ML021070474

Various Checklists for the Davis-Besse Initial Examination - March 2002

ML021070474
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	03/04/2002
From:	NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB
To:
References
50-346/02301
Download: ML021070474 (11)

Text

VARIOUS CHECKLISTS FOR THE DAVIS-BESSE INITIAL EXAMINATION - MARCH 2002

ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1 Facility: Davis-Besse Date of Examination: March 4, 2002 Examinations Developed by:

y I

NRC (circle one)

Target Chief Date*

Task Description / Reference Examiners Initials

-180

1. Examination administration date confirmed (C.1.a; C.2.a & b)

-120

2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.e)

-120

3. Facility contact briefed on security & other requirements (C.2.c)

-120

4. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.d) f-901

[S. Referenee material due (C.1.e: C.3.e)]

1/

-75

6. Integrated examination outline(s) due (C.1.e & f; C.3.d)

-70

7. Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility licensee (C.2.h; C.3.e)

-45

8. Proposed examinations, supporting documentation, and reference materials due (C.1.e, f, g & h; C.3.d)

-30

9. Preliminary license applications due (C.1.1; C.2.g; ES-202)

-14

10. Final license applications due and assignment sheet prepared (C.1.1; C.2.g; ES-202)

-14

11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review (C.2.h; C.3.f)

-14

12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.1.j; C.2.f & h; C.3.g)

-7

13. Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor (C.2.i; C.3.h)

-7

14. Final applications reviewed; assignment sheet updated; waiver letters sent (C.2.g, ES-204)

15. Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with

-7 facility licensee and authorization granted to give written exams (if applicable) (C.3.k)

-7

16. Approved scenarios, job performance measures, and questions distributed to NRC examiners (C.3.i)

Target dates are keyed to the examination date identified in the corporate notification letter.

They are for planning purposes and may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the facility licensee.

Applies only to examinations prepared by the NRC.

DAVIS BESSE -

MARCH 2002 ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3

1.

Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of 3/%/O,2 as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any-persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancdellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.

2.

Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 3-1-- o.

From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1)

DATE SIGNATUREi (2) DATENOTE NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1 24 of 24

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facility Davis-Besse Unit I Date of Examination March 4, 2002 Operating Test Number I

1. GENERAL CRITERIA Initials a

b*

c#

a.

The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with sampling requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 55.45, operational importance, safety function distribution). In Scenario 2, the Main Steam Safety Valve (MSSV) failure on the original sample plan was removed. During validation 1A* 7.j of the scenario, steam generator pressures did not reach the MSSV lift setpoint following the reactor trip. The major event in the scenario is the RCS overcooling caused by the SG overfeed.

b.

There is no day-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered during this t, yi' examination.k

c.

The operating test shall not duplicate items from the applicants' audit test(s)(see Section D. l.a).

d.

Overlap with the written examination and between operating test categories is within acceptable limits.

e.

It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent applicants at the designed license level.

2. WALK-THROUGH (CATEGORY A & B) CRITERIA

a.

Each JPM includes the following, as applicable:

,cv initial conditions IC initiating cues Sreferences and tools, including associated procedures reasonable and validated time limits (average time allowed for completion) and specific designation if deemed to be time critical by the facility license specific performance criteria that include:

detailed expected actions with exact criteria and nomenclature system response and other examiner cues statements describing important observations to be made by the applicant criteria for successful completion of the task identification of critical steps and their associated performance standards restrictions on the sequence of steps, if applicable

b.

The prescripted questions in Category A are predominantly open reference and meet the criteria in 077 K,

Attachment I ofES-301.

("

c.

Repetition from operating tests used during the previous licensing examination is within acceptable limits

.b (30% for the walk-through) and do not compromise test integrity.

d

d.

At least 20 percent of the JPMs on each test are new or significantly modified.

D L-A

3. SIMULATOR (CATEGORY C) CRITERIA

a.

The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with Form ES-301-4 and a copy is attached.

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author 1

e

~L C4 o

ii e

b. Facility Reviewer*

'O-'1q-OL

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

l2gc(". *

/

//

0/.,,-

OL,

d. NRC Supervisor

-_4F_

NOTE: *The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.

1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.

NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement I 23 of 26

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facility: Davis-Besse Date of Examination: March 4, 2002 Scenario Numbers:

1 / 2 / 3 Operating Test No.: I QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials a

b*

c#

I.

The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment and/or instrumentation may be out of service, but 6

A it does not cue the operators into expected events.

4L' I.

2.

The scenarios consist mostly of related events.

, DLK:

3.

Each event description consists of:

the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated.

the malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event.

t, DE the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew the expected operator actions (by shift position) the event termination point (if applicable)

4.

No more than one non-mechanistic failure (e.g., pipe break) is incorporated into the scenario withouta a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event.

5.

The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.

P

6.

Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives.

7.

If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary clearly so indicates. Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints. Cues are given.

8.

The simulator modeling is not altered.

9.

The scenarios have been validated. Any open simulator performance deficiencies have been evaluated to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios.

/-,,/U

10.

Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modifies scenario. All other fl, scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section D.4 of ES-301.

liv, I

11.

All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 (submit the form f"j along with the simulator scenarios).

W71

12.

Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events specified on j

Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios).

13.

The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position.

TARGET QUANTITIATIVE ATTRIBUTES (PER SCENARIO; SEE SECTION D.4.D)

Actual Attributes I.

Total malfunction (5-8) 7 6**/6 6(* i*

/t[

2.

Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2) 12 **/2

3.

Abnormal events (2-4) 4/3/3

4.

Major transients (1-2) 1 / 1 2

a t

5.

EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (1-2) 1 / 1 / 1 DO

6.

EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) 1/0/1 fki_

7.

Critical tasks (2-3) 2/3/2 24 a:

&ý'.

• • In Scenario 2, the Main Steam Safety Valve (MSSV) failure on the original sample plan was removed. During validation of the scenario, steam generator pressures did not reach the MSSV lift setpoint following the reactor trip. The major event in the scenario is the RCS overcooling caused by the SG overfeed.

24 of 26 NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 OPERATING TEST NO.:

Applicant Evolution Minimum Scenario Number Type Type Number 1

2 3

4 Reactivity 1

1 1

1 Normal 1

1 1

1 RO Instrument 4

6 5*

6 Component Major 11 1*

1 Reactivity 1

1 1

1 Normal 0

0 1

0 As RO Instrument /2 3

2 2

Component Major 1

1 1*

1 SRO-I Reactivity 0

1 1

1 Normal 1

1 1

1 As SRO Instrument /2 6

5*

6 Component Major 1

1 1*

Reactivity 0

1 1

1 Normal 1

1 1

1 SRO-U Instrument /2 6

5*

6 Component Major 1

1*

Instructions:

(1)

Enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-1 event numbers for each evolution type.

(2)

Reactivity manipulations may be conducted under normal or controlled abnormal conditions (refer to Section D.4.d) but must be significant per Section C.2.a of Appendix D.

(3)

Whenever practical, both instrument and component malfunctions should be included; only those that require verifiable actions that provide insight to the applicant's competence count toward the minimum requirement.

Author:

_JY%_*_4

_Ca S__*_

NRC Reviewer:

-_/o/iLtc1/_i_

• In Scenario 2, the Main Steam Safety Valve (MSSV) failure on h original sample plan was removed. During validation of the scenario, steam generator pressures did not reach the MSSV lift setpoint following the reactor trip. The major event is the RCS overcooling as a result of the SG overfeed.

25 of 26 NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-6 Applicant #1 Applicant #2 Applicant #3 RO/SRO-I/SRO-U RO/SRO-I/SRO-U RO/SRO-IISRO-U Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 1

2 3

4 1

2 3

4 1

2 3

4 4,5, 3,4, 3,4, 4,5, 3,4, 3,4, 4,5, 3,4, 3,4, Understand and Interpret 6,7, 5,7 5,6, 6,7, 5,7 5,6, 6,7, 5,7 5,6, Annunciators and Alarms 898*

8 9

8

• • 8 9

2,3, 3,4, 3,4, 2,3, 3,4, 3,4, 2,3, 3,4, 3,4, Diagnose Events 4,5, 5,6, 5,6, 4,5, 5,6, 5,6, 4,5, 5,6, 5,6, 6,7 7,8, 7,8, 6,7, 7,8, 7,8, 6,7, 7,8, 7,8, 9

9 8

8 9

9 Understand Plant and 2,3, 3,4, 3,4, 2,3, 3,4, 3,4, 2,3, 3,4, 3,4, Udstandplnan 4,5, 5,6, 5,6, 4,5, 5,6, 5,6, 4,5, 5,6, 5,6, System Response 6,7 7,8, 7,8, 6,7 7,8, 7,8, 6,7 7,8, 7,8, 9

9 9

9 Comply With and 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 3,4, 3,5, 4,5, 3,4, 3,5, 4,5, 3,4, 3,5, 4,5, Use Procedures (1) 5,6, 6,7, 6,7, 5,6, 6,7, 6,7, 5,6, 6,7, 6,7, 7,8, 9

9 7,8, 7,8, 9

9 9

9 Operate Control 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 4,5, 3,4, 3,4, 4,5, 3,4, 3,4, Boards (2) 6,8 5,6, 5,7, 8

5,6, 6,7, 7,8, 8,9 7,8 8,

9 Communicate and Interact 1,2, 3,4, 1,2, 1,2, 3,4, 1,2, 1,2, 3,4, With the Crew 3,4, 5,6, 3,4, 3,4, 5,6, 3,4, 3,4, 5,6, 5,6, 7,8, 5,6, 5,6, 7,8, 5,6, 5,6, 7,8, 7,8 9

7,8, 7,8, 7,8, 7,8, 9

9 9

1,2, 3,4, 2,3, 1,2, 3,4, 2,3, Demonstrate Supervisory 3,4, 5,7, 4,5, 3,4, 5,6, 4,5, Ability (3) 5,6, 8,

7,8, 5,6, 7,8, 7,8, 7,8, 7,8, 9

9 9

Comply With and 5,6, 5,6, 5

Use Tech. Specs. (3) 7 7

Notes: ** In Scenario 2, the Main Steam Safety Valve (MSSV) failure on the original sample plan was removed.

During validation of the scenario, steam generator pressures did not reach the MSSV lift setpoint following the reactor trip. The major event is the RCS overcooling caused by the SG overfill.

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3)

Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

Circle the applicant's license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate everv annlicable comnetencv for everv annlicant Author:

NRC Reviewer:

A..

\\

/

o "/i 26 of 26

/'

NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1

ES-401 Written Examination Form ES-401-7 Quality Checklist

[Facility: Davis-Besse Date of Exam: March 4, 2002 Exam Level: R9RESRO:

Initial Item Description a

b*

c#

1.

Questions and answers technically accurate and applicable to facility Z T.

2.

a. NRC K/As referenced for all questions VL

b. Facility learning objectives referenced as available

3.

RO/SRO overlap is no more than 75 percent, and SRO questions are appropriate per Section D.2.d of ES-401

4.

Question selection and duplication from the last two NRC licensing exams appears consistent with a systematic sampling process

5.

Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled as indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:

the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or

-- the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or the examinations were developed independently; or the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or other (explain)

6.

Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent from the bank at least 10 percent new, and the rest modified); enter the actual question distribution at right

7.

Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the exam (including 10 new questions) are written at the comprehension/analysis level; enter the actual question distribution at right

8.

References/handouts provided do not give away answers

9.

Question content conforms with specific K/A statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the Tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified

10.

Question psychometric quality and format meet ES, Appendix B, guidelines

11.

The exam contains 100, one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with value on cover sheet L gy Author Facility Reviewer (*)

NRC Chief Examiner (#)

NRC Supervisor Note:

Date 14 0o11 1i1/6.

NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1

a.

b.

C.

d.

• The facility reviewer's initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.

42 of 46

ES-401 Written Examination Form ES-401-7 Quality Checklist Facility: Davis-Besse Date of Exam: March 4, 2002 Exam Leve Initial Item Description a

b*

c#

1 Questions and answers technically accurate and applicable to facility

(,* I

[

2.

a. NRC K/As referenced for all questions

b. Facility learning objectives referenced as available

3.

RO/SRO overlap is no more than 75 percent, and SRO questions are appropriate

, r*, ]

per Section D.2.d of ES-401

4.

Question selection and duplication from the last two NRC licensing exams 2

appears consistent with a systematic sampling process

5.

Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled as indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:

the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or hr'L (j

the examinations were developed independently; or the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or other (explain)

Bank Modified New

6.

Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent from the bank at least 10 percent new, and the rest modified); enter the actual question distribution at

-J7 4

j_ )/z right

7.

Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the Memory C/A exam (including 10 new questions) are written at

.- JtV the comprehension/analysis level; enter the actual question distribution at right

8.

References/handouts provided do not give away answers

.L './.

9.

Question content conforms with specific K/A statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the Tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified

10.

Question psychometric quality and format meet ES, Appendix B, guidelines D,&

r j

9.j

11.

The exam contains 100, one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and D"A A4 agrees with value on cover sheet i1 Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author

.A*

/

!ý:

b. Facility Reviewer(*)

ftV-f M

L L

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

, t.

te

/

ýA W

.I

d. NRC Supervisor V

,, 3.

1k"

/*-,ý/1 z-.-

c6lo Note:

• The facility reviewer's initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.

NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement I 42 of 46

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: Davis Besse Nuclear Station Date of Exam: 03/08/02 Exam Level RO SRO Initials Item Description a

b c

1.

Clean answer sheets copied before grading n/a

2.

Answer key changes and question deletions justified and n/a documented n_

3.

Applicants' scores checked for addition errors n/a (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations) n

4.

Grading for all borderline cases (80% +/- 2%) reviewed in n/a detail n__

5.

All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades n/a n/a n/a are justified n/_/_/

6.

Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of n/a

/jf,.

questions missed by half or more of the applicants 1_ _)

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Grader

/r, 2-

/'

'/,,

-/

b. Facility Reviewer(*)

n/a n/a

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)

-s

d. NRC Supervisor(*)

0 z, -

0-C

(*)

The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: Davis Besse Nuclear Station Date of Exam: 03/08/02 Exam Level: R:/SRO Initials Item Description a

b c

1.

Clean answer sheets copied before grading n/a

/)

2.

Answer key changes and question deletions justified and n/a documented n/a

3.

Applicants' scores checked for addition errors n/a (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations)

4.

Grading for all borderline cases (80% +/- 2%) reviewed in n/a n/a n/a detail

5.

All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades n/a

/1]7(4 are justified

6.

Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of n/a questions missed by half or more of the applicants Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Grader 14

, 4 1 14/

b. Facility Reviewer(*)

n/a n/a

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)

I!'ch(4ce!.

k/J*/!.'f?

..,2/L 2

d. NRC Supervisor(*)

A,

,4*-

,k

"/Z~./o *

(*)

The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.