ML20024H822
| ML20024H822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/03/1993 |
| From: | Lange D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Guilfoil T SONALYSTS, INC. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306080405 | |
| Download: ML20024H822 (21) | |
Text
--
O a
~
JUN 0 31993 Mr. Tim Guilfoil Sonalyst, Inc.
215 Parkway North P.O. Box 280 Waterford, Connecticut 06358
Dear Mr. Guilfoil:
Enclosed for your review is the summary of the Contractor Examiner Evaluations (form ES-501-4) and Operating Test Audits (Form ES-501-5) from the first and second quarters of fiscal year 1993.
If you have any questions, please contact Brian Hughes, Technical Monitor for Sonalyst Inc.,
at (301) 504-1096.
Sincere 1j, IS/
David J. Lange, Acting Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
8 JU Central Files PDR w/o encls.
j,'f, - j OLB R/F B.Hughes
/kele';' S ' #
DLange TMendiola K.Pulsipher t
RGallo BBoger g/5
- Seepreviousconcurreng
$C
. [A OLB:DRCH.
/)
DDIR:099 DIR[L M 0FC OLB:DRCH OLB:D A!'['[ofah
.DLance h r c NAME BHughes J
IGallo r
((93 b N [p/3/93 h/ 3 b b 93 lDATE 05/02/93*
t
/93
/
/
0FFICIALRECORDf0Pi DOCUMENT NAME: D:\\H GHES\\SONA.LTR I
me.
9u (73MQpo yas 3
O e
C ENCLOSURE QUARTERLY
SUMMARY
OF CONTRACTOR EXAMINER PERFORMANCE BY SONALYSTS The following is a summary of the contractor examiner evaluations received during the first and second quarters of Fiscal Year 1993.
INITIAL EXAM] NATIONS Write / develop written examinations. simulator scenario sets and JPM sets.
The majority of the comments received in this area indicate that Sonalysts examiners provided high quality examination material. However, your attention is directed to the following examinations-Negative comments were received on the Hatch initial written examination (February 1993).
The amount of duplication on this examination was greater than fifty percent of the previous two examinations administered at the facility. This indicates a lapse of management control in the review process.
Fifty-six hours was charged to edit the examination and 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> was charged for management review.
Negative comments were received regarding the Big Rock Point written examination which was to be given in April 1993. An HOLB review of the contractor product found that 17 items would require rework due to poor distractors, reverse logic, confusing stem, questionable importance, and technical errors.
Seven items were fill-in-the-blank type questions.
Administer written and operatino examinations and JPMs.
Several comments were received which emphasized the high degree of professionalism exhibited by Sonalysts examiners.
The examiner's technical knowledge, and cognizance of the Examiner Standards were commented on as a contributing factor to the success of several examinations.
GradejDocument written and_operatino examinations and JPMs.
No comments of consequence were received in this area.
Reviewi0A the crading of written and ooeratino examinations and JPMs.
All efforts were in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner Standards.
O a,.,
1 RE0VAllFICAT10N EXAMINATIONS AND OPERATING EVALUATIONS Review. write or modify. written examinations, simulator scenario sets and JPM sets.
1 l
All efforts in this area were in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner Standards.
Administer written and simulator examinations and JPMs.
All efforts in this area were in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner Standards.
Grade / Document written and operatina examinations and JPMs.
In the case of the Browns Ferry requalification examination, the crew evaluation was difficult to read.
It contained several line outs and write overs. The examiner's printing was illegible in places and the terminology utilized was confusing.
All other efforts in this area were in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiners Standards.
Review /0A the oradina of written and operatina examinations and JPMs.
All efforts were in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner Standards.
Listed below are the examinations for which contractor evaluations were j
received during the first and second quarters of fiscal year 1993.
Facility Exam Type Exam Dates Catawba Initial 10/19/92 Browns Ferry Requal 12/01/92 Vogtle Initial 12/03/92 Nine Mile Point 1 Initial 12/21/92 DC Cook Initial 12/28/92 Indian Point 3 Requal 01/19/93 Oconee Initial 01/25/93 Hatch Initial 02/22/93 Indian Point 2 Initial 03/23/93 2
er
O O
g.
CONTRACT EXAMINER EVALUATION 1.
Examination Information-Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Exam Type:
Initial & Requal Retake Examination Dates: October 19 - 23, 1992 Examination Report Nos. 50-413/92-302 (Initial) 50-413/92-303 (Requalification Retake)
Number of Candidates:
5 R0s 7
SR0s i
Date Written Examination Received by Regional Reviewer: September 25, 1992 Date Simulator Scenarios Received by Regional Reviewer:
September 25, 1992 Date All Graded Examinations Received by Region: November 2, 1992 2.
Examiner Information:
Name Contractor level of Effort l
T. Guilfoil Sonalysts 3 Operating Exams B. McGonegal Sonalysts 3 JPM sets, 3 Operating Exams K. Parkinson Sonalysts R0/SRO written, 5 Scenarios 3 Operating Exams 3.
Evaluation:
For each activity listed below indicate whether the contractor's performance was in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner's Standards (Yes/No). Use N/A when warranted. Justify all responses of "No" in the comments section.
Negative comments should include the deficiency and the associated requirement (Examiner Standard, NUREG/BR-0122, etc.) that the contractor failed to meet.
Written Simulator JPMs/
Activity Exam Scentrios Walkthrouch Write and Prepare YES YES YES On Site Preparation YES YES YES i
Administer N/A YES YES
. Grade / Document N/A YES YES Review /QA YES YES YES
O O
[
Contract Examiner Evaluation 2
4.
Audit of Examiners: List all examiners that were audited and whether or not they conformed with guidance in the Examiner Standards for the areas evaluated during the audit. Attach a copy of the Form 308. Denote the reasons for any negative ratings in the comment section below or on the Form 308. All negative comments should refer to pertinent guidance for examination administration.
Simulator Walkthrough Name ES Conformance ES Conformance Type of Candidate N/A 5.
Comments: Attach additional sheets as necessary.
The Sonalysts examiners conducted themselves in a professional manner.
Their knowledge of the facility and the examination process proved to be a valuable asset. Their willingness to put in the extra time coupled with their technical capabilities resulted in a rapid turnaround on assigned work.
The quality of the written examination has been under close scrutiny due to the fact that 6 of the 12 candidates failed.
It should be noted that the facility had only two post-exam comments.
In the cover letter accompanying their exam comments, the facility stated that they were pleased with the high quality of the examination that was administered.
l c
The region appreciated the effort Mr. Parkinson put into this exam. The benefits were made evident after the exam.
Chief Examiner:
- ///
f,
// 8 0 - 7 t 4 Ronald F. Aiello Date Section Chief:
Ne
(-
//- 3 0 - 9 L Michael E. Ernstes, Chief Date Operator Licensing Section 2 Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
O CONTRACT EXAMINER EVALUATION 1.
Examination Information:
Facility:
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Exam Type:
REQUAL Examination Dates: December 1 - 10, 1992 Examination Report No. 50-259/92-301 Number of Candidates:
12 R0s 8
SR0s Date Written Examination Received by Regional Reviewer: N/A Date Simulator Scenarios Received by Regional Reviewer: N/A Date All Graded Examinations Received by Region:
N/A 2.
Examiner Information:
Name Contractor Level of Effort Marion I. Daniels Sonalysts Prep week, admin.
7 operating tests 3.
Evaluation:
For each activity listed below indicate whether the con-tractor's performance was in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner's Standards (Yes/No).
Use N/A when warranted.
Justify all responses of "No" in the comments section.
Negative comments should include the deficienc. and the associated requirement (Examiner Standard, NUREG/BR-0122, etc.) tta' the contractor failed to meet.
Written Simulator JPMs/
Activity Exam Scenarios Walkthrough Write and Prepare N/A N/A N/A On Site Preparation YES YES YES Administer N/A YES YES Grade / Document N/A YES YES Review /QA N/A YES YES
P Contract Examiner Evaluation 2
4.
Audit of Examiners:
List all examiners that were audited and whether or not they conformed with guidance it: the Examiner Standards for the areas evaluated during the audit. Attach a copy of the Form 308. Denote the reasons for any negative ratings in the comment section below or on the Form 308. All negative comments should refer to pertinent guidance for examination administration.
Simulator Walkthrough Name ES Conformance ES Conformance Type of Candidate Not audited.
5.
Comments: Attach additional sheets as necessary.
Crew write-up was not neat and was difficult to read.
It contained several lineouts and writeovers-Examiner's printing was sometimes illegible and terminology was sometimas confusing.
7/ru Chief Examiner:
i etc4u
/
D. Charles Paynef Mate b
/t//74 2-Section Chief:
Michael E. Ernstes. Chief Date Operator Licensing Section 2 Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety i
pN g
w t
CONTRACT EXAMINER EVALUATION 1.
Examination Information:
Facility: Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Exam Type:
Initial and Requal Retake Examination Dates:
December 3 - 17, 1992 Examination Report No.:
50-424/92-302 Number of Candidates:
5 R0s, 4 SR0(I)s,1 Requal Retake Date Written Examination Received by Region:
November 20, 1992 (24 days prior to exam)
Date Walkthrough Test Outlines Received by Region:
November 20, 1992 (24 days prior to exam)
Date Graded Written Examinations Received by Region: December 17, 1992 (4 o'3ys after exam)
Date Graded Operating Examinations Received by Region:
December 30, 1992 (13 days after exam) 2.
Examiner Information:
Name Contractor Level of Effort T. P. Guilfoil Sonalysts Prepared two complete walkthrough examinations, including administrative topics.
Prepared third walkthrough examination outline.
Validated walkthrough examinations. Administered three initial operating examinations.
Administered one requalification retake walkthrough examination.
G. D. Weale Sonalysts Prepared SRO and R0 written examinations., Revised written examinations to incorporate NRC and facility comments.
Graded written examinations. Administered three initial operating examinations.
3.
Evaluation:
For each activity listed below, the contractor's performance in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner's Standards is indicated (Yes/No).
O o
Contract Examiner Evaluation 2
Written Simulator JPMs/
Activity Exam Scenarios Walkthrough Write and Prepare Yes N/A Yes On Site Preparation Yes N/A Yes Administer N/A Yes Yes Grade / Document Yes Yes Yes Review /QA Yes Yes Yes 4.
Odit of Examiners: No examiners were audited.
i 5.
Comments:
The work of the two contractors for this examination was excellent. They strived to give the best possible qual,ity to all parts of the examination.
The submitted written examination was good overall. There were some technical inaccuracies in the plant systems section of the examination which required significant corrections due to NRC and facility comments.
The remainder of the examination required mostly administrative and nomenclature changes only.
Contractor support to resolve and incorporate comments was excellent.
The submitted walkthrough examinations were excellent in scope and content.
All requirements of the examiner standards were met, and corrections were not required. Onsite validation support was excellent.
Particularly
~
noteworthy was the fact that JPM questions were challenging to the l
candidates and discriminating in that they revealed knowledge deficiencies.
1 Examiner support during the operating examinations was good.
Both i
examiners cheerfully worked unanticipated long hours necessary to complete the examinations on schedule.
d
/-y-f 3 Chief Examiner:
Richard D. McWhorter, Jr. ' V Date J/Y / yfW' Chief
/ 93 Section Chief:
Lawrence. Lawyer, Date Operator Licensing Section 1 Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety
~
~
R2v 6 06/01/90 w
ES-501-4 CONTRACT EXAMINER EVALUATION 1.
Examination Information:
Facility (J e (A dc. P{ $ _
Examination Type In ked (ba i
Exam Date(s) 1212 /4r
- of Candidates l
R0s
- SR0s Date Written Examination Received by Regional Reviewer 11/27 /9 2.
Date Simulator Scenarios Received by Regional Reviewer
/J A Date All Graded Examinations Received by Region MA 2.
Examiner Information:
NAME CONTRACTOR LEVEL OF EFFORT
- b. nAied S n eh,,h ham ur.L I
3.
Evaluation:
For each activity listed below indicate whether the contractor's performance was in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner's Standards (Yes/No).
Use N/A when warranted.
Justify all responses of "No" in the comments section.
Negative comments should include the deficiency and the associated requirement (Examiner Standard, NUREG/BR-0122, etc.) that the contractor failed to meet.
WRITTEN SIMULATOR JPMs/
ACTIVITY EXAM SCENARIOS WALKTHROUGH Write and Prepare Y c.s UA PA On Site Preparation M4 p._>A MA Administer PA MA.-
UA Grade / Document NA 9A
/J A
/V A Review /QA
/v er Examiner Standards 9 of 18
l 3
ES-501 (w)
Rev 6 06/01/90 w
4.
Audit of Examiners:
List of examiners that were audited and whether or not they conformed with guidance in the Examiner Standards for the areas evaluated during the audit.
Attach a copy of the Form 308.
Denote the reasons for any negative ratings in the comment section below or on the Form 308.
All negative comments should refer to pertinent guidance for examination administration.
SIMULATOR WALKTHROUGH NAME ES CONFORMANCE ES CONFORMANCE TYPE OF CANDIDATE 1
l 5.
Comments:
Attach additional sheets as necessary.
GLV L~XLA on roc &rb.Ls t h tt's DIO.% (* cm r.d tmmN Scom kw h% e,u a d Gad.% W o 3.
L <'xcu O
U c~ett <. L cd u ek cAhw makawx N.a-e,m l.<e h o n e o..> w l e iki:kJ uealesoro Ik I
i i
//.2O[93 ~
I Form Completed By:
6r V
/~
/~
Datd Chief Examiner:
bb
// w /F3
/
y-Date Section Chief:
/ '2zd T2 A
~
date Examiner Standards 10 of 18
Rev 6 06/01/90 g
Page I w
ES-501-4 C0t4 TRACT EXAMINER EVALUATION 1.
Examination Information: -
Facility bC Cook Examination Type 7.4,-h j (/h d4_)
Exam Date(s)
/- /3 -9 3
- of Candidates
/
R0s
/
SR0s Date Written Examination Received by Regional Reviewer
/2 /29/7 2 Date Simulator Scenarios Received by Regional Reviewer A//A Date All Graded Examinations Received by Region 4/A 2.
Examiner Information:
NAME CONTRACTOR LEVEL OF EFFORT O J Joja b (d t.f L c J x N
K h, k,,,scn L, a tvs 3.
Evaluation:
For each activity listed below indicate whether the contractor's performance was in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner's Standards (Yes/No).
Use N/A when warranted. Justify all responses of "No" in the comments section.
Negative comments should include the deficiency and the associated requirement (Examiner Standard, NUREG/BR-0122, etc.) that the contractor failed to meet.
WRITTEN SIMULATOR JPMs/
ACTIVITY EXAM SCENARIOS WALKTHROUGH Write and Prepare Yf5 4A dA On Site Preparation MA 44
,JA Administer
- 4) /l A/A
/JA Grade / Document dA
^> A MA Review /QA YU MA Examiner Standards
ts-so1 O
Rev 6 06/01/90 l
~
Page 2 l
?
4.
Audit of Examiners:
List of examiners that were audited and whether or l
not they conformed with guidance in the Exartiner Standards for the areas l
l evaluated during the audit.
Attach a copy of the Form 308.
Denote the reasons for any negative ratings in the comment section below or on the Form 308.
All negative comments should refer to pertinent guidance for
[
examination administration.
SIMULATOR WALKTHROUGH r
NAME ES CONFORMANCE ES CONFORMANCE TYPE OF CANDIDATE i
l
/L/d Md i
l l
S.
Comments: Attach additional sheets as necessary.
.c le Jo.b.
7, c e p p. bost
&.4L c n-s.L
- m. A e i,, - w e -
c?
G. :L.cs
,.. I b sk ! eu~e L lc lo,A k
1 t
e ! k us~,n -D---
1 s kom e
$ j.?'esty ay... s l y!s Os: ~ iI say c,n e a
1 i
l r
1 Form Completed By:
/- 24 I 3 Date
/
Chief Examiner:
[b
/- dG 98 ate
[
[h Section Chief:
ate f
[
l i
l Examiner Standards
O.
~
~
ES-501 Contract Examiner Evaluation Form ES-501-3 l.
Exarnination Infomation:
Facility / Unit inJ-Pm,4-3 Examination Type f b. f./a,/,on Examination Date(s)s/.,
t,f.,3 No. of Applicants 1
R0s 4-SR0s Date written examination received by regional reviewer efA Date simulator scenarios received by regional reviewer v/n Date all graded examinations receive.d by region t/t yle 2.
Examiner Infomation:
fLAHJ CONTRACTOR LEVEL OF EFFORT L Go.14. t L / ~/r E - - W 'v
- m n..
7 A dn. > <e S..4h Tid hrs n 5, a.,f-h Gaa. lo-h,,,
th ns//ft)./, 7tNk u
3.
Evaluation:
For each activity listed below, indicate whether the contractor's performance met the appropriate sections of the Examiner Standards (Yes, No, or N/A). Justify all responses of "No" in the coments section. Negative coments should include the deficiency and the associated requirement (Examiner Standard, NUREG/BR-0122, etc.) that the contractor failed to meet.
WRITTEN SIMULATOR JPMs/
ACTIVITY EXAM SCENARIOS WALK-THROUGH Write and prepare a/A uh O
Onsite preparation c/A
,lA Ye s Administer a/A Yc s.
Ye s Grade and document Yes a/A y'd Examination Date(s) 3/m-2c,/43 _
No. of Applicants 7 R0s [ SR0s Date written examination received by regional reviewer NA i
Date simulator scenarios received by regional reviewer 8/f[99 Date all graded examinations received by region 4[S-/43 l
2.
Examiner Information:
NAME CONTRACTOR LEVEL OF EFFORT kENfeba96 Oon yh-A Jcp&cvi/ cMaider @ hey 7;m 6eclk boml st Ode UP- ;
y h
3.
Evaluation:
For each activity listed below, indicate whether the contractor's performance met the appropriate sections of the Examiner i
Standards (Yes, No, or N/A). Justify all responses of "No" in the comments section. Negative comments should include the deficiency and I
the associated requirement (Examiner Standard, NUREG/BR-0122, etc.) that
)
the contractor failed to meet.
i WRITTEN SIMULATOR JPMs/
ACTIVITY EXAM SCENARIOS WALK-THROUGH i
Write and prepare
/Y4 NES M
I Onsite preparation
//4 ye>
Yf 9 i
Administer
/Y4 VfS Yr>
s Grade and document
/Vd
__.c s Yt5 Review and quality MA Yea vc3 I
assurance checks i
Examiner Standards 23 of 24 Rev. 7, January 1993 t
i
c
~
O a
ES-501 2
Form ES-501-3 4.
Audit of Examiners:
List examiners that were audited and whether or not they conformed with guidance in the Examiner Standards (ES) for the areas evaluated during the audit. Attach a copy of the " Operating Test Audit Form." Note the reasors for any negative ratings in the comment section below or on the audit form. All negative comments should refer to pertinent guidance on examination administration.
SIMULATOR WALK-THROUGH TYPE OF NAME ES CONFORMANCE ES CONFORMANCE APPLICANT 7
5.
Conments (attach additional sheets if necessaryl:
(cNracs mb-all E 5 l'ha:reme)s. AH a ckles - ce nel 5
2 e LA A,6 cAsu, uaa S s,w, :, _ ab_/
/
tw nte d sIIhmCL 0x$ch9 ssvit swy ffgpsts$ secWamt Eb,rAu 6/ _
47
.4rJerW ad dtpwd mzrd Ad,Mc JjAnAW$
fagixN%
r, yk/dM/f$
sWA
,excc&k6.
l Form Completed By
(
f)
' Date jffff/ f
$/2ff.3 Chief Examiner 1
f Date Section Chief b
/ Mis (%
Date' Examiner Standards' 24 of 24 Rev. 7, January 1993 1