ML12194A506
| ML12194A506 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/2012 |
| From: | NRC/RGN-II |
| To: | Progress Energy Co |
| References | |
| 50-400/12-301 | |
| Download: ML12194A506 (93) | |
Text
ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1 February Facility:
Harris 2012 Date of Examination:
2012 ili NRC Examinations Developed by:
Written I
Operating Test Written
/
Operating Test T
Chief 7
e Task Description (Reference)
Examiners Initials
-180 1.
Examination administration date confirmed (C. 1.a; C.2.a and b) p
-120 2.
NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C. 1.d; C.2.e)
-120 3.
Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c)
-120 4.
Corporate_notification_letter_sent_(C.2.d)
[-901
[5.
Reference material due (C. 1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 2)]
1Oj:.b
{ -75 }
6.
Integrated examination outline(s) due, including Forms ES-20 1 -2, ES-20 1 -3, ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-D-ls, ES-401-112, ES-401-3, and ES-401-4, as applicable (C.l.e and f; C.3.d)
{-70}
{7. Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility 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-30 1-3, ES-30 1-4, ES-301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-40l-6), and reference materials due (C.1.e, f, g and h;C.3.d)
P
-30 9.
Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398s) due (C.l.l; C.2.g; ES-202)
-14
-14
- 11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review (C.2.h; C.3.f)
-14
- 12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.1.j; C.2.f and h; C.3.g)
-7
- 13. Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor (C.2.i; C.3.h)
-7
- 14. Final applications reviewed; I or 2 (if >10) applications audited to confirm qualifications / eligibility; and examination approval and waiver letters sent (C.2.i;_Attachment 4;_ES-202,_C.2.e;_ES-204)
-7
- 15. Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee (C.3.k)
-7
- 16. Approved scenarios, job performance measures, and questions distributed to 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.
1
/-Y/- /
ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility: Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Examination: 02-13-2012 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.
T 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.
,Z
2.
a.
Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number VA of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications,
- 5 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.
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 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.
4.
a.
Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the appropriate exam sections.
1.cA b.
Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.
E c.
Ensure that K/A importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5.
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).
gZ 17
- a. Author 44
- b. Facility Reviewer (*)
S Ci1Li ds/2O/ZOIZ
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)
MlJt1 Se4M/ I(.4
- d. NRC Supervisor
/
Note:
- Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.
Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines 5
5 ES-201, Page 25 of 27
C ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility: Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Examination: 02-13-2012 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 KJA categories are appropriately sampled.
T 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.
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.
j b.
Assess wtiether 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.
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 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.
4.
a.
Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the appropriate exam sections.
- b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.4 1/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.
c.
Ensure that K/A importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5.
R d.
Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections.
A L
- e.
Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.
f.
Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO).
A
).
I P.rint Na Signat Date
- a. Author 4 e4/
,j3, 4/
- b. Facility Reviewer (*)
S/iow t
.4Of7./
02/0912d12..
- c. NRC Chief Examiner(#).g g1t.V%
Cc4 Qi
- d. NRC Supervisor V#rLt.*M %)MPa /
a.
Note:
- Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column ac; chief examiner concurrence required, Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines s.i i., ri2 ES-201, Page 25 of 27 C
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 Øs/z>iz_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 bean 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 2.2f-(l-. 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 L/y 2.J/I?ON A-jsJIt.r 1
i 3.
- 4. R,.....
- 5. LJL 13A LiS4. )j47.%a
- 6. RyA-J L-P5?&/
- 7. i(fM PACE
- 8. 5RL bticoi..j 9.
.- M,-t
- 10. ?4tik-.e(Iiøi 11.
)k2-Z.V 12., }çt-,,
E
!/V/i4 14._.-,
- 15. 7oTrmM NOTES:
JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY EX4,11II
/,)F..
LX4 WUkL ST/? /,,- )r1Y
.csfluLAThIr uPPoaf 41e.ci.,vi Q(p,f 5ct/f (,-
dds,i.e.(
cl(S /
Vm1Jto..-
/ j24Z Z,7,, j)
(2) 4( / z/ij-47ii}
SIGNATURE (1)
DATE SIGNATURE (2) 8-2.//
&m/
_)19)
,iyi,
- lI//J1 If II- á-/I I(. %4(
//
- ///oJ/}
/
DATE NOTE 2-29-,2
- S k/I2 4 ) -
- Z/.
- JZiZ 5-2-c2 3-! -1 2_-( I) 2- -2 pr +roIC co,j;jc, 5Rp/fIdv.\\
- I tj/Aci ES-201, Page 27 of 28
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 2-13 -2afl 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 2-2/2_. 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.
1hA. tt(-&
2.Sc 3
4.
5.
GM o.o
- 6. Jii$-
7 8
/jip
- 9. iJ;I/ D HAJf iN S p tI /Z)44 1O4A) kZ4Am5 A.f
11.\\-da cJ-cupp f
icy&A
()
- 12. ch 1
- S-i t-iJf Z()
13.Ø1(ilc.d 9.
/-(ij 14.HJJAi-ki..Ic thip O 15.
g c-t 14 P S
NOTES:
PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1)
DATE SIGNATURE (2)
DATE NOTE JJt oPS 3i-si-I-i 1I_I_I
Crt o ff7v
s;1z c
5.o rz--lt 2-2?-12 1
2-2-fa-L I
3-k 12 3
I
,/c?/h1 212 gjfit_
3-/-12_- (i) t2/
3/i2-Q.)
2.-J;c./iI
( J
)/Afr ES-201, Page 27 of 28
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 1/3 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 knowldge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.
2.
- 1) /Ts 3.
r
- 4. Timis
- 5. 2x%.) 6 /t 6.
7.
8.
Rc?rCLw\\
9.
10.
b.N41.c L.. g,rp1T 11.
iOii 12.Ami S
- 13. O$ha 14.@h-S. 1\\r
- 15. Hcr.- aceor NOTES:
SIGNA. URE (1)
DATE SIGNATURE (2)
DATE NOTE i--i L+/-i 2
Z9-/2 i_ -O 4 / i....
Z/z..
z1z1/,
=
1 tüt
- ?fI3/Q &Q L.
ç/sLa 2-2-t3-tZ
- i,2f.
z*,.iz
/
/
2-2?42-(l) 2
- 2i2J_ (
Zf2/l
.4 2/2)/l2 PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY 0
fo s a-k) s & r SRO M,a&..
AAu?M1.
P&rJ 4
Oi 41i*o
//2riLe ES-201, Page 27 of 28
Lucky, Archie Abell, Kevin ent:
Friday, March 02, 2012 6:41 PM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement agree with the below statement concerning not divulging NRC exam information.
From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:45 PM To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn; Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Mac Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was <70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, 74,C%/& 7zct Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 91 9-362-3386 VNet 772-3386 1
Lucky, Archie
,.*-- From:
Burnett, Daniel
(
- ent:
Thursday, March01, 2012 10:40AM fo:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement I agree with the statement below, and I have not divulged any information to unauthorized persons.
Thanks for the update, Arch From:
Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:44 PM To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin;
- Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn;
- Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Mac Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed.
1 SRO score was 70% and we are pursuing recovery.
To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a
(
esponse to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off
\\..
he agreement.
If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012.
From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, Archie Lucky Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 919-362-3386 VNet 772-3386 1
i Lucky, Archie From:
Arhelger, Dan ent:
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:53 PM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Agreed From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:44 PM To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn; Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Mac Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was < 70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
(
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information
. concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
- Thankyou,
?4,3%/k I4 Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 91 9-362-3386 VNet 772-3386 1
Lucky, Archie From:
Smith, Jeffrey Sent:
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:55 PM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement agree with the statement below.
Jeffrey Smith From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:45 PM To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn; Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Mac Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was <70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, 7tWS Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 91 9-362-3386 VNet 772-3386 1
Lucky, Archie From:
Greg itis, James ent:
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:45 PM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement I agree to the statement below.
Jim Gregitis From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:45 PM To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn; Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Mac Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was < 70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest j;onvenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
- Thankyou, 1cet Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 919-362-3386 VNet 772-3386 1
Lucky, Archie
,. From:
Jeff Wilhelm [jeff.wilhelm@gses.com]
(
ent:
Monday, March 05, 2012 10:21 AM lo:
Lucky, Archie Cc:
McDade, Mac
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement
- Lucky, I agree with the following statement:
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Sincerely yours, J4 WiPJw Systems Engineer, Staff CSE Systems, Inc 4lO)97O-7887 From: McDade, Mac 1maiIto:mac.mcdaderxinmail.com)
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:00 AM To: Jeff Wilhelm Cc: Lucky, Archie
Subject:
FW: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Jeff, Can you send an email back to Mr. Lucky reflecting conformance with the Exam agreement that you signed Mac From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:58 AM To: McDade, Mac
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement
- Mac, I need you to forward this message to Jeff Wilhelm so he can come off our security agreement.
I need an email response as soon as possible. Thanks The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have iot divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
1
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the
(-xamination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed
\\..inder instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
- Thankyou, Itwi, Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 919-362-3386 2
Lucky, Archie From:
Moreno, Gabriel Sent:
Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:38 AM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security No divulsion occurred -for me.
Ga be From:
Lucky, Archie Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:12 AM To: Atkins, Randal; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehie, Justin; Vandenberg, Richard;
- Hinman, Michael Cc: Horton, Richard (JR)
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Gentlemen, I know some of you have been off so here is an update and a request for a quick turnaround:
The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed.
1 SRO score was 70% and we are pursuing recovery.
To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement.
If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012.
From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, Archie Lucky Senior Nuclear Operations Training Instructor Office phone 919-362-3386 Exam Room 919-362-3582 Cell 919-886-2334 Randy Atkins: I know you have given me your badge but you have not signed off on the security agreement or provided me with an email confirmation.
Please do so ASAP.
1
Lucky, Archie
/ From:
Dovenmuehle, Justin Sent:
Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:42 PM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement I agree to the statement below.
From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:45 PM To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn; Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Mac Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was <70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, i4,c%ik lczc4 Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 91 9-362-3386 VNet 772-3386 1
I Lucky, Archie prom:
Rouse, Bradley
(
ent:
Thursday, March01, 2012 1:28 PM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Archie, thanks for the update on the exam.
Im on vacation right now, but Ill return the badge when I get back to work.
I agree with this statement:
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012.
From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Bradley A.
Rouse D-Shift Operations From:
Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 15:44 To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehie, Justin; Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn;
- Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Ia c Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed.
1 SRO score was 70% and we are pursuing recovery.
To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates o-f this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement.
If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012.
From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, Archie Lucky Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training
(
Harris Nuclear Plant 919-362-3386 VNet 772-3386
Lucky, Archie
, From:
Vandenberg, Richard 3ent:
Tuesday, March 06, 2012 6:24 PM To:
Horton, Richard (JR)
Cc:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security I have not divulged any info.....
From: Horton, Richard (JR)
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 5:33 PM To: Lucky, Archie; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Vandenberg, Richard; Speilman, Michael
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Dont forget to Cc: on you Archies email. Thanks JR From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:12 AM To: Atkins, Randal; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Vandenberg, Richard; Hinman, Michael Cc: Horton, Richard (JR)
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Importance: High (3entlemen I know some of you have been off so here is an update and a request for a quick turnaround:
The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was <70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, Senior Nuclear Operations Training Instructor Office phone 919-362-3386 Exam Room 919-362-3582 Cell 919-886-2334 1
Lucky, Archie prom:
Williams, Brian (HNP) ent:
Thursday, March 01, 2012 1:19 PM ro:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Sincerely Brian Williams 1
Lucky, Archie
,-- From:
Atkins, Randal 3ent:
Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:22 AM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security I agree Sent with Good (www.good.com)
Original Message From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 10:12 AM Eastern Standard Time To: Atkins, Randal; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Vandenberg, Richard; Hinman, Michael Cc: Horton, Richard (JR)
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Gentlemen, I know some of you have been off so here is an update and a request for a quick turnaround:
The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was < 70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, 74,C%f& Zc1 Senior Nuclear Operations Training Instructor Office phone 919-362-3386 Exam Room 919-362-3582 Cell 919-886-2334 Randy Atkins:
I know you have given me your badge but you have not signed off on the security agreement or provided me with an email confirmation. Please do so ASAP.
1
Lucky, Archie Stephenson, Robert
,ent:
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:34 PM To:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement I agree with the statement listed below.
From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:44 PM To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn; Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Mac Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was <70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please send me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
( To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, 74flC%f& Zw4 Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 919-362-3386 VNet 772-3386 1
Lucky, Archie From:
Griffith, Donald
- ent
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:12 PM ro:
Lucky, Archie
Subject:
RE: 2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Archie:
I agree to the statement below.
Donald From: Lucky, Archie Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:45 PM To: Arhelger, Dan; Smith, Jeffrey; Gregitis, James; Moreno, Gabriel; Dovenmuehle, Justin; Rouse, Bradley; Vandenberg, Richard; Williams, Brian (HNP); Atkins, Randal; Stanton, Shawn; Abell, Kevin; Burnett, Daniel; Stephenson, Robert; Okeefe, James; Griffith, Donald; McDade, Mac Cc: Horton, Richard (JR); Schwindt, Simon
Subject:
2012 NRC Exam Security Agreement Gentlemen, The 2012 HNP NRC Exam has concluded.
At this time we have done the preliminary grading of the written exam and 11 of the 12 candidates have passed. 1 SRO score was < 70% and we are pursuing recovery. To complete the NRC paper 7
-work requirements I need to verify that you have not divulged any information to the candidates of this exam. Please
( iend me back a response to this email stating that you agree to the statement below and I will take you off the agreement. If you have a security badge please send it back to me or drop it off at my office at your earliest convenience.
To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during February 13, 2012 February 29, 2012. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, provide performance feedback or allowed under instruction watches while under my direct control to any applicant who was administered these licensing examinations.
Thank you, 74,c%lk izc4 Senior Nuclear Operations Instructor Licensed Operator Continuing Training Harris Nuclear Plant 919-362-3386 VNet 772-3386 1
Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-1 Facility: Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Examination: February 13, 2012 Examination Level:
- SRO Operating Test Number:
05000400/2012301 Administrative Topic Type Describe activity to be performed (see Note)
Code*
Determine Requirements for Makeup to RWST During a Large Break LOCA after Cold Leg Recirculation has been established (JPM ADM-105) Common Conduct of Operations N, R KJA G2.1.25 2012 NRC RO/SRO Al-i Determine Subcooling with the Subcooling Margin Monitor Unavailable (JPM ADM-031) Common Conduct of Operations R
K/A G 2.1.23 2012 NRC ROISRO A1-2 Perform a Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio (QPTR) calculation with a control rod misaligned. (JPM ADM-010)
Equipment Control D,R K/AG2.2.12 2012 NRC RO A2 Using Valve Maps And Survey Maps Determine Stay Time For A Clearance.
(JPM ADM-106) Common Radiation Control N, R K/A G2.3.4 2012 NRC RO I SRO A3 NOT SELECTED FOR RO Emergency Procedures/Plan N/A 2012 NRC RO A4 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 (4)
(D)irect from bank ( 3 for ROs; 4 for SROs & RO retakes)
(1)
(N)ew or (M)odified from bank ( 1)
(2)
(P)revious 2 exams ( 1; randomly selected)
(1) 2/07/2012 Rev. FINAL ES-301
ES-301 Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-l Facility: Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Examination: February 13, 2012 Examination Level:
05000400/2012301 Administrative Topic Type Describe activity to be performed (see Note)
Code*
Determine Requirements for Makeup to RWST During a Large Break LOCA after Cold Leg Recirculation has been established (JPM ADM-105) Common Conduct of Operations N, R K/A G2.1.25 2012 NRC RO I SRO Al-i Determine Subcooling with the Subcooling Margin Monitor Unavailable (JPM ADM-031) Common Conduct of Operations A
K/A G 2.1.23 2012 NRC RO/SRO A1-2 Perform a Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio (QPTR) calculation with a control rod misaligned.
(JPM ADM-010)
Equipment Control D R
k/AG2.2.12 2012 NRC SRO A2 Using Valve Maps And Survey Maps Determine Stay Time For A Clearance.
(JPM ADM-106) Common Radiation Control N, R K/A G2.3.4 2012 NRC RO I SRO A3 Given a Set of Plant Conditions Classify An Event and make a Protective Action Recommendation.
Emergency Procedures/Plan N, R K/A G2.4.41 2012 NRC SRO A4 NOTE:
All items (5 total) are required for SACs. 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 (5)
(D)irect from bank ( 3 for ROs; 4 for SROs & RO retakes)
(1)
(N)ew or (M)odified from bank ( 1)
(3)
(P)revious 2 exams ( 1; randomly selected)
(1) 2/07/20 12 Rev. FINAL
Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Facility:
Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Examination:
02/13/2012 Exam Level: RO SRO-l SRO-U (bold)
Operating Test No.: 05000400/2012301 Control Room Systems@ (8 for RO); (7 for SRO-l); (2 or 3 for SRO-U, including 1 ESF - bold)
System / JPM Title Type Code*
Safety Function a.
Pull control rods to POAH, two Safeties fail OPEN after Reactor is at POAH A, D, L, 5 1
001 A1.07 b.
Drain A Cold Leg Accumulator (OP-hO)
(JPM-CR-133)
D S 2
K/A 006 A2.03 c.
Pressurizer Pressure Master Controller Failure (AOP-019)
(JPM-CR-251)
A, N, S 3
K/A APE 027 AA2.15 d.
Initiate RCS Feed and Bleed (FRP-H.1)
(JPM-CR-068)
A, D, L, S 4P K/A EPEEO5EA1.1 e.
Perform a Main Turbine Overspeed Trip Test (OPT-1075)
(JPM-CR-251)
N, S 4S K/A 045 A3.08 f.
Containment Cooling to Max Cooling Mode (OP-i 69)
K/A 022A4.01 g.
LOSP While Paralleling a Emergency Diesel Generator from the Main Control Room for Testing (OP-i 55)
(JPM-CR-203)
A, EN, P, S 6
K/A 056 A2.14 h.
Fuel Handling Accident with Fuel Handling In Progress
Dropped Fuel Assembly (AOP-013)
(JPM CR-035)
A, D, S, L 8
K/A 034 A2.01 ES-301 Form ES-301-2 February 03, 2012 Rev. FINAL
In-Plant Systems© (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-l); (2 or 3 for SRO-U - BOLD) i.
Shift AFW Pump Suction Locally (PATH 1, Attachment 121 (JPM-IP-004)
E, D, R 4s K/A 061 K401 j.
Reset Safety Injection Locally (PATH 1, Attachment 1)
(JPM-IP-231)
E, D 7
K/A 013A2.06 k.
Perform Local Actions For Placing a Failed Pressurizer Pressure channel In TEST (OWP-RP-02)
(JPM-IP-247)
EN, P 3
K/A APE 027 AA2. 16 All RO and SRO-l 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-l / SRO-U (A)lternate path 4-6 / 4-6 / 2-3 (5, 5, 3)
(C)ontrol room (D)irect from bank 9/
8 /
4 (7, 6, 3)
(E)mergency or abnormal in-plant 1 /
1 /
1 (2, 2, 2)
(EN)gineeredsafetyfeature
- /
/ 1 (2,2,1)
(L)ow-Power / Shutdown 1 /
1 /
1 (4, 4, 1)
(N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1 (A) 2 /
2 /
1 (2, 2, 1)
(P)revious 2 exams 3 /
3 /
2 (2, 2, 1)
(R)CA 1/1/1 (1,1,1)
(S)imulator February 03, 2012 Rev. FINAL 2
ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facility: Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Examination: 02-13-2012 Operating Test Number: 0500040012012301 Initials
- 1. General Criteria a
b*
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.
c.
The operating test shall not duplicate items from the applicants audit test(s). (see Section D.1.a.)
Z ci.
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 criteria that Include:
detailed expected actions with exact criteria and nomenclature
system response and other examiner cues
statements describing important observations to be made by the applicant
criteria for successful completion of the task
identification of critical steps and their associated performance standards
restrictions on the sequence of steps, If applicable
b.
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 4f Form ES-301-4 and a copy is attached.
Printed Name / Signature Date a.
Author
,%% h4/hL%
.J D. 2o, b.
Facility Reviewer(*)
fl%j fC44L4JtIJ / 1t 4
4(
C.
NRC Chief Examiner (#)
SC /
d.
NRC Supervisor t
4
The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.
Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column cu; chief examiner concurrence required.
Ht IZi
.$.i
.q /.z c ES-301, Page 24 of 27
C)
C ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facifty: Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Exam; 02-13-2012 Scenario Numbers; 1 /2 / 3(Spare) /4 Operating Test No.; 05000400/2012301 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.
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.
5.
The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.
6.
Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives.
7.
If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary clearly so indicates.
Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints.
Cues are given.
8.
The simulator modeling is not altered.
9.
The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator performance deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios.
3 10.
Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario.
All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section 0.5 of ES-301.
11.
All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 (submit the form along with the simulator scenarios).
12.
Each applicant will be significantly involved In the minimum number of transients and events specified on Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios).
13.
The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position.
Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d)
Actual Attributes 1.
Total malfunctions (58) 5 / 5 / 5 /5 2.
Malfunctions after EOP entry (12) 1 / 2 /
1 I 2 3.
Abnormal events (24) 3 / 3 / 2 / 3
,Z
4.
Major transients (12) 2 / 2 I I /
1 5.
EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (12) 2 I 3 / 2 / 3 6.
EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (02) 0 /
1 /
1 / 0 7.
Critical tasks (23) 3 1 3 I 2 / 2 ES-301, Page 25 of 27
SCENARIOS 1, 2, AND 4 RO list (7 total)
LFacility: Shearon Harris Date of Exam: 02-13-12 Operating Test No.: 05000400/2012301 A
E Scenarios P
V
p E
1 2
3 4
T M
L CREW CREW CREW CREW POSmON POSmON POSmON POSfl1ON A
A T
S A
B S.A B
S A
B S
A BL u
N
R T
0 R
T 0
R T
0 R
T M*
T P
0 C
P 0
C P
0 C
P 0
C P
E R
IU RO-1 RX 0
1 NOR Ni Ni 2
1 SRO-l C2 14 13 C5 C2 8
4 El C6 C6 C4 MAJ MS
M7 M8
M9 4
2
TS 00 RO-2 RX 0
1 NOR Ni Ni 2
1 SRO-l I/C C2 14 13 C5 C2
C6 C6 C4 8
4 SRO-U MAJ MS M7 MS M9 4
2 El TS 00 RO-3 RX Ri 1
1 NOR Ni N6 21 SRO-l I/C C4 El l3C5 C5 SRO-U C6 c7 El MAJ M7M8 M9 3
2 TS 0
0 RO-4 RX 0
1 NOR Ni 1
1 SRO-l I/C C2 14 C2 El C6 C4 SRO-U MAJ MB M922
TS 00 Instructions:
- 1. Check the applicant level and enter the operatin_g test number and Form ES-D-i event numbers for each event type; TS are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must serve in both the at-the-controls (ATC) and balance-of-p[ant (BOP) positions; Instant SROs must serve in both the SRO and the ATC positions, including at least two instrument or component(I/C) malfunctions 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.
February 07, 2012 Rev. HNAL ES-301 Transient and Event (ha.I,Iict Fnrm ES-301 -5 Page 1 of 5
SCENARIOS 1, 2, AND 4 RO list (7 total)
ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: Shearon Harris Date of Exam: 02-13-12 Operating Test No.: 05000400/2012301 A
E Scenarios
P V
1 2
3 4
T M
P E
L N
CREW CREW CREW CREW T
N I
T POSFflON POSfl1ON POSmON POSmON A
C S
A B
S A
B S
A B
S A
B L
A T
A T
0 R
T 0
R T
0 R
T 0
M*
N Y
0 C
P 0
C P
0 C
P 0
C P
T P
P IU E
RO-5 RX Ri 1
1 NOR Ni 1
1 SAD-I C3 C2 LI C5 14 SRO-U LI MAJ M8 32 TS 0
0 RX Ri 1
i RO-6 NOR M
ii I/C C3 C2 4
4 fi°
SRO-U MAJ M8 M7 3
2 LI TS 0
0 RX Ri 1
1 RO-7 NOR ii I/C C3 C2 4
4 1O_I
SRO-U MAJ MS M7 3
2 LI TS 0
0 Instructions:
1.
Check the applicant level and enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-i event numbers for each event type; TS are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must serve in both the at-the-controls (ATC) and balance-of-plant (BOP) positions; Instant SROs must serve in both the SAD and the ATC positions, including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunctions 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.
February 07, 2012 Rev. FINAL Page 2 of 5
SCENARIOS 1, 2, AND 4 SRO Upgrade List (3 total)
Facility: Shearon Harris Date of Exam: 02-13-12 Operating Test No.: 05000400/2012301 A
E Scenarios P
V
L N
CREW CREW CREW CREW T
N I
T POSITION POSITION POSITION POSITION C
M A
T S
A B
S A
B S
A B
S A
B L
u M
R TO A
T 0
R TO A
T 0
M*
I 0
C P
0 C
P 0
C P
0 C
P T
R IU E
SRO-l NOR Ni N1N631 I/C C213 C2C4 SRO-Ui I4C5 C5C7 10 2
C6 C8 MAJ M7M8 M9 3
1 TS T2T3 T4T5 7
2 T4T5 T7 o-NOR Ni N1N631 I/C C213 C2C4 SRO-U2 I4C5 C5C7 10 2
C6 C8 MAJ M7M8 M9 3
1 TS T2T3 T4T5 7
2 T4T5 T7 o-i NOR Ni NiN63 I/C 12C3 C2C4 SRO-U3 C4C5 C5C7 iO 2
C6 C8 MAJ M8 M9 2
TS T3T5 T4T5 6
2 T6 T7
1.
Check the applicant level and enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-i event numbers for each event type; TS are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must serve 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) malfunctions and one major transient, in the ATC position.
If an Instant SRO additionally series 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 i-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.
February 07, 2012 Rev. FINAL ES-301 Traririt and Event (hI-Iit Form ES-301-5 Instructions:
Page 3 of 5
SCENARIOS 1, 2, AND 4 SRO Instant List (2 total)
ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: Shearon Harris Date of Exam: 02-13-12 Operating Test No.: 05000400/2012301 A
E Scenarios P
V 1
2 3
4 T
M P
E L
N CREW CREW CREW CREW T
N I
T POSfl1ON POSmON POSmON POSITION A
I C
S A
B S
A B
S A
B S
A B
L A
T R
TO R
T 0
R TO R
T 0
MW N
y 0
C P
0 C
P 0
C P
0 C
P T
R IU E
O-li NOR Ni Ni N6 1/C C2C3 l4C5 14 4
SRO-U C6 C5C6 C7C8 MAJ MB
M7MB M9 4
2
TS T3T5 T2T3 T6 T4T5 7
2 SRO-12 NOR Ni N6 21 1/C C2C3 14C5 9
4 SRO-U C6 MAJ MB
M9 2
2 TS T3T5 T6 3
2 Instructions:
1.
Check the applicant level and enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-i event numbers for each event type; TS are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must serve 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) malfunctions 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 0. (*) 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.
February 07, 2012 Rev. FINAL Page 4 of 5
SCENARIO 3 SPARE ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: Shearon Harris Date of Exam: 02-13-12 Operating Test No.: 05000400/201 2301 A
E Scenarios P
V 1
2 3
4 T
M P
E o
I L
N CREW CREW CREW POSITION CREW T
N I
T POSmON POSmON
POSION A
C S
A B
S A
B S
A B
S A
B L
u A
T R
T 0
R TO R
T 0
R T
0 M
N Y
0 C
P 0
C P
0 C
P 0
C P
T P
RU E
O-l NOR Ni Ni iii El I/C C3C5 C3 C5C6 4
4 2
SRO-U C6 C7 C7 C8 C9 El C8C9 MAJ Mi0 M10 Mi0 2
2 1
TS T2T3 0
2 2
T5 SRO-l NOR El I/C
442 SRO-U MAJ 2
2 1
El TS 022 NOR El I/C
442 SRO-U MAJ 2
2 1
El TS 022 Instructions:
1.
Check 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 serve in both the at-the-controls (ATC) and balance-of-plant (BOP) positions; Instant SACs must serve in both the SAC and the ATC positions, including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunctions 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 i-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.
February 07, 2012 Rev. FINAL Page 5 of 5
ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Examination: 02-13-2012 Operating Test No.: 05000400/201 2301 APPLICANTS RO RO (BOP)
SRO-U SRO-I SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO Competencies 4
1 2
4 1
2 4
1 2
4 1
2 Interpret/Diagnose 4/5/7/ 2/4/6/ 2/4/7/
2/4/9 3/5/8 3/5/6/ 2/4/5/ 2/3/4/ 2/3/4/ 4/5/7/ 2/3/4/ 2/3/4/
Events and Conditions 8/9 8
8 7/8 7/8/9 5/6/8 5/6/7/
8/9 5/6/8 5/6/7/
8 8
Comply With and 1/4/5/ 2/4/6/ 1/2/4/
1/2/4/
1/3/5/
1/3/5/ 1/2/4/ 1/2/3/
1/2/3/
1/4/5/
1/2/3/ 1/2/3/
Use Procedures (1) 6/7 8
7/8 9
8 6/7/8 5/6 4/5/6/ 4/5/6/
6/7 4/5/6/ 4/5/6/
8/9 7/8/9 8
7/8 8/9 8
7/8 Operate Control 1/4/5/ 2/4/6/
1/2/4/
1/2/4/
1/3/5/
1/3/5/
0 0
0 1/4/5/
0 0
Boards (2) 6/7 8
7/8 9
8 6/7/8 6/7 8/9 8/9 Communicate 1/4/5/ 2/4/6/
1/2/4/ 1/2/4/
1/3/5/ 1/3/5/ 1/2/4/
1/2/3/
1/2/3/
1/4/5/
1/2/3/ 1/2/3/
and Interact 6/7 8
7/8 9
8 6/7/8 5/6 4/5/6/ 4/5/6/
6/7 4/5/6/ 4/5/6/
8/9 7/8/9 8
7/8 8/9 8
7/8 Demonstrate 0
0 0
0 0
0 1/2/4/ 1/2/3/
1/2/3/
0 1/2/3/ 1/2/3/
Supervisory Ability (3) 5/6 4/5/6/ 4/5/6/
4/5/6/ 4/5/6/
7/8/9 7/8 7/8 7/8 7/8 Comply With and 0
0 0
0 0
0 4/5/7 3/5/6 2/3/4/
0 3/5/6 2/3/4/
Use Tech. Specs. (3) 5 5
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.
ES-301, Page 27 of 27
ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: Harris Nuclear Plant Date of Examination: 02-13-2012 Operating Test No.: 05000400/201 2301 APPLICANTS RO RO (BOP)
SRO-U SRO-l SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO Competencies 3
I nterpretlDiagnoseEvents and Conditions 3/7/10 5/6/8/9/10 2/3/5/6/7/8/9/
2/3/5/6/7/8/9/
10 10 Comply With and 1/2/3/7/10 1/5/6/8/9/10 1/2/3/5/6/7/8/9 1/2/3/5/6/7/8/9 Use Procedures (1)
/10
/10 Operate Control 1/3/7/10 1/5/6/8/9/10 0
0 Boards (2)
Corn mu n icate 1/2/3/7/10 1/5/6/8/9/10 1/2/3/5/6/7/8/9 1/2/3/5/6/7/8/9 and Interact
/10
/10 Demonstrate Supervisory Ability (3) 0 0
1/2/3/5/6/7/8/9 1/2/3/5/6/7/8/9
/10
/10 Comply With and 0
0 2/3/5 2/3/5 Use Tech. Specs. (3)
Notes:
(1)
Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.
(2)
Optional for an SRO-U.
(3)
Only applicable to SROs.
SCENARIO #3 submitted as a SPARE Scenario 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.
ES-301, Page 27 of 27 2
HARRIS 2012 LICENSE EXAM Final Written Exam Sample Plan (ES-401 -1/2) is the same as the Draft Written Exam Sample Plan (ES-401-1/2) with changes listed in the Final Record of Rejected KAs (EX 401 -4).
t)giWEAJ 4f Examination Outline Quality Checklist 1
ES-201 Form ES-201 -2 Facility:
SHEARON HARRIS Date of Examination:
FEBRUARY 2012 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.
/1/
liSt T
c.
Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.
f4 d.
Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected K/A statements are appropriate.
/,4 44 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.
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 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.
4.
a.
Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered 44 in the appropriate exam sections.
iff 44 E
b.
Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.
71 c.
Ensure that K/A importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5.
.937 0
AJIAjTN d.
Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections.
t1L i9 L
e.
Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.
In 4
f.__Assess_whether_the_exam_fits_the_appropriate_job_level_(RO_or_SRO).
- a. Author Iflh/-)AL
- b. Facility Reviewer (*)
NY
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)
/4.ZØ.5 R4i9 bi/J//
ciJi /2..
- d. NRC Supervisor
/l4Iq4-k /32,4.kE /
Note:
- Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.
Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines
ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-4O1-Facility:
SHEARON HARRIS Date of Exam:
FEBRUARY 2012
RQJAaoy_Pcnts
SRO-Only_Points Tier Group 1
1 KKIKKKKAAAAG A2 I
G Tota 1
213 4
5 6
1 2
3 4
Total I
1.
1 3
3 3
3 3
3 18 3
3 6
Emergency &
Abnormal 2
.L I N/A 2
2 N/A 9
2 2
4 Evolutkns TierTotals 4
4 5
5 5
4 27 5
5 10 1
323223323 31 3
2 5
2.
Plant 2
11 11111 IL tO 10 0
2 1
3 Systems Tier Totals 4
3 4
3 3
4 4
3 4
4 2
38 5
3 8
- 3. Generic Knowledge and Abilities 1
2 3
4 10 1
2 3
4 7
Categories 2
2 3
3 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 SRO-only outlines (i.e., except for one category in Tier 3 of the SRO-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/evolutions that are not included on the outline should be added. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401 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.
5.
Absent a plant-specific priority, only those K/As having an importance rating (IR) of 2.5 or higher shall be selected.
Use the RD and SRO ratings for the RD and SRO-only portions, respectively.
6.
Select SRO 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. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401 for the applicable K/As.
8.
On 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 (Note #1 does not apply).
Use duplicate pages for RD and SRO-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 SRO selections to K/As that are linked to 10 CFR 55.43.
ES-401, REV 9 Ti Gi PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO OO7EK1.02 Reactor Trip
- Stabilization
- Recovery 3.4 3.8 H H H H H Shutdown margin
/1 009EK2.03 Small Break LOCA /3 3
3.3 J
S/Gs 015AG2.l.20 RCPMalfunctions/4 4.6 4.6 H H H H H H H H H H Ability to execute procedure steps.
025AA2.07 Loss of RHR System /4 H H H H H H H 1j H H H Pump cavitation 026AA1.05 Loss of Component Cooling Water / 8 3.1 3.1 H H H H H H H H H H The CCWS surge tank, including level control and level alarms and radiation alarm 027AG2.4.35 Pressurizer Pressure Control System 3.8 4.0 H H H H H H H H H H Knowledge of local auxiliary operator tasks during Malfunction / 3 emergency and the resultant operational effects 038EA1.40 Steam Gen. Tube Rupture/3
H H H H H H H H H H Adding boron to raise its ppm to the required shutdown concentration.
054AK1.02 Loss of Main Feedwater / 4 3.6 4.2 H H H H H H H H H H Effects of feedwater introduction on dry SIG 055EK1.02 Station Blackout! 6 4.1 4.4 H H H H H H H H H H Natural circulation cooling 056AG2.4.46 Loss of Off-site Power / 6 4.2 4.2 H H H H H H H H H H Ability to verify that the alarms are consistent with the plant conditions.
057AK3.O1 Loss of Vital AC Inst. Bus /6 4.1 4.4 Actions contained in EOP for loss of vital ac electrical instrument bus Page 1 of 2 8/18/2011 9:59AM
ES-401, REV 9 T1G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME I SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO 058AA2.03 Loss of DC Power / 6 3.5 3.9 DC loads lost; impact on ability to operate and monitor plant systems 062AA2.0l Loss of Nuclear Svc Water! 4 2.9 3.5 Location of a leak in the SWS 065AK3.04 Loss of Instrument Air! 8 3
3.2 Cross-over to backup air supplies 077AA1.03 Generator Voltage and Electric Grid 3.8 3.7 Voltatge regulator controls Disturbances / 6 WEO4EK2.l LOCA Outside Containment! 3 3.5 3.9 Components and functions of control and safety systems, including instrumentation, signals, interlocks, failure modes and automatic and manual features.
WEO5EK2.2 Inadequate Heat Transfer - Loss of 3.9 4.2 E
Facilitys heat removal systems, including primary Secondary Heat Sink / 4 coolant, emergency coolant, the decay heat removal systems and relations between the proper operation of these systems to the operation of the facility.
WE1 1 EK3.2 Loss of Emergency Coolant Recirc. / 4 3.5 4.0 Normal, abnormal and emergency operating procedures associated with (Loss of Emergency Coolant Recir).
Page 2 of 2 8/18/2011 9:59 AM
ES-401, REV 9 T1G2 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 Leak rate vs. pressure drop Conditions requiring reactor and/or turbine trip Indications of natural circulation Process radiation monitors Operating behavior characteristics of the facility.
Manipulation of controls required to obtain desired operating results during abnormal and emergency situations.
Ability to evaluate plant performance and make operational judgments based on operating characteristics, reactor behavior and instrument interpretation.
KA NAME/SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO OO1AA1.03 Continuous Rod Withdrawal/i 3.4 3.2 Boric acid pump control switch Guidance contained in EOP for fuel handling incident 036AK3.03 Fuel Handling Accident / 8 037AK1.02 Steam Generator Tube Leak /3 051 AA2.02 Loss of Condenser Vacuum / 4 068AA2.l 1 Control Room Evac. / 8 076AK2.0l High Reactor Coolant Activity / 9 WEO3EA1.2 LOCA Cooldown
- Depress. / 4 WEO8EK3.3 RCS Overcooling
- PTS / 4 wel5EG2.1.7 Containment Flooding/5 3.7 4.1 DEJID 353.9 L1Eli1 3.9 4.1 DEED 4.3 4.4 DEED 2.63 EEE 3.7 3.9 DEED 3.7 3.8 EEJTt[
EEi DEE DEE DEE DDE DDE DD DDE DDE DDE DDE DD ED DDE DDE DEE 4.4 4.7 EDDDDDDDDD Page 1 of 1 8/18/2011 9:59AM
ES-401, REV 9 T2G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR Kl K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO 003A1.06 Reactor Coolant Pump 2.9 3.1 PZR spray flow 004G2.2.39 Chemical and Volume Control 3.9 4.5 Knowledge of less than one hour technical specification action statements for systems.
004K4.07 Chemical and Volume Control 3.0 3.3 Water supplies 005K3.05 Residual Heat Removal 3.7 3.8 ECCS 005K6.03 Residual Heat Removal 2.5 2.6 RHR heat exchanger 006A1.16 Emergency Core Cooling 4.1 4.2 RCS temperature, including superheat, saturation and subcooled 006K6.03 Emergency Core Cooling 3.6 3.9 Safety Injection Pumps 007K3.01 Pressurizer Relief/Quench Tank 3.3 3.6 LI Containment 008A3.10 Component Cooling Water 2.9 3.0 CCW pump instruments and their respective sensors, including flow, pressure, oil level and discharge temperature 008A4.1 1 Component Cooling Water 3.0 2.9 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI CCW pump recirculation valve and its three-way control switch 010K6.01 Pressurizer Pressure Control 2.7 3.1 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Pressure detection systems Page 1 of 3 8118/2011 9:59AM
ES-401, REV 9 T2G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RD SRO 012A4.06 Reactor Protection 4.3 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Reactor trip breakers 01 3K5.02 Engineered Safety Features Actuation 2.9 3.3 LI LI LI LI
[
Safety system logic and reliability 022A4.03 Containment Cooling 3.2 3.2 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Dampers in the CCS 026A2.08 Containment Spray 3.2 3.7 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Safe securing of containment spray when it can be done) 039G2.4.21 Main and Reheat Steam 4.0 4.6 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Knowledge of the parameters and logic used to assess the status of safety functions 059K4.02 Main Feedwater 3.3 3.5 LI LI LI i LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Automatic turbine/reactor trip runback 061 K5.05 Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater 2.7 3.2 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Feed line voiding and water hammer 062A1.03 AC Electrical Distribution 2.5 2.8 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Effect on instrumentation and controls of switching power supplies 062K2.01 AC Electrical Distribution 3.3 3.4 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Major system loads 063A3.01 DC Electrical Distribution 2.7 3.1 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Meters, annunciators, dials, recorders and indicating lights 064A2.14 Emergency Diesel Generator 2.7 2.9 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Effects (verification) of stopping ED/G under load on isolated bus Page 2 of 3 8/18/2011 9:59AM
ES-401, REV 9 T2G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 AS A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO 064K1.01 Emergency Diesel Generator 4.1 4.4 AC distribution system 073K1.01 Process Radiation Monitoring 3.6 3.9 Those systems served by PRMs 076K2.01 Service Water 2.7 2.7 E El El El El El El El El Service water 078A3.0l Instrument Air 3.1 3.2 El Air pressure 078K3.03 Instrument Air 3.0 3.4 Cross-tied units 103K1.03 Containment 3.1 3.5 El El El El El El El El El El Shield building vent system Page 3 of 3 8/18/2011 9:59 AM
ES-401, REV 9 T2G2 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME I SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR Kl K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO 002K1.12 ReactorCoolant 3.5 3.6 E
NIS 011 K2.0l Pressurizer Level Control 3.1 3.2 Charging pumps 014K3.02 Rod Position Indication 2.5 2.8 Plant computer 01 7A3.0l In-core Temperature Monitor 3.6 3.8 LI Indications of normal, natural and interrupted circulation of RCS 027A2.0l Containment Iodine Removal 3.0 3.3 High temperature in the filter system 029K4.02 Containment Purge 2.9 3.1 LI Negative pressure in containment 033A1.02 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling 2.8 3.3 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Radiation monitoring systems 035K6.03 Steam Generator 2.6 3.0 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI S/G level detector 068K5.04 Liquid Radwaste 3.2 3.5 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Biological hazards of radiation and the resulting goal of ALARA 079A4.0l Station Air 2.7 2.7 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Cross-tie valves with lAS Page 1 of 1 8/18/2011 9:59 AM
ES-401, REV 9 SRO T1G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 Generator Voltage and Electric Grid Disturbances / 6 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO 01 5AA2.09 RCP Malfunctions / 4 3.4 3.5 When to secure RCPs on high stator temperatures 029EG2.4.20 ATWS / 1 3.8 4.3 Knowledge of operational implications of EOP warnings, cautions and notes.
038EA2.13 Steam Gen. Tube Rupture / 3 3.1 3.7 Magnitude of rupture 055EG2.4.9 Station Blackout /6 3.8 4.2 Knowledge of low power! shutdown implications in accident (e.g. LOCA or loss of RHR) mitigation strategies.
058AA2.02 Loss of DC Power! 6 3.3 3.6 LI LI 1 25V dc bus voltage, low/critical low, alarm 077AG2.4.3 3.7 3.9 Ability to identify post-accident instrumentation.
Page 1 of 1 8/18/2011 9:59AM
ES-401, REV 9 KA NAME I SAFETY FUNCTION:
005AG2.2.22 Inoperable/Stuck Control Rod / 1 032AG2.4.31 Loss of Source Range NI / 7 WEO8EA2.2 RCS Overcooling
- PTS /4 WE13EA2.l Steam Generator Over-pressure /4 SRO T1G2 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G RO Sf0 4.0 4.7 4.2 4.1 3.5 4.1 2.9 3.4 FORM ES-401-2 TOPIC:
Knowledge of limiting conditions for operations and safety limits.
Knowledge of annunciators alarms, indications or response procedures Adherence to appropriate procedures and operation within the limitations in the facilitys license and amendments.
Facility conditions and selection of appropriate procedures during abnormal and emergency operations.
Page 1 of 1 8/18/2011 9:59AM
TOPIC:
Erratic power supply operation Rapid depressurization Ability to apply technical specifications for a system.
Ability to evaluate plant performance and make operational judgments based on operating characteristics, reactor behavior and instrument interpretation.
Air dryer and filter malfunctions ES-401, REV 9 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION:
012A2.04 Reactor Protection 01 3A2.03 Engineered Safety Features Actuation 061 G2.2.40 Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater 076G2.1.7 Service Water FORM ES-401-2 SRO T2G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G RO SRO 3.1 3.2 DDDDDDEThDE1 4.4 4.7 3.4 4.7 4.4 4.7 078A2.01 Instrument Air 2.4 2.9 Page 1 of 1 8/18/2011 9:59AM
ES-401, REV 9 SRO T2G2 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME/SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO 016A2.04 Non-nuclear Instrumentation 2.5 2.6 Voltage to instruments, both too high and too low 068G2.4.6 Liquid Radwaste 3.7 4.7 Knowledge symptom based EOP mitigation strategies.
071A2.08 Waste Gas Disposal 2.5 2.8 E
jj Meteorological changes Page 1 of 1 8/18/2011 9:59 AM
Knowledge of procedures and limitations involved in core alterations Ability to identify and interpret diverse indications to validate the response of another indication Knowledge of the process for managing maintenance activities during shutdown operations.
Knowledge of conditions and limitations in the facility license.
Knowledge of radiological safety principles pertaining to licensed operator duties Knowledge of radiological safety procedures pertaining to licensed operator duties Knowledge of radiation exposure limits under normal and emergency conditions Knowledge of abnormal condition procedures.
Knowledge of fire protection procedures.
Knowledge of the emergency plan.
1 I
ES-401, REV 9 T3 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION:
IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:
RO SRO G2.1.36 Conduct of operations 3.0 4.1 LZ D LI LI LI LI LI LI LI G2.l.45 Conductof operations 4.3 4.3 G2.2.18 Equipment Control 2.6 3.8 G2.2.38 Equipment Control 3.6 4.5 G2.3.12 Radiation Control 3.2 3.7 G2.3.13 Radiation Control 3.4 3.8 G2.3.4 Radiation Control 3.2 3.7 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI 1J G2.4.ll Emergency Procedures/Plans 4.0 4.2 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI G2.4.25 Emergency Procedures/Plans 3.3 3.7 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI G2.4.29 Emergency Procedures/Plans 3.1 4.4 LILILILILILILILILILI Page 1 of 1 8/18/2011 9:59 AM
FORM ES-401-2 ES-401, REV 9 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION:
G2.1.41 Conduct of operations G2.2.25 Equipment Control G2.2.43 Equipment Control G2.3.12 Radiation Control 02.3.14 Radiation Control G2.4.30 Emergency Procedures/Plans G2.4.8 Emergency Procedures/Plans SRO T3 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE IR K1K2K3K4K5K6A1A2A3A4G SRO 3.7 4.2 3.3 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.5 RO 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.4 2.7
3.8 TOPIC
Knowledge of the refueling processes Knowledge of the bases in Technical Specifications for limiting conditions for operations and satety limits.
Knowledge of the process used to track inoperable alarms Knowledge of radiological safety principles pertaining to licensed operator duties Knowledge of radiation or contamination hazards that may arise during normal, abnormal, or emergency conditions or activities Knowledge of events related to system operations/status that must be reported to internal orginizations or outside agencies.
Knowledge of how abnormal operating procedures are used in conjunction with EOP5.
Page 1 of 1 8/18/2011 9:59AM
Harris Nuclear Plant 2012 NRC Exam Outline ES-401 Record of Rejected K/As Form ES-401 -4 Tier /
Randomy Reason for Rejection Group Selected K/A RO T1G1 038 EA1.40 Identified that we were unable to write a question with 3 valid distractors. Rick Baldwin provided randomly selected K/A 038EA1.33 to replace the original K/A.
1 1/2/201 1 T1G2 001 AA1.03 Identified that we were unable to write a question with 3 valid distractors. Rick Baldwin provided randomly selected K/A OO1AA1.07 to replace the original K/A. 11/2/2011 T2G1 008 A4. 1 1 Identified that we were unable to write a question to this K/A.
HNPs CCW system did not have this type of valve. Rick Baldwin provided randomly selected K/A 008A4.0 1 to replace the original K/A. 11/2/2011 SRO T2G2 068 G2.4.6 Identified that we were unable to write a SRO level question on this K/A due to the system tie (Liquid Radwaste System) not being supported by HNP procedures. Rick Baldwin provided a randomly selected new system and kept the generic part of the K/A.
The system was changed to EPE 074, Inadequate Core Cooling.
11/14/2011 T2G2 016 A2.04 Identified that we were unable to write a SRO level question on this K/A due to the subject matter of the K/A. Rick Baldwin provided a randomly selected new K/A.
The new K/A selected is 016 A2.01 Detector failure. 11/15/201 1 ES-401, Page 27 of 33
0_fl 0:0 zz-l>
- U 0 -
00D-
- u 0 CD D
C9*
CD o
D rn OXW (j) 3 CD C
0 CD CD._
o CD CD CD 2.
- r 0
CD g
CD 3 Ooi D
C)
X -
CD 0 C r 8
< 0 2.
CD 0 3 0O)0 0;:
-0*v rr i 0) 03::5.0 W
CD 0 C
C D
50 - Z CD 2.3:g 3 0
CD CD D 0 CD 2.0
_0 co 3
CD 0. 0 CD S
03:
0 CDCDD CD 01 CD CD OCD 3
CD 5
00
- 53:
0.
CD 0-,
DCD CD (na 3:3 CD 0:
CD 0
<3 CDCD 0
8 CD 30 z
0 CD
-I
- 5-CD CD CD<
- 5, CD z.
CD CDD CDO
_.0 CDC Cl) 05 0:5 00 C;
00 DCD CD><z 30 CDCD OCD 05 0
CD CD DX CD3 S
0.Cfl 0
CD
_.CD
- 5:5 o
D CD CD 3D0.
DO OC o 0 0
CDCD 0
- 5 00 CO CD 0
0 0
- 50 CD 0
p 0
C CD0 0
- 5 0
- 5-03 CD 0
2 C0 0)
- 50 0
3 0) 3 CD CD
- 5-CD C
0.
CD
- 5 CD m
C,,
CD
- 50.
X CD 0.CD 0 CDXC 0
CD 030 5D 5
- 50 0:50
.C CD C D 0
3:CD 8 CD 0
- 5 53 00
.0 Thg CD
- 0
- 5->
CD 0
CD o3 CD H
00 (flC
!. 0 (0
CD 0
CD0.
01 0
J_L_
- 2-
- D :5*
0:
D CD CD CD CD 0 0 CD CD 0) 0)
0 X
C C
CD 0.
CD CD 0 00.O-C X
3 -o-2.
CD CD CD CD 5 0)
CD 0) 8 o 3 3 -
0 0 7C 3:
CD 0<
3: < - 3 S
CD CD CD 0:
- 5CD D
-< - 0 0D000 0.
CD D.0 CD CD 00CD
2.
CD CD 0 CD flD _D_(0
- 8-8-0 0
0..0CD CD.0X 0
<CD 0
3 Coo 3 00 000 d 8 0)
O D
- 5-CD 00 0.
0.
L b.
C-.)
C,,
0
.0C CD0 0
- 50 0
CD 0)
.0 00 0
CD
- 5 0000 0.
0)
- 50 CD
- 5-C,,
CD0 0
- 5 p
F) 0.
0 rn C,,
0 p-fl)
-T,z CD>
CD 0-s o9.
p-CD CDCD 0: 0
<CD 00 CD 0
CDC CD 8
0 0
0 0
00*
CD E
N 1
CD
z 0) tSS* 3 CD
çCD 0
C CD0 0
- 5 Cl) 0
- 50.
0
- 50 CD 0
0 CD CD0
- 5-
- 5 00 000C 0
CD 0)
- 50.
0
.0 000:
CD 0
- 5-CD 0
C-)
- 5-
-,CD CD 0
.03 CD 5
CD (0
-80 3CD
_00 CD 00 ZO j0 03
= 0 0:5 CD 0.
Dcl) 3 5 0*.
0o3 CCD
D 0 CDD z-p.
00 I--,
N) 8° 80 OCD 0 0:
Cl)
CD 3
C CD Cl)0 V
0
- 5 01 5,
(5) 01 a)
I..)
0) 0 C,)
1-s) 0 C*.)
F) a)
01 a) a)
CD 30 05; 11 00 x
0)
(I)z C0 CD0 0
0
- 5 C
0 CD 0
rn X0 3
0 N)
(5)
F-)0 F) m X0 3
I-CD CD 0
C,)
0 m
Cl) 0 CD m
C 3
0 0
C.)
CD C,
(I, 1
0
-I3 m
Cl) 0 0)
- 57c.
00.
CD0.
Z CD i Nt.
c
0 C
0 CD 2___
N 4
N
- 5 0
I F-0
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401 -9 HARRIS INITIAL DRAFT EARLY REVIEW 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.
Enter the level of difficulty (LOD) of each question using a 1 5 (easy difficult) rating scale (questions in the 2 4 range are acceptable).
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).
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 sampled for conformance with the approved K/A and those that are designated SRO-only (K/A and license level mismatches are unacceptable).
5.
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?
1.
At a minimum, explain any U ratings (e.g., how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met).
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/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only I:
GENERIC COMMENTS 1.
Bank questions that are used answers are NOT to be the same as it is in the bank. FOR EXAMPLE, if A was the answer, change it to any of the other selections, B C or D 2.
lAW should be wriften in accordance with 3.
NP= Non Plausible 4.
WOOTF = Which One of the Following 5.
SRO only Qs do not appear to have been bounced off of the SRO guidance criteria.
6.
The attached supporting reference material is inadequate support for distractors and detail s for and why the correct answer is correct.
7EK1.02 Bank F
2 IDRL Comments January11, 2012 1
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 1.
2.
3._Psychometric_Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
(FIH)
(1-5)
Stem Cues TIF Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link junits ward K/A Only 1.
This is a GFE question on Xenon behavior post trip.
)09EK2.03 Bank DRL Comments January 11, 2012 2
H 3
S 1.
Answer analysis B and C appear to be reversed Feb 1 nalysis ok. Question SAT 015AG2.1.20 Bank 2009 NRC Exam DRL Comment January 11, 2012 3
H 3
1.
Bulletize sequence of actions in the answer choices to provide a more clear comparison between the choices eb 1 S
Edited answers to enhance readability. Question SAT 025AA2.07 New DRL January11, 2012 1.
The second part of distracter C is not very plausible.
4 H
2 x
Recommend changing to close both B train valves 1 RH-39 and 1 RH-40.
Feb 1 S
Question ok as is. SAT
)26AA1.05 Bank DRL January11, 2012 1.
Is the 4% level requirement something that you expect a newly 5
H 3
licensed operator to have memorized? If so, this is SAT.
6 H
3 is expected knowledge. Removed periods from bullet statements.
.i SAT.
7AG2.4.35 New IJanuary 11, 2012 2
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
LOK LOD
1
(FIH)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A v
1.
K/A requires that the question discuss the resultant operational affects of the local auxiliary task. Question only addresses PORV setpoint.
rrhursday, January 12, 2012 RSB 1.
Additionally, the KA speaks to LOCAL action(s), distractors b and D are NOT local controls. This needs to address local actions ONLY, 2.
The stem does not address the PORV at all, so why would anyone pick that choice? These do not appear to be plausible.
Feb 1 1odified question (see exam). Question SAT
)38EA1.33 New DRL January 11,2012 1.
Although distracters B and D are somewhat plausible, it would be better if one were 3,1,2 and the other 3,2,4. The first answer would be correct if there were no loss of power. The second one would be correct if the loss of power only affected the MCB 7
H 3
x controller.
It would make sense to always have local operation in the answer because that should always be available.
2.
Also there is testing overlap with question 9. Both questions are asking the applicant to remember that the condenser steam dumps are not going to work after a LOOP.
Occepted recommendation. Question SAT 1
054AK1.02 Bank 8
H 2
SIjDRL January11, 2012 j
1055EK1.02Bank nCred Dist: With Th, Tc and CETC all decreasing, stating that natural circ 9
H 2
x ooling does NOT exist is not plausible. Nothing in the plausibility ments explains why it would be plausible.
ou have to know the first part to answer the second part.
S 1
3
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 ecommend keeping the second part and changing the first part to some something cool down related.RSB Comments: January 3, 2012 1.
What actually is going on with RCS pressure? Is this not also going to be going down also?
2.
Are these numbers from an actual trip or made up?
3.
Why would anyone select that Natural Circulation DOES NOT exist? This is not explained in the question analysis. Licensee to provide information WHY would anyone select this as an answer.
Did anyone, during validation, select DOES NOT?
IL Comments January 17, 2012 t revision by licensee 056 G2.4.46 New
.0J: A differential lockout makes this question a 1. Is there something lse that would give the same result but not make it so obvious?
--d Dist: Explain why an applicant would suspect mechanical problems iwith this? RSB Comments: January 3, 2012 1.
In the stem of the question, there is teaching. Which one of the following identify the alarms on ALB-022, that are consistent with a loss of offsite power. This is not necessary to ask about the LOSP, this is what the alarm and breaker indication indicate in the stem. The applicants should know this by the time they reach the stem. Reword the stem to remove the reference to LOSP.
2.
What in the questions stem provide a reason for the suspected mechanical trouble alarm, as questioned above? This could be an issue with credible distracters.
1.
2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
(FIH)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO UIEIS Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only s
1.
Overlap with question 7 on loss of steam dump with a LOOP.
Feb 1 hanged question to ask cooldown rate limit and the basis for limit.
emoved stated parameters for natural circulation. This was not needed or the question and created overlap with question 23. Question SAT.
10 H
1 X
4
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK L0D (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A C
3.
ARE Distractors B and C Plausible?
)RL Comments January 17, 2012 IPost revision by licensee 1.
Is it necessary to tell the applicants that AL-B-01 1 3-3 and multiple RCP undervoltage annunciators are received? This should be obvious from the stem in which the generator to north bus and south bus breakers open.
eb 9 hanged question to a loss of offsite power then asked for combinations f alarms. Question SAT.
New IKA: Is there something related to loss of instrument bus in the second part the question? Do you have a procedure for loss of instrument bus that has some actions that we can ask about?
red Dist: In what situation would LK-459F be used?
with a question being an AOP for an EOP KA match.
RSB Comments: January 3, 2012 1.
Agree with KA comment.
11 H
3 X
X 2.
Licensee to discuss when LK-459F used.
L Comments January 17, 2012 Post revision by licensee 1.
Preventing air binding of the CSIP does not appear plausible.
Wont the VCT swap to the RWST on low level to prevent this?
eb 1 Dhanged air binding to gas binding. Fixed plausibility statement.
uestion SAT.
12 F
1 x
U 058AA2.03 Bank
DRLJanuaryll,2012 S
5
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 ified question (see exam). Question SAT 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other J
6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
I (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q=
SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only 1.
Distracter C is not plausible. The question clearly states that this is control power. Control power cannot cause a breaker to change state and usually provides the indication. Therefore the applicants should not confuse this with a 6.9 Ky bus.
2.
D is not plausible for a similar reason.
3.
The question LOD was judged as a 1 because this is essentially a fundamental question about how control power affects a breaker. A better focus might be to have the loss of a DC bus its affect on the systems operation and indications.
062AA2.O1 New DRLJanuaryll,2012 1.
The stem of the question should specify that SW is in a normal lineup.
13 H
2 x
2.
Answers A and C should be ESW Pump A and ESW Pump B respectively.
Feb 1 Aodified question as suggested. Question SAT.
65AK3.04 New DRLJanuaryll,2012 1.
Second part of answers need strengthening to make distracters more plausible. Add if required to isolate main feed to A and 14 H
2 x
C. Add if required to use main feed to B and D. This way you are testing the failure position, and the basis of the FRy.
s Febi Modified 2 part of B & D to state it would keep the valves open. Modified tern. Question SAT 077AA1.03 Bank 15 H
4 S
DRL January 11, 2012 6
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
(F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred. IPartial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only EO4EK2.1 Bank 2009 NRC Exam DRL January11, 2012 g
1.
As written, the first part of answers C and D can never be 16 H
2 incorrect. Add the word ONLY to every answer to allow A and B to be plausible.
s Febl 1
-d locally to C & D. Edited stem. Edited A & B to read better.
Question SAT WEO5EK2.2 Bank 2009 NRC Exam LJanuary 11, 2012 1.
As written, 190 KPPH is never wrong.
In order to fix this, you would have to ask for the maximums. The way it is, the 2.
As written, All SG NR levels at 38% is never wrong.
3.
Without any plant specific knowledge answer A can never be wrong.
Need to look at this with asking the generators FIRST 17 H
2 X
will meet the conditions.
4.
Need to reword stem to ensure that it identifies the first point at which FRP-H.1 is required to be entered. Also might consider using all SG NR levels at 24% or 38%. This would ensure the applicants were considering the adverse containment conditions.
S eb I Aodified question (See exam) 18 H
3
- S fVE11EK3.2Bank2008NRCExammodified OO1AA1.07 Bank 2011 NRC Exam modified 19 H
2 Y
N S
RFAJanuaryl7,2012 This Q is Sat with no comments.
I find the modification acceptable.
U 036AK3.03 Bank 20 H
2 X
Y N
li RFAJanuary 17, 2012
[_j 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement 7
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 2.
Distracter C is NP. Nowhere in any industry standard have I heard of placing an irradiated fuel assembly on the refueling floor where it would be subject falling or incurring more damage..
3.
Distracter A is NP since there are no audible alarms in yet.
This Q is U because there are two NP distracters.
J37AK1.02 New RFA January 17, 2012 1.
Psychometrics: Reactor operator applicants know that they are NOT required to know more than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> TS. Therefore they will eliminate Cl and Dl. Therefore Cl and Dl are NP This Q is U because of two NP distracters.
nursday, January 19, 2012 RSB 1.
Good point above. This makes C and D non plausible, this could be fixed by using the reason for doing the action, increase pressure in the generator rather than giving the reason and having the applicant fill in the blank for the result on pressure.
2.
Additionally, 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> is not a number the applicants are required 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 I Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- /
Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus j Dist.
Link unitsj ward K/A Only Thursday, January 19, 2012 1.
Additionally, the stem is not clear WHO is doing this. Is this in terms of where the individual is at the time of this event? For example, would this be the RO doing the job, the RO in the main control room? Where?
2.
I am going to make this question an E, I believe that answer A is plausible. That leaves only C as non plausible. Need to s
change C to something more plausible.
Feb 1 I
Thanged C distractor. A is plausible. Should have been evaluated as an E. Questionis now SAT U
A 21 H
2 X
Y N
8
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 RFA January 17, 2012 1.
If one is tuned to the thermodynamics of NC, RCS HL indicators will be ruled out.
2.
Recommendation: Have all 4 choices involve the correct parameters as follows:
a.
RCS HL indicators: stable or decreasing and SG pressure indicators
- stable or decreasing ONLY b.
RCS HL indicators: stable or decreasing and RCS CL indicators: at saturation for SG pressure ONLY c.
SG pressure indicators : stable or decreasing and RCS HL indicators: stable or decreasing ONLY d.
RCS HL indicators: stable or decreasing, SG pressure indicators: stable or decreasing, and RCS CL indicators: a saturation for SG pressure 3.
This meets the criteria for being a higher order. Change from F to H.
4.
This Q is U because distracters A and B are NP because if one is tuned to the thermodynamics of NC, RCS HL indicators will be ruled out.
IRSB Thursday, January 19, 2012 1.
ACP is not defined in the question stem or IC, please define the ACP. Is this the Auxiliary Control Panel?
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 UIEIS Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only
to remember. Question needs to be fixed.
3.
Agree with U above.
s Febi
imes are procedure driven, not TS therefore, the question was origionally n F.
Modified stem to remove portion that leads to the correct answer.
)51AA2.02 New 22 F
2 Y
N S
REAJanuaryl7,2012
rhis 0 is Sat with no comments.
2.11 New 23 H
2 x
Y N
9
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 76AK2.01 New?
A January 17, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement 2.
Use of cation demins is common knowledge. Distracters B2 and D2 are NP as standalone distracters. Change A2 and D2 to read place the cation demineralizer in service ONLY. Change B2 and D2 to include A2 AND B2.
This Q is U because of two NP distracters.
RSB Thursday, January 19, 2012 EA1.2 Bank RFA January 17, 2012 It is common knowledge (specially after TM1) that a rapid increase in PZR level is a primary indication of voiding in the RCS.
In order for this Q to have plausibility, a number of parameters must be included (consider adding an RCP and a temperature aspect) as follows (example):
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
- /
Back-Q SRO U/EIS Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only 2.
Agree with recommendation above.
S Febl Modified question to make answers more plausible and eliminate A as a otentially correct answer. Question originally an E, not a U.
Changed
.K to H. Question SAT 24 H
2 X
Y N
1.
When I read what type of monitor, I was thinking, scintillation counter, Geiger Mueller detector, not process or room.
I would not believe that ROOM monitors are plausible. How about using the TYPE or what KIND it is as described above. This could help with the question and level of difficulty.
2.
Agree with above.
S rebi Modified stem and answers to address concerns. Question SAT.
25 F
2 x
N 1.
Y 10
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401 -9 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
LOK LOD
(F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues TIF Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A C A.
AA ONLY B.
ABONLY C.
BC ONLY D.
ABandC This Q is U because it has low DV.
S RSB January 19, 2012 1.
While the above maybe true, this is not the reason for being UNSAT. The question is low level of difficulty, however, it is will considered satisfactory.
As it is, it will be allowed.
If the suggestion is used, this will make the question a higher level question. But it is not required, provided that other questions are not at this level.
uestion reviewed as SAT on 1/19.
K3.3 Bank FA January 17, 2012 26 F
2 Y
N Ehis Q is Sat with no comments.
RSB January 19, 2012 VE15EG2.1.7 New RFA January 18, 2012 1.
Stem; Restate as follows: WOOTF completes the statement below?
27 H
2 X
The crew must determine if 2.
Distracter A is NP because there is no reason that the containment additive tank is low. A distracter must be added to the stem to validate A.
3.
D is NP without an end of core life statement. There is not enough information for the applicant to even determine what, if S
U J
N 11
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 any, boron requirements are in the sump.
This Q is U because of two NP distracters.
RSB January 19, 2012 1
Agree with distractor A comment. Add something to the stem to make this answer more plausible.
2.
No information in the stem to make D be a good reason. Add information in the stem to make that more plausible.
gree with analysis. Remains a U. Feb 1 Feb 1 uestion should have been E. Modified stem to make it more readable.
uestion SAT.
.06 Bank modified RFA January 18, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement 2.
Tripping the reactor at low power is NP 3.
The distracter analysis states that RCP A must be tripped but the answer states RCP B NEEDS TO reflect the question.
According to the reference, stopping additional RCPs may be necessary if in Mode 1. This makes D the correct answer.
This Q is U because of potential multiple correct answers and two NP distracters.
3 Thursday, January 20, 2012 1.
IS it necessary to provide the PCV-444D noun name of PRZ Loop B?
The stem should identify WHAT spray valve is OPEN.
I assume that is 1 RC-1 03. Is it safe to say just the Spray Valve was open I would like to have the noun name removed.
If the suggestion in #2 above is used then could use tripping the A RCP ONLY in the distractors.
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
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only S
I 28 H
2 x
x Y
N 12
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 4.
As in 4 above, D could also be an additional answer since we do not know if just stopping the B RCP will do the trick.
5.
Discuss with licensee.
1.
2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other J
6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
I (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues TIE Cred. IPaial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO UIE/S Explanation Focus Dist. j Link units ward K/A Only eb I is plausible because if> 49% it would be correct. Modified question to Dell out in accordance with. Question SAT.
004G2.2.39 Bank RFA January 18, 2012 29 F
2 X
Y N
1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement S
Febi Edited question per comment. Question SAT
)04K4.07 Bank RFA January 18, 2012 30 F
2 X
Y N
1.
This Q is a basic interlock memory question. This Q does not meet the criteria for H LOK Feb 1 S
Changed level to F. Question SAT 3.05 New 31 F
2 Y
N RFA January 18, 2012 This Q is Sat with no comments 005K6.03 Bank 2006 NRC exam 32 F
2 Y
N January 18, 2012 This Q is Sat with no comments
)06A1.16 Bank FA January 18, 2012 33 H
2 X
Y N
1.
Testing adverse containment values will increase the LOD.
Since the adverse values is <3, change the Stem IC to 3 psig which just puts them in adverse conditions. Change the answer from D to C. With the current Containment pressure, A2 and C2 13
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 SB January 18, 2012 1.
Bank question, was the answer changed from what it was in the bank, ie, if the answer was Din the Bank, then It cannot be Don this exam, it needs to be changed.
2.
What is going on with RCS Pressure, the IC states it is 1600, not going down. Would this make sense this way?
It should be decreasing since there is a Cool Down in progress.
3.
Is the question being asked from the stand point the crew is in EPP-009?
If it is, then the question should state In accordance with EPP-009?
4.
Agree with the above, use adverse containment numbers and somehow put in the C and M numbers listed in the procedure.
5.
The attached procedure excerpts are not helpful. The bottom of page 21 was provided, however, the top was needed. Had to print out a copy of that for review.
6.
What does the C and M mean in the following:
LI SI REINITIATION CRITERIA F any of the following occurs:
LI RCS subcooling LESS THAN 10°F [40°F] C 20°F [50°F]
- M 7.
I would rather the licensee use numbers that are NOT the actual setpoints. This cues the individual because of being familiar with the setpoint value.
lodified question (see exam). Not acceptable at this time, will revisit.
eb 9 lodified question to ask highest value of RCS subcooling as the second Q#
LOK (F/H) 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist.
Partial
- 4. Job Content Flaws Job-Link Minutia
- /
Back-Q=
units ward K/A 5.OtL]
6.
SRO U/E/S 7.
Explanation are NP This Q is U because of two NP distracters.
14
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 3.01 New FA January 18, 2012 1.
The PRT either works or it doesnt.
If the rupture disc is intact and the tank has not ruptured, then there is NO water to go to the containment sump and level will remain the same.
Therefore, containment sump levels will remain the same.
Likewise, if the PRT rupture disc does rupture, containment sumps have no choice but to increase. Therefore, A2 and D2 are NP.
This Q is U because of two NP distracters.
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 UIEIS Explanation Focus Dist.
Link lunits ward KJA Only art of the question. Question SAT.
006K6.03 Bank 2009 NRC exam modified 34 H
2 Y
N S
RFAJanuaryl8,2012 his Q is Sat with no comments. Modification is sat.
35 H
2 X
Y N
GENERIC COMMENTS 1.
It appears the test up till this point has a LOT of answers as distractor A. Licensee needs to ensure that the questions answer distribution is across all 4 answers.
RSB January 20, 2012, 1.
Agree.
lodified question. Not acceptable at this time due to KA match. Will re 1
,isit.
rovided Licensee with new KA.
%Iew question gives parameters for PRT and asks which one is above the alarm setpt and how the condition is mitigated. 2 part of D is also correct er OP100. Will change question to state in accordance with the alarm rocedure ALB-009-8-1. Question SAT 15
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 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/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only f a bank question was used, ensure that the actual answer of the question is not the same letter as it was in the bank.
)8A3.10 New IRFA January 18, 2012 1.
Im not convinced that D is plausible. Nothing in the stem would lead the applicant to believe that there is anything wrong with 36 H
3 X
X
N the RCP thermal barrier.
2.
Suggestion: add something to the stem to challenge the thermal barrier or replace D.
S lzebl Reviewed, modified stem to make D more plausible. Question SAT.
)08A4.01 New 37 H
2 Y
N S
RFAJanuaryl8,2012 rhis Q is Sat with no comments.
)10K6.01 Bank RFA January 18, 2012 1.
This Q is an illegally formatted Q. Each choice contains three U
parts. The maximum is two.
2.
Reconstruct the Question to meet the guidance of NUREG 1021, Appendix B, Paragraph C.2.f.
38 H
2 X
Y N
1.
Have we used this question on the simulator examination?
Need to check, this is normally and event that is evaluated on the simulator. Looks like it is not used, but need ensure we are not using this any other place.
2.
Disagree with RFA, will allow this question. The reference cited means something else entirely.
J 3.
Would like to change the IC a little. Want to remove the actual
statement that PRZ Press Channel PT-445 fails high. The data This Q is U because it does not meet written exam development criteria.
B January 20, 2012 16
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401 -9 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
(F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F I Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only provided is sufficient for the applicant to understand what is happening. The applicants do not have to be told which PRZ channel has failed, it is seen in the listed data. Remove this statement and the question is considered Sat.
012A4.06 Bank RFA January 18, 2012 1.
It is common knowledge that a reactor trip cannot be reset if a trip condition is present. # is acceptable because one has to know the trip setpoint for low SG level. However, 4 is obvious.
This bullet is telling them that a high flux rate trip is still in.
If just one high flux rate trip BS is not in, will the RT breakers reset?
As is, with bullet 4, the correct answer MUST include it.
Therefore distracters A and b are NP 39 H
2 X
Y N
This Q is U because of two NP distracters.
RSB January 20, 2012 1.
Agree with comments above.
2.
Distractors A and B need to be changed.
eb 1 eviewed question. Should have originally been an E. Modified stem and distractor. Question SAT.
J13K5.02 Bank FAJanuary 12, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement 2.
On the WOOTF statement, remove the word the before the word Channel 40 F
2 X
Y N
3.
B2 and D2 are NP because there is nothing in the stem that would lead the applicant to believe that 2 channels were tripped.
Hl-3 CNMT Spray Actuation is too important and the consequences are too severe for single bistable actuation.
This Q is U because two distracters are NP.
17
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 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 SROj U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A C SB January 20, 2012 1.
Used on 2007 audit 2.
Reference material provides NO useful information 3.
Distractors C and D do not seem plausible, 4.
Bold the word removed in the stem.
5.
Distractor C first part could be 2/3 which makes the first part incorrect and then for distractor D use the same 2/3. Discuss 1
with licensee.
Question reviewed and determined to originally be an E. Changed first t of C & D. Modified stem. Question SAT l22A4.03 Bank RFA January 12, 2012 1.
Fan speed does not meet the KA which is the first part of the question. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that during an accident where containment pressure is rising
, that fans shift to slow speed. Nowhere in the reference material does it state during any ESFAS related accident that fans stay or shift to fast speed.
2.
Fans shifting to fast or remaining in fast renders Cl and Dl NP.
3.
Rewrite the Q to focus on dampers only.
41 H
3 X
N N
This Q is U because two distracters are NP B January 20, 2012, 1.
The stem provides teaching. It states that the expected CCF alignment will be ONE Fan in each. Why is this information not being asked of the applicant. We should not provide teaching in the stem.
2.
The fan part can be used, using this information is over and above the KA. The suggestion can be used by the licensee if they want.
18
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 1
eb 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other J
6.
7 Q#
LOK LOD (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A C
3.
The fans running in high or low, the mechanism can be asked as to how this is done.
If in fast shifts directly to slow or if in fast speed the fan trips then restarts. This information could be used to make the question and better testing of the mechanism rather than the final outcome which is SLOW speed.
4.
Agree, needs to be fixed.
)uestion reviewed and determined to originally be an E. Modified stem to read better. Question is SAT.
U 026A2.08 New RFA January 12, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement
2.
Distracter B is NP since the B CS pump is NOT running. The stem pretty much gives that one away.
3.
Distracter D is NP because it contains purple words (ONLY when directed by Operations staff). Delete these words and state after containment pressure is reduced to < 10 psig ONLY 4.
A is NP because RWST Level is way to close to zero. Auto swap occurs at 23.4%. Recommend reversing the digits to 32.4%. This is clearly wrong.
42 H
3 X
Y N
This Q is U because three distracters are NP B January 20, 2012 1.
The question as written has numerous flaws. The applicants do not know the time frame this is speaking to. Securing a SI pump can occur when the table allows it.
2.
If containment pressure lowers to 10 psig, then the SI pump can be stopped. An answer.
3.
IF pressure goes down and RWST level goes down, the current answer, this is true.
4.
Based on the table if you started fans then the SI pump could be stopped.
19
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 32.4.21 New RFA January 12, 2012 This Q is Sat with no comments (4.02 Bank RFA January 12, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement accordance with added to question. Question SAT.
61 K5.05 Bank January 13, 2012 1.
According to the distractor analysis, C is a potential correct answer as well because it is a long term concern. The stem does NOT establish a time line, Therefore, C could be arguably correct.
2.
Consider a qualifying or a limiting statement in the stem to rule out distracter C.
This Qis U because of two possible correct answers.
January 20, 2012 1.
In the Initial conditions (IC) put commas around 1 DP-1A-S1, to emphasize and break up the line.
2.
Is the crew using a particular procedure? If so, state it. The 1.
2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
(F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F I Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus j Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only 43 F
2 Y
N 5.
This question is not tight enough and may have multiple arguable answers.
$iscuss with licensee. Question still remains unsat.
question. Will re-visit.
s Feb7 icensee submitted new question. Reviewed question and determined to L...
SAT as written.
44 H
3 X
Y N
45 F
2 X
X Y
N 20
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401 -9
[
1.
2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
IQ#
LOK LOD (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation
[__
Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only s
stem should include a reference to OP156.02, eb 1 eviewed the question. Determined to be originally E. Modified each nswer to make more decidedly correct or incorrect. Question is SAT.
1.03 Bank 2008 NRC exam IRFA January 13, 2012 1.
Too much frufru is included in each of the choices. Consider the following:
A. A reactor trip may occur B. The bistable may experience a momentary inadvertent trip 46 F
2 X
X Y
N C. To ensure that each parameter for process or protection goes to its required state.
D. To ensure all lights are out, verifying what the process instrumentation cabinet normal and alternate supply breakers are open.
ied question (see exam). Question SAT 2K2.01 Bank RFA January 13, 2012 47 F
2 Y
N This Q is Sat with no comments censee reviewed and changed A to Heater Drain Pump 1A to eliminate
-- with another exam question.. Question SAT.
5 063A3.01 Bank RFA January 13, 2012 1.
Distractor A is NP because there is no connection between 48 F
2 X
Y N
loss of power to the emergency bearing oil pump and auto start of the emergency DC lube oil pump. The reference material does not support the plausibility of distracter A.
2.
Replace distractor A 21
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 1.
Psychometrics: If Cl and Dl were correct, Al and BI would be correct too. The stem needs a qualifier like the word minimum to rule out Cl and Dl.
This Q is U because of two NP distracters. However, since one word will fix this Q, this Q was rated as an E DS Jan 20. Is there a procedure that actually directs using the mergency Stop?
eb 1 uestion reviewed and determined to be E. Added procedure reference ensure that C is incorrect. Changed STOP to START/STOP to more Bccurately reflect the actual switch nomenclature. Question SAT.
064K1.0l Bank 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/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only Feb 9 uestion rewritten but still not plausible. Licensee will re-write question.
S Feb15 Question rewritten to discuss charger operation. SAT 164A2.14 New RFA January 13, 2012 49 F
2 X
Y N
50 F
2 Y
N This Q is Sat with no comments
)73K1.0l Bank RFAJanuaryl3 2012 51 F
2 Y
N S
Fhis Q is Sat with no comments KDS Jan 20. No comments.
52 F
2 Y
N S
076K2.0l Bank AJanuary 13, 2012
)S Jan 20. No comments.
22
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401 -9 178A3.01 Bank IRFA January 13, 2012 1
Its NP to have a feedwater isolation as a result of a lowering instrument air pressure. The distractor analysis does not support its plausibility, replace distracter D.
)S Jan 20.
If the discharge valve is air operated, Im ok with it.
If not, I gree with the above comment.
was originally MFP discharge valve. Changed D to Main Feedwater Isolation valves. Question SAT.
3 Bank
- AJanuary 13, 2012 1.
Delete Compressor 1 B will continue to run from distracter D because there is no reason why it should stop since the standby unit is starting to supplement the air supply.
S Jan 20.
KA:
I dont see anything mentioned in the question about units that are cross tied.
Question KA discussed with RSB 11/15/2001 and allowed cross tied air ystems to meet the intent of the KA. Question should originally been an Changed D by removing continue to run. Question SAT.
K1.03 Bank
[AJanuaryl3,2012 his Q is Sat with no comments KDS Jan 20. No comments.
Feb 9 Licensee added editorial comment to question stem to make easier to LOK (F/H) 2.
LOD (1-5)
Stem Focus Cues T/F
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws Cred.
Dist.
Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /
Back-Q=
units ward K/A 5.Ot.J 6.
SRO UIEIS C-.
7.
Explanation A January 13, 2012
[rhis Q is Sat with no comments Jan 20. No comments.
53 F
2 X
Y N
54 H
3 X
N N
55 F
2 Feb 1 Y
N 23
ES-401, Rev. 9 Wriften Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 Stem Cues TIE Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A stem of question to state the primary reason and indication higher than expected.
11K2.01 Bank RFA January 13, 2012
- k 5 0 is Sat with no comments KDS Jan 20. No comments.
014K3.02 New RSB Comments: January 3, 2012 1.
The stem needs to be changed to ask for the combination of alarms. Not just one alarm the way it is here. Ask which combinations. We need to ensure however it is changed that the question is asking what we want the applicants to do in the stem. Needs to be more clear.
2.
Having the second column centered is not really the way I
believe it should be, make the column flush with each first word.
then center the ALARM TITLE above that column.
3.
Also identify in stem that there is ONLY ONE rod that has this issue. An applicant could read this and miss this information.
Jan 20. Licensee to walk through the above comments.
Q#
LOK (FIH) 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws 5.Ot 6.
SRO UIEIS Only I
7.
Explanation lunderstand.
I 56 F
2 X
Y N
57 F
2 1001 K1.12 New 4 January 13, 2012 1.
Distractor A is NP because it is common knowledge that they ARE accurate under accident conditions.
2.
D is not plausible because boron in the RCS has nothing to do with the functionality of the SR instruments.
3.
Consider writing all 4 choices based on neutron attenuation.
This Q is U because of two NP distracters.
IKDS Jan 20. C could also be correct.
It does contribute.
Y N
58 F
2 24
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
LOK LOD
(F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues TIE Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO UIE/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A C
) may also be correct. Licensee will review and re-visit this question.
IQuestion_re-written SAT.
.3.01 Bank
,- January 13, 2012 1.
Not enough information was provided to determine if the subcooling monitor was available.
If the SCM is NOT available then A2 is correct and the answer needs to be changed.
If the SCM is available then the Q is SAT as is with no further s
F 3
x comments.
This Q is E until the status of the SCM has been determined to be available.
KDS Jan 20. No additional comments.
eb 2 part of A & B not plausible. Added pressure signal failed high to stem o make manual calculation plausible. Question SAT.
AJanuary 13, 2012 1.
Pressure is not a factor in the charcoal filter system. Therefore, Al and Bi (High Charcoal filter DP) is NP.
2.
If adequate reference material could be provided to justify DP, then this question disposition with respect to DP will be re evaluated.
60 H
3 X
Y N
3.
Recommend replacing Al and B1 or write a new question.
This Q is U because of two NP distractors.
S Jan 20. Are there any charcoal filters in the plant that have DP alarms?
If so, this may be Ok.
There are PAC filters that have DP alarms therefore, the question should been an E originally. Modified the first part of A&B to filter train Dp
- eb 1
N S
..2.01 New 25
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 2.
f
- 3. Psychometric_Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD F I
(F/H)
(1-5)
I Stem ICues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation I Focus!
Dist.
Link lunits ward K/A Only which is an alarm and therefore more plausible. Question SAT.
i 4.02 Bank RFA January 13, 2012 u
1.
-.250 is NOT a meaningful value for anything in the containment purge system. Therefore, distractors Al and Bi are NP.
It must be shown via reference material that these values are in fact plausible, 61 H
3 X
Y N
This Q is U because of two NP distracters.
(DS Jan 20.
I agree that a more plausible number should be used.
s Feb2 J
uestion should have been an E originally. Changed the second part of A C to -1.5 to make more plausible. This is the setpoint for containment acuum check valve closure.
Question SAT 33A1.02 New RFA January 13, 2012 S!E This Q is Sat with no comments KDS Jan 20. Stem focus. The question currently looks like two separate
.uestions. Put fuel pool level is decreasing and the rad alarm as a bullets.
62 F
2 Y
N Then ask the status of the ventilation system and the level at which the ecrease will stop. Does the rad monitor start the ventilation system or e water level? Licensee explain.
1 question stem to put conditions as bullets in the top part of the jq uestion. Question SAT.
w 1035K6.03 Bank RFA January 13, 2012 1.
Given the initial conditions, why would the applicant consider 63 F
2 X
Y N
SG overfill with AFW pumps secured?
2.
Distracters B2 and D2 (MSLI) are NP because of 1 above.
This Q is U because there are two NP distracters.
IKDS Jan 20.
I believe C is a subset of A. SG level will increase to 73%
26
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 1068K5.04 New u
ICred Dist: A & D, the second part does not seem credible when matched twith the first part. i.e. what does a settling pond have to do with dilution
.frr flow rate and wheat does a cooling tower blowdown line have to do ith maximizing decay time.
SB Comments:
January 3, 2012 1.
Add noun name in the stem for procedure OP-120.10.04, are the applicants expected to know this procedures name and what it does by memory?
2.
While the analysis states that the basis for the permit is due to minimum dilution water flow rate, there is no reason for the alternate answer of Maximize the decay time for radioactive liquid. What makes this plausible?
3.
Additionally, did anyone get this question incorrect?
If so, were they asked why they chose the wrong answer? Discuss with licensee.
4.
In the stem, why is it necessary to have the last part after the (2)? This does not appear to be necessary and is somewhat confusing. Discuss if necessary.
nd part of A&D not plausible. Licensee to re-work question and re-visit.
Changed 2 part of the question to ask when a new release permit is required. Question SAT.
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/F/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A C land a MFWI will also occur. Therefore there are two correct answers.
uestion reviewed and determined to be an E originally. Modified stem of he question to eliminate the subset issue. Added Feedwater Reg ypass Valves are controlling SG level in automatic to stem. Question
64 F
2 x
27
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 FA January 13, 2012 IThis Q is Sat with no comments IKDS Jan 20. No comments.
2.1.36 Bank RFA January 14, 2012 1.
This question has no discriminatory value. Even if one of the others WAS correct, without communication, no one is going or doing anywhere with regard to fuel movement.
2.
Suggestion: re-write the stem to state: Other than the loss of Communications, WOOTF would require suspension of core alterations?
This Q is U because it has no discriminatory value.
IKDS Jan 20.
I agree with above comments.
question reviewed and determined to be an E originally. Modified the orrect answer to Source Range audible indication inside containment becomes unavailable. Question SAT.
p2.1.45 New kFA January 14, 2012 1.
Distracter C2 is NP if actual level remains unchanged. The HUT will not reposition if VCT level doesnt even with LT-1 12 failing high.
2.
Replace C2 KDS Jan 20. Stem Focus: Remove Actual VCT level indicated on Ll-115 replace with LI-us will indicate.
Changed the second part of the question to ask if VCT Auto Makeup will be available. Removed the word indicated from stem. Question SAT.
LOK (F/H) 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Focus Dist.
Partial Job-Link Minutia
- 1 Back-Q=
units ward K/A 5.Ot!1fLJ 6.
SRO U/E/S C.-..
65 F
2 Y
N 7.
Explanation b79A4.01 Bank 2009 NRC exam 66 F
2 Y
N 67 H
3 X
Y N
M 2
Y N
2.2.18Bank 28
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet 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
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/F/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A C AJanuary 14, 2012 1.
What is the difference between Decay heat Removal and Residual Heat Removal?
2.
If there is no difference then pick one or the other. Otherwise, explain the difference.
KDS Jan 20. Recommend the list in different order and ask to pick the orrect hierarchy.
eb 2 DHR is a function, RHR is a system. These are not CSF. Question hould have been S originally. Question Sat.
G2.2.38 New E
RFA January 14, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement 69 M
2 X
Y N
KDS Jan 20. 2/3 of the stem is irrelevant to the question. Remove.
S
- eb2 Removed the first part of the stem. Question SAT.
70 F
2 U
N S
2.3.12 Bank RFA January 16, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement 2.
Authorization to to perform additional flush times does not meet the KA. The KA is knowledge of radiological safety principles pertaining to licensed operator duties such as containment entry requirements, fuel handling responsibilities, access to locked high rad areas, aligning fifters, etc.
I failed to see the connection.
This Q is U because it does not meet the KA.
S Jan 20. I agree with above comments.
Feb 2
.icensee will review bank questions and revisit this question.
29
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 N
2.3.13 Bank January 16, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement IKDS Jan 20. Does RM-1CR-3561A-SA CNMT Vent Isolation in HIGH darm give an isolation signal? The plausibility statement states that it is performed if a ventilation isolation has actuated. This would make B Icorrect as well.
reviewed.
It would require 2 /4 to make B correct. Only 1/4 is in the stem. Question SAT.
January 16, 2012 1.
2.
3._Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other I
6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
(FIH)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO UIEIS Explanation Focus Dist.
Link lunits ward K/A C-Licensee submitted new question asking how an area should be classified land the MINIMUM approval authority to enter this area.
Question SAT.
71 H
3 X
V 72 F
2 X
V N
eviewed question. Determined that changing the 1 OCFR limit to the rogress Energy Limit would overlap one of the Admin JPMs. Decided to
- .e the question as is.
G2.4.11 Bank RFA January 16, 2012 73 H
3 X
Y N
1.
25 rnrem is common knowledge and practice for saving a life.
Therefore, A2 and B2 are NP distracters.
2.
Recommend re-designing the Q This Q is U because there are two NP distracters KDS Jan 20.
tern Focus:Recornrnend changing the stem to remove 10CFR2O. State s a progress energy employee or something close to that.
Feb 2 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement 2.
In distracter D, the word ALL is a very powerful word and will be ruled out because there are no circumstances where this statement would be true (at least the references provided did 30
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 SRO ONLY Questions 7-Explanation not reflect one). Therefore, distracter D is NP.
- Jan 20.
concur with #2. Can May be replaced with will or nail.
If you are supposed to perform the AOP concurrently with the
)P, then stated it. What is the management expectation.
.29 Bank
- RFA January 16, 2012 This Q is Sat with no comments DS: Jan 20. No comments.
015AA2.09 New AJanuary 16, 2012 1.
Set the initial condition such that one NI power level is above P8 and one is below. This way, the applicant will have to take NI coincidence into consideration as well. As is, this question is borderline with respect to LOD.
2.
Additionally, I believe that this Q should also be RO knowledge since it deals with reactor trip setpoints. Facility re-evaluate.
eb 2 This Q is U regarding SRO applicability until re-verified by the facility dlodified question stem to state power at 45% and changed 2 part of the luestion to require TS knowledge of actions for 1 RCP oos. Question SAT.
Q#
LOK (F/H) 2.
LOD (1-5)
Stem Focus Cues T/F
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws Cred.
Dist.
Partial Job-Link Minutia
- 5. Other
- 1 Back-Q=
units ward K/A SRO 6.
U/E/S 75 74 F
2 Y
N S
H 2
Modified distracter D and distracter B. Question SAT.
1G2.4.25 Bank RFA January 16, 2012 his Q is Sat with no comments 1fF : Jan 20. No comments.
Y N
76 H
2 N
S 77 H
3 X
Y Y
129EG2.4.20 New 31
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 A January 16, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement eb 2 corrected per comments. Question SAT.
RFA January 16, 2012 This Q is Sat with no comments 1.
2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other J
6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
I (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues TIE Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO UIEIS Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A Only 78 H
3 Y
Y D55EG2.4.9 New I
January 16, 2012 1.
B2 and D2 are NP because NC has nothing to do with cooling the RV head.
U 2.
Suggestion: Change B2 and D2 to read as follows:
79 F
2 X
Y Y
S 80 H
3 X
Y Y
- 77AG2.4.3 New Istem focus: Long term is not specific enough. Recommend editing this art of the question and tying it to rated battery life.
81 H
3 X
X tate TS 3.3.3.6 in the stem.
3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> would be more plausible than 30 days.
Is there a reason that we
,uld not use 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> (time required for action B)?
o you require your operators to know everything below the line, i.e. a 7 Maximize NC flow to promote reflux boiling This Q is U because two distractors are NP.
3 January 19: Reviewed, disagree with above statement, question is satisfactory as written.
J58AA2.02 Bank FAJanuary 16, 2012 1.
Editorial: See Generic 2 Statement eb 2 1odified question per comments. Question SAT.
32
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401 -9 day action?
KA: The question does not require any identification of post accident instrumentation. Would recommend a new KA.
RSB Comments: January 3, 2012 2.
3._Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other I
6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
-rr
(F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link lunits ward K/A Only I
This is the third LOSP question.
IS there no other post accident instrumentation that operator have to identify other than associated with an LOSP?
2.
This question is confusing what has to be inserted in the first blank. The word of: should be removed after the blank. At least that will make it a little clearer. Also put in each distractor the word GROUP 1 or Group 2.
3.
LOOK at LONG TERM comment above.
4.
What makes this SRO ONLY? Is there going to be a reference with this question? NONE, why are the SROs required from memory to know this information below the line? Is there a Learning Objective? This may not be fair to ask!
5.
If the KA requires identification of post accident instrumentation, this question does not match the KA. This makes this a U?
Discuss with Ken.
6.
The format of this question is an issue. Open up tables, leave line after the underline of each title.
Licensee operations management stated that knowledge of tech spec lactions are required of SROs. Question should be an E originally.
Licensee will modify question and re-evaluate.
icensee modified question to change post accident instrumentation. Left S portion of the question as is. Question still has all post accident nstrumentation. Licensee to put non-post accident instrumentation in one S
f the groups to ensure KA match. Will revisit.
eb 9 33
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 7.
Explanation odified question to have one group with non-accident instrumentation.
Iouestion SAT.
kJO5AG2.2.22 Bank A January 16, 2012 IThis Q is Sat with no comments art: For C, If the APP directs this action if the SR detectors have a nalfunction, doesnt the alarm in the stem suggest that the SR has a inction.
It that is true, then C is correct as well.
Plaus Dist: With the source range trips enabled as in B & D, and a the tated alarm in, explain why it would be plausible to stay in GP-004 and kontinue operation.
(A: The KA is looking for knowledge of response procedures. The correct nswer has nothing to do with any alarm response procedures.
RSB Comments: January 3, 2012 1.
In the stem, the way the annunciator is written is not the same as in other questions.
In the second question the position is listed first, in this question the ALB-013 is listed first. Following one convention.
2.
Each distractor is hard to read, the stem needs to be changed tc read more clearly. As it is now, it is not acceptable.
3.
Why is it necessary for A and C and B and D any reference to Source Range either blocked or enabled. This just provides key words and phrases the individuals would remember. Suggest that this be removed from each distractor. The second part can J
be below or above P-6. No explanation necessary. Discuss with licensee.
4.
WHAT is OWP-RP, Reactor Protection? Ask licensee how this could be an answer. NO reason why it could be is provided.
S eb2 Q#
LOK (F/H) 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws Stem Cues Focus TIE Cred.
Dist.
Partial
- 4. Job Content Flaws Job-Link Minutia
- 1 Back-Q=
units ward K/A 5.OtL]
6.
SRO U/E/S Only 82 H
3 Y
Y b32G2.4.31 New 83 H
3 X
X x
34
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 NE08EA2.2 Bank tem Focus:
Is the 12.3 psig necessary?
I RSB Comments: January 3, 2012 1.
Agree with above, why is 12.3 psig necessary?
2.
SROonlyok S
Feb 2 Removed 12.3 psig from the question. Question SAT.
E13EA2.1 Bank RO Only: Question is RO knowledge.
an use as part of a two part question.
RSB January 19, 2012 1.
Disagree is SRO, will be Ok.
012A2.04 New KDS comments: Jan 18
_OD:
Is it operations management expectation that applicants know TS data below the line?
mmend replacing the 2 d part with a TS basis question.
Jcensee operations management stated that knowledge of tech spec are required of SROs. Licensee will modify question and re valuate Question SAT.
Q#
LOK (F/H) 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist.
Partial
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other Job-Link Minutia units Back-Q SRO ward K/A Only 6.
U/F/S 84 H
3 x
7.
Explanation ILicensee modified question per comments. Question SAT.
85 H
2 x
86 H
3 U
013A2.03 New KA: The KA asks for the impact of rapid depress on ES. The question 87 H
3 X
X
__j isks how do depressurize the SGs based on system conditions.
35
Form ES-401-9 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Stem Cues Focus IRSB Comments: January 3, 2012 KA states: Predict impact of Rapid Depressurization on ESFAS.
Based on those predictions use procedures to mitigate consequences. Question provides LOCA for rapid depressurization and its effect on the ESFAS B Sequencer, to be operating in Mode B or Mode C. The second part does not identify how to use procedures to mitigate the Rapid Depressurization but it identifies how to depressurize the steam generators. This does not match the KA.
RSB January 19, 2012 Change is Ok. However, the stem was changed to describe that there was a rapid depressurization. This is not acceptable to key the operators into that part of the initial conditions.
It is not necessary and helps identify what answer is correct. Remove that adjective from the stem.
It can be stated; Based on the RCS pressure change. Remove RAPID.
S eb 2 i1odified question per comments. Question SAT.
2.40 New kDS comments: Jan 18 eb 2 LOK (F/H) 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws T/F
- 4. Job Content Flaws Cred.
Partial Job Dist.
Link Minutia
- 5. Other
- /
Back-Q SRO units ward K/A Only 6.
U/E/S 7.
Explanation 88 H
4/5
..0D: Is it operations management expectation that applicants know TS data below the line?
ecommend replacing the 2 nd part with a TS basis question.
.Jcensee operations management stated that knowledge of tech spec 3 are required of SROs. Licensee will modify question and re valuate. Question SAT.
44 076G2.1.7 Bank 89 H
2 SRO Only: Neither part is SRO only knowledge.
RSB Comments: January 3, 2012 36
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 1.
2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
1
r1 (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q ISROI U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A 1.
First part of question is system knowledge.
2.
Second part of question is entry conditions into Path 1 and requirements to trip the Reactor which is an ROs expected knowledge..
3.
NOT SRO ONLY.
SB January 19, 2012 rut transition of EOP/AP into the second part of question. Question SAT.
)78A2.01 Bank 2006 NRC exam KDS comment: Jan 18 90 Modify question answer to change out the word may. Either it does or it loesnt. May seems too easy to challenge.
Feb 2 Replaced may with will. Question SAT.
)16A2.01 Bank UI KDS comment: Jan 18 91 H
3 X
SRO Only: Entry conditions to AOPs are RO knowledge.
S 1eb7 Reviewed question with BC. Determined to originally be SAT.
93 F
3 1odified question to add SG levels of 15 and 20 percent. Question SAT.
1071A2.08 New 92 H
3 x
2.4.6 Bank S comment: Jan 18
..a to walk through procedure showing correct path and paths used r distracters.
red dist: More discriminating if we put some water in the SG5 without aring the correct answer. 20%, 15% and 15%.
37
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401 -9 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other 6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD
(F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred. IPaftial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. j Link units ward K/A Only 2.1.41 Bank 2009 NRC exam KDS comment:
S/
Partial: The plausibility statement states that the CRS approval is required r normal evolutions and that the SRO-fuel handling approval is required 94 F
2 X
- bypassing Can this evolution occur without the CRS approval? If it, there are two correct answers.
luestion remained the same. Added information in plausibility statements at clarified the plausibility. Question SAT.
G2.2.25 Bank 2008 NRC exam KDS comment:
icensee to verify that this is an SRO ONLY objective. The bases for a I
system/component is usually not an SRO question.
3 January 19, 2012 95 F
2 X
1.
Agree with this 2.
Discuss with licensee.
nformation is an SRO ONLY objective PZRPC. Will review with BC.
irote question to ask the basis for reducing Tave to less than 500 aes if activity is above limits. Question SAT.
.2.43 Bank 2011 NRC exam ecommend keeping the second part and adding a basis /operability for 96 F
2 x
he first part.
iNo changes. Question should have been S originally.
u 1G2312 Bank 97 H
3 X
Cred Dist: B & C the sense of urgency in each part seem to contradict leach_other._How_long_does_it take_to_place_the_assembly_back_into_the 38
ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- l.
..and then evacuate ALL personnel. A not really plausible with all if the indications that something really bad is happening.
rad levels were 110 mr/hr and increasing, would this be a better starting oint.? Would the answer be different?
RSB January 19, 2012 1.
There is an element of overlap with question # 20 in RO.
-J question (see exam). Question SAT 32.3.14 New SRO Only: Not SRO only knowledge 4 RSBJanuary 19, 2012 1.
Agree with above, NOT SRO ONLY.
2.
Needstobefixed.
Feb 9 Re-wrote question to ask basis for PORV setpt during a SGTR. Question AT.
.4.30 Bank OD: B, C and D dont seem too plausible when compared to A.
xposure to individual per 1 C in the reference material as the correct nswer would make the other answers more plausible and the question re discriminating.
red Dist. C not plausible.
Feb 2 Changed C & D to more plausible distracters. Question SAT Q#
LOK (F/H) 2.
LOD (1-5)
Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist.
Partial
- 4. Job Content Flaws Job Link Minutia
- 1 Back-Q=
units ward K/A
- 5. otJ 6.
7.
SRO U/E/S Explanation C.-...
98 F
2 U
99 F
2 x
S E
324.8 New 100 H
3 X
X
)red Dist: Is there any criteria on tripping RCP5 in EOP-EPP-001? If not, hen the first part of C & D are not plausible.
39
ES-401, Rev. 9 Wriften Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401 -9 1
3tem Focus: Add to restore power. to the end of the question.
[rhe plausibility statements A & C seem to contradict each. Should state why each part is plausible if not correct.
IFeb 2 1.
2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other I
6.
7.
Q#
LOK LOD (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred.
Partial Job-Minutia
- 1 Back-Q SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward K/A C
hanged A, C and D to be more plausible. Question SAT.
40
ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: We&s Date of Exam: 2 2-)W2 Exam Level: ROrROv 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
- a. Grader 5
&uE%k dm*/d%Qcj 3_Iz-(
- b. Facility Reviewer(*)
4
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)
$_-ai?
- d. NRC Supervisor (*)
MM..c..
(*)
The facility reviewers signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.
ES-403, Page 6 of 6