Text

301 Final Administrative Documents
	ML13336A407
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	11/26/2013
From:	Hensley D; Duke Energy Corp
To:	; NRC/RGN-II
References
	50-413/13-301, 50-414/13-301
	Download: ML13336A407 (79)
	v • d • e

ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1 Date of Facility: Catawba 2013-301 Examination: Sep 16-19, 2013 Examinations Developed Facility NRC by: Written / Operating Test Written / Operating Test Chief Target

Task Description (Reference) Examiners Date Initials

-180 1. Examination administration date confirmed (C.1.a; C.2.a and b) 10/2/2012

-120 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.e) 10/2/2012

-120 3. Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c) 10/9/2013

-120 4. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.d) 2/15/2013

[-90] [5. Reference material due (C.1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 2)] 6/20/2013

{-75} 6. Integrated examination outline(s) due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-201-3, ES- (W) 10/10/2012 301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-D-1's, ES-401-1/2, ES-401-3, and ES-401-4, as (O) 6/20/2013 applicable (C.1.e and f; C.3.d)

{-70} {7. Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility 6/26/2013 licensee (C.2.h; C.3.e)}

{-45} 8. Proposed examinations (including written, walk-through JPMs, and scenarios, as (W) 7/15/2013 applicable), supporting documentation (including Forms ES-301-3, ES-301-4, ES-301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-401-6), and reference materials due (C.1.e, f, g (O) 8/2/2013 and h; C.3.d)

-30 9. Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398's) due (C.1.l; C.2.g; ES-202) 8/5/2013

-14 10. Final license applications due and Form ES-201-4 prepared (C.1.l; C.2.i; ES- 9/3/2013 202)

-14 11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review 9/11/2013 (C.2.h; C.3.f) 6/7/2013,

-14 12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.1.j; C.2.f and h; C.3.g) 7/26/2013, 8/8-9/2013, 8/13-14/2013, 8/26/2013

-7 13. Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor 9/11/2013 (C.2.i; C.3.h)

-7 14. Final applications reviewed; 1 or 2 (if >10) applications audited to confirm qualifications / eligibility; and examination approval and waiver letters sent (C.2.i; 9/9/2013 Attachment 4; ES-202, C.2.e; ES-204)

-7 15. Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee 9/23/2013 (C.3.k)

-7 16. Approved scenarios, job performance measures, and questions distributed to 9/16/2013 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.

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Examination: 09/16/2013 Initials Item Task Description

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

.J4/-

R I

b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all K/A categories are appropriately sampled.

A I

-f.jf7 M T

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

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

2. a. Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number of S

normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications, and major transients.

!i1fl M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number and u 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 at A least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated from the T 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 distributed W among the safety functions as specified on the form 1 (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 en 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. :ii CO.4 G

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

c. Ensure that K/A importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5. tZ77 E

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

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

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

A\ Printç4-444!Sign)ure ,pt

a. Author Darrell 1-lensley -flAU_.V f-J 1,3

b. Facility Reviewer(*) Walter Hunnicutt i a/zs/I3

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) lt ft 3res ,i2Ji. TJ5 O .3

d. NRC Supervisor /JALCJA r.

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

Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines

ES-301 Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-1 NRC EXAM FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Examination: Sept. 2013 Examination Level: RO SRO Operating Test Number: 2013301 Administrative Topic Type Describe activity to be performed (See Note) Code*

Perform a Manual Shutdown Margin Calculation Conduct of Operations R,N G2.1.25 Ability to interpret reference materials, such as graphs, curves, tables, etc.

Complete a Unit Vent Flow Calculation Conduct of Operations S,D G2.1.23 Ability to perform specific system and integrated plant procedures during all modes of plant operation.

Classify a DG start and complete log entry.

Equipment Control R,D G2.2.12 Knowledge of surveillance procedures.

Calculate Low Pressure Service Water Discharge Flow Radiation Control M,R for Radioactive Release G2.3.11 Ability to control radiation releases.

Emergency Procedures/Plan ---

NOTE: All items (5 total) are required for SROs. RO applicants require only 4 items unless they are retaking only the administrative topics, when 5 are required.

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

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

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

ES 301, Page 22 of 27

ES-301 Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-1 NRC EXAM FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Examination: Sept. 2013 Examination Level: RO SRO Operating Test Number: 2013301 Administrative Topic Type Describe activity to be performed (See Note) Code*

Perform a Manual Shutdown Margin Calculation Conduct of Operations S,D G2.1.25 Ability to interpret reference materials, such as graphs, curves, tables, etc.

Complete a Unit Vent Flow Calculation Conduct of Operations S,D G2.1.23 Ability to perform specific system and integrated plant procedures during all modes of plant operation.

Classify a DG start and complete log entry.

Equipment Control R,D G2.2.12 Knowledge of surveillance procedures.

Calculate Low Pressure Service Water Discharge Flow Radiation Control M,R for Radioactive Release G2.3.11 Ability to control radiation releases.

Classify an Emergency and Make Initial Notifications Emergency Procedures/Plan R,D G2.4.40 Knowledge of SRO responsibilities in emergency plan implementation.

NOTE: All items (5 total) are required for SROs. RO applicants require only 4 items unless they are retaking only the administrative topics, when 5 are required.

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

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

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

ES 301, Page 22 of 27

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2 NRC EXAM Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Examination: Sept. 2013 Exam Level: RO SRO-l El SRO-U fl Operating Test Number: 2013301 Control Room Systems (8 for RO): (7 for SRO-l); (2 or 3 for SRO-U, including 1 ESF)

System / JPM Title . Type Code

Safety Function

a. Establish NC System Feed and Bleed 002A2.04 Control/mitigate loss of heat sink. 4.3/4.6 A D L,P,S 4P

b. Restore power to I ETA from offsite power (-) L P S 062A4.01 Operate/monitor breakers (including switchyard). 3.3/3.1 6

c. Emergency Boration per FR-S.I 004A2.14 Control Emergency Boration. 3.8/3.9 A D S 1 ci. Secure ND Pump due to miniflow valve failure 006A2.02 For ECCS, mitigate loss of flow path. 3.9/4.3 A N EN L S 3

e. Increase IA CLA pressure 006A1 .03 Operate ECCS controls for accumulator. 3.5/3.7 D S 2

f. Shift operating RC Pumps I %v- S 8 075A2.02 Mitigate/control loss of circulating water pumps. 2.5/2.7 k.J

g. Align the NS System for Cold Leg Recirculation 026A4.01 Operate/monitor CSS controls 4.5/4.3 M LS 5

h. Main Turbine Weekly Trip Test 012A2.06 Mitigate failure of RPS signal to trip the reactor 4.4/4.7 A N S 7 In-Plant Systems@ (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-l): (3 or 2 for SRO-U)

i. Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool makeup from RN 033A2.03 Control/mitigate abnormal SFP water level. 3.1/3.5 M R 8

j. Establish NC Pump Seal Injection from the SSF 015/O17AA1.07 Operate RCP seal water injection system. 3.5/3.4 ME 4P

k. Shifting Main Transformer Auxiliaries 062A2.01 Operate loads that would degrade plant operation. 3.4/3.9 M 6

@ All RO and SRO-I 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)Iternate path 4-6 / 4-6 / 2-3 (C)ontrol room (D)irectfrom bank <9/ <8 / <4 (E)mergency or abnormal in-plant 1 / 1 / 1 (EN)gineered safety feature - I - I 1 (L)ow-Power / Shutdown > 1 / > 1 I > 1 (N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1 (A) 2 I 2 I 1 (P)revious 2 exams < 3 < 3 / < 2 (randomly selected)

(R)CA >1/ >1 />1 (S)imulator ES-3D 1, Page 23 of 27

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2 NRC EXAM Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Examination: Sept. 2013 Exam Level: RO El SRO-l SRO-U El Operating Test Number: 2013301 Control Room Systems (8 for RO); (7 for SRO-I); (2 or 3 for SRO-U, including 1 ESF)

System I JPM Title Safety Type Code Function

a. Establish NC System Feed and Bleed 002A2.04 Control/mitigate loss of heat sink. 4.3/4.6 A D L,P S 4P

b. Restore power to I ETA from offsite power vI3 062A4.01 Operate/monitor breakers (including switchyard). 3.3/3.1 P S 6

c. Emergency Boration per FR-S.1 004A1.14 Control Emergency Boration. 3.8/3.9 A D S 1

d. Secure ND Pump due to miniflow valve failure 006A2.02 For ECCS, mitigate loss of flow path. 3.9/4.3 A N EN L S 3

e. Increase IACLA pressure 006A1 .03 Operate ECCS controls for accumulator. 3.5/3.7 D S 2

f. Shift operating RC Pumps 1i 075A2.02 Mitigateicontrol loss of circulating water pumps. 2.5/2.7 S 8

g. N/A

h. Main Turbine Weekly Trip Test 012A2.06 Mitigate failure of RPS signal to trip the reactor 4.4/4.7 A N S 7 In-Plant Systems@ (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-I); (3 or 2 for SRO-U)

i. Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool makeup from RN 033A2.03 Control/mitigate abnormal SFP water level. 3.1/3.5 MR 8

j. Establish NC Pump Seal Injection from the 5SF 015/O17AA1.07 Operate RCP seal water injection system. 3.5/3.4 M E 4P

k. Shifting Main Transformer Auxiliaries 062A2.01 Operate loads that would degrade plant operation. 3.4/3.9 M 6

© 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 I 2-3 (C)ontrol room (D)irectfrom bank <9/ <8 / <4 (E)mergency or abnormal in-plant > 1 / > 1 / > 1 (EN)gineered safety feature - / - / > 1 (L)ow-Power I Shutdown > 1 I > 1 / > 1 (N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1 (A) 2 / 2 / . 1 (P)revious 2 exams < 3 < 3 / < 2 (randomiy selected)

(R)CA >1/ >1 />1 (S)imulator ES-30I, Page 23 of 27

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2 NRC EXAM Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Examination: Sept. 2013 Exam Level: RO SRO-I SRO-U Operating Test Number: 2013301 Control Room Systems (8 for RO); (7 for SRO-I); (2 or 3 for SRO-U, including 1 ESF)

Safety System / JPM Title Type Code*

Function

a. N/A

b. N/A

c. Emergency Boration per FR-S.1 A,D,S 1 004A1.14 Control Emergency Boration. 3.8/3.9

d. Secure ND Pump due to miniflow valve failure A,N,EN,L,S 3 006A2.02 For ECCS, mitigate loss of flow path. 3.9/4.3

e. N/A

f. N/A

g. Align the NS System for Cold Leg Recirculation M,L,S 5 026A4.01 Operate/monitor CSS controls 4.5/4.3

h. N/A In-Plant Systems (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-I); (3 or 2 for SRO-U)

i. Unit 2 Spent Fuel Pool makeup from RN M,R 8 033A2.03 Control/mitigate abnormal SFP water level. 3.1/3.5

j. Establish NC Pump Seal Injection from the SSF M,E 4P 015/017AA1.07 Operate RCP seal water injection system. 3.5/3.4

k. N/A

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

Type Codes Criteria for RO / SRO-I / SRO-U (A)lternate path 4-6 / 4-6 / 2-3 (C)ontrol room (D)irect from bank <9 / <8 / <4 (E)mergency or abnormal in-plant >1 / >1 / >1 (EN)gineered safety feature - / - / >1 (L)ow-Power / Shutdown >1 / >1 / >1 (N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1(A) >2 / >2 / >1 (P)revious 2 exams <3 <3 / < 2 (randomly selected)

(R)CA >1 / >1 / >1 (S)imulator ES-301, Page 23 of 27

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Examination: Sept. 2013 Operating Test Number: 2013301 Initials

1. General Criteria a b*

a. The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with wT J 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.

s_ L.4( vv

c. The operating test shall not duplicate items from the applicants audit test(s). (see Section D.1.a.) çj

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

e. It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent pg applicants at the designated license level. 1I!.

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 14l criteria for successful completion of the task identification of critical steps and their associated performance standards restrictions on the sequence of steps, if applicable

b. Ensure that any changes from the previously approved systems and administrative walk-through outlines (Forms ES-301-1 and 2) have not caused the test to deviate from any of the acceptance criteria (e.g., item distribution, bank use, repetition from the last 2 NRC examinations) specified on those forms and Form ES-201-2.

3. Simulator Criteria . --

The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with Form L)JJ,, A 1

ES-301-4 and a copy is attached. V-&W V Printed Name I Signature Date a.

b.

Author Facility Reviewer(*)

Darrell D. Hensley I Wafter L. Hunnicutt I t,.&klJIAi.li i 3

(

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) MA 4 çycz:Y Cti, ID) .3

d. NRC Supervisor r NOTE:

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

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

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 FINAL SUBMITTAL Facilty: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Exam: 09I13 Scenario Numbers: 213! 4 Operating Test No.: 2013301 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. C4) 4_

2. The scenarios consist mostly of related events. ir*J- k::_.. I

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 çA f.Ll 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

7. If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary clearly so indicates. Operators jj.

have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints. Cues are given. N

8. The simulator modeling is not altered. I w% 3 v

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 I k.

fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios. I

10. Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario. All other scenarios have been altered inaccordance with Section D.5 of ES-301. M4 1 1. All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 (submit the fj ,,,

form along with the simulator scenarios). f

)

12. Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events (J4_..

specified on Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios). V 641

13. The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position. hlW i-i Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d) Actual Attributes --

1. Total malfunctions (58) 6 I 7 I 6 fri

2. Malfunctions after EOP entry (12) 2 I 2 I 2 4

3.

4.

Abnormal events (24)

Major transients (12) 4 I 4 I 5 1 I I I I j4r i._1 4i

5. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (12) 1 I I I I g4 41

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

7. Critical tasks (23) 1 I 3 I 5

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Date of Exam: Sept. 2013 Operating Test No.: 2013301 A E Scenarios for P V T M E Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 L N (Spare)

I T CREW CREW CREW CREW A I POSITION POSITION POSITION POSITION L M A T S A B S A B S A B S A B U N Y T p R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 0 C P0 C P 0 C P 0 C P R lU E

Efl_i RX 1 110 SRO-l NOR -- i J J t i i 1 SRO-U I/C 56 125 ] ] 4442 MAJ 2]2 TS 7

7 j 0oJj J1 RX SRO-I NOR 1 ii iii I/C 56 25 4 442 SRO-U MAJ 7 7 jj 1 J 2 2 2 1 TS 9 1 IIPIII1 1010 212 RX 110 NOR 111 I/C 442 MAJ 221 TS 022 RX 110 NOR 111 I/C 442 MAJ 221 TS 022 Instructions:

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 do one scenario, including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunctions and one major transient, in the ATC position.

2. Reactivity manipulations may be conducted under normal or controlled abnormal conditions (refer to Section D.5.cl) 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 instwment 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.

Page 1 of 4

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Date of Exam: Sept. 2013 Operating Test No.: 2013301 A E Scenarios for P V Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 T M P E (Spare) 0 L N T N T CREW CREW CREW CREW A C

POSITION POSITION POSITION POSITION L M A T S A B S A B S A B S A B U N Y M(*)

T P R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 0 C PC C P 0 C P C C P RI U E

RO RX 110 SRO-l I NOR 2 1 ii I/C 10 4 4 2 SRO-U MAJ 3 221 TS 2 022 RO RX 1 110 NOR 1 11 SRO-I 2 I/C 8 442 SRO-U MAJ 2 221 TS 202 2 RO RX 1 11 0 NOR 211 SRO-l 3 I/C I:5:; 8 442 SRO-U MAJ 3 221 TS 3 022 RO RX 1 10 NOR RI_1 SRO-l 4 I/C J4_42 SRO-U MAJ R2_21 TS 11022 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 SROs must do one scenario, including at least two instwment or component (I/C) malfunctions and one major transient, in 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 instwment and component malfunctions should be induded; 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.

Page 2 of 4

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Date of Exam: Sept. 2013 Operating Test No.: 2013301 A E Scenarios for P V T M E Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 L N (Spare)

I T CREW CREW CREW CREW A I POSITION POSITION POSITION POSITION L M A T S A B S A B S A B S A B U N Y T p R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 0 C P 0 C P0 C P 0 C P RIU E

RO RX 110 SRO-15 NOR 1 1 2 1 1 1 I/C 56 25 245 7 442 SRO-U MAJ 7 7 7 3 2 2 1 TS ... 361 2022 RX ho NOR 111 I/C 442 MAJ 221 TS 022 RX 110 NOR 111 I/C 442 MAJ 221 TS 022 RX 110 NOR 111 I/C 442 MAJ 221 TS 0 22 Instructions:

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 SROs must do one scenario, including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunctions and one major transient, in 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 induded; 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.

Page 3 of 4

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301 -5 FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Date of Exam: Sept. 2013 Operating Test No.: 2013301 A E Scenarios-for Scenario I Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 T M E

L N (Spare)

I T CREW CREW CREW CREW A I POSITION POSITION POSITION POSITION L M A T S A B S A B S A B S A B U N Y T p R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 E 0 C P 0 C P0 C P 0 C P RO RX 0110 SRO-l NOR 1 1 1111 I/C 34 2456 6 4 4 2 SRO-U MAJ 7 7 2 2 2 1 TS 235 3 022 1 - -

RO RX -- 0110 NOR 1 i 2 iii SRO-l I/C 34 2456 6 4 42 SRO-U2 MAJ 7 7 2 2 2 1 TS .-- 235 3 022 RX 110 NOR 111 I/C 442 MAJ 221 TS 022 RX 110 NOR 111 I/C 442 MAJ 221 TS 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 SROs must do one scenario, including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunctions and one major transient, in 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.

Page 4 of 4

ES-301, Rev. 9 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301 -6 FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Date of Examination: Sept. 2013 Operating Test No.: 2013301 APPLiCANTS RO X RO RO SRO-l SRO-IX SRO-l SRO-U SRO-U SRO-U X Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO Interpret/Diagnose Events 2345 2456 2456 2457 2345 2345 2457 2345 2345 and Conditions 69 89 79 89 67 67 89 67 67 Comply VVith and 1345 1678 1246 1345 1234 1246 1345 1234 1246 Use Procedures (1) 789 7 567 78 7 567 78 Operate Control 2345 1245 1245 Boards (2) 789 6910 Communicate ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL and Interact 1

Demonstrate Supervisory ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL Ability (3) *;.:

Comply With and 24 235 36 24 235 36 Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(1)Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2)Optional for an SRO-U.

(3)Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

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

ES-401-4 Record of Rejected KIAs Catawba Nuclear Station Initial NRC License Exam September 2013 FINAL SUBMITTAL Tier! Randomly Reason for Rejection I

2I2 071 K3.05 Unable to develop an operationally valid question. Chief Examiner provided the following replacement: 071 K3.04.

Ilibil IIIIIIII; iIhIh.

2/2 011A2.12 Unable to develop a quality, operationally valid question at the SRO level. Per Chief Examiner direction, this KA has been replaced with 01 1A2.04.

2/2 01 1A2.04 Unable to develop a quality, operationally valid question at the SRO level. Per Chief Examiner direction, this KA has been replaced with 029A2.01.

2/2 028A2.01 Unable to develop a valid question at the SRO level. Per Chief Examiner direction, this KA has been replaced with 028 G2.1.20

ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 FINAL SUBMITTAL Facility: Catawba Nuclear Station Date of Exam: Sept. 2013 Exam Level: RO X SRO X Initial Item Description a b* c 1.

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

2. a. NRC K/As are referenced for all questions. iA

b. Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.. ,W, 1fr1

3. SRO questions are appropriate in accordance with Section D.2.d of ES-401 (fri çj r,:

4 The sampling process was random and systematic (If more than 4 RO or 2 SRO questions were repeated from thelast 2 NRC licensing exams, consult the NRR OL program office).

5. Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled as indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:

the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or the examinations were developed independently; or X the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or other (explain) 7 C

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent from the bank, at least 10 percent new, and the Bank Modified I New rest new or modified); enter the actual RO I SRO- 31%! 16 % 9%! 16% 60% /68 %

only question distribution(s) at right.

141/ <..4

7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on Memory C/A the RO exam are written at the comprehension!

analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 43% /28% 57% I 72%

percent if the randomly selected K/As support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual RO I SRO question_distribution(s)_at_right.

8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of distractors. 4q

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

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

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

Printed Name I Signature Date

a. Author DarrellD.[fensley /111ftkbQ .

b. FacilityReviewer(*) WalterL. Hur)nicutt I /)c..-F ddj/c,3//

3

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) 4 -i /i72, iD / .j .rr_TrI I

d. NRC Regional Supervisor J,W4Lr.4f(DLLM,._._..

Note:

The facility reviewers initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

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

ES-401 Catawba 2013-301 - Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Enter question source: (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew. Check that (M)odified questions meet criteria of ES-401 Section D.2.f.

7. 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?

8. 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. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) B/M/N U/E/S Explanation

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 1 H 2 X N U Question appears to match the KA: The reason for closing the GVs and SVs (vs. MSIVs) is that the procedure lists them as the NEXT (pre) step. I could not find a technical reason in either the Bases or Lesson Plan, but it is true that the reason you do not go to the MSIVs next, is that the procedure does not list MSIVs before runback. Therefore, the reason for closing the GVs and SVs is actually being tested in the first part of the Q, thus meeting the KA.

First part of question is fine.

A and D do not appear to be plausible due to the interplay between the first and second part of those answer choices. It should not take 8 seconds, let alone 45 seconds to close MSIVs.

Recommendation: replace the second part of the Q with anything that fits with the question and provides plausible distracters. Since the KA is met with the first part of the question, the second part is essentially open to anything that results in a good question.

007EK1.03 (MAB & JAT 6/7/2013)

S Re-submitted question still appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

MAB&JAT 07/26/2013 2 H 2 X M U/E 008AK1.01 Question appears to match KA.

Distractors A and C do not appear plausible due to answer choice (1): There is no indication that ACC exists (PRT has not ruptured, steam line rupture is given to be outside containment), so a pressurizer level of 17% would not cause you to reinitiate SI (ES-1.1 states reinitiation criteria are PZR level <11%/<30%ACC).

Additionally, NC subcooling at -5F will ALWAYS cause you to reinitiate SI according to ES-1.1, regardless of whether ACC exists.

If MS line break is inside containment, and containment conditions increase above ACC limits and then go below, this would lend more plausibility to the ACC numbers being on there.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

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

? 8/8/2013:

ACC limits are always in effect once they are in effect.

Would like to keep question as is.

I am still concerned that PZR level is not a plausible option because neg subcooling is always correct.

Going to see what they come up with and talk again tomorrow. One possibility is to toggle on the AND/OR.

E 08/13/2013 Question is okay, but could be improved for clarity.

Giving facility the option to toggle on PZR level is/is not a reason for manual reinitiation, or manual reinitiation is/is not required (based on conditions in the stem). Will look again at prep week.

S Question appears to be SAT.

MAB&JAT 08/23/2013 3 H 2 X X B E 009EG2.1.25 Question appears to match KA.

Third bullet under Given the following might be more clear if it said Neither train of ICCM is available.

Distractor A - Is it plausible that a candidate would choose to terminate SI if they were told subcooling was 0F? The combination of the two does not seem plausible.

Distractor B - What in the question of the stem tells them they have to use the Plant Curve book versus the steam tables? Can this be argued as a correct answer?

The presence of question 4 makes distractor C (and to some extent distractors A and B) not plausible because question 4 specifically calls out CETs for calculating subcooling margin. This might be okay if there is ever a time when something other than CETs are used to determine subcooling margin.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 8/8/2013:

Using the plant curve book versus the steam tables is required knowledge. Section 2.10 of the Lesson Plan has this as required knowledge. I would like them to find something other than the Lesson Plan that bolsters this distractor.

Question 4 was modified to eliminate concern for overlap.

08/09/2013:

Found more research for using the plant curve. Many of the EP background documents discuss the importance of having the 20F conservatism (using Fig 37, rather than steam tables). Discussed putting the Operations Dept endorsement in the distractor analysis.

4 H 2 N E 011EA1.14 Question appears to match KA.

Is it required to tell them that the ICCM subcooling margin monitor is based on Core Exit Thermocouples?

This presence of this question makes distractor C (and to some extent distractors A and B) in question 3 not plausible.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 8/8/2013:

Question stem modified to say: (1) the value of subcooling on loop wide range hot legs and ____.

Question appears to be SAT.

5 H 3 X B E 015AA1.23 Question appears to match KA.

Choice B - Why would an applicant choose B over choice A? If an applicant remembers that one of the parameters is required to be 5mils in order to take action, both Choices A and B have a vibration value of 5 mils or greater, and choice A is the earlier time.

Question appears SAT.

JAT 7/16/2013 08/08/2013:

S At time 2105, changed shaft vibration to 12.

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 6 H 2 X N U 022AA2.03 Question appears to match the KA.

Do 1NV-294 and 1NV-309 need noun names in the stem?

Question stem needs a comma between action and which and between transient and and. Also recommend adding numbers to differentiate between the two choices in the stem. For example: Assuming NO operator action, which ONE of the following (1) describes the cause of this transient, and (2) what system is currently providing primary cooling to the NCP seals?

The first part of distractors A and C do not appear plausible. Since a Tave low failure would cause the PZR level setpoint to decrease (rather than actual pressurizer level), the presence of the PZR LO LEVEL DEVIATION annunciator and increasing 1NV-294 demand in the stem of the question discredits these as options.

Recommend changing second part of the question to: Seal Injection

[is/is not] cooling the NCP seals to remove any questions over use of the word primary in the stem.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/08/2013 1NV-294 (NV Pump discharge flow controller) and 1NV-309 (NCP seal injection control valve) added into the stem.

Incorporated comment regarding stem.

Suggest removing bullet regarding annunciator - this bolsters plausibility of distractors A and C.

Incorporated comment regarding question (2).

Question appears to be SAT after review.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 7 H 3 X B E 025AK1.01 Question appears to match KA.

The comma after action in part (2) of the stem should be a period.

Since Q1 has 4 distinct answers (two of which are correct), it might improve the question to come up with a 4th distinct (albeit incorrect) answer that does not address completion time. I understand that Distractor B would be correct if the loops were filled and distractor C would be correct if the plant was in Mode 6. However, the plausibility of both B and C would be enhanced if Distractor D had a completely incorrect answer (due to wrong Mode or some other condition in the stem) rather than the completion time being incorrect.

JAT 7/16/2013 08/08/2013 S

Incorporated first comment regarding comma.

Changed stem to read: The required action is to Immediately Kept A(1), B(1), and C(1). Changed distractor D to read: Initiate action to establish greater than 23 of water above the Rx vessel flange. (Correct for Mode 6, but an incorrect answer).

Question appears to be SAT.

8 H 2 M S 026AK3.02 Question appears to match KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT 7/16/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 9 F 3 X M E 029EK3.11 Question appears to match the KA.

The way step 4 reads, flow is verified to be 30gpm, and there is an RNO step that swaps suction to the FWST if flow is too low. The step that checks pressure is not until 2 steps later. It appears that step 5.f ensures pressure is low enough so that step 5.d has the required flow. Also, the basis does not give a specific flow (i.e., it does not say at least XX gpm), it says pressure is lowered to enhance emergency boration flow. An applicant could then argue that there is no correct answer to this question.

Recommend rephrasing stem to something like:

(1)A minimum of _[30/60]_ gpm of emergency boration flow is required to avoid swapping NV pump suction to the FWST, and (2)PORV operation _[is/isnot]_ required to enhance emergency boration flow.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/08/2013 :

Made recommended change.

(1)A minimum emergency boration of _[30/60]_ gpm of flow is required to avoid swapping NV pump suction to the FWST, and (2)PORV operation _[will/will not]_ be required to enhance emergency boration flow.

WOOF completes the above statements IAW FR-S.1?

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 10 F 2 X B U/E 040AK2.02 Question appears to match KA.

Question (1) in the stem asks which ESF actuation(s) automatically initiated, but each answer choice only gives the option of a single ESF actuation.

Distractors C and D appear to be implausible - neither a high negative rate of steam line pressure nor a low steam line pressure will actually directly initiate an SI.

Distractor B appears to be implausible - if an applicant misremembers the steam pressure at which MSI is blocked for low steam line pressure, then both A and B could be correct answers (there would be no way to tell from the info provided which would cause the SM Isol). Since there cannot be two correct answers, they would eliminate choice B as the correct answer, thus making choice B implausible.

Recommend changing stem/answer choices to:

(1) SI [did/did not] automatically occur (2) SM Isolation automatically occurred due to [HIGH neg rate OR Low SL press/HIGH neg rate ONLY]

S JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013:

Changed question to read:

Based on the above information:

(1) SI [did/did not] automatically occur (2) SM Isolation automatically occurred due to [HIGH neg rate OR Low SL press/HIGH neg rate ONLY]

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 11 H 3 X N U 054AG2.4.9 Question does not appear to match the KA. The question addresses the required action to be taken for an NCP trip. To match the KA, the question should actually focus on mitigation strategies used during a loss of Main Feedwater while at low power or shutdown.

(i.e., even though the question sets up a situation where a loss of main feed occurs, the applicant doesnt need to know anything about the mitigation strategies of a loss of main feed to arrive at the correct answer; thus the KA is not met.)

To match the KA, the question stem can be revised by changing the power level to 5% or 6% and switching the 1000 and 1003 events.

This would then cause 1003 to be the correct answer, while still ensuring the plausibility of the other distractors.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013 S

Changed power level 6%, and swapped 1000 and 1003. B is now the correct answer.

Question appears to be SAT.

12 F 2 X X N U 056AA1.25 Question appears to match the KA.

The third bullet of the Given conditions should read: ES-0.1 vice ES.01.

There are either two non-plausible distractors, or two correct answers to this question. The procedure step (which is provided to the applicant) states to CLOSE all MSIVs. So it is either not entirely incorrect for them to do so by using the MSI Initiate pushbuttons (especially since there is direction later on in the procedure for them to perform this exact action if MSIVs or their bypasses are open), or it is common enough knowledge that when MSI is called for, the procedure will specifically address it (and thus not plausible that they would isolate the MS lines using MSI Initiate).

Part (1) of Choices A and B do not appear to be plausible - it would not make sense from a safety standpoint that steam dumps would fail open on a loss power.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only E 08/08/2013 Added comment as suggested.

MSL isolation not desired for various reasons, including it would block auto SG PORV operation.

To address large paragraph above: Will paraphrase step and document where it says not to use a MSL Isolation unless directed by procedure.

Changed (1) to say: The basis for performing the step is that ___

A(1)/B(1) a loss of offsite power will prevent steam dump operation.

C(1)/D(1) steam drain line bypass valves to the condenser may fail OPEN.

08/09/2013 E-2 Background document implies that MSIVs should be closed without using the MSL Isol unless specifically directed by procedure to do so.

Going to shelve this one and look at the entire exam to see how many instances ERG background information is considered as SRO-only and when they are used as RO-only. Will discuss Monday (08/12/2013).

08/13/2013:

S Question revised to test on overall strategy of the step as well as whether SG PORV auto-operation would be impacted (candidate would be required to know the correct way to carry out the now-paraphrased step, and if they initiated a MSL Isolation, they would block auto-porv operation).

Question appears SAT.

13 F 3 N S/E 062AG2.4.21 Question appears to match the KA.

Recommend changing the words, If not at the beginning of the stem to something to the effect of: If an operating RN pump does not have the required minimum flow, so there is no confusion.

Otherwise, question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013 If this required minimum flow is NOT met, then a certain Question appears to be SAT.

14 F 2 X N U/E 065 AA2.05 Question appears to match the KA.

Part (2) of choices B and C do not appear to be plausible - although Loss of Instrument Air will cause the MSIVs to not function, as long as the SG PORVs work, heat removal is still available via the SGs.

It seems unlikely that an applicant would think all heat removal capability from the SGs is gone with a loss of instrument air.

Recommend changing part (2) of choices B and C to: Loss of Normal FW supply [is/is not] the reason for the Manual Reactor Trip.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/08/2013:

Changed (2) to say: Loss of normal feedwater supply __[is/is not]__ the reason for the manual reactor trip.

Question appears to be SAT.

15 F 2 N S/E 077AK3.02 Question appears to match the KA.

Need to ensure that choice C is not partially correct - the RNO for step 3 in CASE II first says to Select MANUAL on the turbine control panel and then says to reduce turbine load to maintain reactor power - LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 100% POWER. If someone selected choice C, part 2 (which says to lower reactor power less than 69%) meets the intent of the RNO step.

Recommend rewording the stem to: The above direction is given in

[case I/case II], and reduction to less than 69% [is/is not] required.

This should still meet the KA, because the applicant must determine that the reason for selecting MANUAL is to ensure reactor power does not exceed 100%, which does not mean that they are required to manually lower power to less than 69%. This would make this question a High Cog (rather than Low Cog) question.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only H S 08/08/2013:

Changed question to read:

The above direction is given in [case I/case II]

The basis for this step is to ensure reactor power is maintained less than a maximum of [100%/69%].

Changed question to High Cog.

Question appears to be SAT.

16 H 2 X B U/E WE04 EK2.2 Question appears to meet the KA.

Previously used on the 2008 NRC Exam. (The resulting quality of this question will not count toward the total of UNSAT questions on the draft exam>)

Choices A and B dont really seem plausible - 210 gpm appears to be the 400 minute number, not the 50 minute number (which was stated in the plausibility justification). 308 gpm would be a more reasonable number to include for a second option. And if 308 gpm is a second option, the pump flow rates would need to be changed to ensure all of the options are still plausible (i.e., it wouldnt be plausible to leave only the pump with 220gpm running if the minimum flow rate is 308 gpm).

Is it necessary to give them step 18, or would only the graph from Enclosure 4 suffice?

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013:

?

Will take this one for thought. Distractor analysis was wrong it was intended that the choices would toggle between 40 and 400 minutes. Also didnt want to omit step 18 because wanted to give applicant context of why they were using the plot. I suggested that paraphrasing step 18 in the stem would be preferable to providing the entire step. A quick look back to 2008 exam suggests that the step and the graph were both provided. Im still not sure the 400 number is plausible. Told them I would take this one back for thought, and discuss again tomorrow after talking to Mark.

08/09/2013:

Discussed with licensee that we dont think this question is acceptable as-is.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S(E) 08/13/2013:

Original comment was incorrect - 380 gpm vice 308 gpm was the intended plausible distractor. This correction was made.

Changing A2 to Neither pump (in case someone has the misconception that SI flow is specific to SI pumps)

Choice C may not be plausible as-is, so facility is changing the bullet in the given conditions to say 1A NV pump is running with flow indicated at 415 gpm. This changes the correct answer to C, and makes D plausible for the same reason A2 is plausible.

These changes make the question appear to be SAT.

17 H 2 B S/E WE05EK2.1 Question appears to match the KA.

Recommend changing the part (1) question to specifically include whether the main feedwater pump is (or is not) running so that an applicant does not read the question to think that water is just flowing through the main feedwater pump (rather than the pump actually providing a motive force).

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013:

S Changed (1) to say CM/CF system by operating a __[main feedwater pump/hotweel and booster pump ONLY].

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 18 L 2 X M E WE11EA2.2 Question appears to match the KA.

Not sure if distractor A is plausible - the stem states that no NC pumps are running, so why would the applicant look for a criteria involving dP?

Procedure reference highlights are mismarked regarding which piece of the information supports which distractor. The first bullet of step 25.a actually supports Distractor C (vice Distractor A) and the second bullet is annotated in support of Distractor D (which is the correct answer, and which should reference Distractor A)

JAT 07/23/2013 08/08/2013:

Changed distractor A to read Hot leg wide range temperatures S

increase by 5F. Plausibility: In ES-0.2 - verify all NC Thots are less than 550F (during natural circulation cooldown).

Rearranging answers choices for readability.

Question appears to be SAT.

19 H 2 B S/E 001AK2.08 Question appears to match the KA.

There are 4 distinct answers for part 1 and 4 distinct answers for part 2. Recommend changing distractors so they are symmetrical, or asking only one of the two questions in the stem. Can even remove one of the failures to simplify the overall question.

Does the question statement need to specify the instrument on which rod height is indicated? (I.e., is more specificity required to reduce confusion?)

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/08/2013 Second half of the question is removed. Question now states, Rod D-4 indicates ___ steps withdrawn on DRPI.

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 20 H 2 X X N U 036 AK1.02 Question does not appear to match the KA, in that it tests decay heat rather than SDM.

Third bullet under Current Conditions needs a comma in between 08/15/2013 and a fuel bundle.

The SLC required action states Suspend movement of irradiated fuel in the reactor vessel rather than Suspend Core Alterations.

Not sure it is plausible that an applicant, when presented with a fuel handling incident, would ever pick something else when one option is to choose Suspend Core Alterations -

that option would never be wrong, regardless of what else is going on. Thus, distractors B and D do not appear to be plausible.

To better match the KA and remove any plausibility issues, since entering a TS or SLC is an operational implication, we recommend stating a boron concentration that is lower than the COLR limit and then leaving everything else above the question statement as-is. Then, the question could be fixed by simply asking:

SLC 16.9-17 [is/is not] required to be entered, and TS 3.9.1 [is/is not] required to be entered.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013:

S Took suggestions:

Changed boron to 2580ppm SLC 16.9-17 (Refueling Operations - Decay Time) [is/is not]

required to be entered, and TS 3.9.1 (Boron Concentration) [is/is not] required to be entered. (Answer changes to is/is.)

Question appears to be SAT.

21 H 3 X B E 037AA1.02 (pre) Question appears to match the KA.

Recommend adding something to the effect of: NO operator actions have taken place to the stem.

Answer choice A seems implausible based on the second part of answer choice B. Answer choice B points out the fact that the switch needs to be in the AUTO position in order for swapover to take place.

(MAB & JAT, 6/7/2013)

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

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

Neither the question nor the distractor analysis appears to have changed much since the early submittal. The bullet describing that the picture is the as-found configuration of 1-RAD-1 has been deleted; however that information is still in the stem.

After re-reviewing the question, as well as the pre-submittal comments, determined that Choice A is plausible and this question appears to be SAT as-is.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 22 H 2 X N U 051AK3.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Part 1 of Choice B does not appear to be probable - the applicant would have to make too many unlikely assumptions to think that heat removal via the safeties would be required. Plausibility of this choice is also lowered by the fact that the applicant is told in the stem that the Backup Diesel VI Compressor has been placed in service, allowing use of the SG PORVs.

Choice C part 1 refers to Condenser Dumps and Choice D part 2 refers to Steam Dumps. KA Match explanation refers to Condenser Steam Dumps - I would keep the terminology the same between all three to prevent confusion.

Choice D part (2) appears to be implausible, unless there are other examples of components at Catawba whose control power is not from a DC source.

?

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013 Licensee is not sure what to do with this question.

Licensee is going to keep working on this one. May need a new KA.

S 08/13/2013:

Revised question in its entirety. New question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 23 H 2 X X N U 059AA2.02 (pre) Question does not appear to match the KA. Systems knowledge and SLC knowledge are the only two items required to answer the question; therefore, interpretation of a permit is not being tested.

This KA may be a tough fit for an RO question. If it is determined that review and approval of permits do not have a job link to the RO position, then the KA can be changed.

There may be a time issue - IMMEDIATELY is within one hour.

Additionally, the answer choices that state within one hour need to specify within one hour of what. I.E. within one hour from time of discovery. For symmetry purposes the other choices should state, immediately upon discovery.

Are alarm setpoints tied to permit values? Are rad alarms required to be set at a certain percentage of release limits on rad permits?

This would be one method of hitting the KA, assuming the ROs set the alarm values. I know this would work at some plants, but I am not sure about Catawba - something to explore anyway.

Maybe the Q could ask for the value EMF-49 is required to be set in the first part of the Q and then test the second part similar to the way you have it now.

(MAB & JAT, 6/7/2013)

S/E Question (2) in the stem needs a comma between (Liquid Effluents) and the concentration Need to ensure it is RO knowledge to know that EMF-49 is the monitor required to be in service for the release.

Otherwise, question appears to be SAT.

S JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013 Added comma. EMF-49 is required knowledge.

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 24 L 2 X N E 069AK3.01 Question appears to match the KA.

The title of FR-Z.1 should have pressure capitalized: i.e.,

Response to High Containment Pressure.

Not sure about choice D plausibility - energizing igniters at a high H2 concentration to reduce explosion hazard seems counterintuitive (and therefore implausible).

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/08/2013 Addressed capitalization comment.

Changed choice D to: Initiate BOTH trains of ND Aux Spray, if containment pressure exceeds 15 psig 60 minutes following Rx Trip, in order to reduce the challenge to containment integrity due to high pressure (definitely wrong bc one train must be left available for core cooling. If it was ONE train, would be correct.)

Modified A to say Initiate ONE ND Auxiliary Spray (C wrong bc of pressure given.)

Observation: 3 of the choices talk about Aux Spray and but the correct answer is related to isolating faulted SGs. Think this is okay, though.

08/09/2013:

Question appears to be SAT.

25 H 2 B E WE03EK2.1 Question appears to match the KA.

Choices A and C - as close as possible to what? The maximum achievable rate? 100F/hr?

Question could be improved by asking what the maximum cooldown rate specified in the procedure is, and then toggling between maximum achievable rate and 100F/h.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/08/2013 Incorporated recommendations. Question (1) now reads What is the maximum NC cooldown rate specified in the procedure Q1 toggles between maximum achievable rate and 100F/h. Q(2) is same.

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 26 H 2 N S WE06EG2.4.20 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 27 H 2 B S/E WE15EA2.1 Question appears to match the KA.

Should a bullet addressing subcooling be added to the conditions? (i.e., are applicants likely to ask what subcooling is to assess if they meet entry conditions to FR-C.2, in the event they mis-remember the entry conditions for RVLIS or CETs?)

Recommend changing Part (1) of choices A and C to Containment sump level is higher than would be expected for a Large Break LOCA, since there is no information in the stem regarding source of the extra water.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/08/2013 Added bullet to say NC Subcooling is -5F.

Incorporated recommended changes to answer choices A and C:

Containment sump level is higher than would be expected for a Large Break LOCA Question appears to be SAT.

28 H 2 N S/E 003K4.02 Question appears to match KA (discussion 4/17/2013 agreed testing administrative controls meets intent of KA in the absence of specific design features/automatic interlocks)

Question appears to be SAT as-is. HOWEVER, I recommend removing the 0600 time, shifting all other times up, and then adding a NC Tcold Temp > 210F. This will make the other options more plausible (by giving the applicant an option where the 50F requirement does not apply, in the event they do not remember the requirement, which is what the plausibility of A and B hinges on).

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013 S

NC Tcolds (from top to bottom) read: 202, 205, 209, 212. Answer remains C.

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 29 H 2 X N E 004A4.04 Question appears to match the KA.

When looking at the plausibility of the choices, I rearranged the formula and achieved: CF =

(gal BA)(CA)/Vf. Using this, I got the correct answer as B and saw how choice C is plausible. While I agree with the reasoning that Choice A is plausible (within 10%), if the recommended change to Choice D (below) is made, that might make A less plausible. To that end, it might be better to make Choice A 474 ppm lower than desired (using 2748 for CA rather than 7410 and using 317 for Vf rather than 350).

Choice D does not appear to be plausible - if the applicant thinks that Cf is 2748 ppm, they would seem to calculate a value significantly different from 500 ppm too high. I would recommend changing this distractor to the difference that would be achieved if 317 gal was used for total makeup volume (rather than 350 gal). This would be closer to 11 ppm too high.

Also, distractor analysis for Choice D states that RCS boron concentration is 750 ppm, rather than 760 ppm as stated in the stem.

Summary of recommendations:

difference in boron conc = 760 - CF, where CF = (gal BA)(CA)/Vf Choice A: 760 - (33*2748/317) = 760 - 417 = 474 ppm low Choice B: 760 - (33*7410/350) = 760 - 699 = 61 ppm low (CORRECT)

Choice C: 760 - (33*2748/350) = 760 - 259 = 501 ppm low Choice D: 760 - (33*7410/317) = 760 - 771 = 11 ppm high (choices can then be rearranged to go from high-to-low or low-to-high, etc)

Additionally - providing the formula to the applicant is teaching in the stem. Licensed operators are expected to be able to perform simplistic calculations. Recommend removing formula.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S/E 08/08/2013 Incorporated recommendations. Listed in order of answer.

Would like to leave formula in. Learning objective lends itself to performing this calculation with a reference provided. Rearranging formula lends itself to being more than just a plug and chug answer.

I asked if the variable definition were necessary - the answer appeared to be yes because there werent logical reasons for some of the abbreviations.

Darrell is going to find the actual formula out of the plant curve book they use is written the same as the one provided. Will make a decision after we see the formula.

I also stated that one option is to possible offer them multiple formulas, and they would have to pick the correct one.

08/09/2013 Email states question would not be operationally valid without providing the formula. Question with formula is LOD=1. Need to change out question. We would accept a broad definition of the word calculation, to include borating or diluting based on plant transients or xenon, etc. Operation of controllers/setpoints of controller, etc, acceptable.

08/13/2013:

Still working on this one to use broader definition. Likely going to set up the question to have the applicant calculate a new controller setpoint based on boron concentration changes. We stated that this sounds like it would still meet the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

S MAB&JAT 08/23/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 30 H 1 N E/U 004K5.30 Note in question stem either needs to be moved below the part (1) and part (2) statements, or use the word below rather than above.

This question appears to be LOD=1. Recommend reframing the question. We have two options: 1) Explore how temperature is controlled while drawing a bubble (i.e., dont explicitly tell the applicant a heatup is in effect, rather tell them more or less flow is bypassed, etc, and the applicant has to determine that a heatup is in progress, and then answer questions based on that determination).

2) Put the applicant in a particular step of the bubble draw and test their ability to determine which valve(s) need to be manipulated and in which direction.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013

?

Validated low. Thought that testing concepts of flow and pressure were two different concepts and that was why question was okay.

NV-135 backpressure control valve - so applicant must understand how this valve works to get the right answer. This valve is also not in service while at power.

Need to decide if this is okay.

08/09/2013 Decided we think this question is too easy, because knowing this valve is a backpressure valve isnt germane to answering the question. Licensee will look at reworking this question.

08/13/2013:

S New question submitted. Made a few editorial changes, and new question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 31 L 1 X N U 005A2.03 (pre) Question appears to match the KA.

Given the fact that the drawing is provided, answer choices A/B seem implausible - it is clear that the leak-point is upstream of the pump, which would result in a cavitating condition.

Additionally, answer choices B/D seem implausible - if the 1B ND pump has either high amps or is cavitating, why would the 1C NC pump be secured first? Are there cases in other systems where an alternate pump is secured prior to the cavitating/running out pump?

What is the status of ND and NC pumps not explicitly stated in the stem? If it matters to the accuracy of the Q, then a more precise status of the NC and ND pumps may need to be stated. I.E. 1B ND train has recently been placed in service. The 1A ND train is not in service.

What is the capacity of the valve that fails open? Would the capacity cause amps to fluctuate?

Recommend reframing the question where the operator would have to use system knowledge (rather than a drawing) to determine if the leak is upstream vs. downstream of the pump to determine if the pump will cavitate vs. experience runout.

Consider alternating between secure 1B ND pump and throttle the 1B ND pump discharge valve for the second part of the question.

Another possibility: Test what conditions are required to place a standby train in service when in mid-loop operations. If conditions are not met, you could test what to do IAW the procedure.

(MAB & JAT, 6/7/2013)

Reframed question appears to match the KA.

S Add a comma in between Loss of ND in Mid Loop and the 2

operator in the question stem.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013 Incorporated comment. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 32 F 2 N S 006K6.05 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 33 H 2 N S/E 007A3.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Recommend changing the question to state, (1) 1NC-54B

[does/does not] receive an automatic isolation signal if containment pressure exceeds 1.2 psig, and (2) 1NC-107 [does/does not] receive an automatic isolation signal if PRT pressure exceeds 8.0 psig.

Otherwise, question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/08/2013 S

Incorporated suggestion. Question appears to be SAT.

34 H 2 X B U 007K3.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Containment pressure starts out not in specification and a steady pressurization rate is not likely. Additionally, it does not seem plausible that an applicant would think that -0.1psig is the upper limit TS (2 non-plausible distractors). Recommend reframing the question:

At time 1005: [Bullets 1-3, Bullet 5 without pressurization rate]

At time 1010 (or some other operationally valid time for a S leaking PORV): [Bullet 4]

(1) At time 1005, the Containment pressure TS [is/is not] met.

(2) At time 1010, the PRT rupture disc(s) operated [as designed/earlier than designed]

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/09/2013 Incorporated a modified version of the suggestion. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 35 F 2 B S 008K1.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 36 H 4 X X N U 010A2.01 Question appears to match the KA, but not at the RO-level.

TR 16.7-9-21 (for verifying pressurizer heater capacity) is related to an SLC action statement with a 7 day completion time. This does not appear to be RO-level knowledge (or even an SRO-only knowledge item that is required to be known from memory) - this might be okay if there is a learning objective associated with this.

Part (1) of Choices A and C do not appear to be plausible - if Manual PORV operation was blocked <2177 psig, there are a number of mitigation strategies in the EOPs that would not work.

S Recommendation 1: Toggle between Auto PORV operation is/is not blocked. [A different question would be better here, but asking the question you already have would at least have a plausible distractor in this variation.]

Recommendation 2: Have the failure be one of the safety grade powered heaters and ask if TS 3.4.9 is/is not met.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/09/2013 Incorporated recommended changes. Question appears to be SAT.

37 H 2 N S/E 010K6.02 Question appears to match the KA.

Would adding a bullet to the effect of, the plant is at equilibrium (i.e., tell the applicant pressure is stable without telling them what pressure is) ensure there is no confusion without inhibiting the plausibility of any of the distractors?

Recommend more precise choices for part (2) question:

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

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

[Pressurizer Spray Valves will close prior to A&D PZR heaters S

energizing / A&D PZR heaters will energize prior to Pressurizer Spray Valves closing].

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/09/2013 Incorporated suggestion. Question appears to be SAT.

38 F 2 B S 012K5.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 39 H 2 N S 013G2.2.39 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 40 F 2 X B U/E 022G2.4.11 Putting Secondary Steam Leak in quotations (rather than parentheses would keep it consistent with other questions that reference procedures and their titles.

Regarding the plausibility of Part (1) of Choices A and B: Not sure its plausible to start one LCVU in HIGH with the others running in LOW. Are there other instances where this is done?

Plausibility of part (2) of Choices A and C would be enhanced if the stem stated, and place ALL LCVUs in ___(2)___ cooling. The distractor analysis seems to imply that all units would be operating in NORM rather than MAX. Are there any instances where one LCVU is placed in NORM with the others in MAX?

Overall recommendations: frame the questions in reference to ALL LCVUs (rather than just 1D LCVU).

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/09/2013 Incorporated comments. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 41 H 2 B S 025K6.01 Question appears to match the KA.

[Note to self: originally thought this might not be at the RO level, because the temperature at which the Ice Bed becomes inoperable is related to a TS action with a 48h completion time. However, facility learning objective 10B in the NF lesson plan discusses the required temperature of the ice bed and how long it takes for the bed to become inoperable, and is required RO knowledge.]

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 42 F 2 N ? 026K1.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Part (1) of Choice C and D are the same valve designator, but the noun names in the question are different. Correct to make the noun names the same.

Seems implausible that an applicant would choose NS system spray rings when the source of water is from the ND system. Help us understand plausibility justification are there any plant configurations where the NS header is fed by the ND system? If not, might want to look at number of spray rings in each spray header as a direction to take the question.

S JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/09/2013 First comment incorporated.

Facility explanation: ND system feeds two other ECCS systems. In the past, there was a facility knowledge deficiency in that the presence of a ND spray was not widely known. However, we would not offer an answer choice for equipment that does not exist.

Mark suggested changing second question to say: Once aligned, spray [will/willnot] be directed through NS system spray rings. This utilizes the knowledge deficiency for plausible distractors without teaching in the answer choices.

Question appears to be SAT after making suggested change.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 43 F 2 X N E 026K2.02 Question appears to match the KA.

Plausibility of Choice B is shaky - it seems obvious that the bus is a B train power supply (due to the B designator). Is there another A train supply for a different component that could be used instead?

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 S 08/09/2013 Changed distractor B. Licensee stated there are examples at the plant where Train A has a B/D designator and Train B has a A/C designator. Lends plausibility to all choices. Question appears to be SAT.

44 F 2 N S 039A3.02 Question appears to match the KA.

Does knowing the difference between 103% and 105% differentiate between a competent and a less-than-competent operator?

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 08/09/2013 S

EHC OBJ 3D and 4A learning objective require this knowledge. Yes, this difference is required knowledge and will differentiate between a competent and less than competent operator.

Question appears to be SAT.

45 H 2 X N U/E 039K3.05 Question appears to match the KA.

Part (1) of A and B are not plausible. What misconception would lead to an applicant choosing Thot as the answer?

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only E 08/09/2013 Changed the question to toggle DT for increase and decrease. Still think this is too easy. Told the licensee that the KA is met with the first part of the question, so they suggested making one question with four choices, and have the distractors be the reactor powers associated with SG PORV / (SG PORV + Safety) / Steam Dump with the right answer being Safety. Will look at revised question on 8/12/2013.

08/13/2013:

S Comment incorporated. Question appears to be SAT.

46 F 2 X N U 059K1.03 Question does not appear to be directly matching the KA. Question is testing P-14 setpoint and purpose, without requiring the candidate to demonstrate any knowledge with respect to the MFW system.

Question might be more operationally valid (and more of a direct KA match) if it was framed with conditions for Unit 2, SG level increases to 80%, and then toggle on the Main Feed pumps are/are not running. The second question can still ask the purpose of the P-14 signal. This way, in the first part the candidate essentially has to determine if P-14 occurred and know that P-14 trips the Main Feed pumps - this will more directly hit the KA.

Recommend rephrasing the second question: A purpose of the P-14 signal [is/is not] to avoid challenging MS piping and supports due to excess weight. This will make the distractors more plausible than the current distractor of an undesired insertion of positive reactivity.

JAT 07/25/2013 S 08/09/2013 Incorporated change to P-14 question. Reframed the first part of the question to incorporate modified version of the recommendation.

Question appears to be SAT.

47 H 3 B S 061K5.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 48 F 2 N S 062A4.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 49 F 2 N S 063A1.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 50 F 2 N S 063K4.04 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT and MAB 7/26/2013 51 F 2 B S 064K2.03 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 52 H 2 B E 073K3.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Sh (Containment Ventilation Isolation Signal) is defined in Choices C and D, but not in Choice B. I would add it to Choice B. If desired, the definition itself can then be removed from choices C and D (i.e.,

defined at the first instance and then it doesnt need to be defined again).

What condition in the stem tells the applicant that VQ-10 closes?

Does VQ-10 closing require the applicant to make an assumption?

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S 08/09/2013 VQ-10 is required knowledge regarding which EMF provides a signal to VQ-10. Facility will add a bullet to say EMF-36 is at Trip 2 under Current Conditions to tighten up question. With this change, question appears to be SAT.

08/13/2013:

Bullet added per 08/09/2013 discussion. Question appears to be SAT.

53 H 2 x x B E/U 076A1.02 Question appears to match the KA.

Suggest wording the question to ask what parameter stabilizes instead of which component stabilizes.

D plausibility is questionable. An applicant not knowing that a TCV exists to control letdown temperature does not appear credible. I could agree that an applicant may not know how the controller works, but I find it hard to believe that they would not know that it exists.

K/A: Are there low temperature limits for NCP motor bearings? If so, what are those limits? The K/A requires testing knowledge that will prevent exceeding design limits. Knowledge required by the K/A may not be tested.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 08/09/2013 Whenever trains are swapped, the TCV valve is controlled in manual (to bolster the plausibility of choice D). Choice D would not be correct because there is nothing in the stem that says the valve was taken to manual.

There are no low temperature limits associated with the NCPs.

Question still might not meet KA. One suggestion is to rework the question by taking the question in the other direction - heating up.

For example, 2RN-351 goes to 0%, and ask which temperature will exceed a design setpoint.

Will take a look again next week.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S 08/13/2013:

Changed the failure mechanism to fail the valve closed, which would cause the NCP motor bearings to reach a high temperature limit.

This meets the KA. Quesiton appears to be SAT.

54 F 2 B S 078A3.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 55 H 3 B S 103A1.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 56 F 2 X N U/E 002K5.16 Question appears to match the KA.

Need to make sure this question doesnt overlap with Q38 - this question is testing a similar concept as Q38 (Q38 - which of the given trips protects against DNB from Mode 2 to 100% power). By asking if low-flow DNB protection is via Manual or Automatic action, this could be considered double jeopardy. Recommend changing the first question to simply ask: An automatic reactor trip

[should/should not] occur, and remove mention of DNB from the question.

Part (2) of Choices A and C do not appear plausible - the condition given in the question statement specifically says following the reactor trip. Why would an applicant think that a turbine trip signal was generated from a temperature, rather than the reactor trip signal?

Turbine warming is in progress. Does a turbine trip make sense with these conditions?

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 S 08/09/2013 Incorporated first question. Replaced second question to address remaining concern. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 57 H 2 N S 015A1.03 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 58 F 2 N S 016A3.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 59 H 2 ? B ? 027K2.01 Question appears to match the KA.

The question needs to be asked at a certain point in time or the answers need to be clarified (no time delay). In other words, without the time reference, A and C would be the same answer.

Is 1ETA the bus that is energized when the EDG output breaker is closed? If so, how is an A fan running plausible? If the bus is a downstream bus from the bus that is directly energized by the EDG, then it may be plausible.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013

? 08/12/2013:

Licensee comments on plausibility of A fan running: On an SI, the output breaker will close on a bus fault (86B relay), but the 87G will not. But the fact that the 86B will close gives plausibility to why the A fan is running.

Our suggestion: Change the stem to ask about the 86B relay, which will change the answer to B. Licensee will also add in the time reference. This will change the question to a Modified question.

Licensee is also looking into whether a correct answer would definitively exist if relay was switched to 86B relay (bc depending on the nature of the bus fault, the bus may not be energized (even with the breaker shut), and the fan would therefore not have power to run).

08/13/2013:

S Question revised to ask about the 86N relay. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 60 H 2 X M E 033A2.03 Question appears to match the KA.

In Part (2) question, need to add a comma between (Loss of Refueling Canal Level) and the fuel assembly.

Part (1) of choices C and D do not appear plausible. In the case the water is at the level where TS 3.7.14 is required to be entered, the 1A KF pump would also be required to be secured. Thus, since there cannot be two correct answers, and it would never be wrong to select Stop the 1A KF pump, it is not plausible that an applicant would choose Enter TS 3.7.14 in lieu of Stop the 1A KF pump.

Recommend changing the first question to: If the SFP level decreases to 38ft, TS 3.7.14 [is/is not] required to be entered. The is option has increased plausibility because there is an action to take at less than 39 (stop the 1A KF pump). The KA match is still directly made with the presence of the second question.

Alternatively, consider 1A KF pump (IS) / (IS NOT) required to be stopped.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 S 08/12/2013:

Incorporated suggestion. Question appears to be SAT.

61 H 2 N S 034K6.02 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 62 H 2 ? N E/U 071K3.05 Question appears to match KA.

Is there enough information in the stem to solicit the correct answer?

Does it matter what the tank contains? How do we know that alarm limits or trip setpoints will be reached?

Are there examples at Catawba where an ARM isolates a flowpath?

LOD > 1 is questionable. Discuss. What knowledge is being tested? Leakage past the seat will stay in the pipe and impact the PRM and leakage past the packing will go into the room and impact an ARM.

JAT & MAB 07/30/2013 08/12/2013:

Would like to discuss at a later time.

0813/2013:

Will come back to this one at the end. Will need a new KA.

Replace 071K3.05 with 071K3.04.

S Question appears to be SAT.

MAB&JAT 08/23/2013 63 H 2 N E? 072A4.02 Question appears to match the KA.

Is it possible to eliminate one of the columns? If not, three columns are OK. Three columns always jumps off the page to scrutinize the info. Discuss.

Do all A designated RMs (I.E. -53A) feed A designated valves (I.E. -825A)? The answer to this question may impact plausibility.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 08/12/2013:

S Three columns: cannot get away from it in this question.

Most EMFs are not designated by a train. This is one of the only ones that is.

Question appears to be SAT as-is.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 64 F 2 N S 079K4.01 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 65 F 2 ? N S/E 086K1.02 Question appears to match the KA.

Help us understand why one service water system would discharge to another service water system - especially why RL would discharge to RN.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 S 08/12/2013:

RN discharges to RL, so there is some plausibility that an applicant could know they are interconnected and not remember which discharges to which. Question appears to be SAT as-is.

66 F 2 N E G2.1.15 Question appears to match the KA.

Recommend changing the part (2) question to: Who is the highest level of supervision required to be informed when an OPS Guide is added or removed? This will enhance the plausibility of Choice C and D, because it is never wrong to inform the CRS of something of which you also intend to inform the Ops Superintendent.

Is this question SRO-only material?

S JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 08/12/2013:

Changed question to be one-part and removed all question related to potential SRO-only material. New question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 67 F 2 X N E/U G2.1.29 Question appears to match the KA.

Are operators who are performing IVs allowed to reposition components? My guess would be no, at least not without further permission or direction. Just using some common sense, why would the sequence of the verifications matter, if they are not allowed to reposition components? Answers to these questions impact the plausibility of the first part of A and B.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013

? 08/12/2013:

Licensee justification for keeping question as-is: Most R&R technical procedures DO require IVs to go in a specific order; this SOMP is one of the few exceptions. This lends plausibility A/B.

Will table this question and NRC to discuss if this is plausible.

08/13/2013:

Still need to get back on this one. Will get an answer by the end of today.

Determined that A1 and A2 are not plausible.

Question appears to be SAT.

S MAB&JAT 08/23/2013 68 H 3 x x N E/U G2.1.44 Question appears to match the KA.

The SLC, as provided in the stem, only applies to SFP. Why is C not correct? Is it correct to state that SLC 16.9.21 does not apply to unlatching? If the SLC does not apply to unlatching, then two correct answers exist.

Why is B plausible? Why would an activity in the reactor cavity be impacted by an SLC for the storage pool?

One possible fix (if needed) may be to add to the stem that

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 1KFP5120 is inoperable and ask a question based on that?

E JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 08/12/2013:

Licensee changed second question. Recommended querying on can/cannot verify SFP level by ensuring NC WR level is adequate, rather than toggling between NC WR level adequate and check SFP level locally.

Recommended making Q1 grammatically the same for all answer choices and adding a comma to the second question/last clause.

S 08/13/2013:

Made the recommended changes. Question appears to be SAT.

69 F 2 B S/E G2.2.22 Question appears to match the KA.

I would add the TS references - With Unit in Mode 3, which ONE of the following describes the MAXIMUM NC system pressure IAW TS 2.1.2, and the MAXIMUM time allowed to restore compliance, IAW TS 2.2.2, if this limit is exceeded?

Otherwise, question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 08/12/2013:

Made recommended changes. Question appears to be SAT.

70 F 2 N S G2.2.43 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 71 F 2 N E G2.3.11 Question appears to match the KA.

To avoid less plausible answers (i.e., the applicant knows #1 is correct, so without even considering what 3 and 4 say, they already know C and D to be wrong), I would choose two of the conditions, and query on whether re-initiation is allow at least once without resampling. For example:

In accordance with the applicable procedures, which ONE of the following completes the below statements (consider each separately):

(1) Re-initiation of the release at least once without sampling [is/is not] allowed with EMF-50 at Trip 2.

(2) Re-initiation of the release at least once without sampling [is/is not] allowed when the Turbine Building Sump release exceeds EMF-31 pre-set level.

The logical connector OR presents a problem with this question.

Logical connectors always need to be scrutinized when writing questions. If either side of the OR is correct, then that answer choice is correct. Therefore, if A was the correct answer, then B would be correct also. Furthermore, in B and C, does the ONLY go with the last part of the logical connector or both parts of the logical connector? The above suggestions should fix the issue.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 S 08/09/2013 Question incorporated recommended changes. Question appears to be SAT, but licensee would like to revisit to make sure that the question does not have any potential pitfalls regarding the consider each separately.

72 F 2 B S/E G2.3.12 Question appears to match the KA.

Fifth bullet under Given conditions needs a comma between Currently and the VP system.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 08/09/2013 Comment incorporated. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 73 L 2 X X X N U G2.4.22 (pre) Question does not appear to be at the RO level. Typically we would accept this type of question for SRO-only: The question is essentially asking the RO how the SRO selects the appropriate procedure, which is an SRO job function (i.e., the Q statement even implies that this may be an SRO job link).

Not sure if question meets KA: does question test safety function prioritization?

Additionally, the SRO evaluating available manpower is never wrong, so how can any other answer be plausible?

(MAB & JAT, 6/7/2013)

Question changed from pre-submittal. New question appears to match the KA at the RO-level.

Part (2) of choice C does not appear to be incorrect: Core Cooling IS X B a higher priority concern in this instance and SHOULD be completed E prior to completing a lower priority procedure. Therefore, there are arguably 2 correct answers to this question.

It is dangerous, from a question integrity standpoint, to test an action that should be performed. For NRC exams, it is more appropriate to test actions that are REQUIRED in accordance with a certain procedure. Discuss the impact and possible fixes required.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 08/09/2013 S

Changed should/should NOT to will/will NOT.

Also - Any RED path trumps an ORANGE path, so C is definitely an incorrect answer.

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 74 F 2 X N E G2.4.29 Question appears to match the KA in that the question asks information out of an RP procedure which Catawba uses as part of their Emergency Plan.

Regarding the plausibility of choice C: is it plausible that an applicant would choose this pairing of answers? That is, for an earthquake classified as a safe shutdown earthquake, why would they choose terminate VQ release when the other option is to shutdown both units? Recommend the following change to the part (2) question:

(2) If an earthquake LESS than this type of earthquake is felt in the protected area, the Reactor Coolant Leakage Detection Systems [are/are not] required to be declared INOPERABLE.

The declaration of the RCLD systems as INOPERABLE is the first immediate action of the enclosure, so this would be RO knowledge, and there would not be any pairings of answers that would be implausible.

E JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 08/09/2013:

Revised-question (2) (which was revised to ask about operability of leakage detection devices in Mode 5) appears to be at the SRO level. Recommended retaining original submittal question (1) and asking a q(2) that says, RP/07 does/does not require EMF-38 to be declared inoperable. Keeping this as E until we see revised question next week.

08/12/2013:

Question is the same as from Friday. Q2 was determined to be RO knowledge, however, since there is a valid, KA-matching question with the first submittal, we recommended replacing Q2 with Q1 from the original submittal.

U/E 08/13/2013:

Audit exam tests the concept of Q1 from original submittal.

Learning objective that talks about RP/07 also makes it sound like not only is knowledge required only for SROs, but also only with a reference.

Likely needs a KA change. Licensee would like to see if they can support Q1 as an RO question before formally asking for a new KA.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S Question appears to be SAT. No KA change required.

MAB&JAT 08/23/2013 75 F 2 N S G2.4.3 Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 7/30/2013 76 H 2 X N U 008AA2.28 Question appears to match the KA, but not at the SRO-level. The question can be answered by knowing the entry criteria of FR-H.1, which is RO knowledge. Additionally, Lesson Plan EP-E0 Learning Objective 6 (which is listed as applying to ROs) states, When given plant conditions DETERMINE the successful completion of any step in the following EPs: EP/1(2)/A/5000/E-0 (Reactor Trip or Safety Injection).

JAT & MAB 08/02/2013 08/12/2013:

Licensee still working on this one.

08/13/2013:

Licensee still working on this one.

S Question appears to be SAT.

MAB&JAT 08/23/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 77 H 2 X B U/E 011EG2.4.41 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-level.

Choices B and D do not appear plausible based on the reference provided. A General Emergency is declared for a loss of all three barriers, or a loss of two and potential loss of a third. Page 3 of Enclosure 4.1 specifically lists the containment pressure or hydrogen concentration required to constitute a potential loss of the containment barrier - this is a direct lookup to determine whether or not the containment barrier is intact or not.

Recommendation: add something to the stem that containment isolation is incomplete, and name a valve (or valves) that is not a direct release path (that the applicant would have to determine is not a direct release path) - this would lend more plausibility to choices B and D.

Regarding the distractor analysis for Choice B - analysis mentions a scale to be read, but there is no indication in the stem of the question (or a reference provided) that would require them to read a scale.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

S Scale was used incorrectly instead of the word chart in distractor analysis to refer to the range of radiation values that would constitute a loss v. a potential loss of one of the barriers.

Changed question stem to include a containment isolation valve not closing. Question appears to be SAT.

78 L 2 X N U 025AG2.4.34 (pre) Question does appears to be at the SRO level because detailed knowledge of procedures, as it relates to both procedure selection and RO tasks in the field, are required to answer the question. Very difficult KA to meet. An argument may exist that the field actions are non-licensed operator actions, but the ROs are required to have the same skills and abilities and the intent of the KA appears to be met.

The first part answer choices A/B does not appear to be plausible. Why would a Plant Fire procedure contain specific instructions on aligning specific power sources to specific components? Is there a system for which the Plant Fire procedure DOES contain detailed power-alignment instructions? (Which would make these answer choices more plausible.)

Second part of the question appears okay (its not at the SRO level, which is okay, because the first part meets the KA at the SRO level).

(MAB & JAT 6/7/2013)

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

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

Question did not change from original submittal.

Regarding the plausibility of part 1 of Choices A and B, distractor analysis specifically calls out a component for which Plant Fire has detailed direction to align alternate power.

Question appears to be okay as-is.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 79 L 3 X N E 056AA2.88 (pre) Question appears to match the KA because it requires knowledge of interpreting SG levels.

The interpretation is supported by EOP bases knowledge, which is arguably SRO-only (it is not actually defined anywhere). (Question appears to be at the SRO level.)

Is it necessary to give the full contents of the step, or can just the part above the bullets be given? (ie., just: Verify natural circulation capability in all NC loops) Is it possible that including the information regarding the required SG level could cue an answer to another question?

Be specific with the answer choices. RCS cooldown, RCS depressurization. Necessary because it would not inhibit SG cooldown or depressuization.

Answer choice B is only shakily plausible. The applicant actually has to think of the correct answer to the first part to justify the second part being plausible, thereby discounting the first part of this choice.

Need to ensure that none of the distracters can be argued as correct: Could void formations cause problems with uneven cooling, which could cause problems with depressuization? Could uneven cooling cause problems with void formation, which could cause problems with further cooldown, which could cause problems with further depressurization? The intent of these questions is to ensure that the distracters are clearly incorrect.

One possibility is recommending reframing the question to ask what the necessary NR level in all SGs is for this step (requires removing step details), and why that is the necessary minimum water level. The first part of the question could toggle between 11% and 29% (you would need to give conditions in the stem for the applicant to determine whether ACCs exist) and the second part could toggle between to prevent uneven cooling which could impact cooldown and to prevent void formation which could impact depressurization.

This would help to get rid of the shaky plausibility of pairing uneven cooling and depressurization in Choice B. It would also bring this question up to a LOK of H.

Caution to wording of the question statement to ensure a correct answer. Is the answer actually the purpose of the step? Another possibility is to consider rewording the procedure step to more closely align with the way the information is displayed in the bases.

I.E. The ERG states that ____ which could inhibit further _____.

(MAB & JAT 6/7/2013)

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

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

New question incorporated most of the above suggestions.

H Question still appears to meet the KA at the SRO-only level.

Understand that you dont want to cue the applicant by stating no other event is in progress and the applicants are not supposed to assume conditions that are not stated in the stem. However, by being silent on anything with respect to containment conditions, this makes adverse numbers less plausible as an answer choice.

Recommend adding an event to the stem, such as:

Unit 1 was in the process of lowering power due to an RCS leak when the Unit tripped due to a loss of offsite power.

Then containment radiation and pressure numbers can be given, and the applicant can determine if ACC conditions exist. This will lend more plausibility to choices B and D.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 E 08/12/2013:

Licensee asked about toggling between U1 and U2 numbers.

Licensee will change 29% in B(1) and D(1) to 15%, which is the U2 number for this same procedure.

S 08/13/2013 Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 80 H 2 X N U 065G2.4.8 Question does not appear to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Part (1) does appear to be at the SRO-only level, however, the way the question is framed does not require knowledge of using APs in conjunction with EOPs (AP-22 is in all of the answer choices, so the question is really just asking if ES-0.1 contains guidance on aligning a backup source of air to the PZR PORVs). Part (2) does not appear to match the intent of the KA - the KA is asking HOW APs are implemented in conjunction with EOPs, not if/when.

Additionally, Part (2) distractors A and C can be eliminated with RO knowledge, making this part of the question not exactly at the SRO-only level, and giving the question two non-plausible distractors.

Do no use ONLY in C and D - test what is different. In this instance, ONLY acts as a distractor detractor, harming the credibility of the distractors.

I would frame the question and put the applicant at the Step 2 RNO of ES-0.1, and make VI pressure slightly higher than given in the stem. You can ask what the appropriate next step is regarding the PORVs. Then your four answer choices could be (can be cleaned up later if needed):

A) N2 is not required to be aligned to the PZR PORVs at this time.

B) N2 is required to be aligned to the PORVs at this time. ES-0.1 directs the required actions. No other procedures are required to be implemented concurrently.

C) N2 is required to be aligned to the PORVs. ES-0.1 does NOT direct the required actions to align N2 to the PORVs.

AP-22 is required to be implemented concurrently to accomplish this.

D) N2 is required to be aligned to the PORVs. ES-0.1 directs the required actions to align N2 to the PORVs. AP-22 is ALSO required to be implemented concurrently.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

S Comment incorporated with slightly modified wording. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 81 H 2 B S WE04EA2.1 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Need to make sure that there is nothing in the stem to indicate to the applicant that the leak location is known (i.e., the guidance in OMP1-7 that states, a known leak is one that is confirmed by local verification or redundant control room indications).

Otherwise question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

Per licensee, stem gives indications of the leak, but source cannot be identified. A specific FAM has been issued s.t. the applicants are taught that the procedure must be used and a leak location cannot be identified to a specific train for those conditions.

82 F 2 X N E 028G2.2.25 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Choice B seems implausible because part (2) is the only false statement of the 4 part (2) statements and it reads somewhat awkwardly. Recommend simply repeating part (2) of C for part (2) of B:

A) (1) IS, (2) of potential overfill of the pressurizer [true > P-7]

B) (1) is NOT, (2) it is a backup to the Pressurizer High Pressure trip.

[i.e., this choice is saying that it is not required because it is a backup trip]

C) (1) IS, (2) it is a backup to the Pressurizer High Pressure trip [true

> P-7]

D) (1) is NOT, (2) sufficient time is available to evaluate conditions and take corrective action [true]

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

S Incorporated comment. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 83 F 2 N S/E 076AG2.2.40 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Part (2) statement should end in a period (.) rather than a question mark (?).

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

Comment incorporated.

84 H 2 B S WE03EA2.1 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 85 H 2 X X M U WE10EA2.2 Question does not appear to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Part (1) of the question is RO knowledge, and part (2) of the question (which is the SRO-level part of the question) addresses NC pump configuration. Since the KA specifically talks about natural circulation, asking how many NC pumps allowed in operation does not meet the intent of the KA.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

Tabling for today.

08/13/2013:

Changed second part of question to have a specific procedural detail required to be recalled. NRC is tabling to see if this meets the intent of an SRO-only question. Facility will likely revise second part of the question (ask something out of the basis document).

S Question appears to be SAT.

MAB&JAT 08/23/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 86 H 3 N E 005G2.2.36 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

However, applicants are not required to commit >1h TS to memory, so in order for all choices to be plausible, need to also provide TS 3.5.2.

Need to evaluate providing this TS as potential overlap with question 92.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

Their argument is that this completion time commonly known. They would have to look to see if there is a specific learning objective that requires this knowledge. Also stated that the 72-hr knowledge item is a distractor. Brought up an example of a question from 2010 exam was related to a 30d completion time.

Will table this one for now while NRC discusses whether this is acceptable.

UPDATE: Do not think the 72h TS from a plausible distractor, nor is this an easy fix. Recommend replacing KA.

08/13/2013:

No new KA needed. Going to come up with a different question and not limit question to talk about degraded power source (KA gave this as a suggestion, not a requirement).

S Question appears to be SAT.

MAB&JAT 08/23/2013 87 H 2 N S 008A2.08 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 88 H 2 X N E 026A2.09 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Not sure about the plausibility of choice A - if the applicant does not recognize the change in classification (answering 0935 to part (1)),

why would they think this is the initial notification, since the stem indicates a notification was made at 0835?

Need to make sure that the question 77 suggestion does not overlap with this question.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

S Changed answer choice A to 1235/follow-up. Plausible because there is an allowance for a 4hr follow-up notification.

Does not appear to have any overlap concerns (testing the other side of the containment isolation question as 77).

Question 88 appears to be SAT.

89 H 2 X N U 062G2.1.30 (pre) Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be at the SRO level. The first part of the question appears to be RO knowledge, but the selection of the procedure that controls operation of the component appears to be SRO knowledge, so the KA still appears to be met at the SRO level.

Does OP/1/A/6100/003 ever apply in Mode 3? Also, does OP/1/A/6100/003 direct entry into OP/1/B/6300/001? The justification seems to indicate that an alternate controlling procedure for this switch is actually OP1/B/6300/001, rather than OP/1/A/6100/003. Additionally, it seems like an applicant could easily discount answer choices B and D, simply by the mode given in the stem of the question (two non-plausible distracters).

(MAB & JAT, 6/7/2013)

New question modified the second question to remove mention of S Mode 3 and instead asks which procedure directs placing the fast transfer switch for 1TA to DEFEAT.

L N New question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

New question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 90 H 3 N S 063A2.02 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 91 H 2 X X N U 001G2.2.44 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

There is an extra space between the last word in the stem of the question (found in) and the semicolon at the end.

First part of question does not seem to make sense - rods did not insert in automatic, and yet a LO-LO limit alarm is received. Does this mean that the OATC inserted rods in Manual? Evaluate need to add more information to the stem if the intention was that manual rod insertion occurred.

Tave-Tref = 3F is unclear as to whether Tave is above or below Tref. [may be okay if this is commonly used phrasing at Catawba, but adding a + in front of the 3F could make it more clear]

Choices A and C do not appear to be plausible - these can be eliminated using RO knowledge of the implications of the LO-LO limit alarm.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 S/E 08/12/2013:

Facility incorporated first two comments, however where they put the information about CRs in Manual did not address our question about the LOLO limit being received after rods fail to insert in auto.

We recommended they add the information about manual rod insert at the same time as the rods failing to insert in auto.

Tave-Tref, per licensee, is clear/common knowledge.

Question is SAT/Enhance (to verify where manual rod insertion information was placed). Once okay with bullet placement, question appears to be SAT.

08/13/2013:

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 92 H 1 X ? ? N U 011A2.12 KA 011A2.12 replaced with KA 011A2.04. (MAB & JAT 04/24/2013)

Question appears to match the KA, but not at the SRO-only level.

Part (1) of the question, which does address the KA, can be answered with systems knowledge. Part (2) of the KA is at the SRO-only level, however it is debatable as to whether it addresses the KA.

KA match information references having two NV pumps out, whereas the stem of the question has an NI pump and an NV pump out (on opposite trains). The distractor analysis seems to indicate that the pumps out of service are not both NV pumps (otherwise 100% train flow doesnt seem as though it can be achieved).

Additionally, typically a reference is provided for TS with completion times >1hr (and in fact, this same TS was suggested as being provided for question 86). If the applicant has the TS, part (2) of distractors B and D are not plausible - it is a direct lookup to see that the TS says one or more trains inoperable. And although the basis for TS 3.5.2 states, This interconnecting and redundant subsystem design provides the operators with the ability to utilize components from opposite trains to achieve the required 100% flow to the core.,

it seems as though this would actually also fall under the purview of systems knowledge to know that a single ECCS train can utilize components from the other train to achieve 100% flow, and would thus be RO knowledge.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

KA match reference - needs to update to reflect NI vs. NV pump.

To solve the reference question - could fix by saying Immediate entry into TS 3.0.3 is/is not required.

Going to table KA match discuss while NRC discusses.

UPDATE: Do not think this matches the KA, nor is this an easy fix.

Recommend replacing KA.

08/13/2013:

Still dont think this meets KA. Will give a new KA, and allow licensee to use new KA or come up with an alternative to Q2. Might be okay with detailed procedure knowledge of AP/12 (not just entry conditions, but section selection, etc). Gave them the option to use 029A2.01 in lieu of 011A2.04.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only S Question appears to be SAT. KA replaced as noted above.

MAB&JAT 08/23/2013 93 H 2 X X M U 028A2.01 Question does not appear to match the KA. Part (1) of the question does address the use of the plant data book in determining the required power setting (partial KA match at the RO level question),

but part (2) of the question does not address procedure use.

Although the second part of the question does appear to be at the SRO-only level, it does not match the KA.

Recommend giving a power setting in the stem of the question (you can decide if it is an acceptable value or an unacceptable value) and then asking a question on the appropriate procedural path to take as a result of that power setting. The KA is met because the applicant will have to use the plant data book to determine the acceptability of the power setting and then select a procedure (or procedure section) with which to proceed.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

Question modified, but still probably not meeting KA. Table until tomorrow, possibly get new KA.

08/13/2013:

Replaced 028A2.01 with 028G2.1.20.

S Question appears to be SAT. KA replaced as noted above.

MAB&JAT 08/23/2013

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 94 L 2 X X B U G2.1.2 (pre) Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be at the SRO level.

Second part of Choice C and D seem implausible - 20 minutes can only be considered plausible if it has some meaning in the context of shift staffing.

Choice B seems implausible - if the CRS or relief SRO does not return to the control room for 15 minutes, how can the STA assume SRO duties for a maximum of 10 minutes?

This may be a good opportunity to test an additional staffing requirement along with the limitation for the STA assuming the SRO duties. Consider the situation where the SRO gets ill and is unable to fulfill his duties. How long can the STA assume the role? Etc (MAB & JAT, 6/7/2013)

New question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

S New question addresses the above comments and incorporates the suggestion of testing the limitation for the STA assuming the SRO duties for a maximum amount of time during the shift.

New question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 95 H 2 N S/E G2.1.5 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

To avoid Unit 2 in all of the answer choices, recommend changing part (1) of the question to: A Fuel Handling Supervisor (SRO) [is/is NOT] currently required to be designated for Unit 1.

Otherwise, question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

Incorporated comment. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 96 H 2 X M E G2.2.14 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-only level.

Need to add a comma in the fourth bullet of the Given conditions between the words evolution and the NEO.

Need to be clear in the stem that the NEO was able to successfully stabilize lube oil temperature - this is somewhat vague.

Need to make sure there is not more than one correct answer to this question. Section 12.9 of SOMP 02-01 seems to indicate that emergent issues that require prompt action can go on either a CCC or in a control room log entry, which would make choice C not an entirely wrong answer. Need to make sure that a control room log entry will not be confused for the CCC Satellite log. If there is something else to call the control room log entry (i.e., does Catawba use SOMS to make log entries?), this could alleviate the problem.

Additionally, part (2) refers to something that is normally done (rather than always) and the time period is prior to shift change. This could be anything before the next shift comes on, so A and D could arguably be correct as well. Separately, SOMP 02-01 12.5.1 says that a CCC or an R&R shall be used, supporting that D could be partially correct.

One fix is to more closely mimic the words in step 12.6, and reference step 12.6: IAW SOMP 02-01 if a component cannot be returned to the as-found position, the normal process will be to issue a(n) __(1)___ prior to shift turnover.

(By referencing a section, there is one and only one correct answer)

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

Table until tomorrow.

S 08/13/2013:

Comments incorporated. Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 97 H 2 B S G2.2.42 This TS is difficult to meet at the SRO-level. Generally, conditions that require TS entry are, by definition, RO knowledge. However, in this case, knowledge of the minimum FWST temperature to determine entry into LCO 3.5.4 is NOT required to be known by ROs from memory (because it is contained in 1) the 3.5.4 basis and

2) a SR that is related to a TS action statement with a >1h completion time). Thus, this question appears to match the KA at the SRO-level.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 98 F 2 N S G2.3.4 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-level.

Question appears to be SAT.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 99 H 2 ? N E G2.4.25 Question appears to match the KA at the SRO-level.

RP-29 does not appear to be an operating procedure, which lowers the plausibility of part (2) of choices A and C. Does RP-29 ever direct component manipulation? If so, this could bolster the probability of these choices, but if not, there could be an issue.

JAT & MAB 08/02/213 08/12/2013:

Table until tomorrow.

08/13/2013:

S There are some ventilation systems that are discussed by RP-29 (Encl 3.5). Although components are not specifically manipulated by RP-29, the mention of specific ventilation systems lends plausibility to the fact that RP-29 might direct some transfer to the SSF (this lends plausibility to part (2) of A and C).

Question appears to be SAT.

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 100 L 2 X X B U G2.4.38 (pre) Question appears to match the KA.

Question appears to be at the SRO level.

However, question appears to have non-plausible distracters.

Classifying an emergency and making a PAR are very similar. So similar that it is difficult to understand the plausibility that the restrictions on delegation would be different. As a result, LOD is also fairly low (maybe unacceptable).

(MAB & JAT, 6/7/2013)

H 2 X X N U Entirely new question submitted.

Question appears to match the KA but appears to not be at the SRO-only level. Both questions ask information contained within the Immediate actions of the RP. The information provided for RO Q74 seems to indicate that immediate actions of RP procedures are RO knowledge - if this is not the case (and you are using actions in the RP procedures to indicate SRO-only level knowledge), Q74 will have to be changed.

Additionally, NOT terminating the 1A NS pump testing (especially if an applicant thought the plant was to go to Mode 5) seems implausible. This calls somewhat into question the plausibility choices B and D.

Recommendations: For part (1), choose a different component (not listed as requiring test termination in 1.9.2 of Encl 4.2) for testing and query on whether termination of the test is required IAW step 1.9.2 of Encl 4.2 (RO knowledge). Then for part (2), you can add some information in the stem to address step 2.4 of Encl 4.2 - state that a tornado touched down on site but emergency classification was not required, and query as to whether notification to the states and counties is required. This will make the question SRO-only.

[There are many ways to fix this question - the aforementioned option is only one of many fixes we would likely accept.]

JAT 08/02/2013 S 08/12/2013:

Modified question to incorporate some of our recommendations.

New question appears to be SAT.

Catawba 2013-301 The final sample plan is the combination of the original sample plan and the ES-401-4.

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: Date of Exam: ff 1 Exam Level: ROrX1 SROKf Initials Item Description a b c

1. Clean answer sheets copied before grading

2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified cçAs) and documented -r- &

3. Applicants scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check> 25% of examinations) °4N M J) 2

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

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

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 Th&rr.() /g

b. Facility Reviewer(*) / , o1 . I

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) ,

r/yflJ7 - -Aio4--

d. NRC Supervisor (*) 1$,43

(*) 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

ML13336A407

Text

Navigation menu

Search