ML20128E240

Forwards for Review,Summary of Contractor Examiner Evaluations (Form ES-501-4) & Operating Test Audits (Form ES-501-5) from Fourth Quarter FY92

ML20128E240
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/29/1993
From:	Gallo R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Morgan M Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
References
NUDOCS 9302100354
Download: ML20128E240 (12)

Text

..

JAN 2 01993 Mr. Mark Morgan Battelle Northwest K6-47 Battelle Boulevard Sigma 3 Building Richland, Washington 99352

Dear Mr. Morgan:

Enclosed for your review is the summary of the Contract Examiner Evaluations (Form ES-501-4) and Operating Test Audits (Form ES-501-5) from the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 1992.

If you have any questions, please call Larry Vick at (301) 504-3181.

Sincerely, is Robert H. Gallo, Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRlWilM:

Central Files OLB R/F Public Document Room LVick DLange TMendiola JCaldwell RGallo DMcCain BBoger

1. ' f> 1 OLB:DSC1(7 OLB:DRCH Iffikki DIR:DRCH,,y 0FC OLB:DRCH

_f, NAME LVick:rc N d Ah.dtod RMGalloMk C0 Thomas BABoger/D DATE

/ //P /93 b /l*7 /93

//28/93

$/N93 k

/ / '}M/93 OfflCIAL RECORD COPY Document Name:

PNLOTRFY EV4 i

P

[Eyg,[/T55

8822888" ZRRa"'

050058

_y-RJURN NIEGULATOPJ BliM.R.IS 7

e 4

ENCLOSURE OUARTERLY

SUMMARY

OF CONTRACTOR EXAHJNER PERFORMANCE BY PNL The following is a summary of the Contract Examiner Evaluations and Operating Test Audits received during the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 1992.

1 INITIAL EXAMINATIONS Write /Develoo written examinations. simulator scenario sets and JPM sets.

Two initial examinations (University of Virginia and Point Beach), in which the contractor activity included writing examinations and on site preparation of simulator scenarios and JPMs / walkthroughs received positive comments from the chief examiners, indicating that the performance level was satisfactory and in accordance with the Examiner Standards.

However, one initial examination (Browns Ferry) required substantial changes in the area of writing and developing JPMs.

ES-301 paragraph G.2.a specifies that the candidate be evaluated on two K/As for each K/A/G subject area appraised.

Four of the proposed JPMs did not meet this criteria. The subject areas had questions for only one K/A.

The management oversight in the review process warrants improvement.

One initial examination-(Dresden) JPH set submitted to the NRC failed to include an ECCS Heat Removal System JPM as required by ES-301, Section F.2.a.

The region substituted one of the two RHR JPMs submitted with a ECCS JPM.

All other aspects of the contractor performance were conducted in accordance with the Examiner Standards.

Administcr written and operatina_ examinations and JPMs.

Feedback from the NRC regional examintrs indicate that an excellent job was done in administering all written and operating examinations at all facilities.

The standards of professionalism of the contractor examiners continue to match those expected of the NRC examiners.

Erade/ Document written and operatino examinations and JPMs.

All efforts were in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner Standards except as noted below:

(1)

One written examination (Browns Ferry) grading error was not identified until the Regional review.

(2)

Numerous typing errors on the submitted examination cover sheets for one exam (Brown Ferry) were corrected by the Region. The errors included misspelled applicant names, incorrect examination dates, incorrect written scoring and-missing results.

(3)

The documentation of initial examination (Dresden) submitted to the region in which a candidate was recommended as a failure, was inadequate to justify the recommendation.

After several discussions with the contract examiner, the NRC region overruled the recommendation of the contractor examiner and passed the ccndidate. The lack of adecuate documentation for the unsatisfactory grades requirec rewriting and regrading. Also, the competencies assigned required the region to reassign the rating factors which resulted in the overturning of the recommendation of the examiner.

Review /0A the aradina of wriiten and o.paratina examinations and JPMs.

As pointed out and discussed in the examples above, the management oversight in the review process of a contract examiners product prior to submittal to the NRC warrants improvement.

Recualification Examinations and Onerational Evaluations Review. write or mqdify: written examinations. simulator scenario sets and_ DEB Sgts.

All efforts were in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner Standards.

No additional comments were made, administer written and simulator examinations and JPMs.

Several operating examinations (Indian Point 2 and Hatch) resulted in the chief examiner commenting on the high quality performance of the contractors during the examination process.

The excellent technical support provided by the contractors was noted by the chief examiners.

Grade / Document written and operatina examinations and JPMs.

All contractor examiners met or exceeded the requirements of the Examiner Standards.

Review /0A the angdina of written and operatina examinations and JPMs.

All efforts were in compliance with the appropriate sections of the Examiner Standards.

NEC_6udit(s1_of PNL Contrsctor Examiners The following PNL contractor examiner Initial Operating Test Audits are enclosed for your review and information:

1.

Don Draper, University of Virginia 7/13-15/92 2.

Glen Buckley, Dresden 7/16/92 3.

Ken Mikkelsen, Dresden 7/16/92 2

1 4

4.

Mark Riches, Browns Ferry 9/21-24/92 5.

Mark Hitchell, Browns Ferry 9/21-24/92 Listed below are the examinations for which contractor evaluations were received during this quarter (4th Quarter FY 1992):

(Task ltem No.1/ Facility 1 Exam Tvoe Exam Dates P-208 Dresden Initial 7/10,13-17/92 P-210 Indian Pt 2 Requalification 8/17-20/92 P-219 Browns Ferry Initial 9/21-24/92

~

P-221 Hatch Requalification 8/31 & 9/23/92 P-222 Point Beach initial 9/28/92 P-225 University of Virginia Initial-Nonpower 7/13/92 4

3

REV 6 06/01/8.

ts 5015

u. s. wxwa m.Atoer etwism r:= m OPERATING EST AUDIT Dwako Ot6WEW rm Oa V o f //A 14gis 5 am (do mma j=

7/ -ir/99 ont w ust mmuu a

wwras' m.wras i.owor.wwo muma m

e m

m-u m ran n =/u) y'-

a wtas runt aoe.w pm/u) y' L amo.m mu om/u) t novrct a rmv/mmAm:cun

t. ute m oei.

a, wuermf re/mm noanot X

I L Abl#M p'

& wTm PmCLNES DeutDE Y

1 ty X

1 MitEY 10 IWE*E CM1AT1 OtotuDGE uae

(

A w u m ox:ry w ars w y

5 m a.

V

a. as ram oxsw no m:n

>(

c.r m y m.m m a m/cm x

c. orsw mwat rca cuum um x'

t. tesocr/com. nos:un

/

a itsa x eworms ecwo2wtse g

( owes tuna (mu rases wegcc facfM50 tws -n t&cGeruf W WWY 0P4(f0t/fLT5 L D>.em m m tsm e

m m

m A CD& Del AKTED K

& 11MRf (WE*DG XCDA11Y EJYCRtD

'>d

c. wwt we eau:t =

x L COMY5 M

(1)re $ w ar,e.4 % w ww u.e.

(aamre,iwieametu amr.s m anie n

[wnbar Ste&rds 11ed18 m

HOLB MC 170 11/01/91, A1TACHMENT 2 OPERATING TEST AUDIT E neminer: Glen Bucktey (PNL)

Facility: Dresden Nuclear Power Station Chef Enemner: Roger Doornbos (Acting for Pete Peterson)

Den of Operating Test: July 18,1992 Author: N/A (Dete of test oud t 04/05/91 et WNP 2)

Circle Test Type /Jevel: Ltd.gl / Requel

//

SRO (1/ U) I RO Auditor's Name: Lonrence Mck, (NRR. DRCH, HOLD)

Signature:

h.fmph[

/g m-ES Commente Rating Factore Confotrnance (Crces reference to the applicable reting f actor in left column.)

1. Test Scope end Content (ES.301)

Yes No Glen edmirvstered initiet integrated plant opetetions eneminatione

e. Admin Topics (D.2)

(simutator ueneries) and several orat/welkthrough plant oseninetions (Job Performance Measures and questions) to

1. Scope (Ucenn Love!)'

X s evero! c ondidates.

2. Depth (Ucense Levell' X

%WWe hdMWh h

oral /we'kthrough esamination, the eneminor ask questions that

b. Systems Welk through (0.3) had simple ans were such es yet or no. The perception of

1. Setety Funct;on Distribution' X

prompteng the cend.dete through followup questierstig o!so esisted. One way to eliminste this perception is to ask the

2. Subject Aree Questione*

X condidate what is the basis for his/her enswet,

3. License Level' X

Glen fully complied with all erees of the Eneminet $tendards during the operating teste,

c. Integrated Piant Operations (D.4) 1, Transients.Tvents' X

bM The demeanor of the eneminer during the enom E'**"'***E'

2. Competencies' X

d.

Other (Describe in Comments)*

2. Test Admmistration (ES 302) e.

General (B. C.1)

1. Applicent Briefings X

2. Adhered to Esem Outhne X

3. Use of Simulator X

4 Knowledge of Facihty X

5. Integrated Admirdstrative Topics X

6.

Asked Follow up as Necessary X

7. Domennor i Professionsham Comment Reg'd EF

b. Walk through (C.2)

1. Admin. Topics integrated X

2. Exam Technique X

c. Integrated Plent Operations (C.3)

1. Admin. Topics integrated X

2. Ex m Technique X

d.

Other (Describe iri Comments)

3. Documentation / Groding (ES 303)

' Responsibihty for these items is shared by the author, the

e. UNS AT Grades Justified (C.3)

X Chief Eneminer, and the test administrator. If there is a problem.

b, Report Completo X

- the oud; tor should ensure that en responsible individuals era counseled and the test supports the license recommendation.

j l

c.

Other (Describe in Conenents) s

.-.= -

HOLB MC 170,11/01/91, ATTACHMENT 2 OPERATING TEST AUDIT (semitier: Kennenth PAkkefsen (PNL)

Focility: Dresden Nuclear Power Station Ch4f tierrvnet: Roger Doornboe (Actirig for Pete Peterson)

Date of Operating Tut:.luly 16,1992 Author: N/A IDete of lest audit. 04/28/89 et NMP 2)

Cirele Test Type / Level: Initial / Requal

//

SRO (1/ U) / R0 Aud. tor's Name: Lewrence %ck, (NRR, ORCH, HOLB)

Signature:

@f

_ [d[ h>[4hh t8 Commente Reting Factore Conformonee (Cross reference to the applicable raths factor in left column.)

Test Scope end Content (ES 301)

Yu No Ken administered initialintegrated plant operstlene examinations

o. Admin Topics (D.21 (almulator sceneries) and oraf/welk through plant eneminatione (Job Performance Measures and questions) to several candidates.

)

1, Scope (Ucense Level)*

X Onfy one weakness wee observed.WNie administering the

2. Depth (Ucense level).

X orallwalkthrough examination, the eneminor ellowed the j

con date to ranh on fw approahetely M evtu Wee i

b. Systems Walk through (D.3) 6 E' b moving on to the next subject eres. The perception of prompting

1. Safety Function Distribution

• X the condidate by allowing on unsual amount of time to enswer etteight loward questione existed. One way to eliminate this

2. Subject Aree Questions' X

perception le to ask the candidate specific questions that render specific responses and then rnovo on to the next examination

3. Ucense Level' X

item.

c, integ<eted Plant Operations (0.4)

Ken fully complied with ett stees of the [meminer Standards 0

1. Transientshents' X

item 2.e.7

• The domesnor of the eneminor during the exam

2. Competencin, X

process was professional et sti times,

d. Other (Oncribe in Comments)*

ltem 3J in accordance with ES 303.D.e.3, the documentation

2. Test Adrrenistration (ES 302) on Form 157 for Port C, Integteted Plant Opetetione, for or.e RO candidate, who was recommended to fait the operating portion of e, Generel(B. C.1) the enemination, wee not properly supported by notes on Form CS 3014, 'Operatot Actions'. The contract eneminer as well es 1, Appkcent Briefings X

the acting chief eneminer did not request printouts or strip chart recordings generated durir's the simuletor test which couldibeve

2. Adhered to Cuom Outline X

been used to substantiate commente on the low competency

3. Use of Simulator X

The Pass / Fall secommendation was not consistent with Form 157

4. Knowledge of Facility X

enet its attached documentation. The acting chief examinet and

• • • • ""*""**"*"'""*****8***"I'"*

5. Integrated Administrative Topice X

failing recommendation of en RO condidate.The contract

6. Asked Fo!Iow up as Necessary X

examiner recommended that the candidate feil Category A,

' Administrative Topics

• and Category C, ' integrated Plant.

• • "8*

N "O

7. Demeanor / Professionehem Comment Peq'd eF chief re evolueled the documentation provided by the corWract summinor and concluded that the candidate passed the operating

b. Walk through (C.2)

'-N portion of the enemination based on e regrade of both Categories 1, Admin. Topics intugroted X

A and C. As required by the f aaminer Standards, the contreet eneminer was conferred with before his recommendation was

2. Enem Technique X

overturned. There was lor:ufficient documentation to support the recommended failuto and several competencies were regraded

c. Integrated Plant Operatione (C.3) that resulted in rating factors of 2.0 or greater being assiunod.

1. Admin. Topics integrated X

2. Eram Technique X

d. Other (Describe in Comments)

'. Responsibility fur these items is shared by the author, the

3. Documentation / Grading (ES 303)

Chief Enaminer, and the test administrator, if there is a problem,

• • 8"*"

• "*"***"U*E" a' UNS AT Grades Just.fied (C.3)

X counseled and the test supports the license recommendation,

b. Report Complete X

c. Other (Describe in Comments)

4 0

l HOLB-MC 170,11/01/91, ATTACHMEN T 2 (FORM ES 5015)

OPERATING TEST AUDIT En eminer: Mark fAtchell (PNL)

Facility: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant CNef Emensner: J.H. Bartley (Under instruction of D.C. Payne)

Date of Operating Test: September 21 24,1992 Author: N/A (Dete of last audit none)

Circle Test Type / Level: Initial / Requel

//

1.R, Q (1/ y) / EQ Auditor's Name: Lewrence Vick, (NRR, DRCH, HOLB)

Signature; p

j - [ /)

a.ura

[

EG Comrnente Rating Factose Conformance (Cross reference to the applicable reting f actor in left column.)

1. Test Scope end Content (t5 301)

Yes No Mark administered tr9tialintegroted plant operatione eneminations o.

Admin Topics (D.21 (simulator econerlos) and otet/ work through plant ereminatione (Job Performance Measures and questions) to several

1. Scope (Ucense Level)*

X condidates.(Two SROUs and two RDs)

2. Depth fUcense Levell' X

Only one weekness was observed. While administering the oraf / walk enemination, the eneminer esk questions that had b.

Systems WeUthrough (D.3) simple answere such as *yes* or *no*. The perception of prompting the cared,dete was given.

1. Safety Function Distnbution' X

Mark fully complied with oli areas of the Examiner Steriderds

2. Subject Ares Questions X

during the operating teste.

3, license Level' X

Rem 2 el The demeanor of the eneminer during the enom

c. Integrated Plant Opetetions (D.41 process was prof essional at all times.

1. Transients / Events' X

2. Competenciee*

X d.

Other (Describe in Comments)*

2. Test Administration (ES.302) e.

Generni (B, C.1)

1. Applicant Briefings X

2. Adhered to Enem Outline X

3. Use of Simulator X

4.

Knowledge of Facil!ty X

6. Integrated Administrative Topice X

6. Asked Follow up as Necessary X

7. Demeanor / Professionalism Comment Req'd 8F

b. Welk through (C.2)

1. Admin. Topics integrated X

2. Enem Technique X

c. Integrated Plant Operations (C.3)

1. Adnun. Topics integrated X

2. Exam Technige' X

' Responsibility for these items is shared by the author, the d.

Other (Describe in Comments)

Chief Examiner, and the test administrator, if there is a problem.

'""'" P*" # ' "

3. Documentation / Grading (ES-303) counseled and the test supports the license recommendation.

a.

UNS AT Grades Justified (C.3)

X b.

Report Completo X

c.

Other (Describe in Comments)

\\.

(

HOLB MC-170,11/01/91, ATTACHMENT 2 (FORM ES 5015)

OPERATING TEST AUDIT Eneminer: fAerk Riches (PNL)

Facihty: Browns Ferry Nucleet Plant Chief Eneminer: J.H. Bartley (Under instruction of D.C. Payne)

Date of Operating Test: September 21 24,1992 Authot: N/A (Dete of test audit none)

Circle Test Type I Level: Inittel / Requel

//

$M (1/ V) I M Auditor's Name: Lawtonce Vick. (NRR, DROH, HOLB)

Signature:

Jf N

/Q g p, s

ES Commente Reting Factore Conformance (Cross reference to the applicable reting f actor inlef t column.)

1. Test Scope end Content (CS 301)

Yee No Mark edrrvnistered initialintegrated plant operations examinations a.

\\dmin Topics (D.2)

(simulator scenenos) and oral /ne'k through plant eneminatione (Job Performance Measures and questions) to esveral condidates.

1. Scope (License Level),

X (Three roe and one SROU)

2. Depth (License Level)*

X Mark fully comphed with oil erees of the Eneminet Stendeeds during the operating teste.

b.

Systems Walk through (D.3)

1. Safety Function Distnbution*

X halt,Z The demeanor of the eneminer dunng the esem

2. Subject Ates Questions

• X process was professional at all times.

3. License Level' X

Only one weaknese was observed. While admiaistering the otellwelk enemination, the eneminer did not maintain control of

c. fntegrated Plant Operations (D.4) enemination motetieto on three occessions. On one occettion, the enemination motetists (Two JPM e I were lef t in the break room.

1. Transients /Evento*

X However, no enom compromise existed due to the auditor retrieving the exemanation meterial and maintained control of it

2. Competenc.ies X

until the contract eneminer inquired of lte whereabouts Another incident occutred in the simulator room when the condidate lef t

d. Othet (Desenbe in Comments).

notes and JPM procedure on the operator desk After prompting the examiner by the suddor, the meterial was collected and

2. Test Administration (ES 302) controlled. A third ocession occurred when the condedste lef t his written answer to e prescripted question on the simulefor a.

General (B, C.1) operator desk stee. Again the suddor prompted the eneminor to

1. Apphcent Enefings X

collect and maintain control of the enemination meteriale, Feedback to the eneminer diclosed that this has been a problem

2. Adhered to Enem Outhne X

for him due to certying and keeping up with volume of enemination meterial while on the welkthrough enemination. The

3. Use of Simulator X

suditor proposed that if the canditete v,as instructed to write his name on any enemination meterial given to him the cervlidate

4. Knowledge of Facility X

would be more proned to return the materialin order that examination compromise would not be percieved. The examiner S. Integrated Adm nistrative Topics X

tried this approach and cornmented thet this worked out better for both porties. The potential and perception of ever instion

6. Asked Follow-up as Necessary X

compromise con not be underestimated. The eendie's should not be put into e posNon of conMon wherey chabng beconm en

7. Demeanor / Professionsham Comment Reg'd g option due to the tremenduos safety impact that a licensing decision enteils.

L. Welk through (C.2)

1. Admin. Topics Integrated X

H

2. Exem Technique X

c. Integreted Plant Operatione (C.3)

1. Admin. Topics Integrated X

• . Responsibihty for these items is eherad by the author, the

2. Exam Technique X

Chief Eneminer, and the test administrator. If there is e problem, the auditor should ensure that all responsible individuals are

d. Other (Desenbe in Coruments) counseled and the test supporte the beense recommendation.

3. Documentation / Grading (LS 303)

e. UNS AT Grades Justified (C.3)

X

b. Report Complete X

l c.

Other (Describe in Comments)

HOLD MC 170,11/01/91, ATTACHMENT 2 j

OPERATING TEST AUDIT t=aminer: Kenneth u.kkeisen teNL) raciuty: Dresden Nucieer power si.iton Chiev [.anen.n Rog., Doornbu (Acting for este Peterson)

%te of Operating Tut: July 16,1992 i

Author: N/A (Dete of last audit 04/28/89 et NMP 2)

Circle Test Type / Lo, vel: trge! / Reoual

//

SRD (1/ U) / RO Auditor's Name: Lewrence Vick, (NRR, DRCH, HOLB)

Signature:

gg hy

[8 Commente Reting Factore Confortnence (Crne reference to the opphcable retmg f actor in left column.)

1. Tut Scope and Content (ES 301)

Yes No Ken administered initiat integrated plant operatione examinatione

s. Admin Topico (D.2)

(simulator scenario 6) and oral / walk through plant exammations

1. % ope (Licenn Lent)*

X "U

2. Depth (License Level)*

X oral /walkthrough examinetton, the esaminor ellowed the condidate to ramble on for approximately 16 minutes before

b. *.,ystems Watk.through (D.3) movmg on to the nest subject area. The perception of prompting

1. Safety Function Distribution' X

the condidate by allowing an unueuel amount of time to enewer otraight forward questions existed. One way to eliminate thio

2. Subject Area Questions' X

perception le to ask the candidate specifie questions that render opecif c responses and then move on to the next osamination

3. License Level' X

item,

e. Integrated Plant Operations (0.4)

Ken fully comphed with all areas of the Esaminer Standards

1. Tran61entellvents' X

item 2 a.7 The demeanor of the examiner during the exam

2. Competencio, X

process was profusional at all timo,

d. Other (Describe in Comments)*

jicm 3 e. In accordance with ES 303,D.e.3, the documentation

2. Test Administration (ES 302) on Form 157 for Part C, integrated Plant Operatione, for one RO candidate, who was r* commended to f all the operstmg portion of e.

General (B. C.1) the examination, wu not property supported by notee on Form ES 3014, ' Operator Actione*, The contract esaminer as well se

1. Applicant Drief ngs X

the acting chief eneminer did not requot printoute or strip chart socordinge generated during the simulator test which could han

2. Adhered to Enam Outhne X

been used to substantiate commente on the low competency

3. Use of Cimulator X

The Pass / Fail recommendation was not consistent with Form 167.

4. Knowledge of recihty X

and its attached documentation. The acting chief exammer and the contract examiner were unable to some to agreement on a

6. Integrated Adminisuetin Topice X

fail.ng recommendation of an RO condidate. The contract

6. Asked Follow up as Necessary X

exaniner recommended that the condidate fail Category A.

' Administrative Topice* and Category C. *lntegrated Plant Operations'. The acting dief examiner and the regional section

7. Demeanor / Profonionabsm Cornment Reg'd 8F chief re evaluated the documentation provided by the contract

b. Walk through (C.2) nominor and concluded that the candidate passed the operating portion of the examination based on a regrade of both Categories

1. Adrrsn. Topico Integrated X

A and C. As required by the Examiner Standards, the contract examiner was conferred with before his recommendation was

2. Esam Technique X

overturned. There was insufficient documentation to support the recommended failure and several competencies were regraded

c. Integrated Plant Operatione (C 3) that resulted in rating factors cf 2.0 or greater being assigned.

1. Admin. Topics integrated X

2 tuem Tecon;que X

d. Other (Describe in Comments)

3. Documentation / Grading (ES 303)

' Responsibility for thne items le shared by the author, the Chief Examiner, and the test administrator if there le a problem,

s. UN$ AT Grades Justified (C.3)

X the auditor shuuld ensure that all responsible individuals are counseled and the test supports the license recommendation.

b. Report Completo X

c. Other (Deectibe in Comments)

.----.-.w,,----,,---..w.

,,%v

,, + - -

,--.n-,.

m_._,--

s

-wv,, -- - + - - - + - - -.

.n,

4 r,

HOLB MC 170,11/01/91, ATTACHMENT 2 (FORM ES 5015) i OPERATING TEST AUDIT tamminer: Mark IAtchell (PNL)

Facihty: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Chief f uenwner: J.H. Bartley (Under instruction of D.C. Peyne)

Date of Operating Test: September 21 24,1992 1

Author: N/A (Dete of last audit - rione)

Csecle Test Type / Level: bipj / Requel

,l/, }f.9 (1/ Mi t hQ Auditor's Name: Lawrence Veck, (NRR, DRCH, HDLB)

Signature

• }gg rh h 7

T

[8 Comments Reting Festore Confortnance (Crose reference to the appbcable retmg factor in (ett column.)

1. Test $ cope and Content (ES 3011 Yes No Mark administered initiet integrated plant operatione eneminatione e.

Adnan Topics (D.2)

(simulator scenarios) and oral /watk through plant eneminetlone (Job Performance Measutte and questions) to several

1. Scopo (Ucense Levell' X

condidates.(Two SROUs and two Ros)

2. Depth (Ucense Levell' X

Only one weeknete wee observed. Whil administering the crehe% enemineHon, the eneminer as vestions that had

b. Systeme Wetk through (D.3) simple onewere such es *yes' of "no".

is perception of

1. Safety function Distribution

• X P'ompting the candiusto wee given.

Merk fully con &ied with all atese of the f asminor Stenderds l

2. Subject Aree Questions' X

during the operating tests.

3. Ucense Level' X

c.

Integrated Plant Operations (DA)

~

ge,m 2 e.7

• The demeanor of the eneminor during the esem procese wee profeselonel et all times.

s

1. Transients / Events' X

2. Competencies' X

d. Other (Describe in Comments)*

2. Test Administration (CS 302)

e. General (B. C.1)

1. Applicant Briefmgo X

2. Adhered to tamm Outline X

3. Use of timulator X

4. Knowledge of Facility X

5. Integrated Administrative Topico X

6. Asked f ollow up as Necessary X

7. Demeanor / Professionalism Comment Reg'd or

b. Walk through (C.2)

L

1. Admin. Topics integrated X

2. Enem Technique X

c. Integrated Plant Operations (C.3) s

1. Admin. Topico Integrated X

2. Ixem Techenque X

• Reiponsibility for these items is shared by the author, the d.

Other (Descrfbe in Comments)

Chief Examiner, and the test administrator, if there is a problem,.

the auditor should ensure that all sosponsible indeviduele are

3. Documentation / Grading (ES 303) counseled and the test supports the license recommendation.

e. UNS AT Grades Justified (C.3)

X

b. Report Complete X

c. Other (Describe in Comments)

F.

• HOLB.MC 170,11/01/91, ATTACHMENT 2 (FORM ES 5015)

OPERATING TEST AUDIT t seminer: Mark Riches iPNL) raciaiy: Browns r.ery Nuclear Plant Chief tuonwner: J.H. Bartley (Under instruction of D.C. Peyne)

Date of Operstmg Test: September 21 24,1992 Author: N/A (Dete of lest audit. rmne)

Carcto Test Type / Level: jnitel / Requel

//

fdQ (1/ M) / EQ Auditor's Name: Lawrence %ck, (NRR, DRCH, HOLB)

Signature:

g y- [

ES Commente Reting Factore Conformance (Cross reference to the opphcoble toting f actor in lef t column.)

1. Test Scope and Content (ES 301)

Yes No Mark administered initialintegrated plant operations eneminatione e.

Adrrnn Topics (D.2)

(simulator scenarios) and orat/welk through plant eneminations (Job Performen:o Measures and questions) to several candidates.

1. Scope (License Level)'

X (Three HDs and one SROU)

2. Depth (License Levell' X

Mark fully comphed with all stees of the taeminer Standerde during the operating tests.

b. Systems Walk through (D 3)

1. Safety Function Distnbution' X

ftem z e 7 The demeanor of the eneminer during the exam

2. Subject Aree Guestions X

process wee professional at all times.

3. License Level' X

Only one wookness wee observed. While administering the oral!welk enemination, the enemmer did not maintain control of c.

Integrated Plant Operations (D.4) enemination meteriale on three occasions. On one occasion, the enemination meteriolo (Two JPM e ) were left in the break room.

1. Transients /tvents X

However, no exam con promise existed due to the auditor retnevmg the enarrwnetion material and memtemed control of it

2. Competencies, X

until the contract eneminer inquired of its whereabouts. Another incident occurred in the simulator room when the condidate left d.

Other (Describe in Comments),

notes or d JPM procedure on the operator desk. Af ter prompting the eneminer by the auditor, the material was collected and

2. Test Administration (LS 302) controlled. A third occasion occurred when the cand.dete lef t his o.

General (B, C.1) wntten onswet to e presenpted question on the elmulater operator desk eres. Again the auditor prompted the enemmer to

1. Appheent Bnehngs X

collect and maintain control of the examination rnatorials.

Feedback to the eneminer disclosed that this has been a problem

2. Adhered to Exam Outhne X

for him due to carrying and keeping up with volume of emenvnetion material while on the welkthrough examination. The

3. Use of Simulator X

ouditor proported that 6f the condidate wee instructed to write his name on any eneminntkn material given to him the condidate 4.

Knowledge et ree!Iity X

would be more MtrNto teturn the metenalin order that exam nation comprom so would not be perceived. The enernner S. Integrated Administrative Topice X

tned this approach and commented that this worked out better for both panes. The potential and perception of enemination

6. Asked Follow up es Necessary X

c ompromis' en not be underestimated. The candidate should not

• E d '"'

• E*

Y*

• • • U

7. Demeanor / Professionobsm Comment Reg'd 8F option due to the trarnendous safety impact that a licensing decision enteils.

b. Walk-theough (C.2)

1. Admm. Topics integrated X

2. Enem Technique X

c.

Integrated Plant Operations (C.3)

1. Admin. Topics integrated X

• Responsibihty f or these items is shared by the author, the

2. Enem Technique X

Chief Eneminer, and the test administrator if there is a problem.

the auditor should ensure that all respons&le individuals are d.

Other (Describe in Comments) counseled and the test supports the license recommendation.

3. Documentation / Grading (ES 303)

e. UNS AT Grades Justified (C 3)

X

b. Report Completo X

c. Other (Desenbe in Comments)

_