ML20203B621

Submits Comments on 850308 Review of Allegations Re Operator Test Scores in Response to 850308 Request.Recent Exams Will Undergo QA Reviews,Per Examiner Stds

ML20203B621
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi, 05000000
Issue date:	03/15/1985
From:	Spessard R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20203B524	List: ML20203B519 ML20203B527 ML20203B532 ML20203B547 ML20203B557 ML20203B575 ML20203B621 ML20203B651 ML20203B662 ML20203B691 ML20203B701
References
FOIA-86-362 NUDOCS 8607180265
Download: ML20203B621 (2)

Text

- . . - . . . . - . - - . _ . . , _ . . . ~ . _ . . . ~ - . . .s . .

, ' CI Cg UNITED STAT ($

I 6[ NUCLEAR REGULATORY cOMMisslON

, ei , RE GION 118 y j 799 ROOSEVELT RO AD 3 ,e,7 GLE Ps E LLVPe. ILLipeOl6 60937

%, p 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: A. B. Davis, Deputy Administrator FROM: R. L. Spessard, Director, Division of Recctor Safety

SUBJECT:

OPERATOR TEST SCORES AT FERMI 2 (ALLEGATION)

In reply to your memorandum of March 8,1985, we have reviewed the records of the Fermi 2 examinations.

'N In reference to the written examinations, the most recent examinations have not been graded or reviewed at this time but they will undergo the quality assurance reviews required by the Examiner Standards. The previous written examinations were also subjected to review according to the Standards. We believe the checks in the system are enough to prevent an examiner from

" shaving points", i.e., allowing some person to pass who should have failed.

Another check on 'the~~e~xamination process, of course, is the fact that written examinations and oral / operating examinations are separate and therefore a high grade on a written and a failure on an oral would be suspect and open to questions. The reverse is also true.

The oral / operating examination is a one on one process and therefore not subject to as much control or review. The examiner standards specify the approximate length of the examination, the number of systems to be explored, and the number of subjects in each system that should be covered. Because of the nature of this examination, under nomal circumstances it is impossible to detemine whether the examination was valid, just by the review of the examination fom. If the proper number of systems are listed and the required number of subjects are

. completed in the matrix, one must assume that the examiner did what he said he did. In the case of the two Femi 2 candidates page 8 of the examination notes is suspect since we know the candidates were not taken into the plant, thus we would consider the examination to be incomplete. This does not mean that they do not know the material or that they would fail the examination because of a weakness in those areas. We will go back to Femi, complete the examination and spot check their knowledge in other areas in order to remove any suspicion of wrong doing. We have also asked Headquarters OLB to look into the continued use of the contract examiner involved in this incident. This latter action would have been taken even without the allegation.

8607100265 060709 PDR FOIA PUNTENN86-36P PDR w_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _

s. .

/ .

~

A. B. Davis 2 RAR 15 1985 One other item contained in the memorandum from T. N. Tambling to James G. Keppler needs to be clarified. This is in reference to the last two sentences on page 2.

The Headquarters audit criticized Regior !!! for not having an independent review of examinations that were appealed. Only when a regrade is necessary because of an appeal are we required to use an uninvolved examiner. To the best of our knowledge all regrades of appeals are being conducted by an uninvolved examiner and most likely this will be the Section Chief.

As to the use of whiteout, we have told all Region !!! examiners that such use is unacceptable. We have also requested Headquarters to inform the contract examiners of this policy.

T hm m&

R. L. Spessard, Director Division of Reactor Safety e

]

6