ML20241A250

CN-2020-04 Post Exam Comments

ML20241A250
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	08/04/2020
From:	Greg Werner Operations Branch IV
To:	Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
References
Download: ML20241A250 (5)

Text

N Nebraska Public Power District Always there when you need us NLS2020050 August 13,2020 Thomas J. Farina Chief Examiner, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1600 East Lamar Boulevard Arlington, TX 7601 l-45 1 I

Subject:

Initial Post-Examination Documentation Cooper Nuclear Station, Docket No. 50-298, DPR-46 Reference NUREG 1021, Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Revision 11

Dear Sir:

On August 4,2020, Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator written examinations were administered at Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS). On August 13,2020,the following post-examination documentation was transmitted electronically to your office as required by Section ES-501 C.1.b of the reference:

a the graded written examinations (i.e., each applicant's original answer and examination cover sheets) plus a clean copy of each applicant's answer sheet (ES-403, "Grading Initial Site-Specifi c Written Examinations");

a the master written examination(s) and answer key(s), annotated to indicate any changes made while administering and grading the examination(s) (ES-402, "Administering Initial Written Examinations," and ES-403);

a any questions asked by the applicants and the answers given to the applicants during the written examination (ES-402) ;

all examination administration or post-examination review comments made by the facility licensee and the applicants after the written examination and/or operating tests (ES-a02);

a the seating chart for the written examination (ES-402);

a completed Form ES-403-1, "Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist" (ES-403 and Section D.1);

COOPER NUCLEAR STATION P.O. Box 98 / Brownville, NE 68321-0098 Telephone: (402) 825-3811 / Fax: (a02) 825-5211 www.nppd.com

NL52020050 Page 2 of2 a the results of any performance analysis that was performed for the written examination, with recommended substantive changes (ES-a03);

a original Form ES-201-3, "Examination Security Agreement," with a pre- and post-examination signature by every individual who had detailed knowledge of any part of the operating tests or written examination before they were administered.

There were no changes required to the master examination or answer key during the administration or grading of the examination. There were no substantive comments made by the applicants after the written examination and/or operating tests. A performance analysis of the written examination did not recommend substantive changes to the written examination.

The graded written examinations, questions asked and answers, and written examination performance analysis contain personally identifiable information. As such, we request the NRC to withhold these documents from the public document room per 10 CFR 2.390.

We also request the NRC to withhold the master examination and answer key from the public document room for two years from the date of the exam.

This letter contains no new regulatory commitments. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (402) 825-5416 or James Florence, Facility Representative, at (402) 825-57 00.

Affairs and Compliance Manager tbk cc: Training Manager Cooper Nuclear Station Facility Representative Cooper Nuclear Station Operations Training Superintendent Cooper Nuclear Station CNS Records

FORM 9 - EXAM ITEM ANALYSIS Exam ID# _CNS 4/2020 ILT NRC Examination________________

Date Evaluation Instrument Administered: __08/04/2020___________

Number of Trainees Evaluated: __5____________

Section A - Any question receiving greater than 50% failure rate N/A List each question receiving greater than 50% failure rate.

Question Question Review Failure Corrective Action Number Conclusion*

Rate (%)

19 60 G Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.

44 60 G Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.

52 80 G Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.

• Review Conclusion A. Insufficient training for the learning objective tested B. Learning objectives not adequately covered in the lesson plan C. Poorly worded or invalid learning objective D. Poorly worded or invalid test item or answer E. Incorrect answer in the exam key F. More than one correct answer G. Question acceptable H. Other (state reason in table or on additional sheet)

Section B - Greater than 25% overall exam failure N/A Conclusion Summary Corrective Action Review performed by: Clyde Edgington____________________ Date: 08/06/20_____

Approved by: _James B. Florence________________________ Date: _08/10/20____

Training Supervision Form Rev #: _01_

Approved by (IT or Trng Mgmt initials): _RSH Date: _11/12/2019