ML20150F342

Forwards Comments on Guidelines for Developing Written Test Items for Requalification Exams & Guidelines for Developing Scenarios for Use in Requalification Exams

ML20150F342
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/22/1988
From:	Roe J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tipton T NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT &
Shared Package
ML20150F345	List: ML20150F342 ML20151R197
References
NUDOCS 8807180247
Download: ML20150F342 (2)

Text

, ~

1. UNITED STATES

'9,,

NUCLEAR ,,EGULATORY COMM SSION .

/ g j g wAsmNoToN, D. C,30H5

( \*..* *-

JIJN 2 2 1983 Thonas E, Tipton, Dire: tor Operations, Managernent and Support Services Division Nuclear Management and Research Council 1776 Eye Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-1280

Dear Mr. Tipton:

This letter is in response to your request for NRC staff review of the

, guidelines submitted as part of your letter dated May 13 1988. We have corpleted our review and our cor: rents are included as follows:

Enclosure (1)-GuidelineforDevelopingWrittenTestItemt,forNRC Requalification Exanination Enclosure (2) - Guideline for Developing Siinulator Scenarios for Use in NRC Requalification Examination Enclosure (3)-GuidelinefordevelopingJobPerforsanceNeasuresforthe NRC Requalification Er, amination  ;

h Planse note that the coerents contained herein are advisory on1 and do not constitute NRC requirements or endorsement'~of the guidelines. RC regulations -

and require::ents doeurants govern the operator licensing procran and are subject to reytsion or other internal operetor examinetton ih.ensing policy changes by the Corinission.

If you have any questions concerning our review, please contact Len Wiens at (301)492-2171.

Sincerely, w LU ek W. Rot, Dire (tor vision of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, NRR

Enclosures:

As stated

%f QfC9/TQAYS k P-

ENCLOSURE 2 f

( .

j Contents on the Guidelines for Developing S*.mulatot Scenarios foi use in NRC Rc5tlifica.icr. Examinations l

The ' Purpose section should emphasize that the NRC considers thi.t the crew as j a whole is being evaluated to a different standard than the individual o perator. Crew decisien making and diagnosis should benefit fron synergism.

T ie focus will be on team performance, and not on individual weainesses.

The section encitled "Cevelo3 ment of on tvaluation Scenstfo" should address plant design and procedure cianges which affect the operator.

Paragraph 1.F: Scenario items should be integrated with walk-through items to verify comp *ehensive coverage of items required by 10 CFR 55.45 (a)  :

. (2)-(13).

Table 1, the RO task 14st, should include control board operations. Other tasks that should be included in this table are Coritunications/ Crew Interaction 2,d. Understanding of Plant / System F.espnnse. Although thess iters may be incluced as part of other tasks, they should be addressed as separate subjects.

Table 2, the SRO task iist, should include Supervisory Ability in addition to those mentioned.

No guidance is-~p~roiided'for -grading the operators in 4 consistent manner. ./.11 i evaluators should be in concert when performing tesm evaluations As well as ludly Nual evoluotions. This can be accomplished by providing guidanes to the evaluators on which critical safety functions whe would constitute a team and/or individual f ailure.., performed incorrectij, I

i 4-21