ML050250132

Draft - Nrc/Facility Comments (Folder 2)

ML050250132
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/10/2004
From:	Caruso J, Hackenberg J AmerGen Energy Co, NRC/RGN-I/DRS/OSB
To:	Conte R NRC/RGN-I/DRS/OSB
Conte R
References
Download: ML050250132 (47)

Text

ES-401 Oyster Creek Written Retake Examination la1 0/04 Form ES-401-9 NOTE : 1. BOLD & Italics reflect resolution of comments Written Examination Review Worksheet

2. Reviewed by S. Dennis and J. Caruso

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other I 6. I 7

Explanation Stem Cues

-0cus I Q=

WA -

Y -

Y -

Y H -

H -

F H

F 3 -

3 -

3 3

2 N

I S

I Added to stem for clarity - plant is in normal N I E l electrical alignment Y

Y -

Y Y -

F F -

2 3 -

Y Y -

H 2

S 0

m C

m c

n L3 w

z z

z z

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws

7.

Explanation

5. Other 3ack- -

wlinutia -

Stem OCUS -

Steve, follow-up on stem focus may need tightening.

Are the applicants required to know these setpoints from memory for the low level alarm 143.

Applicants expected to know these entry conditions. Bold and cap MAXIMIZE in stem alsc and revised second question to read better, What is the basis for this reauirement?

F With the EOP in hand direct look-up for the first part of the question. Do not allow use of EOP reference in answering this question. Are the ROs required to know from memory the EOP bases? No references allowed and it is a LO for ROs.

H 3

edited distractor D to ensure no EOP conflicts

w m

S 0

m C

m P

c I3 z

I z cu m

cu LL I

LL cu LL

cn D

0 cn cn z

z z

z I

C 0

m K

m W

c B

n-1F 1

v) cn v) cu m

(?

I m

I

a c9 b

I b-cu m

d Lc) d d

d d

4. Job Content Flaws

3. Psychometric Flaws

5. Other

7.

Ainutia -

Explanation verify references for answer. Also would it be idvisable to state what initial reactor power level is it the stem?

References verified. 25% power added to stem

?or clarity Is this RO level knowledge -

Yes, an RO learning objective was verified S

H 2

S H -

3 -

E -

consider revising A&C,... NZO1 C will auto start.

Distractors revised for claritv

+

m cu r

T-cu LD LD v) z LL m

z 7

LL LD LD

r; c

0 a

c a

W c

2 n-q p

v I

I I I I

t I t c9 b

CD b

co CT, Lo Lo Lo Lo

a Z

I I

t z

t X

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws linutia

5. Other

7.

Explanation Steve, look at complete TS maybe a direct look-up with TS in hand. Also need to remove reference to TS in stem or won't fit WA, ability to recognize TS entry level - you are already telling them TS entry in stem. This would be a much better question, if giver a situation of leaking from several locations where the applicant had to determine identified vs non-identified leakage and apply TS limits.

Question edited to reflect above comments - nov P LOK-H - SAT

z m

@J m

I LL LL K

0 b

cn W

F H

F 2

3 2

Stem

-0cus -

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other U

S

7.

Explanation LOD=1, GET level, non-license question does not adequately discriminate for making a licensing decision. A much better license level question coulc be written using this same WA but normally at the SRO level.

Question Replaced using same WA - LOK-F -

verified references-SAT

~~

Distractor B not credible. Also WA does not appear to be a clear match. The basis for the desigi of the hardened vent system does not appear to be demonstrating knowledge of an EOP mitigation strategy. Steve follow-up Question Replaced using same WA-LOK-H -

verified references -SAT

I i C

0 Q

C Q

c n

3 n-(I)

(I)

(I) 3 (I) z z

I I

I I

X DJ I

I I

m

Stem

-0cus -

~~

3. Psychometric Flaws TIF

>red.

Dist. -

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other

6.

JIWS

7.

Explanation E The question is not direct look-up. Although, the applicant can easily determine he is in the ATWS procedure, he is also clearly required to assess all 3 legs. With EOPs in hand in level/power leg and eventually get to the over ride statement and should conclude that level is above 30 and power is above 2% which would require terminate and prevent and lowering level below 30. However, A could be argued maybe that it is a partially correct answer -

provide EOP basis that would support A is incorrec (i.e., that given the stem conditions if we were to stop terminating and preventing when power dropped below 2%, that wed be wrong). Discussed with John Monro and he concurs. Steve, please Conducted onsite extensive discussions on EO!

usage and the appearance of competing EOP legs. Changed stem wording regarding the statu of rods from did not move into the core to remain at notch postion 48. This clarifies EOP direction as well as the stem statement that power is now at 6%. Question SAT after stem edit.

follow-up.

I

Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other Y

Y Y

Y

6.

JIUS

7.

Explanation S

E Modified flow chart blocked out table 13 showin1 areas (equipment lost )and removed max safe numbers to avoid direct look-up.

U Doesn't fit 55.43(b)(2) not SRO level just a integrated system question.

MAJOR Question rewritten to SRO level (same WA) with procedural direction - verified references and changed to 55(B)(5). - SAT I

I

Stem

-0cus -

X

3. Psychometric Flaws

red.

Dist. -

4. Job Content Flaws Minutia -

5. Other

7.

Explanation The applicant can easily determine he is in the ATWS procedure but he is also clearly required to assess all 3 legs. In fact, all 4 answers provided will eventually be done given the stem conditions.

Provide EOP bases and/or other procedure guidancc that would clearly establish initiating poison with these power oscillations is the only correct answer given these conditions. May need to tighten stem to ensure only one correct answer. Discussed with John Monro and he concurs.

Question replaced using same WA - references verified-LOK-H, LOD-3 -SAT Stem and distractors enhanced to ensure that it is not a direct lookup

1.

LOK F/H) -

H H

2.

LOD

1-5) 3 -

SI# -

93 iro-18 94 iro.

19 95 iro-20 96 iro.

21

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other artial -

red.

)ist. -

Explanation System ops question not SRO level does not fit 55.43( b)( 1 ).

Question replaced using same WA - now requires procedural direction, LOK-H, LOD-3, SAT 3

E Distractors A&C do not appear credible.

All distractors changed. For consistency and credibility.

Not an SRO level question, even NLOs should know this maybe okay as an RO question.

LO covers both ROs and SROs.

F H

U S

2 2

Question Replaced using same WA - references werifiecb LOK-H, LOD-3, SAT

c 0

c 2

B m

W E;

cv I

LL I

3. Psychometric Flaws Stem

-0cus -

?red.

Dist. -

X

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other

6.

JIWS

7.

Explanation U Direct look-up with EOPs in hand. Doesn't adequately discriminate basically the applicant has to determine he is in the Primary containment flow chart and it is very easy to determine based on the conditions in the stem ans the possible answer choices that we are in the pressure leg and with torus level at 468" all roads lead clearly to the correc answer the override statement says if water level reaches 461 'I then continue at "L" which specifies the correct answer. Although, the questions provides foi some EOP assessment short of mis-reading the stem condition of 468" the distractors do not discriminate adequately. John Monro consulted and concurs.

Question replaced with LOD-3, LOK-H, plant conditions 8; EAL determination - SAT

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other

6.

7.

1.

2.

LOD Q# (F/H)

L*K (1-5)

Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job-Minutia

1. /

Back-Q= SRO u/us Explanation Focus Dist.

Link units ward WA Only Instructions

Refer to Section D of ES-401 and Appendix B for additional information regarding each of the following concepts.]

1.

2.

sccepta ble).

Enter the level of knowledge (LOK) of each question as either (F)undamental or (H)igher cognitive level.

Enter the level of difficulty (LOD) of each question using a 1 - 5 (easy - difficult) rating scale (questions in the 2 - 4 range are I 7.

At a minimum, explain any U ratings (e.g., how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met).

NUREG-1 021, Draft Revision 9

WA 7--r J B r i i 2 8 ~ 4 WA 2a.1.12 2.1-Oyster Creek KA I

OC Retake 2004 I lOC Initial Exam I OC Initial Exam 201 002G421 201 003K405 2.2 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3 2.3.10 2.3 2.3.4 2.4 2.4.31 201 001 Al.06 201 002A2.02 202001 A4.01 202002K6.01 205000K4.01 207000K1.03 2.3.2 2.3.9 2.3.9 2.4.29 2.4.50 201 001 K6.02 201 002K4.05 201 006K4.06 202001 K3.03 202002K3.02 204000K1.01 205000A2.09 205000K1.05 21 6000A208 21 6000K201 21 7000A201 21 7000K405 219000A301 223001 K613 223002K316 223002K401 226001 A1 06 226001 A305 I

1 21 1000K3.03 212000K3.05 121 5003A2.04 215003K4.01 21 5004K5.03 21 5005K6.01 21 8000A2.06 21 9000K5.02 223002A4.03 21 5005A3.07 239002K5.02 245000K502 C:\\temp\\OysterCree kKA.xls Page 1

245000K3.08 25600062.1.28 261 OOOA4.03

\\272000A1.01 I 1286000A2.03 I 29501 5G2.4.6 295012 2.4.4 1-1295012AA2.02 1 501 8AK1.O 29501 3AK3.02 129501 9G2.1.30 I\\

1295014AA2.03 I 295021 G2.4.48 295022AK3.01 295023AA2.01 295024EA1.06 29502462.4.50 295025EA1.07 295025G2.1.28 295026EA2.01 295026G2.1.25 295024 EA2.02 295024EA2.04 Oyster Creek KA 261000A407 1295026EK3.02 I l~~~~~~~~~

1 295028 2.4.20 C:\\temp\\OysterCreekKA.xls Page 2

1295030EK2.08 I 295037EK2.10 I G.2.4.6 I

295030EK2.08 295034EK1.01 295035EK3.01 295037EK1.02 295038EK1.01 300000K4.02 400000A4.01 400000K3.01 600000 2.4.27 6000000AK3.04 Oyster Creek KA 295026K102 2 9 5 0 3 0 A2 0 4 295030K203 295031 K213 295034G430 295036K201 295036K301 295038A203 295038K102 500000K303 600000G425 C:\\temp\\OysterCreekKA.xls Page 3

OC Retake 2004 lwiil 21 5003K6.06 21 5004A1.01 21 5004A2.02 21 5004K3.02 21 5005A1.03 21 5005A3.07 12.1 2.1.12 I

2.3 2.3.4 201 002A2.02 202001 A4.01 202002K6.01 205000K4.01 207000K1.03 209001 G2.1.31 209001 K2.03 21 1 OOOA2.04 21 1000K6.03 OC Initial Exam 207000K1.01 21 1 oooK2.02 21 2000K3.05 226001 K5.06 Oyster Creek KA OC Initial Exam 201 001 A305 21 5005K305 21 7000A201 223001 K613 223002K316 223002K401 226001 A1 06 226001 A305 230000K601 233000G107 2340006225 239002A102 239002A105 245000K502 C:\\temp\\OysterCreekKA.xls Page 1

Oyster Creek KA I

1 294001 G309 294001 G310 1245000K3.08 I

1239002 2.4.6 1

1256000A213 I 239002K5.04 256000A3.06 259002A3.06 261 OOOAI.04 262001 2.1.7 262001 2.2.25 262001 A4.03 262002 2.1.30 263000A4.03 264000 2.4.48 264000K1.07 261 000K603 262001 K1.01 268000A101 271 000K102 290003K501 294001 G 1 1 4 295004AA1.03 295001 2.1.33 295001 AA2.01 295002 2.4.31 295003A1.03 295004 2.1.33 295004AA2.02 295005AK1.01 295006AA2.02 295006AK2.03 295009AA2.03 29501 2 2.4.4 295012AA2.02 29501 3AK3.02 294001 G 124 294001 G133 294001 G133 294001 G134 294001 G222 294001 G222 294001 G226 294001 G227 294001 G227 294001 G230 294001 G231 1294001 G301 I 29501 8AK1.01 295021 AA2.01 295021 G2.4.48 295022AK3.01 295023AA2.01 29501 7AK2.03 29501 8AK1.01 29501 8AK2.02 29501 9 2.2.27 29501 9K3.02 295021 2.1.22 295024EA2.02 295024EA2.04 295025EK3.06 295026 2.4.21 295026EK3.02 295028 2.4.20 294001 G311 294001 G405 294001 G418 294001 G428 294001 G434 295001 A1 02 295002K104 295025G2.1.28 1295029EK3.01 I C:\\temp\\OysterCreekKA.xis Page 2

1295030EK2.08 I 295037EK2.10 300000G2.1.23 300000K5.01 G.2.2.22 G.2.2.29 16.2.4.6 I

Oyster Creek KA 295006K101 29501 9A102 29501 9A201 295022K203 295023A102 295023641 1 295024A110 295024G 1 06 295025A206 295025K105 295026K102 295028K102 295030A204 295030K203 295031 K213 295034G430 295036K201 295036K301 295038A203 295038K102 500000K303 600000G425 C:\\tem p\\OysterCreekKA.xls Page 3

Oct. 15, 2004 J. Caruso OUTLINE COMMENTS - OC WRITTEN RETAKE Comments provided to Jesse Hackenburg, Ops Training Supervisor Please have the exam author provide an e-mail detailing the random sample method utilized in developing the outline. Also a WA rejection fbrm ES-401-4 was not included, please have him explain that there were no deletions, if this was the case. If there were deletions than please provide the form.

RO Tier 2/Group 1,215005 and RO Tier 2/Group 2,245000 seem to be very similar ensure questions dont test the same area.

SRO Tier l/Group 2,295032, area temp may not be SRO level topic - depends on the question.

SRO Tier l/Group 2,295007, entry conditions for ABN or EOPs does not appear to be and SRO level topic.

SRO Tier 2/Group 1, 21 1000, SLC inadequate system flow may not be SRO level topic

- depends on the question. Note: For TS questions cautioned against simplistic LCO calls that could be direct look-up and dont examine at the SRO level, which requires the ability to interpret integrated TS calls.

SRO Tier 2/Group 1, 212000, RPS high reactor power may not be SRO level topic -

depends on the question, SRO Tier 2/Group 1, 21 5004, SRM inop. condition may not be SRO level topic -

depends on the question.

SRO Tier 2/Group 1, 21 1000, ADSknowledge of purpose and function of major components and controls may not be SRO level topic - depends on the question.

SRO Tier 2/Group 2,201 002, Rod drift alarm may not be SRO level topic - depends on the question.

Generic Outline Tier 3, 2.3.01, 10 CRF 20, rad control requirements may not be SRO level topic - depends on the question.

Generic Outline Tier 3, 2.4.04, ability to recognize entry level EOP conditions.

September 23, 2004 2130-04-2021 8 Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1 41 5 NUREG 1021 d

P Oyster Creek Generating Station Docket No. 50-219

Subject:

Submittal of Initial Operator License Examination Outlines In accordance with NUREG 1021, Revision 9, Operating Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Oyster Creek Generating Station is submitting the initial operator license examination outlines, both RO and SRO, for review and approval. This is in support of the NRC initial license written examination retake scheduled for the week of December 6,2004.

In accordance with NUREG 1021, Revision 9, Section ES-201, we request that these materials be withheld from public disclosure until after the examinations are complete.

If any further information or assistance is needed, please contact Mr. Greg Young at 609-971 -41 96.

Herbert G. Tritt, I1 Facility Representative/Operations Support Manager Oyster Creek Generating Station HGT/DIF

Enclosures:

(Delivered only to John Caruso, Chief Examiner, NRC Region 1)

ES-201-2, Examination Outline Quality Checklist ES-201-3, Examination Security Agreement ES-401-1, BWR Examination Outline ES-401-3, Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3) cc:

R. J. Conte, Chief, Operational Safety Branch, USNRC Region I R. J. Summers, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, Oyster Creek File No. 04015

From:

egpyoung Qamergenenergy.com>

To:

cJGCQ nrc.gov>

Date:

10/15/04 4:26PM

Subject:

random sample John, per your conversation with Jesse Hackenberg today, I am forwarding to you the description of the process used to randomly select items for the written sample plan. I have attached the document explaining this process to the end of this e-mail.

Additionally, no ES-401-4 form was sent with the sample plan because no WA items were rejected during the creation of the sample plan. Up to today, we have rejected 2 WA items from the sample plan because we could not develop an adequate discriminatory test question. We will forward the ES-401-4 form when we have completed test item development and validation.

Greg (See attached file: random selection process used for second written exam.doc)

This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Exelon Corporation family of Companies.

This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank You.

Attach to ES-201-2 Random selection process used for second written exam Oyster Creek 2004 NRC ILT class 02-1 Randomly selected the KA subject area for each of the RO/SRO Tier/Group settings based on the number of questions required for that Tier/Group until the required complement was filled. [poker chip method]

Then randomly selected the WA/G category available for each of the subject areas selected above.

Then randomly selected the specific WA from those available for each of the WA/G categories selected above.

ES-401 Record of Rejected WAS Form ES-401-4 Tier I Group 111 RO

[#201 111 RO 111 RO w 4 1 t#31 1/1 RO WI 112 RO

~

7 1

2/1 RO F351 2/2 RO 212 RO

[#541

[#@I 1 12 SRO IS091 314 SRO

~

5 1

Randomly Selected KIA 600000 AK1.02 Reason for Rejection This specific area eliminated because several fire-fighting concepts were tested in the previous written exam (April 2004).

(1 ) - use 600000 AAl.09 Too close to area tested on previous written exam (April 2004)

(1) - use 295026 G 2.1.25 Unable to create appropriate discriminatory test item. This concept does not apply to Oyster Creek because a partial or complete loss of DC will not cause a reactor scram.

(1 ) - use 295004 AA1.03 Reasons for reactor power response on a scram too general and not operationally discriminatory.

(1) - use 295006 AA2.01 Unable to create appropriate discriminatory test item. This WA was eliminated because this area is over-sampled.

(2) - use 295009 AA1.02 This item was replaced because it was too close to an area already tested.

295026 G 2.1.27 295004 AK3.03 295006 AK3.02 295036 EAl.02 215004 K4.06 201 003 A2.08 245000 K3.07 295007 G2.4.4 G2.4.4 (1) - use 21 5004 Al.01 Eliminated due to over-sampling of this area.

(2) - use 201 001 Al.06 The loss of the main turbine and it effect on RPS too close to an area already tested on this exam (1) - use 245000 K3.08 This item eliminated because entry conditions to EOPs and abnormal procedures have been over-sampled on this and the previous written exam (April 2004).

(2) - use 29501 5 G2.4.6 This item eliminated because entry conditions to EOPs and abnormal procedures have been over-sampled on this and the previous written exam (April 2004).

(1) - use G2.4.16 After NRC comment resolution (1 2-03-2004) 311 During review with the NRC, it was determined that the WA area and the RO system involved in the developed question were over-sampled.

[e81 (I) - use G2.1.23 111 During review with the NRC, it was determined that an SRO only level SRO question could not be developed for the selected WA.

1~051 (1) - use 295021 G2.1.7 314 This item eliminated because entry conditions to EOPs and abnormal SRO procedures have been over-sampled on this and the previous written w 5 1 exam (April 2004).

(1) - use G2.4.41 G2.1.31 295021 AA2.01 G2.4.16

(1) - Randomly selected another WA area from those remaining in this topic area; then randomly selected from item in that area.

(2) - Randomly selected another WA from those remaining in the tier/group, then randomly selected from item in that area ES-401, Page 27 of 33

ES-401 BWR Examination Outline FORM ES-401-1 RO WA Category Points Tier Group K K K K K K A A A A G Total 1

2 3

4 5

6 1

2 3

4

1.

1 4

3 4

3 3

3 20 Emergency &

Plant Abnormal 2

1 1 2 N/A 1

1 N/A 1

7 Evolutions Tier Totals 5 4 6 4

4 4

27 1

3 1

4 3

2 2

2 2

3 2

2 26 Plant 2

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

1 1

1 12

2.

SRO-Only Points A2 G*

Total 4

3 7

1 2

3 5

5 10 3

2 5

1 2

3 1

2 3

4 10 7

2 2

1 2

3. Generic Knowledge and Abilities Categories lote: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.*

8.

9.

Ensure that at least two topics from every applicable WA category are sampled within each tier of the RO and SRO-only outlines (i.e., except for one category in Tier 3 of the SRO-only outline, the Tier Totals in each WA category shall not be less than two).

The point total for each group and tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the table. Thl final point total for each group and tier may deviate by *l from that specified in the table based on NRC revisions. The final RO exam must total 75 points and the SRO-only exam must total 25 points.

Systems/evolutions within each group are identified on the associated outline; systems or evolutions the do not apply at the facility should be deleted and justified; operationally important, site-specific systems that are not included on the outline should be added. Refer to ES-401, Attachment 2, for guidance regarding the elimination of inappropriate WA statements.

Select topics from as many systems and evolutions as possible; sample every system or evolution in tht group before selecting a second topic for any system or evolution.

Absent a plant-specific priority, only those WAS having an importance rating (IR) of 2.5 or higher shall bi selected. Use the RO and SRO ratings for the RO and SRO-only portions, respectively.

Select SRO topics for Tiers 1 and 2 from the shaded systems and WA categories.

The generic (G) WAS in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the WA Catalog, but the topic:

must be relevant to the applicable evolution or system.

On the following pages, enter the WA numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics importance ratings (IRs) for the applicable license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and-a&gory. Entei the group and tier totals for each category in the table above. Use duplicate pages for RO and SRO-onl!

exams.

For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the WA catalog, and enter the WA numbers, descriptions, IRs and point totals (#) on Form ES-401-3.

Limit SRO selections to WAS that are linked to 10 CFR 55.43.

16 of 33

ES-401 2

Form ES-401-1 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1

ES-401 3

FormES-401-1 IIES-401 BWR Examination Outline

~

Form ES-401-Temperature increases 295022 Loss of CRD Pumps / 1 Reactor SCRAM 18 of 33

Es-ani A

Form ES-401-1 I/ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-19 of 33

ES-401-1 5

Form ES-401-1 20 of 33

ES-401 2

Form ES-401-1 ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-II Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier l/Group 1 (SRO) 295006 SCRAM / 1 Reactor water level 295016 Control Room Abandonment / 7 9501 9 Partial or Total Loss of Inst. Air / 8 indications and to determine that they are correctly 295024 High Drywell Pressure / 5 95025 High Reactor Pressure / 3 295030 Low Suppression Pool Wtr Lvl / 5 295031 Reactor Low Water Level / 2 037 SCRAM Condition Present and Power ove APRM Downscale or Unknown / 1 600000 Plant Fire On Site / 8 IR 0

3.7 1

0 0

4.2 1

0 0

3.9 1

3.6 1

0 3.3 1

3.3 1

4.2 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 17 of 33

ES-401 3

Form ES-401-1 BWR Examination Outline Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier VGroup 2 (SRO)

Form ES-401-18 of 33

ES-401 a

Form ES-401-1 ES-401 E/APE # / Name / Safety Function 03000 RHWLPCI: Injection 205000 Shutdown Cooling Mode 06000 HPCl SUPPRESSED 207000 Isolation (Emergency)

II Condenser I I lto9oo1 LPCS I I 09002 HPCS SUPPRESSED 21 1000 SLC 212000 RPS 215003 IRM 215004 Source Range Monitor 215005 APRM / LPRM 217000 RClC SUPPRESSED 218000 ADS 223002 PCIS/Nuclear Steam Supply Shutoff 239002 SRVs 259002 Reactor Water Level Control 261 000 SGTS 62001 AC Electrical Distribution I I 263000 DC Electrical Distribution II 300000 Instrument Air 400000 Component Cooling Water IIWA Category Totals:

BWR Examination Outline Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 1 (SRO)

Form ES-401-19 of 33

20 of 33

ES-401 Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3)

Form ES-401-3 26 of 33