ML050140091

Init Exam - 11/2004 - Public Forms

ML050140091
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	02/25/2004
From:	Gody A Operations Branch IV
To:	Murphy M Operations Branch IV
References
50-382/04-301 50-382/04-301
Download: ML050140091 (17)

Text

February 25,2004 Note to: Mike Murphy, Chief Examiner Operations Branch I f From: Anthony Gody, Chief Operations Branch v

Division of Reactor Safety

SUBJECT:

EXAMINATION ASSlG N M ENT You have been assigned as Chief of the Waterford 3 examination. The operating test has been scheduled to be completed by November 19, 2004. Please contact the Waterford 3 facility to finalize the details of the examination by May 16, 2004. You are reminded that the RPSAP system must be maintained to ensure that the examiners and numbers of candidates are accurate.

Please contact me if you need assistance with RPSAP.

1" v) c a,

0 z

3

+ T3

'\

s

\

c L

hc >

-\

P s U 0 m

t am

? Y IC c- -2 U a,

a -0 a, .-N L

9 v) v)

S sS 0

ob 0

.-0 a E 0 TI S 5 (0  ? a,

.-t:

c E m S m Q cn a, -0 2 $

S m

n ob c

t tj c

a, Li a,

a, m

-1 ob c U cn c

S a,

m-a, P S TI E

0 v) v) $

.-a, S

S vi >

S a, 0

S .-

c 0 a m

2 S e

0 a,

v) a, S

.-+-.

0 Q X L 0 W 0 a, Y c Q 0

- -l2 2 v)

S a

X W 3 El E 3 zI z z z z z z z El - - 9

.-a, r:

t EH EE E W

0 H a,

c m d d 0 - 0 . 0

- . B O

a, S -

03 cu.

m 2.

CO Lo 7

- I - - -

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility: Waterford 3 Date of Examination: 11/12/04 I Initial Item Task Description

a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model per ES-401.

1.

w b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with Section R

I D . l of ES-401 and whether all KIA categories are appropriately sampled.

T T c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.

d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected KIA statements are appropriate.

a. Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number of normal 2.

evolutions, instrument and component failures, and major transients.

7 M

b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule without compromising exam integrity; ensure each applicant can be tested using at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated from the applicants' audit test(s)*, and scenarios will not be repeated over successive on subsequent days.

c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative and quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301-4 and described in Appendix 0.

a. Verify that:

3.

(1) the outline(s) contain@) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks, (2) no more than 30% of the test material is repeated from the last NRC examination, I

T (3)* no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' audit test@), and (4) no more than 80% of any operating test is taken directly from the licensee's exam banks.

b. Verify that:

(1) the tasks are distributed among the safety function groupings as specified in ES-301, (2) one task is conducted in a low-power or shutdown condition, (3) 4 - 6 (2 - 3 for SRO-U) of the tasks require the applicant to implement an alternate path procedure, (4) one in-plant task tests the applicant's response to an emergency or abnormal condition, and (5) the in-plant walk-through requires the applicant to enter the RCA

c. Verify that the required administrative topics are covered

d. Determine if there are enough different outlines to test the projected number and mix of applicants and ensure that no items are duplicated on subsequent days.

a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the 4.

appropriate exam section.

E N

b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41143 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

c. Ensure that WA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5.

E R d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections.

A e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.

L

f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO).

Printed Name I A i q n a t u r e n I / Date

a. Author

b. Facility Reviewer (*)

C. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d. NRC Supervisor Note:

• Not applicable for NRC-developed examinations

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

NUREG- 1021, Draft Revision 9

ES -401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 Facility: Waterford 3 Date of Exam: 11/12/2004 Exan Level: SRO

+-

Initial Item Description b' 1 1. Questions and answers technically accurate and applicable to the facility

3. SRO questions are appropriate per section D.2.d of ES-401

4. Question selection and duplication from the last two NRC licensing exam appears consistent with a systematic sampling process h

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

- - t h e audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or d t h e examinations were developed independently; or

-- the license certifies the there is no duplication; or

-- other (explain)

6. Bank use meets limits ( no more than 75 Bank Modified New percent from bank at least 10 percent new, and the rest modified); enter the actual ROISRO- only question distribution(s) at right '&':2bYI X p ;v 3Q pzf; 16

7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO exam are written at the comprehension/analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly selected WAS support the higher cognitive r

levels; enter the actual RO/SRO question distribution(s) at right

8. References/ handouts provided do not give away answers

9. 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 1 IO. Question psychometric quality and format meets ES, Appendix B, guidelines

11. The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with value on cover sheet

a. Author

b. Facility Reviewer (*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d. NRC Regional Supervisor Note:

• The Facility reviewer' initialdsignature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations

1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in column "c," chief examiner concurrence required

ES-301 ODeratina Test Qualitv Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facility: Date of Examination: Operat I Test Number: -

1. GENERAL CRITERIA a C#

The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with a.

sampling requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 55.45, operational importance, safety function distribution). rn

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

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 different parts of the operating test is within acceptable limits.

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

2. WALK-THROUGH 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 designation if deemed to be time critical by the facility licensee 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 Y

- identification of critical steps and their associated performance standards

- restrictions on the sequence of steps, if applicable

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

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

3. SIMULATOR CRITERIA

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

Date

3. Author

3. Facility Reviewer(*)

. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

i NRC Supervisor VOTE:

• The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developedtests.

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

VUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facility:Waterford 3 Date of Exam: 11/15/2004 Scenario Numbers: 1 I 2 I 3 Operating Test No. 1 I

QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES I-?- -

C#

1. 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.

2. 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 shifl position) the event termination point (if applicable) iY

4. 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.

5. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.

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, Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario. All IO. other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section D.5 of ES-301. J/

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

12. Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events specified on Form ES-301-5(submit the form with the simulator scenarios). d

5. EOPs enteredhequiringsubstantive actions (1-2) 2 1 2 1 2

6. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) 1 1 4 I 1

7. Critical tasks (2-3) 4 1 2 1 3

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 OPERATING TEST NO.: 1 As RO SRO-I AS SRO SRO-U 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.5.d) but must be significant per Section C.2.a of Appendix D.

• Reactivity and normal evolutions may be replaced with additional instrument or component malfunctions on a one-for-one basis.

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

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 OPERATING TEST NO.: 1 Applicant Evolution Minimum Scenario Number Type Type Number I 2 3 4 RO BOP RO ROP RO BOP RO BOP 3 3 Reactivity I*

RO 3 3 Normal 1*

Instrument/ 1,4 2,5 2,4, 3, 2,4 1,2, Component 4* 5 5(2) 43 6 6 5,6 5,6 5 5 Major 1 3 3 Reactivity 1*

As RO Normal 0 Instrument' 1,4 ~ 4 , 2,4 SRO-I Component 2* 5 6 5,6 5 Major 1 AS SRO L

Reactivity 0 3 3 Normal 1*

Instrument/ 172, 1-4 12, Component 2* 495 4 Major 1 6 5,6 5 I 1 0

Reactivity SRO-U 3 3 Normal I*

Instrument' 1927 1-4 172, Component 2* 435 4 6 596 5 Major 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.5.d) but must be significant per Section C.2.a of Appendix D.

• Reactivity and normal evolutions may be replaced with additional instrument or component malfunctions on a one-for-one basis.

(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:

NRC Reviewer:

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 SRO RO BOP Competencies SCENARIO S CENARIO SCENARIO -

t 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 Interpret I Diagnose Events 1- 6 1- 6 1- 5 2, 4 2, 3 2,5 3,5 1,2 and Conditions 5, 6 4, 5 6 6 3, 5 Comply With and 1- 6 1- 6 1- 5 2, 4 2, 3 2, 3 3, 5 1, 2 Use Procedures (1) 5,6 4,5 5, 6 6 3, 5 t

I Operate Control 2, 4 3, 4 2,3 3, 5 1,2 Boards (2) 5, 6 6 3, 5 Communicate and 1- 6 1- 6 1- 5 2,4 2, 3 2,3 3,5 1,2 Interact 5, 6 4, 5 4, 5 6 3, 5 6

Demonstrate Supervisory 1- 6 2- 6 3-5

-r Ability (3)

Comply With and 1, 3 1, 3 1- 3 Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(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 applica Author:

NRC Reviewer:

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: Waterford 3 Date of Exam: 11/12/04 8

Exam Leve : RO/ RO Initials Item Description a b

1. Clean answer sheets copied before grading uf

2. Answer k changes and question deletions justified and d ocumen!%d d

3. Applicants' scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations)

4. Grading for all borderline cases (80% +/- 2% overall and 70

+/- 4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail

5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are justified

6. 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 Date

a. Grader

b. Facility Reviewer(*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)

d. NRC Supervisor (*)

~

(*) 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: Waterford 3 Date of Exam: 11/I 2/04 Exam Level: RO W

Initials Item Description a

2. Answer k f j changes and question deletions justified and documen d

3. Applicants scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations) cv w

4. Grading for all borderline cases (80% +/- 2% overall and 70

+/- 4% on the SRO-onlv) reviewed in detail w

5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are iustified

6. 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 Date

a. Grader

b. Facility Reviewer(*) /I23 07

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) d.E,&d+/d

d. NRC Supervisor (*)

(*) The facility reviewers signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.

L 0

.. 0 0 00 E .. ..

t

d

.t" 0 0

d 0 0 s!

0 3 :

a, 0 c

c!

7 0 7  ?

L e- e- e-L e-L c

m c m c m c m

I-" I-" I-" r-"

0 0 0 0 B B B 0 a:

Y '3 2 Y 0 0 0 m 3 3 3 3 0

a:

0 B

v) 0 a:

cn B

v) 0 0 0 7 0

a:

v)

B v) 0 a:

v) 2 v)

I

• u)

I i

0 N

0 r

0 0

c!

c-7 0

0 2

0

co m

-m C

.-0 Y

2 Q

0" m

Q u) m c

a C

.-0m d

S

.-0 4

m

.-LT E

m X

Lfl c.

v) 0 a

hi