ML050490477
| ML050490477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/2004 |
| From: | Lanksbury R NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML050270138 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440/04-301 50-440/04-301 | |
| Download: ML050490477 (12) | |
Text
VARIOUS CHECKLISTS FOR THE PERRY INITIAL EXAMINATION - NOVIDEC 2004
c PERRY ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3 I.
Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who ha 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 (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). 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 cancellation 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 di not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of I dnty4
/.&From the date that I entered into this secuflty 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 SIGNATURE (2)
DATE NOTE ES-201, Page 26 of 27
Outline Submittal Contains the following:
ES-201-2 Examination Outline Quality Checklist ES-301-5 Transient and Event Checklist The Following were provided on magnetic media:
ES-301-1 ES-301-2 D-1 ES-401-1 BWR RO/SRO Examination Outline ES-401-3 Administrative Topics Outline (RO) (SRO)
Control Room and Facility Walk-Through Test Outline (RO) (SRO-I) (SRO-U)
Dynamic Simulator Scenario Outline for 2 scenarios Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier-3)
ES-201-2 1
Facilii,,
- 1.
W R
I T
T E
N Task Description
- 2.
S I
M Initials I
I
- 3.
W 1
T
- 4.
- a.
Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model per ES-401.
- b.
Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with Section D.l of ES-401 and whether all WA categories are appropriately sampled.
- WB C.
Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.
I Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected WA statements are appropriate.
- d.
- a.
Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, and major transients.
- 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 on subsequent days.
To the extent possible, assess whether the outline@) conform(s) with the qualitative and quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301-4 and described in Appendix D.
(1) the outline(s) contain(s) 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, (3)* no tasks are duplicated from the applicants audit test(s), and (4) no more than 80% of any operating test is taken directly from the licensees exam banks.
C.
- a.
Verify that:
- 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 applicants 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.
$r*,
- 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. Author 3
&G
- b. Facility Reviewer ()
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)
- d. NRC Supervisor L, Z L ~
e +
Note:
Not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.
- Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.
+T~A f - ~ $ +
ur.-Uec & \\ 5tL
ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Ifacilitv:
A P
P L
I C
A N
T SRO-I SRO-U RO SRO-U RO SRO-I pa ERRY U1 Date of Exam:
November 30,2004 Operating Test No.: 2004301 E
Scenarios
- 1.
Circle the applicant level and enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-1 event numbers for each event type; TS are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must serve in both the at-the-controls (ATCY and balance-of-plant (BOP) positions; Instant SROs must do one scenario, including at least two instrument or component (VC) malfunctions and one major transient, in the ATC position.
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 1 -for-1 basis.
- 2.
- 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:
Proposed Operating Test and Written Examination Contains the following:
ES-301-3 Operating Test Quality Checklist ES-301-4 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist (Op Test 1)
ES-301-6 Competencies Checklist (test 1 )(copy)
ES-401-6 Written Examination Quality Checklist The following were provided on magnetic media:
One (1) RO administrative job performance measures Three (3) RO&SRO administrative job performance measures Two (2) SRO administrative job performance measures Ten (1 0) RO&SRO operating job performance measures One (1) RO operating job performance measures Three (3) dynamic simulator scenario guides (ES-D-1 & ES-D-2 equivalent for each scenario)
Written examination (1 00 questions are independently marked as RO or SRO)
Written examination question comments. Form ES-401-9 used to document facility comments.
Operating Test Comments
ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3
- 3. Simulator Criteria The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with Form ES-301-4 and a copy is attached.
Facility: PERRY U1 Date of Examination: November 30, 2004 Operating Test Number: 2004301 I
z
- 1. General Criteria t
- 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-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered during this examination.
- b.
C.
The operating test shall not duplicate items from the applicants' audit test(s). (see Section D.l.a.)
I I
- d.
Overlap with the written examination and between different parts of the operating test is within acceptable limits.
It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent applicants at the designated license level.
- e.
- 2. Walk-Through Criteria I
- 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 operationally important 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 Ensure that any changes from the previously approved systems and administrative walk-through outlines (Forms ES-301-1 and 2) have not caused the test to deviate from any of the acceptance criteria (e.g., item distribution, bank use, repetition from the last 2 NRC examinations) specified on those forms and Form ES-201-2.
- b.
3rd NOTE:
The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.
Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d)
- 1.
Total malfunctions (5-8)
- 2.
- 3.
Abnormal events (2-4)
Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2)
- 4.
Major transients (1-2)
- 5.
- 6.
EOPs enteredlrequiring substantive actions (1-2)
EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2)
- 7.
Critical tasks (2-3)
Facility: PERRY U1 Date of Exam: 11 1/30104 Scenario Numbers: 1 I 2 13 Operatins QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Actual Attributes 61 5 17 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 12 1 1 1 1 2 21 2 I 1 1 1 2 I 1 3 1 2 12
- 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.
The scenarios consist mostly of related events.
Each event description consists of 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.
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.
- 2.
- 3.
the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated the malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew the expected operator actions (by shift position) the event termination point (if applicable)
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Cues are given.
'est No.: 2004301
ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility PERRY U1 Date of Examination: 10/30/2004 Operatina Test No.: 200430 I
Boards (2) and Interact Demonstrate Supervisory Ability (3)
Comply With and Use Tech. Specs. (3)
Notes:
(1)
(2)
Optional for an SRO-U.
(3)
Only applicable to SROs.
Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.
SCENARIO RO/SRO-I/
SRO-U SCENARIO Instructions:
Circle the applicantslicense type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate every Author:
I NRC Reviewer:
kA@/n.&g I
ES-401 Written Examination Quality Check1 ist Form ES-401-6 Facility: PERRY U2 Date of Exam: December 9,2004 Item Description
- 1.
- 2.
- a.
NRC WAS are referenced for all questions.
- 3.
- 4.
Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility.
- b.
Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.
SRO questions are appropriate in accordance with Section D.2.d of ES-401 If no more than four RO and two SRO questions are repeated from the last two NRC licensing exams, the facility licensees sampling process was random and systematic.
- 5.
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 the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started X the examinations were developed independently the licensee certifies that there is no duplication other (explain) from the bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest new or modified); enter the actual RO I SRO-only question distribution(s) at right.
- 6.
Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New 1 8 / 0 14/6 43 119
- 7.
Between 50 and 60 percent of the auestions on the RO Memorv CIA exam are written at the comprehension1 analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly selected WAS support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual RO / SRO question distribution(s) at right.
3717 38/ 18
- 8.
Referenceslhandouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of distractors.
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 the guidelines in ES Appendix B.
The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with the value on the cover sheet.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
Exam Level: RO/SRC
- a. Author
- b. Facility Reviewer r)
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)
- d. NRC Regional Supervisor p $ p \\ d o l Date Note:
The facility reviewers initialslsignature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.
- Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column W; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-403, Rev. 9 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Item Description
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Clean answer sheets copied before grading Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented Applicants' scores checked for addition errors (reviewers mot check > 25% of examinations)
Quality Checklist Initials a
oe of oe d e 44
- 4.
- 5.
Grading for all borderline cases (80 e%
overall and 70 or 80, as applicable, &4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are iustified nP
- 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
- a. Grader Bruce B. Palaai /
- b. Facility Reviewer(*)
n/a
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)
Dell R. McNeil / kHL&?& /
- d. NRC Supervisor (*)
Roqer D. Lanksburv/ G i n ( 2 I
Date
/-/S-d
(*)
The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.
ES-403, Rev. 9 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Item Description
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
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 &% overall and 70 or 80, as applicable, +4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are iustified C
Initials a
b 6@ P(Ll G?
@f ac3 L
~~
- 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 3
- a. Grader Bruce 6. Palaai /
1
/4J-O f CP
- b. Facility Reviewer(*)
n/a
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)
Dell R. McNeil /,&dLe /?&
/f,F/C5
- d. NRC Supervisor (*)
11 I %/or
~
(*)
The facility reviewers signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.