ML040700307

Init Exam - 08/02 - Public Forms

ML040700307
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	02/14/2005
From:	NRC Region 4
To:	Entergy Operations
References
50-382/03-301
Download: ML040700307 (11)

Text

Assignment Tickler: McKernon, W3 IN EX 2/26/03 2/26/03 5/27/03 4/27/03

- I 5/11/03 I 7/6/03 7/6/03 I 8/18/03 8/4/03 Chief Facility/

Description TOM W3 IN EX Examllnspection Schedule Agreement (C.l.a;C.2.a&b)

TOM Task W3 IN EX NRC Staff & Fac. Contact Assigned (C.1.c;C.2.e)

TOM I W3 IN EX I Facility contact briefed on security & other issues (C.2.c) 1 TOM TOM TOM TOM W3 IN EX

[Reference Material Due (C.l.d;C.3.c)

W3 IN EX W3 IN EX W3 IN EX Corp. Notification Letter Sent (C.2.d) (Exams only)

Inspection Announcement Letter Sent (PIR & LORT if reqd)

Task Expectations, Issues, & Standards Discussed w/ BC TOM I W3 IN EX I Integrated Exam Outlines Due (C.l.d&e;C.3.d)

~~

~~

~~

TOM TOM W3 IN EX Preliminary Applications Due (C.1.i;C.2.a;ES202)

W3 IN EX Outlines reviewed by NRC & Feedback Sent (c.2.h;C.3.e)

TOM I W3 IN EX I Draft Exams w/ Doc./Ref. Due (C.l.d/e/f;C.3.d)

TOM I W3 IN EX I Peer Reviewer Initials As Reviewed All Parts*

TOM j W3 IN EX I NRC Supervisor. Initials Approving for Fac. Rev.

(C.2.h;C.3.f)*

TOM I W3 IN EX I Exams Reviewed w/ Fac. (C.l.h;C.2.f&h;C.3.g)

W3 IN EX Final Appl. Due & Assign. Sheet Prepared I

I (C. 1.j;C.2.h;ES202)

Notes Complete N m I

-. I

811 8/03 811 8/03 9/6/03 8/25/03

~~

9/9/03 9/9/03 911 9/03 9120103 9/25/03 9/25/03 1011 6/03 1 1/23/03 TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM TOM

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklisi: Form ES-201-2

-acilit]

Item

1.

W R

I T

T E

N

2.

S I

M

3.

W I T

Task Description

a. Verify that the outline(s) fit@) the appropriate model per ES-401.

b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with Section D.l of ES-401 and whether all KIA categories are appropriately sampled.

c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.

d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected WA statements are appropriate.

a. Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, and major transients.

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 without compromising exam integrity; ensure each applicant can be tested using at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated from the applicants audit test@)*, and scenarios will not be repeated over successive on subsequent days.

c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline@) conform(s) with the qualitative and quantitative criieria specified on Form ES-3014 and described in Appendix D.

a. Verify that:

(1) the outline@) contain(s) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks, (2) no more than 30% of the test material is repeated from the last NRC examination, (3)* no tasks are duplicated from the applicants audit test(s), and (4) no more than 80% of any operating test is taken directly from the licensees exam banks.

b. Verify that:

(1) the tasks are distributed among the safety function groupings as specified in IES-301, (2) one task is conducted in a low-power or shutdown condition, (3) 4 - 6 (2 - 3 for SRO-U) of the tasks require the applicant to implement an alternate path procedure, (4) one in-plant task tests the applicants response to an emergency or abnormal condition, and (5) the in-plant walk-through requires the applicant to enter the RCA.

c. Verifv that the reauired administrative toDics are covered

d. 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.

a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the appropriate exam section.

b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41143 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

c. Ensure that WA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at Isast 2.5.

d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections.

e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.

f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO).

d

__I__

i*

a.

Author

b.

Facility Reviewer (*)

c.

NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d.

NRC Supervisor Note:

• Not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

1. Independent NRC reviewer initial -

items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9

1

ES -401 Written Examination Form ES-401-6 Quality Checklist Item Description

1. Questions and answers technically accurate and applicable to the facility

2. a.

NRC WAS referenced for all questions

b.

Facility learning objectives referenced as available

3.

SRO questions are appropriate per section D.2.d of ES-401

4.

Question selection and duplication from the last two NRC licensing exam appears consistent with a systematic sampling process

5.

Question duplication from the license screening /audit exam was controll In cated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate 8 h e audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or

--the license certifies the there is no duplication; or

-- other (explain) e audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or iP the examinations were developed independently; or

6.

Bank use meets limits ( no more than 75 percent Bank Modified F

from bank at least 10 percent new, and the rest modified); enter the actual RO/SRO-only question distribution(s) at right 31/6 10/5 2

Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO exam are written at the comprehension/analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly selected WAS support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual RO/SRO question distribution(s) at right

8.

References/ handouts provided do not give away answers

9.

Question content conforms with specific WA statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the Tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified I O. Question psychometric quality and format meets ES, Appendix B, guideli

11. The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice iten

7.

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d. NRC Regional Supervisor Note:

• The Facility reviewer' initialslsignature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations

1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in column "c," chief examiner concurrence required

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3

1. GENERAL CRITERIA

a.

The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with sampling requirements (e.g., I O CFR 55.45, operational importance, safety function distribution).

There is no day-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be admiinistered during this examination.

The operating test shall not duplicate items from the applicants audit test(s)(see Section D.l.a).

Overlap with the written examination and between different parts of the operating test is within acceptable limits.

It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent

b.

c.

d.

e.

2. WALK-THROUGH CRITERIA

a.

Each 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 specific performance criteria that include:

detailed expected actions with exact criteria and nomenclature system response and 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.

Repetition from operating tests used during the previous licensing examination is within acceptable limits (30% for the walk-through) and do not compromise test integrity.

At least 20 percent of the JPMs on each test are new or significantly modified.

c.

3. SIMULATOR CRITERIA

a.

The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in aiccordance with Form ES-301-4 and a copy is attached.

a. Author

b. Facility Reviewerr)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d. NRC Supervisor 9

Test Number: 1 Initials I

a I b

• I c #

Date

~

NOTE:

• The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.

1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner conci d

NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checlklist Form ES-301-4 Facility: Waterford 3 Date of Exam: 8/25/03 Scenario Numbers: 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 Operating Test No.: 1 QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES

1.

The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment andlor instrumt service, but it does not cue the operators into expected events.

The scenarios consist mostly of related events.

2.

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

+

the symptomslcues 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.

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 SI) indicates. Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints. Cues are given.

4.

5.

6.

7.

The scenarios have been validated. Any open simulator performance deficiencies have been evaluated to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the

9.

Ib IO.

Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario. All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section D.5 of ES-301.

1 1.

All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Fsorm ES-301-6 (submit the form along with the simulator scenarios).

12.

Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of trar specified on Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios I

I I

TARGET QUANTITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Actual Attributes (PER SCENARIO; SEE SECTION D.5.D)

1.

Total malfunctions (5-8) 8 1 8 1 7

I 7

I 7

2.

Malfunctions after EOP entry (1 -2) 31 5

1 2 I 1

1 3

3.

Abnormal events (2-4) 3 1 3 I 3

1 2

1 3

4.

Major transients (1-2) 2 1 1 l

1 1

2 l

2

5.

EOPs enteredlrequiring substantive actions (1-2) 11 1

I 1

I 2

I 1

6.

EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) 2 1 1 I

l l

1 1

1

7.

Critical tasks (2-3) 4

/

3 1

3 1

1 I 2

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklisf:

Form ES-301-5 OPERATING TEST NO.: 1 (Waterford :3 8/25/03)

As RO 4

Reactivity I*

Normal 0

Component 2*

Major 1

I nstrumentl 3-6 2,3 3,5 6

6 5,6 5.6 7

SRO-U Instructions:

(1)

(2)

(3) 0 Reactivity 4

Normal 1*

Instrument/

1-5 1 2 3,5 6,8 Component 2*

Major 1

5,6 7

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

Enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-1 event numbers for each evolution type.

Reactivity manipulations may be conducted under normal or controlled abnormal conditions (refer to Section D.5.d) blut must be significant per Section C.2.a of Appendix D.

• Reactivity and normal evolutions may be replaced with additional instrument or component malfunctions on a one-for-one basis.

Whenever practical, both instrument and component malfunctions should be included; only those that require verifiable actions that provide insight to the applicants competence cpunt toward the minimum requirement.

1

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 1

SRO It f?O ll BOP Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

Circle the applicant's license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to NRC Reviewer:

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist I

Initials Item Description

1.

Answer key changes and question deletions justifiied and documented Applicants' scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations)

Grading for all borderline cases (80% +/- 2%) reviewed in detail All other failing examinations checked to ensure thtat grades are iustified

2.

3.

4.

5.

Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half or more of the applicants Date Signature /Printed Name

a. Grader

b. Facility Reviewer(*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (

d. NRC Supervisor (*)

?-

(*)

the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.

The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by

Page 1 of 4 13:06:19 I

08l04l2003 0811 812003 0812512003 09l02l2003 0911 512003 TAC #: X02246 Waterford IO5000382 I 2003301 TAC #: X02246 Waterford IO5000382 I2003301 TAC #: X02246 Waterford IO5000382 I2003301 TAC #: X02246 Waterford IO5000382 I2003006 Procedure #: 71 11 11 1 B Operator Licensing Exam Schedule From 10/01/2002 To 09/30/2003 Region: 4 Phase Code: 5 Operational N, THOMAS 0.

MCKERNON. THOMAS 0.

STETKA, THOMAS F.

MCKERNON, THOMAS 0.

MURPHY, MICHAEL E.

STETKA, THOMAS F.

MURPHY, MICHAEL E.

STETKA, THOMAS F.

MCKERNON, THOMAS 0.

MURPHY, MICHAEL E.

STETKA, THOMAS F.

GAGE, PAUL C.

MCKERNON, THOMAS 0.

MCKERNON, THOMAS 0.

Prep Admin FFF MCKERNON, THOMAS 0.

MCKERNON, THOMAS 0.

SROl - 3 SROU - 4 MCKERNON, THOMAS 0.

Doc GAGE, PAUL C.

Sites: WAT Orgs: 4620 Exam Author:ALL