ML052060140

Written Examination Review Worksheet, ES-401-9 (Folder 2)

ML052060140
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom, Limerick
Issue date:	06/10/2005
From:	Caruso J Operations Branch I
To:	Conte R Operations Branch I
Conte R
References
Download: ML052060140 (5)

Text

ES-401 LimericWPeach Bottom LSRO Written Examination June 05 Form ES-401-9 Written Examination Review Worksheet NOTE ; 7. BOLD & ltalics reflect resolution of comments

2. Reviewed by J. Caruso and G. Johnson-all questions reviewed for WA match and a selected number for detailed

3. Licensee stated that the written question bank is closed and contains about 1,200 questions - 200 of which are NRC

4. Provided licensee comments on Monday, 5/16/05 on site.

5. BOLDED question numbers were given a techni I verification using plan r

6. Final exam received Tuesday 6/7/05 44%

technical review.

exam quality. In addition, it was noted that a high percentage of questions were new for this exam.

rences

I C

0 m

C m

W c

B cn 3

cn 3

s I

s X

X cu cu L

L I

f

)tent I -laws I 5. Other I 6.

Y N/A U

Y N/A S

Y E

N/A Y

S N/A

7.

Explanation Please describe why a& distractors are plausible and provide references to support? With meter set to zero wouldnt you expect indication to be downscale.

This is a duplicate to PB JPM #3049 either replace, modify this questior or the JPM. Random sample and draw new WA and replaced question.

The correct answer sticks out. Please describe why a distractor is why would you want to consider bypassing isolations? Revised a distractof, Verified references to support the answer.

plausible and provide references to support? For example, why for a The correct answer sticks out. Verified references to support the answer and distractors. Licensee reformatted question. Typo in replacement question fixed Question test sitdplant differences.

references verified also spelling error in stem.

~~

WA Mismatch-question is about reactivity, not Shutdown Margin (thougl they are related). Rich reviewed and agreed. References verified.

Question revised to match WA Verified tests understanding not a direct look-up with TS in hand. Also WA mismatch-TS question, not adequate core cooling doesnt really tes loss of shutdown cooling. Refocus Stem to Improve WA match.

This is very similar to one PB JPM #3019. Licensee changed question.

Also typo in justification (exhausts)

Flxed &PO

6.

J/E/S

7.

Explanation I

S

. I Similar to JPM 2053 Revise question or JPM. Licensee replaced References verified. In stem states mode 4 should be mode 5? Agree made Mode 5 Also added to explanation to d in conjunction with 60 gpm dump E

a implausible. No Interlocks assoclated with camera.

Licensee revised distractor communlcatlons rather than camera.

Verified question tests LSRO required knowledge.

S I

WA Mismatch. Question replaced S I 1 Typos in justification for a (pg 2)

Typos fixed.

I Q#

47 4

8 F

49 50

1.

2.

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other

6.

7.

LOD FHK) (1-5)

Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job-Minutia

1. /

Back-Q= SRO u/E/s Explanation Focus Dist.

Link units ward WA Only F

2 Y

N/A S

Not higher order - you need to just recall the set-point Changed to F.

2 X

Y E

Please explain why c is credible? Dlstractor revised.

N/A F

2 Y

N/A S

F 1-2 X

N U

WA mismatch doesnt really ask cause of criticality? The question is N/A really asking the effect not the cause. Also debatably higher order.

Please explain rationale for why distractors are credible. Question doesnt appear to discriminate adequately. Rich agreed after review in&

that it was a WA mismatch. Questlon replaced.

7.

At a minimum, explain any U ratings (e.g., how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met).