ML20216B227
| ML20216B227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1998 |
| From: | Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Gordon Peterson DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803130010 | |
| Download: ML20216B227 (23) | |
Text
_,
3 e
March 3, 1998 Duke Energy Corporation ATTN: Mr. C. R. Peterson, Site Vice President. Catawba Site 4800 Concord Road York. SC 29745-9635 s
SUBJECT:
MEETING SUMMARIES - NOVEMBER 1997 NRC REGION II TRAINING MANAGERS' CONFERENCE AND JANUARY 1998 NRC REGION II EXAMINATION WORKSHOP
Dear Mr. Petterson:
[
This letter refers to the Training Managers Ccnference conducted at the Atlanta Federal Center on November 12 and 13, 1997 and the Examination g-Workshop conducted at the Richard B. Russell Building on January 27-29. 1998.
Representatives from all atilities in Region II participated in both meetings.
U The agenda for the Training Managers Conference is Enclosure 1 and the list of attendees is Enclosure 2.
We appreciate the participation of you and your staff and believe that the goal of providing an open forum for discussion of operator licensing issues was met.
Mr. Gallo. Chief of the Operator Licensing Branch. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). made a presentation on the present status of operator licensing and his slides are Enclosure 3.
During the meeting, it was decided that a workshop on operator licensing examination writing was needed and would be held at the first of the year. Also, we have t9tatively set the date for the 1990 Training Manager's Conference as November 4 and 5.
Additionally I am enclosing our preliminary schedule for FY 1998 and FY 1999, 3
dated February 18. 1998, as Enclosure 4 Please review the schedule and supply comments to my staff or myself.
The Examination Workshop w.
conducted with participation by everyone.
A list of attendees is Enclosure 5.
A standard Job Performance Measures (JPM) format was revierad and comments collected by the Southeast Training Managers (SSNTA) with a final version expected this summer.
Concerns on the examination process were collected and is included as Enclosure 6.
These concerns were forwarded to NRR for review.
1101 Ti
/d b L W Ent 75VC lillllllllillEjlllDll.l!illI
~
Ac4U
-\\
\\
9803130010 'MO303 PDR ADOCK 05000413 V
PDR L
4:
l y
L DEC-2 During the workshop., we discussed some of the problems with the initial examination process as it is being implemented be Revision 8 of NUREG-1021.
- A discussion of those issues is enclosure 7.
It is our opinion that this conference was beneficial and provided an excellent opportunity for open discussion of various concerns about the Operator Licensing process, ecpecially the techniques of writing the licensing examination.
'If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact me at (404) 562-4638.
Sincerely.
Thomas A. Peebles. Chief Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos.:
50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.:
Enclosures:
1.
Agenda for Training Managers' Conference 2.
List of Attendees for 1997 Training Managers' Conference 3
Mr. Gallo's Slides 4.
Region II Examination Schedules for FY 97 & 98
- 5. ~ List ~of Attendees for 1998 Examination Workshop 6.
Concerns Expressed during Workshop 7.
Discussion of Workshop Issues cc w/encls:
W. H. Miller. Training Manager.
Catawba Nuclear Station M. S. Kitlan. Regulatory Compliance Manager
- G. A. Copp. Licensing Distribution w/encls:
(See page 3) o
r-l
\\
DEC 3
Distribution w/encls:
PUBLIC B. Michael. DRS OFFICE RIZsDRS jf SIGNATURE
//g NAME TPEEBf.ES DATE 3/ j /98 3/
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 COPY?
YES NO YES 15 0 YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAMES As\\CATLTR.JC
(
SOUTHEAST TRAINING MANAGER'S CONFERENCE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Atlanta, Georgia Meeting Agenda l
November 12-13,1997 l
Atlanta Federal Center Wednesday. 11/12/97 8:00 a.m.
Conference Registratica Conference Center Conference Room C 8:20 a.m.
Introduction Thomas A. Peebles, Chief, Operator Licensing & Human Performance Branch 8:30 a.m.
Welcome Johns P. Jaudon, Director Division of Reactor Safety 9:00 a.m.
Welcome Bruce S. Mallett, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator 0:30 a.m.
Overview of Pilot Exam Process Thomas A. Peebles, Chief, Operator Licensing & Human Performance Branch 10:00 a.m.
Break 10:30 a.m.
Examination Communications Ron Aiello, RII Exam Development & Coordination 11:00 a.m.
Examination Security Issues Paul Steiner, RII i1:45 a.m.
Lunch 1:00 p.m.
Resident Review of Training Paul Harmon, RIl 1:30 p.m.
Lessons Leamed from Recent Exams Charlie Payne, RII 2:15 p.m.
Break 2:30 p.m.
Examination Questions and Answers George Hopper, RII Examples of questions 4:00 p.m.
Meet with Principal Examiners All 4:30 p.m.
Adjorn 1
ENCLOSURE 1
2 Thursday. 11/13/97 8:30 a.m.
Recap Tom Peebles 8:45 a.m.
Reactivity Changes and Other Issues Roben M. Gallo, Chief Operator Licensing Branch, NRR 9:30 a.m.
Medical Exam Issues - Conditions Charlie Payne, RII 10:00 a.m.
Break 10:15 a.m.
Open Session - Other Issues Training Managers 12:00 p.m.
Adjorn 1
i i
i ENCLOSURE 1
REGION ll TRAINING MANAGERS CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 12-13,1998 Timothy L. Norris Onsite Engineering General Manager Brian Haagensen PSHA CP&L Larry Dunlap BK Supv. Ops Cont Tmg Rick Gamer HR Supv Ops Trng Tom Natale RB.
Supt Ops Tmg William Noll BK Ops Tmg Supv Max Herrell BK Tmg Mgr Scot Poteet RB Exam Team Leader Crvstal River - FPC Jack Springer CR Supv SimulatorTng Tom Taylor CR Dir Nuc Ops Trng Duke Poggt Garmon Clements CT Human Perf Mgr Camden Eflin OC Ops Trng Richard P. Bugert Corp Ops Trng Spec Gabriel Washburn OC Req Team Leader Charles Sawyer Corp Sr Tech Spec Ronnie B. White, Jr MG Trng Mgr E.T. Beadle CT Init Lic Exam Leader William H. Miller CT Tmg Mgr Al Lindsay MG Ops Tmg Mgr Paul Stovall OC Mgr Oper Trng Bentley Jones OC Trng Mgr Paul Mabry OC Ops Line i
FP&L Maria Lacal TP Tmg Mgr Philip G. Finegan TP Ops Trng Supv Dennis L. Fadden SL Services Mgr 4
Jo Magennis Corp Trng Assessment Spec Kris Metzger SL Ops Trng Supv Southern Nuclear (SNC)
J. M. Donem FA Sr Inst Ops. Trng John C. Lewis HT Tmg & EP Mgr Tom Blindauer FA Sr Pit Inst Joe Powell FA Sr Inst Ops Trng Bill Oldfield FA Nuc Ops Trn Supv Southem Nuclear (SNC) (cont'd oaae 2)
ENCLOSURE 2 l
i
)
-2 Southam Nuclear (SNC) (cont'd)
Steve Grantham HT Ops Tmg Supv Scott Fulmer FA Mgr Trng & EP Leon Ray VG Ops Tmg Supv Viroinia Power Frank Winks NA Spv Ops Trng H. Ashley Royal NA Supt Tmg Thomas Toby Sowers SR Supt Trng
'M Bob Greenman BF Tmg Mgr Dick Driscoll SQ Tmg Mgr Walt Hunt SQ Ops Tmg Mgr James Proffitt SQ Nuc Eng Marvin Meek BF HLT Lead inst Rusty Proffitt SQ V. C. Summer-SCE&G Terry Matlosz SM Mgr Tmg Al Koon SM Ops Trng Supv i
ENCLOSURE 2
OPERATOR LICENSING INITIAL EXAMINATION RULE CHANGE Region ll Training Managers Conference November 13,1997 Robert M. Gallo, Chief, Operator Licensing Stench, NRR i
ENCIOSURE 3 i
HISTORY 4
SECY 95-75 (3/95): Proposed change GL 95-06 (8/95):
Solicited volunteers ROI 95-25 (8/95):
Pilot guidance 10/95 - 4/96:
Original pilot exams 5/1/96:
CRGR briefing SECY 96-123 (6/96):
Pilot results o
SECY 96-206 (9/96):
Pros and cons o
GL 95-06, Sup.1 (1/97): Voluntary o
continuation of pilot process NUREG-1021, Interim Rev. 8 (2/97) o SECY 97-79 (4/97):
Proposed rule o
62 FR 42426 (8/97):
Proposed rule o
...--.-..L.-.l-....-.-.--.-
THE PRCPCS$D RULE
- 3. A new s 55.40 is adcec to reac as follows:
! 55.40 Imp ementation.
(a) Power reactor facility licensees shall--
(1)
Prepare t7e requirec site-specific written examinations and operating tests; (2) Submit the written examinations and operating tests to the Commission for review and approval; and
($?
Proctor and grade the NRC-spproved site-specific written exmminations.
THE REST OF THE RULE 1
(b)
In jeu of requiring a specific power reactor "acility licensee to prepare the examinations anc tests or to proctor anc grace the site-specific written examinations, the Commission may e ect to perform those tas ts.
(c) The Commission will prepare and ac' minister the written examinations and operating tests at non-power reactor facilities.
. em giug> M %
N" e
- e
m
- W
,e+ ea r
o e-n,,
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS T7e NRC wi. prepare one exam per Region per :ca.encar year
- aciLity icensees are expectec to use t7e guicance in NUREG-1021 NRC wi approve c'eviations NRC wi not compromise statutory responsioiLities NRC is committed to maintaining qua ity, level of difficulty, consistency, anc security NRC intends to use its "ull enforcement authority against persons who willfully compromise an exam in violation o" 55.49
BACKGROUND Goal was to improve ef"iciency whi e maintaining e"ectiveness E iminate reliance on NRC contractors (except GFE)
Increase facility invo vement Maintain examination qua ity anc difficu ty Remain consistent with the Act and Part 55
- Changes should be transparent to license applicants
- Initial licensing program was not broken 4
~,. -
MILESTONE SCHEDULE
' 0/2' /97:Comnlent perioc encea 4/' /98:
Reso ve comments; revise ru,e and \\lUREG ' 021; seek Office coricurrence 4/98:
Brief CRGR and ACRS 5/22/98: Obtain Office concurrence and de iver to EDO 6/98:
Obtain EDO and Commission concurrence 7/98:
Publisa the final rule and Revision 8 12/3' /98: Implement rule and Revision 8
i i-!;
oT
! l T
O p
h h
r F
ee S
1 r i
1 o
Pg Y
Ex r
i ar
/n 9u i i l
t e
9c 9g o n 1
a 7e 6h t a 9
m i
s s
9 s
l n
C 2
5 u
g Y
2 l
t t
s 1
e 3
5 7
4 W
9 9
9 9
so 4
7 9
r 1
R 2
3 1
4 t
f
/
/
i
/
/
tt O 5%
8%
5%
ao 4
9 3
4 e
p n
2 n
p e
e O
1 a e 3
5 8
5 p
E 8
9 9
9 e
x R
X 1
1 0
0 l
9 5
3 8
r
/
/
a a
/
/
5%
8%
5%
aO 1
A m
4 7
4 4
t r
i e
1 n
M g
p p
l 1
eu 2
4 7
4 8
8 8
9 T
R x
ns 4
9 5
5
/
/3 8
3 2
oR E
d
/
/
O t
io 5%
8%5%
a S
A nn 9
5 4
l A
g e
U L
R 2
1 1
3 0
3 8
W T
O 6
0 6
6 r
9 9
9 9
S
/4
/4 3
5 R
S i
/
/
t a
2 1
% 9%
O 1
te n
5 0
4 2
d 0
6 4
n
- o 2
1 O
9 n
3 3
8 p
89 9
9 9
eS e
5 7
7
/2 6
6 5
3agS r
/
aR 1
/
/
c 2
0%
% 9%
1 O
t 4
4 1
i
.r R
9 3
g 6
n O
2 1
2 958 3
8 9
9 9
T S 6
1 3
E
/ 9 1
0 2
oR
/
1
/
/
0%
% 9% %t O 1
a s
5 4
2 l
7 4
1 1
1
FY99 INITIAL EXAM RESULTS Fcbruary 20,1998 -
RO SRO-l SRO-U TOTAL l
i Date Plant Chief Pass Pass Pass Pass 0
9/28/98 Sequoyah MEE 4
10/5/98 Harris RFA 4
2 3
10/19/98 B. Ferry WFS write DCP 4
4 11/30/98 Oconee &
MEE 6
6 12/14/98 11/30/98 St Lucie &
RSB 15 15 12/14/98 1/25/99 McGuire &
DCP 14 1
15 1
2/8/99 1/25/99 C. River &
RFA 10-12 2/8/99 3/15/99 Watts Bar &
RSB 7
5 3/29/99 3/29/99 Surry &
RFA 6
2 4
4/12/99 5/17/99 Catawba &
15-18 I
5/31/99 5/10/99 Farley 2
6 Watts Bar ? 6/99 6
4 8
07/ /99 Robinson?
4 1
1 07/ /99 C. River?
08/ /99 Turkey Pt?
20 9/15/99 Summer?
4 09/ /99 Sequoyah 7 99
'?' designates tentative No Initial exams scheduled for:
North Anna 710/18/99 Brunswick-9 candidates 710/ /99 B. Ferry 4r, 4i, 4u 710/25/99 Hatch Br?
710/ /99 St. Lucie 2 wk 712/13/99 Vogtle-Sr, Si, 2u ENCLOSURE 4
FY 98 INITIAL EXAM RESULTS
[10/1/97 - 9/30/98]
Fcbru:ry 20,1998 RO SRO-I SRO-U TOTAL Exam PLANT CHIEF PASS PASS PASS PASS Week 10/14/97 St. Lucie &
GTH 6
6 1
1 7
7 10/20 11/14/97 Cr. River RETAKE RFA 1
1 1
1 12/1/97 Summer JFM 8
8 8
8 12/1/97 Catawba &
DCP 2
3 4
5 6
6 14 12/15 3/2/98 Farley RETAKE RFA 1
1 2/23/98 Robinson + 1 op RSB 3
1+1 1
6 retake 4/13/98 Vogtle (Mellen write)
GTH 4
2 6
5/11/98 Brunswick &
DCP 5
3 3
11 5/25/98 w Sequoyah Retake +
LSM 3
3 6/1/98 op RFA RSB 6/29/98 Crystal River MEE 6
6 6/22/98 St. Lucie &
GTH 8
4 8
7/6/98 8/10/98 Turkey Point DCP 8
8 8/17/98 North Anna &
RSB 8
i 6
15 8/31 9/28/98 Sequoyah MEE 4
4 54 28 26 108 RESULTS TO DATE 16 17 5
6 7
7 28 30
'&' designates examinations that will require two weeks to administer No exams scheduled for B. Ferry Oconee Harris Surry Hatch W Bar McGuire ENCLOSURE 4
cs 4
REGION 11 WORKSHOP - OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS JANUARY 27 - 29,1998 Exam Workshop Attendees Charlie Brooks Asst Manager, Ops Trg - INPO Frank S. Jaggar Examiner-WD Associates Ken Masker Senior Licensed instructor Rochester Gas & Electric, R. E. Ginna NPP Bob Niedzielski Exam Developer-Baltimore Gas & Electric James F. Belzer instructor - CCNPP/BGE f
Max Bailey Region ill Operator Licensing Examiner CP&L_
)
Gregg Lualam LOR - Supervisor - Brunswick j
William Noll Supt Ops Training - Brunswick Tony Pearson Initial Training - Brunswick Richard Edens LOR instructor-Brunswick Rick Garner Sup - OTU - Harns Terry Toler Project Tech Spec - tiatris Wiley Killette Project Tech Spec-Hams Scott Poteet Exam Team - Robinson Bill Nevins Instruct Tech - Robinson Crvstal River - FPC Alan Kennedy Senior Licensed instructor Johnie Smith Training Supervisor Jack Springer Training Supervisor Duke Power Alan Whitener Ops Instructor Edward A. Shaw Ops instructor Bobby Ayers Ops Instructor - Oconee Steve Helms Training Super Charles Sawyer Initial Training - McGuire Reggie Kinvay Initial Trining Lead E. T. Beadle Nuclear instructor-fMS James K. Black Nuclear Instructor-QNS Gabriel Washburn Nuclear instructor-RNS Camden Eflin Team Leader - HLP - Oconee (Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd - See page 2)
D Cf.OSURE 5
t j
2 i
(Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd)
FP&L Ivan Wilson Operations Manager Kris Metzger Ops Training Supervisor - St. Lucie Roger Walker instructor-St. Lucie l
Tim Bolander Instructor - St. Lucie
)
David P. Clark Instructor - St. Lucie Maria L. Lacal Training Manager-Turkev Point Rich Bretton Ops Cert Trng Sup - Turkev Point Philip G. Finegan Ops Trining Supervisor - Turkev Point Michael E. Croiteau Cont Trng Instructor - Turkey Point 1
Southern Nuclear (SNC)
Joel L. Deavers Senior Instructor-Farlev Scott Fulmer Training & Emergency Preparedness Manager - Earley Gerard W. Laska Training Instructor - Farlev Charlie Edmund Plant instructor -11atch David Gidden Training Supervisor-Hatch Ed Jones Plant Instructor - Hatch Dan Scukanec Ops Trng Supv - Voatle Fred Howard Plar.t instructor - Voatie Virainia Power Keith Link Requal... - North Anna l
Ed Trask Instructor-North Anna Joe Scott Supervisor Operations Training - North Anna Ken Grover Senior Instructor (NUC) - Surry Harold McCallum Supervisor Ops Training - Surry Paul K. Orrison Ops Instructor - Surry 1
_IVA Ray Schorff Instructor - Browns Ferry Denny Campbell Instructor - Browns Ferry Bob Greenman Training Manager - fltowns Ferry Marvin Meek Instructor - Browns Ferry A. R. Champion Instructor - Browns Ferry Rick King Sr Ops Instructor - Seauovah Frank Weller instructor - Seauovah Phillip H. Gass Sim Instructor - Seouoyah Ed Keyser Instructor - Seauovah Harold Birch Instructor - Seauovah (Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd - See page 2) i
i 3
i (Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd)
TVA cont'd Terry Newman SRO Instructor-Watts Bar l
Rancy Evans SRO Instructor-Watts Bar Rick O' Rear Sift Manager-Watts Bar E_Q Summer-SCE&G Perry Ramicone Ops Instructor Bruce L. Thompson Ops Instructor William R. Quick Ops instructor I
l
4 CONCERNS EXPRESSED DURING THE REGION 11 EXAMINATION WRITING WORKSHOP The following is a condensation of the concems received from the attending facilitics during the January 1998 Workshop on Examination Writing. The workshop attendees and I would appreciate your consideration of the concems during your revision to the Examiner Standards.
1)
Security requirements are too restrictive, considering the limited resources available. Also, more guidance on minimum security expectations is needed.
(three comments) 2)
The NRC should develop the sample plan as this would seve both utility and NF' resources. (two comments) 3)
If independent groups generate the audit and licensing exams, some overlap should be allowed. (one comment, also I believe the standards allow this now?)
4)
The K/A catalog contains errors and omissions and should be corrected, or at the least an errata sheet of know errors should be published. (two comments) 5)
If an exam bank item has not been used during the licensing class, the exam item should be considered at " face value" for the licensing exam. (one comment) 6)
The length of time allowed for written exams should be revised to a more reasonable period. Does this time also apply to continuing education.
)
(one comment, I had cor.1mented that the length of time did not apply to requalification exams the utilities conducted.)
7)
The NRC should periodically publish problem areas encountered during the exam process and distribute it to all training managers. (one comment) 8)
The faci lities appreciated the workshop. They want Region ll to have another workshop in about six months. The next time they want to concentrate on good and bad examples of written and operating test items and the sample plan. (nix comments)
DJCEDSURE 6
s e
DISCUSSION OF WORKSHOP ISSUES During the workshop we discussed some of the problems with the revised o)erator licensing examination process as implemented by Revision 8 of NJREG-1021. The following were three of the principle issues discussed and a summary of the response given by NRC's Region II Operator Licensing staff.
- 1..
Why has exam development take so many man-hours? Some faci 1ities did not fully understand our methodology, concepts and expectations for daveloping the initial examination such as content validity, plausible distractors and other psychometric issues. The NRC did not recognize the variance across facilities in their depth of understanding.
As a result, some facilities submitted examinations with the quality lower than expected and these examinations did not meet the standards described in NUREG-1021.
The amount of resources required to modify the examinations to meet the standards was more than either the facility or the NRC had anticipated. There was general agreement during the workshop that more discussion with the facility examination writers and reviewers, such as these workshops, would better align the facilities' i
original products with the standards of NUREG-1021 and reduce the resources required to develop an acceptable examination.
2)
Why has the NRC raised the level of difficulty of the examinations?
Many participants felt that the NRC was " raising the bar." We stated that the purpose of the initial operator licensing examination is to test valid knowledges, skills and abilities required to safely carry out duties as a licensed operator at a specific facility.
The examination should be written to a discrimination level not specific to the quality of the facility's training program, but so that a minimal competent operator, with specific site knowledge and skills, will pass the examination.
Therefore. the level of difficulty of the examination should not vary significantly from site to site.
The concept of discrimination validity is that a given test item is written at a level which will discriminate between a competent and less than competent operator.
In some cases, the NRC examination reviews have adjusted the discrimination validity (difficulty) in order to achieve region-wide consistency on what is required of a competent operator. We try to create an examination such that an applicant who is capable of safely operating the plant will achieve a score of 80 percent or greater.
For facilities that prepare candidates beyond the minimally qualified level, we would ex)ect the average score to be higher.
Historically, nationwide 4RC examination scores have averaged approximately 85 percent, which is a reasonable benchmark and expectation for a discriminating criterion-referenced examination.
I explained that I use a mental description of a minimally competent o)erator to decide if the question is one that he/she needs to know and w1 ether the overall exam is targeted for that person to achieve c score of 80%. An 80% score on the written examination for a minimal competent
)
candidate does not correlate to an 80% pass rate and we have no goal D C OSUPI 7
o 2
4
.regarding pass rate. Overall, we did not intend to change the.'bar' and are reviewing results to ensure our practice meets our intent.
3)
Why have sorne applicants not been able to complete the examination in I
the four hours current 1y ' allowed? Prior to the current examination revision, we had two actions in the implementation phase. One was the improvement in the plausibility of distractors and the other was i
standardizing the percent of comprehension and analyses questions.
In the last two years, we have improved our identification of poor distractors. A question does not have discrimination validity if the distractors (i.e. incorrect answers in a multiple choice test) can be eliminated by a less than com)etent operator due to psychometric flaws in the question structure. T1ese types of flaws are detailed in Appendix B of NUREG-1021. At the workshop, several examples of these psychometric flaws were illustrated and discussed. Answering questions with incorrect but plausible distrectors should not take longer for a candidate who is sure of the answer. but does take longer for the candidate who must eliminate each distractor. Also, in general, comprehension / analyses cuestions require more thought process than memory level questions anc consequently more time. The recuirement for a fifty percent minimum of higher level questions was basec on a review of the last two years of examination audits and an effort to standardize the level of examination difficulty.
We stated that the four hour time limit for the written examination is~
uncer review by the NRC for possible extension of the limit and that extensions may be granted in accordance with the examiner standards.
i 4
1 4