ML111470373

2010 Byron Station Initial Examination Proposed Exam Files

ML111470373
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	09/27/2010
From:	Bielby M NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB
To:
Shared Package
ML103080857	List: ML111470373
References
Download: ML111470373 (7)

Text

2010 BYRON STATION INITIAL EXAMINATION PROPOSED EXAM FILES

August 9,2010 LTR: BYRON 201 0-0091 File:

1.1 0.01 01 Mark Satorius Regional Administrator - Region Ill U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2443 Warrenville Road Suite 21 0 Lisle, IL. 60532-4352 Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455

Subject:

Submittal of Integrated Initial License Training Examination Materials

Dear Mr. Satorius:

Enclosed are the examination materials Byron Station is submitting in support of the initial license exam scheduled September 27 - October 8, 2010 at Byron Station.

This submittal includes the Senior Reactor Operator and Reactor Operator Written Examinations, Job Performance Measures and Integrated Plant Operation Scenario guides.

These examination materials have been developed in accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1 Operator Licensing Examination Standards. Please note that reference materials are attached to each individual examination question or item.

Some minor modifications have been made to the integrated Examination Outline with regards to the operational scenarios in order to improve balance and content. These changes improve examination quality and are in compliance with NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, Operator Licensing Examination Standards.

Some modifications or adjustments :a the examination material may be required due to procedural changes.

In accordance with NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supplement 1, Section E-201, please ensure these materials are withheld from ptibIIc disclosure until after the examinations are complete.

Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact David T. Gudger, Regulatory Assurance Manager, at 81 5-406-2800. For questions concerning examination materials, please contact Robert F. Peterson at 81 5-406-3228.

0 Respectfully, Bradley J. Adams Plant Manager Byron Nuclear Generating Station BJA/RPF/TLH/cy Enclosures listed below will be hand delivered to Mike Bielb!

Region Ill Chief Examiner, NRC RO / SRO Composite Examination with references attached Control Room systems and Facility Walk-Through Job Performance Measures with references attached cc:

Chief, NRC Operator Licensing Branch NRC Senior Resident Inspector, Byron

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3

[1 Facility: xY@aA Date of Examination: 4 /z 7 / I 0 Operating

1. General Criteria ll

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.

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 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.

b.

C.

d.

e.

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 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.

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.

est Number:

Initials 11 a.

Author

b.

Facility Reviewerr)

e.

NRC Chief Examiner (#)

NOTE:

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

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4

1.

Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d)

1.

Total malfunctions (5-8)

2.

Malfunctions after EOP entrv 11-21 27 /

11 Facilty: 3 y8 Date of Exa#

1 Zcenario Numbers: I I z/ 3 Operating Test No.:

I I

Actual Attributes 7 1 6 1 6 h i / /

QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES

~~~

3.

Abnormal events (2-4)

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)

Initials 7 7 I - T 4 l W

/ / / I /

Z l Z l I 0 l o l l 2 I413

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.

1) 2.

The scenarios consist mostly of related events.

149 14

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 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 without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event.

1) 5.

The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.

!4qM

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 aiven.

8.

9.

The simulator modeling is not altered.

The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator performance deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated to ensure that functional fidelitv is maintained while runnina the planned scenarios.

l IO.

Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario.

All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section D.5 of ES-301.

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

ll

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

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.

3.

The scenarios consist mostly of related events.

Each event description consists of 0

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

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)

4.

5.

6.

7.

The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.

4,@

M Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allow 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 given.

8.

The simulator modeling is not altered.

4%)

9.

The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator performance deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated to ensure that functional tidelitv is maintained while runnina the Dlanned scenarios.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~

I O.

Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario.

All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section D.5 of ES-301.

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

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).

11.

12.

13.

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

Target Quantitative Attributes [Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d) v Actual Attributes

1.

Total malfunctions (5-8) b 1 7 1 6 ' $?

2.

Malfunctions after EOP entrv (1-2) 2 t l I ' L 11 3.

Abnormal events (2-4)

I 4 A I 4 I4T

4.

Major transients (1-2)

5.

EOPs enteredlreauirinq substantive actions (1-2)

I 2 1 /

6.

EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2)

/ l a 1 4%)

7.

Critical tasks (2-3) 2 1 2 1 2

ES-40 1 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 I

I I

II I

I I

6.

Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New 571.5 7 1 2 3/1@

from the bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest new or modified); enter the actual RO l SRO-only question distribution(s) at right.

a. Author

b. Facility Reviewer (*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

Printed Name l Signature

,.?

Date

~~~

~~

~

~

~

Note:

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