ML090140091
| ML090140091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/2008 |
| From: | Mckernon T Operations Branch IV |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML090140091 (16) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:OBDI 202 - INITIAL OPERATOR LICENSING PROCESS DRAFT EXAM ASSIGNMENT TICKLER Chief: Tom McKernan Written Exam Developed By: NRC I Facility Operating Test Developed By: NRC I Facility Due Date Description Date Complete Initials Notes 5/9/2008 Written Exam & Op Test Dates Confirmed 7/4/2008 NRC Examiners & Facility Contact Assigned 7/4/2008 Facility Contact Briefed on Security & Other Req's 7/4/2008 Corporate Notification Letter sent "I_ .l??--{)g ?A1Hf. ES-201 Att-4 produced by CE 8/8/2008 Reference material due (if NRC authored) CJ ~ z, G:, -0 8 ~ ES-201 Att-3 8/2212008 Integrated exam outlines due 8-- z ct ~g 8/29/2008 DRAFT exam outlines reviewed by Chief Examiner Cf ~ ~-- 0 8 ES-201-2 signed by CE
.r 1f-_8_/2_9_/2_0_0_8_l-B_ra_n_c_h_C_h_ie_f_a_pp_r_o_ve_s_0_U_t1_in_e_fe_e_d_ba_c_k_t_o_fa_c_ili_ty +-..L-1_-_~/l{)_-...J-/J0L..I0t;~__I_IIL...-I'---l-E_S--2-0_1--2-si-gn-e-d-b-y-B_C-------11 9/19/2008 DRAFT exam / docs / support reference material due q,," z6- tJl3 I~
10/3/2008 Peer review of written exam complete IUJ.-- 3t- O/t ~ Document review on ES-401-9 10/3/2008 Preliminary license applications due 10
- 3 _0 ~ I~ NRC Forms 398/396 10/10/2008 Preliminary license applications and waivers reviewed IV- 1o' P eI7~JJ1"l 10/17/2008 Branch Chief approves exam feedback to facility lO-ll-0~ ~
10/17/2008 Exams reviewed with facility On-site validation & 10% audit of license applications I JO .. q_;)~~~~~------ll 10/24/2008 Final applications due & List of Applicants prepared /({) i;;'!,oB' A~7Jt1 ~:2D1-4 prepared by LA 10/31/2008 Final applications approved & waiver letters sent 10/31/2008 Branch Chief approves FINAL exam (Written & Op Test) ~I r - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t -....... ~S -cJj n. 1. A produces / BC signs Exam I I----'=:-...=:---+-=+--tr..;..;..-----:..----....:......--H Approval Letter (ES-201 Atch 5) 10/31/2008 Proctoring/written exam admin guidelines reviewed w/ facility 111 0& d~A. 11/3/2008 Exam material to exam team 11/10/2008 Administer Operating Test on-site LI- /0- lulNJ. ~ 11/14/2008 Facility post-exam documentation due 11/21/2008 NRC written exam grading completed '//1 ~ Jop/~~ ES-403-1 to BC 11/21/2008 Examiners document op test results on ES 303's 11/28/2008 Chief Examiner review of written exam & op test completed i tl I"/-i/l/~JS ~)6igned ES 303's to BC 1215/2008 Branch Chief review of exam results completed )l/~/DB 1"'1{U 1211212008 Waivers/deferrals reviewed for impact on licensing decision 1211212008 License/Denial letters mailed; Facility notified of results 1211212008 RPS/IP number of examinees updated (:It-:.--~1]-/.2fJ12fj0lr1l~~~l"!!mination Report Issued 'r'--II ~/0f I~ produced by CE 12126/2008 Exam docs to ADAMS and SUNSI checklist complete J J j II) ~ l?~_ jlUNSI checklist to LA 1/9/2009 Ref Mat'I Returned after Final Resolution of Appeals f..j A-. / -lf1J\ ~ Replaces NUREG-1021, Revision 9, Supp 1, Forms ES-201-1 and ES-501~
ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Date of Examination: Facility:
*?Al.-D VeR.DE. I\!W/08 Initials Item Task Description a1 b' C#
1. w
- a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401.
~ Il~ Ih'a
~'f\f I~
R b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with I Section 0.1 of ES-401 and whether all KJA categories are appropriately sampled. ( T T E
- c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.
IIli< ~, N d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected KJA statements are appropriate. I It#< ~~
- 2. a. Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number
~~
of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications, S and major transients. I M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule IJ I~ ~ U L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using A at least one new or significantly modified scenario, thilt no scenarios are duplicated T from the applicants' audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days. 0 c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative R and quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301-4 and described in Appendix D. J Wu
- 3. a. Verify that the systems walk-through outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-2:
(1) the outline(s) contain(s) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks W distributed among the safety functions as specified on the form j
/ (2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the fOlln T (3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' audit test(s)
(4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified on the form t (5) the number of alternate path, low-power, emergency, and RCA tasks meet the criteria on the form.
- b. Verify that the administrative outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-1:
A i (1 ) the tasks are distributed among the topics as specified on the form (2) at least one task is new or significantly modified (3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations ~!J J~ I~ I~ 7/5';)
- c. Determine if there are enough different outlines to test the projected number and mix of applicants and ensure that no items are duplicated on subsequent days.
4. G
- a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the appropriate exam sections. 11 l,~ 1v'J~
E
- b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate. 1IiNJr, --/.~
v N E
- c. Ensure that KJA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5. hMl A ~.
R
- d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections. :t ~ /llAl 'A ;,,~v v
A e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage. rl~ ~ L
- f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO).
r¥- v
~ i. ~
- a. Author lNlt..J'J?,p,.'
. 1l1'7Cr\
prin!d NU)ture
'< JoM / --. g'/~~
- b. Facility Reviewer n ()Ja.IreVt l) r:;., / /,f ~N, ~ ./Y-~
2 '72/0p
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) '1. YVlt./L. k (l R, l I/O 1J-/ .7 V11 ';;K/"\
-PTJ... '17-:-- / ( \"'K K- ~
- 9. /.2J 7nIJJ
- d. NRC Supervisor ~'/L/ I.
Note: I
" '-.. J
# Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
- Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines
"/ 'Ive; ES-201, Page 25 of 28
ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 Facility: PVNGS Date of Exam: 11/07/2008 Exam Level: RO ~ SRO Initial Item Description a {\ b' c*
- 1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility.
- 2. a. NRC KlAs are referenced for all questions.
- b. Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.
- 3. SRO questions are appropriate in accordance with Section D.2.d of ES-401
- 4. The sampling process was random and systematic (If more than 4 RO or 2 SRO questions were repeated from the last 2 NRC licensing exams, consult the NRR OL program office).
NA W
- 5. Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled LB ~ WP as indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:
_ the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or _ the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or _ the examinations were developed independently; or lS.. the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or _ other (explain)
- 6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New LB ~ WP from the bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest &~
1\ IM4P new or modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only 13/17% 10/13% 52/70% question distribution(s) at riqhl.
- 7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO Memory CIA LB WP exam are wrillen at the comprehension/ analysis level; 6~
the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly selected KlAs support the higher cognitive levels; enter 35/46% 40/54% f vii the actual RO / SRO question distribution(s) at riqht.
- 8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers LB WP w/'rf 6~
or aid in the elimination of distractors.
- 9. Question content conforms with specific KIA statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the tier to which they are assigned; LB J WP G'~
deviations are iustified. ~
- 10. Question psychometric quality and format meet the quidelines in ES Appendix B. LB
, ~ ~I(k' LB
~
The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; 6~ 11. the total is correct and aqrees with the value on the cover sheet. (' Printed N~ /~~S::i:5~atu=r=e~-e:::::~_~ Date
- a. Author Larry Burton L/\'~ ~ 10/15/2008
- b. Facility Reviewer (.) W~en Poller /-""'_ / ~ -' 10/15/2008
- 7. fJ. AI. t./~" AI / 7~ r-
- ~~t
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) .... 1 j)
- d. NRC Regional Supervisor Note:
- The facility reviewer's initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.
# Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 Facility: PVNGS Date of Exam: 11/07/2008 Exam Level: RO SROI]j Initial Item Description f\a bO c# IllB
- 1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility. ~ W
- 2. a.
b. NRC KlAs are referenced for all questions. Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.
,iB
- ,~
- 3. SRO questions are appropriate in accordance with Section D.2.d of ES-401 J
lB ~' ~
- 4. The sampling process was random and systematic (If more than 4 RO or 2 SRO questions NA NA ,~
were repeated from the last 2 NRC licensing exams, consult the NRR OL program office). IJNI
- 5. Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled LB wp as indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:
_ the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or _ the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or the examinations were developed independently; or X the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or t ~
~
_ other (explain) r
- 6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New Wp from the bank, at least 10 percent new, emu tile rest new or modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only 1/4% 3/12% 21/84% ,pi b~
question distribution(s) at right.
- 7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO Memory CIA lB Wp exam are written at the comprehension/ analysis level; 8.
the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly selected KlAs support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual RO / SRO question distribution(s) at riqht. References/handouts provided do not give away answers
- /"tif (juJt..
16/64%
,f13/92;{
I cP<<.-It I 1B IJII/ ~~
,~
or aid in the elimination of distractors. :::..f
- 9. Question content conforms with specific KIA statements in the previously approved 'l--B WP examination outline and is appropriate for the tier to which they are assigned; ~
deviations are iustified. ,~p
- 10. Question psychometric quality and format meet the quidelines in ES Appendix B. lB ~t DftA'r
- 11. The exam contains the required number of one-point. multiple choice items; ~B WP ~cd.
the total is correct and aqrees with the value on the cover sheet. w\p printed~/~ Date
- a. Author Larry Burton ::--." U "" ~ 10/15/2008
- b. Facility Reviewer (0) Warren Potter /-1 jf ~ -.........:l 10/15/2008 fO. M. -.::J!JP~ ~lnM J?;.#-~~./
~.
c NRC Chief Examiner (#)
- d. NRC Regional Supervisor /'1/ ,,, I A. 'T'q.....j /i />fI-.... ~ I r* .... v'* .. I l.
1'-1 ",-, Note: ° The facility reviewer's initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations
# Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facility: flA-t-t> 0;1/1)£ Date of Examination: 1//II:'/()~ OperatinQ Test Number: I Initials
- 1. General Criteria b* r:;#
- a. The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with samplinQ requirements (e.Q., 10 CFR 55.45, operational importance, safety function distribution).
- b. There is no day-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered A durinQ this examination.
- c. The operatinq test shall not duplicate items from the applicants' audit test(s). (see Section D.1.a.)
- d. Overlap with the written examination and between different parts of the operating test is within .11 acceptable limits.
- e. It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent applicants at the designated license level.
- 2. Walk-Through Criteria
- a. Ea<.:!l JPM includes the following, as applicable:
- initial conditions initiating cues references and tools, including associated procedures reasonable and validated time limits (average time allowed for completion) and specific designation if deemed to be time-critical by the facility licensee operationally important specific performance criteria that include:
- detailed expected actions with exact criteria and nomenclature
- system response ilnd other examiner cues
- statements describing important observations to be made by the applicant
- criteria for successful completion of the task
- identification of critical steps and their associated performance standards
- restrictions on the sequence of steps, if applicable
- b. Ensure that any changes from the previously approved systems and administrative walk-through outlines (Forms ES-301-1 and 2) have not caused the test to deviate from any of the acceptance criteria (e.g., item distribution, bank use, repetition from the last 2 NRC examinations) specified on those forms and Form ES-201-2.
- 3. Simulator Criteria The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with Form ES-301-4 and a copy is attached. .......
printed~i nature Date
- a. Author Larry Burton/ ..' ---... 09/25/08 AI)! /
- b. Facility Reviewer(*) Warren Potter/ ITvr 7 I 09/25/08
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) 'Co. IJ.,'.-J!..,:;12 PO';1-:- ./.. ~~ II/!J.!lfl
- d. NRC Supervisor ~,~, ~11-/( l.J?l~<<--Y---' ~lJ~~Oe r J ' II " 1 (I
~
NOTE: The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.
# Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-301, Page 24 of 27
ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facilty: Palo Verde Date of Exam:11/1 0/08 Scenario Numbers: 1 / 2 /3 Operating Test No.: 2008 QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials
.I'
'Ii b' c#
- 1. The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment and/or instrumentation may be out of service, but it does not cue the operators into expected events.
2. 3. The scenarios consist mostly of related events. Each event description consists of
- the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated
- the malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event
- the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew
- the expected operator actions (by shift position)
- the event termination point (if applicable)
- 4. No more than one non-mechanistic failure (e.g., pipe break) is incorporated into the scenario without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event.
- 5. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.
- 6. Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives.
- 7. If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary clearly so indicates.
Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints. Cues are given. 8 The simulator modeling is not altered.
- 9. The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator performance deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios.
- 10. Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario.
All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section 0.5 of ES-301.
- 11. All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 (submit the form along with the simulator scenarios).
- 12. Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events specified on Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios).
- 13. The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position.
Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.S.d) Actual Attributes
- 1. Total malfunctions (5-8) 6/ 7/6
- 2. Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2) 2/ 2/ 2
- 3. Abnormal events (2-4) 3/4 / 4
- 4. Major transients (1-2) 1/ 2 / 1
- 5. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (1-2) 1/ 1 / 1
- 6. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) 0/ 1 / 1
- 7. Critical tasks (2-3) 3/ 2 / 2 v
ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facilty: Palo Verde Date of Exam:11/1 0/08 Scenario Numbers: 4 /5/ Operating Test No.: 2008 QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials a J\ b* C# i~
- 1. The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment and/or instrumentation may be out of service, but it does not cue the operators into expected events. wj A
- 2. The scenarios consist mostly of related events. I 1uW' ' ~
- 3. Each event description consists of
** the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated the malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event 4.
- the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew
- the expected operator actions (by shift position)
- the event termination point (if applicable)
No more than one non-mechanistic failure (e.g., pipe break) is incorporated into the scenario without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event. t wi/ I udI .. ~
~
5. 6. 7. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics. Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives. If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary clearly so indicates.
"~ I~<7P1J.
tiJ1 ~ Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints. Cues are given. t/kfj ~Ar' t&.Al
- 8. The simulator modeling is not altered. fA iNJf ~
- 9. The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator performance deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios. 'I IJJJi ?M
- 10. Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario.
All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section 0.5 of ES-301. h 1IiJ-- @;c.
~1 wN~1 ~f14.
- 11. All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 (submit the form along with the simulator scenarios).
/
- 12. Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events rf I ~~I specified on Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios).
- 13. The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position. J tJII O('i~
Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d) Actual Attributes --4 -- --
- 1. Total malfunctions (5-8) 7/ 6/ til U14P 7k
- 2. Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2) 2/ 2/ l, tJMJ- ~
- 3. Abnormal events (2-4) 4/ 2/ J /14, < ?~
- 4. Major transients (1-2) 2/ 1 / MNJ~ 7h*
v
- 5. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (1-2) 1/ 1 / M4tf ?m
- 6. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) 0/ 0/ if', uJJ.t- /()U 7 Critical tasks (2-3) 2/ 3 / Y:
rl "Upi' ~ v
ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Date of Exam: /1 Exam Level: ROi Initials Item Descri tion 1.
- 2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented
- 3. Applicants' scores checked for addition errors reviewers s ot check> 25% of examinations
- 4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as a licable, +/-4% on the SRO-onl reviewed in detail
- 5. All other failing exam inations checked to ensur e that grades are 'ustified
- 6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of uestions missed b half or more of the a licants Date
- a. Grader \\\\~ ~
- b. Facility Reviewer(*) u/t'l/or
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) 11/191 I
- IJB
- d. NRC SupeNisor (*) IIJ~/()
(*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two inde endent NRC reviews are re uired. ES-403, Page 6 of 6
ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facilit Exam Level: R~ SRO Initials Item Descri tion 1.
- 2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented
- 3. Applicants' scores checked for addition errors reviewers s ot check> 25% of examinations
- 4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as a licable, +/-4% on the SRO-onl reviewed in detail
- 5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are *ustified
- 6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of uestions missed b half or more of the a licants Printed Name/Signatur Date
- a. Grader La q ~ i~--¥-- ~
- b. Facility Reviewer(*) Illtt !of:
I J~9/JJ8
- d. NRC Supervisor (*) 11(70/'-0
(*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two inde endent NRC reviews are re uired. ES-403, Page 6 of 6
"age 1 of 5 Operator Licensing Exam Schedule 11125/2008 08:23:43 From 10/01/2008 To 12130/2008 Report 21 Region: 4 Phase Code: 5 1 Exam Week II SitelDocket No./Insp Rpt # 'I # Candidates Il!}'Pe II Exam Author UChief Examiner I I Examiners Assigned I 10106/2008 Palo Verde 105000528/2008301 Prep FFF MCKERNON, THOMAS O. APGER, GABRIEL W.
TAC #: X02383 LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERNON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. 10106/2008 Palo Verde 105000529 /2008301 Prep FFF MCKERNON, THOMAS O. APGER, GABRIEL W. T AC #: X02384 DRAKE, JAMES F. GARCHOW, STEPHEN M. LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERNON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. 10/06/2008 Palo Verde / 05000530 / 2008301 Prep FFF MCKERNON, THOMAS O. APGER, GABRIEL W. TAC #: X02385 DRAKE, JAMES F. GARCHOW, STEPHEN M. LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERNON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. 11/10/2008 Palo Verde 105000528/2008301 RO -10 SROI- 6 Admin FFF MCKERNON, THOMAS O. APGER, GABRIEL W. TAC #: X02385 SROU-3 DRAKE, JAMES F. GARCHOW, STEPHEN M. LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERNON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. 11/10/2008 Palo Verde /05000528/2008301 Admin FFF MCKERNON, THOMAS O. APGER, GABRIEL W. T AC #: X02383 DRAKE, JAMES F. GARCHOW, STEPHEN M. LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERNON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. 11/10/2008 Palo Verde /05000529/2008301 Admin FFF MCKERNON, THOMAS O. APGER, GABRIEL W. TAC #: X02384 DRAKE, JAMES F. GARCHOW, STEPHEN M. LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERNON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. 11/17/2008 Palo Verde / 05000528 / 2008301 Doc MCKERNON, THOMAS O. APGER, GABRIEL W. TAC #: X02383 DRAKE, JAMES F. GARCHOW, STEPHEN M. LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERN ON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. Sites: PALO Orgs: 4620 Exam Author: ALL
Page 2 Df 5 Operator Licensing Exam Schedule 11/25/2008 08:23:43 From 10/01/2008 To 1213012008 Report 21 Region: 4 Phase Code: 5 SitelDocket No./Insp Rpt # # Candidates Chief Examiner Examiners Assigned 11/17/2008 Palo Verde 1 05000529/2008301 Doc MCKERNON, THOMAS 0 APGER, GABRIEL W. T AC #: X02384 DRAKE, JAMES F. GARCHOW, STEPHEN M. LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERNON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. 11/17/2008 Palo Verde 105000530/2008301 Doc MCKERNON, THOMAS O. APGER, GABRIEL W. TAC #: X02385 DRAKE, JAMES F. GARCHOW, STEPHEN M. LARSON, BRIAN T. MCKERNON, THOMAS O. WALTON, RAYMOND K. Sites: PALO Orgs: 4620 Exam Author: ALL
Page 3 cf 5 Operator Licensing Exam Schedule 11/25/2008 08:23:43 From 10/0112008 To 12130/2008 Report 21 Region: 4 Phase Code: 5 Summary By Date 10/2008 PALO - Palo Verde RO - 0 SROI- 0 SROU-O LSRO - 0 Total for Palo Verde: 0 10/2008 RO-O SROI- 0 SROU-O LSRO - 0 Total for 10/2008: 0 11/2008 PALO - Palo Verde RO-lO SROI- 6 SROU-3 LSRO - 0 Total for Palo Verde: 19 Sites: PALO Orgs: 4620 Exam Author: ALL
?ALO Vt,/(f)c.
- j'
.~
_ _ _2..-,cetfI ES-601 tJ~ Examination
~----<<.
Security Agreement
~--- Form ES-601-1
- 1. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC requalificatioll examinations scheduled for the week(s) of II /1tJ/og.
as of thE! date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not ueen authorized by tile NRC's chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or proVide performance feedback to those operators scheduled to be administered these examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and autllorized by lIle NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furtllermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC's chief examiner any indications or sU~HJestions thol examination security may have been compromised.
- 2. Post-Examination
\
To the best of my knowledge, I did ~~vq{e to any unautllorized pers::lIls allY information concerning the NRC requalification examinations administered during the week(s) of . From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback [0 those operators who were administered these examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized l>y Ule NRC. PRINTj:..g.NAME JOB"nTLE / RESPONSIBILITY
- 1. l...A?j2Y~1.v'?~ F..~ ~~
~~c:I:~ ti'4~.
4.~~ ~J*W'kw/.ll;lr _ c._ 0 ff
- 5. __ ~p..\~~'{ e-"SALJ ~l'\o{1£ I2.N(;,\N~ _ _ ~
6.- e', _ _ --:::-r-r _
~: g~~~
9.~;<. sc.CT1T 10.~._J:_r~'L_~~ _ 11*td;U'tMr D~ 12.~~~
- 13. ~IA STB./#JC3qt{..
1~_.PCJ,J M.~ ~ I~i~ 1;:fV21'e: ': -, --------------- - o NOTES: N o U1 ~ I u~ Lf <.0 UJ ES-601, Page 27 of 36 ex> o o 0'> ZC:08 Ni1C fE)tAM
'--l'r'l PAL~ ViIlOE. o
-oJ kfl ....
en _--'-2~cet7I=-' tJi'c.. ~4L E)'AM----'------_ _
'i ;;)
1.1 ES*601 Examlnatioll Security Agreement Form ES-6Ul-1 N o o co
')
1 L 1. Pre-Examination ~ o I ack!lowl~dge Ihatl have acquired specialized knowledge aboullhe NRC requlllificalion examinations scheduled for the week{s) of 11/ as of the da.te of my signature. I agree lhal I will not knowingly divulge ;lily information aboul Ihese examinations to any persons who have nDI
/010'(
been authorized oy the NRC's chief examiner. lunderstand thatl am not 10 instruct, evaluate. or vrovioe performance feedback to those "l operators scheouled to be administered these examinations from this date until CDmpletion of examinaUon admlnistrafion, except as speclfically noted below and authorized b~r IIle NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not ~ co select the training con~ent or provide direct or indirect feedback). FurtllBnnore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requireme1ts o U1 {as dOCtlmented in the facUlty licensee's procedures} and understand \hat Violation o011e conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of Ille examinations andfor 811 enforcemenl action against me or lhe facilily lic6llses. I will immediately repCJrllo facility management .. U1 or the NRC's chief examiner an~r indications or suggeslions thaI examination sec:urity may have been compromised. co
- 2. P05t-Examln21tlon '"
-oJ "l
To Ille besl of my knowledge,I did administ1lred during the week(s) of I lll£kq{e I . 10 all,' unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC requaliflcalion examlnalions
. From the date Ihat I entered into this securily agreemel1\ until lhe completion of examinalion I
I o () c (/l
.t-<
administration, , did not instruct, evaluate. or provide performance feedback 10 !l1ose operators who were administered these examinations, 1 t'l except as specifically no\ed below and authorized bylhe NRC. j ~
- z:
H
- z:
I c;-> I () o l :<l I '" J I I
~~J'"'\
;J" D
D f I l l U_7'1)
~ ~ ~ .~~ _I
'J J1
'J
'J I "D _ '11~[(aa'1
_. - tdu ~ I D
'J '-~~5175'",,'r' i{;'~ L;;
A . -"'"'\ /7./ .~ d =--~4m .~-fJfIIM!
~, f J -.. 6 - _ wrr
;J" j
~ 0 D
;;)
I I'V ;;)
~
0 "n " o o 0'1 CD
- ES-601, Page 27 of 35 PC:lse '2 J=" 4 .........
o
~A~
.....o VJ 21!:0 8 Nile
;;)
00 0 0 --.J
~.'~:
df;' PALO ", g,i>e. ZoO,?~il~ trJl~/Pr<- ~ ES-601 Examination SecLirity Agreement Form ES-601-1
- 1. Pre-Examination I ackllowledge lhall have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC requalificatiol1 examinations scheduled for tile week(s) of It//{.> /o~
as of thE! date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not ueen authorized by lhe NRC's chief examiner. I understand thaI I arn nol to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those operatOis scheduled to be administered these examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does nol select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditlons of this agreement may result In cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC's chief examiner any indications or suggestions tllat examination security may have been compromised.
- 2. post-Examination
\
To tile best of my knowledge, I did 110idiVUIge to any unautllorized persons any information concerning the NRC requalification examinations administered during tile week(s) ot II IO/I2'k . From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those operators wllo were administered lhese examinations, except as specifically noted below and autllOrized by tile NRC. JOB"ntLE / RESPONSIBILITY
~O
~(J
<;t<.c>
3'p-'~
-"S7ro lJ...o
;f,ZD
~ o NOTES: N o 0'1 CD ES-601, Page 27 or 36 Po je. .5 J~ L{ W CO o o CO
rJ.\\..~ \(t.iZte "Qat tJil I ...mAL i x.A lII\ ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3
- 1. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of NrJ(/ '7,1 S' as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
- 2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge 'did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of ilJ/plef{. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or pro(/ide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.
PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY
- 1. ,11 c.nq~ ~~?- ~ h Ifr /t(1WA6lfrL
- 2. :r e~r S~ C It?
- 3. I !~0 CR 5 _
- 4. Cao:,zQ fECd ~ /~~~. ~
- 5. 1.01, '1 ......,... ~~ t(i'D*.~r~;;= 11'/~'Oi",
- 6. LOCI TN""
~: ~D~-r;~~Z L"t 1C/7//{
v:?-egy ~
~----~
;;<<;2~t
~?r+-~
---,~~
- 9. l
- 10. ....H.." LE:I)/".'f4.{> L~IT INiUZVCt"b(Z.. ljlA-~T- ~ u~ ~~
- 11. vohli WtJt?d C)/,r aNy PL 7~ i/4.!t!..!---"7'4~~~jjWoo::!P~-----
- 12. ffRI'Col.D f s'-Va.Bvl 'J"~ .sE~l'lo~ ('f"APfll * ~ I - , **
13.. _ 14 . _ ----- 15 . _ ------ NOTES: ....lto. a I'V a 01 (0 PCL~ e t..{ v-F ~ VJ ex> ES-201, Page 27 of 28 a a (0}}