ML20203B651
| ML20203B651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1985 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Connelly S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203B524 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-362 NUDOCS 8607180270 | |
| Download: ML20203B651 (216) | |
Text
__ __ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -
a4s q IJedeTE3 2101SR
,/p ',, NUCLEA3 f.ECULATDtY kOhmeissION j ' >
5 SitGtON lll 3 j ?**ecosEVEt.T nomo
- C atree att.vse, eLLsseots 6et37
%,...'./ .
JUN 28 $dE.
MEMORANDUM FOR: Sharon R. Connelly, Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor FROM: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III SU5 JECT: OPERATOR TEST SCORES AT FERMI 2 (ALLEGED WRONGDOING BY NRC PERSONNEL)
This memorandum is in response to questions raised by Mr. Tony hard of your T staff concerning my memorandum to you dated March 25, 1985. At that time, we forwarded our review of Operator Test Scores at fermi 2 and alleged hRC wrongdoing for your information. Mr. Ward's questions and the Region's response are included in the enclosure.
- f you have any further questions or comments please contact T. Tambling or E. Stapleton of my staff (FTS 388-5500).
~
..k w b% % c % ~
.. James G. Kep$1er Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
As stated cc w$seclosure:
B. Boger. OLB C. N. Met 1, Rlll e
0607100270 86070'/
PDR FOIA PUNTENNG6-36P PDH '* '
+- '* * '.-..
ATTACIDfENT 2 4
. - - . - . ~ . . ~ . - . - , . . . . .. -- ,. .- . ..
REGION III RESPONSE TO OIA REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING OPERATOR TEST SCORES AT FERMI 2 I
On June 10, 1985, Mr. Tony Ward, DIA contacted Mr. Tom Tambling of the
' Region III staff. Mr. Ward infonned Mr. Tambling that DIA had initiated an Inquiry Report (No. 85-43) into the Operator test scores at Fermi 2. Mr. Ward identified a series of questions to which answers were needed in order to i close out the OIA inquiry.
I Diestion No.1 Were the walk-through examinations on February 14, 1985 reviewed by NRC licensing personnel to determine the validity of those examinations?
Answer Yes. Region III licensing personnel reviewed the walk-through examinations to determine the validity of the two test scores in question. The review showed that the proper number of systems were listed and the required number of subjects were completed in the matrix. Region III operator licensing personnel went back to the Femi site and administered the portion of the examination which was incomplete. Licensing personnel also conducted a spot check of the tro applicant's knowledge in other areas to remove any suspicion that the applicants did not possess the necessary knowledge to pass the examination.
Question No. 2 4
{ Was the use of white-out eliminated?
t Answer Yes. All Region III examiners have been told that such use is unacceptable.
This was documented in Mr. R. L. Spessard's memo to A. 8. Davis dated j .
~
March 15, 1985. Region 111 also requested Headquarters to infonn the contract i examiners of this policy. ,
! Question No. 3 i
Was a policy statement issued?
Answer i
i ho written statement was issued. Operatnr Licensing Branch (Ot8) personnel in Headquarters infomed all Regional Section Chiefs that white-out was not to be i used. The Project Managers responsible for contractors were also informed of l this policy and instructed to explain the policy to contract personnel. This i
information was obtained as a result of conversations with OL8 personnel.
l' I
1 5
- . ~ - , - , - ,_--_.,-,.--n c- L- _ _ - . . . - - . - - - . , - . , . . , - - - . , , . . . - - , - . - - -
l Question No. 4 What was the explanation for the use of white-out (in the first place)?
Answer Mone of the individuals who used white-out on the Termi examinations were contacted as to their reasons for using white-out. In some instances, we were able to determine that correct grades were placed under wrong categories, whited out, and placed in the correct category. In these instances, we believe a legitimate mistake had been made. Our review showed that in no instance would the whited out grade have had any impact on the pass / fait-grading of an exam. To our knowledge, the use of white-out was not expressly prohibited before these occurrences. Therefore, examiners would not have been in violation of any existing examiner standaros or NUREG 1021.
Question No. 5 T
Were the candidates retested?
Answer Yes. The two candidates were retetted and passed examinations administered on April 10, 1985. In addition to the walk-through examination, the NRC examiner also spot checked the two individuals' knowledge in other areas to determine the validity of other areas that were not suspect.
Question No. 6 Has OLB looked into the continued use the the contract examiner?
Answer The contract examiner who conducted the two walk-through examinations in questior will not be involved in any hRC operator licensing activities. The e individual has not participated in any NRC operator licensing activities since the Feret examinations. This information was obtained as a result of
- conversations with OLB personnel.
(Nestion No. 7 Had the individual previously been involved in problems with other testing?
Answer NRC Headquarters and Region !!! licensing personnel knew of no incidents that would have been indicative of a problem in this area.
2 I
Ouestion No. 8 Why was the "NA" placed on the check sheet and by whom?
(
Reference:
Attachment 3, page 1 of 3)
Answer In the judgement of the staff member (B. Stapleton) who conducted the review of this allegation, it appeared that the reviewing official had signed off that items 3, 4 and 5 had been completed. Mr. Stapleton's review of records showed that items 3, 4, and 5 were not applicable (e.g.. there were no borderline cases so none could be reviewed). The pen strokes led Mr. Stapleton to believe that NA" was placed after the reviewer had signed off. The pen strokes appeared similar to that of the examiner. None of the individuals involved were interviewed by Region III personnel. This discrepancy dated back to November 1983 and would not have impacted the final detensination of pass / fail.
T Question No. 9 Were these two tests re-evaluated?
Answer
, These teps were evaluated in reference to the comuments contained in Mr. Tambling's March 8,1985 memo to Mr. Keppler. It was detemined that the discrepancies svould not have impacted the final detemination for pass / fail.
Question No. 10 What role does the NRC play in operator testing? Are there referenced procedures or a NUREG available that describe their role?
Answer The NRC's role in operator testing is quite detailed and is defined in several documents. Documents describing the NRC's role include. but are not limited to.10 CFR Part 55. NUREG 1021. and Operator Licensing Assessment Standards.
Question No. 11 What are the procedures for testing and row is an operator certified by the Region?
Answer As with Question No. 10, the procedures for testing are extensive. The procedures for testing as well as how an operator is certified by the Region are contained in NUREG 1021 and the Assessment Standards.
3
Question No. 12 What is provided by the NRC to the operator after testing?
Answer A#ter grading of emaninations has beer. completed ths NRC issues a letter to Ibc applicent irfornir.g the indivic;al of the status of their exas sccres. If ar indfvidual passes, a license is issuec with limiting conditions (e.g., glasses).
Ir.dhicuelt fat'ed arc art whe f ailo'eserinaticrs tc.1d their ortionsare irfcceec in-ludir.g o' the particular reena-inatier area arc tne they' arcee
- -:.:e s s . The NRC issaes ar icspectior report tc the utility ir.forring tr.e utt'.ity of the statt.s O' tne applicants' examinations. Ap:ltcar.ts are else s'ser tee .'e:ed esa-'rret' es. Cortes of tFc accertance and cenial lettE*s art ette; bed.
1-pj ict k.'S
'\ Are the c.;eratc" tents e.er ch6cged, and if se, how cf ten?
. Answee Operator tests are changed every time an eram is aer.inistered. Operator Lices. sing personr.el are respcnsible for compiling the tests. Tests are consil6d ir, accorcarce with htREG 1021.
StestionNo.14 15.it ressible te stawc poir.ts?
A s or ir.c ar.smee to this y.estior wobld have to be that it is possible to shave points. We have cetencined that NRC Region !!! emaniners adher6 to the examiner standards and have a high degree of competency. There is a systes of checks and balances integrated into %e standards and NUREG to minimize the possibilities of point shaving. It should be noted that our review of this matter did not substantiate attempts by anyone to shave points or. alter scores to improve a candidate's grade.
Suls,t i,on,,No. 15 Did O! get involved in this case?
Ans_wer No. Of was informed of the allegation, but the allegation did not point to wrongdoir.g by licensee personnel. Region Ill management concluded that the p:$$ible wrorgdoing by idlC personnel would be a subject appropriate for 01A review.
Attachments:
- 1. Exartner Standards
- 2. SRO License -
- 3. R0 License 4 Cenial Letter 4
- _ __ . . _a s . l OrF2CZ OT IM5PECTOR MD AvD2?cm !
VDCT3Cm:2CE MN pczi ' I
( Dete - '7//f75 Sw,,crt Tst.le WM 54/' wM 1ru A c::A h.1, Q[52/3 ltlatrl 1:. , s u p .e w: s t ae:
f*J~d a *
.E -
ve:if ae *s Ctrrunu or sgper.mo
[
f
- s m)g
[ 1.~., e 1 p '.o: 's II -
f a ca w ct= =.
1- : 1 c I;,!
- s. =1 c. .> a
[$e /hw l
\/ y / (% g0a>.c a9>i17.s - dvd/L<- L e M c. , - 6tL-A<,1 3 7 -
v
- /d xacNwnJ i 5 cc.* telallu L (0 w
it],
8 LJal f%riA,aie, .
u i y
/khewu.,)
_/ ,1 4 4>>;e / Eau - C.1%u.wJ ajo d , L /m saa!aw.u.e.d L,uhn,w .
/ '
(. '
dc.ns.,,m
// {
/ / .3 Ma4. a..ta/ tcilmaa toe <c.
' a.1 o . mo esdc ~
n ,sd. . .*
aau<.altsuu,;<.?
. iAtart.m,a.
O**iB;
,$ t/ 4/ "7*/,, gem.jufjaa nier1?></$i, .." fn m ,a l e L , - .:a s. u s . 2 % A L\Y %2/ .
ai D ,;,.;5..'~ k .-c,,:<..s ,. /J psuaA y oCi m .
- a. ; .2. conc 6sios. 1... ,..-ja As uuuhe-w '. m b d..." '
A aadwuwJula.wa-a 9 4 w.asu aw.,wtysa. 4coevedo yP V'
. pnnoco, UNITE 3 STATES g* ),, NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMisslON g g crioN m
;. e ne noosavstr noao g ,e, atan attvu. itunois enn
..... gp. /
JUN 28 885 ( - MEMORANDUM FOR: Sharon R. Connelly, Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor FROM: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III
SUBJECT:
OPERATOR TEST SCORES AT FERMI 2 (ALLEGED WRONGDOING BY NRC PERSONNEL) This memorandun is in response to questions raised by Mr. Tony Ward of your g staff concerning my memorandum to you dated March 25, 1985. At that time, we forwarded our review of Operator Test Scores at Fermi 2 and alleged NRC
, wrongdoing for your information. Mr. Ward's questions and the Region's response are included in the enclosure.
If you have.any further questions or comments please contact T. Tambling or B. Stapleton of my staff (FTS 388-5500). Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure: B. Boger, OLB C. H. Weil, RIII e h e Yb /
~
REGION III RESPONSE TO OIA REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 70NCERNING OPERATOR TEST SCORES AT FERMI 2 On June 10, 1985, Mr. Tony Ward, OIA contacted Mr. Tom Tambling of the Region III staff.'Mr. Ward informed Mr. Tambling that DIA had initiated an Inquiry Report (No. 85-43) into the Operator test scores at Fermi 2. Mr. Ward identified a series:of que'stions to which answers were needed in order to close out the OIA inquiry. Question No. 1 Were the walk-through examinations on February 14, 1985 reviewed by NRC licensing personnel to determine the validity of those examinations? y Answer i Yes. Region III licensing personnel reviewed the walk-through examinations to determine the validity of the two test scores in question. The review showed that the proper number of systems were listed and the required number of subjects were completed in the matrix. Region III operator licensing personnel went back to the Fermi site and administered the portion of the enmination which7as-incomplete. Licensing personnel also conducted a spot check of the two applicant's knowledge in other areas to remove any suspicion that the applicants did not possess the necessary knowledge to pass the examination. Question No. 2 Was the use of white-out eliminated? Answer Yes. All Region III examiners have been told that such use is unacceptable. This was documented in Mr. R. L. Spessard's memo to A. B. Davis dated March 15, 1985. Region III also requested Headquarters to inform the contract examiners of this policy. Question No. 3 Was a policy statement issued? Answer No written statement was issued, Operator Licensing Branch (OLB) personnel in Headquarters informed all Regional Section Chiefs that white-out was not to be used. The Project Managers responsible for contractors were also fnformed of this policy and instructed to explain the policy to contract personnel. This information was obtained as a result of conversations with OLB personnel.
,a
l l l i Question No. 4 What was the explanation for the use of white-out (in the first place)? Answer i None of the individuals who used white-out on the Fermi examinations were contacted as to their reasons for using white-out. In some instances, he were I able to determine that correct grades were placed under wrong categories, whited out, and placed in the correct category. In these instances, we believe a legitimate mistake had been made. Our review showed that in no instance would the whited out grade have had any impact on the pass / fait-a grading of an exam. To our knowledge, the use of white-out was not expressly prohibited before these occurrences. Therefore, examiners would not have been in violation of any existing examiner standards or NUREG 1021. ] Question No. 5 Were the candidates retested? ] l Answer Yes. The two candidates were retested and passed examinations administered on
! . April 10, 1985. In addition to the walk-through examination, the NRC examiner l also spot checked the two individuals' knowledge in other areas to determine j the validity of other areas that were not suspect.
1 Question No. 6 1 Has OLB looked into the continued use the the contract examiner? .i
- j. Answer The contract examiner who conducted the two walk-through examinations in
; question will not be involved in any NRC operator licensing activities. The
- individual has not participated in any NRC operator licensing activities since
- ; the Fermi examinations. This information was obtained as a result of ,
i conversations with OLB personnel, i I Question No. 7 ! Had the individual previously been involved in problems with other testing? Answer ] ! NRC Headquarters and Region !!! licensing personnel knew of no incidents that i would have been indicative of a problem in this area. I . ! i l I 1 ! 2 { i
Question No. 8 Why was the "NA" placed on the check sheet and by whom? (
Reference:
Attachraent 3, page 1 of 3) Answer In the judgement of the staff member (B. Stapleton) who conducted the review of this allegation, it appeared that the reviewing official had signed off that items 3, 4, and 5 had been completed. Mr. Sta showed that items 3, 4, and 5 were not applicable (pleton's e.g., there were review no of records borderline cases, so none could be reviewed). The pen strokes led Mr. Stapleton to believe that "NA" was placed after the reviewer had signed off. The pen strokes appeared similar to that of the examiner. None of the individuals involved were interviewed by Region III personnel. This discrepancy dated back to November 1983 and would not have impacted the final determination of pass / fail. 4* Question No. 9 Were these two tests re-evaluated? Answer These tests were evaluated in reference to the comments contained in Mr. Tambling's March 8, 1985 memo to Mr. Keppler. It was determined that the discrepancies would not have impacted the final determination for pass / fail. Question No. 10 What role does the hRC play in operator testing? Are there referenced procedures or a NUREG available that describe their role? Answer The NRC's role in operator testing is quite detailed and is defined in several documents. Documents describing the NRC's role include, but are not limited to,10 CFR Part 55, NUREG 1021, and Operator Licensing Assessment Standards. Question No. 11 What are the procedures for testing and how is an operator certified by the Region? Answer As with Question No. 10, the procedures for testing are extensive. The procedures for testing as well as how an operator is certified by (he Region are contained in NUREG 1021 and the Assessment Standards. 3
Question No. 12 What is provided by the NRC to the operator after testing? Answer After grading of examinations has been completed the NRC issues a letter to the applicant informing the individual of the status of their exam scores. If an individual passes, a licen.se is issued with limiting conditions (e.g., glasses). Individuals who fail examinations are informed of the particular area they failed and are told of their options including reexamination and the appeal process. The NRC issues an inspection report to the utility informing the utility of the status of the applicants' examinations. Applicants are also given their graded examinations. Copies of the acceptance and denial letters are attached. Question No. 13 4 ' Are the operator tests ever changed, and if so, how often? -i Answer Operator tests are changed every time an exam is administered. Operator Licensing personnel are responsible for compiling the tests. Tests are compiled in accordance with NUREG 1021. Question No. 14 . Is it possible to shave points? Answer The answer to this question would have to be that it is possible to shave points. We have determined that NRC Region III examiners adhere to the examiner standards and have a high degree of competency. There is a system of - checks and balances integrated into the standards and NUREG to minimize the possibilities of point shaving. It should be noted that our review of this
~
matter did not substantiate attempts by anyone to shave points or alter scores to improve a candidate's grade. Question No. 15 Did O! get involved in this case? Answer No. O! was informed of the allegation, but the allegation did not point to wrongdoing by licensee personnel. Region III management concluded that the possible wrongdoing by NRC personnel would be a subject appropriate for 01A review. . Attachments:
- 1. Examiner Standards
- 2. SR0 License
- 3. R0 License
- 4. Denial Letter 4
'/ 'S UNITED STATES 8 }, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAswiwoTom, e. c. 20sss
; -l
\..../ REV 1 10/1/84 Instructions: File this change notice in the binder preceding page v, Contents. Replace superseded pages with new pages SUPERSEDED PAGES .
N_EW PAGES . Contents V - VIII Contents V - VIII ES 101 1-2 ES 101 1 ES 103 1-5 ES 103 1-5 ES 104 1-10 ES 104 1-2 ES 105 1-13 ES 105 1-14 ES 106 1-4 ES 106 1-4 ES 107 1-3 ES 107 1-3 T ES 108 1-4 ES 108 1-3 ES 109 1-6 ES 109 1-6
- ES 110 1-6 New Standard ES 111 1-3 New Standard ES 112 1-4 ES 201a 1 ES 201 1-17 ES 201 1-21 ~
ES 202 1-6 ES 202 1-6 ES 203 1-3 ES 203 1-3 ES 204 1-7 New Standard ES 301 1-33 ES 301 1-35 ES 302 1-12 ES 302 1-12 ES 303 1-8 ES 303 1-9 ES 304 1-3 ES 304 1-3 ES 305 1-5 ES 305 1-7 ES 306 1-10 New Standard ES 401 1 ES 401 1-2 ES 403 1-3 ES 403 1-3 ES 404 1-4 New Standard
- ES 501 1-4 ES 501 1-5
~
ES 502 1-6 ES 502 1-6 ES 601 1-11 ES 601 1-15 Examiner Standards 1 of 1
o . Contents Rev. 1 10/1/84 i CONTENTS ES-101 Purpose and Format of Operator Licensing Examiner Standards ES-102 Applicability of Commission Regulations and Guides to Operator Licenses . ES-103 Assignment of Examiners To Administer Examinations ES-104 Procedures for Postexamination Activities ES-105 Indoctrination Program for New Examiners ES-106 Administration of Examinations at Multiunit Power Stations T [o ES-107 Quality Assurance Program for Review of Written Examinations ES-108 Quality Assurance Program for Review of Graded Examinations ES-109 Eligibility Requirements for Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator License Candidates ES-110 Eligibility Requirements for Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator License Candidates - Non Power Reactors ES-111 Granting of Waivers from the Provisions,of Operator Licensing Requirements Requested by Operator and Senior Operator Applicants ES-112 Appeals of License Denials ES-201 Administration of Written Examinations to Reactor Operator Candidates - Power Reactors
~
ES-202 Scope of Written Examinations Administered to Reactor Operators - Power Reactors ES-203 Structure of Written Examinations Administered to Reactor Operators - Power Reactors ES-204 Administration and Preparation of Written Examinations for Reactor Operator Candidates - Non Power Reactors ES-301 Administration of Operating and Oral Examinations to Reactor Operators and Serior Reactor Operators - Power Reactors ES-302 Scope of Operating and Oral Examinations Administered t'o Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators - Power Reactors l Examiner Standards v
l l F CONTENTS (Continued) ES-303 Instructions on Use of Forms for Operating and Oral Examinations I Administered to Reactor Operators - Power Reactors l ES-304 Iastructions on Use 'of Forms for Operating and Oral Examinations Adn.inistered To Upgrade Senior Reactor Oaerators - Power Reactors ES-305 Instructions on Use of Forms for Operating and Oral Examinations Administered to Instant Senior Reactor Operators - Power Reactors ) ES-306 Scope and Instructions for Operating Examinations Administered gg at - Non Power Reactors
< ES-401 Administration of Written Examinations to Senior Reactor ]' Operators - Power Reactors 1
ES-402 Scope of Written Examinations Administered to Senior Reactor Operators - Power Reactors t ES-403 Structure of Written Examinations Administered to Senior Reactor Operators - Power Reactors i ES-404 Scope and Structure of Written Examinations for Senior Operator Candidates - Non Power Reactors ES-501 Administration of Simulator Examinations to Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators - Power Reactors ES-502 Scope of Simulator Examinations Administered to Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators - Power Reactors ES-601 Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluation I LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ES-103 Attachment 1, Chick Sheet for' Completion of Examination Assignment ES-103 Attachment 2, Request for Administration of Written and Operating Examination for Operator Licensing ES-104 Attachment 1, Exit Meeting Report
- ES-104 Attachment 2, Examination Report Examiner Standards vi
. .- . .u.. u w.. u. a . . . . : =.a.a . . x . . .=.
e LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Continued) ES-105 Attachment 1, Observation Training Program ES-105 Attachment 2, Oral Exam Audit i ES-107 Attachment 1, Written Examination Quality Assurance Checkoff Sheet ES-108 Attachment 1, Examination Grading Quality Assurance Checkoff Sheet ES-201 Attachment 1, Reference Material Requirements for Deactor/ Senior
, Reactor Operator Licensing Examinations 5 ES-201 Attachment 2, Requirenients ?or Adm nistration of Written i
l Examinations
! ES-201 Attachment 3, Letter to Facility Formalizing Examination Schedule
- ES-201 Attachment 4, NRC/ Facility Staff Written Examination Review Guide l l
ES-201- Attachment 5, Power Plant Examination Results Summary ES-201 Attachment 6, Examination Administration Quality Assurance Checkoff Sheet ES-203 Attachment 1, Operator License Examination Cover Sheet ES-204 Attachment 1, Examination Results Summary Non-Power ES-204 Attachment 2, Non-Power Operator License Examination Cover Sheet ES-301 Attachment 1, Operator Examination Report ES-301 Attachment 2, Senior Operator Upgrade Examination Report ES-301 Attachment 3, Seninr Operator Examination Report ES-302 Attachment 1, List of Topics for Oral Examinations - Boiling- i Water Reactors ES-302 Attachment 2, List of Topics for Oral Examinations - Pressurized-Water Reactors ES-303 Attachment 1, Simulator Exam Report ES-305 Attachment 1, Sample Reactor Operator Examination Report Examiner Standards vii
1 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Continued) F ES-305 Attachment 2, Sample Instant Senior Peactor Operator Examination Report ES-306 Attachment 1, Topics for Operaing Examinations Non-Power ES-403 Attachment 1, Senior Operator Examination Cover Sheet ES-404 Attachment 1, Non-Power Senior Operator Examination Cover Sheet ES-502 Attachment 1, Control Manipulat, ions ES-601 Attachment 1, Assignment To Evaluate Licensed Operator Requali-
; , fication Program , ES-601 Attachment 2, Form Letter to Facility Vice President - Reference Material Required ES-601 Attachment 3, NRC-Administered Requalification Examination Results Summary Sheet ES-601 Attachment 4, Requalification Program Evaluation Report 1
l O Examiner Standards viii
- r. .--z--..-~.-.a...:, . - . . . . . , . . -
ES-101 Rev. I 10/1/84 l PURPOSE AND FORMAT OF OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINER STANDARDS A'. Purpose The Operator Licensing Examiner Standards establish the proce/ res and practices for examining and licensing candidates for NRC licenses pursu-ant to Part 55 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 55). These standards will
- 1. describe the provisions of the act and regulations on which the program is based
- 2. provide for equitable and consistent administration of examinations to all candidates at all facilities subject to the regulations ,
, 3. provide guidance for training of new examiners or other interested parties with respect to the details of the examining program B. Format
. Each standard will explain rules, procedures, and practices for a partic-ular aspect of the program. The designation of each standard will be in the form ES-xyy, where the xyy refers to a three-digit number designed to place the standards in logical groupings for ready reference. The digit symbolized by x ranges from 1 to 9. All standards beginning with each digit refer to aspects of the program in a given grouping, as follows:
. 1. general administrative standards
- 2. written examination, reactor operator
- 3. operating examination, senior reactor operator or reactor operator I L
4, written examination, senior reactor coerator
- 5. simulator examination, senior reactor operator or reactor operator
- 6. requalifications examination
- 7. instructor certification examination )
- 8. fuel handler foreman examination
- 9. unassigned The two-digit number "yy" is a sequential number (01, ':1, etc.) to" differ-( entiate standards within a particular group.
l Examiner Standards 1 of 2 1 I
ES-101 C. Reference F Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, " Energy," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 41 1 Examiner Standards 2 of 2
a..w w. _.o a.m . a _.. ;_._.. . . _ . . -.1- . _ . . . . , ES-103 Rev. I 10/1/84 ASSIGNMENT OF EXAMINERS TO ADMINISTER EXAMINATIONS A. Purpose This standard establishes the policy for the assignment of examiners for examination administration. Included in this standard are descriptions and use of examiner assignment sheets, assignments and duties of the chief examiner, and the number of examiners required to administer examinations to a group of applicants. B. Initiation of Requirement for an Examination In the past, receipt of applications for operator licenses at headquar-ters was the first indication of the requirement for examinations. .} However, it has become a common occurrence for facilities to initiate t contact well before applications are sent so that tentative examination dates can be established. Since resources have become more restricted, section chiefs should request an annual training and examination schedule from each plant for planning purposes. Sectior chiefs are responsible for ensuring that examination assignments are completed. A " Check Sheet for Completion of Examination Assignment," Attachment 1 to this standard, may be used to track examination prograss. Section chiefs shall assign available examiners to administer the exami-nations on the dates arranged with the facility. Section chiefs should ensure that Examination Assignment Sheets are prepared as far in advance as possible, but at least 2 weeks before the examinations. Examination Assignment Sheet distribution shall include all examiners assigned, the facility resident inspector, appropriate regional distribution as estab-lished by the regional administrator, and the operating reactor project manager or licensing project manager. If laboratory examiners are assigned, the assignment sheet shall include the control FIN number and ; shall include the laboratory group leader and the official contract file on distribution. Conflicts in scheduling contract examiners shall be
~
l resolved by the headquarters and regional section chiefs. If they cannot agree, the Branch Chief, OLB, and regional branch chiefs shall resolve the conflicts. The chief examiner shall have the authority to resolve scheduling prob-lems. Scheduling and rescheduling will be done directly by the facility contact and the chief examiner. The chief examiner shall be responsible for inforniing tN section chief and assigned examiners of all scheduling changes. A letter confirming the examination dates and requesting submission of required information should be prepared by the section , chief or chief examiner for signature by the appropriate regiona'l authority. I l The letter normally should' request infomation at least 60 days before the scher Jled examination dates and, therefore, should be signed out at least 90 days before the examinations to all w the facility time to respond. Examiner Standards 1 of 5 l
._...s . . ..<
. . _., m .. _. .c_- _ . . . . .
ES-103 C. Assignment of Examiners y The examiner's primary section assignment, other examination commitments, geographical location, and availability at the projected time should be considered in assignments. An examiner who administered the operator oral examination normally should not be assigned to administer the senior operator oral examination to the same candidate. An examiner who has failed a candidate normally should not be assigned to give the same candidate another oral examination. Examiners who have been previous employees of a facility shall not conduct or perform any portion of the examination process at that facility for a minimum period of 6 months. The extent and nature of the potential conflict of interest shall be made known to the section chief by the examiner. The level and amount of participation in the facility examination shall be at the discretion of the branch chief. An examiner who was previously employed by a facility is responsible for informing his immediate supervisor of any relevant facts or special circumstances pertaining to his examination
'I assignment or other factors that might appear as being a conflict of interest. Other factors that should be disclosed by the examiner and considered by the supervisor are:
- 1. the length of time the examiner worked at the facility
_ 2. the time that has elapsed since the examiner left the facility
- 3. the nature and extent of previous relationships with former asso-ciates being examined
- 4. reasons why the examiner terminated his employment
- 5. how the examiner regards the candidate (s) or his former associates at the facility 6.
other factors that could impact upon the administration, performance, evaluation, or results of the examination. L prescribed. Criteria that will identify every conflict of interest issue cannot be The application of sound supervisory judgment on the facts of each case is necessary. In doubtful cases, advice from General Counsel should be obtained. When the regional office operator licensing section chief determines a need for contract examiners, he should request OLB-HQ to assign contract examiners. Formal requests should be made at least 4 months prior to the date of the examinations. Requests for contract examiners less than 4 months prior to the date of the examination should be made as early as possible by telephone. Telephone requests should be followed up with a formal written request. Requests for contract exminers should specify: (1) the facility requesting the examinations, (2) the types of examinations required, (3) the number of candidates for each type of examination, (4) the dates of the examinations, (5) the regional office contact, (6) the facility Examiner Standards 2 of 5
u .. - . . . l l ES-103 l contact, and (7) the number of contract examiners required and the level of effort required of the contract examiners. D. Number of Examiners The target average replacement examination shall be eight candidates and will require two examiners to prepare and administer the written and oral examinations. Normally, a sufficient number of examiners should be assigned so that each examiner will complete no more than four operating examinations per visit regardless of whether the assignment is for cold or replacement examinations. In exceptional cases five complete oral examinations per visit may be required. Request by utilties for exam-inations for less than eight candidates should be discouraged in the advanced planning stage. If less than eight candidates are to be examined, the section chief shall ensure that the most efficient use of examiners is made and that proctors are obtained as necessary. l
- }
'5 E. Chief Examiner Whenever a group of examiners are assigned to administer the examinations, one member of this group will be designated as chief examiner. The chief examiner is responsible for coordinating the details of the examina-tion schedule with the facility contact and the other examiners, and for keeping the assigning section chief informed. Because the need for rescheduling can occur on short notice, the rescheduling can be most expeditiously accomplished directly between the facility contact and examining team through the chief examiner. If rescheduling of examina-tions involving contract examiners is required, the project manager for the contract shall be notified as soon as possible. It is NRC policy that one member of the examining team shall be a regional examiner who will be assigned as chief examiner. If no regional examiner is on the team, a contract examiner will be designated chief examiner.
O' F. Returning Facility-Provided Material
' The chief examiner is responsible for ensuring that facility literature required by examiners to prepare for the examination is returned to the facility as soon as possible. All literature should be returned to the facility soon after expiration of the 20-day period allowed for appealing denials. If denials have been appealed, the chief examiner shall deter-mine if all or part of the information must be retained and shall be responsible for ensuring that it is returned. If the examination resulted in no failures, then the material should be returned as soon j as the licenses are issued. The chief examiner shall inform the other examiners when the literature should be returned.
~
- 4 l
l . Examiner Standards 3 of 5 l l . - -- - _ . __ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - __ . . _ . _ - - _ _
, . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . - - -
, . 1 ES-103 ATTACHMENT 1 CHECK SHEET FOR COMPLETION OF EXAMINATION ASSIGNMENT E Facility 1 Date of Exams j
DUE ITEM DAYS DESCRIPTION INITIALS DATE 1 -120 Examination schedule agreement with facility 2 -120 Assignment of examiners 3 -90 Letter to vice president sent 4 -60 Proctoring arranged 4' 5 -60 Applications received t (NRC 398 and 396) 6 -45 Applications reviewed 7 -60 Literature received 8 -30 Travel arrangements made 9 -30 Assignment sheet completed 10 -15 Examinations prepared 11 -7 Examinations reviewed and corrected 12 0 Examinations administered . 13 15 Grading completed 14 15 Graded examinations received by NRC 15 20 Review completed 16 28 Licenses / denials typed 17 28 Licenses / denials mailed l 18 30 Final Exam report ' 19 50 Literature returned
- 20 50 Examiners notified to !
dispose of records l j Extminer Standards 4 of 5 y-- ,,.. - , - .,__. ., ,.
ES-103 ATTACHMENT 2 REQUESTFOR$DMINISTRATIONOFWRITTENANDOPERATING EXAMINATION FOR OPERATOR LICENSING NRC EXAMINER (S): REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATION OF WRITTEN AND OPERATING EXAMINATION FOR OPERATOR LICENSING Please make arrangements to administer written and operating examinations to the fo: lowing applicants: APPLICANT DOCKET N0. EXAMINATION TYPE 3 t 1 e Facility and Location: Facility
Contact:
Chief Examiner: Written Examination To Be Prepared by R0: SR0: Dates of Examinations: Branch Chief CC; , l Examiner Standards 5 of 5
- n. . . . ,- . .- . __
. . - . ~ . , . . ~ . . . . . . . . - . . . - .. .... . .- - . - - ... - . . . - . - .- . . . . . . . -
ES-104 Rev. I 10/1/84 l PROCEDURES FOR POSTEXAMINATION ACTIVITIES A. Purpose This standard describes the procedures and policy for postexamination dabriefing with facility management and the submission of reports and recommendations concerning the examination. B. Debriefing Sessions In addition to the written examination review conducted in conformance to ES 201 section H, the licensee is frequently interested in holding an exit meeting with the examiner (s) regarding the performance of the group
- 3 of candidates. Although this is not a part of the examination procedure
- ? and will not affect the results regarding licensing of any current s candidate, it is appropriate for NRC to assist the licensee in his efforts in training and providing qualified operators, and the examiner (s) should hold a debriefing session of this nature. The debriefing session is held with the staff members designated by the licensee, usually the plant or operations supervisor and/or training director. The current
- candidates shall not be present, and the review of the written examina-tion shall not be reopened. The NRC resident inspector shall be informed
- of the meeting so he can attend if he so desires. The chief examiner shall advise the resident inspector of plant deficiencies before the j meeting and incorporate the resident inspector's comments as appropriate.
. In the discussion, the examiner should try to detail the areas of knowl-edge that have been identified as strong and weak points of the group of candidates overall. The chief examiner should provide a list of names of candidates who clearly passed the operating examinations. It should be pointed out that those not listed m_ay a pass but are considered marginal at that time. In addition, discussions concerning recent licensing 4 activities may be of interest to the facility personnel, and the chief l - examiner should make every effort to answer questions to the fullest extent poss*ble. Questions that are policy matters, or for which there are no clear answers, shall be referred to the appropriate regional section chief or branch chief for response, and the licensee shall be , informed that the matter is being referred for reply. The question will 1 be referred to the Brancn Chief, OLB, if it is a generic or major policy ' issue. C. Submission of Reports and Recommendatioqs
- 1. Exit i4eeting Report
! Following the examination visit the chief examiner should report to the I section chief the items discussed at the exit meeting and shall provide i a written report of the exit meeting to the section chief if a written Examiner Standards 1 of 10
~
. . l I
ES-104 report is requested or required by the section. chief. A written report shall be provided to the section chief if there were licensee questions or comments that were not resolved in the exit meeting. Attachment 1 of this standard should be used for the exit meeting report whenever this report is required. , .
- 2. Final Examination Report.
It is a policy goal of the NRC to complete licensing or denial actions within 30 days of the last day of the examination visit. Section chiefs, chief examiners, and examiners shall establish priorities and schedules to achieve this goal. Grading of the written examination should not be dalayed while awaiting facility comments. The grading of individual questions may be delayed until the chief examiner or section chief has raviewed the facility comments and has determined the validity of the question and the acceptable answers. Operating examinations report i forms should be completed during and immediately following the oper-ating examination. The chief examiner shall be responsible for the preparation of the final examination report when the written examination grading ha's~ bee'n completed in accordance with ES 201 K. The grading examiner shall prepare a
-summary of changes to the master examination and answer key'that resulted
- ~ ~ ' ~
~
from the facility review or written comments for inclusion in the final report. The grading examiner shall also prepare a " Power Plant Examina-tion Results Summary" Attachment 5 to ES 201 for inclusion in the final examination report. Contract examiners shall complete the summary of changes to the master examination and answer key for examinations that they grade and shall complete the results summary for the written examina-tion graded by that lab and for operating examinations conducted by that lab. 1 Upon completion of the final report the regional office shall forward a copy of the report to the utility. The final examination report shall ' document the facility examination review meeting and exit meeting. The
~ raport shall include a copy of the written examination (s) and answer '
key (s), and a results summary. Copies of this report with the results summary removed shall also be sent to public document rooms. A sample '
- examination report is included as attachment 2 to this standard for the purpose of promoting uniformity of form of Final Examination Reports.
{ D. Notifications of Results All notifications regarding final examination results shall be made only ; after review and approval by the regional administrator or his delegate.
- A copy of the written examination and each candidate's answer sheet l
)
shall be forwarded to the candidate with either his license or a denial. letter. An oral examination report (Form 157A, B, or C) shall be included with the denial letter if a candidate has failed the oral portion of th'e operating examination and a copy of the simulator examination report, Attachment 1 ES 303, shall be included if the candidate has failed the simulator portion of the operating examination. A copy of the results. Examiner Standards 2 of 10
ES-104 summary, Attachment 5 ES 201, shall be sent to station management with the final examination report. E. References
- 1. Memorandum from Harold R. Denton to Regional Administrators February 13, 1984 " Changes to ES-201, Section H, Facility Review of Written Examina-tions."
- 2. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 2.790.
T : t a I f Examiner Standards 3'of 10 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _a__ _ _._ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ES-104-1 i Attachment 1 j Exit Meeting Report li i Plant / Unit Examination Date
- l Exit meeting held yes no Date of meeting i'
Attendees: NRC Facility or Facility contractors
)
i 9. Clear passes operating examination: l t b i 1 A e i I Examiner Standards 4 of 10 4 D
ES-104-1 Items discussed: u
. 8 ,
o o Examiner Standards 5 of 10 i __ __ _ _ . _ . _ . , _ . - _ _ _ . _ . _ , . ___. . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ , . . , _ _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . .__ ___.___...__.__,,_-,_._,_.._,--t- -
. . . - -... . - .. . -- .-. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . ... .__ _ _ . _ . = . . . . .
ES-104-1 Open items (for. resolution by section chief, the regional office, or branch chief OLB-HQ) , .i i l i f l i 4 [ I i t l i l - l l Signature Date Chief Examiner .I
, Section Chief review comments l
l l I ; i I i. ( Signature Date l Section Chief i
~
l i 2 i Examiner Standards 6 of 10 I 4 r .
ES-104-2 Attachment 2 Examination Report North Carolina Power Authority ATTN: Mr. H. G. Jones Manager of Power 550A Chestnut Street ' Anyplace, NC 37401 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
EXAMINATION REPORT On December 12-16, 1983, NRC administered examinations to employees of your company who has applied for licenses to operate your Edison Nuclear
, Power Station. At the conclusion of the written examinations, the examination questions were discussed with those members of your staff
( identified in the enclosed report, and preliminary results of the oper-ating examinations were given at the exit meetings. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this office by telephone within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information cuntained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consis-tent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1). The examination scores and results for individual applicants are exempt from disclosure by 10 CFR 2.790(a)(6) and, therefore, enclosure 3 will not be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us. Sincerely, - David M. Smith, Chief Project Branch 1 Division of Project and Resident Programs
Enclosures:
- 1. Examination Report
- 2. Examination (s) and Answer Kay(s) (SR0/RQ)
- 3. Power Plant Examination Results Summary l cc: Plant Superintendent .
Plant Training Manager Examiner i Examiner Standards 7 of 10
ES-104-2 Enclosure 1 SAMPLE EXAMINATION REPORT Facility Licensee: North Carolina Power Authority 500A Chesnut Street Anyplace, NC 37401 Facility Docket No.: 50-123 Facility License No.: CPPR-195 Examinations administered at Edison Nuclear Power Station near Spring City, North Carolina ) o' Chief Examiner: Sam Y. Smith Date Signed i Approved by: Frank R. Adams, Section Chief Date Signed Summary Examinations on December 12-16, 1983 Written, oral, and simulator examinations were administered to four SR0s, three R0s, and two instructor canaidates. A written examination was administered to one additional RO candidate. Two SR0s, two R0s and one instructor passed these examinations. All others failed. I Examiner Standards 8 of 10
O e ES-104-2 Enclosure 1 REPORT DETAILS I
- 1. Examiners
*S. Y. Smith, NRC J. M. Johnson, EG&G R. F. Radio, EG&G .
- Chief Examiner
- 2. Examination Review Meeting At the conclusion of the written examinations, the examiners met with R. P. Johnson, C. L. Boggs and M. E. Peoples of the Training Department I to review the written examinations and answer key. As a result of l '%' this review, Questions 2.10 and 6.4 of the R0 and SR0 examinations respectively were deleted. It was determined that although these t questions were obtained from facility suppli'ed information, a recent
- vendor analysis negated the requirement for this system asked for in the questions.
The design change was documented-in DCM-83-16. -- - - The facility questioned the applicability of Question-3c3-of-the-RO- --- - - - - examination, but provided no supporting references. The question was considered appropriate by the staff and retained because the knowledge and skills covered by this question are important to the performance of his job as described in the job task analysis.
- 3. Exit Meeting At the conclusion of the site visit the examiners met with representa-tives of the plant staff to discuss the results of the examinations.
Those individuals who clearly passed the oral and/or simulator examina- 3 tion were identified in this meeting. The examiners made the following observations concerning ye'ur training program:
- a. Areas of generic weaknesses were found in the use of procedures, radiation protection, and theory, both nuclear and thermodynamic.
The facility committed to place more emphasis in these areas in
- future training programs (0 pen Item 84- ).
- b. Areas in which the examiners believe that the candidates exhibited good training and knowledge were control room familiarization, instrumentation, and facility administrative procedures.
t Examiner Standards 9 of 10
ES-104-2 1 Encloscre 1 P QUESTIONS DELETED FROM WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS Question 2.10 a. Describe the accident which the Boron Injection Tank (BIT) is designed to migitage. (1.0)
- b. Describe the design features of the BIT, i.e.,
how does it accomplish its function during an accident situation. (1.0) Answer 2.10 a. The ECCS including the BIT provides shutdown capability by means of boron injection. The most critical accident for shutdown capability in the main steam line break.
- b. The BIT contains a nominal 12 wt.% boric acid and I is connected to the discharge of the centrifugal charging pumps. Upon receipt of an SI signal, the charging pumps provide the pressure to inject the boric solution into the RCS when the isolation valves open.
REF: I&E Training Center, Systems Manual, Chapter 4.2. Also Edison NPS, STM 13-6. Reason for deletion: Westinghouse Analysis, W-001, provided justification why the BIT was no longer required. The Tank is still in place, however, it's contents has been replaced with boron at RCS concentration. Auto-matic responses to SI signals have been removed (ref: DCM-83-16). Examiner Standards 10 of 10
- a. .. m =u._:_ =. a u. 3 . _ : .u -
m..= --
.= -- =
ES-105 Rev. 1 10/1/84 l INDOCTRINATION PROGRAM FOR NEW EXAMINERS A. Purpose This standard describes the indoctrination program for all persons selected as NRC examiners for operator licenses. It is intended to , ensure that persons initially participating in the examining program are given sufficient orientation to enable them to administer examinations in a manner consistent with current practices and standards. Although these standards apply directly to NRC examiners, similar procedures shall be applied for consultant and contractor examiners. It is essential that all areas within the scope of 10 CFR 55 are equi-tably and completely covered in the examinations given to candidates and that examinations are administered with a high degree of consistency and )i, uniformity in 50th level of knowledge required and content of the exami-nation. This ensures that the basic requirement of equal treatment of all candidates is accomplished. B. Indoctrination Program
- The following program is recommended as a minimum indoctrination program for new examiners:
- 1. Headquarters / Regio.n Indoctrination Each new examiner should begin his indoctrination in the headquar-ters office of the Operator Licensing Branch (OLB) or in the regional offices. During a minimum period of 2 days, the branch chief or appropriate section leader or section chief should discuss the program, as outlined in Items 2 and 3 below, and acquaint the new examiner with branch administrative procedures that apply directly to operator licensing. The section leader or section chief will develop and provide the new examiner with a tra.ining program, discuss the program with the new examiner, and determine a l schedule for completion of the program. Special attention should be given to ensuring that the new examiner has firsthand knowledge of plant operations. Depending on education, training, and experi-ence of a new examiner, the section leader or regional section
, chief may require that the examiner participate in one or more of the following training programs:
- a. nuclear power plant fundamentals
- b. plant systems ,
- c. plant operations .
I (1) simulator l l
- l Examiner Standards 1 of 13 l i
_ . . . . _ , , . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ , . ~ - _ _ _ _ . , . .e___,, . . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ . . _ _ __ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
ES-105 (2) onsite training and observation (guidelines are included ! as Attachment I to this standard. The scope and length of observation training should be tailored to the new examiner's previous experience.)
- d. examination methods
- 2. Provision of Briefing Materials Each new examiner shall be supplied by headquarters or the regional 4
office with the following:
- a. copies of 10 CFR 2, 9, 20, 50, and 55
- b. copies of each Operator Licensing Examiner Standard i "y c. copies of instruction manuals for accessing the examination questions bank t
- d. other general information that may be considered pertinent to the program
- 3. Discussion of Briefing Materials A certified examiner will discuss the program with the new examiner, using the briefing materials as a basis. This discussion will permit clarification of objectives and content which are often, by necessity, couched in statutory language. Use of computer aids will be demonstrated to ensure that the new examiner candidate has access to basic information.
- 4. Observation of Actual Examinations
, Before administering an examination, each new examiner will observe an actual reactor operator and senior reactor operator examination
~
by one or more certified examiners to become familiar with the methods, techniques, and time elements involved. No written discus-sion can adequately describe items such as level of knowledge or oral examination procedure; therefore, observation of at least one actual examination, preferably on a fairly complex facility, is , necessary. The examiner shall debrief the examiner candidate at the completion of the examination, shall, as a minimum, have the examiner candidate complete an Oral Report Form, and make a final ) recommendation. Differences in observations should be discussed with the examiner candidates during the debriefing session.
- 5. Discussion of Initial Examination . l During the first examination administered at a power plant by the ~
new examiner, a certified examiner shall be present to observe and subsequently discuss the examination with the new examiner. The Examiner Standards 2 of 13
- - - - , _ --m
;.; .:- ...>._:.. . .w.. = - . ~ = . . . . . . -- .. = ~.a==. . . . .
e . l 1 ES-105 certified examiner shall be an NRC examiner. This observation and j discussion are necessary so NRC can ensure and document that con-i sistent techniques and requirements are being used. They will i further serve to identify improved ideas and methods that may be used and to incorporate them into the program. The examiner shall prepare a written evaluation of the examiner candidate including as 1 a minimum the " Oral Exam Audit," NRC Form 308, included as Attach-ment 2 to this standard, and forward it to the appropriate section leader. The evaluation shall include an evaluation of the candi-date's knowledge, an evaluation of the candidate's program prepara- , i tion and effectiveness, and an evaluation of the candidate's demon- ' ) strated at'ility to examine. A recommendation for certification i shall be inc' ded, i
- 6. Other Indoctrination i If considered desirable or necessary, additional indoctrination may l j} be provided. It is the responsibility of headquarters and/or regional i offices to provide all examiners with sufficient information and
! t guidance to participate effectively in the program. No examiner : ! should be requested to administer an examination unless both he and j headquarters and/or the regional office believe that he has received ; sufficient orientation and training. All deficiencies and weak-nesses identified in the written examination and the observed oral i examination shall be discussed with the candidate. All deficien-l cies shall be corrected before certification.
i l 7. Certification of Examiners At the completion of the indoctrination period, each new examiner shall be certified by the regional branch chief to the Branch i Chief, OLB, as being qualified to conduct licensing examinations of j reactor operators and senior reactor operators in accordance with
- 10 CFR 55. If the examiner is transferred to a section that con-
- ducts examinations for reactors significantly different from those i for which he was previously certified, he should receive appropriate
! ; inooctrination and training. As a mimumum an additional observed oral examination should be conducted and certification on the new , j reactor type provided to the Branch Chief, OLB. Certification i shall be vendor specific, and additional certification shall be l' made for each vendor type. Entries should be made in the exam-iner's personnel record as well. Examiners who are not certified shall not be chosen to administer examinations.
- 8. Annual Review
! At intervals of approximately 1 year, each examiner shall be accom- , i panied by the appropriate section leader or regional section chief, { j or his designated alternate, during the administration of ,a written i examination and a minimum of one operating test. If a contractor l or consultant examiner accepts assignments from two section leaders Examiner Standards 3 of 13 l
e s ES-105 or regional section chiefs each year, he may be audited by each p supervisor on an approximately annual basis. During this annual review the examiner and the reviewing examiner will discuss at length current examining policies and practices and other appropriate examining activities, and openly exchange views on the general subject of operator training and licensing. At the completion of'the annual review, the reviewing examiner shall complete a review form, NRC Form 308, which should be filed with the appropriate office with a copy sent to the person reviewed. The reviewer shall discuss with the examiner the evaluation of his techniques and make any suggestions for improvement.
- 9. Examiner's Training Meeting is OLB headquarters will schedule a meeting of all examiners, usually f annually, during which new examining methods and procedures and
~
relevant operating experience will be discussed and all examiners will be able to exchange information and experience that will assist other examiners. All examiners will be expected to attend. Schedules for examinations and training should be adjusted as ___ __...__ necessary to minimize conflicts with the examiner's conference. When sufficient examiner training and retraining programs are in place at the Technical Training Center or other facilities and effective procedures for exchange of operating experience and other information have been developed, the need for an annual training meeting will be reevaluated. Examiner Standards 4 of 13
-.-.._.....=-- a . w. : .- . . . . . .
.- -. . . . . . . . . ~. - . = .
ES-105-1 ATTACHMENT 1 OBSERVATION TRAINING PROGRAM TRAINING OBJECTIVES
- 1. To familiarize the potential operator licensing examiner with an I operating power plant of the same nuclear steam supply system
- (NSSS) type as that for which he will be conducting examinations
- 2. To acquaint the potential examiner with the day-to-day nuclear station routine
- 3. To acquaint the potential examiner with a typical station's records
- , and procedures 5 4. To expose the potential examiner to nuclear plant maintenance conducted under radiological control regulations
GENERAL COMMENT
S
- 1. The plant to be used may be any operating power plant - the objec-tive will be to select a plant that is most typical of the majority of plants of the specific type the potential examiner will be examining.
- 2. The schedule for the plant also will consider that plant with the most significant upcoming events, i.e., fuel loading, turbine main-tenance, load changes, surveillance testing, and plant startup/
shutdown. l
- 3. The course will be conducted after the potential examiner has com-pleted the required academic courses - when the training will be most a meaningful to him.
- 4. The observation guide is just that - a guide. If an event of
- interest occurs (such as a major surveillance or plant recovery from a scram), the potential examiner should adjust his schedule so that he will be able to observe the event.
- 5. The potential examiner shall observe all rules and regulations in effect at the facility.
- 6. The potential examiner shall only observe operation of equipment; i he shall not actually operate equipment (with the exception of portable radio equipment, as authorized by the facility). ,
i Examiner Standards 5 of 13
, ES-105-1
- 7. The potential examiner shall not request any equipment to be operated, nor any tests or surveillances to be conducted. E
- 8. The potential examiner shall arrive at the site sufficiently early to observe the shift turnover, j 9. After observing an event (e.g., surveillance, equipment test, main-tenance, startup, and shutdown) or tracing a system, the poten-tial examiner shall record it in the space provided on the daily training schedule. Once the observation training has been completed, the training schedule will be filed in the examiner's training folder.
1
- 10. The section leader or regional section chief or a certified examiner designated by him to be in charge of the potential candidates obser-j vation training will provide a list of systems to be traced out.
! ") 11. During this training period, the potential examiner should observe I the use of procedures by the operators and follow the event with a
'. spare copy of the procedures, if possible.
- 12. The potential examiner should pay attention'to administrative procedures (e.g., tag outs, jumper log, and key log) used by the operator and shift supervisor.
i TYPICAL DAY , 1. Review previous day's control room log. i
, 2. Review previous day's control room operation and discuss unusual 4
events with instructor. i ! 3. Review day's control room schedule and observe any periodic ~sur-l veillance tests to be run, any load changes or equipment changes to i be made, and startups or shutdowns.
- 4. Review previous day's chemistry and radiological logs.
- 5. Review day's radiological control schedule and observe any special sampling or radiological procedures to be performed.
- 6. Review previous day's maintenance log.
- 7. Review day's maintenance schedule and observe any special main-tenance to be performed, e.g., control rod drives.
- 8. Proceed to scheduled plant area and begin day's tasks. '
l i i Examiner Standards 6 of 13
_ _ _ _ . - - .= __ i. ed , l T 'i 3 t
$ COURSE SCl!EDULE
$ i N.
a WEEK 3 WEEK 4 T WEEK 2 R WEEK 1 r R MTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFSS t. I! Shift 2222200333330044444002222200 Day Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F F Shift: j. y 2 - days (8 am-4 pm) i. o 3 - afternoon (4 pm-12 midnight) j;
- 4 graveyards (12 midnight-8 am) '
g 0 - off o 4 e s' [ c a 8 . 4 4 4 i
= , . .. . . . . -- . . . .
ES-105 OBSERVATION TRAINING SCHEDULE F Events Observed / Systems
~ Traced Day 1 Administrative Requirements (RADCON ;
Training, Security Briefing) , Day 2 Administrative Requirements l Day 3 Plant Orientation - Control Room
, - Shops
- - General Plant Layout Day 4 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control 7 Tour - Control Room Review - Plant Evacuation Procedure Daily Recapitulation Day 5 Review Logs - Control Room l _ - Maintenance 4
- Rad Control Tour - Control Room
. Daily Recapitulation j Day 6 Off a j Day 7 Off Day 8 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control L
j Tour - Electrical Distribution
- Breaker Operation
- Electrical Maintenance l
j Daily Recapitulation 1 Day 9 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Control Room
. Daily Recapitulation i
j Examiner Standards 8 of 13
..w. . .. . . . . . . . . . . , ~ - - ... . , . . . . . . - . - - . . . . . ~ . .
ES-105 Events Observed / Systems Traced i Day 10 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Control Room
- Turbine Auxiliary Systems Daily Recapitulation Day 11 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Rad Waste
- Health Physics
,g
' Daily Recapitulation t
Day 12 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Refueling Floor -
Daily Recapitulation Day 13 Off Day 14 Off Day 15 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Control Room
; Daily Recapitulation Day 16 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control
- Tour - Equipment Operator Daily Recapitulation Day 17 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control -
Tour - Instrumentation and ,
; Control Tech Daily Recapitulation l
Examiner Standards 9 of 13
I l ES-105 Events Observed / Systems (, Traced Day 18 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Reactor Building Daily Recapitula' tion Day 19 Review togs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour.- Reactor Building (a) Emergency Core Cooling Systems 4 =y (b) Process Instrumentation 5, Daily Recapitulation Day 20 Off Day 21 Off Day 22 Review Logs - Control Room ""
- - Maintenance
- Rad Contr-l Tour - Turbine Building Daily Recapitulation Day 23 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Area Radiation Monitors (Observe Levels and Locations
- Turbine Building Day 24 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Results Shop / Rad Control Lab (Observe Rad Control Procedures and Analysis)
- Reactor Protection System and Reactor Process Instrumentation Daily Recapitulation Examiner. Standards 10 of 13
\
-.-....t..a...a:.~~.:...=...:.-...-.. .z . .w. . . z . . . ..> . .
~
ES-105 Events Observed / Systems Traced Day 25 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance
- Rad Control Tour - Control Room Daily Recapitulation Day 26 Review Logs - Control Room
- Maintenance .
- Rad Control Tour - Control Room Daily Recapitulation Day 27 Off
[- Day 28 Off 'l t l } .1 9 Examiner Standards 11 of 13
ES-105 HOMEWORK !
- 1. Read station Technical Specifications.
- 2. Review sy.;em description before inplant tour.
- 3. Review system operating procedures.
- 4. Review station emergency procedures.
- 5. Review radiological control fundamentals.
'T' t
i Examiner Standards 12 of 13
L-..
._ : .. - ' . .._ .i . . >: . . a .:. . *. ' . w k. .L'.. .L L . .: . _ -.' ,i,.. ' . .~
. 6 ES-105 ATTACHMENT 2 ORAL EXAM AUDIT mag oonas sa U.E IsWCLEAR AleuLATORT Coasasas4608s * "**
a'ami i#O eTsat ORAL EXAM AUDIT - s.o y, ..og
,,,a,(
S AO selTaast SEQwALdeCatione ( .. es.. Saws e
.se.. sae Ca rt asse. HD 4.'80ssagt on .ee. 4..
RAMagP&CTOng . aces sooo s a.o ecce e ComesesT9 i coa syawagg TG Y-6 (aaw ht e 5Ta%G483 && a OpgaatiesG Otwo=Semafcas e centact e0Cw. eases. 4.eeess e fw sew s.s e e COttact soow,= vees,say eseeme.ess,wsweso. e CO*'80s 80048 for=w.et e eta %f vvassimaccGo E, . escearso etas., essee%ss
, g tut 08' twCLlas n fmE08, t=geuO = ? #suc ova,
. maOsatese **0TfC? toss 2 saece6 LOG 4 06 pacger v a%Q il5 FacciswaE E
-e Gaugaat assowtgecg es sace, e l*fCt8'C aas0*t(DCI Os sacit **
e 58f tis'C a seMt rece es sace, pecct3ca gg 3 seipt, to eva .a'6 ca%sca ra s e%;nstava a Owautv o8 0utt'c%$ e 45as s0t t0* v'Ovf 5'9%$ *=f e mf Ctll&#v e a***0'een't OctStesel 80s tweg os canoicaf f e .... ca.oea,,, ocases.a.,_.
. 3....<...~.--
,.........e...s.-.....__.--
...s co. . ... .~.
,u......a..........o....
w........au........
. ; .-, v ,
Examiner Standards 13 of 13 1 l
, _, . . . _ _ . . - - . _ . .e, , ,. - - ,
. -. _.. .. 1 2 - ._....'
ES-106 i Rev. 1 10/1/84 l ADMINISTRATION OF EXAMINATIONS AT MULTIUNIT POWER STATIONS A. Purpose This standard specifies the policy and evaluation methods for examination of reactor operators and senior reactor operators who apply for licenses at multiunit power stations. This standard also may be used for guidance ; on examination requirements for identical or similar units not located at the same site. B. Background In the construction of a dual or multiunit power station, the units are normally brought on line with approximately 1 to 2 years between the 7 fuel load dates of each unit. When the second (or subsequent) unit is
, brought on line most, if not all, of the candidates will hold current licenses on the first unit. If the units are nearly identical, there are provisions for waiver of examination requirements providing certain conditions are met.
_ The three conditions specified in 10 CFR 55.24 are:
- 1. The candidate has had extensive actual operating experience at a comparable facility within 2 years before the date of application.
- 2. The candidate has discharged his responsibilities competently and safely.
- 3. The candidate has learned the operating procedures for, and is quali-fied to operate competently and safely, the facility designated in his application.
Before 1979, it was the practice of the Operator Licensing Branch (OLB) to require each utility that wanted its operators and senior operators to be dual licensed to administer the appropriate training to fulfill the requirements of 10 CFR 55.24(a),(b), and (c). The utility would be responsible for the evaluation of this training by administering an examination that was reviewed by the NRC. As a result of the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2, the NRC required a higher level of training of the operators and greater confidence in the testing requirements. OLB, therefore, required a complete NRC-administered examination in view of the 10 CFR 55.24 waiver policy. The training pro-grams have been significantly upgraded in the last few years, and,the NRC has further increased confidence in the examination requirements through NRC-administered requalification examinations. Requests for waivers will be favorably considered providing the facility has sufficient justifica-tion concerning the degree of similarity between the units and the details of the training and certification program. I l Examiner Standards 1 of 4
..~ .
ES-106 For replacement examinations at a dual or multiunit station, the candi-date must have completed the training program for all. units with emphasis l on the differences. The NRC examination will then test the candidate on all features of the station. C. Criteria for Dual Licensability For a reactor operator or senior reactor operator to be eligible to hold simultaneous valid licenses on more than one nuclear facility, the utility must justify to the Commission that the differences between the units are not so significant that they impact the ability of the licensed personnel to operate safely and competently both or all facilities. Further, the utility must submit for NRC review the details of the training and certi-fication program. The analyses and summary of the differences that must be performed will include
=g 1. facility design and systems relevant to control room personnel
. 2. Technical Specifications
- s. 3. procedures, primarily abnormal and emergency operating procedures
- 4. control room design and instrument location
- 5. operational characteristics The utility also should describe the expected method of rotating person-nel between units and the refamiliarization to be conducted before respon-sibility on a new unit is assumed. Generally, only those facilities de-signed by the same nuclear steam supply system vendor and coerated at approximately the same power level will be considered for dual licens-ability. Examples of facilities (and vendors) where dual (or multi-licenses) have been issued are:
Facility Vendor Oconee 1, 2, and 3 Babcock & Wilcox Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2 Combustion Engineering Browns Ferry 1, 2, and 3 General Electric Brunswick 1 and 2 General Electric Dresden 2 and 3 General Electric Peach Bottom 2 and 3 General Electric Farley 1 and 2 Westinghouse Point Beach 1 and 2 Westinghouse Salem 1 and 2 Westinghouse Surry 1 and 2 Westinghouse Dual licensability will not be automatically denied for those facilities failing to meet the criteria of same vendor and si<nilar power level. However, special justification must be submitted for review and approval by the NRC. Exceptions are rare and are usually limited to selected operations nanagement personnel. . Examiner Standards 2 of 4 l l l -
. .._..m__._.._ _.m_.__ . _ _ . . _. - _
ES-106 D. Waiver of Examination In addition to the three criteria specified in 10 CFR 55.24, the NRC may require additional justification before granting waivers of examination requirements for second or subsequent units. The two criteria are
- 1. a formal training and evaluation program in the five categories of plant differences specified in Paragraph C of this standard
- 2. satisfactory performance on the most recent NRC-administered requalification examination Instead of Criterion 2 above (or additionally if the situation warrants) other examination requirements may be imposed such as NRC-administered examinations (oral and/or written) on the plant differences. Submittals should be requested and evaluated by the regional office. Results of the evaluations should be submitted to the Director, Division of Human
') Factors Safety, NRC for concurrence.
5 E. Hot r Replacement Examinations at Multiunit Stations
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This section describes the examination requirements at those stations ~ where both (or all) units are in an operational status (have received operat'ing licenses and/or are commercial). Candidates may' apply for
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
dual licenses, assuming the criteria are met, and be examined simulta-neously on all applicable units. The oral and written examinations shall be developed in accordance with the appropriate standards but must include questions that investigate the candidate's knowledge of the different design, procedural, and operational characteristics. It is recommended that approximately 10% of the written examination include questions of this nature. These questions should not be confined to a specific category. For example, plant differences are most evident in system design, but design differences usually require different oper-ating procedures. Identical plants may have different fuel designs, and pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) will have different boron concentra-tions. Questions on nuclear theory can be developed from these considerations. During the course of the oral examinations, the examiners should diver-sify their coverage of the units and not become predictable in conducting examinations only on one unit. Different candidates may be examined on different units, or a specific candidate may be asked to explain how control board layout or system / instrumentation differences may require different procedural actions between one. unit and another. Many dual or multiunit stations will have a simulator that is modeled after only one unit. During the course of the oral examination, the examiner should ensure that the candidate is properly tested on'the different systems, control board layout, and other aspects of the other unit (s). Following a simulator examination on Brown's Ferry Unit 1, for , example, the control room portion of the plant walkthrough should be l conducted primarily on Unit 2 and/or Unit 3. j Examiner Standards 3 of 4 l l
. .c . . .. .
~
ES-106 F. Examination Requirements on Different Units P Different units owned or managed by a single utility are defined for purposes of this standard as:
- 1. same vendor manufacturer but significantly different age and/or power level (e.g., Dresden Units 1 and 2).
l
- 2. same vendor manufacturer and similar units but different location (e.g. , Sequoyah and Watts Bar, Byron and Braidwood).
- 3. different vendor manufacturer (PWR only) but located at the same site (e.g., Arkansas Units 1 and 2, Millstone Units 2 and 3).
Generally, personnel will not be examined on or allowed to hold licenses on different units simultaneously. Although some allowances have been made for this in the past, future exceptions will be rare.
.\
G. Waivers of Portions of the Examinations for Previously Licensed s, Operators Waivers of portions of the examinations will be considered depending on tha justification submitted by the utility as provided for in 10 CFR 55.24. For personnel licensed on one facility and transferring to another, written examination categories such as theory (Categories 1 and 5) may be waived and abbreviated oral examinations concentrating on plant differences may be administered. Requests for waivers in these instances should be evaluated by the regional office. Headquarters should concur with the results of the evaluations. Examiners will be notified of such ] waivers through the appropriate section leader or regional section chief
! and on the Examination Assignment Form.
1 Examiner Standards 4 of 4
_. .. ...___ m m _._._._ _ -;.__._ _ _- n_ . . _ _
,. n ES-107 Rev. 1 10/1/84 1 i
PRE-ADMINISTRATION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR REVIEW I 0F WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS A. Purpose This standard defines the. proc.edure to be followed for quality assurance (QA) review of written examinations before their administration. B. Responsibility Examiners should review their own examination in detail, as discussed in this standard and in Standard ES-201. The appropriate regional section chief is responsible for ensuring that an independent review is conducted
! of written examinations prepared by examiners in his section. A spot check review should be performed by another examiner. Section chiefs shall not ' } review examinations that they prepared. The QA review required by this t standard is only a spot check, or sampling test, after the detailed l review by the preparing examiner. The Section chief will then certify the review has been completed.
C. Review Procedure
! Both the examination author and the reviewer should use the " Written ! Examination Quality Assurance Checkoff Sheet," ES-107 Attachment 1, to document their review. As a minimum, the following items should be checked by the Exam Author and spot checked by the reviewer.
- 1. Review all questions for clarity of intent.
~
- 2. Review all questions for applicability of terminology and systems to tacility. Ensure all questions are in proper category.
- 3. Review all categories for weights assigned, in accordance with
. Standards ES-203 and ES-403.
- 4. Verify that the totals of points for questions in each category are correct and that these totals correspond to weights given on the cover sheet.
- 5. Verify that no single question and/or topic is worth more than 20%
of that category.
- 6. Verify that subjects required by 10 CFR 55.21 for reactor operators (R0s) and 55.22 for senior reactor operators (SR0s) are covered in the examination. Standards ES-202 and ES-402 group these subjects in the format required for power reactor examinations, and Standard ES-204 groups these subjects in the forrut required for non power reactor examinations.
i Examiner Standards 1 of 3 J
. . - . . . m , ._ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - -
ES-107
- 87. Review all questions and answer keys to ensure there is no double jeopardy.
- 8. Review the answer key to ensure all questions are answered concisely and clearly. Each question should have numerical values assigned for partial credit; that is, when the question elicits a complex multifaceted response, a scheme should be enumerated for scoring each of these facets. For example, a single question worth 3 points of a 25 point category might have as many as 10 facets, each of which should be assigned a value.
- 9. Verify that there is a reference to the plant training material for each answer, if available.
- 10. Review questions and answers to ensure they correspond to the required level of knowledge (i.e., R0 or SRO level), as described
') in Standard ES-202. L 11. Ensure that " lone questions" of a section are flagged on a previous page by a " continued on next page" statement.
- 12. Ensure that each category is concluded witt, the statement "End of Category .
D. Documentation When the review is completed, the " Written License Examination Quality Assurance Checkoff Sheet," attachment 1 of this standard, should be approved by regional section chief and filed with the record copy of the examination. 1 l
*See Standard ES-202, p. 5 of 6.
Examiner Standards 2 of 3
. . . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . ~ - . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . . , . _ . - .
ES-107-1 Attachment 1 WRITTEN EXAMINATION QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECK 0FF SHEET AUTHOR'S ITEM DESCRIPTION INITIALS /DATE 1 Clarity of intent of questions 2 Applicability of questions to facility 3 Category weights correct. All questions in proper category. 4 Each category total correct and corresponding to weights on the cover sheet 5 End of each category indicated by
- statement "End of category .
6 No question worth more than 20% of that category weight 7 Verify that 10 CFR 55.21 and 55.22 subjects are covered. 8 No double jeopardy questions 9 Answers clear and concise on answer key 10 References to plant material for each question, as applicable 11 Proper level of knowledge (R0/SRO) 12 Partial credit points indicated, l if applicable Author: Date: Contract Reviewer: (If applicable) Date: Region Reviewer: Date: Review Completed: Date: (Section Chief) . Exam Facility / Unit: Date: Senior / / Operator / / Examiner Standards 3 of 3 J
.. .; .. . .= . u. =.: . ...u.a.. = . . . . . . . . .
ES-108 Rev. 1 10/1/84 POST-ADMINISTRATION QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR REVIEW 0F GRADED EXAMINATIONS A. Purpose This standard defines the procedures to be followed for quality assurance (QA) review of written examinations after they are graded by the examiners. B. Responsibility Examiners should review their own grading in detail, as discussed in this standard and in Standard ES-201. The appropriate regional section chief is responsible for ensuring that an independent review is con-ducted of written examination grading. The QA review required by this 3
- standard is only a spot check, or sampling test, after the detailed review by the grading examiner, t
Whenever possible the written examination shall be graded by the examiner who prepared the examination. If, due to class size or unavailability of the preparing examiner, the examination is graded in whole or in part by an examiner who did not prepare the examination then a more thorough supervisory review of the grading should be made. The regional office operator licensing section chief shall be notified that an examiner who did not prepare the examination graded or participated in the grading of the written examination. C. Review Procedure The reviewer should use the " Examination Grading Quality Assurance Checkoff Sheet," Attachment 1 of this standard, to document his review. As a minimum, the following items should be checked:
- 1. Spot check at least 50% of the examination category totals and
. overall grades assigned for errors in addition for each examination.
- 2. Review in detail the answers and grades assigned for at least one question in 50% of the categories for 50% of the applicants. This review will allow the examiner to determine consistency of response and grades, indications of cheating or collusion, and performance on individual questions.
- 3. Review and recalculate grading assigned for all borderline cases (i.e. , 70% i 2% for each category or 80% t 2% overall).
- 4. Compare the highest failing and the lowest passing examinat, ion, to ensure that the fail / pass decision is justified. Check at least one question in every category in both cases. Confirm failures with the next highest failing examination, if appropriate.
Examiner Standards 1 of 4 i
ES-108
- 5. Spot check other failing examinations to be assured of justification k for denial of license.
- 6. Review overall performance in each category and individual questions to determine if there are problems in the facility training program, in the wording of the questions, or in other areas.
- 7. If the above reviews indicate significant problems, conduct a de-tailed review, as necessary.
D. Documentation When the QA reviewer has completed his review, the " Examination Grading Quality Assurance Checkoff Sheet," ES-108 Attachment 1, should be approved by the regional section chief and filed with the record copy of the examination. ) t 9 l l Examiner Standards 2 of 4 i
a-. . - .. : -.:.-.-. - ...:L :. . . .-. - . . .
.. . ~ . . . - .
ES-108-1 Attachment 1 EXAMINATION GRADING QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECK 0FF SHEET I { Grader (s) Name Facility Date of Exam ! Examination: Operator Senior i Post-Examination Procedures 1
- Examiner Review Item Description Initial /date Initial /date
;'h 1. No apparent indication of ' cheating or collusion t
- 2. Partial credit consistent for each candidate
- 3. Section and cumulative scores checked for addi-tion (Reviewer spotcheck 25% of category totals) j 4. Grading for all borderline
{ cases reviewed (70% 2 2%/
- section or 80% i 2% overall) i 5. Detailed review, 1 question
, per category, 50% of cate- ] gories, 50% of applicants
~
. 6. Highest failing/ lowest passing examinations j compared to justify fail / pass decision
- 7. All other failing exam-inations checked to be assured of justification for failure 1
- 8. Individual question
. performance checked for , i training deficiencies, wording problems, etc. - i i Examiner Standards 3 of 4 i
. - _ . . ._. .. m - .
l, i ES-108-1 , J
?
4 1 { Grader: Date: 1 Contract Reviewer: Date:
, (If applicable) i ! Region Reviewer: Date:
l l Review Completed: Date: Section Chief 1 1 I 4 l i I . I l 1 l + 4 1 1
! e l
l I I i
! l i
1 i , h I i e i i 4 I i Examiner Standards 4 of 4 1 __ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . . _ - .--.n_...__.-____._ ,_ _ __.___ _ _ _- _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ . _ _
-.. : .: . .=- .a = : . .= ~ . a . = =. . . -
. ES-109 Rev. 1 10/1/84 l ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATOR OR SENIOR OPERATOR LICENSE CANDIDATES AT POWER REACTORS. I
- A. Purpose This standard lists the various requirements on training, educational experience, and certification that must be met before a candidate can apply for an NRC reactor operator or senior operator license. The purpose of this standard is to aid the examiners in their review of individual applications to determine the eligibility of candidates before the NRC reactor operator or senior reactor operator licensing examination.
- 8. Reactor Operator Eligibility Requirements
- 1. Experience Requirements i a. Minimum of 2 years of power plant experience of which at least 1 year shall be nuclear power experience. Training time to meet the require-ments for this license shall not be counted as a part of this minimum 2 years of power plant experience.
- b. Minimum of 6 months at the site for which the license is sought. I
!' c. Military power (propulsion) plant operating experience may be substi-tuted on a one for one basis for the power plant experience required in paragraph B.1.a. l 2. Training Requirements l a. Minimum of 3 months' training in the control room as an extra man on l shift on a day to day basis in the capacity of the position for which the applicant seeks a license and under the direct supervision of the licensed personnel assigned to the position on the plants operating i - shift i.e., operator or shift supervisor positions. l b.1 Training in (1) heat transfer, (2) fluid flow, (3) thermodynamics,
! (4) use of installed plant systems to control or mitigate an accident l in which the core is severely damaged, and (5) reactor and plant transients. I i
c.2 Total of 500 hours of lectures on: (1) principles of reactor opera-tion, (2) design features of the nuclear power plant involved,
! (3) general operating characteristics of the nuclear power plant j involved, (4) instrumentation and control systems, (5) emergency systems, (6) standard and emergency operating, procedures, safety and and (7) radiation control and safety procedures. .
I i Examiner Standards 1 of 6 4
. - _ _ _ - - - . - - . . . . - . - - . _ - . . - - - , , . -. , , . - _ _ _ - - ,,. , . _ . , - - _ _ . - , . , .n. - - , _ , - . _ , . . . .
,. - .. a x .:: - ;. = .: ~ . ; : . = ~.=. . n:.: .c. : .::: r - - f ES-109 d.1 Satisfactory completion of a NRC approved training program of at least F one week duration at a nuclear power plant simulator. The simulator training center should certify the applicant's ability during a reac-1 tor startup to manipulate the controls, keep the reactor under control, I predict instrument response, use instrumentation, follow procedures, j and explain annunciator alarms that occur during operation.
- e. Manipulation of the controls of the facility during five significant i reactivity changes as described in the operator requalification pro-gram. Every effort should be made to diversify reactivity changes. l l f. Participation in reactor and plant operation at power levels of at i least 20% power operation.
l l
- 3. Education Requirements i a. High school diploma or equivalent.2
{t C. Senior Reactor Operator - Candidates Without 4-Year Degree in Engineering or Applied Science
- 1. Experience Requirements i
~
! a. Minimum of 4 years of responsible power plant experience as a control room operator (fossil or nuclear) or as a power plant staff engineer involved in the day-to-day activities of the facility commencing with
; the final year of construction. Of this 2 years shall be nuclear power plant experience.
t l i b. Licensed reactor operator at the same facility for at least a year.
- j. Experience for 1 year as a licensed reactor operator or senior reactor 1
operator at another nuclear power plant may be substituted. Actual l ! operating experience for 1 year in a position that is equivalent to a , licensed operator or senior reactor operator at military propulsion reactors may be substituted on a one-for-one basis. Navy ratings 1 . that are considered equivalent are (1) Propulsion Plant Watch Officer, (2) Engineering Watch Supervisor, (3) Engine Room Supervisor, (4) Reactor Operator, (5) Chief, Reactor Watch, (6) Engineering ~0fficer
- of Watch, and (7) Propulsion Plant Watch Supervisor. l j c. Minimum of 6 months at the site for which the license is sought. I l
l 2. Training Requirements
- a. Minimum of 3 months on shift as an extra person in training for a i position as senior reactor operator, l j b.1 Training in (1) heat transfer, (2) fluid flow, (3) thermodynamics, c (4) use of installed plant system to control or mitigate an accident 1
in which the core is severely damaged, (5) reactor and plant transients,
- j. (6) reactor theory, (7) handling and disposal of radioactive materials, l Examiner Standards 2 of 6 4 .,
._ _ . . ___........_._..._...__a- 1 .
l l ES-109 l i j (8) specific operating characteristics of the plant (s) for which the i license is sought, (9) fuel handling and core parameters, and (10) administrative procedures, conditions and limitations.
- 3. Education Requirements
- a. High school diploma or equivalent.2 l
- 0. Senior Reactor Operator - Candidates With 4-Year Degree in Engineering or Applied Science
- 1. Experience Requirements
- a. Minimum of 2 years of responsible nuclear power plant experience which may be as a staff engineer involved in the day-to-day operation of the plant. I s, b. Minimum of 6 months at the site for which the license is sought. l 2._.__ Training Requirements 1
- a. Minimum of 3 months on shift as an extra person in training for an SR0 position. I 1
b.1 Training in (1) heat transfer, (2) fluid flow, (3) thermodynamics, (4) use of installed plant systems.to control or mitigate an accident in which the core is severely damaged, (5) reactor and plant transients
) (6) reactor theory,(7) handling and disposal of radioactive materials, (8) specific operating characteristics of the plant (s) for whicn the license is sought, (9) fuel handling and core parameters, and (10) administrative procedures, conditions and limitations.
c.1 Total of 500 hours of lectures on: (1) principles of reactor opera-tion and reactor theory, (2) design features and specific operating characteristics of the plant (s) involved, (3) instrumentation and L control systems, (4) safety and emergency systems, (5) standard and , emergency operating procedures, (6) administrative procedures, condi- I tions and limitations, (7) radiation control and safety procedures, l and (8) handling and disposal of radioactive materials. . d.1 Satisfactory completion of a NRC approved training program of at least one week duration at a nuclear power plant simulator. The simulator training center should certify the applicant's ability during a reac-tor startup to manipulate the controls, keep the reactor under control, predict instrument response, use instrumentation, follow procedures, l i and explain annunciator alarms that occur during operation.
' l 1
- e. Manipulation of the controls of the facility during five significant reactivity changes as described in the operator requalification pro-gram. Every effort should be made to diversify reactivity changes. I Examiner Standards 3 of 6
__ __ . . _ ~
.2 _ . _ . _ .x . _ _
-=> _
ES-109
- f. Participation in reactor and plant operation at power levels up to at least 20% power operation. l
- 3. Education Requirements
- a. At least a 4 year degree in engineering or applied science. I E. Eligibility Requirements for Cold Examinations
- 1. Cold examinations are those examinations administered before initial criticality.
- 2. Each candidate has to complete satisfactorily the training programs that are submitted in Section 13.2 of the Final Safety Analysis Report and approved by the NRC.
7 3. The Licensee Qualification Branch, Division of Human Factors Safety, reviews
; and approves these programs before examinations by OLB and initial fuel - loading.
- 4. The basis for review and approval is contained in Section 13.2.1 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) (NUREG-0800).
~ 5. SRP Section 13.2.1 ellows the applicant for an operating license to vary the training program for the following three classes of individuals:
- a. individuals with no previous experience
- b. individuals who have had nuclear experience at facilities not subject
, to licensing
- c. individuals who hold, or have held, licenses for comparable facilities
- 6. The letter sent to all power reactor applicants and licensee from H. Denton, NRR, dated March 28, 1980, stated that precritical applicants
; (candidates) will be required to meet unique qualifications designed to accommodate the fact that their facility has not been in operation.
Generally, these unique qualifications apply to areas of experience at their own plant because the plant has not yet been in operation. For example,
- a. Cold training programs for persons with no previous experience are required to contain observation programs at plants that are as similar to their own as possible.
- b. Cold training programs for persons with no previous experience usually contain simulator training programs. -
The approved cold training program should be used as the basis for ' deter-mining cold examination eligibility. Exa:iner Standards 4 of 6
ES-109-I
- 7. Eligibility for examinations for licenses at second or third units of
, multiunit stations is addressed in Standard ES-106.
F. Contents of Applications I
- 1. Each application shall be made on NRC Form 398. Form 398 contains all of 1
the requirements of 10 CFR 55.10 and must be completely filled out and signed by the appropriate personnel. .
. 2. A report of medical examination (NRC Form 396) completed by a licensed practitioner shall be submitted. !
I 3. If a candidate is reapplying following a denial, 10 CFR 55.12 applies and a new complete form 398 shall be submitted. Training received after the denial should be highlighted in item 15, comments. I a. If a candidate's application has been denied because of failure of the written or operating test or both, a new application may be filed 2 months after the date of denial. A third application can be filed 6 months after date of denial and successive applications 2 years after date of denial.
- b. If the candidate passed either the written or operating portion of the test, he can request a waiver from that portion already passed.
i c. The reapplication should identify those areas in which the applicant i demonstrated weaknesses during the previous examination and the addi-i tional training received to correct these specific deficiencies. 4 l d. The medical certificate, Form NRC 396, is good for 6 months from the date the NRC physician signs it. For reapplication following a denial or withdrawal by the license candidate the regional office may waive
- the requirement for a new medical certificate if the date of the l
original medical was within one year of the scheduled reexamination and a waiver of the requirement for a new medical certificate is L requested by the applicant. The request for waiver should be made in item 15, Comments, on NRC form 398 or by separate letter with the re-application. The disposition of the waiver request shall be docu-mented by a note on the NRC Form 396 originally submitted and in accordance with ES-111. G. Failure To Meet Eligibility Requirements
- 1. If an applicant fails to document or' meet the eligibility requirements of this standard, he shall not be permitted to sit for the examination and the administrative procedure of ES-112 section E should be followed. '
H. References i 1. American National Standards Institute, ANSI N 18.1-1971, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel." Examiner Standards 5 of 6 i i wn..-e.. ,,.%... , . , _ . - . . ,-.%,. . - - . . . _ - _ , , , . - . _ , . . -
.__,--4 --..,--_,_m - .-.,_..r_,,-..
ES-109 )
- 2. American National Standards Institute /American Nuclear Society, E j
ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981, " Selection, Qualifications and Training of Personnel , for Nuclear Power Plants." l
- 3. Letter from H. Denton (NRC) to All Power Reactor Applicants and Licensees,
Subject:
Qualifications of Reactor Operators, Mar. 28, 1980. l
- 4. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55, " Operators Licenses."
- 5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0094, "NRC Operator Licensing Guide," July 1976.
- 6. -- , NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," Nov. 1980.
- 7. -- , NUREG-0800, " Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis
.' Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," July 1981. .b [. 8. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 2.103(b)(1) and (2). l 1These training requirements can be met by successful completion of an NRC-approved training program. - 2 Equivalent is a GED certificate. Some states (e.g., New York) use a term other than GED certificate, but these certificates are equivalent to a GED certificate. Examiner Standards 6 of 6
1 1 l i ES-110 l
- Rev. 1 10/1/84 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR OPERATOR OR SENIOR i REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE CANDIDATES - NONPOWER REACTORS Purpose A.
? ! The purpose of this standard is to aid the examiners in their review of individual applications to determine the eligibility of candidates
- to be administered the NRC reactor operator or senior reactor operator licensing examination at a non power reactor. This standard lists the
- various requirements on training, educational experience, and certifica-l tion that must be met before a candidate can apply for an NRC reactor operator or senior operator license at non power reactors.
/ I '} B. Reactor Operator Eligibility Requirements iS 1. Certification Requirements Certification by responsible facility management that the ] a.
; individual has received sufficient training at the facility to
) , safely assume the duties and responsibilities of a licensed operator. (Form 398, block 17.b) ' i
! 2. Training Requirements L
j In consideration of the individual's previous experience, training ; and level of responsibility, the training performed shall: > 1
- a. Be adequate to ensure the safe operation of the facility, j l b. Include the topics identified in reference 1, Section 5.4. j
- c. Include operation of the reactor and its related systems
! - under the supervision of licensed operators and senior operators, j 3. Education Requirements )' There are no formal education requirements specifically endorsed by ! the NRC to be eligible for a non power reactor operator examination, j However, historically the NRC has viewed the education requirements of candidates for power and non power' licenses to be identical. If
! a candidate has not completed high school or received an equivalent
- certification, the number of years of education shall be identified j on the candidates application and evaluated for eligibility prior to examination. Successful completion of the NRC operator licensing examinations requires a knowledge of reading, writing and mathematics ,
i ! l Examiner Standards 1 of 6 1
.- __.. .-- -.- - - ,.. ,, _ _. ,_, ,.. ,,. - , , -. . - --, - ,-... .. ,.- , . . - . . - . - _ . . ~ , , . - . - , , , . - , . - . .
~ , a_ . , . . . -
.n ES-110 l
equivalent to that possessed by a high school graduate with the proper i academic subject background. C. Senior Reactor Operator Eligibility Requirements . 1. Experience and Certification Requirements
- a. Minimum of 3 years of nuclear related experience. A maximum of 2 years equivalent full-time academic training may be substituted for 2 of the 3 years. (Reference 1)
- b. Certification by responsible facility management that the individual has received appropriate and sufficient training at the facility to safely assume the duties and responsibilities of a licer. sed senior operator. (Form 398, Block 17b.)
5, 2. Training Requirements In consideration of the individual's previous experience, training and level of responsibility, the training performed shall: a. Be adequate to ensure the safe operation of the facility.
- b. Include the topics identified in reference 1, Section 5.3.
- c. Include operation of the reactor and its related control systems.
- 3. Education Requirements '
There are no formal education requirements specifically endorsed by the NRC to be eligible for a non power reactor senior reactor operator examination. However, historically the NRC has viewed the education requirements of candidates for power and non power reactor licenses to be identical. If a candidate has not completed high school or received an equivalent certification, the number of years of educa-tion shall be identified on the candidates application (Form 398) and evaluated for eligibility. Successful completion of the NRC senior operator licensing examinations requires a knowledge of reading, writing and mathematics equivalent to that possessed by a high school graduate with the proper academic subject background. D. Contents of Applications 1. Each application for reactor operator or senior reactor operat.or shall be made on personal qualifications statement (NRC Form 398). Also see Reference 3. Form 398 contains all of the requirements of 10 CFR 55.10 and must be completely filled out and signed by the appropriate personnel. Those sections or items that are not applicable to operators at non power reactors shall be marked Examiner Standards 2 of 6 O , . - _ . . - . _ y . . . - _ - -. __ ,,,.m. - . , , , - . . . , - . . , . _ .- - - . .
' ' ^ ^ ~ - ' ~
.a. . , n_. . _ . c.. . . . . _ .
1 ES-110 I l "NA" to indicate they are not applicable. Additionally, training criteria contained in ANSI /ANS-15.4 (1977) N380 should be followed in completing Item No. 12 (TRAINING) on NRC Form 398. 1 All sections of Form 398 should be completed as per the instructions.
! Other pertinent information specifically for Non-Power Reactor License i candidates should be completed on NRC Form 398 as follows:
J Section 4: Type of Application Items: a.2 applies only to new reactor facilities prior to criticality f.3 not applicable to non power facilities 3 e. " Reapplication" and f. " Reapplication waiver
- T request." If the application is a reapplication
;o subsequent to a prior failure, the requirement of 10 CFR 55.12(a), Reapplications, regarding a state-ment on retraining, is to be included. This requirement may be met by detailing the information in Block 12 or 15, or by a separate letter attached to the application. On reapplications any waivers to be considered are requested by checking the appro-priate blocks and identifying the categories of the written exam to be waivered, if applicable.
Section 10: Current position at facility i ,' Items: a, b, c, e, f, i are not directly applicable to non power reactors. Therefore, the item; "other" should be used for position descriptions. For example, Director of facility,
, Chief Reactor Supervisor, etc. Items g and h are only for licensed personnel. A non-licensed control room operator trainee should not be listed as a control room operator L (item h) but, instead, should be listed as a trainee under j item J. , Section 12: Training This section should contain only training received specifically for the license for which the application is rubmitted. Non power facil-1 ities normally do not have a formalized training program, therefore, the period of training should be identified (month and year from -
to) and " condensed" to the appropriate number of weeks. Example: A candidate spends four months in training from 1 June' through 30 September with two hours a week devoted to . fundamentals, two hours a week tracing systems, one hour Examiner Standards 3 of 6
. .. . z . . .. .. ..
ES-110 P a week in the control room, and one hour a week in actual l manipulation (two reactivity changes per manipulation). The " condensed" training would be from 6/84 to 10/84; Fundamental (16 week x 2 hr/ week); approximately one week, plant systems observation; one week, control room opera-tions; one week, and reactivity manipulation 32. Numbers do not have to be precise, but should be representative. Items: 3. " Simulator Operation" and " Simulator Name(s)," are not i applicable to non power facilities.
- 5. " Extra Person on Shift," is not applicable to non power facilities.
- 6. The entry of " continuous" or similar entry for the number
, '% of weeks in requalification is not sufficient.
' The acutal number of weeks (condensed in one time period) spent in t requalification must be listed as per the example in Section 12 " Training".
Section 13: Experience
~
Experience must be current up to the date of application and fitted into the categories as well as possible. Use of items 13.5, 13.9 and 13.16; "other", should be encouraged. In all cases the experi-ence should be briefly and fully described in Block 14, i Section 17: Item 17 a.: Signature - Applicant The applicant's signatures must appear on the application. Item b. or c.: Training Coordinator and Highest level of Corporate Management for Plant Operations This Item is normally the Non l'ower Facility Director or equivalent position. " Higher" authority is not needed. If the Facility Director is also the " Training Coordinator" then he/she must sign both items.
- 2. A report of medical examination (NRC Form 396) completed by a licensed practitioner.
- 3. If the candidate is reapplying for a license, 10 CFR 55.12 applies 1
and a new Form 398 should be used. The contents of 10 CFR 55.12 i l Examiner Standards 4 of 6 O
t , ES-110 are very similar to those of 10 CFR 55.10, and information that has not changed should not be duplicated on the new form.
- a. If a candidate's application has been denied because of failure of the written or operating test or both, a new application may be filed 2 months after the date of denial.
A third application can be filed 6 months after date of denial and successive applications after 2 years.
- b. If the candidate passed either the written or operating
) portion of the test, he can request a waiver from the j portion already passed.
- c. The reapplication should identify those areas in which the applicant demonstrated weakness during the previous examination and the additional training received to correct -
} these specific deficiencies.
- d. The medical certificate for the initial examination, Form
, NRC 396, is good for 6 months from the date the NRC physician
; signs it. However, this requirement may be waived in accor- -
~
dance with (ES-111) item G. i i I k l . t 4 I i I Examiner Standards 5 of 6 i l
ES-110 p REFERENCES
- 1. ANSI /ANS 15.4-1977 (N308), " Selection of Training of Personnel -
for Research Reactors."
- 2. 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses." '
- 3. Letter to "All Non-Power Reactor Licensees," from Darrell G.
Eisenhut, July 11, 1983.
)
t Examirer Standards 6 of 6 O
ES-111 Rev. 1 10/1/84 GRANTING OF WAIVERS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF OPERATOR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS REQUESTED BY OPERATOR AND SENIOR OPERATOR APPLICANTS A. PURPOSE This standard specifies and provides guidance to the examiner, of the requirements, for the granting or denial of waivers that may be requested by applicants for an NRC operators license. To maintain consistency and standardization across the regions, for the granting or denying of waivers, this standard lists those waiver requests that may be routinely granted by the Regional Offices. The purpose of this standard is to clarify both the NRR (OLB) policy pertaining to waivers of the Operator and Senior Operator
, Licensing examination requirements and the Regional and Headquarters respon-
] sibilities and interactions for granting or denying waivers.
! B. BACKGROUND As part of decentralization of the Operator Licensing Branch (OLB) the functions of the Operator Licensing Program were transferred to the Regional Offices. The delegation of authority to the Regional Offices regarding the operator licensing functions required that waivers to Operator and Senior Operator examination requirements be administered by (OLB) Headquar-ters. Many requests were made by the Regional Offices to clarify the OLB Headquarters policies pertaining to the waiver of Operator and Senior l Operator examination requirements. As a result, several types of waiver requests, submitted by applicants, have been identified to be of a recur-ring nature and classified as routine. In order to provide expediency in determining the resolution of waiver requests, these standard waiver items have been delegated to the Regional Office for administration. The waiver
- items are identified in Paragraph D of this standard. .
- C. ADMINISTRATION OF WAIVERS i
- 1. It is not the general policy of OLB to delegate waiver responsibility.
However, in specific waiver request cases that have well defined acceptance criteria, the waiver requested may be administered by Regional Office Management. None of the waivers from the provisions i of the operator licensing examination requirements shall be granted automatically but will be evaluated on a case basis. The waiver ! request may be denied if the evaluation and judgment of the case by the regional or Headquarters Staff so warrants. All waivers, whether granted or denied, shall be documented on the Personal Qualifications Statement (NRC-398), on which the request for a waiver was made.
- 2. Operator and Senior Operator Waivers ,
l The following list (Paragraph D) of routine waivers may be granted by ! a Regional Office. For any other waiver requests or special cases, OLB Headquarters shall be consulted to ensure that all waivers are uniformly and consistently applied by all the regions. Waivers of Examiner Standards 1 of 3
.s m .m : . . m. m m . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . _ . .. ._-- . . . . ES-111 experience requirements, completion of training, or completion of E 2 examinations, not specifically included in the List below should not be granted unless approved by OLB Headquarters.
- 3. Submittal of Waiver Requests All waiver requests, whether routine or special, should be submitted ;
by the applicant,to the responsible region for disposition. Any ) waivers forwarded to OLB, Headquarters for review and resolution will ; be evaluated in conjunction with the requesting regions input and recommendations. D. REGIONAL ADMINISTERED STANDARD WAIVERS
-1. If a candidate fails one category of the written exam (<70%), but has an overall grade of >80% and satisfactorily completes the oral and ,
simulator exams (if administered), the Region may waive those three I
} categories of the written exam for which the candidate received >70%
t and the oral and simulator examinations. This standard waiver is only applicable for the first retake exam.
- 2. If a candidate fails only one examination area (i.e., written or operating), the Region may waive those areas which were passed. Only I applicable for first retake examination.
- 3. The requirement to perform actual plant start-up may be waived if simulator start-ups have been performed. (Some utilities have included this waiver request even though their candidates have received simula-tor start-up certification.) Provisions of the Examiner Standards regarding cross check during the oral exam should be followed. This waiver is not applicable to research reactors, Ft. St. Vrain, Lacrosse, and Big Rock Pt.
- 4. A utility's request for waiver of specific FSAR training requirements may be granted when waiver of those specific requirements is authorized by the approved FSAR and the candidate otherwise meets NRC requirements.
(For example, waiver of some training requirements for candidates previously ifcensed at a comparable facility.)
- 5. The requirement for receipt of license renewal applications 30 days prior to the license expiration (timely submittal) may be waived for 5 days, to allow for transit time, if all signatures on the Forms 398 and 396 are dated prior to the 30 day cut-off. The submittal will not be considered timely if received less than 25 days prior to license expiration unless positive evidence (post mark, docketing stamp or other evidence of receipt by the U.S. Postal Service or U.S.N.R.C.)
is included. The waiver will not be granted unless both,the applica-tion (Form 398) and Medical Certification (Form 396) are received. Examiner Standards 2 of 3
ES-111
~
- 6. Up to a maximum of one month of the three months on shift in training can be waived for determining eligibility to sit for an examination.
The waiver should be granted only if there is good cause (i.e., good faith effort by utility to complete training, no other exam adminis-tration planned for some time, license needed to meet NRC requirement), the candidate has completed all other eligibility requirements, and the utility agrees to complete training in a timely manner and certify in writing as to successful completion prior to final licensing action. The region should ensure that the utility's schedule for completion is compatible with the schedule for finalizing licensing actions.
- 7. The Medical Certificate, Form NRC 396, is good for 6 months from the date the NRC physician signs it. Waivers may be granted on a case basis for reapplications following a license denial or a voluntary withdrawal by the license candidate, i.e., a new medical certificate ,
need not be submitted if the original medical evaluation was performed a within one year of the scheduled examination or re-examination. . t 8. Substitutions allowed by Regulatory Guide 1.8 and ANSI N18.1 or ANSI /ANS 3.1 (depending on the licensees commitment) are not considered to be waivers and, therefore, do not require approval. For example, substitution of related technical training for up to two years of experience is not a waiver. However, related technical training would not include training required to be eligible for the examination applied for, e.g., an SRO candidate with one year of technical school (electrical technician training at a community college), one year of RO training, including nuclear fundamentals, two years of experience as a licensed RO on-shift in the control room, and 9 months of SRO training would meet the eligibility requirements. However, if after 15 months as an RO on-shift, he had been put into the SRO training course, he would not be eligible because he does not have two years of experience as required. He has 15 months of experience and 9 months of required SRO training. 1 l Examiner Standards 3 of 3 l
~
ES-112 Rev-1 10/1/84 APPEALS OF LICENSE DENIALS i A. PURPOSE This standara specifies the policy and procedures for processing l appeals of license denials on the basis of written and operating I examination results. l B. BACKGPOUND l l An applicant who is denied a license must be notified of the nature of any deficiencies or the reason for the denial and of his right to demand a hearing within twenty (20) days from the date of the notice or such longer period as may be specified in the notice. Any contact (i.e., telephone) by the applicant or his facility 3i questioning the grading of the examination or the basis for the ' denial shall be regarded as a request for a hearing for the purpose 6 of meeting the requirements to demand a hearing within twenty (20) days. The regional office may accept appeals that are received up to ten (10) days after the appeal period has expired if there is reasonable cause for the delay such as delay in the mail or in receiving material necessary to determine that the appeal of the denial should be made. C. PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING APPEALS OF WRITTEN EXAMINATION RESULTS
- 1. A separate certified examiner is assigned to review the appeal.
- 2. The assigned examiner reviews the appeal against the Master Examination Answer Key for the specific examination, the supporting material that was provided by the utility for preparation of the examination, and the comments and supporting l material provided by the candidate. The entire examination is regraded, not just the questions commented on by the candidate.
L 3. If, based upon the new information provided by the applicant with the request for regrade, the candidate's examination score (total or category) changes significantly, examinations of other candidates who scored similarly to the regraded . candidate will also be subject to review and regrading. (A "significant" change is not defined here in terms of a specific percentage point number, but would include, for example, a i regrade that resulted in the passing of a candidate who initially failed the exam. Changes of 2% or less generally would not be considered significant). For example, 1) if the regrade increases a candidate's category score from 64% to 70% a (+6%) change, and this changes his examination outcome from fail to pass, the examinations of all other candidates who failed t because they scored between 64% - 69% in that section should i Examiner Standards 1 of 4 l l 1
. .. . ~ - . - . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
~. .
1 l ES-112 4 also be regraded to determine if the new information will a similarly affect their licensing decisions. This applies to F tne total examination score also; for example, 2) a regrade i similarly increases a candidates total score from 76% to 82% a l (+6%) change, the examinations of all other candidates with a total score between 74% - 79% should also be regraded. The regrade should include the entire examination, not just the failed section or the disputed portions of the examination. l Alternatively, for example, 3) if regrading results in a point decrease of 65% to 59% a (-6%) change, the entire examinations of all candidates who scored between 70% - 76% in that section i should be reviewed and regraded to determine if their scores should be similarly altered. This also applies to the total exam score; for example, 4) a decrease in total exam score from 80% to 74% a (-6%) change, the examination of all other candidates with a total score between (85%-79%) should also be regraded. 3 t 4. The examiner indicates the changes to the examination scoring, the reasons for the changes, and any necessary supporting material. A summary of the grading changes is prepared, and the grading changes and summary are forwarded to the section chief.
- 5. The section chief reviews the regrading. He may regrade sections, review changes to the original grading or discuss the regrading with the examiners. Based on his review, the section chief shall determine if sufficient justification exists to sustain or overturn the licensing decision.
- 6. A licensing recommendation is made by modifying and initialing the original Examination Report and resubmitting it to the branch chief. The branen chief sustains or overturns the denial based on the section chief's recommendations and his own review.
- 7. If the denial is overturned, the license is issued with an effective date consistent with that of the other licensing candidates who took the examination at the same time.
- 8. If the license denial is sustained by the Regional Administrator or his designated representative, a copy of the entire package is sent to the Director and Chief Counsel, Regional Operations and Enforcement Division, Office of Executive Legal Director, and to the Chief, Operator Licensing Brnach, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), for evaluation. The candidate is informed of the results of the initial reevaluation and that it has been forwarded to the legal staff and NRR, as appropriate,
- for final evaluation.
Examiner Standards 2 of 4
ES-112
- 9. Questions between the legal and operator licensing staffs are worked out, and then the legal staff informs the candidate of the decision to sustain the denial. The procedure for pursuing the applicant's right to a hearing is explained, and a representative of the legal staff is identified for future contact concerning the appeal.
D. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING APPEALS BASED ON OPERATING EXAMINATION RESULTS
- 1. Due to the more subjective nature of the operating tests, appeals are reviewed by the section chief and then discussed with the examiner who recommended license denial. The section chief determines if the operating examination report provides sufficient justification to support the denial and that the
,g examiner maintains the original evaluation considering the
- comments and justification provided by the candidate.
- 2. A licensing recommendation is made by modifying and initialing the examination report and resubmitting it, and a written justification for the action, to the branch chief. The branch chief sustains or overturns the denial based on the section
- chief's recommendation and his own review.
- 3. Actions for overturning or sustaining of denial from this point are the same as actions 7, 8, and 9 for written examina-tion appeals.
E. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING APPEALS BASED ON OTHER REQUIREMENTS
- 1. If on review of NRC Form 398 an applicant has not met the requirements outlined in ES-109, the Regional Office shall contact the training coordinator of the applicant and explain the deficiencies noted. The applicant will be given the opportunity to supply supplemental information or a new more
; complete 398 form. If after supplying complete information the applicant still does not meet the requirements to sit for the examination, the applicant shall be formally notified by letter of his right to request a waiver of the requirement and to provide information or arguments to support his waiver request. The waiver request should be processed in accordance with ES-111.
- 2. If an applicant is finally denied the right to sit for an examination after a review of complete information on his experience, training and education and after denial of a waiver of the requirement where he was deficient, he shall be formally notified of the denial, the reason for the denial, and of his right to appeal under 10 CFR 2.103(b).
GP Examiner Standards 3 of 4
. . . . . . . 2 _ _. .c.a _ e; . a.;.u .. <a wne .a.._..._..a- _
i i ES-112
- 3. If an applicant is denied the right to sit for an examination !
j or is denied a license for any reason not covered in the stan-l dard, the applicant shall be formally notified of the reason for denial and of his right to appeal under 10 CFR 2.103(b). I l
- 4. Actions for processing the appeal from this point are the same as C. 7, 8, and 9 of this standard.
1 l i
,g .
t I j Examiner Standards 4 of 4
O t ES-201 Rev. 1 10/1/84 l ADMINISTRATION OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS TO REACTOR OPERATOR CANDIDATES - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard specifies the various requirements and procedures for the preparation, administration, and grading of reactor operator license examinations. Examiner preparation, examination review by the facility, and proctor requirements alsc are included. B. Assignment The assignment of a chief examiner will be indicated on the Request To 7 Administer an Examination. The chief examiner shall be responsible for ensuring that the written examination is prepared, administered, and
! graded in accordance with the examiner standards.
The assignment of the examination includes preparing, administering, and grading the examination unless other arrangements have specifically been made. C .' Orientation Trips All examiners will prepare written examinations periodically. Preparation of an examination at a facility that the examiner has not previously visited may require that the examiner make an orientation trip to the facility a few weeks before the scheduled examination. The need for an orientation trip shall be determined by the examiner in ::onsultation with the appropriate section chief. To minimize the need for orientation trips, exaniners are expected to make maximum use of training material provided by the facility through self study and discussions with other examiners. D. Provision of Literature Reference material to be used in preparing examinations shguld be re-quested from the facility far enough in advance of the examination to allow for possible delivery delays and for inventorying the material received. If the material is inadequate, it is essential to request additional material immediately from the facility. The training coordi-nator is usually the best person to contact for the material. A list of appropriate reference material to be used as a guide is given in Attachment 1 to this standard. The examiner who requests this.infor-mation shall inform the appropriate section chief of the date of request I and person contacted. During these initial contacts, the examiner shall inform the facility contact of the requirements for administration of the examination, as given in Attachment 2 to this standard. Examiner Standards I of 17
. . . _ . , . . _ . ,u.. . . . . . . . . _ 1 ES-201 Attachment 3 to this standard contains an example of the letter that f will be mailed to the facility, formalizing the examination schedule and statement of requirements. Attachments 1 and 2 of this standard are examples for attachments to the letter. The appropriate section leader or chief is responsible for having this letter typed, signed by the regional branch chief, and sent. The letter should be addressed to the
, parson at the highest level of corporate management who is responsible for plant operations (e.g., Vice President of Operations) and should be cailed 90 days before the first examination date. The exact wording of the letter may be modified as necessary to reflect the situation. E. Preparation of Examination The examiner shall prepare the examination and answers using Standards ES-202 and ES-203 as guidance. The examiner should conduct a detailed review of the examination using attachment 1 of ES-107 as a guide. .'i Attachment 1 of ES-107 should be filed with the master copy of the
' examination.
t F. Quality Assurance Review of Examination The regional section chief, or his designee, shall review the examina-tion in accordance with Standard ES-107. The completed examination shall be submitted for review at least 1 week before the scheduled date l of its administration. If changes to the examination are necessary, the examiner shall be notified at least two working days before the adminis-tration of the examination, provided the necessary lead time was allowed. If no instructions to the contrary have been received, the examination should be given as prepared. G. Administration of Examination
- 1. The examiner should distribute the examination questions to the candidates, explaining the rules to be observed during the exami-nation.
~
- 2. The examiner should read the following instructions verbatim to the candidates. Additional items may be discussed, as necessary.
During the administration of this examination the following rules and guidance apply:
- a. Cheating on the examination means an automatic denial of your application and could result in more severe penalties.
- b. You should sign the statement on the cover sheet that indicates that the work is your own and you have not -
received or been given assistance in completing the examination. This should be done after the examination has been completed. Examiner Standards 2 of 17
_ , - - _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . - . _ . . . _ _ _ . - _ , . _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . ~ . __ ._ s a. ES-201
- c. Restroom trips are to be limited and only one candidate at a time may leave. You must avoid all contacts with noncan-didates outside the examination room to avoid even the appearance or possibility of cheating.
- d. When you complete your examination, you shall (1) Turn in your copy of the examination and all pages used to answer the examination questions.
(2) Turn in all scrap paper and the balance of the paper that you did not use for answering the questions. (3) Leave the examination area, as defined by the examiner. If after leaving you are found in this
) ,
area while the examination is still in progress, your license may be denied.
- e. Print your name in the blank provided on the cover sheet of the examination.
- f. Fill in the date on the cover sheet of the examination.
- g. Print your name in upper right-hand corner of the first page of each section of the answer sheet.
- h. Consecutively number each answer sheet, write "End of Category " as appropriate and "Last Page" on last answer sheet, and write on only one side of paper. ,
- i. Number each answer as to category and number, for example, 1-4, 6-3.
- j. Use black ink or dark pencil only to facilitate legible reproductions.
- k. Use abbreviations only if they are commonly used in facil-ity literature.
! 1. Show all calculations, methods, or assumptions used to obtain an answer to mathematical problems whether indi-cated in the questions or not.
- m. Separate answer sheets from pad and place finished answer sheets face down on your desk or table,
- n. If parts of the examination are not clear as to intent, ask questions of the examiner only. -
Examiner Standards 3 of 17 s__- - .- - -
o , ES-201
- o. Allow at least three lines between each answer. P i
- p. Partial credit may be given; do not leave any answer blank.
- 3. After passing out the examination, the examiner should ask the candidates to verify that all parts of the examination are in their copy by page checking the examination, and then distribute answer l sheet paper that has'been furnished to the chief examiner by the facility in unopened packages. *
- 4. The examiner should repeat the instructions that are included on the facing sheet of the examination by reading the following instructions verbatim:
- a. Use only the paper provided by the examiner for answers. '
- b. Staple your copy of the examination questions on top of the answer sheets before turning in your papers.
- c. The point value for each question is indicated in paren-theses after the question and can be used as a guide for the depth of answer required. If more points are assigned to a question, the question requires that more items be discussed.
- 5. The examiner should inform the candidates that to pass the examina-tion they must achieve an overall grade of 80% or greater and at least 70% in each category.
6. The examiner should inform the candidates that there is a time limit of 6 hours for completion of the examination. For candidates taking one or more sections of a written examination, each section should be limited to one quarter of the allotted time per section. After the examiner has completed the instructions, he should tell the candidates to start the examination,' record the time, and keep the candi-dates advised periodically of the amount of time that remains to complete the examination. Normally, a blackboard is available and can be used for this purpose. During the examination, candidates are not permitted to communicate or refer to any texts or descriptive material other than tables furnished by the examiner. If the examiner has asked a question that involves use of a formula or infrequently used constant, then this formula or co.nstant will be supplied on the equation sheet. All reference material shall be furnished by the examiner. - i ! Examiner Standards 4 of 17 o
ES-201 The examiner shall follow the proctoring procedure agreed upon with the section chief and/or branch chief, as required, to ensure the integrity of the examination. In rare cares, variations from the procedure may be necessary. However, these variations must be documented. Every effort must be made to ensure the integrity of the examination. H. Facility Staff Review of Examination Due to recent interest generated by the Industry and NUMARC, this section of ES-201-H is being considered for revision and will be issued in the near future. The current review policy will remain in effect until any future revisions occur. I t Examiner Standards 5 of 17
. . . ._ _ _. _._.x. _ . . . . . .
ES-201 F 't t t I. Proctoring of Examinations All written examinations shall be adequately proctored to ensure the integrity of the examinations. Two individuals shall be available for
; proctoring. One proctor shall be in the examination room at all times giving his full attention to the candidates taking the examination. The proctor shall not read facility procedures or other material, grade examinations, or engage in any other activities in a manner or depth that may divert his attention from the candidates and possibly cause the examination to be compromised.
Before the administration of the examination, the proctors shall have a clear understanding of their responsibilities. The chief examiner is responsible for ensuring 100% proctoring of the examination. The chief examiner shall determine the means to be used to ensure ade-quate proctoring of the examination. Consideration shall be given to
- 1. using Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) part-time secre-tarial help Examiner Standards 6 of 17
O a ES-201
- 2. using more than one examiner
- 3. using IE resident inspectors
- 4. using local high school and/or college teachers / professors or other Federal, State, or local employees.
If a proctor who is not an NRC employee is used, the chief examiner shall be responsible for. obtaining the proctor and ensuring that a contract has been properly placed with the proctor. At least one examiner shall be available to provide clarification to the candidates on the examination questions. Therefore, if the person writing the examination is not available, the other examiners must be certain that they are familiar with the intent of the questions. J. Length of Examinations .T [o Although the written examinations must be appropriately thorough and comprehensive, they should not be so long that a knowledgeable candidate cannot complete the examination in the time allotted. The duration of a power reactor examination is 6 hours. Refer to Standard ES-202 for information on the scope of the written examinations. Reexaminations, which are partial examinations containing only one category, will be limited to one quarter of the allotted time. All candidates shall be informed of the time limits at the beginning of the examination. K. Grading of Examinations All corrections to questions and answer keys shall be processed expedi-tiously before the written examinations are graded. The original copy I or legible, reproducible copies of the original proposed corrections shall be annotated with their disposition and kept with the copy of the master examination. . Grading should be performed as expeditiously as possible. The number of
; points given to, or taken off, for each answer should be indicated on the candidate's answer sheet, in red pen or pencil. Also, a brief nota- l tion as to the reason for less than full credit should be entered. This may be a notation of the correct answer, a missing item, an indication of poor method, or some suitable brief notation. The points and nota-tions should be reproducible and distinguishable from the candidates answer when reproduced.
After the grading is completed, Columns 3 and 4, " Candidate's Score" and
"% of Category Value," on the cover sheet shall be filled out. The examiner shall conduct a detailed review of his grading using Attach-ment 1, ES-108-1, as a guide. After the examinations are graded., suffi- I cient copies of the master copy.of the examination shall be reproduced so
)
Examiner Standards 7 of 17 1 I lI t
e O ES-201 that at least one copy is forwarded to the regional office. If an appeal of the graded reactor operator written examination is received, the procedures in Standard ES-112 should be followed. l L. Administrative Details The grading examiner shall complete the written examination cover sheet showing the results of the grading and the appropriate portions of the
" Power Plant Examination Results Summary," ES-201 attachment 5, and the
" Examination Grading Quality Assurance Checkoff Sheet" Attachment 1, ES-108-1. The examiners in the team shall communicate the written grades to the grading examiner so that Examination Reports (Forms 157A, B, and C) and the " Power Plant Examination Results Summary Sheet" (ES-201 Attachment 5) are filled out as completely as possible before being forwarded to the regional office by certified mail. Written examination results should not be held pending completion of other portions of the
y examination. If oral and/or simulator results are not available at the same time as the written results, then appropriate sections of Form 157 t should be completed and forwarded to the regional section chief. The chief examiner is responsible for ensuring that all results are reported to the section chief.
The chief examiner shall complete ES-201 Attachment 5 and assemble the following in one package to be forwarded to the regional section chief.
- 1. original and one copy of master examination and answers
- 2. all written examinations
- 3. all oral and operating reports (NRC Jorms 157A. 8, and C)
- 4. Attachments ES-107-1, ES-108-1, ES-201-5, and ES-201-6. t
- 5. copy of the corrected Examiner Assignment Sheet M. Quality Assurance Review of Graded Examinations The appropriate section chief, or his designee, shall ensure that all .
examination results and documentation are completed and shall conduct an independent review of written answers after the examinations are graded by examiners in his section, as required in Standard ES-108. 1 l Examiner Standards 8 of 17
s . ES-201-1 ATTACHMENT 1 REFERENCE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REACTOR / SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS l l
- 1. Procedure Index (alphabetical by subject)
- 2. All administrative procedures (as applicable to reactor operation or safety)
- 3. All integrated plant procedures (normal or general operating procedures)
- 4. Emergency procedures (emergency instructions, abnormal or special procedures) -
}
1 -
- 5. Standing orders (important orders that are safety related and may supersede the regular procedures)
- 6. Fuel-handling and core-loading procedures, (initial core-loading procedure, when appropriate)
- 7. Annunciator procedures (alarm procedures, including set points)
- 8. Radiation protection manual (r uiation control manual or procedures)
- 9. Emergency plan implementing procedures
- 10. Technical Specifications
- 11. Lesson plans (training manuals, plant orientation manual, system descriptions, reactor theory, thermodynamics, etc.)
. 12. System operating procedures
- 13. Piping and instrumentation diagrams, electrical single-line dia-grams, or flow diagrams
- 14. Technical Data Book, and/or plant curve information as used by operators
- 15. Any other material the examiner feels is necessary to adequately prepare a written examination, such as reactor traces of signifi-cant plant evolutions.
- 16. Questions and answers that licensee has prepared (voluntary'by licensee) -
Examiner Standards 9 of 17
. . 1 l
ES-201-1
- 17. Malfunction applicable) and initial condition material for simulator (if I The above reference material should be approved, final issues and should be so marked. If a plant has not finalized some of the material, the chief examiner is responsible for ensuring that the most complete, up-to-date material is available and that agreement has been reached with the licensee for limiting changes before the administration of the examination. All procedures and reference material should be bound or in the form used by the control room operators, with appropriate indexes cr tables of contents so that they can be used efficiently.
.g t
J Examiner Standards 10 of 17 l
ES-201-2 ATTACHMENT 2 REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS l Operator Licensing Branch requirements are:
- 1. A single room shall be provided for completing the written examina-tion. The location of this room and supporting restroom facilities shall be such as to prevent contact with all other facility and/or contractor personnel during the duration of the written examination.
If necessary, the facility should make arrangements for the use of a suitable room at a local school, motel, or other building. Ob-taining this room is the responsibility of the licensee. 3i 2. Minimum spacing is required to ensure examination integrity as s determined by the chief examiner. Minimum spacing should be one candidate per table, with a 3-ft space between tables. No wall charts, models, and/or other training materials shall be present in the examination room.
- 3. Suitable arrangements shall be made by the facility if the candi-dates are to have lunch, coffee, or other refreshments. These arranger.ents shall comply with Item 1 above. These arrangements shall be reviewed by the examiner and/or proctor.
- 4. The facility may arrange to have knowledgeable personnel available to review the written examination and answer key. The maximum number of reviewers should be limited to one reviewer for each exam-ination section to be reviewed and the length of the review should be limited to two hours. The chief examiner shall schedule and control the written examination review.
- 5. The licensee shall provide pads of 8-1/2- by 11-in. lined paper in unopened packages for each candidate's use in completing the exam- )
ination. The examiner shall distribute these pads to the candidates. l All reference material needed to complete the examination shall be furnished by the examiner. Candidates can bring pens, pencils, calculators, or slide rules into the examination room, and no other equipment or reference material shall be allowed.
- 6. Only black ink or dark pencils should be used for writing answers to questions.
j l Examiner Standards 11 of 17 l l c ..
ES-201-3 P! ATTACHMENT 3 LETTER TO FACILITY FORMALIZING EXAMINATION SCHEDULE To: I Date:
Subject:
Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Licensing Examinations In a telephone conversation between Mr. (title, i.e., training coordinator) and Mr. (section leader, OLB) arrangements were made for the administration of the examinations at the (facility name). ' t The written examinations are scheduled for (date). The simulator / operating examinations are scheduled for (date) and the (name) simulator. The plant oral examinations are scheduled for (date). In order for us to meet the above schedule, it will be necessary for the facility to furnish the approved reference material listed in Attach-ment 1, " Reference Material Requirements for Reactor / Senior Reactor Operator Licensing Examinations," by (date). Any delay in receiving this material will result in a delay in administering the examinations. Our examinations are scheduled far in advance with considerable planning to utilize our present limited examiner manpower and to meet the examina-tion dates requested by the various facilities. Therefore, missing the (date) deadline, even by a few days, likely will result in a long delay because it may not be possible to reschedule examinations at other facilities. Mr. has been advised of our reference material requirements, the number of reference material sets that are required, and the examiner's names and addresses where each set is to be mailed. The facility management is responsible for providing adequate space and facilities in order to properly conduct the written examinations. Attachment 2, " Administration of Reactor / Senior Reactor Operator Licensing Written Examinations," describes our requirements for conducting these examinations. Mr. has also been informed of these ; requirements. ' All reactor operator and senior reactor operator license applications normally should be submitted at least 60 days before the first examina-tion dates so that we will be able to review the training and exper,ience of the candidates, process the medical certifications, and prepare final examiner assignments after candidate eligibility has been determined. If the applications are not received at least 30 days before the examina-tion dates, it is likely that a postponement will be necessary. I Examiner Standards 12 of 17 l 1
...... ..- - .. c : .:- . . ..- u . - : .-.=.;- u. :.-. . >. x.. ; . . . .e : < .. . - -
.. i ES-201-3 This request for information was approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Clearance Number 3050-0101, which expires June 30, 1986.
Comments on burden and duplication may be directed to the Office of Nanagement and Budget, Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any ques-tions regarding the examination procedures and requirements, please contact Mr. (appropriate section leader and telephone number), or Mr. (OLB Branch Chief) or (regional section chief and telephone number). Sincerely, l'k' - (OLB Branch Chief or appropriate
. regional representative)
Oistribution: Project Manager Resident Inspector Regional Section Leader Examiners Chief Examiner NRC Project Offices Examiner Standards 13 of 17
.. . . = . ~ . .
. = -
l ES-201-4 0' ATTACHMENT 4 NRC/ FACILITY STAFF WRITTEN EXAMINATION REVIEW GUIDE l Facility Examination Date l
- 1. This examination and answer key is provided for a limited period of time for review only.
- 2. No copies of this examination or answer key are to be made under any circumstancas.
- 3. This examination and answer key is to be returned to the chief examiner along with ect.ments and supporting material, if any, at I the end of the examir:ation review. I S 4. Contact between facility personnel or facility contract personnel and examination candidates after the written examination begins is strictly forbidden until the candidates have turned in their examinations and left the examination area. No contact is allowed between the examination candidates and those facility personnel involved'in the examination review until after the examination review is completed.
- 5. After comments and supporting material are provided to the chief examiner, no other comments on the written examination will be accepted by the examiners. Any additional comments on the written examination should be provided in writing to the appropriate regional branch chief.
- 6. All comments and supporting materials supplied on this review are subject to release on request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Therefore, any material considered to be proprietary should be
; appropriately marked.
i i Examiner Standards 14 of 17 l
.-- .---.- - _- - _ .-- - . . . . . . . ~ - . . - _ . _ _ . . . . . - o . ES-201-5 ATTACHMENT 5 Power Plant Examination Results Summary
]jjf i !
N\\\\\\\NN\x
*II- NNNNNNNNNNNN xxxxxxxxxxxx yl it c-ii l % \\\\NNNNNNNN i
IO
, ,I. 2 o \\\\ \\\\\\\\ 5UI f j
> 3
. NNNNNNNNNNNN J 11
; g T: ,-- . a jil.
5 e : 1 a
! n!
g __ I. 1l g ]; E
~
5 _. A . 5 I i } }i l - i, I ll
~
2 E E! l
~
2
= ?
! 5 Iw
! - I E
t B i 'l B a a 1 l a a a . :r .
)
i l Examiner Standards 15 of 17 l l
- . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . ... ..a. . - . . -
ES-201-6 F' ATTACHMENT 6 EXAMINATION ADMINISTRATION QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECK 0FF SHEET Plant / Unit Examination Date Examiner (s) Proctor (s) EXAMINATION: Operator Senior Examination Adminisration 1 Chief Examiner Item Description Initial /date
- 't i 1. Adequate Spacing during examination
~
- 2. Examination Room and Restroom facilities adequate to prevent examination compromise.
a
- 3. Continuous proctoring maintained throughout examination
- 4. Examination and answer key review not started until after completion of written examination.
- 5. Candidates did not participate in s
review of examination
- 6. Record names of facility reviewers of R0 Examination Name Area reviewed Examiner Standards 16 of 17
- .. . i. : ~ : u a.r.= x . .u.2,.; .= . a.w x..i .. ... .- .. . . . . . , . . . . . ...- .
ES-201-6
- 7. Record names of facility reviewers of SRO Examination Name Area reviewed Tt G,
Chief Examiner Signature Date l Examiner Standards 17 of 17 l
x ., .. m. _. . . _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . - . _ . _ - . . . . . . , _ , _ .. ... . _ ._ ES-202 Rev. 1 10/1/84 l SCOPE OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS ADMINISTERED TO REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard provides guidelines for the content _of each category of l the reactor operator written examination. Guidance on question depth, format, sources and general preparation is also presented. l B. Scope The required scope of the written examination is set forth in 10 CFR 55. To implement this scope and to provide for identification and documenta-tion of strengths and weaknesses within certain areas of knowledge, the
'} written examination shall be divided into the following four categories:
1 1. Principles of Nuclear Power Plant Operation, Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, and fluid Flow This category shall contain questions relating to basic nuclear ' reactor behavior, elementary nuclear reactor theory, technical
._ = . ,
terminology, and an appreciation of the processes taking place in a nuclear power plant. These processes include controlled and vari- i able parameters of the reactor, primary and secondary coolant, and auxiliary systems. Values that are expressed as normal or operating parameters or values that are measured as resultant characteristics shall be included in this category. Also included shall be questions rotating to the traces that one would see on recorders during normal and abnormal transients, with the emphasis on facility behavior rather than instrument character-istics. Secondary system transients that induce reactor transients ' also shall be subject questions in this category. This category also shall contain questions on fundamentals of hydraulics and fluid flow, heat transfer and heat generation, and thermodynamics and simple calculational. problems to determine under-standing in this area. These questions will test the candidates' l knowledge and understanding of the concepts of temperature measure-i ment, density, viscosity, pressure, and volume and the effects of parametric changes on fluids. Questions relating to the use of i steam tables may also be included. The principles of heat transfer by conduction, convection, and radiation, as well as characteristics of heat exchanger operation and natural circulation, shall be investigated in this category. Also included may be questions concerning the applicability of these fundamentals to operational
- situations and transients and the ability to recognize and mitigate l the consequences of core damage.
l 1 Examiner Standards 1 of 6
--_ ~ , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . , . , _ . . _ . _ - . ,
ES-202 p Answering these questions may require mathematical ability including algebra and fundamental knowledge in reactor physics. Questions in : this category shall be related to reactors in general and reactors ' of the type used at the facility.
- 2. Plant Design, Including Safety and Emergency Systems
- This category shall contain questions on the design features of
; the particular facility, with emphasis on those systems that are l designed to maintain, and protect against, the uncontrolled release
- of radioactive materials. The candidate should be able to repro-duce, from memory, sketches or descriptions of various hydraulic, pneumatic, or electrical distribution systems and mechanical com-
- ponents. Questions on design intent, construction, operation, and interrelationships of those systems most directly associated with t) i normal nuclear power plant operation and reactor safety can also be included. The candidate should be familiar with the conditions that require the use of safety and emergency systems and why such protection is required, with emphasis on areas where a malfunction will require immediate operator action.
_ 3. Instruments and Controls l This category shall contain questions on the characteristics and ! interrelationship of the nuclear, process, and radiological instru-i, mentation and facility control systems. The candidate should have i sufficient knowledge of the nuclear instruments (e.g., source, i intermediate, and power), the process instruments (e.g., temp-
; erature, pressure, level, and flow), and radiological instruments 1 (e.g., ionization, G-M, and scintillation), to answer questions concerning principles of detector operations, location and setpoints of instruments, and diagrammatic representation of instr. mentation ,
systems. Questions on control systems (e.g., control rod drive, , level, pressure, electrohydraulic control, and integrated control)
; will include function, operation, interlocks, and interrelationships
'l with other plant systems. A candidate is not expected to have the knowledge of an instrument t. technician, but answers should indicate the ability to recognize the indications and consequences of improper instrument performance (e.g., overcompensation, power failure, air supply failure, and i signal failure), including the traces that recorders would show. He also should be able to make use of all available instrumentation to provide checks or verification of observed readings. I i
- 4. Procedures - Normal, Abnormal, Emergency, and Radiological Control i This category shall contain questions on the knowledge and use'of facility procedures including normal, abnormal, emergency, adminis- !
trative, and radiological control procedures. The candidate is not ; expected to have normal procedures committed to memory but should ! Examiner Standards 2 of 6 l 1
~ .:_u.. w a n . 2...--...._~..-...u.. . . : =.u . .z.=:.; .= -..--..w ES-202 be able to explain reasons, cautions, and limitations of normal operating procedures. In general, the candidate must demonstrate complete knowledge and understanding of the symptoms, automatic actions, and immediate action steps specified by abnormal and emergency procedures. Questions concerning radiological control procedures will be asked to the extent that the operator is responsible for personnel protection against the hazards of radia-tion and for controlling, discharging, and monitoring radiological '~
releases. Administrative procedures, including operating restric-tions, limitations in the facility license, and Technical Specifica-tions, may be included to the extent they are directly applicable to an operator and the safe operation of the facility. C. Facility Management Control I, The scope of the written examination will include aspects of the manage-ment philosophy as set forth in facility documents. Because the examina-tion and license are applicable only at the facility under application, it is appropriate for the examiner to include the applicable administra-tive controls. These questions are best included in the categories covering operating procedures and health physics. The continuous availability of health physics and chemistry personnel for routine and emergency monitoring and investigation reduces the need of an operator to be proficient in the use of portable monitoring equip-ment. This fact should be considered when questions are constructed in this category. D. Accident-Related Questions - It is recognized that the study of incidents or accidents at other . reactor facilities can provide valuable lessons for an operator at his facility. It is appropriate and desirable to hypothesize accidents or circumstances leading to accidents at the facility under application and
; examine the candidate's analysis, corrective actions, and other responses.
Therefore, postulating circumstances, in the examination, that are I similar to those that have occurred elsewhere is both appropriate and realistic. E. General Guidance
- 1. Technical Specification questions for reactor operators should be conceptual in nature (e.g., recognition of limiting conditions for operation and Technical Specifications that exist for a given area).
- 2. Memorization of symptoms and automatic and operator actions pf all procedures that require immediate action is necessary for the examination.
I i Examiner Standards 3 of 6 l f
e o l i
~
l l ES-202 y 7
- 3. The examination should include questions to determine a candidate's understanding of his responsibilities related to tne administrative procedures, precautions, environmental and radiation release require-ments, and pressure / temperature limits.
- 4. Questions on health physics and chemistry procedures should be determined on the bas-is of the facilities' type of health physics coverage.
- 5. Extended definitions questions (e.g., 6-factor formula) should be avoided.
- 6. Questions on detailed system characteristics or instrumentation, such as annunciator logic or setpoints, should be avoided unless
, required for safety system operations.
[. 7. Questions should be based on
- a. a review by the examiner of material provided by the facility
- b. a review of past examinations given at the facility
- c. content validity study results, when available '
~
- 8. Other sources of questions are -
- a. standard questions and answers
- b. Examination Question Bank
- c. examinations on similar facilities
- d. personal file of questions and answers
- 9. A rule of thumb is
- a. approximately 55 to 70 responses for a 6-hour examination
- b. a response that requires about 3 to 4 minutes to write .
- 10. Examinations shall be 6 hours long.
I
- 11. Examination questions should consist of short word sentences using '
the terminology of the facility as much as practicable. '
- 12. " Discuss"-type questions should be avoided; questions should be specific to elicit short precise answers. ,
- 13. Practical realistic questions that relate to operator knowledge and-
- required operating practice should be used.
- 14. Multipart questions should be broken down into logical sequenttal '
parts. The answer sheet should show points assigned for subparts of answert. ' d Examiner Standards 4 of 6 l
ES-202
- 15. Double-jeopardy questions should not be used.
An example of a double-jeopardy question is: 1.3(a) Draw a single-line diagram of the cleanup system show-ing all automatic control valves. (b) Explain the principal of operation for each control valve in part (a) above. (Rationale - If a candidate shows only (3) of (4) valves in part (a), he would lose points in part (b).) A better way to state the question is:
'}
1.3 Attached is a single-line diagram of the cleanup system. For the valves marked A-D on the diagram: t (a) Identify the valve, and (b) Explain the principal of operation for the valve.
- 16. The value of a question should be compared with that of other questions in the category to determine if the value makes sense.
Simple numerical answers should not be worth more than 0.5.
- 17. The questions should be read and reviewed for clarity and intent to determine if the required response will be given.
- 18. Open-ended questions should be avoided. If a specific number of responses are required, the question should clearly state that j expectation so the candidate will know when the answer is complete.
An example of an open-ended question is:
. 3.1 List the signals that will automatically isolate the charging and letdown systems.
A better way to state the question is-1 1 3.1(a) List thrce signals that will isolate the letdown system. ' (b) List two signals that will both isolate the letdown system and trip the charging (makeup) pumps.
- 19. The examination should be verified to see if it satisfies the requirements of Standards ES-201 through ES-203 and a quality assurance review sheet, Attachment 1 ES-107 shall be completed.
- 20. The examination should be read by another examiner for clarity and .
response. I Examiner Standards 5 of 6 i
ES-202 f
- 21. The examination should be submitted to the appropriate regional section chief at least 5 working days before the examination date l for review and comment.
- 22. All equations required to answer parts of the examination should appear in the equation sheet or as part of the question.
- 23. Diag ams or sketches should be used as attachments to written examinations. Questions that request candidates to identify components and other items on these attachments should be. asked.
The use of these attachments is preferred over the alternative that requires candidates to construct time-consuming, single-line-diagrams and sketches.
,g .
4 J Examiner Standards 6 of 6
ES-203 Rev. 1 10/1/84 STRUCTURE OF WRITTEN EXAMINATION ADMINISTERED TO REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose . This standard specifies the format, category weights and depth of know-ledge for reactor operator written examinations. B. General Structure Each written examination shall be divided into four categories in accor-dance with Standard ES-202.
'\ .
I C. Cover Sheet t A cover sheet, with the format shown in Attachment 1 of this standard, I shall be used on all written examinations. This sheet will provide for-ready identification of the structure of the examination and, subse-quently, of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidate. All items in the upper corner of the cover sheet, except the name of the candidate (and sometimes the date administered), should be filled out when the examination is prepared and reproduced. The reactor type assists headquarters in comparing examinations of similar facilities and should be as descriptive as possible (e.g., BWR and PWR-W). The
" Examiner" block should contain the name of the author (s). The first two columns on the cover sheet should be filled out at the time of the initial preparation.
D. Weighting of Categories
~
The relative weight of each category in the examination, as a percentile of total worth, shall be 25% + 3% for each category. Category 1 shall be weighted so that 15% 1%T60% 4% of the category) consists of
- principles of nuclear power plant operations and 10% i 1% (40% 4% of i the category) consists of principles of thermodynamics, heat transfer,
! and fluid flow. ! E. Value of Questions The general structure of the examination shall be such that a safe
- operator will score above 80% on the entire test and above 70% in each category. The percentage attained in each category will be used .in !
conjunction with oral and operating test results, to identify strengths and deficiencies of the candidate. - The examiner shall assign a point value to each question and indicate this value in parentheses after the question. The value of a question is a judgment factor based on the combination of the following factors: Examiner Standards 1 of 3 t
ES-203 y significance of the knowledge to the operator, difficulty of the ques- l tion, amount of time required to answer the question, depth of knowledge required to answer the question, and the content areas addressed in the question. F. Depth of Knowledge For depth of knowledge, the written questions can be divided into five categories:
- 1. Knowledge and recall (Example - Define natural circulation.)
- 2. Comprehension and interpretation (Example - Give two examples of natural circulation; include sketches.)
3 3. Application of rules and principles (Example - Describe the natural
; circulation flow path for your reactor. List the primary indica-tions you would monitor and give representative readings within 2 hours after shutdown assuming the reactor had been at 100% power for 30 days. List any assumptions.)
- 4. Analysis and deduction (Example - List primary indications and representative readings for natural circulation within 2 hours after shutdown (from 100% power for 30 days). How would these readings change (direction and magnitude) 2 weeks later?)
- 5. Synthesis and evaluation (Example - List primary indications and representative readings for natural circulation within 2 hours after shutdown (from 100% power for 30 days). How would these readings change if (a) the difference between the hot- and cold-leg temperature doubled? (b) the difference in height between the reactor core and the heat sink was halved?)
The content areas for questions have been addressed in Standard ES-202.
~
In all cases, the candidate shall receive a copy of his graded examina-tion for his use in evaluation of weak areas and retraining. 1 l l 1 l Examiner Standards 2 of 3 l l l l
ES-203-1 Attachment 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION Facility: Reactor Type: Date Administered: Examiner: Candidate:
- 'i INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATE
3 Use separate paper for the answers. Write answers on one side only. Staple question sheet on top of the answer sheets. Points for each question are indicated in parentheses after the question. The passing grade requires at least 70% in each category and a final grade of at least 80%. Examination papers will be picked up six (6) hours after
- the examination starts.
% of Category % of Candidate's Category Value Total Score Value Category
- 1. Principles of Nuclear Power Plant Operation, Thermo-dynamics, Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow
- 2. Plant Design Including Safety and Emergency L Systems
- 3. Instruments and Controls
- 4. Procedures - Normal, Abnormal, Emergency, and Radiological Control TOTALS Final Grade %
All work done on this examination is my own. I have neither give.n nor received aid. Candidate's Signature Examiner Standards 3 of 3
. 0 ES-204 Rev. I 10/1/84 l ADMINISTRATION AND PREPARATION OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS FOR REACTOR OPERATOR CANDIDATES - NON-POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard specifies the difference in preparation and administration of non power reactor operator written examinations and power reactor operator examinations. The specific tions in Standard ES-201, 202 and 203 apply when no difference exists for non power reactors. Sections of ES-201, ES-202, or ES-203 which are different for non power recctors are indicated in parenthesis after each paragraph heading.
B. Examination Administration
') The administration of the written examination will be consistent with that for power reactors as specified in ES-201 with the following ; exceptions:
- 1. Provision of Literature (ES-201, paragraph D)
The reference material available from a non power reactor facility may be significantly more limited than the list indicated in Attachment 1 to ES-201. Reference material which is unavailable should be deleted from the list on a case basis. Additionally, the letter sent to the reactor facility formalizing the examination arrangements should be addressed to the facility director or equivalent. If the letter to the facility director cannot be mailed in the time specified in ES-201, Paragraph D., due to scheduling conflict, the letter formalizing the examination
, should be sent immediately after an informal schedule is agreed upon by the region and the facility.
- 2. Administration of Examination (ES-201, paragraph G.5 and G.6 and paragraph J) i) The examiner should inform the candidates that to pass the examination they must achieve at least 70% in each category.
ii) The examiner should inform the candidates that there is a time limit of 6 hours for completion of the examination. For candidates taking one or more sections of a written examina-tion, each section should be limited to I hour. C. Examination Preparation (ES 201, paragraph E) The examiner shall prepare the examination and answers using Standards ES-202 and ES-203 as guidance, except as modified by this standard. The examiner should use Attachments ES-107-1, ES-108-1, and ES-201-6 for quality assurance checks of the examination, the examina-tion grading, and the administration of the examination. The passing Examiner Standards 1 of 7 l
l ES-204 7 grade for non power written examinations is at least 70% in each category. A copy of the examination and answer key should be forwarded to the appropriate regional Section Chief for review. Attachments ES-107-1, ES-108-1, and ES-201-6 should be filed with the master copy of the examination. D. Examination Scope (ES-202, paragraph B.) The required scope of the written examination is set forth in 10 CFR 55. To implement this scope and to provide for identification and documenta-tion of strengths and weaknesses within certain areas of knowledge, the written examination shall be divided into seven categories: Category A. - Principles of Reactor Operation 7 This category contains questions relating to basic nuclear reactor behavior, elementary nuclear reactor theory, technical terminology and t an appreciation of processes taking place in a reactor. Answering these questions does not require mathematical ability in excess of ordinary algebra or detailed and advanced knowledge in reactor physics. Questions in this category relate to reactors in general or to reactors of the appropriate class. _ _ Category B - Features of Facility Design This category contains questions about the design features of the particular facility, with emphasis on the reactor, auxiliary systems and experimental facilities, as applicable. It generally requires the candidate to reproduce, from memory, fairly detailed diagrammatic sketches or descrip- ~ tions of various hydraulic, pneumatic or power distribution systems or reactor vessel and core components. It also inquires into design intent and the more important design parameters. Generally, parameters expressed as limits (e.g., maximum flow, maximum excess reactivity, maximum step reactivity insertion, maximum pressure) or fixed numerical values for
~ fabrication (e.g., enrichment, dimensions.) are investigated. Elements of design and operation of the experimental facilities associated with the reactor should also be explored in this category.
Category C - General Operating Characteristics This category contains questions on controlled and variable parameters of the reactor and auxiliary systems. Values which are expressed as normal or operating parameters (e.g. purification flow rate, reactor tank temperature, fuel temperature, storage tank level) or values which are measured as resultant characteristics (e.g., temperature coefficient, reactivity worth, pressure drop) are investigated. Questions relating to the manner in which power, reactivity, rod worths, or other parameters of this facility would change in response to rod manipulations, heatup,* core burn up, experiment insertion or other stimuli are in this category. Questions relating to the traces that one would see on recorders, in l Examiner Standards 2 of 7
.~
- m. __.... _..m _. _.__.......__..._._/.. . _.1 i
l ES-204 response to these changes should also be included. The questions should emphasize facility behavior rather than instrument characteristics. Category 0 - Instruments and Control This category contains questions on the characteristics and interrela-tionships of the nuclear and process instrumentation and control systems. l These questions will inquire into the principles of operation of detec- I tors, location and settings of instruments, diagrammatic representation I of instrument and control systems and details of control rod drives design operation. It is not intended that a candidate must display the knowledge of an instrument technician (unless it is part of his licensed responsibilities at a particular facility), but his answers should indi-cate the aDility to recognize the indications and consequences of improper instrument performance (e.g. , over-compensation, power failure, air supply failure, signal failure) includirg the traces that recorders 3 would show. He should also be able to use all available instruments to
. provide checks or verification of observed readings.
Category E - Safety and Emergency Systems This category contains questions on the design, construction, operation _ and interrelationships of the systems most directly associated with reactor safety, such as scram and other power reduction systems, pressure relief, spray systems, emergency power systems, and annunciated malfunc-tions. The candidate should demonstrate thorough knowledge of detailed design, characteristics, and operating methods for these systems. He should also be familiar with the conditions which require the use of such systems, and the reasons why such protection is required. Category F - Standard and Emergency Operating Procedures This category contains questions on the procedures for the operation of the reactor and auxiliary systems, including administrative controls. In general, a candidate must demonstrate complete understanding of the
; immediate action steps specified by abnormal or emergency procedures and to describe generally, the normal, abnormal and emergency operating procedures. If he is given several steps in a normal operating proce-dure, he should be able to put them in proper sequence. Operating restrictions in the facility license may be included herein, to the extent they are directly applicable to an operator.
Category G - Radiation Control and Safety This category contains questions on terminology, radiation hazards, radiological safety practices and fixed and portable radiation moni-toring equipment. The candidate should demonstrate knowledge of the type and magnitude of radiation hazards which might be expected to be present and knowledge of the methods to cope with them. He should know facility regulations and the general provisions and precautionary proce-dures of 10 CFR Part 20. The candidate should be able to understand and Examiner Standards 3 of 7 l
ES-204 F utilize portable equipment and describe type, location, approximate range and alarms associated with fixed equipment. He should know the limitations as well as the applications of this equipment. E. Facility Management Control (ES-202, paragraph C) The scope of the written examination is influenced, to a certain extent, by aspects of the management philosophy as set forth in facility docu-ments. Since the examination and license are applicable only at the facility under application, the examiner shall consider the adminis-trative controls in effect. This aspect is usually reflected in the examination areas of operating procedures and health physics. Proce-dures which clearly and comprehensively elicit the required operator action and require that even minor irregularities be immediately referred to senior operators necessitate less analysis and judgment by T the operator. The continuous availability of health physics personnel for routine and emergency monitoring and investigation reduces the need
. of an operator for proficiency with portable monitoring equipment. The converse of each of these examples is also valid. However, in order for managenent controls to be considered as sufficiently established, they should be reflected in the facility license or literature in a form binding on the operating staff. In all cases, the examination shall . . .
~~~ ~~ ' reflect (1) the level of knowledge necessary for the safe operation of the facility; and (2) the responsibility delegated by the facility to the operator. F. General Guidance (ES-201, paragraph E) The general guidance contained in Standard ES-201, is also applicable to
, written examinations for non power reactors. Attachment 1 is a results summary sheet for non power license examinations.
G. Examination Structure (ES-203, paragraph B, C, D, E)
~
. 1. Each written examination shall be divided into seven categories in accordance with Section D of this standard. A cover sheet, with the format shown in Attachment 2, ES-204-1, shall be used on all written examinations.
- 2. The relative weight of each category in the examination, as a percentile of total worth, should be 14% 13% for each category, whenever possible. However the relative importance of safety and emergency systems very significantly over the range of sizes and types of Research Reactors. Therefore, in order to comply with the 10 CFR 55 criteria "...to the extent applicable to the facility..."
the weighting of the examination categories should be based on the professional judgement of examiners experienced in the operation and examination of non power reactor facilities and approved by supervision. The general structure of the examination shall be such that a safe operator will score 70% or greater in each cate-gory. In addition, the length of the examination shall be such l Examiner Standards 4 of 7
-.=-.1...:-...-.. - -.:= -.. ~.---: . . . - - . .. :.: . .;..-.
ES-204 that a candidate would complete the examination within five hours, thus leaving one hour for review. t J Il i 8 I l l i i : I l l Examiner Standards 5 of 7 l t
,c,,,- - ~ . - . - - - , - , , - - - . . - - - e -- -.
. . .. w.=.w . . . : = :. x a . , - --- ---- - - - - - - -
~ .
l l ES-204-1 I i Attachment 1 Examination Results Summary - Non Power 1 11 1 c i,
\\\\\\\\\\\ \ i '
\\\\\\\\\\\\
ql- NNN\\\\\\NNN lly6 1lj i F
\\\\\\\\\\\\
i i i t - I E ], --
. ! h;,' 1 a :., s.n g __ ,
_ g 'j __ _ l' 8 __ , i i M i 1 ii :
}
g
=
g E a l c k' 5 1 i I l l8 l8 l !. Examiner Standards 6 of 7
~
ES-204-2 Attachment 2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION Facility: Reactor Type: Date Administered: Examiner: ' Candidate: INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATE Use separate paper for the answers. Write answers on one side only. Staple
; question sheet on top of the answer sheets. Points for each question are indicated in parentheses after the question. The passing grade requires at least 70% in each category. Examination papers will be picked up six (6) hours after the examination starts.
Category %.of Candidate's % of Value Total Score Cat. Value A. Principles of Reactor Operation B. Features of Facility Design C. General Operating Characteristics D. Instruments and Controls E. Safety and Emergency Systems
' F. Standard and Emergency Operating Procedures G. Radiation Control and Safety Final Grade %
\
i All work done on this exam is my own. I have neither given nor received aid. Candidate's Signature Examiner Standards 7 of 7 i
ES-601 9 ATTACHMENT 3 NRC ADMINISTERED REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATION RESULTS
SUMMARY
t , s'
. i lnE
! i ill I . 1' r 5
- h,,
i it j ' i
- i I -
in p l 7'
=
i
!!^ l l 4 < 15.
o a t
- :n .
i a i .l ' R 2 s i E . .I
=
0 '
< l l l 3 . I I I I l I I
< l I I J h 'llll l l l l l l l l e e E
W - s I I I I E - l I , = i
- i I
i I i l l I e E - a o jf ! j! l !! ! !! ! !! ! ji ! !! l j! l !! !ji ! !! ! !! !!! E il 11 I-li . 8 i l I ., . .e Examiner Standards 10 of 11 !
ES-301 Rev. 1 10/1/84 l ADMINISTRATION OF OPERATING AND ORAL EXAMINATIONS TO REACTOR OPERATORS AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose . This standard specifically pertains to the administration of the operating and oral examinations to applicants for reactor operator and senior reac-tor operator licenses at power reactor facilities. Generally, senior reactor operator " upgrade" examinations will only be administered to those operators who have held a valid license for at least 1 year. Speci-fic exceptions may be made for those individuals'who by virtue of educa- , tion and experience possess the credentials to apply for an " instant" 7 senior reactor operator (SRO) license. Guidance for granting the waiver of the 1 year reactor operator (RO) requirement is contained in Standard
; ES-110.
B. Examination Requirements The scope of the operating and oral examinations is covered in Standard ES-302 for reactor operators and senior reactor operators. However, for clarification it is necessary to specify the control manipulations that are required for aach category of the operating and oral examinations. For those facilities that have a plant-referenced simulator, a simulator examination will be required for reactor operator.and senior reactor operator (instant and upgrade) examinations. The in plant portion of the oral examination can be shortened by including some of the required coverage in the simulator part of the examination. This is described more fully in the ES-500 Series Standards. For candidates at plants without a plant-referenced simulator, reactor operators and instant senior reactor operators must perform a reactivity manipulation on their plant (usually a reactor startup) or obtain a certification from an
. NRC-approved simulator training program in accordance with the require-ments of Appendix F of NUREG-0094. Upgrade SR0 candidates, by virtue of holding a valid R0 license, will n'ot be required to perform a reactivity manipulation as part of their operating and oral examinations for those plants without a plant-specific simulator. The remainder of these standards (ES-300 Series) generally will apply only to the in plant portion of the operating and oral examination. Specific reference will be made when necessary to simulator examination requirements.
C. Assignment Assignment of the task of administering the operating and oral examina-tions is made on the Request To Administer the Examination as set forth in Standard ES-103. The examinations should be arranged on a time schedule mutually satisfactory to the candidates, facility licensee, and examiners and should cover the scope set forth in Standard ES-302. Examiner Standards 1 of 33 I
ES-301 on the control room, and should not be conducted by one of the candi-dates. For examiners visiting the facility for the first time or who have not made a site visit in a considerable length of time, a more extensive orientation is necessary. Suitable arrangements should be made by the chief examiner for more extended or additional orientation visits. F. Candidates All candidates for licenses at the facility under application are listed on the Request To Administer the Examination and normally should be administered both the written examination and operating and oral tests. One exception is at facilities with a large number of applicants where the written examination often will be given a few weeks before the operating and oral examinations. In these cases, where the written 3 examinations under 10 CFR 55.21 and 55.22 have been graded and the
; facility licensee has been informed of the candidates who have failed, the persons who have failed will not be given operating and oral examinations.
Candidates sometimes will withdraw from the examination at the last moment. If the examiner encounters this situation when he arrives on site, he should request a letter withdrawing the application of the individual (s) from the facility staff. This letter should be forwarded to the appropriate regional administrator. l In rare instances, candidates may withdraw after the examination has begun. The examiner will inform such candidates that this is cause for automatic denial of application and request the candidate to sign a voluntary withdrawal statement. G. Personnel Present The number of persons present during an examination should be minimal both to ensure the integrity of the examination and to minimize distrac-tions to the candidates. If an actual reactor startup or other reactiv-ity manipulation is performed as part of the examination, a licensed operator or senior operator must be present in accordance with 10 CFR 55.9(b). During control room discussions, additional shift crew personnel will be present as required by NRC regulations. If the exam-iner believes that the number of persons or the noise level in the con-trol room is excessive, he should request the shift supervisor or other facility staff personnel to take appropriate action. In no case shall a member of the facility training staff or other candi-date be allowed to witness an oral examination. Examinations are not to be used as training vehicles for future candidates. , Another examiner may be present either to witness the examination as part of his training or to audit the performance of the examiner administering the oral examination. Other observers, such as resident inspectors, Examiner Standards 3 of 33 i
. ......_ ,. .-. .........a -
ES-301 his evaluation of the candidate's performance and his knowledge and understanding of and competence in the systems discussed. The examiner should use a designation of "S" for satisfactory, "M" for marginal, and "U" for unsatisfactory. The summary report is based on the examiners operating and oral examina-tion notes, the use of which is explained in Standards ES-303, ES-304, and ES-305. The summary report contains a column for indicating the page number of the notes where information justifying the evaluation for that subject can be found. This column must be completed when the evaluation is unsatisfactory. This is necessary to indicate to the reviewing technical and legal personnel at headquarters or the regional office the specific reasons for the unsatisfactory determinations. The examiner should use
.g his judgment in completing this column for marginal evaluations, particu-1arly when the overall result is a recommendation to deny the application. ~
J. Reference
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0094, "A Guide for the Licensing of Facility Operators, Including Senior Operators," July 1976.
- i
- 2. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations part 55.23 and 55.25. l r
Examiner Standards 5 of 33 i
----~* . - _ . . _ . . _ _ . . , . , . _ _ _
. UNITED STATES
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pos[le"e *o",Es",I.'o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566 ***"c wasHoc OFFICIAL SUSINESS k PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. 6300 9
I i I 1 4 4 0 j
. .-. -= . . 2. . : . . .. :. ~ .- r. . . a .. . L :. . . :. -.. . .2.. .
i . l e i f ' ES-301-1 l t s sov
#^
- h REACTCR OPERATOR OPERATING AND ORAL EXAMINATION
SUMMARY
RE80RT 4 8 v aw a t'Om
' hee t
A0 **" messed mens sa seen ene ,,,
'Fo.r en en,ra s..e.? rs.e.rsery tv seree
. .u see sage ame.prfaf et one omsrermig as : _ v i OptmafimG C 0ascusss0N O Densonstmat:0N ii wom,e e, ea.w aua, e Cae==. !
i 12 Ceasse Oseratieas s tesae, reas
}
a wase meaeme ( e 2 F ACILITV tout *we%f f a tes'er t Aes.herv t j
, . I
- s. Em Seteensee Someau i e tecmts 3 smstavwtNTafiON i
t 8 esus a PLaAs? pe0TECtiOM 9 PROCE3upt$
. -~ l -
I
. 0 ass A.ae,ae,
- a. W 6e meaCriy Tv testCts itasem C Oss ne l l
e futmuo074aw'Cs aaso seTDaavuCS (
+ ,
! ? ADes,aiettmativt atouintutNTS 8 EwtaCENCv 9 Lane l 3 maciati0m pacitCTION A40 SarEfv
.. .t 0~....orit. I Cowe.4%f5 l
i
..e. 2 J
Examiner Standards 7 of 33
4 s e l I l i ES-301-1 ES303 , peaC Form 157A, Page 4 / Sv3Tsus / IS San ,
- 3. CONTROL ROOM faanser. Aesday eat tapase,et As4surum 8vesums#
f a f e /C ,O /6 i5 /G iw / 20 EQUIPMENT 3.9 Pu, sees 22 Few Peen m-n w -- . l l l , l l l o 24 Cor'weasata n -a l l l l l 30 #NSTaunstNTATICA 3.1 Deserto, n ~~a- l l l n C e. l l l l l 40 PLANT Pm0TicTION 4i Aerms/teios.nes a 4.2 Wety System laput n . l l l 50 PROCEDum(s 9 . e. .
, l u --
SJ W pomensees
$4A. AG ACTfVITY (PSECTS l
.. - - T . 8,,4cT. -l 70 A0MsN.tfRAfivt REQuintutNTS 71 Teena.es. $see.f est ene 72 Posd.sv meeweements C0asestmts (meownes w vs O CoNti=uto om arvtast a.
I I I i l Examiner Standards 9 of 33 1 . _ - . - . _ _ .
- . - -. .+~ . . .. . . . . ... .... . . -- . -
a e i ES-301-1 85303 Nec ppm 157A Page 6 / Sv sf f vs / is-esi , S CONTnot moou INuenner and namesen Meerarmenni
/a /e /C /o/s /
30 sNSTauME NT ATION 31 Detectes f f f 32 ww cteae a T 33 Coat os meean aaecatea. I i l l I
~, 34 Cnsaae Comooaeate l l f
3S Comoeaseten/O.estwmaeese
- 3. ....C.a_.- i i i ,
- 40 PLANT >motECTION 41 Aserms/sevoo.avs f a f f we., - ,a . ! i 2 ! l
.3 .. j '
,a,s.
l l 50 Paociounts l s, w e. > l l u -A- -- l
- u -
70 ADwiNistnativt RE0uengugNTs
- 7. T- .e. i.ne a. l 72 Petdefy Actuw98aeatt CQWMENTS iAegewee for '1/"1 l
1 i I e. l l Examiner Standards 11 of 33 ;
. . . . . . - . . . . . . . .. ...u.....~. . .. , . . . . . . - 6 s1 s e i ES-301-1 1
ES 203 j Nec se ts7A page s / astews / ) is es> f C. REACTOR AND Auxluamv sutLotseGS u%er Amerwss , (Mesor. Ausnary. flersasar Se ampi,mgis. Fust fernehag, Aas Waerof i FACUTT WALK TwaouGM #was or Aesciorsi fA ie lC /oj il
- f l 20 touiputNT f l l ;
22 siew estas l l l I n orme. ~~., I I l . 2e toveraeat Loset oa 1 l l l 28 Svetem erw oe nas meeeease l l 30 e%57muutNTat:0N l l l l l 1 38 Lace. tast<weeater.oa l l l ! l So P40CEDumt$ l l l 5t Normes storesures (Lacel l l s2 Offnoansu Abaarma Proessures tLocm> l g,3 g,,,,,,,v _,L,,,,,
~
l l 40A mEACTivity apptCTs l l 0 fleiniBOOvueMimC Afe4LT95/TME#wAL EFFECTS l l l 70 AOwiNastmativt REQuintut473 l l l 7t Tocaa. css $secifications l 72 Foc.hty moounoments 80 EutmGENCY PL.AN l
., Ac,ea n s 82 Reasoaes one Duses O3 Cener Emegeares true. soeur,#y. ese i ga naciation em0TECTION AND SAptTv 91 Ase.es.oa sou ces r one eenaeros
;. 92 Rea.evea Morecrea proceovem 93 maowesee eas use of Poetese eastruments ta swore D ioois' Proceau es r 10 0 #ESPONsis:LITY Cowwt % r5
)
ee.e . . Examiner Standards 13 of 33 I
...____..~_.._.-_...._.__.....2._.. -
. _ . - _4._,_ . . . . __, .- - t . ...; . .. _. s _. . r a . . . . . . .... m . m a e .
ES-301-1 ts 303 ! I NaC Form 157A. Pope to , tHet ar aQ 0 O. O'SCUSSION 3 4 0 PetNCIPLES OF NUCLEAR 80wtm PLANT on Now Powtm mgACTom FACluTV OptaAfioN A mgACTivtTV EFFECt3 'Nucose rasenyJ
$1 beer e cas We es. cat,oa 42 De eves heuteoas EHggt
.3 C.e .on 64 ps.ana EHects 65 Laag Term espeewre $Hecte
- 8. TMgmM00VNAMICS AND Mv0m AubiCS M W Y'**
.., c _
SA casevneaistica 43 ammesmo Case CaewCore Coonag CouusNs3 an o.w m o,e v , e s,e ie t l l Examiner Standards' 15 of 33
. . 4.'.. .J. s . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . _ _ ~ ES-301 l D. Scheduling As a general rule, operating and oral examinations should be given after the written examinations are complete; however, if a difficult scheduling problem can only be solved by another sequence, this is permissible. Examinations should be scheduled so that in the case of a simulator examination and an oral walkthrough examination at the plant, the same examiner can administer both examinations. If this is not possible because of schedule conflicts, the examiner's notes should be very complete so that the last reviewer has sufficient information to make the final evaluation. Examinations normally will be administered on regular work days although 3 extensive working time may be required. It is desirable, whenever - 3 possible, to complete the examination of a candidate once it is started, i but ifmust point completion of the examination is not feasible, a logical stopping be reached. At an operating reactor where the candidates have not been certified at a simulator, it may be necessary to administer all of the actual reactor startup portions of the operating tests in one specified period of time to accommodate the utility load demands. In cases where a simulator is used for the administration of the operating test and the plant is used for the oral portion of the examination, special arrangements may be necessary to make the most efficient use of the simulator time. On occasion, examinations may involve weekend or shift work, but in these cases this will have been prearranged by the examiner (or chief examiner) and the facility licensee. When large groups of applicants are to be examined at power facilities, the chief examiner should schedule the operating and oral examinations so that each examiner will administer two examinations each day with a maximum of four examinations for each examiner. Under no circumstances should an examiner be required to administer more than five examinations in any one week. There are no time restrictions on the minimum or maximum length of operating and oral examinations. However, for scheduling purposes, the normal length of the exams is as follows:
- 1. R0 - 3 to 4 hours
- 2. upgrade SR0 - 2 to 3 hours
- 3. instant SRO - 4 to 5 hours E. Orientation of Examiners Each examiner should become as familiar as possible with the specific facility through previous visits and the information supplied by the facility in preparation for the examinations. As a minimum, the chief examiner should arrange for a tour of the facility by each examiner accompanied by a facility staff member. This tour is usually made the day before oral examinations are scheduled to begin, should concentrate Examiner Standards 2 of 33
- J
. . . . -. .. ~. . - .. n - n.a. .- s - e.s- - w - n. ~. ". -.- . . . . . , ,.. . .. ~ .m..
s..... .s~.. s
* .. r
>.s**-
- .'s,
.n-..
o e i ES-301-2 e - tm. e 2 i9 Sa- t t 30' SENIOR OPERATOR UPGRACE OPERATING ANO ORAL EXAMINATION
SUMMARY
REPORT DESC#srtiom ***"'0 eaGa l PowtR 8tACToms .som.powsm etACTong sao %,,,,, l t CONTeot moons 1 FactLf7V AommNi$TRATION 11 Sn.N Yv ow., 11Fe arCarece I l 1 1
- to .a. .. l. i s e . a aes na e, l .
t , C.a . a .. I t.21 Teenaem See..f ese eas t 2 Energeaev maa i I
- 12 2 p eem 9. #ent oserenons ,
I
, *23 see ee ea
- owe.oa .
- 1
' 2. r e .eu, one ineiramease.ea ore ass I !
12 5 Caaweser ! t
- 12. f- C. e.i .e v a os a- a
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 2 af spose ss.sLITv amo auTwomity 2. FACILITY wata TwoouGM 21 Eme g.newmaae 2 t piene Sweesms 2 2 Pieae Operee.ea 2.2 Core Ameesosas a i l 2 3 8ves Looea, 2 3 Asakerma Proesetion 1 ( 2 . -. 1. - l l
. 2 . ,_ I 3 0'ScutssONS 3 otSCUSSioN 31 T,eae e 3 s Treammais h
3 2 mesee. , tnece 2 2 Reectswer tasets i L l I 3s T w .ev e .e l 3 3 T, f ece. I c..,,, I l l Examiner Standards 17 Of 33 1 i
t ES-301 l regional personnel, researchers, or NRC supervisors, may be allowed to observe oral examinations if (1) the chief examiner has approved the request to observe before the examination, (2) the candidate does not object to the observer's presence, and (3) the facility representative
- has approved the request to observe.
H. Use of Documents and Materials
- During the administratfor. of the operating and oral examinations, the candidate should be allowed and encouraged to make use of any of the information that normally would be available to a licensed operator at that facility, including calibration curves, previous log entries, piping and instrumentation diagrams, calculation sheets, and procedures.
The examiner shall inform each candidate of this fact before the examination. j) The candidate also shall be informed that he will be held responsible for knowing from memory the immediate actions of emergency procedures. " i
- 1. Reports of Examinations A separate Examination Report has been developed for each type of exam-ination:
Form 157A for reactor operators, (Attachment 1), Form 1578 for _ E upgrade senior operators (Attachment 2), and Form 157C for instant _ _. I senior operators (Attachment 3). The front page of the appropriate report form will be filled out for each candidate. If only a portion of the examination is administered by an examiner, the front page of the ! fcrm will be completed for the portion completed. } The examiner should only make comments on the front page that are rele-vant to determining a pass or fail conclusion. He should expect such l . j comments to be seen by the candidate'and facility training personnel because each candidate is sent a copy of his examination. He should j recommend passing or failing the candidate on the portions he administered in the appropriate blocks (s) at the top of the 157. The chief examiner i ! L should approve or not approve for license at the bottom of the page. I The examiner must recommend approval or disapproval of the application based on the results of the entire examination. If the candidate fails 1 any or all parts (written, operating, or simulator), the examiner must recommend denial. The responsible regional official will review the examination results and sign the appropriate block to issue or deny a license. If he does a not agree with the recommendation, the examiner or chief examiner shall l be such conferred with before disagreements are notthe recommendation is overturned. Although common justifications in a denial recomme,ndation.they usually arise because of inadequ. ate It is therefore very important for an examiner to be complete and accurate in his grading and comments.. An Operating and Oral Examination Summary Report (Form 157 A, B, or C, page 2) will be prepared for each candidate upon completion of the operating oral examination. On this report, the examiner shall summarize l Exaainer Standards 4 of 33 x
. .. . .~-.~.~..y .. .~i . .. . _ . ..4.'. sL*...... . s a! . .* ._ ' e
- ES-301-2
..C .- im. ,s.o .
'l ter E $ See ,
l OPERATING AND EXAMINATION NOTES (Continued / ca lsw*waO J j powsm alACTong j mose powna miaCToms _ gy j j 2 masponsistuTv AND avTaomeTV 2 taCIUTV wale TwmouGM -- e 1 21 Emereensemens . 21 Pione Sveneme f a bees e Saech I
- a. Types ef Emergaaries a Saech e Gueswetapa Crwere
. - _ I 2 2 Picae operoemas 2 2 Core Anoreneae I i } -
2 21 Seerive e aefwomagpeaceeures 2 2 2 Sauveassa b 8ves Ceawareas headha6 O e heems. e s encommeneae v Sierege b Aetemete
- e. oveen somew room
. .. a.s.. e ~ a. I I i -
2 2 8vm *weme l 2 2 anonnea penseevea - 2 2 3 tre ees e e,w.e. g,seso,e Coa ** l 222=~.m . Ceaw aeosa Cea . 2es =e To a. I g-2 a i samaa a.se ea ea. Cea e e mesace.eme.sesse 2 e 2 osae* tsoeroNo , 2 9 $mwe.tv 2 4 $m e e .e O couwe%ts co Timuse o= T-s navsess ee Examirer Standards 19 of 33
1 l 1
- ES-301-1 ;
ATTACHMENT 1 3 , OPERATOR EXAMINATION REPORT F as 30,
. . ......m... .w.e .
us . ss. OPERATOR "*n o* *a.cto. , van o. .a EXAMefsATM>N REPORT '0"'" **'* w . .. ' a n .. as .c e. 60s. 4= w.ift.m in.asen.teo.e g .o. = s's.s a e. .e l n.
- w .0 13 err.ee as ffs l .a ss.D j c... .j, , .- . i.- . t-.---
l e.aoes 6. t {s = c =1 s is = is s a g 6 . ..t .: T' ._........ ....
~
p ru . ,, n,
'~' a o 8.'t.0
- i. ! i-
..u,... .......
; . e. ... g.,
- .................c...
............,.6,c.,,, I i.... . . . . . . . .
- g. . .
Examiner Standards 6 of 33
. . .~.....4.m.. -. .. . _ . . .L .JA w" is 15./., . 2.. u A: . : .~
- 2 ,- .. . . ..
. .a. ..._.:. . .
e o
.e
.. ES-301-2 apmC eers= 1578. Pass S
'44s' 85 30s 80wwte ap CTO*5 i esoasmovega ap CTong l
3_ O'5Cw$ $ech
- Faewss e 4.ces derare oppeeeae,
~
3 D*SCwSS404 #Ceaemvers 32 mesi iwenes 3 2 e peno weremmes eae Deressee a 8emer inpumme mis Deeemmes 3.2 2 asas one meses Laswes. emms e see worm 3 2J Leas ters= aasence Snare a Lois toen tw enscu _ _ _ 3 2 e menen Can.neieae e tasemen enuse 3 2 S thwesen assoa e Sameasuun hiespetsam Asmsown, 3 2 0 0 emsee ms e f C>eusse Ase'Sasak med 3 2 ? t neenass ts ne.aseen _
- g. Seemiums "
3 2 8 suure see n cessempo E 3 3 %ee .ae ~..se l 3 3 ti sse eau ? 3 3 . tesse. l . c.e ca e, l 3 3 2 hfe=earenses cor e t seest basenes 3 3 3 musawmeawee 4 - - - _ _ _ s
$J e # wee Cherensrees 3.3 9 masse.ew ces ca .ag 3J G Osemene ano ,se 3 3 2 woe, eis,sume.
3 3 0
- esse tossee seenme=en e
e M e l l l C CDests0%fl c0eetierwe0 cm fue agvgegg Examiner Standards 21 of 33 l l l l
___ _, , , . .. . . . , > - . . - - - - ~ ~ ~- " - e e i 1 1 ES-301-1 F 5 ES303
$* *^' " 3 OPERATING ANO ORAL EXAMINATION NOTES A opg4Atiho 044eOtostmat:08e ***
Cwicar 04f j meactos svantyp l l ET48sTW #7cse.CAnoess l l SeesukATOA 006AMOes tt movertwo se lasee wmeae Checes teos et enesteve fecerdys ttI Fasaw.ee.tv so.en emece seset i I 2 Asewteev whea res@ng .mer*v8atatt t i 2 unerseeae.ag et wa et e esq e*etete
- 1 t 9 e uagerseeae.ag of eteemas for enestent e
f I 5 lHette of medwagtgas 116 Kaesasses of Centres Asesa re8erence este I t 7 meat seromeer war.8eet.ea itCP. nest tosense eto i t2 Ceasse Coorstea I e laite eene.t.eas t Pree em s UNCamstamoiNo 121 Aedev te stes.et fosseems fee sees,f,ee progryn
; 9 2 2 vaserstemeq e8.aeemmeat reseease 12 2 sneweege of roert.v.tv eMarts wa4lPVLAtlONS i 2 e e .. s sos .,e.se ,se i 2 i % ene e,=0.es e,-,et.ea 2e e t. ... sese. es e- e,s, e.e.,
i .2 , oes.or.to e, e 4es,- .e, conse.e een...e CQwet NTI smeswate rer u's i es,e 2 Examiner Standards 8 of 33 O _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . . _
. - . . . . . . . . - . . = .: a . : w ... w:a. s : a .. . ca. . ~ . .. ... .
. . . - .:. . z --- ~
ES-301-3 IsBC POmed WPC. Segs 2
< tear E S we SENICA WER ATOR OPERATING AND OmAL ENAulNATiON SuuuamV AtPORT twa6wa v eoa.
.e.sg i sown set e smo 'O*
*For sera emessaartev tv"#, ase one esse amaiser=# se sae esmeewg me sessaatenea **ses sa **** m ',
.wev er e - ** eseas.aer e yemaf>NG 2 0eScutt:0h C Deeschsta ntion
,, e. e ia a. e se. l
-e -o 3 ,,
e naea.o.* eae .
- l 1.3 pise omenden one coewes 2 8actuTV EQuort*647
- e l
. ._ l e 4--.-
l 1 e tecwee i , 3 essTeumstgf at:04 a %seeer
. - l 4 P L am? pmOff CTION I
& 8mOCfDunts a -= I e one-w,amaeaw l l
- 4. N l 6 e Stactivivi tss tCTs elease Cowee Ceresea*
a TestmesOOvhaesics amo uvDmauuC& 7 ADesihittaaf tvt St 2WeatutMT3 g aE3pongiesufl46 a40 auvwoe17465 e Aeseessa 8eesenten was Ceano e Emetene, men A e Otae Ownes oasm ese*=o'4e COMut4TS , 9een 2 l l Examiner Standards 23 of 33 i
.r. . . . .. . . . .:. . = .w - . .. . .. .
ES-301-1 e.ss.e..%
. WA. 8mse s assos C088886'uTS ***888 3
t a
~,, s Examiner Standards 10 of 33
e e , ES-301-3 senc P0ne tS7C Pese 4 05305 it M-
/ SYSTEv$ /
- 3. CONTROL ROOM (Marov, Awowy emt Enoraneront Seferveret Systernsi r a i e < c r s r a / s /e i-5 20 EQuiputNT 21 Pwtoose
- . .e,a I, 3
,, N.e.,s..e. - e, , l e 24 Comeoaeats 29 Sweewa essweier one messease 30 IN578 uwf NtafloN I - 3i on ., I I
i 32 tameaw ct.en ; 4 1 33 Coates mesmanocee.ea l 40 PLaNTenOTECTtom i ei Aaseam. Seteo.nu . 42 Sekt, Svetra saeue l i I 4.3 satenocks 50 PROCEDungs l1 Norand Peaceewees
- i 5 2 0*aeamse Aenenme Proceew res l S.3 Emeseems. Pressene l 60 a m eset+e, 4 f +ects
.r-- _ .- I 70 ADMINISTRaTevs agouintutNTS l l
7t Techa.se lastificee eae
,, . ..n. .e _m I c- Nvi ,....ees ,., v, CCON?iNut 0 ON RE VERSE
. sos .
Examiner Standards 25 of 33 I
+ - , , - - , -
, , . , . .,.-.v, a. .--. . . - , ,. -
. :~-. ..w. -
- o ES-301-1 P
t$303 NaC Form TS7a page 7 / I'8II"I /
#9 esi e comtmot noou tierr*=w
( a /e /C /D [ 20 EQue#ws NT 2* %roose
,, . e .a l I -
22 ......-e... l l l i 1e Comoonems 25 Suseem teaev.o* er meesoaes 30 sh87muugNtattoN
~
32 wwes 3e Coaeo. moom eascavea 50 #aCCEDunts 61 enorma koewes i: %%% l 70 ADusNettmafivt agQuintugNis
,, ros.a . s ,-
l l
,, . ....e m_.-a .
l l CCMMENT5 onoeum rer *vp l Examiner Standards 12 of 33
1 s.an al.:w %uL:as.L.%a.a.:~as :. .
..:a'.*..%.'.'-^^ . . .~-.... . --^ . . .
J. :.' ' :- -
. L -
. e ES-301-3 Ne st.cs,pones 157c page e 88-305 I 5Y3TEV5 I I
B CONTROLROOM meteer awr saw.epen laserwnenst 1 /A / e/ C / 0/ 4/ 30 eN87muutNts 39 Downese 32 awacceas 33 contre mesm easset eae 3 Cnee.C - . l o 39 Comosanet eaiO.ese.m.aeree 36 eaa=t se Ceans Svetem
. e.0 PLANT Pm0TECitGe i
._ a1 amenuisetas.au 43 Se'ety System lamat a3 fateascas 50 PROCfDunts
$9 foormes P osomeras SJ Onasmustannensis P emmewes SJ eamus sePessene
?O aDesamisTmativs atQuintutNTS 7 tocan.co Saseif saisoas 13 9ec.ussmoor w n ,
CQanutNTS Ineewoog w *v's a 1 o. t Examiner Standards 27 of 33 l
. m > : ?.i . .. a.h 1 's' v . '. b*~J '.:. .'l e -. e
^
~
...x. .
~
l I ES-301-1 l t$303 NaC Form tS74. Pese 't ! ! (Stan D. 085 Cuss 4048 Dae= press M 8 f a / B / C/ O f $ 20 EQuipestNT
.6 Comoonen e m a. I 30 INSTmuutNTATION 1
34 Contros Room ano<et eas 4 j D 38 Automett Coatros l 39 Aenhey es m newwm Coaires 40 PLANT PacTECTiON
~
41 Avvemee.s Actions -' 4.2 Aserwantee.aes 50 *mOCEDumES
$1 Normee homes El Ommameli Asaermos Procesures SJ Wh 60 mg ACTIVITY EPf ECTS AND TMemesOOVNAmic ANALYSTS 43 Casmcent fence mescowv E#ecu 66 Treammat Acepres/ Thermal EMecs 70 Aouimistmativs macuamsutNis j, 7i Tecaa<e. saec e.co .ons l
,, ,_..e~._,,
Cowwf Nts taeow.res ter T 1 an.e e l Examiner Standards 14 of 33 1
- - - - ,w, -, , ,_-, - - - - . - , - ----- ,-y,- ---
a . .a41.;Ab'.i.' _.-----.->..L*. -'
.. . .. . . _ x. . . . . - - . .-
e e ES-301-3 hac Foau iste p.g. 3 is s46 ES 3os
/ SYSTEMS /
C. REACTOR AND AUXIUARY BUILDINGS (Power Mascrors/ (44 spor. Audary. Soemest Se4puares. FW Handbng/ FACluTY WALK THROUGH (Alon-Ponier Aescrorst
/ a l e/ cI o/ t ie f 2o EQuiputNT l l l l 22 Stem me.as i l '
I 22 ap, I i l 2 a .-. tecm I I l l 2s l l l l l s,..- % y a ' so msTauus~rs l l l l l 2s o -i. I i l l l so emocsovass l l si -=<t. 1 i s2 own wiana n.im l l 12 sum.guese - __'itanes l l s.oa. atactnniv snacts l l l s Tweawoovhawcs amatysis re ew.c. l l l l l 2.o aoumisTaaTiveneouiasus%vs l l l l l ti v% s e.. . 1 I i i i n ,- ~ . j l l ; ; ComutNTS (Assewer 4r "tr*) pues a Examiner Standards 29 Of 33 l l
.O
ES-301-2 ATTACHMENT 2 J SENIOR OPERATOR UPGRADE EXAMINATION REPORT ts e
**c*****e.' va aussoas semavoe, commeen aw.as *w=n* l
- SENIOR OPERATOR UPGRADE SS- ;
EXAMINATION REPORT "" O' **^"ca nn os ww mstams p as v. w s ser pan, we % n .
'0*'" -
- Segures seems ao set ase#v to w esews n 680 win ntTant
.44 4.'4 4 m.ma .s .g e ga 60Caree WGtfTf 4 8 Raasematt0se
.o s'sano e. 6* 's I
** 80 o,Sameca
. .. w . ........
~. ,
...'*..e, rsereen $5 22a l l *a55E D gaggoon, a # je t lP # 4 8
- I Onact a g la g l , g le % 4a s, l 8a*LIO Opp e a fine f g s f i ......... ....
g . a ,. . e
'5sreen 53 21 -
i i i_ N W W <ager m eAgu>eumuur h sw e, sevs e asumm aan W J _eaam
. c e=== = s E
necommse moa rioso i 6 s *. '="4 - 6 = ** =E * ,..t a*** OWE 808 58%28L*CimSt . tCO %ct aseeCvg see sg%,ce gggggg l
. m.....-. j .. .. . . . . . . . _ . ,,..,
Examiner Standards 16 Of 33
a.... . . . . ' _m.'w ..t -~-.2 ....-~a . . . . . . . . . ... r. : :. >'- . .
---.:.-.a--
e e > { l ES-301-3 C .- ,cC wo. 85 306 Stai m 0 OstCWS$s08u t8e=sr Ausseaw .
.o re. ion, o %5.a .owen wi caea re= .g
& AEACTIVITV E8s GCT !^ --- - IlhdiaWe e a i basaese ec - -
.w- -
4 a 3 Oaa,es he."n **er e - % 8 AJ Cess8emau 8 a e poema E #eese 4 a $ Long Tesen G egemete I Meree
- 6 a 4 as e.es noe.e Laa.ee e
.a , w _ p.a 6 A > Se8eev Lam.e 0 Yee tnesOOvhansiCS aseO envomagg43 4 8 i Soma Tasses S S 2 *aer . ga 6 8 3 8 aw Ceeserse eece 40e^ se Care Cap as 6 8 5 Doeta lisCom een 684* aneswee 4 G etsp04bSa6ef v a%Q awTwomity a maDeattose mmovf CTsom Conteos a 3 a e seu ce pus **ssees e8 m a te.ea e a 2 e __ --_ tamwe ete CF# 30 Ser** * .
O A 3 #ereanne saewwasatutama sa , one yeen k e a e e,eeesi,.., imee coa o.ameae e = . e=e e a e a.s e r . --- - ei ee,c g twenGENCY Pham *esPLinettf e4G 880CEQwn t5 9 41 Os se S 8 2 C on 84eea 0 0 3 E .e.wa' ea C +e e O O 4 Deseaa, a ,waene. C ADQifiomas Dyfits a40 #tSPONSa8%' fit S S C i t.e . - - Tesas e isee_ _ em one Ceawe e Osaer #1eeres O C 2 Ser e ee 4 C 3 Sa.a Yve **== l 8 an- a. Conswe=Y s easo. se es, w ese re I l Examiner Standards 31 of 33 l l l l N
s .A..L* ,n' . . . .a s n. . . a a +. ... 1 : . . . . . ' ~;-~.\ l
. e l
ES-301-2 l l 1 senC pp is7e pose 3
'S Sea et 30s OPERATING AND ORAL EXAMINATION NOTES i Powen etACToms ( seow powgm atacToms co%Teot noces e 8ACILITY AOemNesTaation tvatyaTio%
1 ? Inds Teraevee 11 Facew Conwee
? ? I
- 4 2M I.eserse e Lage Sad W e Snart 5.eee see b* - . Ove of Service i D Oserst.ae e. Essoammate Facm.s t s. Jumose eae Ldies Lease }t e evCear.
i o e so . eace e i
, l e sorwo.nencee !
. Tees.ae - , 3,,,,, w , k,
. --. , ~ , em. I I
. g aanwiesaems *
,, C.a . . m ._.
i , , ..c -. .e e ! i 121 Teena=m soende .oas a Tecew=cm Saecdcateae a Cheages e emceewree I b Assortwee 8 eau.*eraea. - e Pwig and r.n _. _-. C-- _ e . e.c C as j
. i e C.m Los.a. I 12 7
- eeeau,ee ! , Oiner fSsse+#
122 m ee.sioa**eveevoa 13 Emergeaev paa ,tae.e -- --- a.ans e . ees .o.ee I . - . - i e E=ooevee Lea.es 6 fueseensa CmenseTvese of W
.e a . e -..e l
. , , . % o.e.e ,t.o x - ,
% I 4 Pe= rig eae insere,meatateen DM 3 $terfug/$hutdowa I
i a s comen.. I e te.e ee i 12 s P' eat re aw ver +. cat op *ECF mest Se sace etc e. Seasov $tsee Ooonstea cowwas es 7 ce . m ee~T~c oo~ ~ .....s.
*aur J Examiner Standards 18 of 33
, , . . ~ . . . _ . . ...... -._.m.-%e._,m.~o.-. .....-...e,. - ~ . . , - - . . . . . - . . - . - . - - ---__ . _ _ _ _ _.- e
- ES-301-3 8881C F0"U 19?C. Peer 11 8530s N
ConsusseTs acene .aus 3 m-ea
- l Page 11 Examiner Standards 33 of 33
.m
s t.+ ... - 1....e. .:.s.. ..,w..u..s--.-..s. s. 1 . .
,.a, . - . .
ES-301-2 Y N m C . - , ,, . . . 9 &a, t5 304 vaa%s.s%vs j
/
/ -
/- ,
3 Discus 5aCN s
. O C D[
f I l 31 T eas+an ' _, ! _ . _. I - 311 Carao.aears 3 % 3 199fWtB T, . Co . m . ..
; . ..-...C..
313 meerter 8,o,eeten
. ....=e
. . .s 314 Ansevee ,
C-..- e,w l i et se#erv Syswa leiewsawa l l 315 haces.,en
. So.c4 b Soece i ,
316 U fpects h
. a- r*.ct l i i e r% e .e.
i I l l ! COMMENTS C COMMENTS CONTINuf D CN Twt nevenst
- Examiner Standards 20 of 33 l
-..... = ..J
-. . - . = . a u -.. ...~.. . :..a..-. . . .... .: - . .~~~ . - . . .
ES-302 Rev. 1 10/1/84 SCOPE OF OPERATING EXAMINATIONS ADMINISTERED TO l REACTOR OPERATORS AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard lists the general scope and objectives of the operating examination. The operating examination is an oral examination and also l includes a simulator examination for those facilities that have a plant reference simulator. The wide variations in concepts, design, and operation of licensed facilities make it impossible to delineate precise procedures applicable to all facilities. The scope of the examinations, as described below, should be applied, as appropriate, to allow the examiner to make judgments in accordance with Standard ES-301.
. B. Examination Requirements AlLcandidates for reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) licenses are required to be administered operating and oral exam-inations except in cases where a waiver has been granted in accordance r - -with 10 CFR 55.24. The scope and content of the examinations will depend on the type of license applied for (RO, instant SRO, upgrade SRO) and the availability of a plant reference simulator. When the operating [
examination includes a simulator examination, the oral portion of the examination should be reduced by the material satisfactorily covered on the simulator portion such that the total operating examination is equivalent to an operating examination at a facility that does not have a plant reference simulator. The clarification of reactivity manipulations is detailed in Standard ES-301, Paragraph B. Simulator examination requirement; are contained in the ES-500 Series Standards. This standard explains the rcope of the operating examination, as required by 10 CFR 55.23. L C. Rules of Practice Each examiner must understand and observe certain ground rules during
-the conduct of operating examination.
- 1. For those examinations that require an actual reactor startup or other manipulation of controls and/or instrumentation of the facility
- a. The examiner should inform the candidate and the licensed operator present and/or the responsible supervisor that he (the examiner) will never intentionally ask the candidate to perform an act that violates facility regulations or proce-dures or which places the facility in a hazardous situation.
If a requested act falls in these categories, then the candi-date, operator, or supervisor should indicate this immediately. Examiner Standards 1 of 12
. 4. . .a.. .s._
._....Z-'1., 2 .' ;. ; ;4 _. . w /J. . . J. L _. ' ' ., , ,
- 9 ES-301-3 ATTACHMENT 3 g SENIOR OPERATOR EXAMINATION REPORT F is 301 ans a a.s see.
- v. mus6.. s.o.6.com. ca .n, ee;. . s. wen e f 9 S$' 5$~
SENIOR OPERATOR Tvrt Os atACTO4 Tvrt 08 E.xans EXAMINATION REPORT W ER INSTRUCTIONS Proces a. p. vaarmensa mm muss.for Q INifiAL sc.a e - e #su.ere, sne .sen-Po e, nasceses _oo. ..T..
.*a... '. 6 s e .e (vo. 6.ca' 0*
se Tves E n.a.sm.?sosu
.ow.* s'. .e a e. o.'s 6 i ..it to o,agcos...re.. . . . ... ........os
'3*** II N' i j p.558:
- s. .s. . r, . .. .
i.
- e. i. .. i, . 4. , , , , , i ..uo octn.rimo rest 7 .......... .... , i...,,,
**5'ID
*serree Es 22o
; ,. 4 . .e .
I i 1 I t e.a
-=mv, .~ ,
.s==.sw e ei s.vu en,vec
~ == , ,,
cassea s rs l I i 1
)
I
)
1 I
..eo . ,,o., +~...........
I;. . ,
. .o. .o. s.,,0. vcs .
DC nm or .seeovE som SENiCa <*Ct%58 m....-.. j . .. . . . . . . . , _ i l l Examiner Standards 22 of 33
..=..-..=..:.a.. . :.a s: :.-.~.= ..+-..:.=w.. .,
....+:_ = = = -
~ , = . -
, ES-302
- 1. The four phases of the examination for the reactor operator candidate generally include:
Phase A, Operating Demonstration l Manipulation of controls through a reactor startup or other reac-tivity manipulation (see Standard ES-303, Section E, for the methods for accomplishing this phase). Phase B, Control Room (Major, Auxiliary, Engineered Safeguards, Nuclear and Radiation Instruments,-Electrical) Discussions, performance of checkouts, and use of procedures at supplementary instrument panels in the control room. 3 Phase C, Reactor and Auxiliary Buildings E Discussions, performance of checkouts, and use of procedures at i selected portions of the facility outside the control room. This should also include discussions concerning radiation protection (procedures, instrumentation, hazards, and so forth).
~
Phase D, Discussion (Integrated Plant Response, Reactor Theory, Thermodynamics, and Hydraulics) Discussions of a specific nature concerning overall plant behavior including response to transients based on nuclear theory and thermodynamics.
- 2. For the upgrade senior reactor operator candidate, the following substitutions, additions, or deletions should be made in each of the phases:
Phase A, Operating Demonstration Simulator examination, if applicable. If not, a discussion of plant operations to include a startup or. shutdown. ' Phase B, Control Room Administrative requirements to include shift turnover, surveil-lances, planned waste releases, and emergency plan implementation. Phase C, Reactor and Auxiliary Buildings Fuel handling, shutdown outside control room, and other procedures. Pha:e D, Discussion - Similar to that for a reactor operator; however, topics shall be explored in more depth consistent with a senior reactor operator's responsibility and authority. Examiner Standards 3 of 12
- -: . . 2.
s, -. > :- . .;.s : :. . .J . ES-301-3 Y se#C 80ana 157C *ses
- 4 44 ts 30s CPER ATING AN0 0R AI. E XAMIN ATION NOTES A OPE R ATING 0EVONSTR ATION. avacuatios C=f CK O*st l REaCTOs stangy l [ ytap No Cga?'# ecaf rossa R BAsesuumn DesmADO4 +
t 1
- esse e.e er sasmenaeae C>er as Twee e' Checaewt 'asse.*vi 1 1 1 S ya.s.ee.tv wem emettsaeet 112 acew* erg suaca res@ag saefrufmeatt 1 13 waeestaaea, e'inae, .e eeag eaeceee 3 , , . bage._.a. c. ...ea, .e. ca . . _ ,
. , , Cea . c-e. ea O
e u a.f 4 tea @t.eae b **egena e betemeag 131 aktv to erst >ct feteente 'e* toer #4 oreFs8a 12 2 Vacers'ea@at 08 .aspwdaeat 'eseeate 12 3 m ae.eege e' coer, . e. e+8eces e 4f ame, et.eas 92eee de.e eretoq$ ween 12 6 Cose -e one caeces sw peatseea 2 s as...,. me tene. sese.ees e.ee o= acewe eie, t 2 7 Deeee .v. ene *ee ' *ee cease.e coatee's *
- 3 r aee f ace e. Geocten ene Ceae**
b i 3 e as.... ee enecs eaat swee.ea s 3 2 * . e.e., e. e<a,.ca arco m ee. eeeace e.e - 9 3 3 Teena<e neee *<ee ea neew.ee.=eaes t 3 e Eow eaeae 00$ eewacaease 3 . .. ec . s. = ,. ee , -, . CQwvt%Y5
*ege 3 Examiner Standards 24 of 33 a
. . u. ..:.. .x = .a .. .: = u . . .~ . =a: = : . .s .-a. . . . - . . .- zu ES-303 p U - Poor Working Knowledge and Understanding of Subject or System Answers given by the candidate are incorrect and incomplete and/or he is unable to provide an answer. The candidate shows obvious unfamiliarity with subject and/or system as evidenced by hesitant answers, need to setrch for information, inability to locate control board indications and/or controls, and lack of knowledge of procedural steps to operate systems.
An example of a marginal evaluation is one where a candidate initially provides a wrong answer then later recognizes the mistake with little prompting and corrects the answer. If the candidate gives a wrong answer to a question with only two possible answers (e.g., rods go in or rods go out) and then corrects the answer, the examiner should expand 7 the questioning to ensure that the candidate understands the system or event and is not guessing. If this happens several times in the same area, the marginal evaluation should be changed to an unsatisfactory. All unsatisfactory eval ations shall be supported by detailed notes l stating the particular action or response that resulted in the unsatis-factory evaluation. The supporting notes should be as specific as _ possible; use of general statements such as "did not know decay heat l renoval system" should be avoided. i l Use of statements such as "gave correct answer only after prompting" is not acceptable documentation of an unsatisfactory rating. Additional justification is required because the examiner admits that the correct answer was given. The use of marginal evaluations should be minimized. Areas where a candidate's knowledge is marginal should be explored further in an i attempt to determine if an "S" or a "U" rating is warranted. If the carginal evaluation s' ands, supporting notes should be included although a they are not mandatory. The examiner should allow, and in fact encourage, the candidate to draw ! diagrams, flow paths, or other visual representations. This serves two l purposes: J
- 1. It allows the candidate to better express himself when providing an answer or explanation to the examiner.
4
- 2. It provides additional documentation to support a pass or fail determination.
These visual representations may be made on the reverse pages of the forms pertaining to the oral examination or other paper which the exam- ~ inar should attach to the examination notes. l l l Examiner Standards 2 of 8 l
.~.;- . .. . . - . . . . . . . ....s. .~-
i ES-305 standard. Several facts should be noted concerning these two examples. Although the minimum number of required subject areas is six, the examples show seven and more. This is indicative of a more comprehensive examination. Also, for the instant senior reactor operator, the subjects in Items 5.0 through 7.0 are empha-sized more than those in Items 2.0 through 4.0.
- 3. Reactor and Auxiliary Buildings (Form 157C, page 8)
This phase of the examination is similar in conduct to that of the . reactor operator (see appropriate section in Standard ES-302 for required coverage). The examiner must, however, broaden the scope of questioning to include the responsible areas of senior reactor operator knowledge and competence. Fuel-handling operations should y be included if practical. r
; 4. Discussion (Form 157C, pages 9,10 and 11)
The " Discussion" portion concerning responsibility and authority 4 should be completely filled out for all candidates. Section 8.A. shculd be approached from both the reactor operator and senior reactor operator levels; the remaining subjects are primarily at the senior reactor operator level (see Standard ES-304 for further explanation). During the nonsimulator operating examination, the examiner is l required to explore in detail the candidate's knowledge of the integrated plant response, including applicable procedures for at
, least two plant transients. For examination continuity and efficiency, it may be useful to combine this phase with the discus-sion on control room systems.
If a simulator demonstration is involved, Form 309 (Attachment 1 in L Standard ES-303) should be completed instead of page 9 of NRC Form 157C. During plant transient for which the applicant is the senior reactor oerator (SRO) it is important for the examiner to evaluate the candidate's ability to maintain a perspective directed toward total plant coordination. The candidate should step back and maintain a " big picture" outlook regarding the transient. This is much easier to accomplish during a simulator demonstration, but it shall be evaluated during a plant oral examination if no simulator examination is involved. f 1 Examiner Standards 3 of 5 i l
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ~_ _ _ . -_ - - _ _ _.
-_ - _ - . _ _ . _ _ - . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ . = _ - . - - --
ES-302-2 l INTEGRATED PLANT RESPONSE TRANSIENTS (Continued) Turbine Trip Feedwater Pump Trip Rod Malfunction . Primary System Leak Steam Leak Reactor Coolant Pump Trip Control Instrument Malfunction Steam Generator Tube Failure Fuel Cladding Failure Loss of Feedwater
, Loss of Component, Cooling L
+- em--m-o f
Examiner Standards 12 of 12
.. =- - - -
._.. a..= . .
ES-305 Rev. I 10/1/84 l INSTRUCTIONS ON USE OF FORMS FOR OPERATING EXAMINATIONS l ADMINISTERED TO INSTANT SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard provides guidance to the examiner on the use of the Exam-ination Form 157C during the course of operating examinations for instant l senior reactor operator candidates. B. General Operators are required to hold a reactor operator (RO) license for 1 year before they are eligible to apply for a senior reactor operator (SRO) license. Exceptions are allowed, however, for those candidates
'I who possess the necessary education, experience, and training to assume a supervisory role immediately.
Standard ES-109 covers eligibility requirements to obtain R0 and SRO licenses. C. Rules of Practice The rules of practice set forth in Standard ES-302, Section C, also apply during this type of examination and should be discussed with the candidate as indicated in Standard ES-302. The candidate should be informed that his examination will cover the knowledges, skills, and abilities from the licensed operator level to the highest on shift level
- of a licensed senior operator at his facility (shift supervisor, for
. example). The license or denial evaluation based on this examination shall be made on an overall basis at the senior license level and no separate evaluation at the operator level shall be made.
D. Conduct of Examination The conduct of an instant senior reactor operator examination is also specified in Standard ES-302. This examination is the most difficult and time consuming to administer because the candidate must be evaluated for two different levels of responsibility. The examiner must assure himself that the candidate has the necessary skills and abilities as a reactor operator and has the required knowledge and supervisory capabil-ities to function as a senior reactor operator. Therefore, the instant senior reactor operator examination must be a balanced combination of , the reactor operator (ES-303) and the upgrade senior reactor operator ' (ES-304) operating examinations. Examination Report 157C has been l developed for this purpose. Examiner Standards 1 of 5
_ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ , m.._...&_.._u_. .._ ____ .<. . .. _. .. _ .__.- ES-302-2 l 7 ATTACHMENT 2 LIST OF TOPICS FOR ORAL EXAMINATIONS - PRESSURIZED-WATER REACTORS A. CONTROL ROOM SYSTEMS - l
- 1. MAJOR Reactor Pressurizer Reactor Coolant Pumps Primary System Steam Generators
'I Control Rod Drive Systems
. Chemical and Volume Control Systems (CVCS)
Steam, Feed, and Condensate System Turbine Generator Reactor Protective System (RPS) _ 2. AUXILIARY CVCS - Makeup / Letdown CVCS - Boration/Deboration Component Cooling Water Shutdown Cooling System (RHR, Decay Heat Removal) Spent Fuel Pit Cooling Sampling System Fire Protection System Containment Air Recirculation and Cooling System Condensate Condenser Circulating Water Quench Tank Service Water Compressed Air System Auxiliary Feedwater System
- 3. ENGINEERED SAFETV FEATURES High-Pressure Safety Injection System Low-Pressure Safety Injection System Safety Injection Tanks (Accumulators, Core Flood Tanks)
Containment Spray System Reactor Building Isolation Refueling Water Tank (Refueling Water Storage Tank, Borated Water Storage Tank) . Containment Iodine Removal System Hydrogen Removal System Actuation Signals Examiner Standards 10 of 12 l'
ES-304
- 2. Responsibility and Authority The portion pertaining to the senior operator's responsibility and authority (page 4) is divided into five major subsections:
"(2.1) Emergency Plans", "(2.2) Plant Operations", "(2.3) Fuel Handling", "(2.4) Surveillance Testing", and "(2.5) Security."
Each of the subjects listed under the major subsection must be evaluated to the extent necessary to determine the senior candi-date's knowledge of these areas. The shift supervisor is generally designated as the emergency coordinator during implementation of an emergency plan action level and remains in that capacity until appropriately relieved. Each candidate will be evaluated in this regard during discussions concerning the emergency plan. All parts of Section 2.1 should be completed by the examiner. T ' For Section 2.2, the candidate should be evaluated on at least one
, aspect of plant operations, for example, startup or shutdown. This discussion should emphasize the supervisory responsibilities.
Discussions concerning fuel handling should be conducted at the appropriate location (e.g. , fuel-handling bridge and spent fuel pool), if at all feasible.
- 3. Discussion The " Discussion" section (pages 5 and 6) consists of three major l subsections: "(3.1) Transients," "(3.2) Reactivity Effects," and
"(3.3) Thermodynamics and Hydraulics."
a For Section 3.1, the examiner should explore the candidate's know-ledge and understanding of at least two plant transients. Each of the subject areas on this page should be evaluated. The simulator examination should be substituted in lieu of this discussion phase if appropriate. The examiner should complete the evaluation of at least six of the eight topics listed under Sections 3.2 and 3.3. F. References Letter from H. Denton (NRC) to All Power Reactor Applicants,
Subject:
Qualification of Reactor Operators and Licensees, Mar. 28, 1980. i l i Examiner Standards 3 of 3 l
. l
a . :.- . . .. a . . ; = . . . :. . .. . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-302-1 P
- 4. ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES (Continued)
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Isolation Condenser Primary Containment Containment Spray ' Core Spray Core Flooding Auto - Depressurization Standby Coolant Supply Main Steam Line Restrictors Control Rod Velocity Limiter Main Steam Line Isolation Valves Standby Liquid Control
- Pressure Relief Secondary Containment
- 5. NUCLEAR AND RADIATION INSTRUMENTS Source Range Monitors Intermediate Range Monitors Average Power Range Monitors Local Power Range Monitors Rod Worth Minimizer Rod Block Monitor Traveling Incore Probe Process Computer Rod Sequence Control Liquid Effluent Area Radiation Monitors Gaseous Effluent Stack Gas
- Main Steam Line Radiation Off Gas System
- 6. ELECTRICAL Diesels Normal AC Supply Emergency AC Supply Normal DC Supply Emergency DC Supply 4
Reactor Protection System Uninterruptible Power Supply B. REACTOR AND AUXILIARY BUILDING SYSTEMS Any system listed above including systems covered during the control ! ro:m portion of the examination may also be covered during the walkthrough. l Th2 systems listed below are also convenient for coverage during the plant walkthrough. Examiner Standards 8 of 12 l
...~ : . . . = = = .. . v. . , - .- . . _
ES-304 Rev. 1 10/1/84 l INSTRUCTIONS ON USE OF FORMS FOR OPERATING EXAMINATIONS l ADMINISTERED TO UPGRADE SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard provides guidance to the examiner on the use of Examination Form 157B during the course of operating and oral examinations for upgrade senior operator candidates. B. General A letter from H. Denton (NRC), dated March 28, 1980 recuired that oper-ating examinations be administered to upgrade senior operator candidates. l Previous policy to waive this portion of the examination and administer only a written examination was superseded by this new requirement. C. Rules of Practice The rules of practice set forth in Standard ES-302, Section C, also apply during this type of examination and should be discussed with the candidate as indicated in Standard ES-302. The candidate should be informed that he will be examined at the highest onshift level that he can occupy with a senior reactor operator (SRO) license, for example, shift supervisor. 1 J D. Conduct of Examination The conduct of an upgrade senior reactor operator examination is also specified in Standard ES-302. Generally, this examination is administra-tive in nature and aimed at evaluating the candidate's knowledge of his responsibilities as a shift supervisor. The candidate should display the ability and attitude of responsibility for safe operation and espe-cially to assume a management role during plant transient ano upset conditions. Differences in administrative controls and facility design will affect the senior operator's responsibilities, but in general the following items should be used as guides for the scope of the senior operator examination.
- 1. The senior operator, in directing licensed activities, must evalu-ate plant performance, particularly during nonroutine events, and make operational judgments accordingly. He should therefore have a higher degree of knowledge in areas such as operating character-istics, reactor behavior, and instrument interpretation than a reactor operator.
d l l
. \
Examiner Standards 1 of 3 , 1 I l
_. . . .-.__.._.C..__..._-_-- . . . _. i - ES-302 P a list specific to the vendor type and model of the nuclear steam supply system, those areas that they wish to cover during the operating and oral examinations. The examiners should diversify their coverage and discuss as many of the systems and subjects as feasible during a spe-cific assignment. In preparing the program for the operating examination, examiners should avoid true/ false-type questions or questions with only two possible answers. Questions of this type increase the difficulty of determining satisfactory or unsatisfactory responses, particularly if the candidate
" changes his mind" because of prompting by the examiner. For example, instead of asking, "If the steam generator safety failed open with rod control in automatic, would rods move in or out?", the examiner should ask, "If a steam generator safety failed open, what would be the primary
') effect on reactivity initially?" Then he should discuss rod control
~
response and protective system response or reactivity principles in more e depth depending on the candidate's answer. In general, the examiner should try to avoid situations that could result in the candidate claim-ing to have given the correct answer even though he had to correct him-self when the examiner felt that the basic understanding was not evident. Examiner Standards 6 of 12
ES-303 If a simulator demonstration is involved, NRC Form 309 (Attachment 1 to this standard) should be completed instead of page 8 of NRC Form 157A and a note on page 8 should direct attention to NRC Form 309. The " Principles of Nuclear Power Plant Operation" portion of the notes must be completely filled in with evaluations for each can-didate in every subject. Again this discussiori may be combined with other areas for examination continuity and efficiency. It is important for the candidate to use and explain existing plant information for this phase of the examination. Examples include reactivity data used in estimated critical position (ECP), computer-generated core data, pump head curves, and so forth. 3 . L Examiner Standards 7 of 8 l _
- . , ==.= . . = . . . . .=a.. . r . . . a c. . a . . - - = - - 1 ES-302 y
- 3. The operating examination for an~ instant senior reactor operator l
must be an appropriate blend of the examination requirements for a reactor operator and for an upgrade senior reactor operator. The examiner must determine that the instant senior reactor operator candidate has the requisite knowledge and ability as a reactor operator and also can function in a supervisory capacity as a senior reactor operator. -The senior reactor operator candidate, whether upgrade or instant, must be aware that he is being examined for the highest position for which the senior reactor operator's license is applicable on each shift. For example, if the senior reactor operator candidate is to be given a shift foreman's (or assistant shift supervisor's) position when he receives an SRO license, the examination must be conducted assuming the candidate will function as the shift supervisor. E. Scope of Examination 11 The operating tests administered to candidates for reactor operator and t l senior reactor operator licenses must include, to the extent applicable, tha following items as required by 10 CFR 55.23:
. 1. The candidate should perform prestartup checks on the reactor or any other checks (e.g., daily, recovery from scram) that a licensed operator would normally perform. When complete performance of all applicable checks requires a prohibitive an.ount of time, the exam-iner may select portions of the checklists and spot check items or use other methods he deems suitable to determine competence within a reasonable time.
- 2. The candidate should start up the reactor from a substantially subcritical condition and raise power to a preselected value that is sufficient to use all nuclear instrumentation channels and introduce effects on reactivity (e.g., temperature increase and void formation) as may be appropriate. In the case of examinations administered at a nuclear power plant simulator (see Standards ES-501 and ES-502), the examiner may use other programs (i.e. , i malfunctions and/or abnormal conditions) to determine the candi-date's understanding of, and ability to perform, manipulations at j
] the control console. t
- 3. The candidate should describe his actions and responses to each
! alarm and annunciator signal and indicate the probable causes and significance thcreof. The candidate should show a high degree of familiarization with procedures of this nature and should distin-guish between actions or checks that he must take immediately and those actions that are logical followups depending on the circumstances. ,
- 4. The candidate should predict the approximate readings of all perti-nent instrumentation for the conditions at which he will be oper-ating and verify that his predictions are accurate. i Examiner Standards 4 of 12 I
i
, , . . w .. . ~ a~ - - - -
~
ES-303
- a. The " Control Room" section dealing with major, auxiliary, and engineered safeguards systems shall contain a minimum of two l
; systems from each category. All six systems should be evaluated in at least six subject areas.
- b. For the " Nuclear and Radiation Instrument" section, the examiner should select two nuclear and one installed radiation system,
, as a minimum, and at least six subjects in each system should be explored. , i'
- c. For the " Electrical" section, the examiner should select a minimum of one normal and one emergency supply system. In this case five subjects for each system should be adequate for a determination of the knowledge and/or competence of the candidate.
. T '
During the course of the discussions on the control room, the examiner should require the candidate to demonstrate his under-standing and familiarity by locating and explaining
- a. control board instrumentation
- b. control board controls
- c. piping and instrument diagrams
- d. procedures
- e. other related reference data (such as logs, tag outs, and Technical Specifications)
The candidate's response to at least three abnormal and/or emer-
- gency procedures should be evaluated during the control rcam phase of the examination.
- 3. Reactor and Auxiliary Buildings The control room licensed personnel are responsible for directing
. the activities of all facility personnel in areas that could affect the safety of the plant and as such should be familiar with plant layout, design, local procedures, and radiological and safety conditions. The examiner may evaluate the candidate's knowledge in this phase by a variety of methods:
! a. He may select at least two systems from the list of items for the reactor type and discuss a minimum of five subjects for each system. i b. From control room discussions, he (or the candidate) may generate a list of items that require local monitoring,.verifi- ! cation, or manipulation.
- c. He may select at least two procedures with actions that are l l performed in the plant.
l Examiner Standards 5 of 8
I
~
, l ES-302 y
If the examiner's intent is to determine whether the candidate would perform such an act, the question can be phrased in some manner other than requesting the act to be performed.
- b. The examiner should ensure that it is understood that his presence does not alter the normal. chain of command and that the candidate, during the examination, should make all reports and obtain all permissions that normally would be required.
All directis.4 to the candidate shall come from the responsible supervisor in accordance with the facility administrative procedures. The examiner shall only question and make requests of the candidate. The examiner should avoid asking distract-ing questions during the manipulation of controls,
- c. The examiner shall not alter the set points or calibrations of 3 any instrument or manipulate any control.
; d. The licensed operator on duty should be informed that he should step in and take over control of the reactor any time there is an unsafe condition or there is reasonable assurance, in his opinion, that the reactor will shut down if conditions are not corrected.
- 2. For all operating examinations, the examiner should brief the l candidate on, or ensure that the candidate is aware of,
- a. the general conduct, scope, and length of the examination and any other pertinent information
- b. the fact that the examiner is a visitor at the facility and is to be so treated according to facility procedures
- c. his right to seek clarification of the examiner's questions when necessary
- d. the fact that the examiner cannot reveal the results at the conclusion of the examination
- e. the candidate's obligation for demonstrating a responsible, safe attitude to facility operation during conded of the examination D. Conduct of Examinations Various phases of the operating examinations are listed below. Normally l all examinations will include all four phases; although for " cold" examinations not performed at a simulator or for " hot" examinations
- where the candidates have been certified at a simulator, the manipulative
- portion of Phase A i's not required. Where a simulator is available, all~
of Phase A and portions of Phases B and 0 will be performed at the , simulator. The nature and extent of the questions for-the reactor operator and senior reactor operator candidates will vary. l , Examiner Standards 2 of 12
i
. ES-303 C. Rules of Practice The rules of practice set forth in Standard ES-302 apply to the RO operating exsninations. When actual plant manipulations are to be l-performed, these rules should be explained to, and understood by, each candidate.
D. ConductofExamination The procedure for conduct of the examination, as specified in Standard ES-302, is most applicable for reactor operator candidates. The most common method of examination (nonplant-specific simulator) is a " sit-down" period of discussion with the candidate, followed by the control room discussion and startup, if applicable, and a plant walkthrough. Typical time requirements for this examination are as follows: T
- 1. discussion - 3/4 to 1 hour i ; 2. control room - 2 to 2-1/2 hours
- 3. walkthrough - 1/2 to 3/4 hour If reactor startups are required for a group of candidates, they gener-
~
ally will all be performed in 1 day to minimize plant downtime, In such cases, the " Discussion" and " Control Room," phases of the oral examination can be shortened if some of the required items are covered during the startup. If a plant-specific simulator examination is administered, items covered at the simulator should not be covered again during the oral portion, thus further shortening the oral part of the examination. It is necessary, however, that the examiner give a complete examination as is explained in Section E, " Detailed Instructions," of this standard. The operating examinations are audits of selected areas that each candi- l date is responsible for knowing or in which he must demonstrate competence. As such, the examiner must make a complete audit of each candidate to justify granting a license. It is often necessary to go significantly
~
beyond the average oral examination time periods to complete the audit. In a relatively few cases, where a candidate has clearly shown deficien-cies and there is no doubt of a denial, the examiner may omit some required coverage. In such cases he should attempt to include as much coverage of the subject area as possible within the " average" oral examination period. E. Detailed Instructions
- 1. Operating Demonstration (Form 157A, page 3)
This phase of the examination may be completed by one of three methods: , a. actual reactor startup or other reactivity manipulation on the l plant l l t l Examiner Standards 3 of 8 l l l
t ES-303 Rev. I 10/1/84 l INSTRUCTIONS ON USE OF FORMS FOR OPERATING EXAMINATIONS l ADMINISTERED TO REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS i A. Purpose This standard provides guidance to the examiner on the use of the exam-ination forms during the course of the reactor operator operating examina-tions. Form 157A has been designed to minimize the amount of note taking and to make best use of the time necessary for the examinations. i Separate forms have been developed for the reactor operator (RO) exami-nations (Form 157A), the upgrade senior reactor (SRO) examination (Form 1578), and the instant SRO examination (Form 157C) (Attachments 1 through 3 of ES-301). T B. General The examiner is ultimately responsible for making a professional, subjec-tive judgment on whether a candidate should pass or fail this segment of the examination. The forms pertaining to the oral portion of the operating l examination should only be used as an aid to the examiner in conducting the examination and as a means of documenting the bases for the examiner's a pass or fail determination. This determination is based on an audit of the levels of knowledge and abilities of the candidate, and, as such, all of the applicable areas defined in Standard ES-302 should be explored in varying degrees of depth. The examiner will specify his evaluation of the candidate's observed performance and knowledge and understanding of and competence in the subjects and systems discussed by placing an "S" for satisfactory, an , "M" for marginal, and a "U" for unsatisfactory in the appropriate space. The following criteria are to be used for the evaluation. S - Excellent to Good Working Knowledge and Understanding of the Subject i ' or Systems The candidate may have some slight or minor difficulty relating to system interactions. Competence in the operation of equipment associated with system is very good although tnere may be some hesitation while performing some tasks. The candidate, however, appears to be familiar with the equipment and procedures. M - Fair Working Knowiedge and Understanding of Subject or Systems Candidate may have difficulty answering questions in depth and in relat-ing the interactions of systems. Competence in operation of equipment is generally good. The candidate, however, shows some lack of famili-arity with the equipment and procedures. l t Examiner Standards 1 of 8 I l l
s e ES-301-3 9 _ ~ . is ts- .. O DISCUS 50s sensa %=ur meersyse
.2 i
* .5 4 0 TMEOmv Os asoss.cowta atACTom sacuTV orgaatioss l
Laseca= m f ace's I e % econ <ena aw == e Oresees see s ece aos e Coom ean a 4.ose f aecio e Leas Tr= Enocese s *ts e aos we,= a Sa uvoo a we g+ tecessasee,% i e a pe e ancessees one Deegenes 42TW f%+s e e Co o CooW e e w speace t wwere* 3iamea p.ee,e cem,e, e Sowce ce =aseres e* esserea e teeosse rm m Cro M cecen. e *vceen mweren *nnaeannene one veen e
- oteesee *nw* Cenem Cowen es e e neee e eeuws .eeenoue ae ,e ourne, 8 ? E=e goate_Fea was %eewes b e Oces a cessd< eve L meeeC+e E
L W ._^t9***** glase,cas A es one meegenne ,ee e _5w.eeeace 'ese+o e Core a* ease.eas m .mee e e. p_ .- e= =m L M cil __ 5_'*T _ e Secsee
, 5.~ e - .
c m ..s,, = . se .e .e. Examiner Standards 32 of 33
~
~. . .. . .s , . , . . ._ . . - .
l l ES-302-2
- 4. NUCLEAR AND RADIATION INSTRUMENT l
Startup Channels Intermediate Channels Power Range Channels In-Core Instrumentation Process Radiation Monitors Area Radiation Monitor
- 5. ELECTRICAL 230-kV Systems 6900-V Systems
- 4160-V Systems A80-V Systems
'%~
~ 120-V Systems DC Power Supplies i Batteries Emergency Generator or Diesel Generators Lighting i
B. REACTOR AND AUXILIARY BUILDING SYSTEMS Any system listed above including systems covered during the control room portion of the examination may also be covered during the walkthrough. l The systems listed below are also convenient for coverage during the i plant walkthrough. ! Sampling System Fuel Handling and Storage (Cold Plant) Liquid Waste Handling and Disposal Gaseous. Waste Handling Solid Waste Handling and Disposal Diesel Generators
~
Shutdown Outside Control Room - Charging System Shutdown Outside Control Room - Feedwater Station Shutdown Outside Control Room - Control Panel Shutdown Outside Control Room - Boration Chemical Addition , Hydrogen Recombiners
- Station Gas (N22H ) Supplies Intermediate Cooling Systems Main Condenser Level Control System Auxiliary Feedwater Systems C. INTEGRATED PLANT RESPONSE TRANSIENTS Load Increase / Decrease - Auto Control -
Load Increase / Decrease - Manual Control Load Rejection Examiner Standards 11 of 12
e
- ES-301-3 Nec FOmM 157C. Page 9
. g. es .
gg 3,5
/ SY$T[V$ [
D. DISCUS $10NS (snruyresse Piant Asaporiset r a i 5 , c / s f 2c E3uputNT 26 Carvapeanmetooaan 30 INSTmuutN'j. 34 Coawes moera saecatioas 33 avionwe.c Coawes l 3e amme, to usamsew Meave Coaew 40 PLANT PacitCTION ee a vionaes actieaa 42 amravseisonae w 50 Paoctounts 5t seoraws proceewres S2 0 %emmuanaermal W
#s2 an=ameo Piumen -
so maaCvivity isstCTs aNo vietawoovNamic aNatvsis 63 Cassecear fascis. moscwev t%ts
's a Treament a-%emw aaavne 7o aouiNasTaatsvg at0ulatutNts 79 Tecaa. car $cecificatioat 7.2 Facdef t neowerofatett CowutNTS taewsea por v*;
P. Examiner Standards 30 of 33 e -
. . . . _ -_ . a .. :m . .
ES-302-1 Fuel Handling and Storage Rad Waste C. INTEGRATED PLANT RESPONSE TRANSIENTS Turbine Trip Loss of Generator Load Emergency Shutdown From Full Power Scram - Cold Restart Scram - Hot Restart Load' Change (at least 20%) Subcritical to Critical Normal Shutdown From Full Power
'\ Maneuver to Hot Standby Recirculation Pump Trip ; Feedwater Pump Trip Steam Pipe Break Recirculation Line Break Loss of Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water Loss of Instrument Air 4
8 i 1 d l Examiner Standards 9 of 12
e t ES-301-3 F h8C 80eu 157C. Page 7 I RYSTEME I
- 8. CONTROL ROOM tewwwo !
i
/a/ e/ C/ of 20 EOutput NT 21 Pwsme 12 9saw Peen 21 Neems Pesas'ers 24 Cirquewie 23 Sverem Genener er Asesoaes 30 INSTauutNTS
-e i 32 savenesee 34 Ceaweeme mano m .a 60 pmoctoumES SS Neeaw Preseawee
$2 Ownermes/Aensems SJ Genesgenev Spessasse 70 aouimistnativt atouimenstNTs 71 Teraa.ess $sesManoas
?2 PacM, mean,emeas, CouwtNTS innevned %r ~tf"!
Pe.e ? Examiner Standards 28 of 33
. .. .u.. .
ES-302-1 l ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF TOPICS FOR ORAL EXAMINATIONS - BOILING-WATER REACTORS A. CONTROL ROOM SYSTEMS l
- 1. MAJOR -
Turbine Generator Reactor Level Control Recirculation Control Rods and Control Rod Drives Electrohydraulic Control Turbine Bypass Main Condenser
') Circulating Water Condensate and Feedwater E Mechanical Design (Fuel Assembly)
- Reactor Vessel
- 2. AUXILIARY
~
Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water Turbine Building Closed Cooling Water Control, Instrument, and Service Air Fire Protection Service Water Equipment and Floor Drainage Condensate Storage and Transfer
. Radioactive Waste (Solid and Liquid)
Fuel Pooling Cooling and Cleanup Demineralized Water Augmented Off Gas Condenser Circulating Water
; Process Sampling Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Reactor Water Cleanup Shutdown Cooling Head Cooling Containment Inerting Gland Seal and Exhaust Turbine - Generator Lube Oil Steam Jet Air Ejectors
- 3. ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES Residual Heat Removal High-Pressure Coolant Injection -
Low-Pressure Coolant Injection Standby Gas Treatment Examiner Standards 7 of 12
. - . . __ . . .. _ _ .. . . ~ _ - . . . . . . . _ . . ~ . . . . . . _ _ -. -
ES-301-3 P
. .- .~. ....,
CDeesets TS (Casenment T we l Examiner Standards 26 of 33 l
)
. I
-- . . . ~ . . - ~ .. a l ES-302
- 5. The candidate should describe the response of the system to control changes and verify that his description is correct. Normally, the candidate sho.sid make one or more changes of power level on a period or startup rate indicated by the examiner and permitted by the regulations of the facility.
- 6. The candidate should demonstrate familiarity with auxiliary and emergency systems at the facility and particularly indicate the interrelationships and interconnections between them and the reac-tor or reactor control system.
- 7. The candidate should perform such standard calculations (e.g., burnout, rod position, estimated critical position (ECP), and heat balance) as are consistent with an operator's responsibility at the facility.
) 8. The candidate should align and start, or describe the procedure for, several of the pertinent auxiliary and emergency systems.
- 9. The candidate should describe the operation and pertinent design and construction features of the reactor and auxiliary systems and indicate satisfactory familiarity with the overall facility, in-cluding the ability to locate and identify significant components and instrumentation.
- 10. The candidate should demonstrate the use of, and interpret, the readings of the portable monitoring equipment that is usually available.
- 11. The candidate should demonstrate his actions in the event of emer-gencies that may occur. He should possess a high degree of famili-arity with duties required in the emergency procedures and be able to distinguish between those actions he must take immediately as an operator, those which are followup actions, and those that affect persons at the facility for whom he has a safety responsibility.
- 12. The candidate should observe all rules and procedures regarding radiation safety and equipment and required radiation work permits and permissions and demonstrate a logical safe approach to questions involving radiological safety, including hypothesized situations.
- 13. The candidate should demonstrate familiarity with, and follow all, operating procedures and standards of the facility including all notifications to supervision and other facility personnel. He
'should also demonstrate that he knows when permission from other facility personnel is required before performing some actions.
F. Systems and Subjects Generic lists of systems and subjects have been developed for both pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water reactors (Attachments 1 and 2 to this standard). The examiners may select from these lists, or Examiner Standards 5 of 12
= . ~ . - ~ . . . . . - .-.w. .. .. .. -- . w. = = . .a.~..-
ES-306 y The type of pre-startup check performed should be specified, including the procedure number if applicable. Similarly, a description of the console operations should be specified, including the initial conditions
. of the reactor.
If a reactor malfunction prevents actual reactivity manipulations after the examination process has begun, the operating demonstration may be performed as a " walk-through". This will be indicated on page 2 of the report by checking the " Discussion" block. An appropriate explanation of the circumstances resulting in a walk-through demonstration should be included on the cover sheet of the report.
- b. Control Room (Form 157A or C, pages 4, 6 and 7)
T The portion of the Examination Report pertaining to the control room consists of three pages, and the format in Forms 157A and C is a matrix typ9 that allows the examiner to select with ease the systems and subjects he wishes to discuss. A generic list of systems and subjects
~which can be used as general guidance in selecting systems at a specific facility is included as Attachment 4.
--The systems may be selected from this generic list. The system selected will be listed at the top of the columns. The subjects that can be discussed are arranged on the left-hand side of the page. Attachment 4 is not meant to be an all inclusive list. Consideration must be given to the unique features of each facility.
To make best use of the time required for the administration of the examination and provide a uniform and reasonable basis for the issuance of a license or denial of an application, based upon the facility design, the examiner should use to the extent possible the following procedure for each applicant:
. NOTE: Variations to'the procedure are permitted where the design of the
~
non power reactor facility limits the areas and the extent of questions that can be addressed during the oral examination.
- 1. For reactor operator candidates, the " Control Room" section dealing l with major, auxiliary and engineered safeguards systems will contain i a minimum of two major systems, one auxiliary and one engineered safeguards system. All four systems should be evaluated in a least six subject areas. ,
- 2. For instant senior operator candidates, the " Control Room" section dealing with major, auxiliary, and engineered safeguards systems will contain a minimum of two systems from each category. All,six systems should be evaluated in at least six subject areas.
- 3. For the " Nuclear and Radiation Instrument" section, the examiner should select one nuclear and one installed radiation system, as a minimum, and at least six subjects in each system should be explored.
Examiner Standards 4 of 10 l
- .- . = . .u.a- :_e : - =-_n... . . .:v -
ES-404 1 Rev. I 10/1/84
- SCOPE AND STRUCTURE OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIOR OPERATOR CANDIDATES - NON-POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard specifies-the difference in preparation of senior reactor operator written examinations and reactor operator examinations.
In general, the provisions contained in Standard ES-204 apply equally to the Senior Reactor Operator examination. B. Preparation of Examination (ES-410, paragraph B) The examiner shall prepare the examination questions and answers using
'\ guidance contained in paragraphs C, 0 and E below. The examiner should conduct a detailed review of his examination using Attachment ES-107-1.
A copy of the examination and answer key should be forwarded to the appropriate regional section chief for review. Attachment ES-107-1, ES-108-1, and ES-201-6 should be filed with the master copy of the examination. C. Scope The required scope of the examination is set forth in 10 CFR 55. To implement this scope and to provide for identification and documentation of strengths and weaknesses within certain areas of knowledge, the written examination is divided into five categories. These five cate-gories are listed below with a descripton of the content-of each. They are designated by the letters H through L to differentiate them from categories A'through G in the operator exam as set forth in ES-204.
- 1. Category H - Reactor Theory
~
This category contains questions on principles of reactor theory including details of the fission process, neutron multiplication, source and control rod effects and criticality indications. It has more advanced content than the operator cateogry A but is not advanced to the level of a nuclear physicist or engineer. The candidate should be able to demon-strate quantitative as well as qualitative knowledge of reactor behavior. He should be able to understand and utilize mathematical expressions regarding reactor behavior; however, these expressions (or formulae) and nuclear constants (fission factors, half lives, etc.) usually need not be committed to memory and will be supplied in the examination when questions requiring them are included. Further, this category may contain questions applicable to the facility, concerning some aspects of basic reactor engineering, e.g., heat transfer and fluid flow which affect the safety of the reactor. The primary emphasis throughout will be on understanding and practical application facts. of the theory rather than mere memorization of technical Examiner Standards 1 of 4 m
ES-306 E. Rules of Practice (ES-302, paragraph C) F' The rules of practice specified in paragraph C of ES-302 are applicable to non power reactor examinations also. Note that most non power reactor operating demonstrations will involve actual reactor startups. F. Conduct of Examinations (ES-302, paragraph D) The guidelines provided in this paragraph of ES-302 for reactor operators and instant senior operators are also applicable to reactor operator and instant senior operators at non power reactors (except that Phase C, Reactor and Auxiliary Building should read Facility Walk-through). The upgrade senior operator will generally include the following phases:
\
Phase A, Facility Administration Administrative requirements to include facility controls, facility reference materials and emergency plan implementation. Phase 8, Facility Walk Through Walk through of systems and procedures from outside control room, to include plant operations, core alterations and radiation protection. Phase C, Discussion Discussions of a specific nature concerning overall plant behavior including response to transients. G. Scope of Examination (ES-302, paragraph E) The scope of the non power reactor operating examination must include those areas specified in Standard 302. H. Systems and Subjects Generic list of systems and subjects has been developed (Attachement 4 to this standard). The examiner may select from this list, or a list specific to the vendor type and model of the reactor to be examined on, those areas which he desires to cover during the operating-oral exam-ination. The examiner should diversify his coverage and discuss as many of the systems and subjects as feasible during a specific assignment. I. Instructions for Completing Notes (ES-303, paragraphs B, C, and D)
- 1. General General guidance for completing the Examination Report is contained in Standard 303, paragraph 8, and is fully applicable to the completion of notes for a non power reactor operating examination. An operating test Examiner Standards 2 of 10 l
. .- ._ .:. . a.---.- . ..
ES-403-1 Attachment 1 l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION Facility: Reactor Type: l Date Administered: Examiner: ! Candidate: INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATE: Use separate paper for the answers. Write answers on one side only. Staple
'\'
question sheet on top of the answer sheets. Points for each question are indi-cated in parentheses after the question. The passing grade requires at least
; 70% in each category and a final grade of at least 80%. Examination papers will be picked up six (6) hours after the examination starts.
% of Category % of Candidate's Category Value Total Score Value Category
- 5. Theory of Nuclear Power Plant Operation, Fluids, and Thermo-dynamics
- 6. Plant Systems Design, '
Control, and Instrumentation
- 7. Procedures - Normal,
. Abnormal, Emergency, and Radiological Control
- 8. Administrative Pro-cedures, Conditions, and Limitations Totals Final Grade All work done on this examination is my own, I have neither given.nor received aid.
Candidate's Signature Examiner Standards 3 of 3
ES-403 Rev. I 10/1/84 l STRUCTURE OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS ADMINISTERED TO SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard specifies the format, category weights, and depth of knowledge for senior reactor operator written examinations. B. General Structure Each written examination shall be divided into four categories in accordance with Standard ES-402. T C. Cover Sheet
, A cover sheet, with the format shown in attachment 1 ES-403-1, shall be used on l all written examinations. This sheet will provide for ready identification of the structure of the examination and, subsequently, of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidate after the examination has been graded.
All ftems in the upper corner of the cover sheet, except the name of the candi-date (and sometimes the date administered), should be filled out when the exami-nation is prepared and reproduced. The reactor type aids headquarters in readily correlating the examinations of similar facilities and should be as descriptive as possible (e.g., BWR and PWR-W). The " Examiner" line shall contain the name of the examination author. The first two columns on the cover sheet should be filled out at the time of the initial preparation. D. Weighting of Categories The relative weight of each category in the examination, as a percentile of - total worth, shall be 25% 1 3% for each section. Category 5 shall be weighted so that 15% i 1% (60% i 4% of the category) consists of theory of nuclear plant operations and 10% i 1% (40% t 4* of the category) consists of theory of fluids and thermodynamics. E. Value of Questions The examiner shall assign a point value to each question and indicate this value in parentheses after the question. The point value of a question is a judgment factor based on the combination of the following factors: significance of the knowledge to the senior reactor operator, difficulty of the question, amount of time required to answer the question, depth of knowledge required to answer the question, and the content of the question. The general structure of the examination should be such that a safe and compe-tent operator will score above 80% on the entire test and above 70% in each Examiner Standards 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 1 ES-305-1 F SAMPLE REACTOR OPERATOR EXAMINATION REPORT Reactor Operator mac 80#w ,0,C. Pue. 4 s 1 t 8,1
/ SYST E WS /
- s. CONTmot noou (M4P87. AW28/ aery ertW f/IS.6 Sed %gMWW 8F818848/
! , fg T
& /8 iC /Q ( E /5 /G i=/
20 SQusput NT 1, ~ SI S SI5
,, .- IS S rSI A n ,_ S S S . 2 C. S lS I lS l u . . - - S I SI ISlS 3.0 eassTwvueNtat104 SlS lSI
_1, - l u .. Sl S l l u e... ISI ISI l lS S 0 *k.A NT **C?tC*tCN
., -- SI ISI lS S 2 - . .
S' l l S 2 .-. S SlSl S 50 **Oct3 vats l
,, .s . SlSI I S S o -- ISI ISI u - l Sl S
.0 .. . . . I Sl
. ,, ~ I S
,0 acesessitTW Afivg m80uineasserT3
,, , - - S S
I I I .l
....~,,,,v, Oconvi=veo on svensa Examiner Standards 4 of 5
.: . . .. .. a - w .- -
i ES-401 Rev. I 10/1/84 l ADMINISTRATION OF WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS TO SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard specifies the difference in preparation of senior reactor operator written examinations and reactor operator examinations. i B. Preparation of Examination . The examiner shall prepare the examination questions and answers using
'\ Standards ES-402 and ES-403 for guidance. One copy of the examination and one copy of the answers should be forwarded to the appropriate o regional section chief for review. The " Written Examination Quality Assurance checkoff sheet", attachment 1, ES 107, should be filed with the master copy of the examination. The examiner should conduct a detailed review of his examination using attachment 1, ES-107.
~
C. Administration and Grading Administration and grading of the senior reactor operator written examination is the same as for the rea-tor operator written examina-tion as specified in ES 201. ES 104 describes the post examination activities and reports. ES 107 and ES 108 describe the quality assurance programs for review of the examination and the grading. a Examinar Standards 1 of 1
- 1. _ . . _ . . _._ .1.a.s.._.2. a at.hd C ~W 2.2 : ~
ES-305 P E. Detailed Instructions
- 1. Operating Demonstration (Form 157C, page 3)
This phase of the examination is to be conducted in a manner similar to that specified in Standard ES-302, Section E. If a reactor l startup demonstration is. performed, all of Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 must be completed. If a simulator examination is a part of the operating examination NRC form 309 (ES 303 attachment 1) should be completed instead of sections 1.1 and 1.3 form 157C and a note on page 3 should direct attention to the NRC form 309 attached. If the
; candidates have completed a startup certification, these sections
! should be audited on at least one candidate (Items 1.2.4 through 1.2.7 are not applicable).
'T Section 1.3 should be completed for all candidates. In the case of a startup certification, this section may be combined with other
, control room discussions, and in the case where a simulator examina-1 tion is involved these knowledges and abilities may be tested during the simulator examination.
i
- 2. Control Room (Form 157C, pages 4, 6, and 7)
The portion of the examination pertaining to the control room should be conducted similarly to that of the reactor operator examination (see Standard ES-303) in accordance with the following j minimum requirements. l hg Systems Sub.iect areas 4 Two major 6 4 Two auxiliary 6
. 4 Two engineered safeguards 6
- 6 Two nuclear instruments 6 r .
6 One radiation monitoring 6 i 7 One normal electrical 5 l 7 One emergency electrical 5 j The scope of coverage in this phase of the examination for the 1 instant senior reactor operator candidates shall be more thorough l than that for the reactor operator candidates. For the senior l reactor operator, more emphasis should be placed on the procedural ! and administrative requirements sections than for the reactor i operator. The line of questioning for a reactor operator should be i from a systems standpoint (e.g., hardware, instruments, and numerical values) for all systems covered; for an instant senior reactor operator, the examiner should also explore these areas from a I functional viewpoint. - Two examples of completed page 4s, one for a reactor operator, the other for an instant senior reactor operator, are attached to this i Examiner Standards 2 of 5 l 1 t
. . .8 .. . ....:- .a ..
E ES-306-1 ATTACHMENT 1 TOPICS FOR OPERATING EXAMINATIONS - NON-POWER . MAJOR SYSTEMS: reactor reactor power level control control rods control rod drives primary system secondary system mechanical design (fuel assembly) l reactor vessel pool - took l'7g core contruction
; AUXILIARY SYSTEMS:
reactor building cooling water control, instrument, service air (compressed air system) sampling system fire protection system service water system equipment and floor drainage containment air recirculation
! radioactive waste (solid and liquid) demineralized water heating ventilation and air conditioning
~
reactor water clean-up/make-up beam tubes 1 thermal columns pneumatic tube systems incore experiment tubes 4 &
. chemical additions Enaineered Safety Features:
decay heat removal ' core spray core flooding control rod velocity limiter containment / reactor building isolation reactor building isolation reactor protective system Nuclear and Radiation Systems: startup channels l log N channels
- safety channels ,
Examiner Standards 9 of 10
~ -_ - - .. .- __ - - . . . - - - - . . . - . . . - - , - - - - - . .
ES-306
- 2. Upgrade Senior Operator (Form 1578, Page 4)
Since an upgrade senior operator has previously passed an operating test, the facility walk-through for these candidates is limited primarily to aspects of reactor facility operations for which a senior operator is solely responsible or for which a senior operator's respon-sibilities are significantly different than that of an operator. The following guidelines apply to the facility walk-through for upgrade senior operators:
- a. Each item on page 4 of Form 1578 should be evaluated.
- b. Candidates knowledge of fuel handling should be evaluated at an appropriate location outside the control room from which core alterations are performed.
- c. One entry into a radiation controlled area should be made if
; feasible. As an alternate, a discussion of handling radioactive materials may be conducted.
In the area of facility operations, the candidates knowledge and use of local procedures or experiment facilities shall be evaluated. Addi-tionally, a brief check of the candidates systems and operational know-ledge should be made. If a candidate appears to be weak in these areas, more extensive coverage in these areas should be performed and docu-mented in the comments section.
- e. Discussion (Form 157A, pages 9 & 10, Form 1578, pages 5 & 6, Form 157C, pages 9 & 10)
The initial section of the examination is the Discussion portion and is divided into two parts, both of which must be used by the examiner:
- a. Integrated Plant Response
~
- b. 1. Principles of Nuclear Non Power Reactor Facility Operation (Form 157A)
- 2. Theory of Nuclear Non Power Reactor Facility Operation (Forms 1578 and C)
During the oral phase the examiner shall examine in detail the candidate's knowledge of the reactor transient response including appli-cable procedures for at least one transient. The back of the examina-tion notes may be used for sketches or additional sheets may be attached. This portion of the examination need not be a separate discussion. In fact, it may be more useful and efficient to combine this phase during other portions of the examination. For example, by postulating a plant upset condition such as a reactor scram, the examiner may include in the discussion one or more of the plant systems required to be covereo in the Control Room discussion. Examiner Standards 7 of 10
.:- . w:&. .m.r .a - = L,. . . - :m . -- . . . . . ES-304
- 2. The senior operator, in directing licensed activities, must have a E wider and more thorough knowledge of facility administration con-i trols and methods, including limitations imposed by regulations, particularly the limitations set forth in the Technical Specifica-tions and the bases for each of the specifications, than a reactor operator.
! 3. The senior operator o'f ten will be assigned comprehensive actions during facility emergencies and abnormal conditions and should demonstrate knowledge of these assignments.
- 4. The senior operator often will be assigned responsibilities for auxiliary systems that are outside the control room and are not normally operated by licensed operators. The most common example is a waste disposal and handling system for which the licensed
'T operator's responsibility ends when the fluid passes the last instrument that has c'1 sole display. Usually, the senior operator i
has additional respon.'oilities. In such a case the senior operator candidate must demons' rate knowledge of system design concerning maximum permissible concentration, effluent release rates, and other aspects if appropriate. Examination Report Form 1578 has been prepared for use by the examiner when administering the upgrade senior reactor operator examination. This form has been designed to ensure uniformity in the administration of the examination, minimize the amount of note taking, and make best i use of the time required for the examination. The notes will provide the basis for recommending the issuance of a license or the denial of the application. Refer to Section B of Standard ES-303 for an explana-i tion concarr.ing the method of determining pass and fail criteria and l awarding "S", "M", or "U" ratings. E. Detailed Instructions - 1 1 1. The " Control Room" section (page 3) is divided into two major
" subsections, "(1.1) Shift Turnover" and "(1.2) Control Room Refer-ence Data." The examiner shall evaluate the candidate's knowledge for each of the subjects listed on this page.
For Section 1.1, the examiner should use at least one piece of
; existing or out-of-service equipment (or hypothesize one) and I follow through with the required procedural and administrative ! requirements pertaining to it, including its restoration to service.
For Section 1.2.3, the examiner should discuss at least one type of planned radioactive waste release (gaseous, liquid, containment ! l purge) with the candidate. l
~
I I Examiner Standards 2 of 3
.. . . . _ . _ . . . _ . . . . . _ , . . .. .m . . .
~
i l ES-306
- 4. For the " Electrical" section, the examiner should select at least one electrical system for evaluation. The system selected should also be evaluated in at least six subject areas.
During the course of the discussions on the control room, the examiner should require the candidate to demonstrate his understanding and familiarity by locating and explaining:
- a. control board instrumentation
- b. control board controls
- c. piping and instrument diagrams
- d. procedures
- e. other related reference data (such as logs, tag outs, and Technical Specifications)
T A reactor operator candidate's response to at least two abnormal and/or emergency procedures should be evaluated during the control room phase
. of the examination. A instant senior operator candidate's response to a least four abnormal and/or emergency procedures should be evaluated during this phase. For those non power reactor facilities that do not have sufficient abnormal and/or emergency procedures in use, the examiner
~
should evaluate abnormal and/or emergency procedures to the extent possible at that facility.
- c. Facility Administration (Form 1578, page 3)
This phase of the examination for the upgrade senior operator will normally be completed in the control room and consists of " talk-throughs" of various administrative controls necessary for the safe operation of the reactor. Portions of this phase may also be completed concurrently with the facility walk-through and discussion phases. At least one facility control procedure and one facility reference in addition to the specified topics listed on page 3 shall be evaluated. The plant operations discussion should emphasize supervisory
; responsibilities.
- d. Facility Walk Through
- 1. Reactor Operator and instant senior operator (Form 157A page 8 or Form 157C, pages 8 and 10.)
The control room licensed personnel are responsible for directing the activities of all facility personnel in areas which could affect the safety of the plant and as such should be familiar with plant layout, l design, local procedures, and radiological and safety conditions. The examiner may evaluate the candidate's knowledge in this phase by.a variety of methods:
- a. He may select at least four systems from the list of items and discuss a minimum of five subjects for each system.
Examiner Standards 5 of 10
p w. ' ~ . ' - ._. .w . c.1 w .i . . . . _ . - - - . J..._ . . . . ...;.4., . . . _ . . . . - e
- ATTACHMENT 1 ES-303-1 P
SIMULATOR EXAM REPORT ES 303 senc POmas me v4. mvCLlan nGGULaTOmv ComeuesON omit "848' sah8ULATOR EXAM REPORT OPERAfueG ExAaspeATM180 REPORT-PLANT OPERATIOnes AseO RESPONSE TO MALFUNCTIONS ca.nenst j enouvv.a.nmaron vu e-f f I a
! l l l l l SPECIFY IN EACH COLUMN IF CANQlDATE DUntNG TMTS EVENT IS AN RO OR SRO l
_ . I. I i SPECIFY THE INITIAL CONOITIONS l l l l l l l A 8iC D E i F Gi M e ! J 1- Comtect coamo anamtgess l l l 2 Evem? Diacmosis , e 3 umosasTamosmo os instmuusm? mesponsa a EForCTs 08 MALFussCTiom s CouesuNicattoms e suesEDiats ACTioms t I t ' l j l l l T AUTouatic actions I '
, I' 3 I f f I 8 umonLEDog os ogsgesmCs Cafa amo uss !
6 . 9 suestouent Actions l i ! ! 8
- ; i ; i -
; l.
' h to Coms0Lt uameevlafiC=3 l t l i I I i
! I 19 surtovisonv A88LITv ise/a 80m moi
'2 vst os emoctountsitCwmecat spec 88CafiO4 !
s .. aw - -
,.as.
9.... me sea.orv ase mer=ess so rs ess sce e er Examiner Standards 8 of 8
. _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . - ._ . m. - _.m
. , j ES-306 administered to a reactor operator or instant senior operator candidate at non power reactor facilities will nearly always require actual reactor startups by the candidates. Upgrade senior operator candidates will not normally be required to startup the reactor. If a malfunction should prevent actual operation of the reactor after the examiners have arrived at the facility, the reactor startup may be " walked-through". If the malfunction occurs prior to the examiners departure for the facility, the examinations should be delayed until the malfunction is corrected.
The most common method of examination for reactor operators and instant senior operators is to have a " sit-down" period during which discussion items are covered, and a typical reactor startup checklist is discussed, followed by a facility tour. The examination is then completed with a reactor startup demonstration. Typical time requirements for this examination are:
- 1. discussion - 1/2 to 3/4 hour
. 2. walk through - 3/4 to 1 hour
- 3. control room - 1 to 1 hours If possible, examinations should be scheduled so that reactor startup demonstrations coincide with predicted or scheduled facility down times.
~ ~ ~
The' upgrade senior operator examination typcially will have a " sit-down" period during which administrative and supervisory items are covered and a facility tour which will stress administrative aspects of radiation safety and details of fuel handling. Typical time requirements for this examination are:
- 1. discussion - 1/2 to 3/4 hour
- 2. walkthreugh - 3/4 to 1k hour
- 2. Detailed Instructions (ES-302, paragraph E)
- a. Operating Demonstration (Form 157 A or C, page 3)
This phase of the examination for the reactor operator and instant senior operator will normally be completed by having the candidate perform an actual reactor startup or other reactivity manipulation on the reactor. Instant senior operator candidates are required to perform the actual manipulations of a startup and should be placed in the posi-tion of a reactor operator for the demonstration. The examiner shall evaluate the candidate's knowledge and/or performance for every subject on this page. In general, the operating demonstration should require the candidate to manipulate the controls to achieve criticality, attain a specified period during a power increase, steady the reactor at a predetermined power level and place the reactor controls in autome. tic. The candidate should also demonstrate the ability to conduct a normal' reactor shutdown or manual reactor scram. Examiner Standards 3 of 10
_ ., m __ , m m....~ . . . _ . . . . - - , _ . . . . . i i ES-303 F These or alternate methods should be used for the plant walkthrough
! part of the examination with the following guidelines: I
- a. The response to at least one local emergency procedure should be evaluated.
- b. One entry into a radiation-controlled area should be made, i
- c. The examiner should diversify his coverage of the plant for a group of candidates.
The examiner should evaluate the candidate's knowledge of the facility's Emergency Plan as it pertains to the job responsi- , bilities of a reactor operator. Although the senior operator in I charge is usually responsible for classifying and implementing the !T appropriate action levels, the RO should know those levels and his response and duties for each one. In addition, the operator must be able to respond to other emergencies such as fire and security
; intrusion.
The portion pertaining to radiation protection and safety will be completed by the examiner exploring those areas that are within the candidate's responsibility for personnel protection and for the l j control and discharge of radioactive wastes. During the control room and plant walkthrough, the examiner will evaluate the candidate's responsibility associated with personnel safety, security, and the safe operation of the facility. This evaluation need not be performed by direct questioning of the candidate but may be accomplished by observing his response to unexpected or incorrect existing plant conditions.
- 4. Discussion
; The final section of the examination is the " Discussion" and is divided into two parts, both of which shall be used by the examiner: !
- a. Integrated Plant Response
- b. Principles and/or Theory of Nuclear Power Plant Operation During the nonsimulator oral phase, the examiner is required to
; explore in detail the candidate's knowledge of the integrated plant response including applicable procedures for at least two plant transients. The back of the examination notes may be used for 4
sketches, or additional sheets may be attached. This portion of the examination need not be a separate discussion. In fact, it may be more useful and efficient to combine this phase during other
- portions of the examination. For example, by postulating a plant -
upset condition such as a reactor scram, the examiner may include in the discussion one or more of the plant systems re.luired to be 1 covered in the control room discussion, i ! Examiner Standards 6 of 8 l e
. -,..n. . . - _ . _ . . - _ . . . . . .
r i ES-306 Rev 1 10/1/84 3 SCOPE AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR OPERATING EXAMINATIONS i ADMINISTERED AT NON-POWER REACTORS j A. Purpose i This standard specifies the difference in the scope of the operating j examinations administered at non power reactors from those administered
- at power reactors. Instructions specifically for operating examinations
- at non power reactors are included. The specifications in Standards i ES-301 through ES-305 apply when no differences exist for non power
- reactors. Sections of ES-301 through ES-305 which are different for i non power reactors are indicated in parenthesis after each paragraph heading. Where no differences exist, the specifications are not i repeated in this standard, therefore, a knowledge of ES-301 through 3 ES-305 is necessary when using this standard, j ; B. Examination Requirements (ES-301, paragraph B)
Non power reactor facilities do not have plant-referenced simulators. References throughout standards ES-301 through ES-305 to the situation I where a plant-reference simulator exists are not applicable to non power l reactor facilities. However, non power reactor operator and instant - senior operator candidates will normally be required to perform actual I reactor startup and shutdown demonstrations. 1 ) C. Scheduling (ES-301, paragraph D) The nominal length of operating and oral examinatinos are shorter for non power reactors than for power reactors due to the limited size and i complexity of non power reactors. There is no minimum or maximum length of operating examinations; however, for scheduling purposes, the normal l length of exams is as follows: o 1 1
- 1. RO - 2k to 3% hours i a 2. upgrade SRO - 1 to 2 hours
} 3. instant SRO- 3 to 4 hours D. Reports of Examinations (ES-301, paragraph I) 1 The Examination Reports described in Standard 301 (ES 301, Attachments 1 l through 3) are designed to be used for non power reactor examinations - .i also. Those' portions of the report which are only applicable to power reactor candidates are shaded or included as a separate column'on the Examination Report form. The general guidance contained in Standards 301 ] through 305 is also applicable to non power reactor examinations. ] Detailed instructions for completing Examination Reports for non-power j reactors are contained in paragraph I of this standard. . 1 l l Examiner Standards 1 of 10 1
- a. . .....:.. = ..
.= :~ a. -
e . 1 ES-303 y
- b. startup certification on a simulator as part of an approved
- NRC program
- c. simulator examination i
For an actual reactor startup or other reactivity manipulation, the examiner shall evaluate the candidate's knowledge and/or performance 4 for every subject on page'3 of Form 157A. The type of prestartup performed should be specified, including the procedure number if applicable. During the manipulation portion of the examination, the candidate will be evaluated on both his understanding and his ability to safely and competently manipulate the controls. In lieu of an actual plant startup, the candidate may have success-fully completed a certification program using a simulator. The examiner is not required to evaluate the candidate on the " Operating Demonstration" phase of the examination. It is recommended that i one or more candidates per assignment be audited on this phase. This audit may be performed by a " talk-through" of a startup with a candidate. In this instance, Items 1.2.4 through 1.2.7 pertaining to manipulation should be marked "Not Applicable (N/A)." Items 1.1.1 through 1.1.7 of the examiner notes should be :ompleted.
- This may be accomplished by using a routine functional or other surveillance checklist for which the operators are responsible.
If a simulator examination is conducted, NRC FORM 309 (ES 303 Attachment 1) should be completed instead of page 3 of NRC form 157A and a note on page 3 should direct attention to NRC form 309 attached.
- 2. Control Room (Form 157A, B, or C)
The portion of the Examination Report pertaining to the control room consists of three pages, and the format in Forms 157A and C is a matrix type that allows the examiner to select with ease the systems and subjects he wishes to discuss. A generic list of
- systems and subjects for pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water reactors is included in Standard ES-302.
I The systems are selected from the applicable generic list. The system selected will be listed at the top of the columns. The subjects that can be discussed are arranged on the left-hand side of the page. To make best use of the time required for the administration of the examination and provide a uniform and reasonable basis for the issuance of a license or denial of an application, the examiner i shall use the following procedure for each applicant: l 1 l Examiner Standards 4 of 8 l l
. . . <. , ......s..a.. ..+ ~ ..: - ..a . ....;...
l 1 l l ATTACHMENT 2 ES-305-2 SAMPLE INSTANT SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR EXAMINATION REPORT Instant Senior Reactor Operator
,=,24:me.8Ca.
1
,5,C. %e. 4
/ SYSTE M S /
j i B.CONTROLn0CM 3 [t tu.or. s ..i.er w er, a so.w s->
/
c,Ljj j .9 ai jlls l u u[f Hd ( *i5 .;/s , E ,s ,a i=/
- 2. E CU, *** t % T
,, ~, I I IS I I !S u .. I I IS ISI 3 ,, _ . . _ , -S I I S ISI
- . -. I i i i l lS u . ~ . .
SiSI l SI I l u ,~,,.u.~,.,,C l l u - . , Si I i i i l IJ u ~ ~ , Si l l l l l 1 u : . . .... iSI ISI I ISl
.. 8'.A N, *a C,tC*'CN i
., , . . . . I I I i l lSlSi
., ....... iSl lS; l S 2 .-- IS! l lSi l l l io ..eciou. . l
- ., _. . S! i iSI l lS i u . . - - sis; l iS l Si u i- - lSi j iS I SI
... . . . . . . . . . S! ! !Si lS j 1
. . - . - . . . . Sl lSl lS l
.. . . . , ~ , - . , , . . . . . . . . ~ , ,
,, 1- .. Si l S S IS cc . rs .. , , v, ISi l lS I I I
l l Oconrimuso o= avve se Examiner Standards 5 of 5 l 1 l
- l. . - - -- . ._ .. -
. :~.-..
-.. .. . . .. . . . . . a.. :-.~..-. . . . . . - . - . - . . . . - - - ES-404 Curves and mathematical expressions may be utilized to the extent described in category H. Knowledge of special equipment, procedures and personnel requirements regarding fuel handling and core loading is expected.
- 5. Category L - Administrative Procedures, Conditions and Limitations ;
This category contains questions on administrative, procedural and regulatory items which affect operation of the facility. Included are questions on design and operating considerations and limitations as specified in the facility license, including technical specifications, the procedures required to obtain authority for design changes, the procedures regarding formation and approval of operating procedures, and the authority to approve deviations from operating procedures on either , ,g a permanent or temporary basis. Questions may also cover the require-ments for certain personnel to be present at certain times, the types of records that must be maintained and pertinent provisions of 10 CFR Parts 50 or 115 and 10 CFR Part 55. D. Facility Management Controls and Accident Questions
- These areas are applicable to the SRO exam as described under the R0 section in ES-204. In all cases, the examination should, to the extent possible, reflect the level of knowledge necessary for the safe opera-tion of the facility and responsibility delegated by the facility to the senior operator by virtue of the senior operator holding an NRC license.
E. Structure of Written Exam
- 1. Each written examination should be divided into five categories in accordance with section B of this standard. A cover sheet, with the format shown in Attachment 1, shall be used on all written examinations. This sheet will provide for ready identification of the structure of the examination and, *ubsequently, of the relative a strengths and weaknesses of the candidate.
- 2. The relative weight of each category in the examination, as the percentile of total worth should be 20% 3% for each category whenever possible. However the relative importance of safety and emergency systems vary significantly over the range of size and the type of Research Reactors. Therefore in order to comply with the 10 CFR criteria "... to the extent applicable to the facility..." the weighting of the examination categories should be based on the professional judgement of examiners experienced in the operation and examination of non power reactor facilities and approved by supervision. The general structure of the examination shall be such that a safe operator will score above 70% in each category.
In addition, the length of the examination shall be such that a candidate would complete the examination within five hours, thus leaving one hour for review. Examiner Standards 3 of 4 w
ES-306 y
- b. From control room discusssions, the examiners may generate a list of items which require local monitoring, verification or manipulation.
- c. The examiner may select at least two procedures whose actions must be performed in the plant.
These or alternate methods should be used for the plant " walk-through" phase of the examination with the following guidelines:
- a. The response to at least one local emergency procedure should be evaluated.
- b. One entry into a radiation controlled area should be made. As an T alternate a discussion of handling radioactive materials may be conducted.
- c. The examiner should diversify his coverage of the plant for a grouo of candidates.
- d. Fcr these non power reactors having associated experimental facilities the examiner should include discussions related to insertion, removal and hauling of experiments including admin-istrative controls, to the extent the operator or senior operator is responsible.
The examiner should evaluate the candidate's knowledge of the facility's Emergency Plan as it pertains to the job responsibilities of a reactor operator. Although the senior operator in charge is usually responsible for classifying and implementing the appropriate Action Levels, the R0 should know those levels and his response and duties for each one. In addition, the operator must be able to respond to other emergencies such as fire and security intrusion.
; The Radiation Protection and Safety portion will be completed by the examiner exploring those areas within the candidate's responsibility for personnel protection and for the control and discharge of radioactive wastes.
During the course of the control room and plant walk-through the examiner will evaluate the candidate's responsibility associated with the safe operation of the facility. This evaluation need not be performed by direct questioning of the candidate but may be accomplished by observing his response to unexpected or incorrect existing plant conditions. Senior Operator candidates should also be evaluated on their knowledge of fuel-handling operations and equipment. , Examiner Standards 6 of 10
ES-501 Rev. I 10/1/84 ADMINISTRATION OF SIMULATOR EXAMINATIONS TO REACTOR OPERATORS AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard pertains to the administration of simulator examinations as a part of the operating examination to candidates for either reactor operator or I senior reactor operator licenses. This standard is applicable to examinations at simulators that are designed to be specific for the plant for which the candidate is applying for a license. Examination scheduling and details may vary depending on such factors as (1) the geographical distance between the simulator and the plant, (2) whether the same or a different examiner will conduct both the simulator examination and the oral examination, and (3) the , status of plant construction. B. Assignment Assignment of the task of administering the simulator examination is made on the Request To Administer the Examination, as set forth in Standard ES-103. The examinations should preferably be arranged on a time schedule mutually _ satisfactory to the candidates, facility licensee, and the examiners and should cover the scope as set.forth in Standard ES-502. In general, the examiner who administers the simulator examination to a specific candidate will administer the oral part oi ?he examination to the same candidate. Exceptions to this l general rule may be necessary and should be approved by the appropriate section chief or branch chief. Normally, each examiner shall complete up to four complete operating examinations l
. (including simulator exams) per visit and only in exceptional cases five complete operating examinations per visit. l C. Scheduling ; The simulator examinations should be scheduled reasonably close to the adminis-tration of both the oral part of the operating examinations and the written 1 examinations in order to use the examiner resources efficiently and to minimize the length of time between the start and finish of the entire examination pro-cess. The following guidelines should be followed unless special conditions exist:
- 1. Cold Examinations
- a. The written examinations should be administered 1 to 2 months before the operating examinations so that the written examinations can be graded before the operating examinations. Normally, operating exami-nations will not be given to a candidate who has failed the written examination until he has reapplied for a second examination.
Examiner Standards 1 of 4
. ._. . . .a . _ . .
a .. ..-=..m. _ _ _ . .
. . i i
ES-306 y The Principles of the Nuclear Non Power Reactor Facility Operation (Theory of Nuclear Facility Operations for senior operators) portion of the notes must be completely filled in with evaluations for each candi-date in every subject. Again this discussion may be combined with other areas for exam continuity and efficiency. It is important for the candi-date to use and explain existing plant information for this phase of the examination. Examples include reactivity data used in ECP's and reac-tivity changes due to approved experiments. T 1 l
)
1 Examiner Standards 8 of 10
. - - . . . ~ .=. . :2: :_ = --
. . :. :. . .=:.= . = . . - . ..
ES-501 for candidates 1 and 2. Afternoon examinations are similar except ]
- that the oral part of the examinations are conducted first so that l examiners do not have to reenter the plant security area. Each exami-I ner completes two full combination simulator and oral examinations.
- c. Alternate 3 ;
1 Two examiners conduct examinations at simulators with candidates 1, 2, and 3. Examiner A observes and discusses manipulations of controls ! with candidates 1 and 2 who are designated as operators. Examiner B ! examines candidate 3 at the senior level, and candidate 3 is assigned the role of shift supervisor. The candidates rotate positions so : that all candidates fill all positions. Questions are tailored to the appropriate level, senior operator or operator. Six or more i candidates are examined on the simulator per 8-hour day. Adjustments g can be made when an odd number of candidates are to be examined. Oral examinations are completed on subsequent days following the I simulator examinations.
- 4. Senior operators and operators should be scheduled for an optimum mixture.
A senior operator with one or two operators is preferred. If this is r.ot possible, senior operators can be designated as operators on a rotating
- basis.
D. Orientation Examiners shall request literature about the facility from the licensee training department personnel in the same manner and quantity as described in standards ES-301 and ES-201 to prepare for the written and oral examinations at the faci-lity. In addition, the examiners should request specific literature on the simulator, such as initialization modes and malfunction capabilities, which is available for use on examinations. The procedures and technical specifications used for operation of the simulator should be those that are also used at the plant (s). For simulator's with novel features or unusual concepts, it is likely that an orientation trip should be made in advance. In general, when the examiner ' ' - is familiar with the facilities of the same type as the one where the examina-tions are to be conducted, sufficient orientation can be obtained by arriving at the simulator a day (or half day) in advance of the planned examinations. At least one member of the examining team preferably should have had previous experience in administering examinations at the specific simulator. Preplanned simulator examination programs may be tried out during the orientation period. To make certain that the candidates do not learn of the actual examination programs, the examiner should alter the programs used in the orientation periods and should not use the actual program when members of the facility staff are present. E. Personnel Present - t The number of persons present during an examination should be mirtimized both to ensure the integrity of the examination and to minimize distractions to the candidate. The persons present normally will be limited to the NRC examiners, Examiner Standards 3 of 4 l
. . ... . . = . -.. . .-.. .;.- u ..
ES-306-1 F Nuclear and Radiation Systems: (continued) incore instrumentation /incore probe liquid effluent monitors process radiation monitors area radiation monitors gaseous effluent stack gas Electrical normal AC supply emergency AC supply normal DC supply g emergency DC supply reactor protection electr.ical power system
; batteries Reactor Facilities fuel handling and storage exposure rooms beam tubes thermal columns pneumatic tube facilities liquid waste handling and disposal gaseous waste handling solid waste handling and disposal e
Reactor Transient Response Power increase / decrease - auto control Power increase / decrease - manual control emergency shutdown from full power scram - hot restart sub critical to critical normal shutdown from full power rod malfunction primary system leak control instrument malfunction fuel clad failure I l Examiner Standards 10 of 10 l
m . . . .__ _s _ _ _ _ ._.
._.7..-.
ES-502 Rev. 1 10/1/84 l SCOPE OF SIMULATOR EXAMINATIONS ADMINISTERED TO REACTOR OPERATORS AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS - POWER REACTORS A. Purpose This standard gives the general scope and objectives of the examination that is administered to candidates at simulators that are specific to the facility where the candidate has applied for a license. The precise requirements for the simulator examination can be varied because the simulator examination is considered to be a portion of the overall operating examination covered in Standards ES-301 through ES-305. These T standards cover the administration and scope of the plant operating examinations. Certain topics, transients, and systems can be covered and discussed either during the simulator examination or during the oral examination. B. Rules of Practice Certain ground rules that the examiners shall observe are as follows:
- 1. The examiners should plan the examination program before the actual examinations. Preliminary planning can be done at the home office before the examiners travel to the simulator. The examiners should review and/or practice representative programs at the simulator with the simulator instructor during the orientation period before the administration of the first set of examinations. The examiners should plan the program taking into consideration (a) the number of examiners in the team, (b) the number of candidates to be examined, and (c) the number of reactor operators and/or senior reactor ,
operators to be examined. Refer to Standard ES-501 for further information on methods of scheduling simulator examinations.
- 2. Each group of candidates should be asked, as a minimum, to (a) con-duct two normal evolutions such as boration changes, power maneuver-ing with rods or core flow, or reactor startup, (b) respond to in-strument failures such as nuclear or process instrumentation failure, (c) respond to two component failures where it is reasonable to expect that a scram may not result with prompt operator action, and (d) respond to a major plant transient such as a loss-of-coolant accident or loss of electrical power. Enclosure 4 to H. Denton's March 28, 1980 letter to power reactor applicants lists 27 control manipulations that can be used to plan examination programs. Enclo-sure 4 is Attachment I to this standard. Another reference is the list of malfunctions and initialization modes available in simulator specifications and literature.
- 3. The candidates should be allowed time to check the control boards and review the plant (simulator) status before the start of the examination. Equipment or controls may be placed in abnormal Examiner Standards 1 of 6
. z z . = w :- . = .- . - . . - - :. u . . -
- 2 .: -
ES-502 the examination. One method is to assign predetermined times for the sequence of malfunctions so that both examiners and instructors are aware of what event is about to occur or is occurring.
- 12. Senior reactor operator candidates should be evaluated on their I ability to direct operators and to diagnose and identify the cause i of plant transients. Operator candidates should be evaluated on l their ability to inform the senior operator of parameter changes, operator actions taken, and verification of automatic actions that l l take place during both normal evolutions and transient conditions. l These ground rules should be explained to the candidates before the l examination. Senior reactor operator and reactor operator candidates should be scheduled in examination groups for an optimum mix as discussed in Standard ES-501, Section C.3. If all candidates are operators in a particular group, they will be evaluated on their '
team work and communication ability rather than their ability to T direct others. Senior reactor operator candidates also shall be required to manipulate any or all of the simulator controls and have a higher degree of ability to diagnose events than that expected of an operator candidate. The difference between satisfactory operator knowledge and senior operator knowledge, to a large extent, is the same on a simulator examination as that
- expected on the oral part of the operating examination. l
- 13. The examiners are encouraged to request copies of logs, recorder charts, computer typewriter printouts, and other material to attach as supplements to their notes, if appropriate.
1 14. The examiners may make assignments to the operators so that they ! share the responsibility for actions. For example, one candidate can be assigned the balance of plant while the other operator is i respnnsible for the reactor controls. Also, one operator can be assigned a specific task at the appropriate time, such as restarting a pump and establishing flow or placing the turbine generator on the line. Frequently, it is necessary to make definite assignments to a candidate who is less forceful than the candidate with whom he is teamed. However, normal shift responsibilities as used at the facility should be observed, if possible, to evaluate the candidates under realistic conditions.
- 15. _The examiner may make cautious use of such features as backtrack, freeze, and other simulator capabilities if they contribute to the fair evaluation of the candidates. The examiner should be aware that the use of these feature may inhibit the ability of the candidates to view the simulator as the "real" plant for the examination exercises.
- 16. If the simulator should become inoperable, causing excessive delay of the examination, the chief examiner should discuss the situation with the responsible regional section chief so that a decision on whether or not to cancel simulator examinations.
Examiner Standards 3 of 6
. _ _ - - _ .__ .~_- _ _ . . . _ - _ _ _ . _ . ._ ES-403 category. The percentage attained in each category will be used, in conjunction F with operating test results, to identify strengths and deficiencies of the candidate. When the candidate is sent the results of his examination, a copy of the graded examination shall be forwarded to the candidate. If a candidate failed the written examination, a copy of the final approved answer key shall also be forwarded to the candidate. . A copy of the " Examination Results Summary Sheet" (Attachment 5 ES 201) will l also be sent by the appropriate section leader to plant management for their use in developing retraining and requalification programs. T e Examiner Standards 2 of 3
~
I l ES-502-1 ATTACHMENT 1 l CONTROL MANIPULATIONS 1 1 The following control manipulations and plant evolutions where applicable to the plant design are acceptable for meeting the reactivity control manipulations required by Appendix A, Paragraph 3.a. of 10 CFR Part 55. The starred items shall be performed on an annual basis; all other items shall be performed on a two year cycle. However, the requalification programs shall contain a commitment that each individual shall perform or participate in a combination of reactivity control manipulations based on the availability of plant equipment and systems. Those control manipulations which are not performed at the plant may be performed on a simulator. The use of the Technical Specifications should be maximized during the simulator control manipulations. Personnel with senior
'\ licenses are credited with these activities if they direct or evaluate control manipulations as they are performed.
PWR/BWR/HTGR
*(1) Plant or reactor startups to include a range that reactivity feedback from nuclear heat addition is noticeable and heatup rato is established.
(2) Plant shutdown.
*(3) Manual control of steam generators and/or feedwater during startup and shutdown.
(4) Boration and or dilution during power operation.
*(5) Any significant (> 10%) power changes in manual rod control or recirculation flow.
; (6) Any reactor power change of 10% or greater where load change is per-formed with load limit control or where flux, temperature, or speed control is on manual (for HTGR).
*(7) Loss of coolant including:
- 1. sigt.ificant Ph2 steam generetor leaks
- 2. inside and outside primary containment
- 3. lar0e and small, including leak-rate determination
- 4. saturated reactor coc1nnt response (PWR).
(8) Loss of instrument air (if simulated plant specific). I 1 Source: Enclosure 4 of H. Denton's March 28, 1980 letter. l l Examiner Standards 5 of 3 i
a . .. . . : . . _ : = : :. . = . .. .. -. s . . . - - ES-601 REV 1 10/1/84 l ADMINISTRATION OF NRC REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION A. Purpose This standard establishes the procedures for adminhtering the NRC evaluation of utility requalification programs Included are methods of selecting utilities to be evaluated, methods of auditing, evaluation criteria, action guidelines, and required administrative forms and records. l B. Program Description T The NRC regional staff will determine the schedule for facility audits l based on the criteria described in Paragraph C below. During these
, audits, the staff shall evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the facility requalification program. The methods to be used to conduct this evaluation are (1) to administer an NRC-developed written examina-tion, and (2) to conduct NRC simulator-oral operating examinations.
The evaluation program will include as a minimum (1) simulator-oral operating examinations administered by NRC-certified examiners and (2) a complete NRC prepared written examination for each facility selected for audit. The examinations should emphasize operational knowledge rather than strictly theoretical information, and the length of the examination should be about 60% of that for a standard licensing examination. Review of facility grading of previously administered written requalifica-tion examinations also may be performed. This effort, together with an evaluation of actual operating experience, will provide an indication of the effectiveness of the licensee's overall operator requalification training program. The intent of this program is to conduct the full evaluation of 20% of the operators and senior operators at 50% of the
; facilities each year. Whenever resources are inadequate to conduct this level of effort, the number of facilities evaluated will be reduced.
C. Selection Criteria The regional administrator or his designee will establish the priority of facilities to be evaluated based on the following inputs:"
- 1. licensee event report history and recent facility performance, which relates to licensed operator performance
- 2. previous ratings on Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP), Criterion 7, Training Effectiveness ana Qualification "These are not intended to be all inclusive. Other selection criteria i
may be appropriate as detemined by the regien. , Examiner Standards 1 of 11 I
ES-404 F
- 2. Category I - Radioactive Material Handling, Disposal and Hazards This category contains questions on radiation hazards which may arise during operation or the performance of experiments, shielding altera-tions or maintenance activities. Close familiarity with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 20 and supplementary facility regulation's is required as well as a good common sense approach to radiological safety situations.
Questions may include calculations involving inverse square law, acti-vation, decay rates, half-value or tenth value thicknesses and conver-sions of measured radiation intensities to rem, as well as other calcu-lations of a similar nature. Here, operational " Rules of thumb" methods of calculation are acceptable wherever applicable. Also included are questions relating to procedures and equipment (processing and monitoring) available for handling and disposal of T radioactive materials and effluents. Although an operator's knowledge of this aspect is generally limited to discharge from the reactor proper,
, the senior operator should have familiarity with the radioactive processing and disposal systems of the facility and the hazards associated therewith.
In special situations, such as facilities which produce and ship isotopes or irradiated experiments, the senior operator may need some knowledge of packaging and shipping regulations for radioactive materials, if the scope of his activities at that facility encompasses such responsibilities.
- 3. Category J - Specific Operating Characteristics This category contains questions on specific operating characteristics of the reactor and auxiliary systems, including nuclear, hydraulic, thermal, pneumatic, electrical and coolant chemistry. Questions regarding quantitative as well as qualitative explanations of causes, limitations, effects and consequence of changes are included. Questions addressiug behavior during normal, abnormal and transient operations are also included in this section.
The category includes questions on the understanding and use of curves depicting reactor behavior which may be beyond the scope of knowledge needed by operators for routine operation. These may include, as appli-cable, differential and integral control rod worth curves (single or group), period vs. reactivity curves, temperature and power coefficient curves, and poison (e.g., Xenon, Samarium and Boron) worth curves. Whenever possible, actual curves of the facility will be utilized; otherwise, applicable sample illustrative curves will be prepared.
- 4. Category K - Fuel Handling and Core Parameters This category contains questicns regarding fuel, fuel handling ano core loadin'g and alteration, fuel transfer and storage, and detection and prevention of criticality. Questions relating to fuel element :harac-teristics and limitations include consideration of reactivity worths, burnup, hot spots, leakage / rupture detection, and effects of core geometry changes.
Examiner Standards 2 of 4
~
~. . - . . ~ . . c. .w .a. ., . . . . -
ES-601 E. Program Administration Program administration is the responsibility of the NRC regional offices. Each regional office should maintain a current facility requalification schedule for each facility in its region. NRC will request facility schedules annually when the generic letter requesting replacement and instructor certification examinations is issued and will provide these ; schedules to the regional offices. Facilities may adjust their program examination dates to even out NRC examiner workload, if agreed to by the facility and the regional staff. Once a schedule is mutually agreed 1 upon by the NRC regional office and the facility, it should not be changed except for special circumstances (such as outages). Facilities should normally be contacted at least 3 months before the scheduled requalification examination dates. Tentative examiner assignment (s) 3 should be made at this time (see Attachment 1). Following the guide-lines of Paragraphs C and D above, the extent of the requalification program evaluation will be determined by the region. Reference material required from the facility to prepare for the requalification audit should be requested from the facility approximately 60 days before the scheduled visit, using the format of Attachment 2 as a guide. The assigned examiner (s) should prepare for the written and operating examina-
- tions to be conducted 11. accordance with the appropriate operator licensing standards for licensing examinations. Once at the site, the examiner (s) shall meet with facility management, review with the:n the schedule for NRC participation in their program, and arrange the details necessary to conduct the evaluation. The requalification examination conducted by the NRC examiner (s) should be operationally oriented and conducted in accordance with this and existing operator licensing standards for written and operating examinations. However, the length of the examina-
- tions should be about 60% of the standard licensing examinations. The NRC written examination should be reviewed with facility personnel in accordance with the review policy established in ES 201.H.
Required forms and reports are included as Attachments 3 and 4. The
- appropriate portions of NRC Form 157, " Operator Examination Report,"
shall be used for NRC-administered oral examinations and the appropriate portions of NRC Form 309, " Simulator Exam Report," shall be used for NRC administered simulatcr examinations. When the program evaluation is
; completed, an exit briefing should be conducted and any significant pro-
, gram deficiencies noted should be discussed. Tha examiner (s) shall not
- indicate whether the program is evaluated as satisfactory or unsatis- l factcry at the exit briefing.
After returning to the regional office, the examiner (s) shall grade the
- written examinations and review the results of his (their) evaluation.
The examiner (s) shall then recommend an overall satisfactory or unsatis-
- factory evaluaticn of the licensee requalification program (Attachment 4)
- and forward the results for approval as established by regional directives.
Included, as an attachment to the form, will be the names of those i individuals with unsatisfactory results on some portion of the examination l and for whom the facility should take corrective action as required by i its approved requalification program. Examiner Standards 3 of 11
4 , e , o , ,
~
ES-404-1 Attachment 1 F U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION Facility: Reactor Type: Date Administered: Examiner: Candidate: INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATE Use separate paper for the answers. Writer answers on one side only. Staple question sheet on top of the answer sheets. Points for each question are ,g indicated in parentheses after the question. The passing grade requires at least 70% in each category. Examination papers will be picked up six (6) hours
. after the examination starts.
Category % of Applicant's % of ategory Value Total Score Cat. Value _ H. Reactor Theory I. Radioactive Materials Handling Disposal and Hazards J. Specific Operating Characteristics K. Fuel Handling and Core Parameters L. Administrative Procedures,
; Conditions and Limitations Totals Final Grade %
All work done on this exam is my own. I have neither given nor received aid. Candidate's Signature Examiner Standards 4 of 4
. .. .. , -e. . . . . -- , . .
ES-601 (3) There is less than 60% agreement between the final pass / fail evaluations made by the facility and the NRC. When a program is evaluated as unsatisfactory, the regional administrator or his designee shall require the licensee to propose corrective actions and implementation schedules. Corrective actions, implementation schedules, and followup audits and reports shall be established by the regional administrator or his designee.
- 3. Programs falling between a satisfactory and an unsatisfactory l evaluation include those where only 60 to 80% of the examinees passed all portions of examinations administered by NRC examiners.
For those programs falling between a satisfactory and an unsatis-T factory evaluation, the regional administrator or his designee should request the licensee to identify proposed corrective actions
- and schedules for their implementation. Schedules for followup audits should be established by the regional administrator or his designee to ensure that effective corrective actions are implemented.
- 4. Because a small sample (20%) of licensed operators is tested, there is a risk of decision errors regarding the acceptability of the utility training program. Therefore, the regional staff should include consider-ation of other indications of the licensee's commitment to provide high quality training to the licensed operators. This may include:
- a. trends indicated by the evaluation of selection criteria in Paragraph C
- b. facility managerant response in the exit briefing
- c. facility proposals for corrective actions
; d. ongoing efforts by the facility to upgrade the training
- 5. Performance on a second, subsequent requalification program audit in the marginal range shall result in an unsatisfactory rating.
I G. Renewals If a satisfactory evaluation is reached, requests for renewals will be
- made based on proper c7ttification by facility officials until the next f program evaluation. The facility certificatior, shall include certifica-tion of accelerated retraining completion for individual: wno have failed either an NRC or facility administered requalification examination.
If an evaluation clearly falls between a satisfactory and an unsatisfac-tory rating, renewals should be made if the corrective actions identi-fied are being implemented to the extent and in accordance with the schedule established above. Examiner Standards 5 of 11
ES-501
- b. The simulator examinations should be scheduled so that the same exami- E ner can complete both the simulator and oral parts of the operating examination for a specific candidate during the same week. The exami-ner should reduce the oral part of the operating examination by the material satisfactorily covered on the simulator part of the examina-tion such that the total operating examination is equivalent to an operating examination at a facility that does not have a plant refe-rence simulator. Exceptions to this preferred arrangement will occa-sionally be necessary. An example of an exception would be when the simulator is not located on the plant site.
- 2. Hot Examinations Normally the operating and written examinations shall be scheduled to be l completed during one visit by a group of examiners at facilities when the simulator is located on the plant site. Special scheduling arrangements
'\ shall be negotiated with the facility when the simulator is remote from the plant site. In this case, the written examination may be conducted at . the plant site or the simulator site.
- 3. General Several alternate methods can be used to complete the combination simulator and oral parts of the operating examination when the simulator and plant are located on the same site. When this situation exists, every effort should be made to complete the simulator and oral parts of the examinations on the same day. The ideal situation is three examiners examining one senior and two operator candidates or other combinations of three candidates.
The alternates shown below are examples of schemes that can be used if less than the ideal situation exists. It is recognized that other schemes can be used and the details should be discussed with the chief examiner,
- a. Alternate 1 Day 1 - Two examiners work as a team on the simu.lator. Examiner A
~ administers the examination to Candidates 1, 2, and 3, while Examiner B administers the examination to Candidates 4, 5, and 6. The candi-dates are paired off so that two examiners and two candidates are in the simulator control room simultaneously. Each examination lasts about 2.5 hours.
Day 2 - Examiner A administers the oral part of the operating examina-tion to his three candidates as does Examiner B. Each oral part of the examination shall last about 1.5 ho Jrs.
- b. Alternate 2 Day 1 - Examiner A administers the simulator examination to candidate 1; simultaneously, excminer B administers the examination to candidate 2.
Both examiners and candidates proceed to the plant to conduct the oral part of the operating examination thus completing the examinations l Examiner Standards 2 of 4
. .a-... . - . . . - - . . . . . - - . - -. ES-601 1 l ATTACHMENT 1 1 ASSIGNMENT TO EVALUATE LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM l NRC Examiner (s): , Assignment To Evaluate Licensed Operator Requalification Program at You are assigned to evaluate the requalification program at the above named facility. Please make arrangements to perform the following aspects of the evaluation program: g Generate a complete written examination to replace the facility reactor operator (RO) examination. Generate a complete written examination to replace the facility senior reactor operator (SRO) examination. l l Administer plant oral examinations to operators and senior operators. Administer simulator examinations to operators and senior operators. Review grading of previous examinations. Date(s) of Evaluation: , Facility
Contact:
Simulator Location: Comments: . L Examiner Standards 7 of 11 A
ES-501 other examiners witnessing the examination for training or to audit the perform- E ance of the examiners administering the simulator examination, and facility staff required so that the examination can be given. Other observers such as resident inspectors, regional personnel, researchers, or NRC supervisors may be allowed to observe simulator examinations if (1) the chief examiner has approved the request in advance of the examination; (2) the candidates do not object to the observers' presence, and (3) the facility representative has approved the request to observe. Examinations are not to be used by the licensee as training vehicles for future candidates. F. Use of Documents and Materials During the administration of the simulator examination, the candidates should be allowed to make use of any of the information that would normally be avail-able to a licensed operator at that facility, including calibration curves, piping and instrumentation diagrams, and calculation sheets. The candidates g should be able to locate these items readily and be certain of which ones they need for each task. G. Report of Examination The appropriate sections of the Examination Report (Standard ES-301, Attach-mints 1 through 3) shall be prepared for each candidate. The Operating Examination Summary Report (see Standard ES-301, page 4) shall be prepared for each candidate. This form shall be completed in accordance with Standards ES-303, ES-304, or ES-305. All grades (5, M, or U) will be awarded on the basis of the candidate's verbal or manipulation responses during the operating examinations either at the simulator or during the oral examination. Written comments can be used to provide background for the determination of grades and to ascertain whether the candidate's response was made during the simulttor or oral portion of the examination. Written comments or notes are required to support an unsatisfactory grade. The Simulator Exam Report (ES-303, Attachment 1) will be completed by the examiner for each candidate who is administered a simulator examination and will be submitted with the Examination R: port (Standard ES-301, Attachments 1 through 3). Both attachment 1 to ES 303 and the appropriate attachment 1, 2 or 3 ES 301 shall be completed using the "S," "M," and "U" system to evaluate the candidate at the reactor operator or senior reactor operator level depending on the license level requested in his application. 52nior operator applicants, including instructor certifications, shall be examined at both the operator and senior operator level during the simulator portions of the operating examination. Applicants for a senior operator license limited to fuel handling may be granted a waiver of the simulator portion of i the operating examination. ' Examiner Standards 4 of 4 i i
, a ES-601 ENCLOSURE 1 REFERENCE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION
- 1. An index of administrative, operating, abnormal and emergency procedures.
- 2. All administrative procedures (as applicable to reactor operation or safety)
- 3. All integrated plant procedures (normal or general operating procedures)
- 4. Emergency procedures (emergency instructions, abnormal, or special
- 'i procedures)
, 5. Standing orders (important orders which are safety related to and may supersede the regular procedures)
- 6. Fuel-handling and core-loading procedures (initial core-loading procedure, when appropriate)
- 7. Annunciator procedures (alarm procedures, including set points)
- 8. Radiation protection manual (radiation control manual or procedures)
- 9. Emergency plan
- 10. Technical Specifications
- 11. Plant technical data (curve) book l
- 12. Lesson plans (training manuals, plant orientation manual, systems
; descriptions)
- 13. Systems operating procedures
- 14. Piping and instrumentation diagrams, electrical single-line diagrams, or flow diagrams
- 15. Copies of facility R0 and SRO.requalification examinations admin-istered during the past 2 years
- 16. Simulator malfunction list with descriptive summary of malfunction effects.
All of the above referenced material should be approved, final issues and should be so marked. Uncontrolled, preliminary, or other such issues will not be acceptable. All procedures and reference material should be bound or in the form used by the control room operators, with appropriate indexes or tables of contents to ensure efficient use. Examiner Standards 9 of 11 i
ES-502 y positions to test the operator's ability to detect malpositioned controls or equipment out of service. The examiners should inform J the cardidates of this possiblity when appropriate. ,
- 4. The examiners should explain that the candidates are to operate the 1
, simulator as they would the real plant. Discussions with examiners should be secondary to simulator operations and operator responses. j
- 5. Procedures should be followed and referred to as required in the I real plant.
- 6. The candidates should communicate with each other in such a way
' that the examiners can hear them. The candidates should "think out loud" so that examiners can monitor the thought process.
,T 7. The candiciates should communicate with the simulator instructor.
This instructor normally assumes the roles of maintenance mechanics, auxiliary operators, load dispatcher, and other personnel. Candi-dates should be informed that all permission forrs and reports should be received or written as at the actual plant. The simulator instructor should fill the role of any personnel not present.
- 8. The candidates should be informed that they should use all available t
information (e.g. , procedures, Technical Specifications, and graphs), as they would in the real control room.
- 9. The examiners should give the candidates an opportunity to ask questions before the start of the examination.
, 10. The examiners should limit discussions with the candidates during the simulator examination so that candidates are not distracted from operating the simulator as the "real" plant. The questions - ask by examiners during the simulator exercise should only be to determine the candidates analysis and response to the plant conditions i
; and transients relevant to the simulator exercise in progress.
Simulator freezes will disturb the "real" plant perception and flow of the exercise but may be used judiciously for question and answer periods that can not be completed during or after the exercise. If it is desirable to conduct part of the oral portion of the operating examination in the simulator facility, then this should be done before or after the simulator exercise or when the candidate is not responsible for operation of the simulator. , , 11. Before the examination a suitable communication system should be '. set up between the examiners and the simulator instructor to insert malfunctions without cuing the candidates. Many methods can be used depending on the simulator design. The a:.lfunctions to be . used should be selected by the examiners. These malfunctions and any limitations er expected response characteristics should be , discussed with the instructor. Reasonable precautions should be l J taken so that the program is not-revealed to the candidates before
- Examiner Standards 2 of 6
. . - - - . - -a - - . - - ~ . - - - - - - . .-. ,
- x. . ...=a.~.....-...... . ...- .:. . . . . . . . . ..
ES-601 ATTACHMENT 4 l REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT Facility: Examiner: . Date(s) of Evaluation: Areas Evaluated: Written Oral Simulator Written Examination
- 1. Overall evaluation of examination:
, 2. Evaluation of facility examination grading: l Oral Examination
- 1. Overall evaluation l
- 2. Number conducted
~
Simulator Examination
- 1. Overall evaluation
- 2. Number conducted l Overall P,rogram Evaluation Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory (List major defi-ciency areas with brief descriptive comments)
Submitted: Forwarded: Approved: Examiner Section Chief Branch Chief Examiner Standards 11 of 11
. c. . . . ., : . . .- - - -
. =-
, s ,
s ES-502 P C. References Letter from H. Denton (NRC) to All Power Reactor Applicants and Licensees,
Subject:
Qualifications of Reactor Operators, Mar. 28, 1980. 4 jT I 1 . t i 4 i . l . Examiner Standards 4 of 6 ___.2 . . _ ___ ____._--,__._- _-. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . , . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ , . . _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . , , _ ,
L. - - . . . . . ~ . . - - . - . . .. . . . ..a~ . ..s...
. e i a teodY %w 0ta sampa.e e, rioc .ee ve *s e e ,,
Pomas 333 W 8 4WCL8M6 k E1WLETOAT CDesasess oss E*?ds' NUREG-1021 si...sv.We ,,o so~, ....... BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET Rev. 1 3 TeTLE .%o si,,s. TLt 3 LEAVEOb'*"
. e.,g .g 0., ca.. g 3:
"o- '"
Ooerator Licensino Examiner Standards ~ l
. .ov-o. .s . October 193a
. o... ...o. is .a
.o~,. . ..
g February 1985
... .~o .. .u o .c o. . . .,,. i. c , ... ..cr ....c.. ~.rs ....
ivision
, .. . .b....a o. s.~.,of Human
. , ,o Factors Safety Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ...sc.a...,s.....
U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Cornission Washington, DC 20555 c .a s c . . s 2 2.~.t . . . os ... .~o ... ~c. . o a. . . . <. c . . ....o....o.- T Same as 7.
. . . c: : a . . o ..~ ..
,1 is .. .. s , .. . o , .
. . , . . ,r . .e , m .
The Operator Licensinq Examiner Standards nrovide policy and nuidance to '!RC examiners and establish the procedures and practices for exanininr1 and licensinn of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Renulations (10 CFR 55). They are intended to assist NRC examiners and facility licensees to understand the examination crocess better and to provide for equitable and consistent administration of examinations to all a'Jolicants by NRC examiners. These standards are not a substitute for the coer-ator licensing regulations and are subject to revision or other internal onerator examination licensing policy changes. As aporocriate, these standards will be revised neriodicall.v to acconnodate conments and reflect new information or exnerience.
. occ.. sr.s... .......c.: :,,c...:.. . , . . , , , , .
Examiner Standards Unlinited s sa:.= - :..ss :. r esse ..a.s c.is as: c e..s - Unclassified
..vsta.*8.G46
O
- ES-502-1 (9) Loss of electrical power (and/or degraded power sources).
7
*(10) Loss of core coolant flow / natural circulation.
(11) Loss of condenser vacuum. (12) Loss of service water if required for safety. (13) Loss of shutdown cooling. (14) Loss of component cooling system or cooling to an individual component. (15) Loss of normal feedwater or normal feedwater system failure.
*(16) Loss of all feedwater (norma] and emergency).
'y (17) Loss of protective system channel.
, (18) Mispositioned control rod or rods (or rod drops).
(19) Inability to drive control rods. (20) Conditions requiring use of emergency boration or standby liquid control system. (21) Fuel cladding failure or high activity in reactor coolant or offgas. (22) Turbine or generator trip. (23) Malfunction of automatic control system (s) which affect reactivity. (24) Malfunction of reactor coolant pressure / volume control system. (25) Reactor trip. (26) Main steam line break (inside or outside containment). (27) Nuclear instrumentation failure (s). l l l Examiner Standards 6 of 6 i
ES-601 P
- 3. recent operator licensing and NRC requalification examination results
- 4. training program accreditation (such as the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations' (INPO) Facility Training Accreditation Program)
- 5. recommendations by senior resident inspectors or NRC examiners
- 6. results of routine inspection of the facility licensed operator training program
- 7. number of shifts and number of licensed operators
- 8. size of plant training staff in relation to the number of licensed operators T For the above criteria, the following policies apply:
, 1. Any plant evaluated as SALP Category 3 in the area of licensed operator training effectiveness and qualifications or any plant with a large number of errors by licensed operators or that has had a particularly serious error committed by licensed operators should be assigned the highest priority.
- 2. Except as specified in (3) below, any plant that has not been evaluated in the previous 2 years shall be selected.
- 3. Any plant evaluated as SALP Category 1 in the area of licensed operator training or having an INP0-accredited Operator Requalifi-cation Program may be considered for a 50% extension of the nominal biennial evaluation (e.g., NRC participation every 3 years).
D. Examination Format The following guidelines should be observed:
- 1. During every site visit to conduct requalification program evalua-tions, the NRC examiners shall administer an NRC prepared written examination and simulator-oral operating examinations to 20% of the operators and senior operators. NRC-administered oral examinations are permitted regardless of whether they are normally administered as part of the facility's NRC-approved requalification program.
- 2. In addition to the written examinations prepared by NRC examiners, copies of a previous facility-administered written examination may be graded by an NRC examiner. The examiner should compare NRC grading and facility grading as part of the requalification program evaluation.
- 2. For facilities with plant-referenced simulators, the requalification audit examination should include an evaluation of 20% of the operators and senior operators on the simulator.
Examiner Standards 2 of 11
'}}