W3F1-2002-0075, Wat 3 - Retake Exam - 07/2002 - Post Examination Comments

Wat 3 - Retake Exam - 07/2002 - Post Examination Comments

ML022480431
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	08/06/2002
From:	Peters K Entergy Nuclear Operations
To:	Merschoff E NRC Region 4
References
W3F1-2002-0075
Download: ML022480431 (3)

Text

Entergy Nuclear South Entergy Operations, Inc.

AN 17265 River Road Enteg Killona, LA 70066 Tel 504 739 6440 Fax 504 739 6698 kpeters@entergy.com Ken Peters Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Waterford 3 W3F1-2002-0075 A4.05 PR August 6, 2002 Mr. E.W. Merschoff Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011

Subject:

Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38 Operator Examination Comments

Dear Mr. Merschoff:

On July 31, 2002, a NRC Reactor Operator (RO) examination was administered to a candidate at Waterford 3. We are hereby submitting the following information per the guidance in NUREG 1021, ES-402, Section E. Attached to this letter are: Question Changes with Justification; Examination Security Agreement; ES-403-1, RO Examination Grading Quality Checklist; Graded RO Examination and a Clean Copy; RO Master Examination; RO Master Examination Key; Examinee Questions and Proctor Responses; Written Examination Seating Chart; and Post Exam Evaluation Results.

This submittal does not contain any commitments. If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact R.W. Fletcher at (504) 739-6038.

Very truly yours, K.J. Peters Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance KJP/OPP/cbh Attachments cc: NRC, Document Control Desk, N. Kalyanam (NRC-NRR), J. Smith, N.S. Reynolds, NRC Resident Inspectors Office

Waterford 3 post-examination review identified three questions that had two correct answers or could not be answered given the information available in the question.

Waterford 3 is submitting this list for information but does not propose to request any changes to the exam itself. Waterford 3 will correct the exam questions in the exam bank.

Dave Vincent Waterford 3 Senior Instructor

FORMAL QUESTION COMMENTS WITH REFERENCES

, Question #39 (5975A)

Evaluation result - remove question from exam Justification - Not enough information was given to the student. Question should have stated that RCP 1A CCW Return Temperature was >160 0 F and rising.

Without this information, the student could not be expected to know that the RCP1A CCW Isolation valve had closed.

Waterford 3 proposed action - correct question stem to include information about RCP 1A CCW Return Temperature.

• Question #43 (5978A)

Evaluation result - accept answer A.

Justification - A review of CWD LOU-1 564-B-424 -E530(attached) shows that the RAS signal would defeat any SIAS signal. This would make the Low Pressure Safety Injection Pumps inoperable. Therefore answer A would also be correct.

Waterford 3 proposed action - change answer A to make it incorrect for the question.

Question 45 (5980A)

Evaluation result - accept answer A.

Justification - The Boron Dilution Monitor alarms occur when the process exceeds the setpoint. The question does not have indication that the process has exceeded the setpoint. By the information given in the question, there is no reason for the alarms to be in. With no indication of rising temperature or power, the only possible response would be to declare the Boron Dilution monitors inoperable. Therefore, answer A would be correct. (Attached - annunciator responses for Boron Dilution Monitor alarms).

Waterford 3 proposed action - Change question to have dilution monitor process readings to be higher than the listed setpoint readings.

1