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 G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-1201 GL-84-005, NUDOCS 8404020019
Download: ML031150645 (10)

yv?,-kAl 1,v REG(,4., -al-, 0(0UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555April 2, 1984IjTO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS FOR OPERATTNG LICENSES

SUBJECT: CHANGE TO NUREG-1021, "OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINER STANDARDS"(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 operatorlicensing examination administration procedure while naintaining a meaningfulreview by facility representatives. A copy of' this change is enclosed foryour information and for your use in keeping your copies of NUREG-1021current.Cormments on NUREG-1021 are welcome and will be considered in futurerevisions. Comments should be directed to Nir. Don Beckham, Chief, OperatorLicensing Branch, Division of Human Factors Safety.

Sincerely,tdtDarrell G. dised h i rectorDivision of-LicensingOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationEncl osure:z"'-Revision 1, ES-Section H8404020019 840402PDR ADOCK 05000003P PDRj /- 1\ ) y/-- f- I & T IZ--~ ) -

FACILITY EXAM REVIEW PROCEDUREAMENDMENT TO EXAMINER STANDARD ES-201ES-201, Section H, "Facility Staff Review of Examination"A review of the written examination by facility personnel may be appropriateto ensure that plant specific questions in the examination are correct andup-to-date. When the Examination Question Bank is operational and thequestions have been culled and identified by content area, the examinationreview may be eliminated. Until that time, an examination review asdescribed below will be conducted.The facility review of the examination shall be conducted as follows:No type of facility review of the written examination shall be allowed priorto or while the written examination is in progress. After all of thecandidates have completed the examination and all examination materials andnotes have been turned in to the examiner, the Chief Examiner should haveknowledgeable member(s) of the facility staff (training coordinator,operations supervisor, etc.) review the written examination and the answerkey to identify any inappropriate questions and to ensure that the questionswill elicit the answers in the key. Discussions may be necessary forclarification.Normally the examiner who prepared the examination should be presentthroughout the review to explain questions, sources of answers and to ensurethat the facility reviewers' questions about the examination are answered tothe extent possible. The examiner should be capable of providingclarification on examination questions. Therefore, if the person writing theexamination is not available, the other examiners must be certain that theyare familiar with the intent of the questions. A maximum of one facilitystaff member per section per examination may be present during the review.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 ChiefExaminer may extend this limit only if approved by the appropriate RegionalSection Chief or his designee. All questions and comments made by thefacility (other than questions asked to facilitate the review) shall be notedby the examiner. Although resolution of comments should be reached, ifpossible, the major emphasis of the review should be to identify all facilityconcerns rather than to reach agreement on resolution.After the review, all copies of the examinations and answer keys will becollected by the examiner(s) and no other comments will be accepted by theexaminers(s). Any additional comments should be provided in writing to theappropriate Regional Branch Chief, not later than five (5) working daysfollowing the end of the site visi Guidance on conducting the debriefing session (exit interview) with thefacility staff before leaving the site is contained in Standard ES-104,Section B.Prior to grading the examinations, the examiner who conducted the reviewshall resolve all facility comments, shall correct the examination questionsand answer key, if appropriate, and-shall document all facility comments,whether or not he considered them appropriate, and his resolution of thecomments. 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 ofthe persons who reviewed the examination and answer key. The examiner shallcomplete appropriate sections of Table ES-201-6.Upon completion of examination grading, the Regional Office shall send anexamination report to the utility. The report shall document the examinationreview meeting with the licensee. Copies of this report will be sent toPDR's. Copies of examination summary sheets, which are currently provided toutilities pursuant to ES-104, could be enclosed with this letter, but shallbe withheld from public disclosure for privacy reasons. A sample examinationreport is included as Attachment 4 to this standar Guidance on conducting the debriefing session (exit interview) with thefacility staff before leaving the site is contained in Standard ES-104,Section B.Prior to grading the examinations, the examiner who conducted the reviewshall resolve all facility comments, shall correct the examination questionsand answer key, if appropriate, and-shall document all facility comments,whether or not he considered them appropriate, and his resolution of thecomments. 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 ofthe persons who reviewed the examination and answer key. The examiner shallcomplete appropriate sections of Table ES-201-6.Upon completion of examination grading, the Regional Office shall send anexamination report to the utility. The report shall document the examinationreview meeting with the licensee. Copies of this report will be sent toPDR's. Copies of examination summary sheets, which are currently provided toutilities pursuant to ES-104, could be enclosed with this letter, but shallbe withheld from public disclosure for privacy reasons. A sample examinationreport is included as Attachment 4 to this standar Attachment 4 to ES-201North Carolina Power AuthorityATTN: Mr. H. G. JonesManager of Power550A Chesnut StreetAnyplace, NC 37401Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: EXAMINATION REPORTOn December 12-16, 1983, NRC administered examinations to employees of yourcompany who had applied for licenses to operate your Edison Nuclear PowerStation. At the conclusion of the examinations, the examination questionsand preliminary findings were discussed with those members of your staffidentified in the enclosed report.In accordance with 10 CFR 2.7.90(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosurewill be placed in NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this office bytelephone within ten days of the date of this letter and submit writtenapplication to withhold information contained therein within thirty days ofthe date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with therequirements of 2.790(b)(1).Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.

Sincerely,David M. Smith, ChiefProject Branch 1Division of Project andResident Programs

Enclosures:

1. Examination Report2. Examination(s) and Answer Key(s) (SRO/RO)cc: Plant SuperintendentPlant Training ManagerExaminer Enclosure 1SAMPLEEXAMINATION REPORTFacility Licensee:North Carolina Power Authority500A Chesnut StreetAnyplace, NC 37401Facility Docket No.: 50-123Facility License No.: CPPR-195Examinations administered at Edison Nuclear Power Station nearSpring City, North CarolinaChief Examiner:,Sami V. -Sm-ithDate SignedApproved by:Frank R. Adams, Section ChiefDate SignedSummaryExaminations on December 12-16, 1983Written, oral, and simulator examinations were administered to four SROs,three ROs, and two instructor candidates. A written examination wasadministered to one additional RO candidate. Two SROs, two ROs and oneinstructor passed these examinations. All others failed, REPORT DETAILS1. Persons ExaminedSRO CandidatesW. T. BoundsL. B. SpiveyD. E. HuskinsJ. T. HeckRO CandidatesS. T. AllenR. F. Kahle0. P. GibsonA. F. SloanInstructor CandidatesI. M. SmartP. A. Mills2. Examiners*S. Y. Smith, NRCJ. M. Johnson, EG&GR. F. Radio, EG&G*Chief Examiner3. Examination Review MeetingAt the conclusion of the written examinations, the examiners met withR. P. Johnson, C. L. Boggs and M. E. Peoples of the Training Departmentto review the written examinations and answer key. As a result of thisreview, Questions 2.10 and 6.4 of the RO and SRO examinationsrespectively were deleted. It was determined that although thesequestions were obtained from facility supplied information, a recent vendoranalysis negated the requirement for this system asked for in thequestions. The design change was documented in DCM-83-16.The facility questioned the applicability of Question 3.3 of the ROexamination, but provided no supporting references. The question wasconsidered appropriate by the staff and retained because the knowledgeand skills covered by this question are important to the performance ofhis job as described in the Job Task analysis.4. Exit MeetingAt the conclusion of the site visit the examiners met withrepresentatives of the plant staff to discuss the results of theexaminations. Those individuals who clearly passed the oral and/orsimulator examination were identified in this meeting. The examinersmade 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. Thefacility committed to place more emphasis in these areas in futuretraining programs (Open Item 84-b. Areas in which the examiners believe that the candidates exhibited goodtraining and knowledge were control room familiarization,instrumentation, and facility administrative procedure a I-2-a. Areas of generic weaknesses were found in the use of procedures,radiation protection, and theory, both nuclear and thermodynamic. Thefacility committed to place more emphasis in these areas in futuretraining programs (Open Item 84-b. Areas in which the examiners believe that the candidates exhibited goodtraining and knowledge were control room familiarization,instrumentation, and facility administrative procedures..;.

QUESTION DELETED FROM WRITTEN EXAMINATIONSQuestion 2.10a. Describe the accident which the Boron InjectionTank (BIT) is designed to mitigate.(1.0)b. Describe the design features of the BIT, i.e.,how does it accomplish its function during anaccident situation.(1.0)Answer 2.10a. The ECCS including thecapability by means ofmost critical accidentin the main steam lineBIT provides shutdownboron injection. Thefor shutdown capabilitybreak.b. The BIT contains a nominal 12 wt.% boric acid andis connected to the discharge of the centrifugalcharging pumps. Upon receipt of-an SI signal, thecharging pumps provide the pressure to inject theboric solution into the RCS when the isolationvalves open.REF

I&E Training Center,Also Edison NPS, STMSystems Manual, Chapter 4.2.13-6.Reason for deletion:Westinghouse Analysis, W-001, provided justificationwhy the BIT was no longer required. The Tank isstill in place, however, it's contents have beenreplaced with boron at RCS concentration. Automaticresponses to SI signals have been removed(ref: DCM-83-16).