ML20090B989: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[0CAN068419, Discusses Anomalies in 840320 Operator Licensing Exams.Exam Required Greater Degree of Rote Memorization than Expected by Training Staff or Examinees.Util Working W/Region IV to Provide Adequate Level of Detail]]
| number = ML20090B989
| issue date = 06/29/1984
| title = Discusses Anomalies in 840320 Operator Licensing Exams.Exam Required Greater Degree of Rote Memorization than Expected by Training Staff or Examinees.Util Working W/Region IV to Provide Adequate Level of Detail
| author name = Griffin J
| author affiliation = ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
| addressee name = Denton H
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)
| docket = 05000368
| license number =
| contact person =
| document report number = 0CAN068419, CAN68419, NUDOCS 8407130107
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC
| page count = 2
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:e 90 v
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING /P.O. 80x 551/LITTLE ROCK AAKANSAS 72203/l501) 371-4422 June 29, 1984 JOHN M. GRIFFIN Senior Vice President Energy Supply OCANf68419 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
 
==SUBJECT:==
Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Licensing Examination Gentlemen:
I have received your June 6,1984, letter to Mr. Zack Pate regarding operator licensing and requalification examinations at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit-2. Due to my personal interest in this area, I shared the concerns expressed by both you and Mr. Collins and have recently conducted a review of the circumstances of the March 20, 1984, ANO-2 license examination.
I am concerned that this anomaly in the Arkansas Nuclear One Unit-2 license examination process has been viewed by the staff as a potential programmatic problem with the Arkansas Nuclear One training program and the INP0 accreditation process.        My review did not indicate overall weakness of the Arkansas Nuclear One training program, but rather an inconsistency in the training program and examination philosophy in one specific area of the exam.      Specifically, the March 20, 1984, examination required a greater degree of rote memorization of procedures than had been anticipated by our candidates or our training staff. As discussed in my June 28, 1984 letter to Mr. Collins, my staff is working closely with the Region IV staff to assure that our training program provides a level of detail consistent with the staff's examination philosophy in this area.              I strongly feel that the long-term results of the Arkansas Nuclear One training program will substantiate the high quality of the program and the value of INPO accreditation. As indicated above, my staff is working with the Region IV staff in reviewing the examination results and would welcome the involvement of your Operators Licensing staff.
0407130107 040629                                                                  '\0 PDR ADOCK 05000360 V                      PDR MEMBEA MiOOLE SOUTM UTILITIES SYSTEM
 
F~
o Mr. H:rold R. D:ntan                                        Juna 29, 1984 I have a strong conviction that a quality training program is the
,        connerstone of safe operations. AP&L is committed to a quality training program and is expending the resources necessary to achieve that objective.
However, training needs are dynamic, and we must meet new challenges daily.
I assure you our program will continue to strive for quality in every aspect.
Sincerely yours, John M. Griffin      W JMG/JRM/ac cc:  Mr. John Collins Mr. Zack Pate}}

Latest revision as of 10:48, 25 September 2022

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20090B989&oldid=3495028"