IR 05000482/2015301: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:ary 28, 2016 | ||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
==Dear Mr. Heflin:== | ==Dear Mr. Heflin:== | ||
On November 23, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial operator license examination at Wolf Creek Generating Station. The enclosed report documents the examination results and licensing decisions. The preliminary examination results were discussed on November 19, 2015, with you and other members of your staff. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on December 29, 2015, with Mr. J. Knapp, Superintendent, Operations Training, who | On November 23, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial operator license examination at Wolf Creek Generating Station. The enclosed report documents the examination results and licensing decisions. The preliminary examination results were discussed on November 19, 2015, with you and other members of your staff. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on December 29, 2015, with Mr. J. Knapp, Superintendent, Operations Training, who was provided the NRC licensing decisions. | ||
The examination included the evaluation of 8 applicants for reactor operator licenses and 7 applicants for an instant senior reactor operator license. The license examiners determined that 14 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and the appropriate licenses have been issued. However, 2 reactor operator applicants and 1 instant senior reactor operator applicant had the issuance of their license delayed until any written examination appeal can be reviewed for possible impact on their licensing decision in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 10, ES-501, Section D.3.c. There were no post-examination comments submitted by your staff. Enclosure 1 contains details of this report and Enclosure 2 documents one observed simulator fidelity issue. | The examination included the evaluation of 8 applicants for reactor operator licenses and 7 applicants for an instant senior reactor operator license. The license examiners determined that 14 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and the appropriate licenses have been issued. However, 2 reactor operator applicants and 1 instant senior reactor operator applicant had the issuance of their license delayed until any written examination appeal can be reviewed for possible impact on their licensing decision in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 10, ES-501, Section D.3.c. There were no post-examination comments submitted by your staff. Enclosure 1 contains details of this report and Enclosure 2 documents one observed simulator fidelity issue. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
No findings were identified during this examination. | No findings were identified during this examination. | ||
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice and Procedure," a copy of | In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice and Procedure," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). | ||
this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of | |||
Sincerely, | Sincerely, | ||
/RA/ | /RA/ | ||
Vincent G. Gaddy, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-482 License No. NPF-42 | Vincent G. Gaddy, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-482 License No. NPF-42 | ||
===Enclosures:=== | ===Enclosures:=== | ||
1. Examination Report 05000482/2013301 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information | 1. Examination Report 05000482/2013301 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information 2. Simulator Fidelity Report | ||
2. Simulator Fidelity Report | |||
REGION IV== | REGION IV== | ||
Docket: 05000482 License: NPF-42 Report: 05000482/2015301 Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Facility Wolf Creek Generating Station Location: 1550 Oxen Lane NE Burlington, Kansas Dates: November 13 - December 29, 2015 Inspectors: B. Larson, Senior Operations Engineer J. Kirkland, Senior Operations Engineer | Docket: 05000482 License: NPF-42 Report: 05000482/2015301 Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Facility Wolf Creek Generating Station Location: 1550 Oxen Lane NE Burlington, Kansas Dates: November 13 - December 29, 2015 Inspectors: B. Larson, Senior Operations Engineer J. Kirkland, Senior Operations Engineer T. Buchanan, Reactor Engineer S. Hedger, Operations Engineer C. Cowdrey, Operations Engineer Approved By: Vincent G. Gaddy Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety-1- Enclosure 1 | ||
T. Buchanan, Reactor Engineer S. Hedger, Operations Engineer C. Cowdrey, Operations Engineer Approved By: Vincent G. Gaddy Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety | |||
=SUMMARY= | =SUMMARY= | ||
ER 05000482/2015301; 11/13/2015 - 12/29/2015; Wolf Creek Generating Station; Initial | ER 05000482/2015301; 11/13/2015 - 12/29/2015; Wolf Creek Generating Station; Initial | ||
Operator Licensing Examination Report. | Operator Licensing Examination Report. | ||
| Line 61: | Line 53: | ||
The examiners determined that 14 of the 15 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. However, 2 reactor operator applicants and 1 instant senior reactor operator applicant had the issuance of their license delayed until any written examination appeal can be reviewed for possible impact on their licensing decision in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 10, ES-501, Section D.3.c. | The examiners determined that 14 of the 15 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. However, 2 reactor operator applicants and 1 instant senior reactor operator applicant had the issuance of their license delayed until any written examination appeal can be reviewed for possible impact on their licensing decision in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 10, ES-501, Section D.3.c. | ||
=== | ===NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings=== | ||
None | None | ||
=== | ===Licensee-Identified Violations=== | ||
None | None | ||
| Line 78: | Line 70: | ||
====a. Scope==== | ====a. Scope==== | ||
NRC examiners reviewed all license applications submitted to ensure each applicant satisfied relevant license eligibility requirements. The examiners also audited four of the license applications in detail to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject | NRC examiners reviewed all license applications submitted to ensure each applicant satisfied relevant license eligibility requirements. The examiners also audited four of the license applications in detail to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject applicants qualifications. This audit focused on the applicants experience and on-the-job training, including control manipulations that provided significant reactivity changes. | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
| Line 91: | Line 83: | ||
No findings were identified. | No findings were identified. | ||
NRC examiners provided outline, proposed | NRC examiners provided outline, proposed examination, and post-validation comments to the licensee. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution prior to examination administration. | ||
For the written examinations initially submitted by the licensee, NRC examiners determined that the reactor operator (RO) written examination was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination but the senior reactor operator-only (SRO-only) portion of the written examination was not within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. | For the written examinations initially submitted by the licensee, NRC examiners determined that the reactor operator (RO) written examination was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination but the senior reactor operator-only (SRO-only) portion of the written examination was not within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. | ||
The NUREG-1021 standard for an acceptable submittal requires that 20 percent or fewer of questions submitted for the RO and SRO-only written examinations (assessed separately) require replacement or significant modification. For this submittal, the SRO-only portion of the examination contained 8 questions (32 percent) that required replacement or significant modifications. The major issue was questions that did not match the selected knowledge and ability statement; other errors included questions not written at an SRO-only level, two or more distracters that were not credible and questions that had multiple correct answers. As identified in NUREG-1021, future written examination submittals should incorporate any lessons learned stemming from this examination effort. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00102279 to address | The NUREG-1021 standard for an acceptable submittal requires that 20 percent or fewer of questions submitted for the RO and SRO-only written examinations (assessed separately) require replacement or significant modification. For this submittal, the SRO-only portion of the examination contained 8 questions (32 percent) that required replacement or significant modifications. The major issue was questions that did not match the selected knowledge and ability statement; other errors included questions not written at an SRO-only level, two or more distracters that were not credible and questions that had multiple correct answers. As identified in NUREG-1021, future written examination submittals should incorporate any lessons learned stemming from this examination effort. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00102279 to address these issues. | ||
these issues. | |||
NRC examiners determined the operating tests initially submitted by the licensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. | NRC examiners determined the operating tests initially submitted by the licensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination. | ||
| Line 111: | Line 101: | ||
No findings were identified. | No findings were identified. | ||
All 15 applicants passed all portions of the operating test. Fourteen of the 15 applicants passed the written examination. The final written examinations and post-examination analysis may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment. There were no post-examination comments submitted by the licensee | All 15 applicants passed all portions of the operating test. Fourteen of the 15 applicants passed the written examination. The final written examinations and post-examination analysis may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment. There were no post-examination comments submitted by the licensee. | ||
The | The licensee requested and received approval by the NRC to withhold the written examinations from the public document room for 24 months after the administration date. | ||
this issue. | The examination team noted a generic weakness during the administration of the job performance measure associated with the ability to develop a Protective Action Recommendation. Seven out of seven instant senior reactor operator applicants failed to complete one or more portions of the emergency notification form correctly and within the established time limit. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00102021 to address this issue. | ||
===.4 Simulation Facility Performance=== | ===.4 Simulation Facility Performance=== | ||
====a. Scope==== | ====a. Scope==== | ||
The NRC examiners observed simulator | The NRC examiners observed simulator performance with regard to plant fidelity during examination validation and administration. | ||
====b. Findings==== | ====b. Findings==== | ||
| Line 137: | Line 127: | ||
During administration of the operating test scenarios, the examiners were informed of three issues affecting examination integrity. Because none of the issues resulted in replacing or modifying any test items, the issues were evaluated as not more than minor, but are identified here per guidance in NUREG-1021, ES-501, Section E.3.a. | During administration of the operating test scenarios, the examiners were informed of three issues affecting examination integrity. Because none of the issues resulted in replacing or modifying any test items, the issues were evaluated as not more than minor, but are identified here per guidance in NUREG-1021, ES-501, Section E.3.a. | ||
Issue 1: Scenario #1: | Issue 1: Scenario #1: A book containing several abnormal (off-normal)procedures was not updated after the first scenario run but was returned to the simulator for use in subsequent runs. As a result, one BOP applicant discovered one event procedure was missing and in subsequent event, the same BOP applicant discovered a procedure that had place-keeping marks from the previous scenario run. | ||
NRC examiners determined the impact as minor since a replacement procedure was readily available to the BOP applicant and the place-keeping marks offered no discernable advantage to the applicant. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00101585 to address this issue. | |||
Issue 3: Scenario #2: | Issue 2: Scenario #3: A cue was given by the booth operator to the CRS applicant without prior concurrence of the lead examiner. The cue was inappropriately given prior to the CRS applicant identifying that a load reduction was required. However, NRC examiners determined the impact as minor since the applicant had multiple other opportunities to be evaluated in the Directing Operations competency. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00101586 to address this issue. | ||
Issue 3: Scenario #2: A laminated copy of EMG E-0, REACTOR TRIP OR SAFETY INJECTION, Foldout Page, grease pencil markings were not wiped clean between the 2nd and 3rd applicant crews. NRC examiners determined the impact as minor since the grease pencil markings offered no discernable advantage to the applicant who identified the markings. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00101587 to address this issue. | |||
In addition, the licensee wrote Condition Report 00101655, Trending CR for OPS Exam Security Issues, to track corrective actions for an adverse Operations examination security trend. | |||
{{a|4OA6}} | {{a|4OA6}} | ||
| Line 150: | Line 144: | ||
The chief examiner presented the preliminary examination results to Mr. A. Heflin, President and Chief Executive Officer, and other members of his staff on November 19, 2015. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on December 29, 2015, between Mr. B. Larson, Chief Examiner, and Mr. J. Knapp, Superintendent, Operations Training. | The chief examiner presented the preliminary examination results to Mr. A. Heflin, President and Chief Executive Officer, and other members of his staff on November 19, 2015. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on December 29, 2015, between Mr. B. Larson, Chief Examiner, and Mr. J. Knapp, Superintendent, Operations Training. | ||
All proprietary information and materials used during the examination were returned to the | All proprietary information and materials used during the examination were returned to the licensee. | ||
licensee. | |||
=SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION= | =SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION= | ||
| Line 161: | Line 151: | ||
===Licensee Personnel=== | ===Licensee Personnel=== | ||
: [[contact::J. Yunk]], Manager, Training | : [[contact::J. Yunk]], Manager, Training | ||
: [[contact::W. Brandt]], Exam Licensing Representative | : [[contact::W. Brandt]], Exam Licensing Representative | ||
: [[contact::J. Knapp]], Superintendent, Operations Training | : [[contact::J. Knapp]], Superintendent, Operations Training | ||
: [[contact::R. Meyer]], Supervisor, Simulator and Exam Group | : [[contact::R. Meyer]], Supervisor, Simulator and Exam Group | ||
: [[contact::M. Mitchell]], Exam Group | : [[contact::M. Mitchell]], Exam Group | ||
: [[contact::A. Servaes]], Exam Group | : [[contact::A. Servaes]], Exam Group | ||
: [[contact::W. Isom]], Licensed Supervisor Instructor, Initial | : [[contact::W. Isom]], Licensed Supervisor Instructor, Initial | ||
: [[contact::L. Rockers]], Licensing Engineer | : [[contact::L. Rockers]], Licensing Engineer | ||
===NRC Personnel=== | ===NRC Personnel=== | ||
: [[contact::D. Dodson]], Senior Resident Inspector | : [[contact::D. Dodson]], Senior Resident Inspector | ||
: [[contact::F. Thomas]], Resident Inspector | : [[contact::F. Thomas]], Resident Inspector | ||
==ADAMS DOCUMENTS REFERENCED== | ==ADAMS DOCUMENTS REFERENCED== | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:59, 19 December 2019
| ML16028A151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/2016 |
| From: | Vincent Gaddy Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Heflin A Wolf Creek |
| References | |
| 50-482/15-301 | |
| Download: ML16028A151 (13) | |
Text
ary 28, 2016
SUBJECT:
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION - NRC EXAMINATION REPORT 05000482/2015301
Dear Mr. Heflin:
On November 23, 2015, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an initial operator license examination at Wolf Creek Generating Station. The enclosed report documents the examination results and licensing decisions. The preliminary examination results were discussed on November 19, 2015, with you and other members of your staff. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on December 29, 2015, with Mr. J. Knapp, Superintendent, Operations Training, who was provided the NRC licensing decisions.
The examination included the evaluation of 8 applicants for reactor operator licenses and 7 applicants for an instant senior reactor operator license. The license examiners determined that 14 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55 and the appropriate licenses have been issued. However, 2 reactor operator applicants and 1 instant senior reactor operator applicant had the issuance of their license delayed until any written examination appeal can be reviewed for possible impact on their licensing decision in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 10, ES-501, Section D.3.c. There were no post-examination comments submitted by your staff. Enclosure 1 contains details of this report and Enclosure 2 documents one observed simulator fidelity issue.
No findings were identified during this examination.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice and Procedure," a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRCs document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/
Vincent G. Gaddy, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket No. 50-482 License No. NPF-42
Enclosures:
1. Examination Report 05000482/2013301 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information 2. Simulator Fidelity Report
REGION IV==
Docket: 05000482 License: NPF-42 Report: 05000482/2015301 Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Facility Wolf Creek Generating Station Location: 1550 Oxen Lane NE Burlington, Kansas Dates: November 13 - December 29, 2015 Inspectors: B. Larson, Senior Operations Engineer J. Kirkland, Senior Operations Engineer T. Buchanan, Reactor Engineer S. Hedger, Operations Engineer C. Cowdrey, Operations Engineer Approved By: Vincent G. Gaddy Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety-1- Enclosure 1
SUMMARY
ER 05000482/2015301; 11/13/2015 - 12/29/2015; Wolf Creek Generating Station; Initial
Operator Licensing Examination Report.
NRC examiners evaluated the competency of eight applicants for reactor operator licenses and seven applicants for an instant senior reactor operator license at Wolf Creek Generating Station.
The licensee developed the examinations using NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Revision 10. The written examination was administered by the licensee on November 13, 2015. The NRC examiners administered the operating tests November 16-23, 2015.
The examiners determined that 14 of the 15 applicants satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, and the appropriate licenses have been issued. However, 2 reactor operator applicants and 1 instant senior reactor operator applicant had the issuance of their license delayed until any written examination appeal can be reviewed for possible impact on their licensing decision in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 10, ES-501, Section D.3.c.
NRC-Identified and Self-Revealing Findings
None
Licensee-Identified Violations
None
REPORT DETAILS
OTHER ACTIVITIES (OA)
4OA5 Other Activities (Initial Operator License Examination)
.1 License Applications
a. Scope
NRC examiners reviewed all license applications submitted to ensure each applicant satisfied relevant license eligibility requirements. The examiners also audited four of the license applications in detail to confirm that they accurately reflected the subject applicants qualifications. This audit focused on the applicants experience and on-the-job training, including control manipulations that provided significant reactivity changes.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
.2 Examination Development
a. Scope
NRC examiners reviewed integrated examination outlines and proposed examinations submitted by the licensee against the requirements of NUREG-1021. The NRC examination team conducted an onsite validation of the operating tests.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
NRC examiners provided outline, proposed examination, and post-validation comments to the licensee. The licensee satisfactorily completed comment resolution prior to examination administration.
For the written examinations initially submitted by the licensee, NRC examiners determined that the reactor operator (RO) written examination was within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination but the senior reactor operator-only (SRO-only) portion of the written examination was not within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
The NUREG-1021 standard for an acceptable submittal requires that 20 percent or fewer of questions submitted for the RO and SRO-only written examinations (assessed separately) require replacement or significant modification. For this submittal, the SRO-only portion of the examination contained 8 questions (32 percent) that required replacement or significant modifications. The major issue was questions that did not match the selected knowledge and ability statement; other errors included questions not written at an SRO-only level, two or more distracters that were not credible and questions that had multiple correct answers. As identified in NUREG-1021, future written examination submittals should incorporate any lessons learned stemming from this examination effort. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00102279 to address these issues.
NRC examiners determined the operating tests initially submitted by the licensee were within the range of acceptability expected for a proposed examination.
.3 Operator Knowledge and Performance
a. Scope
On November 13, 2015, the licensee proctored the administration of the written examinations to all 15 applicants. The licensee staff graded the written examinations, analyzed the results, and presented their analysis to the NRC on December 1, 2015.
The NRC examination team administered the various portions of the operating tests to all 15 applicants on November 16-23, 2015.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
All 15 applicants passed all portions of the operating test. Fourteen of the 15 applicants passed the written examination. The final written examinations and post-examination analysis may be accessed in the ADAMS system under the accession numbers noted in the attachment. There were no post-examination comments submitted by the licensee.
The licensee requested and received approval by the NRC to withhold the written examinations from the public document room for 24 months after the administration date.
The examination team noted a generic weakness during the administration of the job performance measure associated with the ability to develop a Protective Action Recommendation. Seven out of seven instant senior reactor operator applicants failed to complete one or more portions of the emergency notification form correctly and within the established time limit. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00102021 to address this issue.
.4 Simulation Facility Performance
a. Scope
The NRC examiners observed simulator performance with regard to plant fidelity during examination validation and administration.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
During the performance of one simulator job performance measure, NRC examiners observed a possible simulator hardware issue. While performing actions to restore power to a vital bus following a loss of all ac power, the normal feeder breaker NB HIS-4 failed to close, tripping on the attempt. With the assistance of a simulator engineer, a fix was identified and administration of the operating test continued with minimal delay. It is noted that during NRC validation of the operating test, this job performance measure was performed as scripted. See Enclosure 2 for additional details.
.5 Examination Security
a. Scope
The NRC examiners reviewed examination security during both the onsite preparation week and examination administration week for compliance with 10 CFR 55.49 and NUREG-1021. Plans for simulator security and applicant control were reviewed and discussed with licensee personnel.
b. Findings
No findings were identified.
During administration of the operating test scenarios, the examiners were informed of three issues affecting examination integrity. Because none of the issues resulted in replacing or modifying any test items, the issues were evaluated as not more than minor, but are identified here per guidance in NUREG-1021, ES-501, Section E.3.a.
Issue 1: Scenario #1: A book containing several abnormal (off-normal)procedures was not updated after the first scenario run but was returned to the simulator for use in subsequent runs. As a result, one BOP applicant discovered one event procedure was missing and in subsequent event, the same BOP applicant discovered a procedure that had place-keeping marks from the previous scenario run.
NRC examiners determined the impact as minor since a replacement procedure was readily available to the BOP applicant and the place-keeping marks offered no discernable advantage to the applicant. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00101585 to address this issue.
Issue 2: Scenario #3: A cue was given by the booth operator to the CRS applicant without prior concurrence of the lead examiner. The cue was inappropriately given prior to the CRS applicant identifying that a load reduction was required. However, NRC examiners determined the impact as minor since the applicant had multiple other opportunities to be evaluated in the Directing Operations competency. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00101586 to address this issue.
Issue 3: Scenario #2: A laminated copy of EMG E-0, REACTOR TRIP OR SAFETY INJECTION, Foldout Page, grease pencil markings were not wiped clean between the 2nd and 3rd applicant crews. NRC examiners determined the impact as minor since the grease pencil markings offered no discernable advantage to the applicant who identified the markings. The licensee wrote Condition Report 00101587 to address this issue.
In addition, the licensee wrote Condition Report 00101655, Trending CR for OPS Exam Security Issues, to track corrective actions for an adverse Operations examination security trend.
4OA6 Meetings, Including Exit
Exit Meeting Summary
The chief examiner presented the preliminary examination results to Mr. A. Heflin, President and Chief Executive Officer, and other members of his staff on November 19, 2015. A telephonic exit meeting was conducted on December 29, 2015, between Mr. B. Larson, Chief Examiner, and Mr. J. Knapp, Superintendent, Operations Training.
All proprietary information and materials used during the examination were returned to the licensee.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
KEY POINTS OF CONTACT
Licensee Personnel
- J. Yunk, Manager, Training
- W. Brandt, Exam Licensing Representative
- J. Knapp, Superintendent, Operations Training
- R. Meyer, Supervisor, Simulator and Exam Group
- M. Mitchell, Exam Group
- A. Servaes, Exam Group
- W. Isom, Licensed Supervisor Instructor, Initial
- L. Rockers, Licensing Engineer
NRC Personnel
- D. Dodson, Senior Resident Inspector
- F. Thomas, Resident Inspector