ML20032C172
| ML20032C172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1981 |
| From: | Hukill H METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Collins P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032C171 | List: |
| References | |
| L1L-317, NUDOCS 8111090321 | |
| Download: ML20032C172 (2) | |
Text
4A.
0 Metropoliun Edismi compa6y y')
'I
- ['
r -.
~
f Post Office Box 480 II Middletown. Pennsylvania 1705?
Writer's Direct Dial Number October 29, 1981 LlL 317 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
Mr. Paul F. Collins, Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Human Factors Safety U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20535
Dear Sir:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Operator Licensing Examinations In my letter to you of March 19, 1981 (LlL 075) requesting restart examinations for previously licensed individuals, I stated that all of the restart examination candidates would have satisfactorily. completed the (Metropolitan Edison Company)
Operator Requalification Program prior to restart examinations.
This asserance was based partially upon my understanding that various licensed operators lad satisfactorily completed makeup quizzes (i.e. achieved greater than 80%) on -
those categories of the 1979-80 annual requalification examination for which their grades were less than 80%.
In the course of the review of the training program administration b,eing under-taken in conjunction with the reopened ASLB hearings, a deficiency in the basis for our certification has'been identified. Twenty-five required. makeup quizzes were not graded on the answer sheets at the time they were administered in February and March 1981,and had been misplaced by the training department.
Twenty of the twenty-five have been located, and the remaining five are still missing.
The basis for the assurance that our requalification training program requirements had been met was a review of these quizzes by the instructor shortly
-after they were administered.
On October 21, 1981, upon grading of the twenty tha,c had been located, it was determined that Mr. H received a grade of' 68.2% on the makeup quiz for Category G.
The other 19 grades were all 80%
or greater. The 5 quizzes that were not located were taken by Messrs.
.CC (1 quiz),
BB-(1 quiz), and GG (3 quizzes).
We have reviewed the results for these four individuals on the ATTS mock examinations and the NRC examinations administered in April 1981, as to how they did on the categories for which they had to take quizzes.
Mr..H had grades of 59.5 and 77.0 for Category G cn those two examinations; Mr. CC received scores of 82.0 and 84.6 on Category C; Mr. BB received scores of 85.7 and 80.0 on Category M, and Mr. GG received scores of 95.0 and 88.3 on Category B, 96.7 and 82.3 on Category D, and 81.8 and 66.5 on Category E.
~
8111090321 811103 FL/ ADOCK 05000289 0
PDR Metrcoonan Ec: son Ccmcany s a Men ar of :ne Geerm F cac Umes S/ stem
t*
Y Mr. Paul F. Colli'ns Llt 317 These results have not given us concern as to the general knowledgc level of these operators or the appropriateness of having them take the current NRC examinations.
However, if Mr. H passes Category G of the NRC examination with a grade of less than 80%, we will provide him with additional training on Category G as we would under our retraining program for a licensed operator who receives less than 80% in an annual requalification exami, nation category.
To prevent deficiencies of this type in the future, we are formalizing the process for certification by the licensee staff to the corporate official who
.provides the certification to the NRC.
Sincerely,
/
/
. D.
ukill Director, TMI-l HDH: S.iN: RCA: vj f O.
)
e e
e G
9 0