BSEP-85-0717, BSEP-85-717, NUDOCS 8506250086
| package number = ML20127F235
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, NRC TO UTILITY, UTILITY TO NRC
| page count = 2
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:h _ ,
7 Cp&L Carohna Power & Ught Company 35 taiy i   i' d : U1 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant P. O. Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461-0429 April 19, 1985 FILE: B09-13510E SERIAL: BSEP/85-0717 Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 2900 101 Marietta Street NW Atlanta, GA 30323 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NO. 50-325 AND 50-324 LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND DPR-62         _,
SUPPLEMENT RESPONSE TO INFRACTIONS OF NRC REQUIREMENTS

==Dear Dr. Grace:==

The Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) received I&E Inspection Report 50-325/85-01 and 50-324/85-01 and responded to the violation and deviation on April 5,1985 (Serial No. BSEP/85-0626) . Per the telephone conversation between Mr. P. Fredrickson of your office and Messrs. E. A. Bishop and R. M. Poulk of the Brunswick station on April 10, 1985, Carolina Power & Light Company hereby supplements its response to that deviation.
Very truly yours,
                                                      ~Q
                                                      ~
C. R. Dietz, General Manager Brunswick Steam Electric Plant RMP/jo Enclosures-cc: NRC Document Control Desk reot

--                                                                                         q
      .                                                                                      1
'jk l
Deviation NRC Form 398, Personnel Qualifications Statement - Licensee, which is uted to apply for NRC Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) upgrado examination states: "I certify that the above-named individual has or will have completed by the time of examination all the required training and has learned to operate the controls in a competent and safe manner pursuant to the Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55, and that the individual has a need for an Operator / Senior Operator license to perform his/her assigned duties." This statement is signed by the training coordinator and the highest 1cvel of corporate management for plant operation. This statement, "has or will have completed by the time of examination all the required training," is a commitment to the NRC that the individual will have successfully passed all the training prior to being administered an NRC examination.
Contrary to the above, the inspectors identified one reactor operator for whom such an application was submitted to the NRC that failed to pass the CP&L-administered SRO upgrade examination and was allowed to take the NRC SRO upgrade examination.

===Response===
A review of the circumstances leading up to the individual taking the NRC upgrade examination was conducted by the Director - Training and the licensed operator training staff. This included a review of 10CFR55 and TI-202, the Brunswick procedure for SRO upgrade (enclosed). Step 2.3 of TI-202 requires that      . . a candidate's progress will be evaluated through a combination of quizzes, examinations, and/or oral examinations." The individual in question was evaluated by the Training staff and was recommended to take the NRC SRO examination based on his past operating performance, past oral and written examinations (including the in-house final exams), enhanced upgrade training he received following the in-house final er.ams and associated oral evalnations, and discussions with his Operations Shif t Supervisor who supervised his previous R0 activities. Documentation of the evaluation was not maintained as the evaluation consisted of personal interviews between staff members and the individual and discussions among staff members.      In addition, it was not recognized by the staff that the evaluation should be documented to provide the justification for the conclusions reached.
The Director - Training discussed this event with the licer. sed operator training staff, emphasizing the concerns identified in this notice of deviation. It was recognized that sufficient guidance was not provided in TI-202 (revision 3).
To provide more definite and comprehensive guidance on the requirement for successful completion of the SRO upgrade program, TI-202 has been revised to require a score of greater than 70% in each category with an 80% overall average in the in-house final.
                                                                                           >}}