IR 05000213/1987009

Requalification Program Evaluation Rept 50-213/87-09OL on 870327.Licensing Program Deemed Satisfactory.Results:Eleven Licensed Operators Passed Weekly Exam & Significant Grading Differences Noted Between NRC & Facility

ML20235W055
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Barber S, Collins S, Keller R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235V959	List: IR 05000213/1987009 ML20235V957
References
50-213-87-09OL, 50-213-87-9OL, NUDOCS 8707230406
Download: ML20235W055 (4)

Text

__

.

l' *

l l

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT EVALUATION REPOPT N /87-09(0L)

FACILITY DOCKET N FACILITY LICENSE N0. DPR-61 LICENSEE: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power C P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141 FACILITY: Haddam Neck EXAMINATION DATE: March 27, 1987 l

CHIEF EXAMINER-

. IFber, Re 'r Engineer (Examiner)

8d/87

/ date'

l REVIEWED BY: ) _f[34/if 7 R. M. Keller, Chief, Projects Section 1C date APPROVED BY: IYTyh11bUlfMd 4l3DlTs7 S. J. Collins, Deputy Director date Division of Reactor Projects

' SUMMARY: The-Haddam Neck Licensed Operator Continuing Training Program (LOCT)

was evaluated as satisfactory. Eleven licensed operators passed the weekly administered, NRC reviewed segment examinatio Grading differences between the NRC and facility were significant. The major grading differences existed for NRC substituted questions. The reasons for the differences are fully described in the repor ,

i

!

i V

%.

Jc -l

.

'

f.)

>

DETAILS- EXAMINATION RESULTS:

R0 SRO TOTAL Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Written Examination 4/0 7/0 11/0

. Oral Examination N/A N/A N/A

- Evaluation of Facility Written Examination: Sati sfactory Grading: - Sati s facto ry _

Overall Program Evaluation: Satisfactory SCOPE:

~

The . facility written LOCT segment examination ~ covering systems was reviewed to ensure it covered an adequate depth ofLknowledge, covered the lesson objectives presented during the lectures and comprehensively '_covered the material presented during this training segmen . FINDINGS:

The examination, as written, adequately covered the scheduled materia However, there was no differentiation in the questions asked to R0s and SR0s on the examination. If-R0s and SR0s take the same examination, the examination should'be written at the SRO level of. knowledge. The segment examination, as written, was. at the R0 level of knowledge since it empha-sized the recall of memorized facts and did not require the synthesis and evaluation of various situations or the use of Technical Specifications or the Emergency Pla The program specifies that weekly examinations can have no more than 25%

repeatability between questions asked from week to week. The facility ;

interprets this requirement as using the exact question without any changes on at least 2 examinations. However, a broader interpretation of repeat-ability definition used by the team also included questions that covered identical concept More emphasis is needed on ensuring less question repeatability from week

'to week. Additionally, the questions asked of the operators tended to be at the recall level and required little integration of the knowledge covered by the objectives. Questions should require a synthesis of know-ledge required by the objectives to draw conclusions or solve problem i i

"

m w _m.-_ . _ _ - _ - - __ . - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- _. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _

.

The current segment's examination primarily covered electrical and fire protection systems. It was initialiy identified that the coverage of safety systems was minimal because of the emphasis on these areas. The facility later. identified that the objectives as written did, in fact, cover the protective relaying and breaker protection schemes of various Class IE systems and busses. This approach to covering safety systems was considered acceptabl The examination was administered at a local churc The area was well lit and provided adequate separation of the operators. The facility proctor clarified questions asked by the operators. However, he frequently walked back to observe one of his fellow instructors answer questions. His at-tention was not focused evenly on all student An examination review was conducted after the examination. The facility's comments were focused on the NRC substituted questions. The licensee felt that the substituted questions did not test on materials covered by the objectives when, in fact, the questions integrated the different knowledges re,uired from many objectives. The licensee comments during the review also printed out that system lineups are taught without specific reference to plant procedures. System lineups are taught from a general "These are the different possible flow paths" aspec LOCT lesson plans should tie the procedures into system lineup The large disparity in the facility and NRC grading occurred on the sub-stituted questions. Discussions with the Assistant Supervisor of Operator Training indicated that the facility did not break down partial credit far enough on many questions to adequately assess operator performance. Addi-tionally, in one case, the licensee assigned a significant portion of cre-dit to a part of an answer that was not specifically elicited by the ques-tio Farther, efforts are needed in improving the assignment of partial credit during examination gradin . CONCLUSION:

The licensee's administration and conduct of the LOCT is satisfactor i Improvements can be made in the areas of repeating questions on weekly '

examinations, integration of system lineups and procedural guidance into lesson plants, and assignment of partial credit during grading of written examination . EXIT INTERVIEW:

NRC Attendees G. S. Barber, Reactor Engineer (Examiner)

B. S. Norris, Reactor Engineer R. R. Temps, Reactor Engineer E. C. McCabe, Jr., Chief, Projects Section 3B J P. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector l

i l

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _

_ _ _ - _ - _

.

.

.

,

Facility Attendees:

E. A. Debarba, Station Services Superintendent R. E. Brown, Operations Supervisor B.W. Ruth, Supervisor, Operator Training J. E. Deveau, Assistant Supervisor, Operator Training M. F. Bray, Assistant Supervisor, Simulator Training Comments:

The Chief Examiner presented the observations and generic weaknesses during the exit meeting. The Chief Examiner stated that the overall program was satisfactory but that further attention is needed in the areas of exam construction, knowledge level differentiation and the breakdown of partial credit on examinations, i

I

I i

!

)

i -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -