ML20195C539
| ML20195C539 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1999 |
| From: | Gallo R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Bob Fitzpatrick INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906080211 | |
| Download: ML20195C539 (3) | |
Text
7 pa *E0%
y 1!k UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30666-0001
%, *.., + $
y June 4, 1999 Mr. Bill Fitzpatrick, Manager
, Accreditation Training Department institute of Nuclear Power Operations 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30339-5957 Dear Mr. Fitzpatricki The April 7,1999, Generic Fundamentals Examination (GFE) was administered to 115 candidates at 18 facilities. The examination operated smoothly and efficiently.
The summary statistical results of this exam are as follows:
BWR PWR Candidates 47 68 Mean Score 86.8 88.1-High Score 96.0 98 Low Score 68.4 69.7 SD 05.5 06.1 Number of Failures
_. 5/47 (10.6%)
7/68 (10.3 %)
Nine Mile Point (5)
Vogtle (4)
Diablo Canyon (1)
Farley (1)
Callaway (1)
The statistical results of this exam, e.g., mean scores and range were consistent, stable, and in line with past GFE exam performance. Overall exam difficulty level (i.e., mean score) is targeted at 87.00, and actual exam difficulty levels of 86.8 and 88.1 are remarkably near to expected results and consistent with past GFE performance. As in previous exams since February 1992, this exam was developed using the merged INPO/NRC test bank from'your catalogs. Overall, we believe this exam was a good product and a valid measure of generic fundamental knowledge.
The failure rates, overall, are slightly higher than normal benchmarks (7 percent BWR/4 percent PWR), but are largely attributable to the performance of onlytwo plants. Two plants, Nine Pile Point and Vogtle, accounted for a disproportionately large percentage of the failures for the BWR and PWR examinations, respectively. Typically, failure results are fairly randomly distributed across regions and plants with no single plant outliers.
The performance of these two plants, in particular, including the number and level of failures, serve to give a misleading picture to the overall failure percentage and generate a faulty 97-/dd inference that the examination may have been too difficult. Rather, the examination's i
0 failure rates for this examination were not a function of the examination's difficulty level, but Df D?>
-4 9906000211 99060 PDR DRO EPSINPD
}_J O l N I t) 3 PDR
B.- Fitzp: trick '
rather, were a function of the performance of these two plants who disproportionately caused the rise in the overall National failure rate.
Facility Comments and Answer Kev Channes
- BWR Examination Three facilities submitted 13 comments on 7 test items. Upon careful review of the facility comments, only two items (Form A, items 32 and 56) were determined to warrant two correct answers; two items (Form A, items 39 and 93) were deleted because of a technical inaccuracy and no correct answer, respectively. The remaining three items for which comments were received were determined to be technically and psychometrically sound as written. The answer keys were changed and final grading adjusted to accept the above four answer key changes.
The problematic items were not entered into the examination bank.
PWR Examination Three facilities submitted 9 comments on 7 test items. Upon careful review of the facility's comments, only two items (Form A, items 64 and 78) were determined to warrant two correct answers. Item 36, identical to BWR item 39 above, was similarly deleted for its technical inaccuracy. The remaining four items, for which comments were received, were determined to be sound as written and to have only one valid and correct answer. Similarly, the PWR answer key was changed to reflect final grading adjustments. Th'e problematic items were not entered into the examination bank.
As we have routinely done, we are enclosing both BWR and PWR hard copies of the exam as well as two floppy diskettes which contain the contents of this examination along with its associated input data needed for updating your catalogs, if you have any questions, please contact George M. Usova at (301) 415-1064.
Sincerely,
/
Robert M. Gallo, Chief Operator Licensing, Human Performance
)
and Plant Support Branch Division of Inspection Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated i
- k. u
g-y t.
T T
- 8. Fitzpatrick
~
.2..
Dune 4, 1999 rr
~ rather, were a function of the' performance of these two plants who disproportionately caused '
' the rise in the overall National failure rate.
I l
Facility Comments and Answer Key Changes t
BWR Examination Three facilities submitted 13 comments on 7 test items. Upon careful review of the facility comments, only two items (Form A, items 32 and 56) were determined to warrant two correct -
answers; two items (Form A, items 39 and 93) were deleted because of a technical inaccuracy and no correct answer, respectively. The remaining three items for which comments were received were determined to be technically and psychometrically sound as written. The answer keys were changed and final grading adjusted to accept the above four answer key changes.
The problematic items were not entered into the examination bank.
PWR Examination
' Three facilities submitted 9 comments on 7 test items. Upon careful review of the facility's comments, only two items (Form A, items 64 and 78) were determined to warrant two correct answers. Item 36, identical to BWR item 39 above, was similarly deleted for its technical inaccuracy. The remaining four items, for wh!ch comments were received, were determined to -
be' sound as written and to have only one valid and correct answer. Similarly, the PWR answer key was changed to reflect final grading adjustments. The problematic items were not entered into the examination bank.
As we have routinely done, we are enclosing both BWR and PWR hard copies of the exam as well as two floppy diskettes which contain the contents of this examination along with its sssociated input data needed for updating your catalogs.
If you have any questions, please contact George M. Usova at (301) 415-1064.
Sincerely, 1
Original signed by:
Robert M. Gallo, Chief Operator Licensing, Human Performance and Plant Support Branch Division of Inspection Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosures:
As stated j
DISTRIBUTION CentralFiles PUBLIC GUsova l
w/o encis:
lOLB R/F RGallo BBoger DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\USOVA\\lNPOAP.99
- See previous concurrence i.
C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment /enclosuIa 3t" = N3 copy l OFFICE IOLB/DIPM -
l SC:lOLB/DIPM l~
C:gMl lNAME
- GUsova, DTrimble ~
RCW j
g lDATE 05/17/99 '
05/28/99*-
(J/A /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY I
4 i
i