ML032690985

Final Qa/Related Forms

ML032690985
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/02/2003
From:	Division of Reactor Safety I
To:	Florida Power & Light Energy Seabrook
References
50-443/03-301
Download: ML032690985 (17)

Text

ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1 Facility :

Examina Target Date*

-1 80

-1 20

-1 20

-1 20

[-go1

-75

-70

-45

-30

-1 4

-1 4

-1 4 5. & K Date 3 of Examination: &$/a ons Developed by:

Facility / NRC (circle one)

Chief Initials Task Description / Reference Examiner's

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

-I#

A;

2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigne

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

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

I

11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee

12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.1.j; C.

review (C.2.h; C.3.f)

~~

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

II

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

-7

15. Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee and authorization granted to give written exams (if applicable) (C.3.k)

IL

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 notificati v n letter.

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

Applies only to examinations prepared by the NRC.

[ ]

ES-201 Examination Outllne Form ES-201-2 Qualily Cheddlst Task Description prepared In aEcordancB wlth SectIon D.1 of E S

a. Author

b. FacUii Revleww (7

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d. NRCSUpaWisor Note:

Not applicable for NRWevebped examinations.

1. independent NRC redewer initlal items in Column %* cMef examiner wncurrenm required.

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 2$wc m3 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 licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations andlor 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 Z&P a 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.

NOTES:

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

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 d TW 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 licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations andlor 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.

p 3 as of the

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 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 (I)

DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATENOTE NOTES:

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

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facility: Seabrook Station Date of Examination: 06/02/03-06/05/03 Operating

1. GENERAL CRITERIA

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).

There is no day-today repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered during this examination.

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

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

b.

C.

d.

e.

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

2. WALK-THROUGH (CATEGORY A 8 B) CRITERIA

a.

Each JPM includes the following, as applicable:

. initial conditions

. initiating cues

. references and tools, including associated procedures

. reasonable and validated time limits (average time allowed for completion) and specific

. specific performance criteria that include:

designation if deemed to be time critical by the facility licensee

- 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 criiical steps and their associated performance standards

- restrictions on the sequence of steps, if applicable The prescripted questions in Category A are predominantly open reference and meet the criteria in Attachment 1 of ES-301.

C.

Repetition from operating tests used during the previous licensing examination is within acceptable limits (30% for the walk-through) and do not compromise test integrity.

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

d.

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.

a. Author Printed Name / Signature GEOWJ. M~uN~/-

!st Numbecl lnitia b -

Date s//3/03

b. Facility Reviewerr)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d. NRC Supervisor QddpJLc3 NOTE:

• The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.

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

I I

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials I

I I

I 1

I a

b

1.

The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment and/or instrumentation may be out of service, but it does not cue the operators into expected events.

2.

3.

The scenarios consist mostly of related events.

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 the symptomslcues that will be visible to the crew the expected operator actions (by shift position) the event termination point (if applicable) m 4-Y without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event.

5.

6.

The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.

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

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 aiven.

7.

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

1.

Total malfunctions (5-8)

2.

3.

Abnormal events (24)

Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2)

4.

Major transients (1-2)

5.

6.

7.

Critical tasks (2-3)

EOPs enteredlrequiring substantive actions (1-2)

EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2)

Actual Attributes 61 7 18

'2l 2 I3 21 4 13 11 1 I1 Fp 01 1 I1 21 2 J2 h

21 4 13

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials a

b c

I I

The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment andlor instrumentation may be out of service, but it does not cue the operators into expected events.

The scenarios consist mostly of related events.

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 the symptomslcues that will be visible to the crew the expected operator actions (by shift position) the event termination point (if applicable)

No more than one non-mechanistic failure (e.g., pipe break) is incorporated into the scenario without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event.

11.

All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 (submit NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1 24 of 26

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Reactivity 0

Normal 1

1,4 1

Ap licant fYPe 1

RO SRO-U Instrument /

2 2 3 6,

$8, 1,8' Major 1

5 5

f,b Component OPERATING TEST NO.: 1 Evol uti on Minimum Scenario Number Number 4

TY Pe 1

2 3

Reactivity 1

1 1

1 1

Normal I

1,4 1

1 1

234 5

,6:8' 7

236, 2,3, 23, 2,34 5

+,$, +fj, f,b

,68' Instrument /

4 Component I

Major 1

5 6

5 7

Instructions: (I)

(2)

(3)

Whenever ractical, both instrument and component malfunctions should Enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-1 event numbers for each evolution type.

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.

to the applicant's compe_tence count toward the minimum requirement.

be include 8 ; only those that require verifiable actions that provide insight Author:

NRC Reviewer:

I

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 (I) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Competencies Understand and Interpret Annunciators and Alarms Diagnose Events and Conditions Understand Plant and System Response Comply With and Use Procedures (1)

Operate Control Boards (2)

Communicate and Interact With the Crew Demonstrate Supervisory Ability (3)

Comply With and Use Tech. Specs. (3) n n

I P a l m e SCE NARlO SCENARIO RO RO-I/ RO-U RO/SRO-I RO-U Circle the applicant's license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate every applicable competency for every applicant.

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

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

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Notes:

(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 every applicable competency for every applicant.

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6

/oConnolly

~ Anthony RO/ RO-IISRO-u

@RO-IISRO-L Competencies Diagnose Events SCENARIO TTT Notes:

(I) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

istructions:

Circle the applicant's license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate every applicable competency for every applicant.

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Scpplement 1 26 of 26

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 RO/SRO-I Rilee RO LI Competencies SC ENARlO I

I I

I I

Understand and Interpret Annunciators and Alarms

485, Diagnose Events and Conditions Understand Plant and System Response Comply M t h and Use Procedures (1)

~

~~

~

Operate Control Boards (2)

Communicate and Interact With the Crew 23, 4 3,

a 1 2,

3,4, 5

1-8 N/A 1-8

~~~

Demonstrate Supervisory i

-a Ability (3)

Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

Comply With and 2

SCENARIO RO/SRO-I/SRO-U SCENARIO 1

(I)

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 every applicable competency for every applicant.

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

NUREG-I 021, Revision 8, Supplemeni 1 26 of 26

ES-401 Written Examination Form ES-401-7 Quality Checklist Facility: Seabrook Station Date of Exam: 05/30/2003

1.

2.

Questions and answers technically accurate and applicable to facility

a. NRC WAS referenced for all questions

b. Facility learning objectives referenced as available RO/SRO overlap is no more than 75 percent, and SRO questions are appropriate Der Section D.2.d of ES-401

3.

4.

Question selection and duplication from the last two NRC licensing exams appears consistent with a systematic sampling process Question duplication from the license screeninglaudit 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 licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or other (explain) percent from the bank at least 10 percent new,

5.

I the examinations were developed independently; or

6.

Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 Bank Modified New I

2 57 I

and the rest modified); enter the actual question distribution at right 41

7.

Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on Memory CIA 46 54 the exam (including 10 new questions) are written at the comprehension/analysis level; enter the actual question distribution at right References/handouts provided do not give away answers Question content conforms with specific WA statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the Tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified Question psychometric quality and format meet ES, Appendix B, guidelines The exam contains 100, one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with value on cover sheet

8.

9.

10.

1 1.

Printed Name / Sinnature

a.

b.

d.

C.

Author Facility Reviewer (*)

NRC Chief Examiner (#)

NRC Regional Supervisor Exam Level: RO Initial I

I hl Date V/3/03 Note:

• The facility reviewer's initialslsignature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

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

?

ES-401 Written Examination Form ES-401-7 Quality Checklist Facility: Seabrook Station Date of Exam: 05/30/2003 Exam Level: SRO Initial C licensing exams

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 examinations were developed independently; or the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or other (explain) percent from the bank at least 10 percent new, and the rest modified); enter the actual question distribution at riaht the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or

6.

Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 Bank Modified New 3

60 37

7.

Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on Memory CIA

,err

a.

Referenceslhandouts provided do not give away answers h

the exam (including 10 new questions) are enter the actual question distribution at right written at the comprehensionlanalysis level; 42 58

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

&7 IO.

11.

Question psychometric quality and format meet ES, Appendix 6, guidelines

/7wl The exam contains 100, one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with value on cover sheet Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author

b. Facility Reviewer (")

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d. NRC Regional Supervisor Note:

• The facility reviewer's initiaMsignature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

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

4

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility:

Date of Exam:

Initials Item Description a

1.

2.

Clean answer sheets copied before grading Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented Applicants' scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations)

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

3.

4.

Date 49

5.

All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are justified Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half or more of the applicants

6.

a. Grader

b. Facility Reviewer(*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)

d. NRC Supervisor (*)

Y

(*)

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

5 of 5 NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Item Description

1.

Clean answer sheets copied before grading Facility: ~ ~ / 2 o o / c S

m

~

d Date of Exam: s-/so /05 Exam Level: R O

m a I

2.

Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented Applicants' scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check 25% of examinations)

Grading for all borderline cases (80% +/- 2%) reviewed in detail All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are justified Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half or more of the applicants Printed Name / Signature

3.

4.

5.

6. "

a. Grader

b. Facility Reviewerr)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)

d. NRC Supervisor (*)

Initials E Date

(*)

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

5 of 5 NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Item Description

1.

2.

Clean answer sheets copied before grading Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented Applicants' scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations)

Grading for all borderline cases (80% +/- 2%) reviewed in detail All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are justified Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half or more of the applicants

3.

4.

5.

6.

11 a. Grader Initials a

b. Facility Reviewerr)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)

d. NRC Supervisor (*)

Date

(*)

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

CkcLCp iI!eMS Gis 4-d R C ret//ek)4r G S pF-+ QC h I

M f

y P ~ W S S a d

elcaw Z U G ll/y, +

5 of 5 NUREG-1021, Revision 8, Supplement 1