NLS2022028, 10 CNS-2022-06 Post Exam Comments
| ML22208A196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/2022 |
| From: | Dewhirst L Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) |
| To: | Thomas Farina Operations Branch IV |
| References | |
| NLS2022028 | |
| Download: ML22208A196 (46) | |
Text
N Nebraska Public Power District Always there when you need us NLS2022028 Iuly 5,2022 Thomas Farina Chief Examiner, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1600 East Lamar Boulevard Arlington, TX 7601 l-4511
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 12
Dear Sir:
On June 2T,2022, Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator written examinations were administered at Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS). On July 5,2022, the following post-examination documentation was transmitted electrohically to your office as required by Section ES-4-4 8.7 of the reference:
the graded written examinations (i.e., each applicant's original answer and examination cover sheets) plus a clean copy of the applicant's answer sheet; the master written examinations and answer keys, annotated to indicate any changes made while administering and grading the examinations; any questions asked by the applicants and the answers given to the applicants during the written examination (ES-4.3);
all examination administration or post-examination review comments made by the facility licensee and the applicants after the written examination and operating tests (ES-4.3);
a a
a a
a the seating chart for the written examination (ES-4.3);
documentation (through a cover letter or other correspondence) of facility licensee management or supervisor concurrence; COOPER NUCLEAR STATION P.O. Box 98 / Brownville, NE 68321-0098 Telephone: (402) 825-3811 / Fax: (402) 825-5211 www.nppd.com
NLS2022028 Page2 of 2 a
the results of any performance analysis for the written examination, with recommended,
substantive changes; There were no changes required to the master examinations or answer keys during the administration or grading of the examination.
The completion of Form 1.3-1 is delayed due to issues associated with the collection of post-examination signatures; this form will be forwarded to you at alater date with your previous concuffence.
The graded written examination and written examination performance analysis contain personally identifiable information. As such, we request the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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) 525-5416 or James Florence, Facility Representative, at (402) 825-57 00.
Regulatory Affairs and Compliance Manager
/jo cc: Training Manager Cooper Nuclear Station Facility Representative Cooper Nuclear Station Operations Training Superintendent Cooper Nuclear Station CNS Records
FORM 9 - EXAM ITEM ANALYSIS Form Rev #: _01_
Approved by (IT or Trng Mgmt initials): _RSH Date: _11/12/2019 Exam ID# _CNS 2022-06 ILT NRC Examination_
Date Evaluation Instrument Administered: __6/21/2022 Number of Trainees Evaluated: ______6_______
Section A - Any question receiving greater than 50% failure rate N/A List each question receiving greater than 50% failure rate.
Question Number Question Failure Rate (%)
Review Conclusion*
Corrective Action 1
83.3 G
Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.
44 66.7 G
Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.
72 66.7 G
Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.
74 66.7 G
Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.
88 100 G
Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.
95 100 H
Site submitted comments for the NRC to review.
Site recommendation is to remove the question from the exam due to no correct answer available.
96 100 G
Determined to be a weakness in applicant knowledge. This GAP was resolved during post examination review. No other actions taken.
97 100 H
Site submitted comments for the NRC to review.
Site recommended changing the correct answer from A to B. The reason for this recommendation is due to the wording in the stem not being inclusive to the minimum required. With this case B allows to different ways to do the task and both are acceptable IAW with the procedure. Answer A is inclusive to only one of the ways the procedure allows so due to the wording Answer A is not correct.
100 100 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
FORM 9 - EXAM ITEM ANALYSIS Form Rev #: _01_
Approved by (IT or Trng Mgmt initials): _RSH Date: _11/12/2019 E. Incorrect answer in the exam key F. More than one correct answer G. Question acceptable H. Other (Submitted comments to the NRC )
Section B - Greater than 25% overall exam failure N/A Conclusion Summary Corrective Action Review performed by: __Clyde Edgington__________________ Date: _6/23/2022__
Approved by: _________James B. Florence________________ Date: _6/27/2022 _
Training Supervision