ML20211L118

From kanterella
Revision as of 14:38, 6 August 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Trip Rept Re Audit of Licensee Administration of Requalification Exams,Including Exam of Licensed Operator on Duty During 850701 incident.NRC- Administered Requalification Exam Scheduled During FY86
ML20211L118
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 11/27/1985
From: Mcmillen J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20211K949 List:
References
FOIA-86-244, FOIA-86-245, FOIA-86-A-144, FOIA-86-A-145 NUDOCS 8612150307
Download: ML20211L118 (6)


Text

i,* g v &O UNITED STATES

, [p es sg#,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON

} *  % REGION lil jC' . 3 k
p ' j 7s, moostvrtv mono o,, A cLEN ELLYN, ILUNOli 60137

....+

NOV 2 71985 '

MEMORANDUM FOR: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator THRU: b Carl J. Paperiello, Director, Division of Reactor Safety

'Lluis A. Reyes, Chief, Operations Branch FROM: / McMillen, Chief, Operator Licensing Section

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT FERMI 11 FOR OBSERVATION OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS During the week of November 11, 1985, I visited the Detroit Edison, Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant. The trip was authorized after e telephone conversation on November 7,1985, between Region 111 and Headquarters personnel concerning the incident that occurred at Fermi II at about midnight on July 1, 1985. The purpose of the trip was to audit the licensee's administration of requalification examinations to the personnel in the present requalification program. This group included the licensed senior operator who was en duty the night of the incident. This audit was to be perfomed to try and determine the adequacy of the examinations and the technical competence of the personnel taking the examination. I was also given the opportunity to review and comment on the written examination, which was to be administered on November 15, 1985.

It is my opinion that performance during the operating test was such that he passed the examination and appeared to have the technical competence to pass an examination administered by ar. NRC examiner. There were three other candidates in this same category. The other five persons were marginal in my opinion, and I would have had to spend more time in actual administration of an examination to detennine their status.

I met with Detroit Edison management on the afternoon of November 14,1985 and passed along my comments and observations to them. The list of attendees at this meeting and my comments and details of the examinations that were administered are attached.

8612150307 861209 PDR FOIA PUNTE86-A-144 PDR go 3% L'L11 d' W / -. -. __

N James G. Keppler 2 NOV 71985 Subsequent to my visit, I . received a telephcne call from the training department notifying us that two individuals failed the requalification examination. This action is in accordance with my cbsevations for those individuals examined that routinely performed licensed duties.

Due to some of the observations noted during the administration of the oral and simulator requalification examinations, Region III will schedule an NRC-administered requalification examination during Fiscal Year 1986.

l' h.I.McMillen, Chief Operator Licensing Section Attachments:

1. List of Meeting Attendees
2. Cetails of Examinations cc w/ attachments:

A. B. Davis C. E. Norelius C. H. Weil P. Byron, Fenni SRI OLS Requalification File

_m

6 NRC INSPECTOR'S EXIT _MEETI_h,G _

DATE: 11/14/85 TINE: 12:30 PM PLACE: 206 NOC NAME TITLE ORGANIZATION J. E. Conen Licensing Engineer Detroit Edison J. I. McMillen Section Chief Oper Licen, RIII M. E. Parker Resident Inspector NRC S. J. Latone Dir . ar, huclear Trainir.g Detroit Edison J. T. Coleman Supervisor, Nucl. Trainir.g Detroit Edison J. L. Piana General Director, tiOS Detroit Ediscn E. P. Griffing Asst. Mgr., Reg & Comp. Cetroit Edison W. H. Jens V. P.,fluclear Operations Detroit Edison i

n

n 1

DETAILS OF EXAMINATIONS MONDAY, 11/11/85 I arrived at the site and learned that the examinations were not to be '

adrinistered until Tuesday, 11/12/85. I had been led to believe otherwise. I spent the morning and part of the afternoon with the instructors / examiners who were developing the simulator examinations. I obtained and reviewed a copy of the written examination.

_ TUESDAY, 11/12/85 I arrived at the site at 0700. The first scenario was one that was prepared on Monday. Thecrewinclud_edthcAllowing:

c- .

y During this scenario, my primary focus,yas or.,i The examiner, P. Tarwicki, was to evaluate both E. V*T .

. _. 3 It was quite obvious that M W X 'F was a "take charge guy", and it was going to be difficult to judgek  ;. M He was consulted by the NSS and the examiner did ask ertinent questions during this scenario. This scenario terminated at 0905. performed in a satisfactory manner considering the circumstances. The other staff personnel also appeared to perform their duties in a competent and safe manr.er, althou h m observation of the 80P and NSO was not as complete as it was fcr At the end of the scenario, I discussed my observations with the instructors and recuested that during the next scentric find an excuse to remove @ from the control room so that would have to handle the duties of NSS and Assistant NSS alone. This was granted approximately half-way through the next scenario. M was aware of the reactor conditions and on the scram was the first to notice that a by-pass valve was open. He performed in a satisfactory manner throughout the scenario, giving orders to the other personnel, maintaining an awareness of plant conditions, and making notes fcr entry in the log books. I would judge his technical competence to be adequate and Delieve he passed the facility-administered examination and could have passed en NRC-adn:inistered exanination. The simulator examination was adequate

, and would meet the NRC standards. On Tuesday afternoon the oral /walkthrough portion of the mi as conducted, and I observed the examinations given to These examinations were adequate and would meet our s rds.

WEDNESDAY, 11/13/85 '

The Wednesday crew included the following personnel:

1 During the examination, my attention was focused on although, again, it was evident that was the "take charge" person.

I would have difficulty in judging that ,,

could pass an NRC-adninistered examination. I later found that he is one of the managen,ent persons who has spent very little time in the control room. My observation of is that he was unsure of himself, and I would not give him passing marks without further evaluation.

THURSDAY, 11/14/85 The Thursd.ay crew consisted of the following personnel:

During this test I rotated around, trying to cbserve all three persons.

Again, I would have some difficulty in giving these persens a satisfactory evaluation without further testing.

On Thursday afternoon, I met with Detroit Edison personnel and passed along the following comnents:

A. k'ritten Examination

1. Adequate: Meets NRC standards.
2. Some problems with specific questions; too many straight memory; theory questions not operationally oriented.
3. Use more multiple choice (NRC now up to 25i).
4. Shculd recensider the use of a 60" requalification written test.

B. Simulator

1. I observed three sessions which consisted of five scenarios. There were four candidates and an STA in the first two groups and three candidates and the STA in the third group.
2. General observations:
a. Scenario development was good.
b. Instructor's conduct was good,
c. Time progression of scenario was good.
3. Should reconsider using one examiner with two candidates. Possible for the examiner to miss sonething and not adequate time to investigate problem areas.

2

- o-

4. Mix of crew. Strong versus weak members and the use of STA. (During adn.inistration of examinations by the NRC, we would not permit STA to be used except when asked by SRO.)
5. Number of extra people in control room was excessive on.the first day. (Later, a sign was posted to inforv. personnel to stay out.)
6. Use of NRC form is questionable. NRC is in the process of revising this form.
7. Should also conduct surveillance on systems.
8. Use critique after transient to evaluate team actions.

C. Oral Examinations Adequate but should try to improve techniques so that depth of knowledge is explored by single questions rather than multiple questions.

3