ML13241A098

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2012-10 Public Forms
ML13241A098
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 10/01/2012
From: Brian Larson
Operations Branch IV
To:
Entergy Operations
laura hurley
References
Download: ML13241A098 (13)
v • d • e


Text

OBDI202 -INITIAL OPERATOR LICENSING PROCESS EXAM ASSIGNMENT TICKLER Chief:

NRC I Exam & Op Test Dates Confirmed Contact Briefed on Security & Other Req's Ref'ereince material due (if NRC authored) reviewed by CE; feedback approved by BC FeE!dbi2Ck on integrated outlines provided to facility exam I docs I support reference material due Document review on ES-4D1-9 p...,.limin"", license applications due NRC Forms 398/396 Pre!liminarv license applications and waivers reviewed exam reviewed by CE; feedback approved by BC I Fe,edback on DRAFT exam provided to facility validation & 10% audit of license applications appHcations due & List of Applicants prepared -4 prepared by LA 9124/2012 9/24/2012 exam admin guideHnes reviewed wi facility 9/24/2012 Exam material to exam team 10/1/2012 Operating Test 10/17/2012 Facility post-exam documentation due 10/17/2012 written exam grading completed 10/1312012 Il:::* .,.""'no.... document op test results on ES 303's 10/2412012 Examiner review of written exam & op test completed 1013112012 Chief review of exam results completed 111712012 IWaivIOlTs!'def'err:als reviewed for impact on licensing decision 111712012 111712012 number of examinees updated 11121/2012 Examination Report Issued 11128/2012 SUNSI checklist complete and exam docs to ADAMS 12/5/2012 Ref Mat'! Returned after Final Resolution of Appeals Replaces NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supp 1, Forms ES-201-1 and ES-501-1

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Facility: Waterford 3 Date of Examination: 10/01/2012 Operating Test Number: 1 Initials Item Task Description a

1. a. Verify that the outline{s) fit{s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401. /J)JI/

W R b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with I Section 0.1 of ES-401 and whether all KIA categories are appropriately sampled. t?>>tl T

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

E N d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected KIA statements are appropriate. k'>IV

2. a. Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications, S and major transients.

[

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

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

I'

3. a. Verify that the systems walk-through outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-2:

(1) the outline(s) contain(s) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks W distributed among the safety functions as specified on the form

/ (2) task repetition from the last two NrlC examinations is within the I1mits specified on the form T (3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' audit testes)

(4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified on the form (5) the number of alternate path, low-power. emergency, and riCA tasks meet the criteria on the form.

b. Verify that the administrative outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301*1:

(1) the tasks are distributed among the topics as specified on the form (2) at least one task is new or significantly modified (3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations

c. 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.
4. a. Assess whether plant*specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the appropriate exam sections.

G E b. Assess whether the 10 CFA 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

N

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

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

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

f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (AO or SAO).

Printed Name / Signature 6ate

a. Author Arthur N. Vest, Jr. /~/;"'J1 ~ .

n./J ~ V'"//.

b. Facility Aeviewer(*) John V. Signorelli ~), I .~
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)
d. NAC Supervisor I I -

I Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.

  • Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines

ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES*401-6 Facility: Waterford 3 Date of Examination: October 10, 2012 Exam Level: ROg] SRO r8J Initial Item Description a b* c*

1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility. tY <jg; 1.

I

2. a.

b.

NRC KlAs are referenced for all questions.

Facility learning obiectives are referenced as available.

y' Cj(

3. SRO questions are aopropriate in accordance with Section D,2.d of ES-401 1>'" )f- !I
4. The sampling process was random and systematic (If more than 4 RO or 2 SRO questions were repeated from the last 2 NRC licensing exams. consult the NRR OL program office).
5. Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled as indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:

I&l the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or I&l the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or

[J the examinations were developed independently; or I&lthe licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or t)/

o other (explain)

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New from the bank. at least 10 percent new. and the rest new or modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only 22/9 3/0 50/16 0/' ~

question distribution(s) at right.

7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO Memory CIA

~

exam are written at the comprehension/ analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly 32/7 43/18 p/

selected KlAs support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual RO / SRO question distribution(s) at right.

I 8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of distractors.

tv' 9f 9,

p-/

9?

Question content conforms with specific KIA statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the tier to which they are assigned; deviations are [uslified. ./'

10. Question psychometric quality and format meet the Quidelines in ES Appendix B, r ~
11. 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 r 5It Printed Name I Signature Date
a. Author Arthur N. Vest, Jr. ~ 08/23/2012
b. Facility Reviewer(') John V. SjgnOrelli*~C~ 08/23/2012 JJ ~/lJf -k ~~~
c. NRC Chief Examiner (II)

>r v ...' /' ....-! 'J ~.

d. NRC Supervisor

<i#4te U

Note:

  • The facility reviewer's initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

II Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column nco; chief examiner concurrence required.

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facilit: Waterford::l Date of Examination: 10/01/2012 Test Number:

Initials

1. General Criteria a

a.

b. There is no day-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered durin this examination.
c. The operating test shall not duplicate items from the applicants' audit test(s). (see Section D.1.a.)
d. Overlap with the written examination and between different parts of the operating test is within acce' table limits.
e. It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent applicants at the desi nated 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 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 se uence of steps, if ap licable

b. Ensure that any changes from the previously approved systems and administrative walk-through outlines (Forms ES-::IOH 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.
3. Simulator Criteria The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with Form ES-301-4 and a co is attached.

Printed Name I Signature Date

a. Author . Arthur N. Vest, Jr.l tff'fpo/>-
b. Facility Reviewer(") 8-J IL...-
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)
d. NRC Supervisor NOTE: " The facility Signature is not applicable for NRC
  1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facility:Waterford 3 Date of Exam: 10/01/2012 Scenario Numbers: 1 / 2/ 3/4 Operating Test No.: 1 QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials a b* c#

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. 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 symptoms/cues that wiil be visible to the crew
  • the expected operator actions (by shift position)
  • the event termination poil)! (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.
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. N/A N/A N/A Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints.

Cues are given.

~~.______T_h_e~Si_m~u~la=to=r~m==o=de=l~in~g=is~n~o.t~.a:l=te~~=d~'__________________________________________________-+_~ __~~~~ __~'__~I

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 /l/

to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios. ~

10. Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario. ~ I()/.....

All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section 0.5 of ES-301. 1%

11. All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 I /J /,t1;?

(submit the form along with the simulator scenarios). IL.Y" I~

~---------------------------+--~~--+---~I

12. Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events A/rJ,f./

specified on Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios). {,/' W

13. The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position. C/'r'J!-

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

1. Total malfunctions (5-8) 9 6 6 6
2. Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2) 2 2 !2 1
3. Abnormal events (2-4) 3 2 2 4
4. Major transients (1-2) 1 1 2 1
5. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (1-2) 1 1 1 1
6. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) 0 0 1 0
7. Critical tasks (2-3) 2 3 2 3

E5-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Checklist Date of Examination: 10/10/2012 Exam Level: RO & SRO Initials Item Descri tion a b c 1.

2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented
3. Applicants' scores checked for addition errors reviewers S ot check> 25% of examinations
4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as a licable, +/-4% on the SRO-onl reviewed in detail
5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are 'ustified
6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of uestions missed b half or more of the a Ii ca nts Printed Name / Signature Date
a. Grader 10/16/2012
b. Facility Reviewer (") 10/16/2012
c. NRC Chief Examiner (")
d. NRC Supervisor

(*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two inde en.dent NRC reviews are re uired.

Memo to File WT-2012-10-PUBLIC FORMS The original forms, listed below, were completed and signed as required by NUREG-1021. All requirements of NUREG-1021 for the development, review and administration of this initial license examination were completed as required.

  • ES-401-6, Written Examination Quality Checklist
  • ES-301-3, Operating Test Quality Checklist
  • ES-301-4, Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist
  • ES-403-1. Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist Bnan T. Larson .

Senior Operations Engineer Chief Examiner Prt~wltdteH1I"I:

UU{vl &Jlr~

Lk'rt: 0 I~

17127/ III V

Page 1 of4 Operator Licensing Exam Schedule 11/19/2012 14:44:51 From 10/01/2012 To 01/01/2013 Report 21 Region: 4 Phase Code: Operating Reactors (5) lexamyveeqlSltelDocket No.llnsp Rpt # ... *::11 # Candidates-- )[Tyj)edlexamAUthOi)@EIefExaminer-)[Examlners Assigned

  • 03/01/2012 Waterford 105000382/2012301 Prep FFF LARSON, BRIAN T. FARINA, THOMAS J.

TAC #: X02493 HERNANDEZ, NICHOLAS A.

LARSON, BRIAN T.

STEELY, CHRISTOPHER D.

10/01/2012 Waterford f 05000382 1 2012301 RO-5 SROI-5 Admin FFF LARSON, BRIAN T. FARINA, THOMAS J.

TAC #: X02493 SROU-3 HERNANDEZ, NICHOLAS A.

LARSON, BRIAN T.

STEELY, CHRISTOPHER D.

10/15/2012 Waterford 105000382/2012301 Doc FFF LARSON, BRIAN T. FARINA, THOMAS J.

TAC #: X02493 HERNANDEZ, NICHOLAS A.

LARSON, BRIAN T.

STEELY, CHRISTOPHER D.

Sites: WAT Orgs: 4620 Exam Author: ALL

Page 2 of4 Operator Licensing Exam Schedule 1111912012 14:44:51 From 10/01/2012 To 01/01/2013 Report 21 Region: 4 Phase Code: Operating Reactors (5)

~ummary By Date I

10/2012 WAT - Waterford RO-5 SROI-5 SROU-3 LSRO -0 Total for Waterford: 13 1012012 RO-5 SROI-5 SROU-3 LSRO- 0 Total for 1012012: 13 0312012 WAT - Waterford RO-O SROI-O SROU-O LSRO-O Total for Waterford: 0 Sites: WAT Orgs: 4620 Exam Author: ALL

Page30f4 Operator Licensing Exam Schedule 11/19/2012 14:44:61 From 10/01/2012 To 01/01/2013 Report 21 Region: 4 Phase Code: Operating Reactors (5)

ISummary By Site I WAT - Waterford RO-5 SROI- 5 SROU-3 LSRO -0 Total for Waterford: 13 Sites: WAT Orgs: 4620 Exam Author: ALL

Page 4 of4 Operator Licensing Exam Schedule 1111912012 14:44:51 From 1010112012 To 0110112013 Report 21 Region: 4 Phase Code: Operating Reactors (5)

[SUmmary By Region I Region 4 RO-5 SROI* 5 SROU-3 lSRO - 0 Total for Region 4: 13 Sites: WAT Orgs: 4620 Exam Author: ALL

ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3

1. Pre-Examination f acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of 10/1/2012 and 10/8/2012 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 (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 did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 1011/2012 and 10/8{2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination adminlstration,l 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 DATE NOTE Arthur N. Vest, Jr. Project Lead{Exam Development Lead 03/05/12 if:L~~

2 James H. Mendoza Exam Developer 1"'",,--,

3 GalE'...... ~Do~Jt\l.D .It:J\..r.., P p~ t(,'r '0 1~-<~4'!jI I

~t--\ES DEL.CA.NO SH ~f'Po~:r 4

,",/'DIr2.

Jlart1,ce.. J! L.;,w~

5 6

7 S....c\.L H. M>Ce,

$;iyp.A (SLJor.l'ltiAA.,})&&

foL\ S\~Lt( s:'; ("\I... ltlm. S~'lfQc:l1 u,..~--7'4!J.~:~

.s 11ft'" Ik.TtI/t fIIIl-llwtf7I'N iU '2 c.I, IZ 6' j.-:uJ/'l_ ~~

7 8 hAII'I.b f. L,T(JI.,FF £7CArA VAL.IJ!L\-nl. t,-tf-IZ 9 \ { ~"--_IS;,II'1..0.~,, ~...\~~\l"' /'tKI".}J~t~~>.~ ~ I 10

~

11 will/a...... N.~tftS{ :$,.tI1.. O/.>-e.Y'a:hor f/U}I2

.~ ,

~

\

12

?'

/vt.:I¥'Mp t...t,Yth/!h. 01 j fh(.*pJ] ~ t-v If 13 14 15

~~(htlr:;1tJrJ

.Jf~(lLt.l2o~~.. "'\

R 0 ~c'~ ....r Le..t<-r O~ ..S!2.o t/5ri1l1 f/..eur.eJ

~~:e~}~~~'

f r* 'W \ <'

l/4f

~ t.

1'

"""""331 "'"

z-NOTES:

1(0 ;J~tYlanJ 1.. .Lo-JOUlllt {~'d~~

. q/J.I{It,

,MJte.1 ,. j>&.A ~£l1&aJJ

t/~~.t.
;;bdAn!L.'i!C,<),J AjI':eA'J/lI.t- 6J1',I'fi!'t/-I"J:!./J1' /Q#

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 10/112012 and 10/8/2012 as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge Bny Information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand thaU am not to Instruct, evaluate. or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completlon 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 examlnaHons 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 1011/2012 and 10J8f2012. 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 DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE 17 Russel!, David (OJ) Fleet Operations Training Superintendent \ Reviewer q/'7

¥H4/¥H~

f I] /l.L-JdJJ~ ~(Z. ..J~r.~ .

£tf.s.f~ 11Pt:k,,,,

18 Censer, Ga, \ Mm'.,. S'1Pport 9/l1hz.. .d~?'j:~tI'L.~ ..D-(5-/2-._ _

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NOTES; /.. I't!1! 'f"/U..lE£.<JA/

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13241A098&oldid=2455650"