ML111540055

Initial Exam 2011-301 Final Administrative Documents

ML111540055
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/18/2011
From:	NRC/RGN-II
To:	Florida Power & Light Co
References
50-335/11-301, 50-389/11-301
Download: ML111540055 (116)

Text

ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1 Facility: St. Lucie 201 1-301 Date of Examination: 2/21/2011 NRC Examinations Developed by:

Written / Operating Test Written / Operating Test T Chief Task Description (Reference) Examiners Initials

-180 1. Examination administration date confirmed (C.l.a; C.2.a and b) 05/14/2010

-120 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.e) 09/15/2011

-120 3. Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c) 09/15/2011

-120 4. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.d) 09/15/20 11

[-90] [5. Reference material due (C. 1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 2)] 01/05/201 1

{-75} 6. Integrated examination outline(s) due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-201-3, ES 301-1, ES-301-2, ES-30l-5, ES-D-ls, ES-401-1/2, ES-401-3, and ES-401-4, as 12/13/2010 applicable (C.1.e and f; C.3.d)

{-70} {7. Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility 12/20/2010 licensee (C.2.h; C.3.e)}

{ -45 } 8. Proposed examinations (including written, walk-through JPMs, and scenarios, as applicable), supporting documentation (including Forms ES-301-3, ES-301-4, 01/03/2011 ES-301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-401-6), and reference materials due (C.1.e, f, g and h;C.3.d)

-30 9. Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398s) due (C.1.l; C.2.g; ES-202) 01/14/2011

-14 10. Final license applications due and Form ES-201-4 prepared (C.1.1; C.2.i; ES-202) 2/7/2011

-14 11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review 2/7/20 11 (C.2.h; C.3.f)

-14 12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.l.j; C.2.f and h; C.3.g) 2/7/2011

-7 13. Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor 2/14/2011 (C.2.i; C.3.h)

-7 14. Final applications reviewed; 1 or 2 (if >10) applications audited to confirm qualifications I eligibility; and examination approval and waiver letters sent 2/14/2011 (C.2.i;_Attachment_4;_ES-202,_C.2.e;_ES-204)

-7 15. Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee 2/14/2011 (C.3.k)

-7 16. Approved scenarios, job performance measures, and questions distributed to 2/14/2011 NRC examiners (C.3.i)

• Target dates are generally based on facility-prepared examinations and are keyed to the examination date identified in the corporate notification letter. They are for planning purposes and may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the facility licensee.

[Applies only] {Does not apply) to examinations prepared by the NRC.

2 Oc6 11&e,/

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility: Dateof Examination:

2-2/ /v Initials Item Task Description

1. a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401.

R b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with I Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all K/A 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 K/A statements are appropriate.

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. -

M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number u and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using A at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated T from the applicants audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days.

C) 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 0.

A,

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-plart tasks W distributed among the safety functions as specified on the form I (2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the form 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 (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:

(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

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. ,14

4. a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the appropriate exam sections. A. itt_, -

b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

N c. Ensure that K/A importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5.

d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections.

4 -

A e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage. AL

f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO). 4i .

,,,Printed Na eIS ure e a Author 2

b. Facility Reviewer(*) 7auf-) cie,,yj

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) Id Ae& / p

d. NRC Supervisor )OL1AY&)[1)LMJ )

Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines ES-201, Page 26 of 28

ES-20t Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility:

ST L v/ E Date of Examination: 3 C

1 9Q >1 ).F//

Initials Item Task Description

1. a, Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401.

R b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with T

I Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all K/A categories are appropriately sampled. 7(

/4 T c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.

d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected K/A statements are appropriate.

_ 4

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.

ri b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number u and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew corn position and rotation schedule L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using A at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated T from the applicants audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days.

c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative and quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301-4 and described in Appendix D.

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 I (2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the form T (3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants audit test(s)

(4) the ni.miber of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minlmixns specified on the form (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:

(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

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. a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered j

in the appropriate exam sections. (1 6df

b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

c. Ensure that K/A importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5. 11  ?

R d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections.

L e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.

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

a. Author ThC,4/1t

b. Facility Reviewer (*) A1/5

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) (eb L1G /_

d. NRC Supervisor .fJe(Ki7uifiDAAA4JAl /

/7 Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items In Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines

Forida Power & Light Company, 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957 April 15, 2011 PPL 10 CFR 55.5 10 CFR 55.40 Mr. Malcolm Widmann L-201 1-132 Attn. Mr. Gerard Laska U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 RE: St. Lucie Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 Post NRC Written Examination Facility Activities 050000335/2011301 & 05000389/2011301 Facility License Nos. DPR-67 and NFP-16 In accordance with Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, NUREG-1 021 Revision 9, Supplement 1, ES-403 and ES-501, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) submitted HLC-20 NRC post examination facility activities via FPL letter L-2011-114 dated March 24, 2011. Letterstated that ES-201-3, Examination Security Agreement, would be sent under separate cover.

Enclosed for your review is ES-201-3, Examination Security Agreement.

Questions or comments should be directed to Terry Benton at (772) 539-2597, or Dave Lanyi at (772) 532-0106.

Very truly yours, 7LQ ci.

Richard L. Anderson Site Vice President St. Lucie Plant RLAtlt Enclosure APR 1 9 an FPL Group company

- Enciosur&

L-201 1-132 ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3 (46 pages)

/e/

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 2 Z1 // 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 licensees 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, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of-l/f . 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SjNATURE(1) DATE SlGTURE(3 DATE NOTE

.24,e,v 1 - -/d 77 2.$ L?w OI4V i44ew/,( 4j 741t6 fl)c2,& cTc -kpw,/j( -/v/,

4.Trr #-1,, ?S 4g-, 4- //

13p,9_4 *L44A.JA. Ea2w vho i / £h/J(

6./2* .A/aex f* c12d 3 \ ?I2Ih/

7. )Q4lJCC) Lc 4y.

3 - _c4) / ..

I 4 tW_

8. /21A/ ke*,y fi7 /L/ 1 ., i

_/2/i

9. ,3e( 4L/v,i 1-1/ 4 4 t ,

11. Ako

12. Chrisi, Mcko1c 0,

Vlvd c.tovi

9. 4 13..S/ep/en £ 5;).WJO.

C 4 b I?v) htrP,j iCfZff ..& Ld

,2/tA17ij.O  ;;; /o,i7 7:4/,L fr.i/L/1 3///-

NOTES:

• ena/ rQsfO4 a ES-201, Page 27 of 28

ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3

1. Pre-Examination acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of 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 licensees 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 knowlege, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of/4

-Ø-4 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE

1. k R/ 7S /4d /o42//o M%

4 4 4-t1 2Mg, r+ rcA-tof AiKvl. So / )iac 1i9 /0/ /w -14cJtit-- S1/f

5. £e

6. ,? %3- ,- /O fi(L1r 4

y /o

/

Z J- r

/

) - // /

s 0

. i-a Jo1 5fr

10. rr/-J I-/j 1/ i, 0 --- _

12.C (ck -,

13. j)f1JS11(

14. Jt/ fAJ 0

15. j RiLiR 1AdVT s /// ,to -- iJ //i NOTES:

c /tL c

. _4/L .L(

ES-201, Page 27 of 28

3 ES-201 Examination Security Aqreement Form ES-201-3

i. pre-Exámlnatiori of as of the date I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) to any who have not been authorized by the of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations persons or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, authorized by the NRC these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and not select the training content or provide direct or indirect (e.g.. acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and feedback). Furthermore, 1 am aware of the physical security against me or understand that violation of the onditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations andlor an enforcement action examination security the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that may have been compromised .

2. Post-Examination administered To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations not during the week(s) ofZ-ZtI /. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did instruct, evaluate, or provide 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 SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DAtE NOTE

1. &,1/ D -

2. 74/Aj /? 4 3.aN,;s & 12tZRCLi C&oL PEi2A*tiZ - LZf

4. r-- j gcf I r ccS,CJ1 5f(AN WYL.I Pvw -XAA .4TH9/f >1 --(c

6. Lc)arre, i4er PJG $tr4fcr L -. Ntho 7, L Lti - L2 ,-j;

8. {tO Prystt ,

rLfr1w H

9. S/2O 1

10. f.J*4A

• l 1. RQes

12. J /, ,

13. rd v1; jLT .5pYV/eV 1/s/I) W&*..-3

14. OP;4s Lkc-r $rcoc f

-i(

,J v

2 15.J14b,n, Si NOTES:

/Z1.4/ /2?

ES-201, Page 27 of 28

gfE_

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 2 1/ 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 licensees 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, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 22., -f, 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE 1.

2. tJS,7yJ t

izJo

-r&4MI/

&,r?(pJ M4t4E&

4 -

_i/-#

içli/t

3. NpS L MLL5

4. -j-,*, i?

5. dudAYL /de7UY RAcpa (AiTS; (p1lDC mqCtd? / Gf(

OfEIl4*R -

r:

l7O Wi, QJJ 1

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11..

12.

13..

14.

NOTES: 5;f) cA Ccipy -t4?i J.i C

,tJ 7

ES-201, Page 27 of 28

I9 2 P

7;/i/-

ES-201 .,,,--z-. Exan-iinatton SecurtyAreement Form ES-2014 i: Pie-Examination I ac nowledge that I have acquirei-J speciakzed knov4edg e about the NRC IicensiRg ex innlions scitedured for the M?et(s) of_- as of the date

, 3.... 5D  :.*.:: ra flY ,fnr jvj i flrf .psr aLthried Icy the NRC chief examiner, understand that I am net to instruet, evaluate or provide performance faedbackb Lbr applicants scheduled to be administered these rising examiRatioris from this date unit completion of exernThation adrninisra1ien, ev cept as speciicalIy noted below and authorized by the NRC ac!jr., as a slrntatcr rOiii ipmtor nr co nmunicato r is acceptable if the Individua does riot select the trairring content or provkle direct o indirect Ieedbacki. Fuitheimore, am aware oT ifle prys:cei security rreacores ari cuiri- ociIr ei e facilty icer.sess prcccdurcs and undenrTh vh,lton of the conditions of this anreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and,nran enforcement action against me or ri ;i icc: cpc1 tr ty a e e

• inraiio or sti uestions that exami anon securiw may have bean carapremised. -

-Fost-Examination To the best of my knowiedje, I did not divulge to any imauthored persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 4

• From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provIde perfomianee feedbact< to those applicants who were adniinisieied these licensing examinatc,ns, except as apacilicatly noted below and authorized by the NRC.

FRINrED NAME .1DB TiTLE I RESPONSILlTY SIGNA11JRE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE ijm

2. TI--DJSiZYJ 17?4 IA) /N M1&C 12 1

1 4 /ft 3.Lv[ & P11a5 iC iiL oPI4*dk zit f,,

4. 1? A,rr-r sran

5. .

6.

7-B-

9.

10.,

i-f.

12.

1 3.

14.

15. _______

NOTES:

0 7) d if lYL :: c/g/y /b14C1I tl<

• )3t , t4ç

l9e 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/// 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 licensees 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 knowldg, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2f2( . From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaTuate, or provide 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 SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE iq ordl.

2.

3. !Ici Lh 4c4

4. A - . .

X\t o Lcz. c i. ,-

.;1J

5. . - r//ALww

6. kWJ vr 1uJii

7. i Z./i Iii

8. *6- 2- /L..z 9Z., /11 ,,I.4411 p77 1oiAe \_ta\e r)Q sS

-l1__---

r .2-IlI 1

JA

11. i6Af/ -

12. ri& LElkS ciS I fl4.s -

---

b-.

13./tTiO,2L) 6Hr/Y Af,cr,rr /jiq ,zyl/I

14. &I#IKYL&( C-n. IA)S7/14A,r - - /G,A(7 i -

r

15. &Ajjs 7 /(!+/-(.f 1 çp,i t4.L .

1/

/1 i 311 .

NOTES:

• 1

/77-2 ES-201, Page 27 of 28

7cp ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3

1. Pre-Examlriation of/// as of the date I acowledge that I have acquired speciazed knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) by the persons who have not been authorized of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or the NRC these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable lam aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and feedback). Furthermore, understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security the facility licensee. I wilt immediately may have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination dg I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered To the best of my knowI 9

during the week(s) of 2/21//i . 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specitically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILiTY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE PRINTED NAME i?kf

/\f/

)? I ,5*7Y7

2. 0 ,6/k3 /Ly:& .

3. /,fc- Le- -

4.

-cz . juir m -r -

5. ;1) fkp/L. b44V4. 2 -___________

6

(-A* - -,. -

t ,

11.

12.

14.

NOTES; 5,ç? off frfaci0J C2 5 (e/l7 4 4 t.iA/

Ccy Mc I ,c//

kz, ES-201, Page 27 of 28

4e Saf 2 ES-201 Examination Security Aqreement 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 2 -/ai //, 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 licensees 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 knowledg

, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered 9

during the week(s) of .L/2I/ . 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1 DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE

1. RQii FS. t 0 Ovv/L /jP 1 - //i

2. 14ov i\J O rs/5 s4ojzT?tV1 -

L(JI y jz111 7

1 1 cs-

3. es /7ANA/ J1 z/2// 3f3fi

4. ?Oy Spi//iia..i oPs

5. ,1R4s frhe QP Or °siPce1,j -

6. 4%t R4c% E4 V$Icq77 .j -

7. elJfr)I (Ai. 4,A/

4 V,1

8. fi,J/I yti c/ -

9. (Si jj.-,jJ (._i ,}(... i.. 31i/ii -l 311)/jj

10. LtV 4.I(1 EAr

£Yj&-.

JT 11.tJO,77ftV 4 77 v

1 %J /?//i 3,1/7/I,

12. i-w. izI 37l ri----

13.

14.

15.

NOTES: e

- ,fA/-

ES-201, Page 27 of 28

Aber My Bentori, Terry From: Abernethy, J.G.Jeff Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:19 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED abernethy From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.Gieff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Jeff Abe rnethy 1

/

Rich, Lawrence B e,-,1iek From: Bernier, Wade Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 9:11 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:15 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post- Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 . 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Wade Bernier 1

Benton Terry From: Bishop, Brad Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 6:23 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Brad Bishop From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

1

ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-20i-3 1, Pre-Exami nation f/2// as of the date I acknowledge that 1 have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of my signature. 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 ss documented in the facility lice nsees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations andlor 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, I did not divulge to any unauthorized perscjis any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of From the date that I entered into this sedurity agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who weje administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLEJ RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE mi c5J(

2. Se.N?2 /Ly( AP/ ,&J/ii

& /)1ci k- RP n-?-ct- n 4 z

7 /& ---- -_.2kL

4. [fr .

5. *

---

(j >,4-

5. kjWAJ Mj44jA, - V -

7. c-.2 ,e.vz.ra

8. 7ó ,.d 9.7R /Ji PZV / j ,//! /1- /T

10. ik& r- 2 -ilJ -

11. t 6A u nC/r .}Pi4. JA7, 2/-U ./9/ 7)

12. is I& -

l341fl77r) fir..t /s/c4i LJ7 ijtjjJ 7 ,

&WcC,g /n4 /c7sT67/ 3/3//i

15. /oci )P / / >t,L 2J).!/i) fL 1.3J

£ NOTES:

ES-ZOl, Page 27 of 28

Rich, Lawrence From: Bonilla, Francisco Sent: Sunday, March 20, 201111:42 AM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spillman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.LLarry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.Miohn; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Francisco R Bonilla 1

/

V Rich, Lawrence -

From: Brayer, K.Keith Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 3:47 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Keith P. Brayer From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

1

V Coo 1<

Rich, Lawrence From: Cook, G E Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 7:27 AM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Does this mean I can remove the NRC Exam Security badge?

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spillman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

G. Cook 1

6a Kd7 Bert-ton, Terry From: Gardinski, RLRon Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:44 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Ron Gardinski 1

Benton, Terry From: Nicholas, Christy Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:40 AM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

FW: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED From: Guist, J.R.Jim Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:23 PM To: Nicholas, Christy

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.RJim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

James R. Guist 1

Rich, Lawrence From: Hessling, Joseph Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:30 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spillman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, GGeorge; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Joe Hessling 1

N;/yer Dennis, Fred From: Dennis, Fred Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 7:25 AM To: Dennis, Fred

Subject:

FW: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED From: Hilyer, Keith Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 8:22 PM To: Nicholas, Christy; Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED

Terry, I was out of town due to a death in the family.

v/r Keith From: Nicholas, Christy Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:21 PM To: Benton, Terry; Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED your name on the bottom.

From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Keith H. Hilyer 1

/7/0140-?

Rich, Lawrence From: Horton, Todd Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:40 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

Re: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

agree, Todd Horton From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:15 PM To: Spillman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, LLLarry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.STom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

1

Rich, Lawrence From: Kilian, Reese Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 9:18 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Reese Kilian 1

Rich, Lawrence From: Kirchbaum, Kevin Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:15 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Kevin Kirchbaum From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spillman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

1

V 1< )Q(JCIk Rich, Lawrence From: Klauck, J.M.John Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:58 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

John Klauck 1

Rich, Lawrence From: Lingle, Ronnie Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:17 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Ronnie Lingle From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pills, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G F; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

1

Rich, Lawrence Lv k/s From: Loudakis, G.George Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 7:53 AM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

George Loudakis From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, LL.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.LRon; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

1

Be-ntonrTerry From: Mohn, Steve Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 201 1 4:54 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Stephen E. Mohn From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.GJeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

1

iY crAal4Y Bexiton, Terry -

From: Nicholas, Christy Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:36 AM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Christy J Nicholas 1

Pern enyz Rich, Lawrence From: Pennenga, Ronald Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:18 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

Re: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Sent from my iPhone On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Rich, Lawrence <LAWRENCE.RICH@fpl.com> wrote:

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Ron Pennenga 1

Rich, Lawrence Ph,11; From: Phillips, D A Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 4:05 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spillman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Dennis Allan Phillips 1

/

Rich, Lawrence From: Pike, Charlie Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:15 PM To: Benton, Terry; Rich, Lawrence Cc: Hessling, Joseph

Subject:

Post-Examination

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Charlie Pike 1

Rich, Lawrence From: Pitts, Drayton Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:10AM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.LLarry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2121. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

R. D. Pitts 1

Rich, Lawrence From: Pollak, Frederick Sent: Friday, March 18, 201112:34 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitis, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2 Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

1

Pci Dennis, Fred From: Benton, Terry Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:10 PM To: Dennis, Fred

Subject:

FW: St Lucie Security Agreement Fred, Another one done. We should now have all non-PSL people signed off.

Thx, Terry From: Warren.Potter@aps.com [1]

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 1:57 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: St Lucie Security Agreement Terry From: Benton, Terry [2]

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 6:59 AM To: Potter, Warren A Cc: Wylie, Sean P

Subject:

FW: St Lucie Security Agreement

Warren, Will you please sign off the PSL exam security agreement by placing your name under the statement below signifying that you maintained the exam security requirements. Thank you very muchl Terry

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21/11 thru 3/17/11. 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

I have complied with the statement above.

Warren A. Potter From: Farnsworth, P.F.PauI Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:46 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

FW: St Lucie Security Agreement 1

From: Sean.Wylie@aps.com [mailto:Sean .Wylie@aps.comj Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 t225 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.PauI

Subject:

RE: St Lucie Security Agreement Paul, I have received another email from Terry for Warren and I to sign and scan the document and then send it back to you. I will do both. Here is the response to your email I, Sean Wylie (3/22/2011), To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21/11 thru 3/1 7/11. 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Sean Wylie Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Operations Training (623)393-5354 sean.wylie@aps.com From: Farnsworth, P. F.Paul [mailto: P. F. Paul.Farnsworth@fpl.com]

Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:00 AM To: Wylie, Sean P

Subject:

St Lucie Security Agreement Sean, again Im really sorry about calling you so early Friday. I totally forgot about the time difference. If you could type in your name and date then reply this message back to me, I would appreciate it. Thanks again for all your help. After the Japan event, I wonder if our careers are over. Keep in touch. pf

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21/11 thru 3/17/11. 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

NOTICE This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission.

2

Prc e Dennis, Fred From: Dennis, Fred Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 20111:43 PM To: Dennis, Fred

Subject:

FW: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED From: Price, Clyde Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:29 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Clyde Price 1

Ja5fH/$

Dennis, Fred From: Benton, Terry Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:09 AM To: Dennis, Fred

Subject:

FW: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Another one!

From: Rasmus, Paul Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 8:59 AM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED

Terry, I was out of town and just returned. Sorry for the delay.

V/R, Paul From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Paul Rasmus 1

3 IlL Examination Security Agreement Form S.2Ol-3 Es-201 cJ I i Pre.EmiriaLion 0

schedued far the v.ek(s) of_ as of the date I acknov(edge that have acquired speciarczed knowledge about the NRC licensing e ninafions Thg! o?u!g any 7 r,n ui hse ea ticns to any persans vo hare not been authcrtzed by the fy sratc. a;c tz performance feedback to those applicartte scheduled to be administered NRC chief examinec undeatand that I am netto instruct, evaluate: or provide from this date until completion of examination adrninistraiio n. except as spedfically noted below and authorized by the NRC these Licensing eamlr.ations i4ator bootJ operator or communitor is aceeptablo lithe Individual does not selectthe training content or provide direct c indirect (e.g. acting as a d.:cumsoied in ie fac4ttty I[canaao procadurest and feedbacki. Furthermore, 1 am aware o the phys:cet security rneastres and equ rensni violation of the conditions of this acaeement may resuit ir cancellation of the exarninaUons andfor an enforcement action against me or rsnd rW in cltor. or suoaasiions Ihat exa ination secunw ll fc cdll!y r may have teen cornpromiscct.

2. *Fosn informalion concerning [he NRC licensing examinations administered To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any during the weeicts) cf . From [he dale that I entered into this securIty agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not peflomarce feedback to those applicants who were administered these lico ng examinations, excsp as ape ficcity noted instmct, evaluate, er provide belewand authorized by the NRC.

SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE FIOTE PRINTED NAME JOTlTLE1 RESPONSIeILITY t2 121 /C&Z /7,T4D / t6 - - - -

l_5zr7.tDus-rLYJ 4if%)frk M& .

.a. PPa5 Rce Co?ot. otM4R jjsrer) i i1 zw 9.

1G.

it 12.

13.

14.

15.

NOTES:

yky V Rich, Lawrence From: Ryley, W.A.Skip Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 3:30 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Name typed in the bottom.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spillman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Winston A. Ryley 1

Rich, Lawrence From: Santos, Carlos Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 5:09 PM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Carlos Santos 1

5h vn-od Dennis, Fred From: Benton, Terry Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 6:44 AM To: Dennis, Fred

Subject:

FW: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Fred, one more for our list. Terry From: Sherwood, Roger Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:21 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Roger Sherwood 1

5ke tiky Benton, Terry From: Sketchley, Mark G Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:20 AM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

RE: PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Never mind this time I read your directions From: Benton, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 8:46 AM To: Price, Clyde; Bishop, Brad; Nicholas, Christy; Mohn, Steve; Sizemore, Charles; Sketchley, Mark G; Rasmus, Paul; Sherwood, Roger; Hilyer, Keith; Brown, T.S.Tom; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Guist, J.R.Jim Cc: Duston, Seth; Horton, Todd; Lingle, Ronnie

Subject:

PSL HLC-20 NRC Exam Security Agreement ACTION REQUIRED Team, please respond. The NRC must receive a signed-off security agreement OR the licenses will NOT be issued.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Mark Sketch ley 1

Spiliman, Troy From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A,Skip; Gust, J.R.Jim; Phillips, 0 A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J,G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T,S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

3/f/11 1

w ibe Rich, Lawrence From: Webber, Robert Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:39AM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spillman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.M.John; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

ROBERT WEBBER JR.

1

Rich, Lawrence From: West, Jason Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 2:28AM To: Rich, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

From: Rich, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:16 PM To: Spiliman, Troy; Pike, Charlie; Rasmus, Paul; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Guist, J.R.Jim; Phillips, D A; Bonilla, Francisco; Pollak, Frederick; Horton, Todd; Hartley, L.L.Larry; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Loudakis, G.George; West, Jason; Pennenga, Ronald; Kilian, Reese; Klauck, J.Miohn; Pitts, Drayton; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Brayer, K.Keith; Hessling, Joseph; Cook, G E; Gardinski, R.L.Ron; Webber, Robert; Bernier, Wade; Kirchbaum, Kevin; Santos, Carlos; Brown, T.S.Tom; Lingle, Ronnie Cc: Benton, Terry

Subject:

HLC-20 Exam security agreement signoff.

Please acknowledge the below statement typing your name on the bottom.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21. 2/28 and Thursday 3/17/11 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Jason West 1

W)/ / e 1

Dennis, Fred From: Benton, Terry Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:57 AM To: Dennis, Fred

Subject:

FW: St Lucie Security Agreement Another one.

From: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:46 PM To: Benton, Terry

Subject:

FW: St Lucie Security Agreement From: Sean.Wylie@aps.com [3]

Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:25 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul

Subject:

RE: St Lucie Security Agreement Paul, I have received another email from Terry for Warren and I to sign and scan the document and then send it back to you. I will do both. Here is the response to your email I, Sean Wylie (3/22/2011), To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21/11 thru 3/17/11. 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 applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Sean Wylie Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Operations Training (623)393-5354 sean.wylie@aps.com From: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul [mailto: P. F.Paul .Farnsworth©fpLcom]

Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 11:00 AM To: Wylie, Sean P

Subject:

St Lucie Security Agreement Sean, again 1m really sorry about calling you so early Friday. I totally forgot about the time difference. If you could type in your name and date then reply this message back to me, I would appreciate it. Thanks again for all your help. After the Japan event, I wonder if our careers are over. Keep in touch. pf

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 2/21/11 thru 3/17/11. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not 1

instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

NOTICE This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission.

2

ES-301 Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301 -l Facility: St. Lucie Date of Examination: 2/21/1 1 Examination Level (circle one): RO/SRO Operating Test Number: NRC Administrative Topic Type Describe activity to be performed (see Note) Code*

M,R Al Conduct of Operations Perform a Manual Calorimetric Unit 2 N,R A2 Conduct of Operations Determine time SDC entry conditions are required based on available CST level.

N,R A3 Equipment Control Develop Equipment Clearance Order for 2A HPSI Pump M,R A4 Radiation Control (SRO) Determine Exposure Limits Under Emergency Conditions A5 (RO) Determine Exposure Limits Under Normal Conditions N,SorR A6 Emergency Plan (SRO) Respond to Security Event NOTE: All items (5 total) are required for SROs. RO applicants require only 4 items unless they are retaking only the administrative topics, when all 5 are required.

• Type Codes & Criteria: (C)ontrol room, (S)imulator, or Class(R)oom (D)irect from bank ( 3 for ROs; 4 for SROs & RO retakes)

(N)ew or (M)odified from bank (> 1)

(P)revious 2 exams ( 1; randomly selected)

NUREG-1021, Revision 9

ES-301 Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-l ADMINISTRATIVE JPM

SUMMARY

Al: Conditions given on Unit 2 at 30% power. Direction given to perform a manual calorimetric.

Plant data is given on cue sheet so calculation can be performed in the classroom in a group setting.

A2: Given CST level and plant conditions determine time SDC entry conditions required.

A3: Develop ECO to replace defective shaft seals on the 2A High Pressure Safety Injection pump. Identification of applicable Technical Specifications when removing the 2A HPSI from service are also required.

A4: SRO: A LOCA has occurred with an isolable leak on the Charging pump. Given the dose rate and time to isolate the leak the SRO is to determine it an individual can perform this evolution without exceeding the Emergency Plan guidelines.

A5: RO: Radiological conditions are given to repair the refueling machine. Four individuals (two FPL and two contract personnel) are assigned to perform the repair. The individuals past exposure is given. The RO is to determine if the individuals can perform the repairs without the Site Vice Presidents approval.

A6: TIME CRITICAL. Conditions will be given that armed intruders have entered the protected area. Direction is given to implement 0-AOP-72.0l, Response to Security Events. This will lead into implementing EPIPS.

NUREG-1021, Revision 9

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Examination: 2/21/11 Exam Level (circle one): RO, SRO(l), SRO(U) Operating Test No.: HLC-20 NRC Control Room Systems@ (8 for RO; 7 for SRO-I; 2 or 3 for SRO-U, including 1 ESF)

Type Code* Safety Function System I JPM Title 5-1 Align ECCS for Hot and Cold Leg Injection (2008 NRC exam) D, EN, A, S, 3 L, P S-2 Perform Control Room Actions for Control Room M, L, 5, A 8 Inaccessibility Unit 2 (Modified 0821004)

(All)

S-3 Loss of Safety Related AC Bus Train A (2A5 480V Load N, S 6 center)

(RO only)

S-4 Verify Containment Spray Unit 2 N, 5, A, EN, L 5 (All)

S-5 Establish Alternate Charging Flowpath to RCS Through A P, D, A, S, L 2 HPSI Header Unit 2.

(All)

S-6 Start 2A1 and 2A2 RCP post LOOP N, 5, A 4p S-7 Respond to high CCW surge tank level, Unit 2 due to D, S 9 radioactive in-leakage.

C-I Respond to failure of Wide Range Nuclear Instrumentation D, C 7 Unit 1 (0821036)

In-Plant Systems@ (3 for RO; 3 for SRO-I; 3 or 2 for SRO-U)

P-I Restore Auxiliary Feedwater Flow following Steam Binding N, L, E 4s Unit 1 (All)

P-2 Local Operation of Boron Concentration Control Unit 1 R, D, E, P 1 (All)

P-3 Disconnect 1 B Instrument Inverter from service for preventive D 6 maintenance Unit 1 (0821067)

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2

@ All control room (and in-plant) systems must be different and serve different safety functions; all 5 SRO-U systems must serve different safety functions; in-plant systems and functions may overlap those tested in the control room.

Type Codes Criteria for RO / SRO-I I SRO-U (A)lternate path 4-6 / 4-6 / 2-3 (C)ontrol room (D)irectfrombank (E)mergency or abnormal in-plant i I> 1 / 1 (EN)gineered safety feature / /> I (control room system)

(L)ow-Power I Shutdown 1 I> 1 I> I (N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1(A) 2/ 2/ I (P)revious 2 exams 3 / 3 / 2 (randomly selected)

(R)CA (S)imulator JPM

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION SI- Align ECCS for Hot and Cold Leg Injection The applicant is required to align the B train for Hot and Cold leg injection. V3523 will not open and the A train will be required to be lined up for Hot and Cold Leg injection.

S2- Perform Control Room Actions for Control Room Inaccessibility Unit 2 Perform Operator actions in the Control Room prior to Control Room evacuation due to a fire.

Direction is given there is not enough time to perform SPTAs. JPM is alternate path in that one RCP cannot be stopped from its control switch. Stopping the RCP requires the 6.9KV bus to be de energized.

S3- Loss of Safety Related AC Bus Train A (2A5 480V Load center)

A loss of the 2A5 480V LC occurs. The applicant is directed to perform General Actions for loss of the bus. After the General actions are performed the applicant is to re-energize the bus by closing the applicable breakers. The JPM will be terminated when the bus is re-energized.

54- Verify Containment Spray Unit 2 Conditions will be given that require verification of Containment Spray. Numerous failures associated with Containment Spray must be identified and corrected.

55- Establish Alternate Charging Flowpath to RCS Through A HPSI Header Unit 2.

The Unit is in 2-EOP-1 5, Functional Recovery. A pipe break in the Charging header has resulted in the normal Charging flow unavailable. The applicant will use Appendix T from 2-EOP-99, Appendices, Tables and Figures, to establish a Charging flowpath using the A HPSI header. This JPM is faulted in that the 2A Charging pump trips 5 seconds after starting. Applicant should refer back to 5.C and start the 2C Charging pump and continue with the lineup.

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2 S6- Start 2A1 and 2A2 RCP post LOOP After a LOOP, when offsite power is regained, direction to start 2A1 and 2A2 RCPs will be given.

When the 2A2 RCP is started it will develop a severe oil leak which will require the pump to be tripped.

S7- Respond to CCW excessive activity, Unit 2 A CCW surge tank level high I compartment level low alarm is received. Direction is given to perform actions required by 2-AOP-14.O1, Component Cooling Water Abnormal Operations and 2-AOP 14.02,Component Cooling Water Excessive Activity. Procedure will direct the applicant to a leaking Sample Heat Exchanger that will be isolated.

Cl- Respond to Linear Range NI channel malfunction, Unit I Numerous annunciators will be given in the initial conditions. The applicant will be required to identify the failure associated with the annunciators and carry out the appropriate actions using 1 -AOP-99.O1, Loss of Technical Specification Instrumentation.

P1- Restore Auxiliary Feedwater Flow following Steam Binding Unit I The 1 B Auxiliary Feedwater Pump had indications of steam binding. Direction is given to restore AFW flow following steam binding.

P2- Local Operation of Boron Concentration Control Unit I Due to instrumentation problem in the Control Room blending of the VCT will be required locally. Off normal procedure 1-AOP-02.O1 Boron Concentration Control System Abnormal Operations will be implemented to increase VCT level.

P3- Disconnect lB Instrument Inverter from service for preventive maintenance Unit I The I B Instrument Inverter is to be removed from service for maintenance. The Instrument bus will be placed on the Maintenance Bypass Bus lAW 1-NOP-49.05B, I2OVAC Instrument Bus 1MB (Class lE)

Normal Operation.

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facility: .sr £16 / Date of Examination: 2 - / / Operating Test Number:

Initials

1. General Criteria a b c#

a. The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with sampling requirements (e.g.. 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 during this examination. A,f

c. The operating 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 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. 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

• operationally important specific performance aitena 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. 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-3D 1-4 and a copy is attached.

Printed Name I Si nature Date

a. Author 4A A-/ 23 -//

b. Facility Reviewer(*) L.a.y; (

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) (6M iJ L4(64 .

d. NRC Supervisor w(/L NOTE: The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.

1. 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: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 2/21/11 Scenario Numbers: 2 / 4 / 5 I 6 Operating Test No.: I QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials a b*

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. The scenarios consist mostly of related events. tq/Z a.

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 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. A- -

5. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics. M1

6. Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives. 4!..

7. If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary dearly so indicates.

Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints. vt Q Cues are given.

8. The simulator modeling is not altered. AY.

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.

A..

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. £Z.

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. JA4 -,.

Target Quantitative Attributes (Per ScenarIo; See Section D.5.d) Actual Attributes

1. Total malfunctions (58) 5/7/5/5 Ii1 *...

2. Malfunctions after EOP entry (12) 2/2/2/2 144.

3. Abnormal events (24) 3 / 4 /2 / 3 j 4 ,

4. Major transients (12) 1 /1 /1 /1 LiA c2

5. EOP5 entered/requiring substantive actions (12) 1 I1 /1 /1 2AA 4.

6. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (02) 0/0/0/0 CL

7. Critical tasks (23) 3/3/2/2

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facilty: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 2/21/11 Scenario Numbers: 7/8 Operating Test No.: 1 QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES lnWals a b*

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. The scenarios consist mostly of related events. 1 fl LA

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 symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew

. the expected operator actions (by shift position) LML

. 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. IAA 4 -

6. Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain p complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives. AR

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. L4/L

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 D.5 of ES-301. 1ii- Z.

11. All individual operator corn petencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 I, (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. IA? g L Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d) Actual Attributes -

1. Total malfunctions (58) 6/6 I41. (7.. -

2. Malfunctions after EOP entry (12) 1 /3 b ,-. -

3. Abnormal events (24) 413 hvI -

4. Major transients (12) 1 /2 LAL . -

5. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (12) 1 /2 2 j4 &_ -

6. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (02) 0/1 LAt.I

7. Critical tasks (23) 2/2

=

0 CJ .- CJ 0 C\J C\J 0 CJ - C\I 0 CJ 0 C\i CJ 0- CJ - CJ D

LO C) a:

- - cJ cJ . cJ c\J .- - cJ cJ c\J c\J CJ CJ CJ CJ 0 z z Co Cl) cJ 0 cJ 0 cJ 0 c\J 0 c.J 0-- - C) 0 LU E a 0 z F-0I-<-J C) U) - co C) 0.- ei C ccj 0 c U) .- It) C) 0.- C) 0 U 0 ci)

F C

ccl I-.

ci) Ca

<1-0 0

Caa:o 0

a)QQ LI) z 0

ci) 0 --

C,)

ccl cci cci C

ci) g <1-OLO ci 0) 0 0 ci) (I) 0 C)

C) Cl)

C-) 0 >

E Caa:O ci) ci) ccl

> x LU w 0 z CDc, \j CDg 0 Ca

11) 2 co co 1 ccl I 0

0 LU ci) <1-0 ci) - cci co -cx)

C,) D cci z a:

F 0 C) -O)ci)

COCO C)

CoCci coon cci C--

z 0

1-Ca <1-0 I C LI) 0 a

C) uJ CD CD a:

ci) 0 Caa:o COD 0 Co:cD C) C, H

Ca a: -, a: -, a: -, a: -) a: -, a:

W>WZH 1->-a-W><Q <CaXO c,,><0

() o () 0 0 cJ CO > C) Co Cl)

LU 0 0

<Q-fl--J0<ZF-- 0 a: aa: 0 a:

0 a:

0 a:

0 a:

LI-Ca Ca

D 0 CM CM 0 CM , CM 0 - CM CM 0 - CM CM 0 CM CM 0 - CM CM D

0 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM-

- CM - CM CM 0 z z Ct)

CM 0 ,- CM 0 CM 0 CM 0 CM 0 CM 0 (I)

LU 2 0 I 0 I < 0 CM CM CM CO 0 CC) CM 0 0 CM CM CC) CM 0 - CC) CM 0 0 z LL CO ci) U)

I LC DC z ,-

zz C Q Cl) 1)

0.

0 U)LZQ U)

Z QQ U F C) 0 0

(I) .

Cl) U) 0)

C) a) <I-0 C) - - C ci) U) 0 CM Co C-) CM Ui C))

0 E U)Z0 -

ci) ci)

Cl) x a:

LU Ui 1 ei 0 aOQ- O) 0 CM U)

C a) 1 cci C) I U

0 LU ci) 0 <1-0 Co a:

C)) D C

(ci

- - - z I 0 U)ct0 CM Oc0 COCO z crioo 0

H U) <1-0 ,- I 0

0 Ui Co ci) 0 0 U)rro Ccl)

D CM H

U)

-) -) -) -) )

W>WZH I->-OLUQ <U)X0 <U)XO <U)XO <U)XO Q<U)XO <U) 0 0 0 0 0 CrZ -aZ FZ -CCZ HCZ H(CZ 1

0 Co CO0 CM

> cICa)

C)

C)cl)D)

LC)DC() CO D F U) 0 LU 0 Cl)

LI-ct U) 65 0 ci 0 0

.COU) U)

D 0 NO N Or r C 0 N NO N N Or N N D

Ic) 0 N N-- N N N N N N N-- N N a: N 0 z 2 Cr)

(I) NO NO NO NO N 0 N 0 LU 2 0 0 z I- 0 I < .J CD N 0 CO N 0 0 CO N 0 U Cl) cC)

I

0) U)0o_

C U)

I-cC) U)

<1-0 0

u-I (DIXQ 0

0D00 O) z 0

Ci) I 0

1)) ci)

U)

C <1-0 C)

C.) U)

C) C G) N a) - -

0

-c Ci) 0 N 0 >

a)a:0 ci U)

U) a:

Lii 1 LU (I 0

m0Q_

a U) 1 Cu U) I 0

CD C LU ci) <1-0 r N Co D Cu N-li-I z

I coa:0 clDOQ aD N hjaD N z

0 I-a) <1-0 N-0 0 C)

CD ci)

C)

øa:o

-J ci:;

W>WZ1- F>-QWQ a: -) a: -, a: - a: - a: -, a: -,

C.) <cO><O 0 <cfl><Q Q

0 C) x x 0 N U) 0 0) 0 LU 0 U)

LI a:

a) 0 a:

a a:

a:

a) a a: a a:

D 0 CJ CJ 0- C 0 c\j - cJ 0 C\J C) 0 C) .- C) 0 , C) C)

D 0 t C) C) C) C) C) C) t C) C) - C) C) t C) C) z z 0

C) th

• C) 0 C) 0 C) 0 C) 0.- 0 C) 0 w

S d z I- 0 H < -J .- .- Co 0 CO C) .- C) 0) 0 I-l C,)

a)

H

0) 0o_

C C, .w a) 0 <HO 0

tU)

U)ao aQQ z

0 C,

0 H

U) U)

C, C <HO C)

C.) 1)

C) C a) U) 0

-c C) w C) Cl) 0 0 0 >

C U)cCQ ci)

E ci) Cu

> x w w 1 Cj 0

0 C a) as Cu H (13 0

C w

ci) <HO to cr Co D C

Ca I

z I U)cco z

0 I-U) <HO LI? 0 a

F-Ui a) 0 0 D

H U)

W>UJZH H>-OW O<U)X0 < U)X0 <U)X0 O<U)XO <U)X0 <U) 0 0 0 0 Z HZ HZ -Z HZ -Z 0

C) >< C) U)

Cl) w C)

Cu

<QQ-JO<ZH 0 a 0

U) 0 F

a-0 a U- U)

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Instructions:

1. Circle the applicant level and enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-1 event numbers for each event type; TS are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must service in both the at-the-controls (ATC) and balance-of-plant (BOP) positions; Instant SROs must serve in both the SRO and the ATC positions, including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunction and one major transient in the ATC position. If an instant SRO additionally serves in the BOP position, one I/C malfunction can be credited toward the two I/C malfunctions required for the ATC position.

2. Reactivity manipulations may be conducted under normal or controlled abnormal conditions (refer to Section D.5.d) but 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 1-for-i basis.

3. Whenever practical, both instrument and component malfunctions should be included; only those that require verifiable actions that provide insight to the applicants competence count toward the minimum requirements specified for the applicants license level in the right-hand columns.

NUREG 1021 Revision 9 5

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: PSL Date of Examination: 2/21/201 1 Operating Test No.: 1 APPLICANTS RO-l RO-2 SROI-1 Competencies RO BOP BOP RO BOP SRO SRO RO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 2 5 2 5 8 2 5 8 Interpret/Diagnose 3,6, 2,6, 4,8, 4,5 4,10 2-9 1-9 2,6 Events 7 8,9 9 and Conditions Comply With and 1,3, 1,2, 1,2, 3,4, 3,4, 1-9 1-9 2,5, Use Procedures (1) 5,6, 3,6, 4,7, 5,8, 5,7, 6,7, 7 8 8,9 9 8,9, 9 10 Operate Control 1,3, 3,6, 1,4, 3,4, 3,4, 2,5, Boards (2) 5,6, 8,9 7,8, 5,8, 5,7, 6,7, 7 9 9 8,9, 9 10 Communicate 2,3, 1,2, 1,2, 3,4, 3,4, 1-9 1-9 2,3, and Interact 5,6, 3,6, 4,7, 5,8, 5,7, 4,5, 7 7,8, 8,9 9 8,9, 6,7, 9 10 8,9 Demonstrate 1-9 1-9 Supervisory Ability (3)

Comply With and 2,5 1,4 Use Tech. Specs. (3) = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

Check the applicants license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate every applicable competency for every applicant.

Page 1 of6

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: PSL Date of Examination: 2/21/2011 Operating Test No.: 1 APPLICANTS RO-3 RO-4 SROI-2 Competencies RO BOP BOP RD SRO SRO RD SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 2 5 2 5 2 5 8 Interpret/Diagnose 3,6, 2,6, 4,8, 4,5 2-9 1-9 2,6 Events 7 8,9 9 and Conditions Comply With and 1,3, 1,2, 1,2, 3,4, 1-9 1-9 2,5, Use Procedures (1) 5,6, 3,6, 4,7, 5,8, 6,7, 7 8 8,99 9 Operate Control 1,3, 3,6, 1,4, 3,4, 2,5, Boards (2) 5,6, 8,9 7,8, 5,8, 6,7, 7 9 9 9 Communicate 2,3, 1,2, 1,2, 3,4, 1-9 1-9 2,3, and Interact 5,6, 3,6, 4,7, 5,8, 4,5, 7 7,8, 8,9 9 6,7, 9 8,9 Demonstrate 1-9 1-9 Supervisory Ability (3)

Comply With and 2,5 1,4 Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

Check the applicants license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate ever, applicable competency for ever, applicant.

Page 2 of 6

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: PSL Date of Examination: 2/21/201 1 Operating Test No.: 1 APPLICANTS RO-5 RO-6 SROU-1 Competencies RO BOP BOP BOP RO SRO SRO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 2 5 8 2 5 2 5 Interpret/Diagnose 3,6, 2,6, 4,10 4,8, 4,5 2-9 1-9 Events 7 8,9 9 and Conditions Comply With and 1,3, 1,2, 3,4, 1,2, 3,4, 1-9 1-9 Use Procedures (1) 5,6, 3,6, 5,7, 4,7, 5,8, 7 8 8,9, 8,9 9 10 Operate Control 1,3, 3,6, 3,4, 1,4, 3,4, Boards (2) 5,6, 8,9 5,7, 7,8, 5,8, 7 8,9, 9 9 10 Communicate 2,3, 1,2, 3,4, 1,2, 3,4, 1-9 1-9 and Interact 5,6, 3,6, 5,7, 4,7, 5,8, 7 7,8, 8,9, 8,9 9 9 10 Demonstrate 1-9 1-9 Supervisory Ability (3)

Comply With and 2,5 1,4 Use Tech. Specs. (3) = = = = = =

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

Check the applicants license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate every applicable competency for every applicant.

Page 3 of6

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: PSL Date of Examination: 2/21/201 1 Operating Test No.: 1 APPLI CANTS RO-7 RO-8 SROU-2 Competencies RO BOP BOP RO SRO SRO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 6 7 6 7 6 7 Interpret/Diagnose 3,6, 4,5, 4,8 3,6, 2-8 2-8 Events 7 7,8 7 and Conditions Comply With and 1,3, 1,2, 1,2, 1,3, 1-9 1-8 Use Procedures (1) 5,6, 4,5, 4,5, 6,7 7 7,8 7,8, 9

Operate Control 1,3, 1,2, 1,2, 1,6, Boards (2) 6,7 4,5, 4,5, 7,8 7,8 7,8, 9

Communicate 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1-9 1-8 and Interact 3,5, 3,4, 3,6, 6,7 5,7, 7 8

Demonstrate 1-9 1-8 Supervisory Ability (3)

Comply With and 2,4 2,6 Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

Check the applicants license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate every applicable competency for every applicant.

Page 4 of 6

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: PSL Date of Examination: 2/21/2011 Operating Test No.: 1 APPLICANTS RO-9 RO-lO Competencies RO BOP BOP RO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 6 7 6 7 Interpret/Diagnose 3,6, 4,5, 4,8 3,6, Events 7 7,8 7 and Conditions Comply With and 1,3, 1,2, 1,2, 1,3, Use Procedures (1) 5,6, 4,5, 4,5, 6,7 7 7,8 7,8, 9

Operate Control 1,3, 1,2, 1,2, 1,6, Boards (2) 6,7 4,5, 4,5, 7,8 7,8 7,8, 9

Communicate 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, and Interact 3,5, 3,4, 3,6, 6,7 5,7, 7 8

Demonstrate Supervisory Ability (3)

Comply With and Use Tech. Specs. (3) = = = = = = = =

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RD.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

Check the applicants license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate eveiy applicable competency for every applicant.

PageS of6

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: PSL Date of Examination: 2/21/201 1 Operating Test No.: 1 APPLICANTS RD-li RO-12 RO-13 Competencies RD BOP BOP RD BOP RD SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 6 8 6 7 7 8 Interpret/Diagnose 3,6, 4,10 4,8 3,6, 4,5, 2,6 Events 7 7 7,8 and Conditions Comply With and 1,3, 3,4, 1,2, 1,3, 1,2, 2,5, Use Procedures (1) 5,6, 5,7, 4,5, 6,7 4,5, 6,7, 7 8,9, 7,8, 7,8 9 10 9 Operate Control 1,3, 3,4, 1,2, 1,6, 1,2, 2,5, Boards (2) 6,7 5,7, 4,5, 7,8 4,5, 6,7; 8,9, 7,8, 7,8 9 10 9 Communicate 1,2, 3,4, 1,2, 1,2, 2,3, and Interact 3,5, 5,7, 3,6, 3,4, 4,5, 6,7 8,9, 7 5,7, 6,7, 10 8 8,9 Demonstrate Supervisory Ability (3)

Comply With and Use Tech. Specs. (3) = = = = = =

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RD.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

Check the applicants license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the examiners to evaluate eveiy applicable competency for eveiy applicant.

Page 6 of 6

i4L-ES-401, Rev. 9E PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2 Facility: St. Lucie 2011-301 Date of Exam: February 2011 RD K/A Category Points SRD-Only Points Tier Group KKIKKKKAAAAG A2 G* Total 1 213 4 5 6 1 2 3 4

• Total

1. 1 333 33 3 18 3 3 6 Emergency &

Abnormal Plant 2 2 1 2 N/A 2 1 N/A 1 9 2 2 4 Evolutions TierTotals 5 4 5 5 4 4 27 5 5 10 1 3332223223 328 3 2 5 2.

Plant 2 11111111101 10 2 1 3 Systems TierTotals 44433343334 38 5 3 8

3. Generic Knowledge and Abilities 1 2 3 4 10 1 2 3 4 7 Categories 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 Note:1. Ensure that at least two topics from every applicable K/A category are sampled within each tier of the RD and SRD-only outlines (i.e., except for one category in Tier 3 of the SRD-only outline, the Tier Totals in each K/A category shall not be less than two).

2. The point total for each group and tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the table. The final point total for each group and tier may deviate by +/-1 from that specified in the table based on NRC revisions. The final RD exam must total 75 points and the SRO-only exam must total 25 points.

3. Systems/evolutions within each group are identified on the associated outline; systems or evolutions that 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 K/A statements.

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

e. Absent a plant-specific priority, only those K/As having an importance rating (lR) of 2.5 or higher shall be selected. Use the RD and SRD ratings for the RD and SRO-only portions, respectively.

6. Select SRD topics for Tiers 1 and 2 from the shaded systems and K/A categories.

7* The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A Catalog, but the topics must be relevant to the applicable evolution or system.

8. Dn the following pages, enter the K/A 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 category. Enter the group and tier totals for each category in the table above; if fuel handling equipment is sampled in other than Category A2 or G on the SRO only exam, enter it on the left side of Column A2 for Tier 2, Group 2. Use duplicate pages for RD and SRD-only exams.

9. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A numbers, descriptions, IRs, and point totals (#) on Form ES-401-3. Limit SRD selections to K/As that are linked to 10 CFR 55.43.

ES-401, Rev. 9 2 Form ES-401-2 ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2 Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions Tier 1/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

E/APE#/Name/SafetyFunction K K K A A G K/ATopic(s) IR 000007 (BW/E02&E10; CE/E02) Reactor Trip X 007EA2.06 Ability to determine or interpret the 4.3/4.5

- Stabilization Recovery / 1

- following as they apply to a reactor trip:

Occurrence of a reactor trip.

008AK2.02 Knowledge of the interrelations 000008 Pressurizer Vapor Space Accident / 3 X 2.7/2.7 between the Pressurizer Vapor Space Accident and the following: Sensors and detectors 008G2.4.11 Knowledge of abnormal condition 000008 Pressurizer Vapor Space Accident / 3 X 4.0/4.2 procedures.

(SRO) 009EG2.4.4 Ability to recognize abnormal 000009 Small Break LOCA / 3 X 4.5/4.7 indications for system operating parameters that are entry-level conditions for emergency and abnormal operating procedures.

000011 Large Break LOCA/3 01 5AK2.07 Knowledge of the interrelations 00001 5/17 RCP Malfunctions /4 X 2.9/2.9 between the Reactor Coolant Pump Malfunctions (Loss of RC Flow) and the following: RCP seals 022AA2.04 Ability to determine and interpret the 000022 Loss of Rx Coolant Makeup / 2 X 2.9/3.8 following as they apply to the Loss of Reactor Coolant Makeup: How long PZR level can be maintained within limits 025AK3.01 Knowledge of the reasons for the 000025 Loss of RHR System /4 X 3.1/3.4 following responses as they apply to the Loss of Residual Heat Removal System: Shift to alternate flowpath 000026 026AA1 .02 Ability to operate and I or monitor the Loss of Component Cooling Water /8 X 3.2/3.3 following as they apply to the Loss of Component Cooling Water: Loads on the CCWS in the control room 027AK2.03 Knowledge of the interrelations 000027 Pressurizer Pressure Control System X 2.6/2.8 between the Pressurizer Pressure Control Malfunction /

Malfunctions and the following: Controllers and Positioners 000029 ATWS / 1 029EK1 .05 Knowledge of the operational X implications of the following concepts as 2.8/3.2 they apply to the ATWS: definition of negative temperature coefficient as applied to large PWR coolant systems

029G2.4.18 Knowledge of the specific bases for 000029 ATWS / 1 (SRO) x EOPs 33/4/0 038EG2.4.46 Ability to verify that the alarms are 000038 Steam Gen. Tube Rupture / 3 x consistent with the plant conditions 4.2/4.2 CE/EO5EK3.3 Knowledge of the reasons for the 000040 (BW/E05; CE/E05; W/E12) Steam X 3.8/4.0 following responses as they apply to the Line Rupture - Excessive Heat Transfer / (Excess Steam Demand) Manipulation of controls required to obtain desired operating results during abnormal, and emergency situations.

040AA2.05 Ability to determine and interpret the 000040 (BW/E05; CE/E05; W/E12) Steam X 4.1/4.5 following as they apply to the Steam Line Line Rupture Excessive Heat Transfer Rupture: When ESFAS systems may be secured (SRO)

CE/EO6EK1 .3 Knowledge of the operational 000054 (CE/E06) Loss of Main Feedwater / 4 X implications of the following concepts as they 3.2/3.7 apply to the (Loss of Feedwater) Annunciators and conditions indicating signals, and remedial actions associated with the (Loss of Feedwater).

054G2.4.30 Knowledge of events related to 000054 (CE/E06) Loss of Main Feedwater / 4 X 2.7/4.1 system operation/status that must be reported (SRO) to internal organizations or external agencies, such as the State, the NRC, or the transmission system operator.

055EK3.02 Knowledge of the reasons for the 000055 Station Blackout / 6 X following responses as the apply to the Station 4.3/4.6 Blackout: Actions contained in EOP for loss of offsite and onsite power 056AA1 .07 Ability to operate and I or monitor the 000056 Loss of Off-site Power /6 X 3.2/3.2 following as they apply to the Loss of Offsite Power: Service water pump 057AA2.16 Ability to determine and interpret the 000057 Loss of Vital AC Inst. Bus / 6 (SRO) X 3.0/3.1 following as they apply to the Loss of Vital AC Instrument Bus: Normal and abnormal PZR level for various modes of plant operation 058AA1 .02 Ability to operate and / or monitor the 000058 Loss of DC Power /6 X 3.1/3.1 following as they apply to the Loss of DC Power:

Static inverter dc input breaker, frequency meter, ac output_breaker,_and_ground_fault_detector 062AA2.04 Ability to determine and interpret the 000062 Loss of Nuclear Svc Water! 4 X 2.5/2.9 following as they apply to the Loss of Nuclear Service Water: The normal values and upper limits for the temperatures of the components cooled by SWS 065AG2.1.23 Ability to perform specific system 000065 Loss of Instrument Air / 8 X 4.3/4.4 and integrated plant procedures during all modes of plant operation.

077AK1.02 Knowledge of the operational 000077 Generator Voltage and Electric Grid X implications of the following concepts as they Disturbances / 6 apply to Generator Voltage and Electric Grid Disturbances: Over-excitation

077AA2.03 Ability to determine and interpret the 000077 Generator Voltage and Electric Grid X 3.5/3.6 following as they apply to Generator Voltage and Disturbances / 6 (SRO)

Electric Grid Disturbances: Generator current outside the capability curve W/E04 LOCA Outside Containment / 3 W/E1 1 Loss of Emergency Coolant Recirc. /4 BW/E04; W/E05 Inadequate Heat Transfer -

Loss of Secondary Heat Sink /4 BEO5; Steam line rupture-Excessive Heat Transfer rA Category Totals: T[I Group Point Total: 18 rSRO K/A Category Totals: = = = = 3 3 Group Point Total: 6

ES-401, Rev. 9 3 Form ES-401-2 ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2 Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions- Tier 1/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K K K A A G K/A Topic(s) IR iig 000001 Continuous Rod Withdrawal / 1 001.AA2.04 Ability to determine and X 42/43 interpret the following as they apply to the Continuous Rod Withdrawal: Reactor power and its trend 000003 Dropped Control Rod / I 000005 Inoperable/Stuck Control Rod I 1 000024 Emergency Boration / I X 0024AG2.2.25 Knowledge of the bases in 3.2/4.2 Technical Specifications for limiting conditions for operations and safety limits.

000028 Pressurizer Level Malfunction / 2 X 028AA1 .01 Ability to operate and I or 3.8/3.9 monitor the following as they apply to the Pressurizer Level Control Malfunctions:

level reactor protection bistables 000032 Loss of Source Range NI / 7 000033 Loss of Intermediate Range NI / 7 000036 (BW/A08) Fuel Handling Accident / 8 000037 Steam Generator Tube Leak / 3 (SRO) X 037AG2.4.41 Knowledge of the 2.9/3.6 emergency action level thresholds and classifications.

000051 Loss of Condenser Vacuum / 4 X 051AK3.01 Knowledge of the reasons for the following responses as they apply to 2.8/3.1 the Loss of Condenser Vacuum: Loss of steam dump capability upon loss of condenser vacuum 000059 Accidental Liquid RadWaste Rel. / 9 X 059AG2.1 .30 Ability to locate and operate 4.4/4.0 components, including local controls.

000060 Accidental Gaseous Radwaste Rel. I 9 X O6OAK1 .04 Knowledge of the operational 2.5/3.7 implications of the following concepts as they apply to Accidental Gaseous Radwaste Release: Calculation of offsite doses due to a release from the power plant 000061 ARM System Alarms / 7 ii 000067 Plant Fire On-site / 8

I 000068 (BW/A06) Control Room Evac. I 8 000069 ON/E14) Loss of CTMT Integrity! 5 069AK3.01 Knowledge of the reasons for X 3.8/4.2 the following responses as they apply to the Loss of Containment Integrity:

Guidance contained in EOP for loss of containment integrity 069AA2.01 Ability to determine and 000069 (W/E14) Loss of CTMT Integrity / 5(SRO) x 3 interpret the following as they apply to the Loss of Containment Integrity: Loss of containment integrity 000074 (W!E06&E07) Inad. Core Cooling / 4 X 074EK1.04 Knowledge of the operational 3 7/4 1 implications of the following concepts as they apply to the Inadequate Core Cooling : Use of steam tables, including subcooled, saturated, and superheated regions 000076 High Reactor Coolant Activity! 9 W!EOl & E02 Rediagnosis & SI Termination / 3 W!El3 Steam Generator Over-pressure / 4 W/E15 Containment Flooding) 5 W!E16 High Containment Radiation / 9 BW!A01 Plant Runback / 1 (SRO)

BW/A02&A03 Loss of NNI-X/Y! 7 BW!A04 Turbine Trip! 4 BW!A04 Turbine Trip /4 (SRO)

BW!A05 Emergency Diesel Actuation I 6 BW/A07 Flooding! 8 BW!E03 Inadequate Subcooling Margin / 4 BW!E08; W!E03 LOCA Cooldown - Depress. /4 BW!E09; CE/Al 3; W!E09&E10 Natural Circ. /4 CAl 3AK2.2 Knowledge of the X 3 4/3 6 interrelations between the (Natural Circulation Operations) and the following: Facilitys heat removal systems, including primary coolant, emergency coolant, the decay heat removal systems, and relations between the proper operation of these systems to the operation of the facility.

BW/E13&E14 EOP Rules and Enclosures CE/All; WIEO8 RCS Overcooling PTS /4 CA11AAI.2Abilitytooperateand/or X 32/34 monitor the following as they apply to the (RCS Overcooling) Operating behavior characteristics of the facility

0) -

C2 c) 0)

c 0

0 oc 0

Ø 0

. >2 i)

• at, ftc .

a.

G)S° 2

E a.

w co 2 j IL C3 t

0 . 0

= D 0

>oa.c:

2 0.20 2 Z5 0

c . 5 0 cL ftn c) 0) Q_ a.

-s- c D D oc: 0 0 C C

- cJ

)<

(.1 C4 C\J 0

Q C)

,t.

C,)

0

.)

11) 0 0) > C,)

C) Ca

> 0 Ca 0

Cl) C1)O I F w

> X 0 0

> 0)0)

. a a)

< <woo 13J uJEiJ<<

0 00

ES-401, Rev. 9 4 Form ES-401-2 ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2 ant Systems- ]1er2/Grou 1(RO / SRO) =

System#/Name K K K K K K A A A A G KIATopic(s) IR #

i----

003A4.02 Ability to manually operate 003 Reactor Coolant Pump X and/or monitor in the control room: 2.9/2.9 RCP motor parameters 003G2.2.40 Ability to apply Technical 003 Reactor Coolant Pump (SRO) X 3.4/4.7 Specifications for a system.

004K3.04 Knowledge of the effect that 004 Chemical and Volume Control X a loss or malfunction of the CVCS will have on the following: RCPS 004K5.30 Knowledge of the operational 004 Chemical and Volume Control X 3.8/4.2 implications of the following concepts as they apply to the CVCS: Relationship between temperature and pressure in CVCS components during solid plant operation 005A4.01 Ability to manually operate 005 Residual Heat Removal X 3.6/3.4 and/or monitor in the control room:

Controls and indication for RHR pumps 006A1 .05 Ability to predict and/or 006 Emergency Core Cooling X 2.9/3.3 monitor changes in parameters (to prevent exceeding design limits) associated with operating the ECCS controls including:

CCW flow (establish flow to RHR heat exchanger prior to placing in service) 007G2.4.6 Knowledge of EOP 007 Pressurizer Relief/Quench Tank X 37/47 mitigation strategies 008K2.02 Knowledge of bus power 008 Component Cooling Water X 3.0/3.2 supplies to the following: CCW pump, including emergency backup 008A2.07 Ability to (a) predict the 008 Component Cooling Water (SRO) X 2.5/2.8 impacts of the following malfunctions or operations on the CCWS, and (b) 2q3 based on those predictions, use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences of those I I fzcfro malfunctions or operations:

Consequences of high or low CCW flow rate and tempera ture; the flow rate at which the CCW standby pump will start

010K6.01 Knowledgeoftheeffectofa 010 Pressurizer Pressure Control X 2 I 1 loss or malfunction of the following will have on the PZR PCS: Pressure detection systems 012A1.01 Ability to predict and/or 012 Reactor Protection X 2.9/3.4 monitor Changes in parameters (to prevent exceeding design limits) associated with operating the RPS controls including: Trip setpoint adjustment 01 2G2.4.2 Knowledge of system set 012 Reactor Protection X 4.5/4.6 points, interlocks and automatic actions associated with EOP entry conditions.

013A2.01 Ability to (a) predict the 013 Engineered Safety Features X 4.6/4.8 impacts of the following malfunctions Actuation or operations on the ESFAS; and (b) based on those predictions, use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences of those malfunctions or operations:

LOCA 013A3.02 Ability to monitor automatic 013 Engineered Safety Features X 4.1/4.2 operation of the ESFAS including:

Actuation Operation of actuated equipment 01 3G2.2.44 Ability to interpret control 013 Engineered Safety Features X 4,2/44 room indications to verify the status Actuation (SRO) and operation of a system, and understand how operator actions and directives affect plant and system conditions.

022K2.O1 Knowledge of power supplies 022 Containment Cooling X 3.0/3.1 to the following: Containment cooling fans r 1 022 Co ain ent Cooling

/(/?ojo X 022K2.02 01 Knowledge of power supplies to the following: Chillers 2.5/2.4

/

4.01.

025 Ice Condenser N/A 026A1 .03 Ability to predict and/or 026 Containment Spray X monitor changes in parameters (to prevent exceeding design limits) associated with operating the CSS controls including: Containment sump level 026AK3.02 Knowledge of the effect that 026 Containment Spray X 424.3 loss or malfunction of the CSS will have on the following: Recirculation spray system

039A2.04 Ability to (a) predict the 039 Main and Reheat Steam X impacts of the following malfunctions or operations on the MRSS; and (b) based on predictions, use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences of those malfunctions or operations: Malfunctioning steam dump 039A2.03 Ability to (a) predict the 039 Main and Reheat Steam (SRO) X impacts of the following malfunctions or operations on the MRSS; and (b) based on predictions, use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences of those malfunctions or operations: Indications and alarms for main steam and area radiation monitors (during SGTR) 059K1 .05 Knowledge of the physical 059 Main Feedwater X 3.1/3.2 connections andlor cause-effect relationships between the MFW and the following systems: RCS 061 K5.02 Knowledge of the operational 061 Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater X implications of the following concepts 3.2/3.6 as the apply to the AFW: Decay heat sources and magnitude 061A2.05 Ability to (a) predict the 061 Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater X impacts of the following malfunctions 3.1/3.4 (SRO) or operations on the AFW; and (b) based on those predictions, use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences of those malfunctions or operations: Automatic control malfunction 062K4.06 Knowledge of ac distribution 062 AC Electrical Distribution X system design feature(s)and/or 2.6/3.2 interlock(s) which provide for the following: Bus lockouts 062K4.01 Knowledge of ac distribution 062 AC Electrical Distribution X 2.9/3.3 system design feature(s)andlor interlock(s) which provide for the following: One-line diagram of 6.9kV distribution, including sources of normal and alternative power 063 DC Electrical Distribution 063K3.01 Knowledge of the effect that X 3.7/4.1 a loss or malfunction of the DC electrical system will have on the following: ED/G

064K1 .05 Knowledge of the physical 064 Emergency Diesel Generator X connections and!or cause-effect relationships between the EDIG system and the following systems: Starting Air Systems 064K6.08 Knowledge of the effect of a 064 Emergency Diesel Generator X 3.2/3.3 loss or malfunction of the following will have on the ED!G system: Fuel oil storage tanks 073A4.03 Ability to manually operate 073 Process Radiation Monitoring X 3.1/3.2 and/or monitor in the control room:

Check source for operability demonstration 076G2.2.3 (multi-unit license) Knowledge 076 Service Water X 3.8/3.9 of the design, procedural, and operational differences between units.

078K1 .05 Knowledge of the physical 078 Instrument Air X connections and/or cause-effect relationships between the lAS and the following systems: MSIV air 1 03A3.01 Ability to monitor automatic 103 Containment X 3.9/4.2 operation of the containment system, including: Containment Isolation K/ACategoryPointTotals: 3 3 3 2 2 213 2 2 3 31 GroupPointTotal:

K/A Category Point Totals: (SRO) 3 2] Group Point Total:

ES-401, Rev. 9 5 Form ES-401-2 ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2 Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 2 (RO / SRO) =

System # / Name K K K K K K A A A A G KIA Topic(s) lR #

1234561234 001 Control Rod Drive 002K1 .03 Knowledge of the physical 002 Reactor Coolant X 3.8/3.8 connections andlor cause-effect relationships between the RCS and the following systems: Borated water storage tank 011 Pressurizer Level Control 014 Rod Position Indication -

015K2.01 Knowledge of bus power 015 Nuclear Instrumentation X supplies to the following: NIS channels, components, and interconnections 016K5.01 Knowledge of the operational 016 Non-nuclear Instrumentation X 2.7/2.8 implication of the following concepts as they apply to the NNIS: Separation of control and protection circuits 016A2.02 Ability to (a) predict the 016 Non-nuclear Instrumentation X 2.9/3.2 impacts of the following malfunctions or (SRO) operations on the NNIS; and (b) based on those predictions, use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences of those malfunctions or operations: Loss of power supply 017G2.4.21 Knowledge of the 017 In-core Temperature Monitor X parameters and logic used to assess the 4.0/4.6 status of safety functions, such as reactivity control, core cooling and heat removal, reactor coolant system integrity, containment conditions, radioactivity release control, etc.

027 Containment Iodine Removal 028 Hydrogen Recombiner and Purge Control 029 Containment Purge

. 033K3.03 Knowledge of the effect that a 033 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling X loss or malfunction of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System will have on the following: Spent fuel temperature 034 Fuel Handling Equipment 034K6.02 Knowledge of the effect of a X loss or malfunction on the following will 2.6/3.3 have on the Fuel Handling System:

Radiation monitoring systems

035G2.4.47 Ability to diagnose and 035 Steam Generator (SRO) X 4.2/4.2 recognize trends in an accurate and timely manner utilizing the appropriate control room reference material.

041 Steam DumplTurbine Bypass Control 045A2.17 Ability to (a) predict the 045 Main Turbine Generator X 2.7/2.9 impacts of the following malfunctions or operation on the MTIG system; and (b) based on those predictions, use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences of those malfunctions or operations: Malfunction of electrohydraulic control 055A3.03 Ability to monitor automatic 055 Condenser Air Removal X 2.5/2.7 operation of the CARS, including:

Automatic diversion of CARS exhaust 056 Condensate 068 Liquid Radwaste 071A1.06 Ability to predict and/or 071 Waste Gas Disposal X 2.5/2.8 monitor changes in parameters(to prevent exceeding design limits) associated with Waste Gas Disposal System operating the controls including: Ventilation system 072 Area Radiation Monitoring 075K4.01 Knowledge of circulating 075 Circulating Water X 2.5/2.8 water system design feature(s) and interlock(s) which provide for the following: Heat sink 075A2.02 Ability to (a) predict the 075 Circulating Water (SRO) X impacts of the following malfunctions 2.5/2.7 or operations on the circulating water system; and (b) based on those predictions, use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences of those malfunctions or operations: Loss of circulating water pumps 079 Station Air 086 Fire Protection K/A Category Point Totals: 1 i i i i i i i i [ o[ 1 Group Point Total: 10 K/A Category PointTotals: (SRO) f 2 Group PointTotal:

Facility: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 2/2011 RO SRO-OnIy Category KIA # Topic JR Q# JR Q#

Ability to make accurate, clear, and concise verbal 2.1.17 reports. 39 4.0 Knowledge of procedures, guidelines, or limitations 2.1.37 associated with reactivity management. 43 4.6 Conduct of Ability to use procedures related to shift staffing, such Operations 2.1.5 as minimum crew complement, overtime limitations, etc. 2.9 3.9 Knowledge of refueling administrative 2 1 40

. requirements. (SRO) 2 8 39 Subtotal 3 1 Knowledge of limiting conditions for operations and 2.2.22 safety limits. 4.0 4.7 Ability to recognize system parameters that are entry-2.2.42 level conditions for Technical Specifications. 3.9 4.6 Ability to determine the expected plant

2. configuration using design and configuration Equipment Control 2.2.15 control documentation, such as drawings, line- 3.9 4.3 ups, tag-outs, etc. (SRO)

Knowledge of pre- and post-maintenance 2.2.2 1 operability requirements. (SRO) 2.9 4.1 Subtotal 2 2 Ability to control radiation releases.

2.3.11 3 8 43 Knowledge of radiological safety principles pertaining to licensed operator duties, such as containment entry 2.3.12 requirements, fuel handling responsibilities, access to 3.2 3.7 locked high-radiation areas, aligning filters, etc.

Ability to use radiation monitoring systems, such as fixed radiation monitors and alarms, portable survey 2.3.5 instruments, personnel monitoring equipment, etc.

3.

Radiation Control Knowledge of radiological safety procedures pertaining to licensed operator duties, such as response to radiation monitor alarms, containment 2.3.13 entry requirements, fuel handling responsibilities, 3.4 3.8 access to locked high-radiation areas, aligning filters, etc. (SRO)

Knowledge of radiation exposure limits under 2 4 normal or emergency conditions. (SRO) .5.

-, 2 3 7 Subtotal 3 2

4. Knowledge of procedures relating to a security event Emergency 2.4.28 (non-safeguards information). 3.2 4.1 Procedures / Plan .

Knowledge of RO tasks performed outnde the main A -, A control room during an emergency and the resultant

+..5 operational effects. .

Knowledge of EOP implementation hierarchy and coordination with other support procedures or 2.4.16 guideines such as, operating procedures, abnormal operating procedures, and severe accident management guidelines. (SRO)

Knowledge of emergency plan protective action 2.4.44 recommendations. (SRO)

Subtota Tier 3 Point Total

ES-401 Record of Rejected K/As Form ES-401-4 Tier I Randomly Selected Reason for Rejection Group KJA 2/1 022K2.02.O1 St. Lucie does not have Chillers. Changed to 022K4.02 2/2 055.A3.03 CARS does not have automatic diversion of exhaust. Changed to 056A2.04 2/1 008A2.07 CCW standby pump does not have a low flow start. Changed to 008A2.03 1/2 O6OAK1 .04 Not RO job function. Changed to 060AK1 .01 1/1 029G2.4.18 Could not write SRO only question. Changed to 029EG2.4.29 11/29/2010 1

ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 2/21/11 Exam Level: RO X SRO X Initial Item Description a b* c#

1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility. 4

2. a. NRC K/As 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 Z

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 CL program office). ,

5. Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled 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 X the examinations were developed independently; or the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or other (explain)

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New from the bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest new or modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only 0 62 / 2T question distribution(s) at right. > I

7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RD Memory C/A exam are written at the comprehension/ analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly selected K/As support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual RD / SRO question distribution(s) at right.

8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of distractors.

9. Question content conforms with specific K/A statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified.

10. Question psychometric quality and foat meet the guidelines in ES Appendix B.

11. The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with the value on the cover sheet.

Printe Name/ ignature Date

a. Author Larry Rich/ 1/4/11

b. Facility Reviewer (*) Dave Lanyi I________________________________________ 114/11 c.

d.

NRC Chief Examiner (#)

NRC Regional Supervisor C-IJAVLLLT J Letc4

/ 3/7/loll Note: The facility reviewers initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

ES-401, Rev. 9 St. Lucie 2011-301 RO Written Examination Review Worksheet Final Form ES-401 -9

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SAC U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S Instructions

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

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

2. Enter the level of difficulty (LCD) of each question using a 1 - 5 (easy difficult) rating scale (questions in the 2

- 4 range are acceptable).

3. Check the appropriate box if a psychometric flaw is identified:

• The stem lacks sufficient focus to elicit the correct answer (e.g., unclear intent, more information is needed, or too much needless information).

• The stem or distractors contain cues (i.e., clues, specific determiners, phrasing, length, etc).

• The answer choices are a collection of unrelated true/false statements.

• The distractors are not credible; single implausible distractors should be repaired, more than one is unacceptable.

• One or more distractors is (are) partially correct (e.g., if the applicant can make unstated assumptions that are not contradicted by stem).

4. Check the appropriate box if a job content error is identified:

• The question is not linked to the job requirements (i.e., the question has a valid K/A but, as written, is not operational in content).

• The question requires the recall of knowledge that is too specific for the closed reference test mode (i.e., it is not required to be known from memory).

• The question contains data with an unrealistic level of accuracy or inconsistent units (e.g., panel meter in percent with question in gallons).

• The question requires reverse logic or application compared to the job requirements.

5. Check Questions that are samjjled for conformance with the approved K/A and those that are designated SRO-only (K/A and license level mismatches are unacceptable).

6.. Based on the reviewers judgment, is the question as written (U)nsatisfactory (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactory?

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

1 F 1 X U 007EA2.06 Question appears to match the K/A.

However it is a NOT question (Backwards logic). All turbine valves being closed is never an indication of a reactor trip. Suggestion: write the question looking

2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

• Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. IPaial Job- Minutia I #1 Back- Q= SRO U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Link 1ts ward K/A Only S at a condition that should have caused a trip etc.

NEW Made changes question now SAT.

2/09/2011 SAT3/112011 2 H 2 S 008AK2.02 Question kind of matches the K/A. SAT MOD H 1 X U 009EG2.4.4 Question kind of matches K/A. .Very 3 similar to SRO # 76. So how can # 76 be SRO only? # 76 helps answer # 3. After reviewing the SRO version, I was able to answer this question without any reference. With RCS Pressure at 1580 psia, how can an answer with LTOP in effect be plausible? (B and D not plausible).

NEW Made changes (Unit 2 question) Look at final question when written. 2/09/2011 SAT3/1/201 1 H 2 X U 015AK2.07 Question appears to match the K/A. As 4 written the applicant need only know the RCS pressure that is maintained after a loss of two RCPs.

The reason is mute because it the only reason associated with the correct pressure limit. A answer does offer some competition as being plausible (and may also be correct) in many cases the SIAS setpoint is based on a loss of subcooling.

D could also be argued as correct. Need to add to the stem lAW EOP-02 to exclude this answer as being correct.

NEW Replaced question, need to reformat question and eliminate excess words. Otherwise question appears to be SAT. 2/09/2011 Band Limit. SAT3/1/201 1

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD rT (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F I Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO UIE/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link 1tsI ward K/A Only S H 2 S 022AA2.04 Question kind of matches the K/A. SAT 5 NEW (Changed to approximate) SAT3/1/2011 025AK3.O1 Question appears to match the K/A. SAl H 2 S 6 NEW H 2 u 026AA1 .02 Question appears to match the K/A.

7 What indications do you have in the control room for containment spray pump seal coolers? Unless there is indication, this is not plausible. With pressurizer

. level off scale low, and RCS pressure so low, how can letdown temperature and RCP seals be plausible distractors? Will get another examiner to review question to offer a second opinion.

Replaced question with new question SAT 2/09/2011.

SAT3/1/2011 NEW 8 H 2 S 027AK2.03 Question appears to match the K/A. SAl BANK F 2 X E 029EK1 .05 Question appears to match the K/A. This 9 is really a GFES question. Needs to state that no operator actions were taken. Major is subjective.

Would largest negative reactivity insertion be better? Will get another opinion on operational validity as far a being just a GFLS question.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LCD

• (F/H) I (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link IIJnts ward K/A Only S NEW Made changes as requested. SAT. 2/9/2011 Add and whySAT3/1/201 1 H 1 X U 038EG2.4.46 Question does not meet the K/A.

There is not a tube rupture in place. (use of the 10 word Leak typically means small amount), and would be very difficult observe on many of the parameters that you have listed. Therefore they are not plausible. Need to have a tube rupture to satisfy the K/A. Will get another opinion on K/A match.

NEW Changed the question to address concerns and asked which alarm would indicate first. Will review final question. SAT. SAT3/1/201 1 H 2 X E CEIEO5EK3.3 Question appears to match the K/A.

11 Stem needs some clarification, lAW EOP-05? Or lAW OPS-539? Both B and D will achieve the desired results, and EOP-05 directs the operator to steam the least affected SG using the ADV.

NEW Made changes as requested SAT. 2/9/2011 H 2 X E CE/EO6EK1.3 Question kind of matches the K/A.

12 Distractor C is not plausible. Need to develop another distractor.

NEW Changed distractor C to read: maintain current DC alignment and all RCPs running. SAT3/1/2011

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD r

(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Linki units ward K/A Only S 13 H 2 X E 055EK3.02 Question kind of matches the K/A. In reading the justification document for the caution prior to step 19, I am not totally in agreement that distractor D is totally correct. I believe the true reason is a little more complex, and someone could argue that there is not a correct answer. Will discuss.

NEW Changed distractors to make D totally correct, and C not correct. SAT3/1/2011 056AA1 .07 Question appears to match K/A. SAT H 2 NEW 14 15 F 1 E 058AA1 .02 Question appears to match K/A.

Distractors C and D should start out with inverter alarm, and becomes de-energized. Otherwise SAT.

Not very discriminating.

NEW Changed the question to address issues. Will look at question in final form.2191201 1 SAT3/1/201 1 16 H 2 X  ? U 062AA2.04 Question kind of matches the K/A. Do not believe that C and D are plausible. Distractor analysis is also talking about something else in D.

Does not make sense. We really are not testing the normal values and upper limits.

NEW Made changes as requested SAT. 2/09/2011 SAT3/1/201 1

2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus j Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S 17 H 2 S 065AG2.1 .23 Question appears to match the K/A.

SAT Modified 18 H 2 X E 077AK1 .02 Question kind of matches the K/A. Not sure if we are actually testing the operational implications/will have another examiner review.

Otherwise SAT.

NEW After discussion determined to be SAT.

Licensee did not like question and will attempt to write another. If the replacement question is SAT that will be acceptable. If not this question will remain. 2/9/2011 SAT3/1/2011 19 H 2 X X E OO1AA2.04 Question kind of matches the K/A.

(GFES) The distractor analysis and the lesson information provided do not agree, distractor analysis states that reactor power will stabilize at the initial reactor power and RCS temperature will increase, however the example that you provided states both power and temperature will rise. For a better match of the K/A, the trend should state that indicated reactor power will increase, then lower back to the original value, or something similar.

Assuming turbine load remains constant cues the applicant that reactor power must be the same as it initially was. We need to make some adjustments to the question.

BANK Replaced question, made several changes to new question. 2/09/2011 SAT3/1/2011

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LCD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Linkj units ward K/A Only S 20 H 2 X E 028AA1 .01 Question does not match K/A, but as discussed is written for heater protection (low level).

However, again the question is attempting to test 3 items, and the applicant need only know two of these to answer the question. Question needs to be rewritten to test only two items.

NEW Will continue to work on question. Question is backwards logic. 2/9/2011 SAT3/1/201 1 21 H 2 X U 051AK3.01 Question does not really meet the K/A, there are no reasons mentioned. Need to rewrite question to test reasons.

NEW Changed question as requested. SAT. 2/9/2011 22 F 2 X E 059AG2.1.30 Question appears to match the K/A.

Can valve 6627X be closed by failing air to the valve locally at the tank? If so B could be another correct answer.

NEW

Made changes as requested. SAT 2/9/2011

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cuesi T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S 23 F 2  ? E O6OAK1 .01 Question may meet the K/A. How much gas will be released if new fuel cladding is ruptured?

Most fuel does have some kind of gas inside, but most builds up from fission. Need to discuss this question. May need to use a spent fuel rod damaged in the pool (bubbles come up through the water and this will be seen on the monitor.

NEW Upon discussion determined the new fuel would not have a gas release. Need to rewrite question. May need a K/A Change.

Rewrote question SAT3/1/201 1 24 H 2 S 069AK3.01 Question kind of meets the K/A. SAT

, NEW 25 H 2 S 074EK1 .04 Question appears to meet the K/A.

SAT BANK 2005 Callaway.

26 H 2 S CAl 3AK2.2 Question appears to match the K/A.

SAT NEW 27 H 2 X E CAll AA1 .2 Question appears to match the K/A.

What procedure directs the operator to throttle AFW flow? There were no steps in EOP-3.O, If we ask this question there needs to be a procedure step to direct this. Did the loss of offsite power occur while performing actions of EOP-3.O? Will the operators

2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S leave this procedure for another? Need to make this clear.

NEW Changed question to be in EOP-1.0 and changed stem to separate what had happened prior to the SIAS. SAT 219/2011 28 F 2 X E 003A4.02 Question appears to match the K/A. Just from the construction of the distractors, it is apparent that the loss of air will affect the oil levels of the

RCPs. We need to balance out the distractors.

NEW Made changes as requested. SAT 2/09/2011 29 H 2 S 004K304 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW 30 H 2 X U 004K5.30 Question appears to match the K/A.

Distractors C and D do not appear to be plausible.

Most plants when shutdown do not have the pressurizer level control valve in automatic (the plant is solid). What if we put PlC 2201 in manual? T NEW Replaced question, still need to fix the second part of the stem. 219/2011 SAT3/1/201 1 31 H 2 X E 005A4.01 Question appears to match the K/A.

Distractor analysis does not appear to be correct. If the temperature control valve goes fully closed. (less or no flow through the HX RCS) temp will go up, but answer B states that amps will decrease (one valve at 100% open and one valve fully closed so flow goes from essentially 125% to 100%, if the valves pass the same amount of flow. However two of the distractors state that amps wHI essentially remain the same. Needtodiscuss.Haveyourunthisonthe

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 I Back- 0= SRO U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Link unitsi ward K/A Only S simulator?

NEW Made some changes will change that 3306 is open 25%. SAT 219/2011 SAT3/11201 1 32 H 2 S 006A1 .05 Question kind of matches the K/A. Due to system alignment the SDC HX (Cooled by CCW) provide NPSH to HPSI, and this appears to satisfy the K/A. SAT NEW 33 H 2 X E 007G2.4.6 Question appears to match the K/A. Not sure the distractor analysis matches up with the distractors. Will an SIAS have occurred on Unit 1 @

1800 psia? If not D may be a correct response unless you state the first action that would be taken in accordance with EOP-1 .0.

BANK 2008 NRC exam Need to look at making a safety valve lifting or ES throttling. Will Look at fix when complete. SAT3/1/201 1 34 F 2 5 008K2.02 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW 35 H 2 S 010K6.01 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT Bank

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LCD 1 (F/H) (1-5)

Focus I

Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back-Dist. Link units ward Q=

K/A SAC Only U/El S

Explanation 36 H 2 S 012A1.01 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT Modified 37 H 2 S 012G2.4.2 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT Modified 38 H 2 S 013A2.01 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW 39 H 1 S 013A3.02 Question appears to match the K/A. Not very discriminating. SAT NEW 40 F 2 S 022K2.01 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW 41 H 2 X 022 K4.02 Question appears to match the K/A.

Change the first part of distractor B to be Four Fans E

in Fast, this would make it more plausible.

NEW 42 H 2 X E 026A1 .03 Question appears to match the K/A. On the second part of distractors A and C change #2 to read close one spray header valve either FCV... or FCV. Unless they cannot be operated separately.

Will discuss. Throttle closed added.

NEW changed A distractor to 3 and 3.

SAT3/1/201 1

2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LCD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues Focus TIE Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back-Dist. Link units ward Q=

K/A I SRO Only U/E/

S Explanation 43 H 2 S 026AK3.02 Question appears to match the K/A. Not very discriminating, but OK. SAT NEW 44 F 2 S 039A2.04 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW 45 H 2 X U 059K1 .05 Question Kind of matches the K/A.

Distractor analysis and question do not match, distractors B and D are not plausible. Why would anyone think that only the A cold leg would be affected?

BANK 2004 PSL NRC Exam Replaced with a 2006 Bank, SAT 2/09/2011 46 F 2 X E 061 K5.02 Question appears to match the K/A. Is there a difference between Uland U2 concerning the AFW system? If so this could make other distractors more plausible. Using the TDAFW pump is not very plausible. (as noted it is usually twice what is required (no RCPs would have to be secured and is based on filling the SGs on a loss of all AC.

NEW will use an AFW flow rate with RCP pumps Running or not. Still have work to do.

SAT3/1/201 1 47 H 2 X X E 062K4.01 Question appears to match the K/A.

Again I am not sure that the distractor analysis is correct for this question. The analysis mentions a unit trip, however there is nothing in the question referring to a unit trip. From the comments provided, not sure which answer is correct. After discussion question is SAT. 2/9/201 1 NEW

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIE Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus j Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S 48 F 2 S 062K4.06 Question appears to match the K/A. Not very discriminating. SAT NEW 49 F 2 X X E 063K3.01 Question appears to match the K/A. Again I am not sure that the distractor analysis is correct for this question. Not sure which answer is the correct answer.

NEW After discussion question is SAT. 219/2011 50 F 2 X E 064K1 .05 Question appears to meet the K/A.

Because there are three air pressures that are sufficient to start the D/G, as an applicant I would discount distractor D. Some work is required to balance out the distractors. I think that we can make this question work. This question is testing three items. Need to work on two items.

NEW Make sure the alarm would be in. then SAT3/1/2011 51 F 2 S 064K6.08 Question appears to meet the K/A. SAT NEW 52 F 2 S 073A403 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW 53 F 2 S 076G2.2.3 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW

1 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LCD F I (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q SAC U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Linkj units ward K/A Only S 54 H 2 X E 078K1 .05 Question appears to match the K/A.

Usually air (or nitrogen) is the motive force to open an MSIV and keep it open, and if it is lost the valve will close, so why would D be a plausible distractor?

Need to develop a more plausible distractor for D.

NEW Will write a new question just looking at air and difference between units. 2/10/2011 SAT3/1/201 1 55 H 2 S 103A3.01 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT BANK 2004 56 H 2 S 002K1 .03 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW 57 H 2 S 015K2.01 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT NEW 58 F 2 X U 016K5.01 Question kind of matches K/A. Distractors A and B do not appear to be plausible. Is there a time when the controllers fail to manual? It does not appear that even if the transmitter fails high that the controller will transfer to manual. Need more information, or we need to adjust question to make A and B more plausible.

NEW Rewrote question concept is SAT. Will look at final question when complete. 2/9/2011 SAT3/1/2011

2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S 59 F 2 S 017G2.4.21 Question kind of matches K/A. SAT NEW 60 F* 2 X E 033K3.03 Question kind of matches K/A. Reference used to write question (revision 36B and reference sent in reference package are different (Revision 38). Distractor D is not plausible as written. It is the only distractor that states remains stable. It appears that there are two different ways to get these valves to open, 1 perform attachment J and place valves in auto, and 2 take the switch to locked close and back to open. Could be make a question out of this to improve distractor plausibility? Rewrite distractor A, remove statement from stem. (minimum).

NEW Made changes as requested. SAT3/112011 61 F 2 X E 034K6.02 Question appears to match the K/A. SAT Is this question okay with your operations rep? It would seem that stopping fuel handling until the alarm was checked out would be conservative.

Need to state lAW AP 26.02.

NEW Made changes as requested SAT 62 H 2 X E 045A2.17 Question appears to match K/A.

Distractors A and B should state: DEH will be in operator Auto, place DEH in Manual. Governor Valves will be in NEW Remove all distractor verbage after control.

Then SAT. 2/10/2011 63 F 2 S 056A2.04 Question appears to match K/A. SAT NEW

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1 -5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- 0= I SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A j Only S

64 F 2 S 071A1.06 Question appears to match K/A. SAT Modified 65 F 2 5 075K4.01 Question appears to match K/A. SAT NEW 66 F 2 X X E G2.1.17 Question appears to match K/A. Stem should state lAW OPS-522. In order to make D more plausible, you could add the portion of after the US acknowledges.. .Will Discuss.

NEW Made changes as requested. SAT 2/10/2011 67 F 2 X E G2.i .37 Question appears to match K/A. What is the flow capacity of one train of SDC? The highest flow in this question should not be greater than one train of SDC. The flows that are greater than one train of SDC flow are not plausible.

NEW Made changes as requested. SAT 2/10/2011 68 F 2 S G2.1.5 Question appears to match K/A. SAT NEW 69 F 2 X S G2.2.22 Question appears to match K/A. SAT All of the technical specification actions are not stated in the distractors. Just looking at being able to appeal the question. The complete action is to have the parameter within the limit and be in HSB within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. Can we include this?

NEW

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S 70 F 2 S G2.2.42 Question appears to match K/A. SAT NEW 71 F* 2 S G2.3.11 Question appears to match K/A. SAT BANK 2008 PSL NRC Exam 72 F 2 X E G2.3.12 Question kind of matches the K/A. Only one

of the distractors has the letdown area monitored A to make it more plausible. Also need to add lAW 1-NOP-02.02.

NEW Change distractors A and B to read charging pump cubicle, and letdown area.

73 F 2 S G2.3.5 Question kind of matches the K/A. SAT New 74 F 3 5 G2.4.28 Question appears to match K/A. SAT NEW 75 F 2 X E G2.4.34 Question appears to match K/A. Need explain how distractor D is plausible.

NEW Changed to state the charging header is aligned. SAT 2/10/2011 37 Sats, 10 Unsats, and 28 Enhancements

ES-401, Rev. 9 St. Lucie 2011-301 SRO Written Examination Review Worksheet Final Form ES-401-9

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S Instructions

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

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

2. Enter the level of difficulty (LCD) of each question using a 1 - 5 (easy difficult) rating scale (questions in the 2

- 4 range are acceptable).

3. Check the appropriate box if a psychometric flaw is identified:

• The stem lacks sufficient focus to elicit the correct answer (e.g., unclear intent, more information is needed, or too much needless information).

• The stem or distractors contain cues (i.e., clues, specific determiners, phrasing, length, etc).

• The answer choices are a collection of unrelated true/false statements.

• The distractors are not credible; single implausible distractors should be repaired, more than one is unacceptable.

• One or more distractors is (are) partially correct (e.g., if the applicant can make unstated assumptions that are not contradicted by stem).

4. Check the appropriate box if a job content error is identified:

• The question is not linked to the job requirements (i.e., the question has a valid K/A but, as written, is not operational in content).

• The question requires the recall of knowledge that is too specific for the closed reference test mode (i.e., it is not required to be known from memory).

• The question contains data with an unrealistic level of accuracy or inconsistent units (e.g., panel meter in percent with question in gallons).

• The question requires reverse logic or application compared to the job requirements.

5. Check questions that are samrjled for conformance with the approved K/A and those that are designated SRO-only (K/A and license level mismatches are unacceptable).

6. Based on the reviewers judgment, is the question as written (U)nsatisfactory (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactory?

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

Q#

1.

LOK 2.

LOD

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws II 5. Other 6. 7.

(F/H) (1 -5) Stem Cues Focus T/F Dist.

J Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back-ward SRO Only U/El S

Explanation Linki unitsi 76 H 2 X X X U 008EG2.4.11 Question kind of matches the K/A.

May not be SRO only. It appears that there is a vapor space leak (via the relief), and it refers to AOPs. Will get another opinion. Question page states that C is the proposed answer, but the distractor analysis states that A is the correct answer. I do not know which is correct, ( I believe it is C) and the procedure flow path is not apparent.

Do not believe that distractor B is plausible. (three high pressure sources of addition, and only one LPSI) Why is there a statement informing the applicant that the AOP was entered, and status checks are being performed per the ONP? Should they not know this? This question appears to be very similar to RO question # 3. Although they are at different plant conditions. Need to fix one or the

. other Mark agrees.

Made changes to the stem and several distractors.

Question now SAT. 2/9/2011 NEW 77 H 2 X E 029EG2.4.29 Question appears to match the K/A, and appears to be SRO only. The way the question is set up we are testing three separate items, and the applicant need only know two of three to get the answer correct. We need to test Alert/Site Area and time of declaration like distractors C and D. Or test

, the whether a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> report or emergency plan declaration is required. I would prefer if the choices were declaring an alert is required by time 0016 or 0023, or a site emergency is required by time 0016 or 0023.Will discuss.

NEW Changed question to resolve concerns, also changed stem to include maximum time to declare event. Consider using EPIP Chart. SAT 31212011

Q#

1.

LOK 2.

LOD

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws I 5. Other 6. 7.

(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- 0= SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward Only S H 2 X  ? E 040AA2.05 Question appears to match K/A. Not 78 sure if it is SRO only. Are these actions required by the procedure, if so we should state this in the stem Which one of the following states the required actions in accordance with EOP 5.0? Also need to have a more direct stem Which one of the following describes the actions (required by EOP-5.0 based on the above conditions). Are ROs required to know SI throttle conditions, and Containment Spray Termination Criteria? (Are these on a foldout page or something similar? Second Examiner did not believe the question was at the SRO level, After further discussion agreed the question was SRO only. Question needs to stay as is.

NEW F 1 S 054AG2.4.30 Question kind of matches the K/A.

. 79 Appears to be SRO only. Not very discriminating.

NEW

2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD I (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward Only S H 2 X U 057AA2.16 Question appears to match the K/A.

• 80 Upon further review does not appear to match K/A.

Not a Vital Bus. Appears to have an SRO aspect to it. It is not clear in the explanation whether the 120V Vital AC Bus 2B will cause any of the alarms, or instrument failures. Is there also a TIS associated with the loss of the instrument bus? If none of the alarms or instrument failures are caused by a loss of the 120V Vital AC Bus 2B then distractors A and B are not plausible. Upon discussion with staff decided the question essentially met the K/A. Need to make SRO only without a direct lookup. Will make changes to discuss basis or other items that are not direct lookup.

NEW Made Changes as requested SAT 3/2/2011 H 077AA2.03 Question appears to match the K/A.

2 Appears to have SRO only aspect. Is figure 16 the 81 only reference? If so, the question appears to be SAT. If not, we need to discuss any further references. Your distractor analysis mentioned action level 1, but this is not mentioned in the actual question.

NEW H 1 X 0024AG2.2.25 Question appears to match the K/A.

82 Question appears to have an SRO only aspect.

Would not meet the KA at the SRO level as written.

Distractors C and U do not appear to be plausible.

(Largest -aT is at always at EOL- GFES).

Recommend changing all distractor to EOL and use after xenon decay and prior to xenon decay.

Discussed between examiners, it may be SRO only if all of the distractors are EOL and we test the basis of after xenon decay or before xenon decay.

Discussed, after changes and decided question was SAT NEW

Q# LOK 2.

LOD

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws II 5. Other 6. 7.

(F/H) (1 -5) Stem Cues TIF I Cred.

Dist.

j Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back-Link junits ward Q= SRO Only U/E/

S Explanation Focus 83 H 2 X S 037AGG2.4.41 Question appears to match the K/A.

Appears to be SRO only. Are you sure that there is an non-isolable steam release? If so the question appears to be SAT. If the release can be terminated or filtered, then the question does not appear to have a correct answer. A&D and C&D subset issue.

Need to make A or C the correct answer. After discussion decided to change to Unit 2 or leave as unit 1 and place pressure in stem and ask if an upgrade is required.

NEW Made Changes as discussed SAT 3/212011 H 2 X E 069AA2.01 Question appears to match the K/A, and 84 appears to be SRO only. In Distractors C and D first half, you are providing an action. Therefore, the statement should either be yes, or no. If you desire the question to remain the same, something should be added to the stem (and why?) and another statement added after yes explaining why the answer is yes.

NEW Made changes as requested SAT 2110/2011.

H 2 X  ? E CA11AA2.1 Question appears to meet the K/A. Not 85 sure if it is SRO only. It seems like we are asking entry conditions for the procedures, and this is RO knowledge. Will have another examiner review to verify. If the cooldown is stopped, (and RCS pressure continues to rise, subcooling will still increase). So, how can to lower subcooling? Not sure if this is the correct statement. Statement from Mark. EOP-15.O is never wrong. Therefore there are two correct answers. Plan to add another event (tube leak) and use flowchart to determine what takes precedence. Will continue to work.

NEW Made Changes as requested SAT 3/212011

Q#

1.

LOK 2.

LOD

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws I 5. Other I

6. 7.

(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- SRO U/E/ Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward Only S H 2 E 003G2.2.40 Question appears to match K/A.

Appears to be SRO only. Change first part of each 86 stem to read: RCP 2A1 and 2A2 and associated SG must be operable...

NEW Another distractor other than mixing needs to be developed. 2/1 0/2011.

Made Changes as requested SAT3/2/2011 H 2 E 008A2.03 Question appears to match the K/A.

Appears to have an SRO aspect. After looking at 87 the procedures, I am not sure if we are asking the correct question. I do not have a problem with the procedure selection piece of the question, but I can see an applicant questioning the failing open of the FCV. (we are making them assume that it is not functioning properly. We need to fix this portion of the question.

NEW Continue to work on question (procedure contains actions or something similar) Still needs to be SRO only and match K/A.

Made significant changes SAT 3/2/2011 88 H 2 S 013G2.2.44 Question appears to match the K/A.

Appears to be SRO Only.

NEW

2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LCD r I (F/H) (1 -5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- SRQ U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Linki unitsj ward Only S

039A2.03 Question appears to match the K/A.

H 2 Question may have an SRO aspect. Again, we are 89 asking for three items in a question, and the applicant need only know two of three to arrive at th correct answer. What component and correct procedure to enter for example, he need not know that the TS is applicable. Need to repair question so that the SRO aspect is tested, and the applicant must use SRO knowledge to arrive at the correct answer. Second examiner did not believe the question was at the SRO level. Also agreed that the question has too many parts. Revised question as requested, also changed second part of A and D.

Question is now SAT. 2/09/201 1.

NEW 90 H 2 X U 061 A2.05 Question appears to match the K/A. Does NOT appear to be SRO only. Question states Unit 1, but the procedure included is Unit 2. Would the board operators initiate AFAS-1 using the initiation switches on the RTGB without referring to the procedure? Need to look at this one some more.

Second examiner verified, not SRO only. Will continue to work on making the question SRO only.

NEW Will add lAW TS Made Changes as requested SAT3I2/2011 91 H 2 X S 016A2.02 Not sure that the question meets the K/A.

. May have an SRO aspect. There does not appear to be a reference to a procedure (other than T.S.).

Will have another examiner review and verify.

Discussed using the T. S. as the procedure. SAT

NEW Change how many channels to actuate.

Made Changes as requested SAT 312/2011

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD i (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- j Q= SRO U/El Explanation Focusj Dist. Link units ward Only S 92 H 2 X E 035G2.4.47 Question appears to match K/A.

Appears to have an SRO aspect to it. B and C do not appear to be plausible. Why would anyone pick 0120 without knowing the starting level? Besides all readings are at 5gpd. Need to change the levels and times to make distractor more plausible.

NEW First change was not successful will combine both questions to ensure 0 is SRO only.

Made Changes as requested SAT 3/2/2011 93 F 2 S 075A2.02 Question appears to match the K/A.

Appears to be SRO only.

NEW Licensee wanted to change the question somewhat after validation. Will look at revision.

Made additional changes to ask if 0 is reportable or not reportable. Still SAT 94 F 2 S G2.1.40 Question appearsto match the K/A.

Appears to be SRO only.

NEW 95 F 1 S G2.2.15 Question appears to meet the K/A. Appears to be SRO only. Not Very Discriminating.

NEW

a 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other a 7.

,Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem ICues TIF Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO U/E/ Explanation Focusj Dist. Link units ward Only S 96 F 2 S G2.2.21 Question appears to match the K/A.

Appears to be SRO only. Would like you to change B and D to Local idle start... leaving off the external leakage check. This is more plausible. The DG is always run to return it to service. How can you do an external leakage check without running the diesel?

Otherwise SAT.

NEW 97 F 1 X U G2.3.13 Question appears to match the K/A. Does not appear to be SRO only. These actions are based on entry into what procedure? Second Examiner agreed question is not SRO Only.

Repaced question SAT. 2/09/201 1 BANK 98 F 2 E G2.3.4 Question appears to match the K/A. Appears to be SRO only. Distractors C and D not very discriminating. Could we come up with someone else to give permission?

NEW EOF fully operational, will continue to work.

Made Changes as requested SAT 3/212011 99 H 2 S G2.4.16 Question appears to match the K/A.

Appears to be SRO only. SAT NEW

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LOK LOD f (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #1 j Back- f Q= SRO U/El Explanation Focus Dist. Link unitsi ward Only S 100 H 2 S G2.4.44 Question appears to match the K/A.

Appears to be SRO only. SAT NEW 12 Sats, 5 Unsats, and 8 Enhancements

ES-403, Rev. 9 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: St. Lucie 201 1-301 Date of Exam: 03/17/2011 Exam Level: RO/SRO Initials Item Description a b c

1. Clean answer sheets copied before grading

2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented

3. Applicants scores checked for addition errors (reviewers_spot_check_>_25%_of_examinations)

4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as_applicable,_+/-4%_on_the_SRO-only)_reviewed_in_detail

5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are justified

6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions_missed_by_half_or more of_the_applicants Printed Name/Signature Date

,kN

a. Grader 5-30-Il

b. Facility Reviewer(*) 2A

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) 3/3o/, (I

d. NRC Supervisor (*) AJALCA1TWiEk4t oçØi/,,

(*) The facility reviewers signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: / /4 Date of Exam: Exam Level: RO SRO1 Initials Item Description a b c

1. Clean answer sheets copied before grading /- 13

2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and_documented

3. Applicants scores checked for addition errors (reviewers_spot_check > 25%_of examinations)

4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as applicable, +/-4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail

5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are_justified

6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions_missed_by_half or more of the_applicants Printed Name/Signat Date r1 c--

3 7

a. Grader

b. Facility Reviewer(*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)

d. NRC Supervisor (*)

(*) The facility reviewers signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.

I1s g jr$

ES-403, Page 6 of 6