ML19332D897

Exam Rept 50-285/OL-89-03 During Wk of 891002.Exam Results: All Three Senior Reactor Operator Candidates Passed All Portions of Exams & Issued Licenses.During Util post-exam review,12 Test Items Identified W/Technical Inaccuracies

ML19332D897
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	11/16/1989
From:	Mccrory S, Pellet J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML19332D896	List: ML19332D895 ML19332D897
References
50-285-OL-89-03, 50-285-OL-89-3, NUDOCS 8912060014
Download: ML19332D897 (6)

Text

&s f e yl) ' g ! >,

=

s..

.^

-}

W~

f

]-

r p_ yyy Vi-y. --

W;}ag ? ?,8,.,

i r-4. w,

'>;A, ', y =

p y

-t.

,, = _

y t'

i r

1 x> APPENDIX

.V,

,m J

D.

V'.S.INUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION

>E: q,.:

• REGION IV l

e 4

s c

q s

Operator, Licensing; Examination Neport:'- 50-285/0L 89-03' m,a m'

.[ Operating l cerise: DPR-40.:

+

[

L oEket No:) 50-285)

E D

4 Licensee: 10maha>Public Power District 2

444 South 16th Street Mall--

+

Omaha, Nebraska 1 68102-2247 A,

'( I' t Facility Name:: yFort Calhoun' Station (FCS) ~

^ Y.., j w

q Et J ' -

Examination at:"' Fort Calhoun Station

,j

-I y

bhiefExaminer:

P

////6/4%

sA

.T. McCPory, Lead ExamYner,.

Date

/

[

J'

. : Operator Licensing Section 1

1 Division o.f Reactor Safety-E j

~'

L Approved by:

U /6 O i,

M -L.: Pellet, Section Chief, Date g

. Operator Licensing Section Ei

'"o 4

p,

' Divisioni of. Reactor: Safety -

1 4

C

~,

i

\\'

r Summary

.NRC Admin'istered Examinations Conducted During the Week of October 2,1989 j

4 Report 50-285/0L 89-03) q-j j

~

OI'

'NRC.. administered examinations to three senior-reactor. operator.(SRO) applicants.

l:'

FA11Lapplicants passed all portions of the. examination and have been issued' the-i appropriate license; _ Written examination results were good and operating; test i

• 1 performance was at a noticeably higher. level of professionalism and general

.i

~

li

competence than has been' observed in several prior examination visits.

<r A

.During;theffacility licensee post-examination review,12 test items were identified.as having technical inaccuracies. Of-those 12, 8 had to be deleted p

from-the' examination either.because there was no longer a correct answer among the choices given or more than one choice was correct. These 8 test items g

l" 8912060014 891129 4'

,'5 PDR ADOCK 05000285 F;

V PDC

(

+

f:

a

.n:

c

y

(

=,,

c y

r v

h:? L

~2-represented just over 10 percent of the total examination point value.

In all'~

but one case, the technical error in each of the 12' test items was the result -

of inaccuracies in the training material or out-of-date procedures, which had undergone significant content revision.

.Through a long standing' agreement with the facility licensee the NRC Regional Office has maintained a full set of procedures and other training material 4

needed for examination preparation. An examiner in the operator licensing section is on distribution for all revisions to the material held in the regional office.. At the time of examination preparation for the October 2, 1989 examination, the region-held material had been updated with all revisions that.had been received in the regional office. The examination review identified

. i that the revisions to the regional material were, in some cases, two or more-revisions behind those being used at the facility. Regardless of the method used to provide material for examination preparation, the facility licensee

. i remains responsible for it being accurate and current.

While this situation had significant impact on the written examination, it does not appear to indicate a serious problem in the training department or its ability to produce and evaluate competent operators.

In fact, there is evidence of significant improvement in the abilities of the training department staff.

.However,_the extent of technical inconsistencies between lesson plans.and l

system training' manuals should be evaluated. Although there is no evidence of! safety significant deficiencies in these events, the NRC expects that the

' licensee will provide accurate development material for future examinations.

l '

s i

Qd Jil l " '.

i

~

u i

/

ygYf):l Y, m :

4 1

f.

ll

,,f. f y [

p 3.

cr a.

<+

4

-DETAILS-r 7

-1.

. Persons Examined Total SR0 R_0j License Examinations:'

' Pass -

3 0

3 Fail -

0 0

0 2.'

Exeminers'-

ip S. L.-McCrory, Chief Examiner, j

U 3.

' Examination = Reports i

Performance results for individual examinees are not included in this a.

report as it will. be-placed in the NRC Public-Document Room.-and: these j

~

results are not subject,to public-disclosure..

, a ',

' Examination Review Comment / Resolution 1

In general, editorial comments or' changes made-as a result of:

1 facility-_ reviews prior to the. examination, during the exemination, or 1

y subsequent grading reviews are not addressed by'this resolution 1

section. This<section reflects resolution of substantive comments

'x

-submitted to the NRC by the' facility licensee after the examination.

'The facility licensee post-examination comments 11ess the' supporting

' documentation, are included in the report immediately following the master examination key. Unless otherwise indicated in-this section, 4

the-facility license comments were incorporated into the answer key.-

q y.

5.23 The-question reference does not indicate which'of the_

H

-listed answers would pose the2most.significant threat after s

a post-trip loss of coolant'accidentLfollowed by a loss oft 4

component cooling water (CCW).. The most likely answer would.be (a) cooldown, if raw water (RW) backup.is also 12:

lost. The question seems to have assuted a, reactor j

coolant' system to CCW 1eak. -Request deletion of-the q

question.

Response: REJECT. The question requires deductive reasoning to A

>1 4

7',

reach the correct answer. Therefore..the reference cited may not explicitly state the answer.

Further the question j

does not_ state that' inventory control is lost but only that'

,V the most significant threat exists there. The Functional-Recovery Procedures (E0P-20) prioritize inventory control.

over heat removal. Without CCW cooling, makeup to the RCS' via high-pressure safety injection / low-pressure safety n

1 injection is jeopardized. -Therefore, without the ability to maintain inventory, cooldown is moot. With adequate

+.

.3, G((

1.

pm,*

p 4

E u

.m.

t

.t

{ a g&

^

A-p e

p 3[g " '-

s w

Dp wy 2

N 2 1

y i

inventory, natural circulation cooldown is impacted little:

,J by loss of CCW. The ability of:RW to compensate for 1.oss

~

.of CCW is not the focus of the question.

'b - ~ Site' Visit' Summary

^

The facility licensee'was provided a copy of the examination and.,

4, answer key for the purpose of commenting on the examination content J

4

validity. The facility licensee was informed that examination results could

be expected the week of October 9. 1989, if comments on E

the' written examination could be provided by October 10, 1989.

tj The Chief Examiner met informally with Messrs. M. Lazar and J..Hermann' l

of the FCS training staff in the NRC resident inspectors' office to

. provide; feedback and comment on the examination visit. The ChiefL Examiner reported.that _no operator. generic concerns had arisen during the operating examinations. ;He reported that an apparent inconsistency

'had been observed between Abnormal Operating Procedure (A0P) 02 i

o control' element driven mechanism (CEDM) MALFUNCTIONS, and Technical J

Specification 2;10.2(4) during the operating: examinations.

It appeared that compliance with the requirements of the A0P could lead l.

to a Technical' Specification action statement violation. Otherwise--

~

l.

he reported that the candidates were impressive in their general 1

l

-demeanor and communication; skills. The facility licensee. training j

staff determined that a formal exit meeting was unnecessary.

)

c.

General Comments-g I erformance on the written examinations was good. The average score q

P L',

on the written examinations was 85 percent. The following question ij numbers' represent those on which 50 percent or.more of the applicants ll scored less than 70 pe'rcent of the question value and are provided to l

7 assist facility evaluation of training weaknesses.

l 5.17 5.51 l

B 5.23

'5.58 5.50

'5.69 The written examination consisted entirely of multiple choice and matching type questions. -These types.of test items hav'e narrow limits on deficiencies, which will allow the: test item to remain valid. The most significant of, these is technical accuracy. Unlike short answer type questions, whora answer key may be changed after the examination is given, multiple choice questions cannot have the choices changed after the exam'ination has been administered.

Technical inaccuracies. identified'in post-examination reviews result

?

.in one of the following:

1.

None of the choices are correct and the question must be

deleted, g,

y

-p y%< y m y

xx y

.n w

Y, 6'

.t 4

3..

, [. e v

~y

_g_

r y

~

~

u 1

'2..

lMore than one choice 1s correct reducing' test item validity ~

k

? r below acceptable levels and the question must be deleted.

+3.

Only one choice is correct but is different from the original 1

answer and.the question may remain in' the examination. -

- Most technical inaccuracies lead to results 1 or 2.

When test items 6

are_ removed from an examination after it has been administered, s

overall' examination' validity must be reevaluated to assure adequate sample size and coverage in accordance with the sampling model. The minimum consequence of an examination being declared invalid is that a new examination;must be prepared and all applicants reexamined.;

i Thet FCS post' examination review identified technical inaccuracies in s

test items whose value amounted to about 15 percent of the' examination s

point value. The inaccuracies were'such that just over 10. percent:of a

s

,L, the point;value of the examination was deleted.: All but one of the l:

l technical inaccuracies were the result of inaccurate training. material

(

or out-of-date procedures provided to the.NRC for examination preparation.

Through a long standing agreement'with1the fac11'ity licensee, the NRC Regional Office has maintained a full set;of procedures:and other.

l w

training material needed for examination preparation.. An examiner? int the operator' licensing section is on distribution for all revisions'.

W

to the material held in the regional office.. At the time.of examination preparation for the October 2, 1989, examination; the region-held.

'i material;had been updated with all revisions that had been received 4

in the regional office. The examination' review identified'that the' revisions to the regional material were,'in some cases, two'or more revisions behind those-being used at the facility.

Further, there were technical inconsistencies between the, lesson plans and the

~

system training' manuals.- Regardless of the~ method used to transmit examination'~ preparation material to the NRC, the responsibility remains with the. facility licensee to ensure that the material is complete,; accurate,.and current.

4

'TheLNRC does not conclude that this occurrence is an indicator of a deficiency in the training program;or staff to-produce-and evaluate

. competent operators. On the contrary, there is evidence of significant improvement in the operator training department.

However, the

-technical inaccuracies in the lesson plans and system training manuals need to be evaluated. Although there is no evidence of.

safety significant deficiencies in these events, the NRC expects that the licensee will provide accurate development material for future examinations.

d.

Master Examination and-Answer Key A' master copy of the FCS license examination and answer key is attached. The facility licensee comments, which have been accepted, are incorporated into the answer key.

y

_j k

' "E,

a

. (OL ~ %%,,

n',#'

5ls

~'

'r m,%

[7

1. ' y.] i E.,J

'. hM n;,. :s.(

8.

e stp.

v

~-'yi ' ' p _ _ < <-

? _

.p p t x f.

...i ' '

< l'j k

+

2 8 7:'

( W...n

..wn V e '.

Facility Examination Review Comments The~ facility licensee coments' regarding the written ~ examination are

-attached. Those coments. not acceptable for incorporation into the 6

.b

's

. examination answer key have been addressed in the resolution section.

g of this report.

?

'l

^

V

-t

-t r

L J

5 B

i Y

3

l r

1 t

i t

l~

j. I.,N.

1 J

r

- t4'

'D$

1. g

.)

..l' 4

,