NRC Generic Letter 1984-05

NRC Generic Letter 1984-005: Change to NUREG-1201 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards

ML031150645
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000000, Zimmer, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Skagit, Marble Hill
Issue date:	04/02/1984
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-1201 GL-84-005, NUDOCS 8404020019
Download: ML031150645 (10)

yv?,-

1 kAl ,v REG(,4

., -al-, 0 UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555

(0

April 2, 1984 I TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATTNG LICENSES

SUBJECT: CHANGE TO NUREG-1021, "OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINER STANDARDS"

j (Generic Letter 84-05 )

Generic Letter 83-44 notified licensees of the availability of NUREG-1021.

Recently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revised NUREG-1021, ES-201, Section H to improve the security of the written operator and senior operator licensing examination administration procedure while naintaining a meaningful review by facility representatives. A copy of' this change is enclosed for your information and for your use in keeping your copies of NUREG-1021 current.

Cormments on NUREG-1021 are welcome and will be considered in future revisions. Comments should be directed to Nir. Don Beckham, Chief, Operator Licensing Branch, Division of Human Factors Safety.

Sincerely, t dt Darrell G. disedh i rector Division of-Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Encl osure:z"'-

Revision 1, ES- Section H

8404020019 840402 j /- 1\ ) y/

PDR ADOCK 05000003 - IZ--~

&) T

P PDR -- f-I

FACILITY EXAM REVIEW PROCEDURE

AMENDMENT TO EXAMINER STANDARD ES-201 ES-201, Section H, "Facility Staff Review of Examination"

A review of the written examination by facility personnel may be appropriate to ensure that plant specific questions in the examination are correct and up-to-date. When the Examination Question Bank is operational and the questions have been culled and identified by content area, the examination review may be eliminated. Until that time, an examination review as described below will be conducted.

The facility review of the examination shall be conducted as follows:

prior No type of facility review of the written examination shall be allowed to or while the written examination is in progress. After all of the and candidates have completed the examination and all examination materials notes have been turned in to the examiner, the Chief Examiner should have knowledgeable member(s) of the facility staff (training coordinator, answer operations supervisor, etc.) review the written examination and the key to identify any inappropriate questions and to ensure that the questions will elicit the answers in the key. Discussions may be necessary for clarification.

Normally the examiner who prepared the examination should be present ensure throughout the review to explain questions, sources of answers and to to that the facility reviewers' questions about the examination are answered the extent possible. The examiner should be capable of providing the clarification on examination questions. Therefore, if the person writing they examination is not available, the other examiners must be certain that are familiar with the intent of the questions. A maximum of one facility review.

staff member per section per examination may be present during the Chief The review is limited to a maximum of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (elapsed time). The Examiner may extend this limit only if approved by the appropriate Regional Section Chief or his designee. All questions and comments made by the noted be facility (other than questions asked to facilitate the review) shall if by the examiner. Although resolution of comments should be reached, facility possible, the major emphasis of the review should be to identify all concerns rather than to reach agreement on resolution.

be After the review, all copies of the examinations and answer keys will be accepted by the collected by the examiner(s) and no other comments will the in writing to examiners(s). Any additional comments should be provided days appropriate Regional Branch Chief, not later than five (5) working following the end of the site visit.

-2- Guidance on conducting the debriefing session (exit interview) with the facility staff before leaving the site is contained in Standard ES-104, Section B.

Prior to grading the examinations, the examiner who conducted the review shall resolve all facility comments, shall correct the examination questions and answer key, if appropriate, and-shall document all facility comments, whether or not he considered them appropriate, and his resolution of the comments. This documentation, the revised master examination and answer key, and examination results shall be sent to the facility.

The examiner shall include on the master copy of the examination the names of the persons who reviewed the examination and answer key. The examiner shall complete appropriate sections of Table ES-201-6.

Upon completion of examination grading, the Regional Office shall send an examination report to the utility. The report shall document the examination review meeting with the licensee. Copies of this report will be sent to PDR's. Copies of examination summary sheets, which are currently provided to utilities pursuant to ES-104, could be enclosed with this letter, but shall be withheld from public disclosure for privacy reasons. A sample examination report is included as Attachment 4 to this standard.

-2- Guidance on conducting the debriefing session (exit interview) with the facility staff before leaving the site is contained in Standard ES-104, Section B.

Prior to grading the examinations, the examiner who conducted the review shall resolve all facility comments, shall correct the examination questions and answer key, if appropriate, and-shall document all facility comments, whether or not he considered them appropriate, and his resolution of the comments. This documentation, the revised master examination and answer key, and examination results shall be sent to the facility.

The examiner shall include on the master copy of the examination the names of the persons who reviewed the examination and answer key. The examiner shall complete appropriate sections of Table ES-201-6.

Upon completion of examination grading, the Regional Office shall send an examination report to the utility. The report shall document the examination review meeting with the licensee. Copies of this report will be sent to PDR's. Copies of examination summary sheets, which are currently provided to utilities pursuant to ES-104, could be enclosed with this letter, but shall be withheld from public disclosure for privacy reasons. A sample examination report is included as Attachment 4 to this standard.

Attachment 4 to ES-201 North Carolina Power Authority ATTN: Mr. H. G. Jones Manager of Power

550A Chesnut Street Anyplace, NC 37401 Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: EXAMINATION REPORT

On December 12-16, 1983, NRC administered examinations to employees of your company who had applied for licenses to operate your Edison Nuclear Power Station. At the conclusion of the examinations, the examination questions and preliminary findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.7.90(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this office by telephone within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1).

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

Sincerely, David M. Smith, Chief Project Branch 1 Division of Project and Resident Programs Enclosures:

1. Examination Report

2. Examination(s) and Answer Key(s) (SRO/RO)

cc: Plant Superintendent Plant Training Manager Examiner

Enclosure 1 SAMPLE

EXAMINATION REPORT

Facility Licensee: North Carolina Power Authority

500A Chesnut Street Anyplace, NC 37401 Facility Docket No.: 50-123 Facility License No.: CPPR-195 Examinations administered at Edison Nuclear Power Station near Spring City, North Carolina Chief Examiner:

,Sami V.-Sm-ith Date Signed Approved by:

Frank R. Adams, Section Chief Date Signed Summary Examinations on December 12-16, 1983 Written, oral, and simulator examinations were administered to four SROs, three ROs, and two instructor candidates. A written examination was administered to one additional RO candidate. Two SROs, two ROs and one instructor passed these examinations. All others failed,

REPORT DETAILS

1. Persons Examined SRO Candidates W. T. Bounds L. B. Spivey D. E. Huskins J. T. Heck RO Candidates S. T. Allen R. F. Kahle

0. P. Gibson A. F. Sloan Instructor Candidates I. M. Smart P. A. Mills

2. Examiners

• S. Y. Smith, NRC

J. M. Johnson, EG&G

R. F. Radio, EG&G

• Chief Examiner

3. Examination Review Meeting At the conclusion of the written examinations, the examiners met with R. P. Johnson, C. L. Boggs and M. E. Peoples of the Training Department to review the written examinations and answer key. As a result of this review, Questions 2.10 and 6.4 of the RO and SRO examinations respectively were deleted. It was determined that although these questions were obtained from facility supplied information, a recent vendor analysis negated the requirement for this system asked for in the questions. The design change was documented in DCM-83-16.

The facility questioned the applicability of Question 3.3 of the RO

examination, but provided no supporting references. The question was considered appropriate by the staff and retained because the knowledge and skills covered by this question are important to the performance of his job as described in the Job Task analysis.

4. Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the site visit the examiners met with representatives of the plant staff to discuss the results of the examinations. Those individuals who clearly passed the oral and/or simulator examination were identified in this meeting. The examiners made the following observations concerning your training program:

-2- a. Areas of generic weaknesses were found in the use of procedures, radiation protection, and theory, both nuclear and thermodynamic. The facility committed to place more emphasis in these areas in future training programs (Open Item 84- b. Areas in which the examiners believe that the candidates exhibited good training and knowledge were control room familiarization, instrumentation, and facility administrative procedures.

a I

-2- a. Areas of generic weaknesses were found in the use of procedures, radiation protection, and theory, both nuclear and thermodynamic. The facility committed to place more emphasis in these areas in future training programs (Open Item 84- b. Areas in which the examiners believe that the candidates exhibited good training and knowledge were control room familiarization, instrumentation, and facility administrative procedures.

.;.

QUESTION DELETED FROM WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

Question 2.10 a. Describe the accident which the Boron Injection Tank (BIT) is designed to mitigate. (1.0)

b. Describe the design features of the BIT, i.e.,

how does it accomplish its function during an accident situation. (1.0)

Answer 2.10 a. The ECCS including the BIT provides shutdown capability by means of boron injection. The most critical accident for shutdown capability in the main steam line break.

b. The BIT contains a nominal 12 wt.% boric acid and is connected to the discharge of the centrifugal charging pumps. Upon receipt of-an SI signal, the charging pumps provide the pressure to inject the boric solution into the RCS when the isolation valves open.

REF: I&E Training Center, Systems Manual, Chapter 4.2.

Also Edison NPS, STM 13-6.

Reason for deletion: Westinghouse Analysis, W-001, provided justification why the BIT was no longer required. The Tank is still in place, however, it's contents have been replaced with boron at RCS concentration. Automatic responses to SI signals have been removed (ref: DCM-83-16).