ML20154R009
| ML20154R009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1988 |
| From: | Scace S NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154Q600 | List: |
| References | |
| MP-12076, NUDOCS 8810040127 | |
| Download: ML20154R009 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _
'O M ES General OfNee
- Selden Street, Berlin Connecticut 1
E 2rT.15E=T ~~
P o. eox 270
- '.**yg'.g, HART oR ONNECTICUT 061410270 90 )
July 22, 1988 MP-12076 RE:
NUREG 1021, ES-201-1 Mr. Robert M. Gallo, Chief Operations Saction, DRS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region !
475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
REFERENCE:
Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 Docket No. 50-336 NRC Written Examination Comments, Millstone Unit 2 Dear Mr. Gallot On July 20, 1988, a review of the NRC SRO licensing written examination administered to three license candidates of Millstone Unit 2 (MP2) was conducted.
This review was conducted by members of the MP2 Operator Training Staff and took place in two parts:
1.
Prior to the examination administration, the examination questions were reviewed for technical accuracy and appropriateness.
The comments resulting from this review were discussed with members of the NRC examination team and changes to the examination were made.
The examination key was made available for reference during this review.
2.
During and subsequent to the examination administration, the examination key was reviewed for technical accuracy and relationship to the questions asked.
The comments resulting from the review were discussed with members o'f the NRC examination team and changes to the answer key were made.
Because modifications to the written examination were made based on our review, additional comments are few and pertain only to the appropriateness of certain questions.
Specitically, the facility reviewers and the NRC examiners disagreed on the inclusion of several questions that required the examinee to state, from memory, the detailed bases for certain technical specifications.
Despite our objections, the questions in contention were included on the examination as administered.
$$kooggg{[ $kh$ 36 c
V
e Notwithstanding this disagreement, the two step review process employed is a significant improvement over NRC past practice of allowing the facility to review the examination and answer key only after the examination has been administered.
It is recommended that, in the future, additional time be given to conduct this review.
Additionally, the MP2 Operator Training staff was allowed to review and comment on the simulator scenarios prior to the simulator examinations.
This review and subsequent scenario modification helped ensure that the scenarios were within the bounds of the simulator's capabilities and compatable with the training program's learning objectives.
These new review practices should be employed for all future NRC licensing examinations.
Yours truly, NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Fort Stephen E.
Scace Station Superinte4. dent dillstone Nuclear ower Station nw By:
Carl H. Clement Unit 3 Superintendent Millstone Nuclear Power Station c
Document Control Desk, USNRC Barry S.
Norris, Chief Examiner, USNRC
~