ML20235H084
| ML20235H084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/25/1987 |
| From: | Lynch M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709300361 | |
| Download: ML20235H084 (3) | |
Text
-
[t'fclo uq k
UNITED STATES
+
I,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
4 g w,./
September 25, 1987
~...
n.,,
i NOTE T0: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Director Division of Reactor Projects - III, j
IV, V er.d Special Projects
{
f Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Maurice D. Lynch, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-3 Division of Reactor Projects
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH NUMARC REGARDING LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION l
EXAMINATIONS In light of the present controversy regarding the pass / fail rate of licensed operators taking their requalification examinations, I attended the meeting held on this subject at the Holiday Inn in Bethesda, MD, on the morning of September 10, 1987. The meeting consisted of a large number of representatives from various utilities throughout the country under the auspices of NUMARC. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a forum for the comments by the licensees regarding the present status of licensed operator requalification examinations.
)
The first hour of the agenda consisted of prepared coments by represent-atives from a number of utilities on their views of the problem areas associated with the conduct and administration of requalification examina-tions. The second hour consisted of a lirrited amount of NRC response to the points raised by the licensees and additional comments solicited from the floor. The responses made by the NRC participants basically acknowledged that the utilities complaints had been heard. No commitments were made by NRC participants other than to review the various identified problem The meeting was taped for later transcription.; the transcript was I
areas.
delivered on September 14, 1987, and includes a list of speakers and attendees. About 100 copies have been produced for dissemination in the agency; I have received one of these.
The comments by the various utilities can be categorized into a limited number of specific complaints.
These are:
1.
Validity and Applicability of the Written Examination Some questions are not applicable to the facility at which the a.
licensee holder is employed.
b.
Some questions are poorly worded, are ambiguous or are vague, obscure, narrow and " nitpicking."
(Sometimes, two completely opposed answers r/
areindicatedascorrect.)
I h~
)I 'f,b 6 8709300361 870925 l
PDR ORG NRHB fj 1
PDR V
g
y 2
,1 I !
7 c.
Some questions require the operators to have memorized. material
{
which is not required to be memorized for operations because the procedures in the control room contain the detailed information sought.
d.
The writton examination is too long for the time allotted (about four hours) for taking it.
e.
The grading criteria appears to be subjective in some instances, f.
Some questions appear to be trivial rather than substantive.
g.
The emphasis-in the examination appears to reflect the individual examiner's experience (i.e., electrical or nuclear).
h.
There is a continuing escalation of the volume of material being l
tested.
1.
Too much of the written examination is devoted to procedural and administrative detail.
2.
Fairness of the Simulator Examination a.
The examiners change scenarios (e.g., the transients and accidents) within too short a time period.
b.
The examiners ask the operators too many questions during the simulator examination, c.
The simulator examination is tilted in favor of the SR0 issuing orders rather than functioning as part of a team. The licensee's complaint is that this testing approach is contrary to how the shifts are' trained (i.e., to function as a team.)
d.
The examiners are seeking one specific operator response to a scenario and do not readily accept alternative responses.
For example, some operator resaonses can negate the need for safety injection by activating otler methods supplying coolant to the
- reactor, In light of the above problems, the present NRC approach to e.
simulator examinations are forcing the utilities to train their operators two different ways; i.e., one way for plant operations, and another for a simulator examination, f.
The examiners do not have objective standards and criteria for judging operator performance based on safe operation of the plant.
g.
The simulator scenarios are clair.ied by the utilities and some operators to be unrealistic.
\\
- a. I The most serious charge raised by the utilities goes to the question of the technical competence of the NRC examiners. The detailed charges made at the meeting are:
3.
Examiner Qualifications i
a.
The licensees claim that the NRC examiners are not qualified.
Specifically, they state that the examiners have too little experience to judge licensed operators with many years of operating experience.
(Some licensed operators have stated explicitly that the examiners are incompetent, have no perspective, little technical experience and lack a degree.)
b.
The licensee management's reaction and that of their operators
'is to have little respect for the examiners and to perceive the evaluations as not credible.
.The utilities at this meeting stated that the net effect of these various problems is adversely affecting plant safety since experienced licensed operators are giving up their licenses rather than subjecting themselves to the present requalification program. Additionally, the high failure rates 1
(about 50 percent at some plants) is requiring other operators to work more overtime to permit operators who failed to have more study time.
The licensee complaints regarding these problems came from utilities across the country and do not appear to be specific to any particular region.
Maurice D. Lynch cc:
F. Miraglia S. Varga G. Holahan D. Wigginton Distribution:
< Docket (file d NRC & Local PDRs PDIII-3 r/f DWigginton MDLynch PKreutzer Office:
LA/PDIII-3 P./PDIII-3 PD/PDLII-3 ABR/D P PK3 ader MDLynch DWigginton GMHolahan Q
Surname:
Date:
09/y2/87 09/g,2/87 09/))/87 09/gj /87 Office:
D DRS D
tchfield
/ /87
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _