ML20217Q203

Summarizes 971112 & 13 Training Managers Conference at Atlanta Federal Ctr & Exam Workshop Conducted at RB Russell Bldg on 980127-29.Agenda for Training Managers Conference & List of Attendees Encl

ML20217Q203
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	03/03/1998
From:	Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Fulmer S SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
References
NUDOCS 9803120048
Download: ML20217Q203 (21)

Text

4 March 3, 1998 Southern Nuclear Operating Company. Inc.

ATTN: Mr. Scott Fulmer. Plant Training and Emergency Preparedness Manager Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant P. O. Drawer 470 Ashford. AL 36312

SUBJECT:

MEETING SUMMARIES - NOVEMBER 1997 NRC REGION II TRAINING MANAGERS' CONFEREPJE AND JANUARY M98 NRC REGION II EXAMINATION WORKSHOP

Dear Mr. Fulmer:

This letter refers to the Training Managers Conference conducted at the Atlanta Federal Center on November 12 and 13, 1997 and the Examination Workshop conducted at the Richard B. Russell Building on January 27-29, 1998.

Representatives from all utilities in Regicn II participated in both meetings.

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 tentatively set the date for the 1998 Training Manager's Conference as November 4 and 5.

Additionally, I am enclosing our preliminary schedule for FY 1998 and FY 1999, dated February 18, 1998, as Enclosure 4. Please review the schedule and supply comments to my staff or myself.

The Examination Workshop was conducted with participation by everyone. A list of attendees is Enclosure 5. A standard Job Performance Measures (JPM) format was reviewed 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.

ecc 89 During the workshop. we discussed some of the problems with the initial j gO examination process as it is being implemented be Revision 8 of NUREG-1021. l y A discussion of those issues is enclosure 7. /

l GM' It is our opinion that this conference was beneficial and provided an o8 excellent cpportunity for open discussion of various concerns about the

@@ Operator Licensing process, especially the techniques of writing the licensing g examination. ,

MM lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

'"' l[$

ggy)ccL {  ;

1

{\dl6 l

u_

TW u

l SN0PCO- 2 If you have any questions 'regarding the content of this letter, please contact me at (404) 562-4638.

Sincerely, Original Signed 171

'Ihcznas Peebles Thomas A. Peebles. Chief Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch Division of Reactor Safety Docket'Nos.: 50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.: NPF-2 and NPF-8

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 L

6. Concerns Expressed during Workshop

7. Discussion of Workshop Issues l: .CC W/enCls:

R. D. Hill, Jr. , General Manager.

Farley Nuclear Plcnt i

Distribution w/encls: l PUBLIC  !

B. Michael. DRS iFFICE RII DRS ,

I SZ4MBATURE Ag maME 7 Fife 8isEs .

l- DATE /98 3/ /98 3/ /98 3/ /98 3/ /98 3/ /98 3/ /98 3/ f copy?  ! YES 30 YES NO YES N YES NO M, YES NO YES NO OFFICIkL RECORD COFY DOCUMENT NAME: As\FARLTR.JC l

l' I

4 I

SOUTHE ST TRAINING MANAGF.,R'S CONFERENCE r

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Atlanta, Georgia Meeting Agenda November 12-13,1997 Atlanta Federal Center Wednesday. 11/12/.,91 8:00 a.m. Conference Registration 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 9:30 a.m. Overview of Pilet Exam Process Thomas A. Peebles, Chief, Operator Licensing & Human Performance Branch l 10:00 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m. Examination Communications Ron Aiello, RIl Exam Development & Coordination 11:00 a.m. Examination Security Issues Paul Steiner, RII 11:45 a.m. Lunch 1:00 p.m. Resident Review of Training Paul Harmon, RIl 1:30 p.m. Lessons Learned from Recent Exams Charlie Payne, Rll l

l 2:15 p.m. Break 2:30 p.m. Examination Questions and Answers George Hopper, RIl Examples of questions >

4:00 p.m. Meet with Principal Examiners All I

4:30 p.m. Adjorn ENCLOSURE 1 1

I l I

6 ce . - - >

i i

Thuradav: 11/13/97

. 8:30 a.m. Recap Tom Peebles

' 8:45 a.m. Reactivity Changes and Other Issues Robert M. Gallo, Chief Operator Licensing Branch, NRR l

4

( 9:30 a.m. . Medical Exam Issues - Conditions Charlie Payne, RII I 10:00 a.m. Break i

I

'l '

10:15 a.m. Open Session - Other Issues Training Managers

! 12:00 p.m. Adjorn l

i i

i I

ENCLOSURE 1

+

l

/

! REGION 11 TRAINING MANAGERS CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 12-13,1998 I

Timothy L. Norris Onsite Engineering General Manager Brian Haagensen PSHA CP&L 3 Larry Dunlap BK Supv. Ops Cont Tmg l Rick Garner HR Supv Ops Tmg )

Tom Natale RB- Supt Ops Trng William Noll BK Ops Trng Supv j Max Herrell BK Trng Mgr ]

Scot Poteet RB Exam Team Leader i

~

l Crystal River - FPC Jack Springer CR Supv Simulator Tng Tom Taylor CR Dir Nuc Ops Trng Duke Power Garmon Clements CT Human Perf Mgr Camden Eflin OC Ops Trng Richard P. Bugert Corp Ops Tmg 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 Trng 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. Fado n SL Services Mgr Jo Magennis Corp Tmg Assessment Spec Kris Metzger SL Ops Trng Supv l

- Southern Nuclear (SNC)

J. M. Donem FA- Sr Inst Ops. Trng John C. Lewis HT. Trng & EP Mgr  ;

Tom Blindauer FA Sr Pit Inst 1 Joe Powell FA Sr inst Ops Trng Bill Oldfield FA Nuc Ops Trn Supv i Southern Nuclear (SNC) (cont'd naae 2)

I ENCLOSURE 2

2

- Southem Nuclear (SNC) (cont'd)

Steve Grantham .HT Ops Tmg Supv Scott Fulmer FA Mgr Tmg & 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 l

'D(A 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 Trng AlKoon SM Ops Tmg Supv t, .

e ENCLOSURE 2

,s ~ --~ -- + . - . -

OPERATOR LICENSING INITIAL EXAMINATION RULE CHANGE Region ll Training Managers Conference Nevernber 13,1997 Robert M. Gallo, Chief, Operator Licensing $nnoh, NMR l

ENCLOSURE 3 s

1 HISTORY SECY 95-75 (3/95): Proposee change G _95-06 (8/95): So icitec vo unteers ROI 95-25 (8/95?: Pilot guidance o

10/95 - 4/96: Original pi ot exams o 5/1/96: C9GR ariefing o

SECY 96-123 (6/96): Pilot reau ts o

SECY 96-206 (9/96): Pros and cons l

o GL 95-06, Sup.1 (1/97): Voluntary continuation of pilot process l l

• NUREG-1021, Interim Rev. 8 (2/97) o SECY 97-79 (4/97): Proposed rule o

62 FR 42426 (8/97): Proposed rule

e-*m.. .....c = ==.... . ... ., . ..a w a-THE PRCPOS$D RULE

3. A new I 55.40 is adcec to read as fo lows:

1 55.40 mp ementation.

(a) Power reactor facility licensees small--

(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 S Proctor and grade the NRC-spproved site-specific written examinations.

THE REST OF THE RULE .

I (b) In lieu of requiring a specific power reactor "acility licensee to prepare the examinations and tests or to proctor anc grace the site-specific written examinations, the Commission may e.ect to perform taose tasks.

l (c) The Commission will prepare and I administer the written examinations and operating tests at non-power reactor facilities.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The NRC wi. prepare one exam per Region per :ca.endar. year Facility 'icensees are expectec to use the guicance in \ UREG-1021

\ 3C wi approve ceviations N9C wi, not compromise statutory responsiaiities NRC is committed to maintaining quality, level of cifficulty, consistency, and security NRC intends to use its full enforcement authority against persons who willfully compromise an exam in violation of 55.49

BACKGROUND Goa was to improve efficiency w1i e maintaining effectiveness E iminate re.iance on NRC l contractors (except GFE)  !

Increase faciity invo vement Maintain examination qua ity anc c'ifficulty Remain consistent with the Act and Part 55 Changes should be transparent to license applicants

• Initial licensing program was not broken

MILESTONE SCHEDULE

' 0/2' /97:Comnient perioc' enc'ec' 4/' /98: leso.ve comments; revise ru e anc' \lUREG-1021; seek Office concurrence

?/98: Brief CRG3 and ACRS 5/22/98: Obtain Office concurrence anc' de,iver to EDO 6/98: Obtain EDO and Commission concurrence 7/98: Pualis, the final rule and Revision 8 1

12/31/98: Implement rule anc Revision 8 {

i

illl i i

! i  !

k !i; poT h T h r O F ee r T 1 S i

1 r o Pg i

Y E x

ar e o /n 9u i i o n l

t 9c 9g 1 a t a 7e 6h t a 9 m is s l n

l C 9 s g u l Y

2 2

5 t

t s 1 e o 3 9 5 9 7 9 4 9 9 W s 1 4 2 /7 3 9 r t f / 2 / / 1 4 t R i ao 1

4 % 9 5% 38% 45% % et O p n 2 n p e e e 3 1 5

O E

a x 9 8 8 9 5 p l 1 3

1

/9 0 5 0 9

/3 9

8 e R X

a a / / r r m 4 %5% 8% a O A

1 7 4 5%

4  % t i

e 1 n p p l 1

g M

eu 2 8 4 8 ns 4 6 9 3 5 7 8 8

4 8 5 9 T oR R

d / / / / 3 2 E A% 95% 8% 45% %

1 io t O gnne A 5 a l

S 2

U L

R 3 1

0 9 1

O /4 9 6 0

/4 3 9 6 4 8 9 6 3 9 W r S T a 2% 1

/

1

% 29% %

/ 5 i t R S e O t

n 05 0 6

4 4 n d

o n

2 3 9 9 1

p O

89 3 9 8 9 e 5

/4 /2 7 6 7

/6 9

5 eS r

o-

i. S 2%

1 0%

/

1

% 9% % iO t aR R 94 4 1

6 3 g n

O 2 1 9

r -

2 9 6'

/0 5' 8

/9 1

3 1

/

9 1

8 9 3 0

/

9 2 TS eR e 2% 0%

5 7

1 A  % 29%  %

t l

a O 1

4 l

>{

4* FY99 INITIAL EXAM RESULTS February 20,1998 RO SRO-l SRO-U TOTAL l l

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 12/14/90 11/30/98 St Lucie & RSB 15 15 12/14/98 1/25/99 McGuire & DCP 14 1 15 2/8/99 1/25/99 C. River & RFA 10-12 -

2/8/99 ,

3/15/99 Watts Bar & RSB 7 5 l 3/29/fL9 l 3/29/99 Surry & RFA 6 2 4 l 4/12/99 I 5/17/99 Catawba & 15-18 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 I

.'?' designates tentative No initial exams scheduled for: North Anna 710/18/99 Bro oswick- 9 candidates 710/ /99 B. Ferry 4r, 4i, 4u 710/25/99 Hatch Br?

l 710/ /99 St. Lucie 2 wk 712/13/99 Vogtle- Sr, Si, 2u ENCLOSURE 4

ED8 INITIAL EXAM RESULTS

l. {10/1/97 - 9/30/98]

Fcbruiry 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 l 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 1 6 15 8/31 9/28/98 Sequoyah MEE 4 4 1 54 28 26 108 1

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 l McGuire l

ENCLOSURE 4

4 REGION 11 WORKSHOP - OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS JANUARY 27 - 29,1998 l

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 & Electrii James F. Belzer Instructor- CCNPP/BGE Max Bailey Region lll Operator Licensing Examiner CP&L_.

Gregg Lualam LOR - Supervisor - Brunswick William Noll Supt Ops Training - Brunswick Tony Pearson Initial Training - Brunswick Richard Edens LOR Instructor - Brunswick Rick Gamer Sup - OTU - Harris Terry Toler' Project Tech Spec - Hams Wiley Killette Project Tech Spec - Hams Scott Poteet Exam Team - Robinson Bill Nevins instruct Tech - Robinson Crystal 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- CBS James K. Black Nuclear Instructor-QNS Gabriel Washburn Nuclear Instructor- QRS Camden Eflin Team Leader - HLP - Oconee 1

(Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd - See page 2)

ENCLOSURE 5

,4.

i. 2 (Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd)

FP&L Ivan Wilson Operations Manager Kris Metzger Ops Training Supervisor - St. Lucie Roger Walker Instructor- St. Lucie Tim Bolander Instructor- St. Lucie David P. Clark Instructor- St. Lucie Maria L. Lacal Training Manager- Turkev Point Rich Bretton Ops Cert Trng Sup - Turkey Point Philip G. Finegan Ops Trining Supervisor - Turkev Point Michael E. Crolteau Cont Trng instructor-Turkev Point Southern Nuclear (SNC)

Joel L. Deaver: Senior Instructor- Farlev Scott Fulmer Training & Emergency Preparedness Manager- Farlev Gerard W. Laska Training Instructor- Farlev Charlie Edmund Plant Instructor- Hatch David Gidden Training Supervisor - Hatch Ed Jones Plant instructor- Hatch Dan Scukanec Ops Trng Supv - Vogtle Fred Howard Plant instructor - Vogtle i

Virainia Power Keith Link Requal ..... - North Anna 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 l

TVA \

Ray Schorff Instructor- Browns Ferry Denny Campbell Instructor - Browns Ferry Bob Greenman Training Manager - Browns Ferry Marvin Meek Instructor - Browns Ferry A. R. Champion Instructor - Browns Ferrv  !

Rick King Sr Ops Instructor - Seauovah Frank Weller Instructor- Seouovah l Phillip H. Gass Sim Instructor - Seouovah Ed Keyser Instructor - Seauovah Harold Birch Instructor - Seouovah j (Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd - See page 2)

c- ,

i l

3 (Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd)

TVA cont'd l Terry Newman SRO Instructor- Watts Bar >

Rancy Evans SRO Instructor- Watts Bar '

Rick O' Rear Sift Manager - Watts Bar l V. C. Summer- SCE&G Perry Ramicone Ops Instructor Bruce L. Thompson Ops Ins'nictor William R. Quick Ops le> " *ctor l

l i

i i

l 1

t i

r CONCERNS EXPRESSED DURING THE REGION 11 EXAMINATION WRITING WORKSHOP The following is a condensation of the concems received from the attending facilities 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 limitec resources available.- Also, more guidance on minimum security expectations is needed.

(three comments)

2) Th t NRC should develop the sample plan as this would save both utility and NRC 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?)

i

4) The K/A catalog contains errcrs and omissions and should be corrected, or at the least an errata sheet of know errors should be published. (two comments) l-

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

reasonab!L period. Does this time also apply to continuing education.

l (one comment, I had commented that the length of time did not apply to requalification exams the utilities conducted.)

l 7) The NRC should periodically publish problem areas encountered during the exam process and distribute it to all training managers. (one comment)

8) The facilities appreciated the workshop. They want Region ll to have another i 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. (six ,

comments) '

i 4

i l

i D E10SURE 6 1

(

)

i l

I>

DISCUSSION OF WORKSHOP ISSUES During the workshop we discussed some of the problems with the revised operator licensing examination process as implemented by Revision 8 of NUREG-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 developing the initial examination such as content validity, plausible distractors and other psychometric issues. The NRC did not recognize the variance across facilities in their deptS of understanding. As a result, some facilities submitted examinations with the quality lower than expected and the::e 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' 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 speci f ic 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 l which still 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 expect the average score to be higher. Historically.

nationwide NRC examination scores have averaged approximately 85 l 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 a 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 ENC 10 SUPS 7

g . .

2 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 some applicants not been able to complete the examination in the four hours currently 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 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. Tlese types of flaws are detailed in Appendix B of NUREG-1021. At the workshop, severai examples of these psychometric flaws were illustrated and discussed. Answering questions with incorrect but plausible distractors 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 requirement for a fifty percent minimum of higher level questions was based 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 under review by the NRC for possible extension of the limit and that extensions may be granted in accordance with the examiner standards, i

I l

3 I

i l

!