ML15201A557

301 Final Administrative Documents

ML15201A557
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	07/16/2015
From:	NRC/RGN-II
To:	Florida Power & Light Co
References
Download: ML15201A557 (144)

Text

ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1 Facility: Saint Lucie Date of Examination: 03/02/15 Developed by: Written - Facility EZI NRC D ii Operating - FacilityIZl NRC Target Chief Date* Task Description (Reference) Examiners Initials

-180 1. Examination administration date confirmed (Cia; C.2.a and b) (1 3

-120 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.i.d; C.2.e)

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

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

[-90] [5. Reference material due (C.1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 3)]

(-75) 6. Integrated examination outline(s) due, including Fonns ES-201-2, ES-201-3, ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-D-ls, ES-401-1/2, ES-401-3, and ES-401-4, as applicable (C.1.e and f; C.3.d) C

{-70} {7. Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility , /

licensee (C.2.h; C.3.e)} (-)

{-45} 8. Proposed examinations (including written, walk-through JPMs, and scenarios, as applicable), supporting documentation (including Forms ES-301-3, ES-301-4, ES-301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-401-6, and any Form ES-201-3 updates), and reference materials due (C.1.e, f, g and h; C.3.d) U

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

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

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

-14 12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (Cli; C.2.f and h; C.3.g)

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

R

-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; Attachment 5; ES-202, C.2.e; ES-204)

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

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

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

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

ES-201, Page 25 of 28

--WRITTEN EXAM SAMPLE PLAN ONLY--

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility: ST. LUCIE Date of Examination: MARCH 2015 Item Task Description

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

w R 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.

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

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

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

M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number U and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using A at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated T from the applicants audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on sul 0

c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative R

and quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301-4 and described in Appendix D.

3. a. Verify that the systems walk-through outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-2:

(1) the outline(s) contain(s) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks w distributed among the safety functions as specified on the form

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

(4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified on the form (5) the number of alternate path, low-power, emergency, and RCA tasks meet the criteria on the form.

/

b. Verify that the administrative outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-1:

(1) the tasks are distributed among the topics as specified on the form (2) at least one task is new or significantly modified (3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations

c. Determine if there are enough different outlines to test the projected number and mix of applicants and ensure that no items are duplicated on subsequent

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

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

N

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

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

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

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

a. Author

b. Facility Reviewer (*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

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

Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Examination: March 2, 2015 Initials Item Task Description a b*

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

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

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

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

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

J M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number u and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using ..j:

A at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated -

T from the applicants audit test(s), and that scenarios wilhiot be repeated on subsequent days,

c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative 4 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 Forni ES-301-2:

(1) the outline(s) contain(s) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks W distributed among the safety functions as specified on the form I (2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the form ,--

T (3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants audit test(s) 1 (4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified on the form (5) the number of alternate path, low-power, emergency, and RCA tasks meet the criteria J ontheform.

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. Detrmine if there are enough different outlines tq 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 2.2

- in the appropriate exam sections. 41 j

G E b. Asss whether the 10 CFR 55.41143 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

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

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

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

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

7 Pri3 ane/Signature<Di -[0 Date

a. Author Paul Farnsworth I L 2/20/2015 S. Facility Reviewer (*)  %..-4.ç.I

c. NRCChiefExaminer(#)

Terry Benton I P 4ci../ (QO,4)

4. 2120/2015

d. NRC Supervisor . Lvl-\ +1 - / Zl4/I Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Examination: March 2, 2015 Initials Item Task Description a b

1. a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401 n/a n/a R b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with n/a n/a I Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all K/A categories are appropriately sampled.

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

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

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

M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number u and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated A

T from the applicants audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days.

1

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 0.

t\

3. a. Verify that the systems walk-through outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-2:

(1) the outline(s) contain(s) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks W distributed among the safety functions as specified on the form I (2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the form T (3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants audit test(s)

(4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified on the form

,, (.3-_

(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.

G E b. Assesswhetherthe 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.

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 (RD or SRQ). ,L Pçi%Name/Signayre Date

a. Author Paul Farnsworth I r

___)

(DK( 3/10/2015

b. Facility Reviewer (*) Terry Bent n I . 3/0/2015

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) 3/lu 2.015 k&.- I

d. NRC Supervisor Jst S. \ .C Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines

L-201 5-097 Enclosure ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3 (39 pages)

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

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

2. Post-Examination To the best of my know)edge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of 3/34f,c. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SlJc1rURE (1) DATE tAE (2) DATE NOTE

. i Quj4 / LfVf ..

2, 1 - /1 (/

3. 3ohn. /v7 /VI) J/_ JI1h&_ 27s

4. i44& 3f2L /i 7E2, m F n)

?7 i /1 6YY//) J1 ,

5. *7** . 7. i 6 .i L -

.j. rt r.*::: .

7. fl . -.

rjw-., - UiSt. 7 - - I .*

N .r...e

8. .. ii,-t ,

/ .--; i.- I /

9. - / .- ..L-1 ,-2.-i-41 c

(1) 1O.44/, JfSLL (

C71 /-)

11. 4(- g/c-fi14 H_r jL,-C C . _.bi) -.

41?)9 &i 13.g4) Ai& WLLPtZ- C( -1 (i)

14. 2s 15.,et./ .LSt1 4

LAJf r4- ,ir ijc7iy NOTES:

d:

cD EfA,l -c5p&? 477Aé,edL /23/,c 3/Z3(5/

Cpyc S-/- u;+ tf A&fl

) ES-201, Page 27 of 28

Mann, James From: Benton, Terry Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:07 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Importance: High James:

I am working mid shift and wont be able to make it to the training building.

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

r/

Terry 1

Mann, James From: Sizemore, Charles Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:27 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure James, to the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Chuck Sizemore Nuclear Corporate Training Director NextEra Energy 561-691-2188 Office 561-324-6410 Cell 1

Mann, James From: Goodwin, Amy Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 8:03 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

An-zy qoodw, Senior Business Manager Assets Better NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Business Management Office: 561.694.4224 Mobile: 561.348.4352 1

Mann, James From: Joe Arsenault <jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 8:39 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder This i open ttehnents or e1ickiink fromunknOwn genders or unxpected email To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Joe Arsenault President Western Technical Services, Inc.

623-363-0509 This message and all attachments transmitted with it from Western Technical Services, Inc. are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message From: Mann, James [1]

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:27 AM To: Benton, Terry; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Pike, Charlie; Byford, David; Phillips, D A; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Byrd, Desiree; Rasmus, Paul; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Joe Arsenault; Francis.giannone@duke-energy.com

Subject:

HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder Team The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please take a moment and respond to my previous email regarding closure of the security agreement.

I will make arrangements to collect your badge as soon as possible.

Thank You for your support.

James Mann 1

Mann, James From: Myerez, David Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:36 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

David From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room ( 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) th 19 Thursday March 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room (2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

V/R 1

Mann, James From: Oliver, C.D.Chuck Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 10:34 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure

James, I have been offsite during this time and am now back as the outage Unit Supervisor. I can try to get over there to drop off my badge next week since I plan on parking in the unit 1 parking lot. In the meantime, here is my response to your request to close out the security agreement.

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Thanks, Chuck Oliver From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) th 19 Thursday March 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH*

18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH 1

Mann, James From: Chang, Wes Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 6:17 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Wesley Chang 1

Mann, James From: Rich Whitehouse <r.c.whitehouse@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 11:17 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

Re: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure

• This is an EXTERtAL ernail.Exrcise DNOToh ttáblihint or clik links from nknwn senders or unexpected email

James, I confirm that enclosed statement is true.

Richard Whitehouse ps, I will also send a signed scanned security agreement.

On Mar 19, 2015 6:46 PM, Mann, James <James.Mann@fpl.com> wrote:

Rich The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Thank You V/R James Mann 1

ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form (similar) ES-201-3

1. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of Mar 3Mar18, 2015 as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g. acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of Mar 3Mar18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SJj 1

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

()Signed on original at St Lucie Nuclear Power Plant

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

1. PreExamination examinations scheduled for the week(s) of as of the I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing persons who have not been authorized these examinations to any date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be by the NRC chief examiner.

administration, except as specifically noted below and administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination r is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicato measures and requirements (as documented in the facility provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered To the best of my know)edge I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not during the week(s) these licensing examinations, except as specifically instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered noted below and authorized by the NRC.

SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY LQ1Z2.lf

1. _

_ _ _ _ d 2

4*..(

(0 6 Sc.

t, b <

10 ., 6

12. SEAN WNiR -1 I 3.

14.

15.

NOTES:

ES-201, Page 26 of 27

Farnsworth, P.F.PauI From: Wylie, Sean Patrick <spwylie@tva.gov>

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 5:40 AM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul

Subject:

RE: Checking In Paul you are welcome. Congratulations on the positive results. Too bad about the 1 RO.

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Sean Wylie From: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul [P.F.Paul.Farnsworth@fpl.com]

Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 3:07 PM To: Wylie, Sean Patrick Cc: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: Checking In TVA External Message. Please use caution when opening.

Written exam was today. It is over. Unofficial results were 14 out of 15. One RO missed one too many questions. We will try to get him one question back. The operating exam results were positive. Please email me back, responding to the info below to get the security agreement closed out. Ill give you a call in a couple of days when the dust settles. Thanks again for your contributions to our exam. Pf The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room (2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext.: 3339)

Thursday March 19 th, 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH From: Wylie, Sean Patrick [mailto :spwyl ie@tva.gov]

Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 7:52 AM 1

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

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

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of/2 From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

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

1. LOZ{If 2.je, FIIA&rdAe cco  ?

1 w2 1 L4 Z

3.$&J

.-J.

Il22ItL

4. -(( )6QilL /,,Jzz,4 C

7 sgo / ______I__,

5. t-1 SriA.c!. 3 ./%,

6. /o ?-/y

&sa (cIt ,eco JO /g(/ L2_34-

8. ç2 - _/ *3, ..J X4-- 3-,

9. cc.o

10. 1i...c.i-i.ty .1-. Ui-t--tiL S (7.0 I

11. C4.,.jc . e - h 7 12.4j c.

13. ( 6 C,-o (- (,Fv) 5 J /ff .-2_

4 1 4TM.-flLy dcc-,,J5o,%.) Rc.o

15. /kivfLnA iz NOTES: /

/

44:I -epote  ;

7 i

p 4 4j 3(z)! 1/ ES-201, Page 26 of 27

Mann, James From: Pollak, Frederick Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 6:44 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

cFred We are affLeafers ofChange From: Mann, James Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:27 AM To: Benton, Terry; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Pike, Charlie; Byford, David; Phillips, D A; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Byrd, Desiree; Rasmus, Paul; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke-energy.com

Subject:

HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder Team The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please take a moment and respond to my previous email regarding closure of the security agreement.

I will make arrangements to collect your badge as soon as possible.

Thank You for your support.

James Mann 1

Mann, James From: Finley, Jeffrey Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:08 PM To: Mann, James To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Sorry about the tardiness.

V/ R Jeff 1

Mann, James From: Gray, Ryan Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:29 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure

James, Regarding the NRC Exam Security Agreement for HLC-22:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Ryan Gray From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room (2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) th, 19 Thursday March 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH*

18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room ( 2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

1

Mann, James From: Abernethy, J.G.Jeff Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 7:40 PM To: Mann, James; Farnsworth, P.F.Paul

Subject:

NRC EXAM security

James, To the best of my knowledge, did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Jeff Abe rnethy 1

Mann, James From: Bushman, C.Craig Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 1:37 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Craig Bushman From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room ( 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339)

Thursday March 19, 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room (2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

V/R James Mann 1

Mann, James From: Brady, John Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:56 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder

Jim, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

John G. Brady Nuclear Oversight St. Lucie Plant 772-467-7656 From: Mann, James Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:27 AM To: Benton, Terry; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carios; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Hutchinson, Tim; Dakes, Anthony; Pike, Charlie; Byford, David; Phillips, D A; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Byrd, Desiree; Rasmus, Paul; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke-energy.com

Subject:

HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder Team The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please take a moment and respond to my previous email regarding closure of the security agreement.

I will make arrangements to collect your badge as soon as possible.

Thank You for your support.

James Mann 1

Mann, James From: Hutchinson, Tim Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:42 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

From: Mann, James Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:26 AM To: Benton, Terry; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Pike, Charlie; Byford, David; Phillips, D A; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Byrd, Desiree; Rasmus, Paul; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke-energy.com T

Subject:

HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder Team The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please take a moment and respond to my previous email regarding closure of the security agreement.

I will make arrangements to collect your badge as soon as possible.

Thank You for your support.

James Mann 1

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

1. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of 3Z\ as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about theseexaminations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. 1 understand that 1 am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) ofi/2 3/I/KFrom the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

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

1. zz{if

2. cLC_O C: /

e. SQc ..

cc

8. A/,.

9J4pLt1< .

ID. -r .. iC U

11. c%--Z. se icc-c .

! ° 15.

NOTES: -

ES-201,Page26of27 E-i COJC 4riJ Y(Z3I

Mann, James From: Gian none, Francis John <Francis.Giannone@duke-energy.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:30 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder This is Exercise caution. p.NQi enti fnent or c1ickiiil fknrn sendei s or uqxpected email

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations. Please sign me off the security agreement.

Hope the results went well!

Thanks, Frank Giannone Operations Training Manager Robinson Nuclear Plant 843-857-1405

( DUKE ENERGY ROGRSS From: Mann, James [2]

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:27 AM To: Benton, Terry; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Pike, Charlie; Byford, David; Phillips, D A; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Byrd, Desiree; Rasmus, Paul; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Giannone, Francis John

Subject:

HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email.

Team The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please take a moment and respond to my previous email regarding closure of the security agreement.

1

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

1. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of 2. (S as of the date of my signature. I agree that will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have hot been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledgel did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of3Z. I From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

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

1. Li4 3 iji

2. (,14.L P,w.J c_. i- 1 P eiis I)_

3. $E 5(4;i:F4 il/(41f

4. p cp rz1i1_

5. i\ L Crr

6. DfN. pN:LIJ fLn ith_oI/i_

7. To ttnw /ief/

8. Ij.

9. -r o& 1-?- /r

10. bW FEi) - -

11. L&)ss 1çyr,k /!JS Jjii)-

-4__

12. YYurOJL( D#CC

13. SeAIN ,th

14. t J t.A LVL2/ T- 4.A 42_1 iM

15. zJtJiS NOT 2.. jS ES-201, Page 26 of 27

-AI*( pósQ 3/z3/,

TTec

Mann, James From: Pike, Charlie Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:45 AM To: Mann, James Cc: Merrill, Steve

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Thank You Charlie Pike From: Mann, James Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:27 AM To: Benton, Terry; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Pike, Charlie; Byford, David; Phillips, D A; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Byrd, Desiree; Rasmus, Paul; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; jgarsen©wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone©duke-energy.com

Subject:

HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder Team The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please take a moment and respond to my previous email regarding closure of the security agreement.

I will make arrangements to collect your badge as soon as possible.

Thank You for your support.

James Mann 1

Mann, James From: Merrill, Steve Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:23 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

V/R, Steve Merrill From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spiliman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

IHLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) th, 19 Thursday March 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room (2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

1

Mann, James From: Card, David Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 5:46 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Good day, James.

Im working Mids; so Ill be hard pressed to make itto physically sign off the agreement. Per your instructions below, I acknowledge and confirm the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Ill strive to return the badge as soon as Im able; possibly tomorrow morning (3/20/15) after my last Mid. In the meantime, is it safe to assume I can remove it from my person?

Many thanks!

Respectfully, David From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J .G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De. La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J M .John; Holzmacher, G.H Hank;.

Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339)

Thursday March 19 th 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I 1

Mann, James From: Phillips, D A Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:09 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

From: Mann, James Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:27 AM To: Benton, Terry; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Pike, Charlie; Byford, David; Phillips, D A; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Byrd, Desiree; Rasmus, Paul; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone©duke-energy.com

Subject:

HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder Team The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please take a moment and respond to my previous email regarding closure of the security agreement.

I will make arrangements to collect your badge as soon as possible.

Thank You for your support.

James Mann 1

Mann, James From: Brown, T.S.Tom Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:37 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Tom From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Green, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J .G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De. La .Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G. H. Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room ( 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339)

Thursday March 19 th 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room ( 2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

V/R James Mann 1

Farnsworth, P.F.PauI From: Fields, Dave Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 4:11 AM To: Mann, James Cc: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Dave Fields From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke T

energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room (2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) th, 19 Thursday March 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAiL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room (2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

1

Mann, James From: Rexrode, Wess Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:31 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Importance: High

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Wess Rexrode P.S. Today I am the unit 2 Unit Supervisor.

1

Mann, James From: Murray, Eric Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 4:03 PM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: PSL Security Agreement

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Eric Murray Operations Continuing Training Supervisor NextEra Energy Duane Arnold 3277 DAEC Road Palo, IA 52324 W: (319)851-7203 Cell: (319)350-5401 NExTera NRCY

, OUAN AflNOLO From: Mann, James Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 11:55 AM To: Murray, Eric

Subject:

PSL Security Agreement Eric You are our last required signature for the closeout of our security agreement.

Please copy and paste the paragraph below with your name under it acknowledging its contents in a reply to me and that will serve as your close out of the agreement.

Thank You James To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

1

Mann, James From: Minear, Ron Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 6:20 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

Ron Minear From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room ( 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) th, 19 Thursday March 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room (2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

V/R James Mann 1

Mann, James From: Kilian, Reese Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 12:52 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

V/ R, Reese Kilian From: Mann, James Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:27 AM To: Benton, Terry; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Pike, Charlie; Byford, David; Phillips, D A; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Byrd, Desiree; Rasmus, Paul; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone©duke-energy.com

Subject:

HLC-22 Security Agreement closure Reminder Team The exam for HLC-22 is now complete please take a moment and respond to my previous email regarding closure of the security agreement.

I will make arrangements to collect your badge as soon as possible.

Thank You for your support.

James Mann I-

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

1. P re-Examination I acknowledge that have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of 3/ as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee, will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of M.w2-s 1rFrom the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOBTITLE/RESPONSIBILITY SI NATURE(1) DATE SI TURE(2) DATE NOTE 1.

5c.ic

2. Pcr- Ti-t- .Sp-.--f 4

f1

3. ,7 5z4 e4ya

4. I O5_t-5.&AcT,OAVCW, l.4JfrJ?SJ (CiflPQit4

6. 1o.rfl ,czc

/9tPE 77cJp -crp Ii) 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

NOTES:

- ES-201 Page 26 of 27 7Aet 3/23(,5 c2 Ern

Mann, James From: Rasmus, Paul Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 7:28 AM To: Mann, James; Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; ugarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.co m

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

V/R, Paul Rasmus From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De. La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J .M .John; Holzmacher, G. H. Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spiliman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room ( 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339)

Thursday March 19 th 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

1

Mann, James From: Tinti, John Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 8:33 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

Re: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure

James, To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

John On Mar 17, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Mann, James <Jarnes.Mann@,fpl.com> wrote:

performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH Th1*

18 1

Mann, James From: Kudo, Timothy Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 6:08 AM To: Mann, James

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

V/ R, Tim Kudo From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Ilolzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spillman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room 2 floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339)

Thursday March 19 th, 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

TH 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room ( 2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

V/R James Mann 1

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

1. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of 3J Js of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) ofi/z ,/i,/From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

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

1. vSktfkey M&4 t i -e (7L

2. - 2j

3. : .p I_---

4. P1 :7IQ _3 ji-(,ic

5. I Ci- 1.L*/L b -

JsiiS

6. /2t(, C 7 ,7/L1,r1)i, 7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

NOTES:

ES-201, Page 26 of 27 cD -mA/ A-T74d(i /

Owens, John From: Martin, Christopher R Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:06 AM To: Mann, James Cc: Owens, John; Baughman, Michael

Subject:

RE: HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

From: Mann, James Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:02 PM To: Farnsworth, P.F.Paul; Benton, Terry; Owens, John; Sizemore, Charles; Goodwin, Amy; Breen, Jack; Myerez, David; Oliver, C.D.Chuck; Chang, Wes; Baird, Richard; Watson, Reid; Pollak, Frederick; Finley, Jeffrey; Gray, Ryan; Abernethy, J.G.Jeff; Sherwood, Roger; Bushman, C.Craig; De.La.Guardia, C.S.Carlos; Klauck, J.M.John; Holzmacher, G.H.Hank; Miller, Timothy J; Zen, Clark; Brady, John; Croteau, Michael G; Hutchinson, Tim; Oakes, Anthony; Baughman, Michael; Pike, Charlie; Merrill, Steve; Byford, David; Card, David; Phillips, D A; Spiliman, Troy; Ryley, W.A.Skip; Brown, T.S.Tom; Fields, Dave; Rexrode, Wess; Murray, Eric; Hlywa, John; Minear, Ron; Kilian, Reese; Emborsky, Dennis; Carpenter, David; Byrd, Desiree; Weeks, Jay; Rasmus, Paul; Daughtry, Walt; Tinti, John; Kudo, Timothy; Martin, Christopher R; Feightner, Erik; Gatto, Edward; Nichols, Brian; Scheidegger, Michael; jgarsen@wtsiconsulting.com; Francis.giannone@duke energy.com

Subject:

HLC 22 Security Agreement Closure Team If you receiving this email then you are on the security agreement for HLC-22s NRC exam.

The NRC exam for HLC-22 will be complete by the end of business Wednesday March 18, 2015. Please make arrangements to come by the NRC exam room floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339)

Thursday March 19 th, 2015 0630- 1530 to sign off the security agreement.

th 19 If you are unable to physically sign off the agreement on Thursday March 2015 please reply to this email (to me) confirming the following:

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weeks of March 2, 2015 through March 18, 2015. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of the examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations.

T1 18 IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND BY EMAIL, PLEASE DO SO AFTER MARCH The exam security badges should be returned to NRC exam room (2nd floor of the NTC by the south break room, phone ext: 3339) as soon as possible following your sign off of the security agreement.

V/ R James Mann 1

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facility: St.Lucie Date of Examination: 3/2/2015 Operating Test Number: l-ILC 22 htials

1. General Criteria a b*

a. The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with sampling requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 55.45, operational importance, safety function distribution).

b. Ther is no day-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered during this examination.

c. The oeratin test shall not duplicate items from the applicants audit test(s). (see Section 0.1 a.) jj

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

e. It appars that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-thafl-competent appliarits at the designated license level. *.

2. Walk-Through Criteria ,  ;

[

a. Each JPM includes the following, as applicable:

• iitial conditions

• initiating cues  :*

• çeferences and tools, including associated procedures

• easonabIe and validated time limits (average time allowedfor completion) and specific designation if deemed to be time-critical by the facility licensee

• perationally important specific performance criteria that include:

- detailed expected actions with exact criteria and nomenclature

-- system response and other examiner cues,, .. (I statements describing important observationsto be made by the applicant criteria for successful completion of the task V..

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 (j,..

on those forms and Form ES-201-2.

3. Simulator Criteria The associated imuiator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with 2.

Form ES-3014nd a coyiattached. /

P inted Name I Signature Date a

b.

Author Facility Reviewer(*)

Paul Farnsworth /

Ter Benton I U l.. 71 20I2015 2/2012015

c. NRC ChieflExaminer(#) £>-i .-

0 eL --Q._2k.

4 (tc.+. /_:st ?_Jz14z.eL1

0. NRC Supeisor -t,n-- Cnt.llin c / z(a/p

) ZIJI<

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

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

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facilty: St.Lucie Date of Exam:3/2/15 Scenario Numbers: 1/2/4/5/6 Operating Test No.: HLC 22 QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES lnftials a b* c#

1. The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment and/or instrumentation may be out of service, but it does not cue the operators into expected events.

2. The scenarios consist mostly of related events. jJi

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 <2

. the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew

. the expected operator actions (by shift position)

. the event termination point (if applicable)

4. No more than one non-mechanistic failure (e.g., pipe break) is incorporated into the scenario without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event. I

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. I

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

Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints.

Cues are given.

8. The simulator modeling is not altered.

9. The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator performance deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios.

10. Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario.

All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section D.5 of ES-301.

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

12. Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events specified on Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios).

13. The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position.

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

1. Total malfunctions (58) 6/6/8/6/7 J (4

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

3. Abnormal events (24) 3/3/4/5/5 i

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

5. EOP5 entered/requiring substantive actions (12) 1/1/1/1/1

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

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

/

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 3/2/15 Operating Test No.: NRC A E Scenarios P V P E 1 (100%) 2 ( 30% ) 4 (45%) 5 (10-12%) T L N O I T T MINIMUM C CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION A

A T L N Y S A B S A B S A B S A B T P R T O R T O R T O R T O R I U E O C P O C P O C P O C P RX 0 1 1 0 SROU-1 NOR 2 1 2 1 1 1 I/C 3, 4, 5, 3, 5, 8 4 4 2 7, 8 7 MAJ 6 6 2 2 2 1 TS 1, 4 2 0 2 2 RX 1 1 1 1 0 RO-1 NOR 2 1 1 1 1 5, 7 I/C 4,6,7 5 4 4 2 MAJ 6 6 2 2 2 1 TS 0 0 2 2 RX 2 1 1 1 0 RO-2 NOR 1 1 2 1 1 1 I/C 3, 4, 3, 6 5, 6 7 4 4 2 8

MAJ 6 5 7 3 2 2 1 TS 0 0 2 2 RX 0 1 1 0 SROU-2 NOR 2 1 2 1 1 1 I/C 3, 4, 5, 5, 6 7 4 4 2 7, 8 MAJ 6 7 2 2 2 1 TS 1, 4 2 0 2 2 RX 1 1 1 1 0 RO-3 NOR 2 1 1 1 1 5, 7 I/C 3, 4, 4 4 2 5

8 MAJ 6 7 2 2 2 1 TS 0 0 2 2 RX 1 1 1 1 0 RO-4 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 I/C 3, 5, 3, 4, 6 4 4 2 7 8 MAJ 6 7 2 2 2 1 TS 0 0 2 2 1

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 3/2/15 Operating Test No.: NRC A E Scenarios P V P E 1 (100%) 2 ( 30% ) 4 (45%) 5 (10-12%) T L N O I T T MINIMUM C CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION A

A T L N Y S A B S A B S A B S A B T P R T O R T O R T O R T O R I U E O C P O C P O C P O C P RX 0 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 2 1 1 1 SROU-3 I/C 3, 4, 5, 6 5, 6, 7 4 4 2 7

MAJ 6 7 2 2 2 1 TS 2, 3, 4 0 2 2 4, 5 RX 1 1 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 RO-5 I/C 3, 6 4,6,7 5 4 4 2 MAJ 5 6 2 2 2 1 TS 0 0 2 2 RX 1 1 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 RO-6 I/C 4, 7 3, 5, 5 4 4 2 7

MAJ 5 6 2 2 2 1 TS 0 0 2 2 RX 0 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 2 1 1 1 SROU-4 I/C 3, 4, 3, 4, 6, 7 5, 6, 9 4 4 2 7

MAJ 5 6 2 2 2 1 TS 2, 4 2, 3, 6 0 2 2 4, 5 RX 2 1 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 SROI-1 I/C 3, 4, 3, 4, 8 5, 6, 8 4 4 2 7

MAJ 6 6 2 2 2 1 TS 2, 3, 4 0 2 2 4, 5 2

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 3/2/15 Operating Test No.: NRC A E Scenarios P V P E 2 ( 30% ) 4 (45%) 5 (10-12%) 1 (100%) T L N O I T T MINIMUM C CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION A

A T L N Y S A B S A B S A B S A B T P R T O R T O R T O R T O R I U E O C P O C P O C P O C P RX 1 1 1 1 0 NOR 1 2 2 1 1 1 SROI-3 5, 7 I/C 4, 7 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 4 4 2 8

MAJ 5 7 6 3 2 2 1 TS 2, 3 2 0 2 2 RX 2 1 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 SROI-4 I/C 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 8 4 4 2 8

MAJ 7 6 2 2 2 1 TS 2, 3 2 0 2 2 RX 1 1 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 SROI-5 I/C 4,6, 3, 4, 7 5, 6, 8 4 4 2 8

MAJ 6 7 2 2 2 1 TS 2, 3 2 0 2 2 RX 1 1 1 1 0 SROI-2 NOR 1 2 2 1 1 1 3, 4, 6, I/C 7 3, 4, 8 3, 4, 5, 7, 12 4 4 2 8

MAJ 5 7 6 3 2 2 1 TS 2, 4 1, 4 4 0 2 2 3

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: St. Lucie Date of Exam: 3/2/15 Operating Test No.: NRC A E Scenarios P V P E 6 (5x10-4) T L N Spare O I T T MINIMUM C CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION A

A T L N Y S A B S A B S A B S A B T P R T O R T O R T O R T O R I U E O C P O C P O C P O C P RX 0 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 2, 3, 4, SRO I/C 6, 7, 8 6 4 4 2 MAJ 5 1 2 2 1 TS 2, 3 2 0 2 2 RX 1 1 1 1 0 NOR 0 1 1 1 3, 4, ATC I/C 6, 7 4 4 4 2 MAJ 5 1 2 2 1 TS 0 0 2 2 RX 0 1 1 0 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 BOP I/C 2, 3, 3 4 4 2 8

MAJ 5 1 2 2 1 TS 0 0 2 2 Instructions:

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

2. Reactivity manipulations may be conducted under normal or controlled abnormal conditions (refer to Section D.5.d) but must be significant per Section C.2.a of Appendix D. (*) Reactivity and normal evolutions may be replaced with additional instrument or component malfunctions on a 1-for-1 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.

4

Proposed Schedule SRO / ATC / BOP Scenario 1 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 2 Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs U1 I1 R1 U3 I5 R4 I3 I2 R2 U4 R6 R5 I2 R2 I3 U4 R5 R6 I4 R3 U2 I2 I3 R2 U2 I4 R3 I1 R1 U1 I5 R4 U3 15 Applicants 5 SROI 4 SROU 6 RO Scenarios selected for this checklist were: 1, 4, 5, 2, and 6 (spare) 5

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: Date of Examination: Operating Test No.:

APPLICANTS RO RO 1 RO 2 RO SRO-I SRO-I SRO-I SRO-I SRO-U 1 SRO-U SRO-U SRO-U 2 Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 1 4 1 4 1 2 5 1 US BOP BOP ATC ATC BOP BOP US Interpret/Diagnose 3,4,5 3,5,6 5,7 3,4,6 3,4,6 3,5,6 6,8 3,4,5 7,8 8 Events and Conditions 7,8 Comply With and 2,3,4 1,5,7 2,5 1,4,6 2,3,4 1,2,3 1,2,5 2,3,4 5 5,6 5 Use Procedures (1) 8 1,3,5 Operate Control 3,5,7 5,7 4,6 3,4,8 6 5,6 Boards (2)

Communicate 2,3,4 1,3,5 2,5,6 1,2,4 2,3,4 1,3,5 1,5,6 2,3,4 5,6,7 7 6,7,8 6,8 6 7 5,6,7 and Interact 8 7,8 8 Demonstrate 2,3,5 2,3,5 6 6 Supervisory Ability (3)

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

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

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

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: St.Lucie Date of Examination: 3/2/15 Operating Test No.: HLC 22 APPLICANTS RO 3 RO 4 RO RO 5 SRO-I SRO-I SRO-I SRO-I SRO-U SRO-U SRO-U 3 SRO-U Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 1 5 4 5 5 4 4 2 BOP ATC BOP ATC BOP US ATC BOP Interpret/Diagnose 5,7 3,4,8 3,5,6 3,4,8 6,8 3,4, 3,4,6 3,5,6 6,7 7,8 Events and Conditions 7,8 8 Comply With and 2,5 1,3,4 1,5,7 1,3,4 1,2,5 1,5, 1,4,6 1,2,3 7,8 5,6 Use Procedures (1) 8 Operate Control 5,7 3,4,8 3,5,7 3,4,8 5,6 4,6 1,3,5 6

Boards (2)

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

Demonstrate 1,3 4,5 Supervisory Ability (3) 6,7 8

Comply With and 2,3 4

Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

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

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: Date of Examination: Operating Test No.:

APPLICANTS RO 6 RO RO RO SRO-I SRO-I SRO-I 1 SRO-I 2 SRO-U SRO-U 4 SRO-U SRO-U Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 4 2 2 4 1 4 1 5 2 BOP ATC US US ATC US US ATC US Interpret/Diagnose 3,5,6 4,7 4,5,6 3,4,6 3,4,6 3,4 3,4,5 3,4,8 4,5 7,8 8 6,7 6 Events and Conditions 7,8 8 Comply With and 1,5,7 1,4 1,2,3 1,5,7 2,3,4 1,5 2,3,4 1,3,4 1,2 4,5 8 7,8 5 3,4 Use Procedures (1) 8 5 Operate Control 3,5,7 4,7 3,4,8 3,4,8 Boards (2)

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

Demonstrate 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3 2,3,5 1,3 5,6,7 5,6,7 4,5 6 4,5 Supervisory Ability (3) 8 6,7 6,7 8

Comply With and 2,4 2,3,4 2,3 1,4 2,4 4

Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

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

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: Date of Examination: Operating Test No.:

APPLICANTS RO RO RO RO SRO-I 3 SRO-I 4 SRO-I 5 SRO-I SRO-U SRO-U SRO-U SRO-U Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 5 2 1 5 1 5 4 US ATC BOP US ATC US ATC Interpret/Diagnose 4,5,6 4,7 5,7 4,5,6 3,4,6 4,5 3,4 8 6 6,7 Events and Conditions 8 Comply With and 1,2,3 1,4 2,5 1,2,3 2,3,4 1,2 1,4 4,5 4,5 3,4 6 Use Procedures (1) 5 Operate Control 4,7 5,7 3,4,8 4,6 Boards (2)

Communicate 1-8 1,4,5 2,5,6 1-8 2,3,4 1-8 1,2 7 7 6,8 4,6 and Interact 7,8 Demonstrate 1,3,4 1,3,4 1,3 5,6,7 5,6,7 4,5 Supervisory Ability (3) 6,7 Comply With and 2,4 2,4 2,4 Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

Instructions:

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

ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2 Facility: ST LUCIE Date of Exam: MARCH 2015 Tier Group 1I SRO-Onty Points KKKKKKAAAAG A2 G* Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4

• Totalj 1.

Emergency &

1 333 33 3 18f 3 3 j 6 Abnormal 2 1 2 1 N/A 1 2 N/A 2 9 T 2 4 2 -j_

Plant ii Evolutions Tier Totals 4 5 4 4 5 5 2jJ 5 5 10 1 223322 33 28 3 2 5 Plant Systems 2 11111111110 10 011 2 3 Tier Totals 3 3 4 4 3 34 4 3 4 3 38 4 4 8

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

2. The point total for each group and tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the table.

The final point total for each group and tier may deviate by +/-1 from that specified in the table based on NRC revisions.

The final RO exam must total 75 points and the SRO-only exam must total 25 points.

3. Systems/evolutions within each group are identified on the associated outline; systems or evolutions that do not apply at the facility should be deleted and justified; operationally important, site-specific systems/evolutions that are not included on the outline should be added. Refer to Section 0.1 .b of ES4O1 for guidance regarding the elimination of inappropriate K/A statements.

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

5. Absent a plant-specific priority, only those K/As having an importance rating (IR) of 2.5 or higher shall be selected.

Use the RO and SRO ratings for the RO and SRO-only portions, respectively.

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

7* The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A Catalog, but the topics must be relevant to the applicable evolution or system. Refer to Section D. 1 .b of ES-401 for the applicable K/As.

8. On the following pages, enter the K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics importance ratings (IRs) for the applicable license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter the group and tier totals for each category in the table above; if fuel handling equipment is sampled in other than Category A2 or G* on the SRO-only exam, enter it on the left side of Column A2 for Tier 2, Group 2 (Note #1 does not apply). Use duplicate pages for RO and SRO-only exams.

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

ES-401, REV 9 T1G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IR K1 K2 K3 K4 KS K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 008AK2.02 Pressurizer Vapor Space Accident /3 2,7 2.7 j ri Li Li LI [1 Li Li Li EL Sensors and detectors 009EG2 450 Small Break LOCA / 3 42 40 EL LI Li LI EL EL Abihty to verify system alarm setpoints and operate controls identified in the alarm response manual.

C1M LargesreakLoCA/3 r Li F] [1 Li Li ! [1 Li Li LI Coro flood tank initiati i. .-

9 4.1 - L-$er 5

&24I-I 01 5AA2.01 RCP Malfunctions / 4 3 3.5 [1 Li Li Li Li Li Li i Li Li Li Cause of RCP failure 022AK3.07 Loss of Rx Coolant Makeup / 2 3 3.2 Li Li i Li Li Li Li Li Li Li LI Isolating charging 025AK1 .01 Loss of RHR System / 4 3.9 4.3 [J [][] Li Li LI Li Li LI Li. Li Loss of RHRS during all modes of operation 026AK3.02 Loss of Component Cooling Water / 8 3.6 3.9 Li Li Li Li F] Li Li LI H EL The automatic actions (alignments) within the CCWS resulting from the actuation of the ESFAS 027AA2.15 Pressurizer Pressure Control System 3.7 4 fl F] Actions to be taken if PZR pressure instrument fails high Malfunction / 3 Li Li LI. Li H-- Li H F]

029EK1.0l ATWS I 1 2.8 3.1 Reactor nucleonics and thermo-hydraulics behavior LI Li Li Li LI Li Li Li LI Li 038EG2.4.20 Steam Gen. Tube Rupture / 3 3.8 4.3 Fl [1 Li LI Li Li Li Li Fl Li [j Knowledge of operational implications of EOP warnings, and notes.

054AK3.03 Loss of Main Feedwaterl 4 3.8 4.1 Manual control of AFW flow control valves LiLif LiLiLi EELIL ELi Page 1 of 2 03/03/2014 3:07PM

ES4O1, REV 9 T1G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IA Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 055EK1 .02 Station Blackout / 6 4.1 4.4 f H H Li H Li El H El El H Natural circulation cooling 056AA1.18 Loss of Off-site Power/ 6 3.2 3.2 H fl El [F] Control room normal ventilation supply fan 057AA2.05 Loss of Vital AC Inst. Bus / 6 3.5 3.8 H H H fl F] F] 1 F] F] F] S/G pressure and level meters 058AA1 .01 Loss of DC Power / 6 3.4 3.5 H [J i] [ H Li i H Li Li Cross-tie of the affected dc bus with the alternate supply 062AG2.1 .23 Loss of Nuclear Svc Water / 4 4.3 4.4 ri H LI H [7 ri H [1 H El Fi Ability to perform specific system and integrated plant procedures during all modes of plant operation.

CEO2EK2.l -

Reactor Trip Stabilization - Recovery 3.3 3.7 [1 Components and functions of control and safety H LI [1 H El H El H Li I1 systems, including instrumentation, signals, interlocks, failure modes, and automatic and manual features.

CEO5EK2.2 -

Steam Line Rupture Excessive Heat 3.7 4.2 Facility s heat removal systems, including primary Hi HHLIL1LHHEIL Transfer / 4 coolant, emergency coolant, the decay heat removal systems, and relations between the proper operation of these systems to the operation of the facility.

Page2of2 03/03/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 T1G2 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IR Ki 1(2 1(3 1(4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 005AG2.4.45 Inoperable/Stuck Control Rod / 1 4.1 4.3 Li LI LI LI LI LI [1 LI L] LI ] Ability to prioritize and interpret the significance of each

- annunciator or alarm.

024AK2 04 Emergency Boration I 1 26 2 L Li LI LI I I I LI Li 1 1 1 Pumps C23,-,31V PressurizerLevelMalfunction/2 LI LI JUL i Li Li LI LI eg .rf.1I lie, i kS 1 ,\*)L c

036AK1 .03 Fuel Handling Accident / 8 4 4.3 [F] LI LI Li LI LI LI LI LI LI Indications of approaching criticality 059AG2.4.35 Accidental Liquid RadWaste Rel. I 9 3.8 4.0 LI El LI LI U LI LI LI LI LI Knowledge of local auxiliary operator tasks during emergency and the resultant operational effects 067AA2.08 Plant Fire On-site / 98 2.9 3.6 LI LI LI Li Li LI LI II LI LI LI Limits of affected area 069AA2 02 Loss of CTMT Integrity / 5 9 Verification of automatic and manual means of restoring U L Li LI [Z LI LI .i J Li Li integrity 076AK3.06 High Reactor Coolant Activity I 9 3.2 3.8 Actions contained in EOP for high reactor coolant activity El El i LI LI LI LI [1 LI LI LI CA16AK2.i Excessive RCS Leakage / 2 3.2 3.5 Components, and functions of control and safety LI Li LI LI LI Li LI Li LI LI systems, including instrumentation, signals, interlocks, failure modes, and automatic and manual features.

Page 1 of 1 03/03/2014 3:07PM

ES-401, REV 9 T2G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 003K1.10 ReactorCoolantPump 3.0 3.2 F] [] F] [ F] F] F] F] F] F] RCS 004K5 30 Chemical and Volume Control 38 42 [ ri ] z] i F] F] F] F] F] F] Relationship between temperature and pressure in CVCS components during solid plant operation 005K2.01 Residual Heat Removal 3.0 3.2 F] j [] F] F] F] [1 F] F] [1 F] RHR pumps g05Kft0gLØ ResidualHeatRemoval F]F][]F]F]F]fl Oo I3.oi 9

q 006A2.12 Emergency Core Cooling 4.5 4.8 F] F] F] F] F] F] F] [j F] F] F] Conditions requiring actuation of ECCS 007K5.02 Pressurizer Relief/Quench Tank 3.1 3.4 F] F] F] F] F] [_j F] F] F] Method of forming a steam bubble in the PZR 008K3.01 Component Cooling Water 3.4 3.5 F] F] F] F] F] F] L LI F] Loads cooled by CCWS 010K4.03 Pressurizer Pressure Control 3.8 4.1 F] F] F] F] F] F] F] F] F] F] Over pressure control 012A1 01 Reactor Protection 29 34 F] F] F] F] F] F] j F] F] F] Trip setpoint adjustment

.Q4A-03fr ReackPmtechon F] E H H F] F] I F] JZ 3 2..4Lo t 4 ie 013A2.01 Engineered Safety Features Actuation 4.6 4.8 F] F] F] F] ] [] [j F] F] F] LOCA Page 1 of 3 03/03/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 T2G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IA Ki 1(2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 013A4.Ol Engineered Safety Features Actuation 4.5 4.8 H H H H H H H LI LI [ H ESFAS-initiated equipment which fails to actuate 022K4.03 Containment Cooling 3.6 4.0 H H H i Li Li Li LI H LI H Automatic containment isolation 026A3.01 Containment Spray 4.3 4.5 LI H H H H H H H H H Pump starts and correct MOV positiorng 026G2.2.42 Containment Spray 3.9 4.6 [3 H [I H H H H H H H Ability to recognize system parameters that are entry-level conditions for Technical Specifications 039G2 1 28 Main and Reheat Steam 4 14 1 H H [3 H Li H El H H H Knowledge of the purpose and function of major system components and controls.

059K3.04 Main Feedwater 3.6 3.8 H H [ H H H U LI L L Li RCS 061 K2.01 Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater 3.2 3.3 [3 Li Li H H LI H H H H AFW system MOVs 062A1 .03 AC Electrical Distribution 2.5 2.8 [1 El H H H H ] H H H H Effect on instrumentation and controls of switching power supplies 062K4.03 AC Electrical Distribution 2.8 3.1 Li H H Li H H H H LI H Interlocks between automatic bus transfer and breakers 063A3.01 DC Electrical Distribution 2.7 3.1 Meters, annunciators, dials, recorders and indicating Li Li Li H ri H H [3: H H lights 0641(6 07 Emergency Diesel Generator 27 29 [1 H H H Li Air receivers H HH Li U Page 2 of 3 03/03/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 T2G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 0641(6.08 Emergency Diesel Generator 3.2 3.3 F] F] [] [] F] i F] F] F] F] F] Fuel oil storage tanks 073A1 .01 Process Radiation Monitoring 3.2 3.5 F] F] F] [] F] F] U F] C] F] Radiation levels 0761(1 .07 Service Water 2.5 2.3 [F [1 [1, F] Secondary closed cooling water

%j F] C] C] [] ri F]

078A4.0l Instrument Air 3.1 3.1 F] F] C] F] F] C] F] [] F] r] C] Pressure gauges 078(32.4.8 Instrument Air 3.8 4.5 F] F] F] F] F] F] F] F] F] F] )) Knowledge of how abnormal operating procedures are used in conjunction with EOPs.

103A4.06 Containment 2.7 2.9 Li C] E] F] F] F] F] [* _ [C] Operation of the containment personnel airlock door Page 3 of 3 03/03/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 T2G2 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IR Kl K2 1(3 K4 1(5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 001K3.02 Control Rod Drive 3.4 3.5 [] LI LI LI LI LI El Li LI Li RCS 017K6.01 In-core Temperature Monitor 2.7 3.0 * [1 Sensors and detectors El Li Li Li Li i El r] i

-...............................................-...-.--.,--. kflTflflmr, Ir,in. r,r,vr empeeistem ü

- [j[lElLli1ElLlLi[1 z) irj ))r*-%. 7 3 tiç Ha icL t5it4rJ A

íç? L/J v I ci 028A4.03 Hydrogen Recombiner and Purge 3.1 3.3 fl [ H El Fl LI H [1 LI vi [] Location and operation of hydrogen sampling and Control analysis of containment atmosphere, including alarms and indications 034A3.0l Fuel Handling Equipment 2.5 3.1 Li [1 Li LI fl LI Li. LI i El LI Travel limits 035K1.12 Steam Generator 3.7 3.9 J Li Li Li Li L Li Li Li Li Li RPS 041 K5.0l Steam Dump/Turbine Bypass Control 2.9 3.2 El [1 Li [ i Fl H H H H LI Relationship of no-load T-ave. to saturation pressure relief setting on valves 071 K4.06 Waste Gas Disposal 2.7 3.5 LI Li Li 1 El fl Li Li LILI L] Sampling and monitoring of waste gas release tanks 072A1 .01 Area Radiation Monitoring 3.4 3.6 Radiation levels LI Li Li Li Li LI t Li Li Li LI 075K2 03 Circulating Water 26 27 Emergency/essential SWS pumps j [i H H LI Li LI LI El Li El Page 1 of 1 03103/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 T3 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IR Kl K2 1<3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO G2.l.42 Conduct of operations 2.5 3.4 LI LI LI H LI LI LI HElD [] Knowledge of new and spent fuel movement procedures G2 1 45 Conduct of operabons Ability to identify and interpret diverse indications to LI El El LI LI LI LI F] [1 H vahdate the response of another indication G2.2.l Equipment Control 4.5 4.4 Ability to perform pre-startup procedures for the facility,

[J [1 H [1 F] [El LI LI LI LI [I including operating those controls associated with plant equipment that could affect reactivity.

G2.2.13 Equipment Control 4.1 4.3 Knowledge of tagging and clearance procedures.

LI H LI LI El LI LI El LI Li tJ G2.2.23 Equipment Control 3.1 4.6 Ability to track Technical Specification limiting conditions LI LI EI] [1 H [1 [I LI LI for operations.

G2.3.12 Radiation Control 3.2 3.7 Knowledge of radiological safety principles pertaining to

[] [] LI Li LI LI LI LI LI Li licensed operator duties G2.3.5 Radiation Control 2.9 2.9 Ability to use radiation monitoring systems

[1 [] H El H LI LI Li L G2.4.17 Emergency Procedures/Plans 3.9 4.3 Knowledge of EOP terms and definitions.

H H H H LI El LI [1 Li LI ii G2.4.47 Emergency Procedures/Plans 4.2 4.2 Ability to diagnose and recognize trends in an accurate r] LI El LI LI LI LI LI LI H [?i and timely manner utilizing the appropriate control room reference material.

G2.4.6 Emergency Procedures/Plans Knowledge symptom based EOP mitigation strategies.

H LiLI[iLILILILIHD Page 1 of 1 03/03/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 SRO T1G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME I SAFETY FUNCTION: IR 1<1 1<2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 008AA2.25 Pressurizer Vapor Space Accident /3 2.8 3.4 Expected leak rate from open PORV or code safety 025AG2.2.40 Loss of RHR System / 4

• Ability to apply technical specications for a system.

L1[Li[1L1[1fiLiD[JDL1 026AA2.05 Loss of Component Cooling Water / 8 2.4 2.5 LIL]Ci[] The normal values for CCW-header flow rate and the flow rates to the components cooled by the CCWS 055EA2.02 Station Blackout / 6 4.4 4.6 RCS core cooling through natural circulation cooling to H1LiL1 S/G cooling 056AG2.4.30 Loss of Off-site Power / 6 2.7 4.1 Knowledge of events related to system operations/status that must be reported to internal orginizations or outside agencies.

077AG2.2.37 Generator Voltage and Electric Grid 3.6 4.6 L1[i[IFiDE Ability to determine operability and/or availability of safety Disturbances 1 6 fl H related equipment Page 1 of 1 03/03/2014 3:07PM

ES-401, REV 9 SRO T1G2 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME! SAFETY FUNCTION: IR Kl K2 1(3 K4 KS K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO 8-+[j H LI Ci C] H F] H H H [1 applatem1inttoaid - 4--

.)C-)L 7 ( fl S. t%tc c

-OgA*2-O8L Control Room Evac I 8 f

[j J j ] LI 1 1 1 I I 9 *i $) h 076AG2.2.25 High Reactor Coolant Activity / 9 3.2 4.2 Knowledge of the bases in Technical Specifications for H H H Li Li H L H Li ]

limiting conditions for operations and safety limits.

CA13AA2.2 Natural Circ. 14 2.9 3.8 Adherence to appropriate procedures and operation LiL1LIL][LHHHDH within the limitations in the facility s license and amendments.

Page 1 of 1 03/03/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 SRO T2G1 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME I SAFETY FUNCTION: IR 1<1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 G TOPIC:

RO SRO eekG?4- Component Cooling Water .- F]LIF]LlF][1 LJLJ ELI OCCWteweand 3:3 7) . F C 4-01 0G2.l .19 Pressurizer Pressure Control 3.9 3,8 F] ij Ability to use plant computer to evaluate system or F] F] F] D F] F] F] F] F]

component status.

013G2.2.22 Engineered Safety Features Actuation 4.0 4.7 [ j fl Knowledge of limiting conditions for operations and LI [I [F F] F] [F F]

. safety limits.

022A2.04 Containment Cooling 2.9 3.2 [F. Loss of service water F] F] F] F]F] Li F] F] F]

039A2.03 Main and Reheat Steam 3.4 3.7 Indications and alarms for main steam and area radiation F]LILIF]D F] F] F]EjF]

monitors (during SGTR)

Page 1 of 1 03/03/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 SRO T2G2 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME / SAFETY FUNCTION: IR K1K2K3K4K5K6A1A2A3A4G TOPIC:

RO SRO 015G2.1.7 Nuclear Instrumentation *

• Ability to evaluate plant perlormance and make LDEEDL1LiLiDL1 operational judgments based on operating characteristics, reactor behavior and instrument interpretation.

016G2,1.20 Non-nuclear Instrumentation 4.6 4.6 LI LI LI [LI LI LI LI LI LI LI Ability to execute procedure steps.

072A2.03 Area Radiation Monitoring 2.7 2.9 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI [_ [_ Blown power-supply fuses Page 1 of 1 03/03/2014 3:07 PM

ES-401, REV 9 SRO T3 PWR EXAMINATION OUTLINE FORM ES-401-2 KA NAME I SAFETY FUNCTION: IR Ki K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Al A2 A3 A4 13 TOPIC:

RO SRO G2.1 .37 Conduct of operations 4.3 4.6 [1 LI LI LI LI [1 LI LI LI [] i Knowledge of procedures, guidelines or limitations associated with reactivity management 132.1 .40 Conduct of operations 2.8 3.9 LI LI El L] LI LI LI LI El LI T Knowledge of refueling administrative requirements 132.2.17 Equipment Control 2.6 3.8 LI C] LI [1 Liii I Li Li Li .

Knowledge of the process for managing maintenance activities during power operations.

G2.2.38 Equipment Control 3.6 4.5 Knowledge of conditions and limitations in the facility C] C] C] [1 [1 [2 C] LI LI LI ]

license.

G-8 RadiationControl p 5

frcr,.JI t.1tC Ji Li Li [1 LI LI LI LI L]L][ o G3i 3./ 3 (FvJ,r nc-oJ - t --

G2.4.16 Emergency Procedures/Plans 3.5 4.4 Knowledge of EOP implementation hierarchy and LI Li L 1 [ 1 Cl [1 [1 Li LI coordination with other support procedures or guidelines.

132.4.44 Emergency Procedures/Plans 2.4 4.4 Knowledge of emergency plan protective action LI LI LI LI LI Li LI LI LI El recommendations.

Page 1 of 1 03/03/2014 3:07PM

ES-401 (7/9/2014) Record of Rejected K/As Form ES-401-4 Tier / Group Randomly Reason for Rejection Selected K/A 1/1 011EA1.09 Unable to write a discriminatory question - please substitute another KA. This KA is for the Large Break LOCA and per the CEN Q#3 Changed to for Large Break LOCAs, the SITs are a passive system that inject 011EA1.11 when RCS pressure lowers below that of the SITs (usually maintained at 250 psi on U-1 and 650 psi on U-2). No other action is mentioned in the EOP for LOCA regarding operating or monitoring the SITs.

Utility agreed to the change.

1/1 015AA2.01 Came up with a question but want to make sure I understand the KA. Does the RCP malfunction have to lead to the RCP being Q#4 Leave As Is secured (or ALL RCPs) or can it just be a malfunction that degrades the RCP operation?

NRC response was that the KA could apply to a malfunction that causes RCP performance degradation or to a failure of the RCP leading to RCP trip.

1/1 029EK1.01 Came up with a question but this is a tough KA to write a discriminatory question to and match the KA. We might need to look Q#9 Leave As Is at changing the KA after you review our question or get some insight from you on where to go with this KA.

NRC suggested that the question could include aspects of the SG thermodynamic response to a total loss of feedwater. Utility agreed to explore that idea for the question.

1/2 028AA1.01 No RPS Pzr level trip at PSL.

Q#21 Changed to Utility agreed to the change.

028AA1.08 1/2 036AK1.03 Fuel Handling Accident - dont really monitor for indications of criticality per the Accidents Of New or Spent Fuel AOP. However, Q#22 Leave As IS during normal ops fuel reload, indications of approach to criticality is monitored and there are required actions if indications of criticality are present. I want to make sure I understand the intent of the KA. I can come up with a Fuel Handling Accident question but not sure about monitoring approach to criticality part (match the KA).

NRC clarified the KA. It is acceptable to view the KA topic as a Fuel Handling incident that could occur during a core reload where a Normal Operating procedure would be the reference for the question and not be restricted to those events defined in the PSL AOP for Accidents Involving New or Spent Fuel.

St Lucie March 2015 Exam 1

1/2 067AA2.08 Need clarification on what limits of the affected area mean. Is it asking to be able to distinguish between fire zones - physical Q#24 Leave As Is boundaries??

NRC provided clarification that the KA could include, for example, the ability to interpret/distinguish between specific fire zones and the types of fire suppression systems that the fire zones utilize.

1/2 069AA2.02 Came up with a question but Im not sure what is meant by verification of automatic part of the KA?

Q#25 Leave As Is NRC wanted to include CIS automatic actions in the question. Utility agreed to include auto actions of the Cont. Purge system as well as manual actions taken by the Containment Closure crew for example. Question will be further evaluated for level of difficulty.

1/2 076AK3.06 No high RCS activity actions in EOP at PSL (only AOPs). KA states EOP.

Q#26 Leave As Is NRC understood the concern. It will be acceptable to use the High RCS Activity AOP as the technical reference for the question.

2/1 005K3.06 Unable to write a discriminatory question about what would be the effect of a loss of SDC on the Containment Spray system Q#31 Changed to Utility agreed to the change.

005K3.01 2/1 007K5.02 Unable to write a discriminatory question about the evolution of forming a bubble in the pressurizer and relating it to the QT?

Q#33 Leave As Is NRC will allow the initial conditions of the question to include that the Pzr was taken solid in preparation to draw bubble.

Subsequently, for example, PORV/Pzr Safety develops a leak (due to Pzr being solid then experiences a pressure transient) which discharges to the Quench Tank.

2/1 012A2.03 Unable to write a discriminatory question to satisfy both parts of the A2 ability statement (resulting from an incorrect operator action Q#37 Changed to taken) 012A2.06 Utility agreed to the change.

2/1 022K4.03 No CIS signal to Containment Coolers (specifically affecting CCW).

ESF (SIAS) signal only provides start signals to the coolers.

Q#40 Leave As Is NRC agreed to allow the question to apply to a SIAS signal vice CIS signal.

2/1 078G2.4.8 No technical reference of the Instr Air AOP in any EOP at PSL.

However, there is guidance in EOP-99 (that is referenced in EOPs)

Q#54 Leave As Is on how to restore instrument air under certain conditions.

NRC agreed to allow the question to implement EOP-99 appdx H guidance vice Instrument Air AOP.

St Lucie March 2015 Exam 2

2/2 027A2.01 Unable to write a discriminatory question about high temperature of Iodine Removal filter system used at PSL (HVE-1 & 2). Not Q#58 Changed to designed for accident conditions. A2 ability statement to meet also.

029A2.03 The only other Iodine removal system at PSL (non-fan) is NaOH or Hydrazine.

Utility agreed to the change. The question could be based on the required valve line up to initiate/start a Containment Mini Purge for example.

2/2 034A3.01 Fuel Handling Equipment knowledge for RCOs 1st one - how much detail to ask?

Q#60 Leave As Is NRC agreed to allow the question to be on basic Fuel Handling Machine operations (travel limits).

2/2 075K2.03 ICW supplies lube water to the CWPs at PSL. Thats really the only interrelationship the two systems have. Is the knowledge statement Q#65 Leave As Is asking for power supplies for the ICW pumps? Need clarification.

NRC provided clarification and will allow the question to be based on ICW pp start logic, for example, with LOOP/EDG response and also include the standby ICW pp auto start logic.

SRO 1/2 025AG2.2.40 None of the Tech Specs at PSL for a Loss of SDC accident had >

1hr TSAS (doesnt meet SRO criteria).

Q#77 Changed to Utility agreed to the change.

025AG2.2.18 The utility found a Tech Spec to satisfy the original KA.

Kept original KA 025AG2.2.40 SRO 1/2 001AG2.1.32 Unable to write a discriminatory question about procedure limits and precautions related to continuous rod withdrawal. PSL CEAs are Q#82 Changed to operated in manual. CEA AOP immediate actions (RO knowledge) 003AG2.1.32 do address abnormal CEA abnormal movement (trip unit).

Utility agreed to the change.

Changed again to PSL AOPs do not have a section that contains limits and precautions. PSL NOPs do have a limit and precaution section but 003G2.1.7 an NOP wouldnt be entered for a dropped CEA.

Utility agreed to the change SRO 1/2 068AA2.08 Unable to write a discriminatory question about SG pressure during CR evacuation. Cant figure out an SRO only aspect of SG pressure Q#83 Changed to 068AA2.09 KA discussion was tabled for further evaluation. 068AA2.09 (Saturation Margin).

SRO 2/1 008A2.07 No auto start feature for CCW pumps based on flow rate at PSL Q#86 Changed to Utility agreed to the change.

008A2.05 St Lucie March 2015 Exam 3

SRO 3 G2.3.6 Ability to Approve Release Permits. There is a question on the audit exam related to a gas release and there is an audit JPM on Q#98 Changed to approving a liquid release. Not sure about overlap on exams. Also G2.3.14 noted that there are 7 K/As in the sample plan that deal specifically with radiation levels / radiation control / radiation monitoring.

Utility agreed to change. NRC suggested, for example, writing the question about areas where access to would be restricted or impacted severely due to radiological concerns following an accident. Utility will work on question but may need to re-evaluate for KA match.

St Lucie March 2015 Exam 4

ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 Facility: St.Lucie Date of Exam: 3/2)2015 Exam Level: RO X SRO X j

Initial Item Description a b c 1 Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility. :E E

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

b. Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.

3. SRO questions are appropriate in accordance with Section D.2.d of ES-401

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

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

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

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New from the bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest 10/3 2213 43/19 new or modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only 1.

question distribution(s) at right.

15%/12% 28%/i 2% 57%/76%

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

analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent 34/8 41/17 if the randomly selected K/As support the higher -

cognitive levels, enter the actual RO / SRO question 45%/32% 55%/68%

distribution(s)_at_right.

8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of distractors. 1

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

10. Question psychometric quality and 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 and agrees with the value on the cover sheet. 4

-rintedme / Signature Date a.

b.

Author Facility Reviewer (*)

Paul Farnsworth Terry Benton C.Zic

( 3/10/2015 3/10/2015

c. NRCChiefExaminer(#) V. t3ico 3JfllLOIs

d. NRC Regional Supervisor 3F1tA.t .

--°--

p Note:

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

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

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) U/E/S Explanation Stem Cues T/F Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO Focus Link units ward K/A Only GENERIC COMMENTS:

1. When using punctuation, if you use quotes for a procedure name or valve name, if you start the name for example, AOP-69.01. Inadvertent ESFAS Actuation, was entered. There should be a comma inside the end of the quotes. See as typed above. Consistency between all questions is utmost important. Incorporated comment

2. What is the WESTRONICS Exam Bank? An external exam bank that has questions from previous NRC exams (all regions) by vendor .It has question search capabilities by K/A number 3.

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only APE008AK2.02 , Bank 3818, Comprehension 1 H 2-3 S

1. KA appears to match.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

2. Unit 1

3. Question appears to be ok.

No problems with question.

No further action taken Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 EPE009EG2.4.50, NEW, Analysis

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1,

3. Need to add the noun name for Procedure in first bullet. EP-01.

In quotes.

4. Not sure that I understand why Secure one pump in each loop is plausible for distractors A and C. Would it be more plausible to verify that at least one pump in each loop is stopped? Not sure that is better.

5. During question review explain why this is plausible.

6. Is this information that an RO applicant is expected to know from memory without procedures? Discuss with licensee OPS 2 H 2 E MGT to ensure this is a fair question. It appears that this should have had both trains operate and only one did. The applicant should know which train actuated. And a loss of CCW should have occurred.

7. Discuss with fixing distractors A and C.

Incorporated comment # 3. Comment # 4&5, See distracter analysis for selection A Discuss with NRC Delete fourth bullet and below from question. Add a bullet after the first bullet stating that the crew has completed SF 5 (Core Heat Removal).

Ask if SI has or has not occurred. The ask what is the required status of RCPs (all secured or 1 secured in each loop) drl 2/18/15.

Incorporated NRC comments. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only EPE 011EA 1.1, Modified, Memory

1. Do not have the previous question so cannot evaluate the modified determination of this question. #2140

2. Unit 2

3. KA appears to match.

4. Not sure that first part of distractors C and D are plausible.

Without knowing very much about the procedure an RO should be able to determine that this is a Large break LOCA and the 3 F 2-3 S HPII system is not doing much as far as the helping with the LARGE break. Discuss with licensee why they believe this is plausible. This may be suitable based on the discuss I had with PF this afternoon.

5. Recirculation Actuation Signal, 4 feet or 6 foot unit depending.

Appears to be ok.

Re-formatted Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE015AA2.01, Modified 4338, COMP

1. KA appears to NOT match. This KA is about RCP flow and the RCP failure on how it effects RC flow. The question is about SEAL FLOW not RC flow. Discuss with licensee to understand why this was evaluated this way.

2. Unit 2, 4 H 1-2 U

3. This question while is somewhat modified, it still is basically the same question. I think the basics of the original question is still here and have not been modified. I would not consider that this question is modified.

4. The level of difficulty went from a 2-3 to a 1-2 level of difficulty.

Needs to be fixed.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Refer to ES-401-4. Enhanced question to include 2 or 3 seal failures and required action for securing pump Change C to Only ONE . Then rearrange answers so A is 1 seal, B and C are 2 seals, and D is 3 seals. Drl 2/18/15 Incorporated NRC comments. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE022AK3.07, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1.

3. Should the sentence with the SNPO be split. The way it is written it appears that the SNPO is providing the RTGB readings and that is not true. Have licensee look at this and determine if this is ok. Or not.

4. Are the RO applicants or in fact the SRO applicants expected to know from memory what the annunciators M7 and M28 are?

This does not seem to be fair. Have licensee ensure that the OPS rep or OPS MGR looks at this to see if they agree. If they do then ok but seems kind of overboard.

5 H 3-4 E 5. Need to add to procedure AOP02.03 its official noun name.

6. Need to have the licensee explain the answer for this question.

This is very difficult and cannot figure out with the explanation.

7. WHAT ACTUAL reference will be provided? If the plant print is going to be part of the handout that should be ok but have to have the licensee actually show us what they are actually going to use.

8. Is this question answerable with the nojk Discuss this with the licensee. May have to replace it.

Discuss with NRC. Minor revision to question and editorial changes were made.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Why is a reference required? An RO should be able to figure this out without it. drl 2/18/15 Need to discuss removal of reference recommendation. No other changes made Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE025AK1.01, NEW, Comp

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1,

3. Do the applicants have to interpolate between the 90 and 100 degree table. This was not done, if it were what would the number be in that situation? If that ok to do or not? Discuss with licensee to ensure we have the correct answer. What makes using 100 degrees ok and not 90 or interpolation? Is there a correct answer if someone does interpolate. Discuss with licensee methodology.

6 H 2-3 S 4. Is the answer correct? Not sure it is.

5. How long does this question take to answer? Is this within the time frame for the written examination? Ask licensee to ensure this is reasonable time to answer as well as:

6. Is this a JPM or a question?

Discuss items above.

Editorial changes made - discuss with NRC This question is fine. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE026AK3.02, Modified Bank 1962, Comp

1. KA appears to match 7 H 3 S 2. Unit 1.

3. Consistency with use of periods for bulleted items.

4. Parenthesis incorporates periods etc.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

5. Use of periods in distractors, be consistent.

6. The stem of the question asks what is the configuration. This is what only the A distractor answers. The other three has a due to associated with the configuration. The stem needs to be adjusted to include a WHY for the answer and then distractor A needs to be changed to add a reason WHY. Discuss with licensee to ensure they understand the comments.

7. Looks like it meets the modified requirements.

Needs to be fixed.

Editorial changes made. Added reason to distracterA This question is fine. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE027AA2.15, Modified 1834, Comp.

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. Consistent use of periods in bulleted items

4. Incorporate in parenthesis punctuation.

5. In the second part of the question where ACTUAL is written, should this be in caps, underlined, bolded or something to ensure that the applicant does NOT glance over the word 8 H 2-3 S Actual? Ask licensee if this is necessary. If it is then lets ensure that the applicant will not miss this questions because they read it incorrectly. Ask licensee if necessary.

6. What actual position would 1110Y actually be in? is there an out of service position? Ask licensee to see if there is another position Discuss with licensee above items. If needs to be fixed then do so.

Editorial changes made. Addressed comment # 3 & 5.

This question is fine. Drl 2/18/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE029 EK1.01, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. Up until this point there are 7 Unit 1 questions as compared to 2 Unit 2 questions. Need to change some.

4. Teaching in the stem that when SG water level was low enough the reactor did not TRIP. This needs to be changed so that teaching is not present.

5. Question has two parts, however there is a second question that 9 H 2-3 S asks about reactor power. Need to clean up first and second questions.

6. ALSO, have to ensure that the applicants realize that there is a 5 minute wait then describe reactor power.

7. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Discuss with licensee.

Removed teaching from stem and made editorial changes This question is fine. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 EPE038EG2.4.20, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to matches.

2. Unit 1

3. Is the cool down and depressurization done with EOP-04 or some other procedure? IF so add that name and number.

10 H 2-3 E 4. Punctuation inside of quotes.

5. In the first sentence after the bullets, remove the word the prior to step.

6. Reword the following: A NOTE that appears To read, There is a NOTE in Appendix K that identifies the indications that may be evident if voids are present in the Reactor Vessel

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

IAW this NOTE (note needs to be in all caps), The acronym IAW (in accordance with) does not need an additional with as in the question.

7. ASK OPS Manager if this question, the way it is worded makes sense and if the RO applicants are expected to know this from memory?

8. It appears that there are a lot of questions that the applicants may ask. RCP are they running, in accordance with lesson plan page 14 of 28 provided state they need to be off for an accurate level indication. I would imagine that RCPs are off at this time, are they?

Discuss if this is RO knowledge of a procedure from memory.

Reworded question stem per recommendation. Also fixed punctuation and made editorial changes Rewrite question below bullets. State The crew is evaluation RCS void elimination per 1-EOP-99, Appendix K, RCS Fill and Drain Method of Void Elimination. WOOTF is an indication that voids are present in the Reactor Vessel Head?

This is still essentially a series of T/F statements, but is otherwise a good question. drl 2/18/15 Incorporated recommendations. Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 054AK3.03, NEW, Memory

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1 11 F 2 E 3. This question can be re-written to place ALL the following at the top of the stem. the 1A and 1B AFW pump header flow control valves This will shorten each distractor.

4. Does the position the control room will perform the manual

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only action for the AFW flow control valves be provided. This can be removed. This is telling the applicant that the valves are going to be manipulated on the RTGB. It is not necessary.

5. Add the last part of distractor D, about the 1 C AFW pump to distractor A. Discuss with licensee. Makes it more plausible.

6.

7. IS VAC correct or is it vAC?

8. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comments # 3 & 4 and made editorial changes Answers as written are too convoluted. Make this a 2x2. The first part is that A&B remain throttled or A& B require throttling closed. Second part is C remains closed or C requires throttling closed. Drl 2/18/15 Incorporated recommendations. Pf 2/25 sig mod S EPE055EK1.02, NEW, Memory

1. KA appears to match the question.

2. Unit 1

3. The stem of the question has, I believe a spurious AND in it.

Should there be an AND after CET? Repositioned ok as is.

4. Is it necessary to identify by defining the abnormal temperature difference as >20 deg F. Between Thot and REP CET? Ask licensee. This is keying the applicants as to the definition of this 12 F 2 parameter. I do not believe this is necessary. Where is this identified in the procedure? If it is not, then the > 20 deg F should not be there. Discuss with licensee. Removed

5. From the documentation provided, it seems that a difference of 10 deg. F would be sufficient to meet this requirement.

Identified in 4 above. I didnt look at the procedure so I am not sure how old these are. Removal of temperature is requested.

6. Otherwise appears to be ok.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 01/27/2015,

1. See above changes. Ok

2. The only addition would be to ensure that the answers are separated on different lines. Start the second answer on a new line. I like using 1 and 2s to reflect what part is answering each specific question. This was done in other questions. It is not necessary but may be easier to read by the applicants.

3. Otherwise appears to be ok as changed.

Formatting only, no change is required.

No action taken Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE056AA1.18, NEW, FUNDAMENTAL

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 2.

3. reading the buses with the voltage is hard to read. Is it possible to use 2AB (4.16kVAC) rather than 2AB 4.16kVAC. the same for 2B3 (4.16kVAC) this separation appears to make a difference for me. What does the licensee think is better?

4. The last bullet seems to have teaching in it. Is it all necessary to state that the EDGs align and load onto their respective 13 F 2-3 S busses? Why does anything have to be said about the Emergency DGs? The rules state if not mentioned then they performed as expected. This should be removed. Discuss with licensee.

5. Parenthesis Otherwise appears to be ok.

Removed teaching point and made editorial changes Question is fine drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only APE057AA2.05, NEW, Memory

1. KA appears to MATCH

2. Unit 1

3. Nomenclature, use parenthesis around Vital Instrument Inverter occurs.

4. For ease of reading separate both fill in the blank statements 14 F 2-3 S with a 1 and 2.

Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comments # 3 & 4 Question is fine. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE058AA1.01, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. EOP-1 needs a noun name.

4. Use simple electrical diagram to explain how this line-up works.

5. From the material I cannot figure out what the lineup is supposed to be. Have licensee explain with system 15 H 3 S drawings.

6. Are the applicants expected to remember the 10 minutes?

Ensure that the OPS MGR agrees with having this knowledge memorized. Not sure this is required knowledge. Discuss with licensee.

Appears to be ok.

Made editorial changes and fixed punctuation Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 16 H 3 U APE062Ab2.1.23, Modified 2045, COMP.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 2.

3. Why is it necessary to state the header is depressurized? This seems to be teaching as well as pointing the applicant to the water hammer answer. Ask licensee why this is necessary.

4. IS the information concerning the TS with two pumps on the DG information that the RO is required to know? It seems that it is not. I would believe that this information is below the line and greater than an hour TS. If this is true, why would an RO have to know this?s Discuss with licensee plausibility of RO knowledge.

5. 2B3 (4.16 kVAC) determine if you want to change the way this is written based on previous electrical questions.

6. Is the differential current lockout an 86 trip or something like that? Ask licensee.

7. The question asks what is a consequence with starting the 2C ICW pump? Each of the distractor provides the answer along with the reason for each distractor. The question does not illicit the full answer provided in the distractor. This needs to be resolved. Discuss with license

8. I need to understand the electric line up to understand this better. Use simplified diagram of electric plant to show me.

CE02EK2.01, Appears that # 5 needs to be fixed. Discuss with licensee.

Graded as unsat because of plausibility of TS knowledge requirements.

Revised stem to add Appendix title and altered 2nd half of answer selections If the C ICW pump was started IAW procedures, as stated, then B and C are not plausible. Perhaps you could discuss aligning CCW pumps too and then instead of asking the consequence associated with performing the action of starting the 2C ICW pump in this configuration, you could just ask about the consequence associated with being in this

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only configuration. Drl 2/18/15 Re-wrote question. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 CE02EK2.01, Bank 4.137, Memory

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 2

3. Should is be are in the second bullet.

4. What is the noun names for 2-EOP-2. Add to distractors D.

17 F 2-3 S Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comments # 3& 4 This question is fine. drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 CE05EK2.2, NEW (used part of HLC HLC 21 # 78), COMP

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1

3. IS this a planned evolution? Plant shutdown? I cannot tell if it is or not.

4. In the first bullet, Reactor is defined as (Rx). This is not necessary because Rx is NOT used any place in the question.

5. As for the second part of the question, each part of the 18 H 2-3 S distractor has a common phrase of After the 1 A SG dries out, this can be brought up to the top and have to read it only one time rather than 4 times in each distractor. So place this in the stem of the question.

6. Additionally, separate the stem into two questions with 1 and a 2 where 1 states: which of the following describes the expected plant response: and

2. After the 1A SG dries out, what are the operator action(s)

Actually the statement of Operate the 1B ADV at saturation

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

7. MAYBE it would be better as a fill in the blank. Either way but it has to be changed.

8. Need to add to the distractors that identify the 525 to 535 each temperature needs to have the degree F symbol, NOT just the final number.

With the changes it appears to be ok.

Addressed all comments Question is OK. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE005AG2.4.45, Modified 4192, COMP.

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 2

3. What is being done, reactor startup? Add procedure they should be in. A reactor Start up is in progress,

4. It seems to me that to make distractors other than the answer that the stem should have information concerning that parameter.

5. How do we speak of PDIL if the plant is not at power? This 19 H 3 S does not appear to be plausible. Discuss with licensee to understand why this is considered plausible. D. Lanyi stated that this is plausible because

6. If you do not have parameters associated with the other alarms how do you know that the distractors are plausible? Discuss with licensee.

7. Not sure that Distractor B is plausible when would an auto rod in inhibit Otherwise appears to be plausible. Discuss distractor A Added procedure reference and plant parameter

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Question is ok. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE024AK2.04, Modified 5961, Memory

1. KA appears to matches.

2. Unit 2.

3. Loss of offsite power, LOOP, Question 13 defines this as a LOOP. Should this be identified the same way?

4. IF an emergency boration was required, what operator actions would be required to establish a flow path? Can it be written this way to remove some of the extra non-required extraneous words? The first question should only be associated with the Start the 2C Chg pump and 1. This should flow on the same line, not a separate line.

20 F 2-3 S 5. The second question does not have anything to deal with the very first condition. Re-write to see how this looks. It has to be separate.

6. What about using the Unit 1 data for the second part of A and C for the 18 second load block? Discuss with licensee for the change. The 2 C Chg pump breaker would open and then re-close 18 seconds later. Or something like that. Discuss.

Look at changes, Addressed comments # 3, 4 & 5. No further action taken Question is fine. drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE028AA1.08, Modified 4194, COMP

1. KA appears to match.

21 H 2-3 S 2. Unit 2.

3. Place each distractor answer on a separate line. Easier to read.

4. IN the stem second question where it discusses Level position should the words Key and Switch be capitalized? This is the

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only way it is written on 2-AOP-01.10. This is also written B/U INTLK B/P Key on step 5 and LEVEL is all caps. Page 38 of 39.

5. Therefore, LEVEL should be in caps. See page 38 of reference material provided.

6. What is the Convention for the use of ALL in distractors, CAPs all like ALL? Or is this not a convention?

Otherwise appears ok.

Addressed comments # 3, 4 & 5. No other actions taken The question is fine. drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE036AK1.03, Modified 4406, COMP

1. KA appears to

2. Unit 2

3. What procedure are they using with this reload process? Is it necessary to identify what procedure being used?

4. During this process, would RE be the ones to report that counts had more than doubles? 10 cps to 24 cps? Would it not be the RO in the Control room?

5. Need punctuation after title of NOP-67.05, Refueling Operation, this is a generic issue to have the appropriate 22 H 2-3 E punctuation used.

6. IS this RO required knowledge for Refueling? Ask OPS MGR to ensure it is.

7. This could be re-written to have two separate sentences.

Which one of the following:

a. Describes the existed condition (Expected or Unexpected)

AND

b. In accordance with 0-NOP-67.05, Refueling Operation, for the stated conditions.

What does the licensee think about this? Discuss

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

8. Would be easier to read, at least I think so.

Procedure is in Question portion. Fixed punctuation. Did not address comment #7. Discuss with NRC As written, A and B are not plausible. Reword the question to ask what the procedure requires. Get rid of Expected and Unexpected. Drl 2/18/15 Incorporated recommendations. Pf2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE059AG2.4.35, NEW (HLC C20 NRC Q 22)(STATES this is ONE of FOUR from the last two exams), Memory

1. KA appears to match

2. UNIT 1

3. This question asks SUBSEQUENT steps! IS this something the OPS MRG agrees is RO testable material? Ask OPS MGR.

4. Add comma inside quotes after procedure noun name.

..Liquid, which one

5. Put valve noun names in quotes and use correct punctuation.

6. Distractor C is not clear and potentially could be an additional correct answer. The way this is written it looks like the Waste 23 F 2-3 E pump can be stopped at the Local Control panel and then the valve has to be close, it does not read that the valve is on the Local Control panel. This is misleading.

7. Based on the answers, the procedure states local control BOX, nothing about the panel, is the pump stopped at the local control panel, meaning in the plant or the BOX. Lets be clear in what we mean based on the procedure and the lesson plan.

Re-write this to be clear.

Addressed comments #4, 5, 6 & 7. Discuss with NRC Question is fine. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 24 F 2 S APE067AA2.08, NEW, Memory,

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

1. KA appears to match.

2. UNIT 1

3. Is Distractor a TRUE statement for Unit 2? If it is not make it true for unit 2.

4. Distractor A is not much different than B, they both automatically discharge.

5. Maybe using for A, Usable links must melt for automatic discharge

6. Then for B, what causes the actuation of the system, for automatic operation? Use that for the automatic discharge.

Smoke particles with Ionization Heat detectors.

7. Then use the same idea for C and D.

Unsat because it appears all the distractors have flaws.

Reworded each answer selection for consistency and plausibility Question is fine. drl 2/18/15 Sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE069A A2.02, NEW, Comprehension.

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. Looking at punctuation, all punctuation that follows words in 25 H 4-5 X U quotes should be inside the quotes. Looking at the bullets for 4 bullets in the stem. Following valve, should be written like this.

If this is not clear please let me know. I am asking for consistency.

4. Is it necessary to identify the valves are upstream or downstream? Is this something the applicant should know from memory? Maybe not since the system is not really something used all the time. Discuss with the licensee.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

5. If we use this question as is, the answer, D, needs a space or two starting with the word However.

6. This question appears to have specific knowledge of TS requirements for containment isolation. TS 3.6.3.1, and TS 3.6.1.1 appear to have greater than 1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> TS evaluation, 31 day and that is NOT RO knowledge. This question appears to be beyond the knowledge level of the RO position. Ask licensee if this is or is not a good evaluation. If it is, this warrants an evaluation of U.

01/28/2015

1. Discuss why this is basically the same.

No changes made. Refer to ES-401-4. Discuss with NRC Remove 6th bullet. Ask what is the required action per TS.

A. None since V6554 is operable.

B. V6555 needs to be closed only C. V6555 needs closed and de-energized D. V6554 needs closed but remains energized since it is still operable. Drl 2/18/15 Incorporated recommendations. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE076AAK3.06, Modified 4160, Fundamental

1. KA appears to match

2. UNIT 1

3. Punctuation of bullets in the stem

4. Second bullet put hard return to have the entire procedure on 26 H 3 X E/U the second line.

5. Put a 0 in front of the .15

6. There is a dash between DEQ Xenon-133 and NO dash between DEQ Iodine 131, add the dash to the bullet.

7. Put quotes around the noun name for Flash tank Divert Valve V6307 to Flash Tank. Why is it necessary to have RTGB-15 in

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

8. Distractor C is NOT plausible because the applicant know that there are NO 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> or less time requirements for this to occur.

Since they do not exist it is NOT a number the RO is responsible for, therefore this is NOT plausible.

9. Distractor D, is the chemistry of the IX that such that it can remove gaseous I-131 from the RCS? Not sure this is plausible. Discuss this with licensee.

Potentially unsat based on two implausible distractors.

Addressed comments # 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. Need to discuss 9 with NRC Remove TS from answer C. Otherwise OK. Drl 2/18/15 Incorporated recommendations. Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 CA16AK2.1, Bank 1285, Memory,

1. KA appears to match 27 F 2-3 S 2. Unit 2

3. Question appears to be ok.

Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 003K1.10, Modified 4055, Comp.

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. Start above question with Based on the conditions above, which ONE of the following could result if one RCP is started.

28 H 3 S

4. Use of periods in each of distractors except D which does not have a period. Be consistent.

5. Is it necessary to identify what procedure the plant is following at this time? Discuss with licensee.

Otherwise appears to be ok.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Addressed comments # 3, 4 & 5 Question is OK. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 004K5.30, Modified (HLC 20 # 30), Comp

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1

3. Generic, Place all noun names of procedures or valves in quotes and put commas and periods inside the quotes. In bullets 3 and 4, a comma is necessary in the quotes following the valve noun name. If not clear call and ask.

4. In first sentence, HCV-3657. were should be is.

5. Suggest that we use RCS temperature will then use rise and 29 H 2-3 S lower. Vice rises and lowers. Discuss to see if this is ok to do or not.

6. Please provide a system diagram to discuss the system operation. A simple diagram.

Appears ok with changes above Addressed comments # 3, 4, &5 Question is ok. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 005K2.01, Modified 2549, Comp

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 2

3. Meets modified requirements.

30 H 3 S 4. Provide simple electrical diagram to see how this is laid out.

5. Appears to be ok.

Appears to be ok Addressed comments # 3, 4 & 5

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 005K3.01, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1

3. In the explanation there is an abbreviation AW, should this be IAW?

31 H 2-3 S 4. IS flow instrument FI-3306 the FE on the provided diagram after the flow exits the Heat IX and the bypass of the Heat IX?

5. This looks like it is ok as is Addressed comments # 3 & 4 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 006A2.12, Bank 4009, Comp

1. KA appears to

2. Unit 2

3. Quotes

4. Are the RO applicants expected to be able to pick what procedure the crew should be in? Make sure the OPS Mgr agrees with this. Discuss with them.

32 H 3 S 5. Have licensee use the reference material to show me how they came up with this answer. And explain if the RO applicants are expected to also know how to do this.

6. Otherwise appears to be ok, I just need to know how to do this.

Addressed comment # 3. Will address comments 4 & 5 with NRC Question is fine. drl 2 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 007K5.02, New, Comprehension.

33 H 3 X S 1. KA appears to NOT match. This question while a valid one does not appear to be what the KA is asking for. The KA asks for the method for forming a bubble in the PZR, and not the

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only calculation of the temperature drop and thus the tail pipe temperature calculation.

2. Unit 1

3. Will the entire steam table be presented to the applicants? I would think it would need to be. Make sure with licensee.

4. Question needs to be a closer match to the actual KA.

01/28/2015

1. Question was not changed. What is going on with this? What am I missing? KA still does not match question.

2. Was expecting to see a totally new question. Discuss with licensee to see what I am misunderstanding.

Refer to ES-401-4. No action taken CE agreed to minimal K/A match. Question is ok. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 008K3.01, Modified bank 4011, COMP

1. KA appears to match.

2. UNIT 1

3. Why is it necessary to identify that the LS-14 fails low and that caused the alarm? Why not just say that the annunciator comes in? Have licensee explain why it is necessary. If it is not 34 H 2-3 S necessary remove it from the stem.

4. NO system description provided how this system works. I need the licensee to teach me why and how this system works. I do no remember how this system is supposed to work and how unit 1 and Unit 2 are different. Please describe during exam review.

Otherwise appears to be ok.

Discuss comments with NRC

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Question is ok. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 010K4.03, NEW (HLC 21 NRC Q38 changed to Unit 1), Memory

1. KA appears to match

2. UNIT 1

3. In the stem of the question, directly is not capitalized, please somehow signify the directly so the reader does not miss or confuse this with the other DIRECTLY in the question. WE want to make it clear as possible for the applicants.

4. Also signify the word open by using caps or underlining or bolding so the reader does not miss this expectation.

5. IS LOW RANGE the same as LTOP? The material provided 35 F 2 X S does not discuss Low Range.

6. The actual answer for 1 is RPS high pressurizer pressure bistables. In the trip position. Need to change distractors A and C first part to this.

7. Not so sure I like the second answers for B and C. Why

8. This is the second repeat for 2 of 4 allowed repeat from the last two examinations.

9. The HLC 21 exam Q 38 was not provided. Should have this also to see what changed from Unit 2 to Unit 1.

Addressed comments # 3, 4, 6. Will provide Q38 HLC 21 This question is ok. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 0112A1.01, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to match.

2. UNIT 1 36 H 2-3 E/S 3. The question identifies that a Reference will be provided, however, the area where the reference is normally identified in the question form, states NA. So not sure what if any reference is going to be provided. Licensee to verify if there is a reference

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

Otherwise appears to be ok.

Added reference to question Is reference required. This looks like RO knowledge without a reference.

Drl 2/18/15 Discuss with NRC. No changes made. Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 012A2.06, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 2

3. What procedure are they in to begin with? Is that necessary to have in the information?

4. Quotes around procedure names.

5. Wording for the 2 A differential Current alarm Occurs! Is this worded as the control room would say it?

6. Use of periods in each distractor, consistency

7. Rather than say STAY critical, would it be better should remain 37 H 2-3 S critical. Use remain or say should not have tripped.

8. What is the fundamental difference between the second part of distractors A and B. They look to me to be almost the same. If it is found they are the same, one of them needs to be changed.

Otherwise it appears to be ok if A and B are truly different. Discuss with licensee to better understand.

Addressed comments # 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Discuss #8 with NRC Question is ok. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 013A2.01, Modified ( HLC211 Q 43), COMP 38 H 3 X X X

1. KA appears to

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

2. Unit 2

3. Is it necessary to state that the 2B CS pump failed to start on the CSAS?

4. Separate each distractor into 2 lines.

5. How does the KA match with knowledge of the basis of the procedure? Also, why are we asking the RO a basis question, they are not required to know this.

6. Additionally, the way the question is worded the expectation is what does the crew have to do to meet the safety function or the reason why the safety function is met. This is not covered by asking what the basis is. Discuss with licensee.

Evaluated as Unsat until discuss with licensee.

Addressed comments # 3, 5, & 6. Discuss #6 with NRC Question is ok as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 014A4.01, Bank 5190, Comp.

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 2

3. In the given conditions, should state a LOSP has occurred. We 39 H 3 S dont have to tell the applicants the Rx tripped because of this.

They should know that from the first statement.

4. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comment # 3 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 022K4.03, New, Fundamental.

1. KA appears to match 40 F 2-3 S 2. Unit 2

3. Appears to be ok.

Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 026A3.01, Bank 1850, Fundamental

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 2

3. Does SE-07-3B need to be defined?

41 F 2-3 S 4. Add to the last bullet, started manually by the RCO.

5. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comment # 3 & 4 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 026G2.2.42, New, Memory

1. KA appears to matches

2. Unit 2

3. Add to the stem the noun name for 2-OSP-07.04A.

4. In the stem put the LCO like this LCO, 4.6.2.1.

5. Lets make sure and ask OPS MGT if the RO is required to 42 F 3 S Know from memory the surveillance requirements, ask again.

6. Otherwise appear to be ok. \

Addressed comment # 3, 4. Discuss # 5 with NRC Discuss with NRC. No changes made. Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 039G2.1.28, NEW, Memory

1. KA appears to match 43 F 2-3 S 2. Generic Unit

3. Appears to be ok.

Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 059K3.04,Bank 1074 (HLC21 # 45, this is the 3rd of the 4 allowable 44 H 2-3 S overlap questions allowed), COMP.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

1. KA appears to

2. Unit 1

3. Is the applicant expected to assume that there is ONLY one MFP running to begin with? I think that should be stated if it is in fact true. Ask licensee to make sure there is no confusion concerning the initial plant conditions.

4. I do not believe that distractor D is plausible. S/G level increases is plausible. The plant has experienced a loss of feed. No more feed and level starts to incease? I eliminated this because of that. Can we come up with another distractor, discuss with licensee.

5. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comment # 4. At 60% power, 2 MFW pps are necessary Question is ok as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 061K2.01, Significantly Modified 670 (HLC 21 Q 49), COMP

1. Appears to

2. Unit 2

3. Does the word immediately need to be in quotes or underlined so the applicants do not miss reading this. Ask licensee.

4. Place a comma or use some kind of punctuation to separate the equipment and the power supply. It is hard to read, for me at 45 H 2-3 S least. If licensee thinks it is okay as it then leave it as written.

5. I would suggest to separate the two answers so that the second answer is NOT split across part of the first line and on the second line. Discuss

6. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comment # 3 & 5. Will discuss comment # 4 with NRC Question is ok as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 062A1.03, New, Memory 46 F 2-3 S

1. KA appears to

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

2. UNIT 2

3. Add noun name of the 2A3-2A2 breaker in bullet 2.

4. Bullet 4 punctuation after Train A, put a comma inside quotes.

5. On last bullet instead of on use found on.

6. First line of stem, us comma after the procedure number.

7. Distractors A and B are not plausible because when synchronizing I do not believe there is anything that is done is the fast direction. Is there? IF NOT then this is not plausible.

Need to find something else to evaluate. MAYBE slow in the fast direction could be used.

8. Put a comma between the breaker name and the bus voltage.

2A3 YO 2A2, 4.16v bus. In this case VAC is not used as it was in other electric bus power designations. Be consistent .

Maybe can use slow in the fast direction for first part of A and B. discuss with licensee.

I made this an E vice a U Addressed comment # 3, 4, 5, 6, & 8.. Discuss comment # 7 with NRC Question is ok as revised.drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 063K4.03, NEW,FUND

1. KA appears to match 47 F 2-3 S 2. Unit 1

3. Appears to be ok Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 063A3.01, NEW, Memory 48 F 2-3 S 1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1

3. Stem needs to be plural because distractor C has two

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only indications. So put a (s) after indication. But have to fix describes an indication or indications.

4. Would like to see a simple diagram to understand the actual line up of the charger and battery. 1A A battery charger, 1A battery Charger. How do they interact? Licensee to explain system operations.

5. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comment # 3 & 4 OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 064K6.07, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 2

3. From the stem, how does the SNPO know that the relief valve failed open and reseated?

4. Are ROs required to KNOW the determination of OPERABILITY for the DG based on the air receivers? I do not believe they are.

Ask OPS MGR if this is allowable. Where does this operability determination come from? Could not find with material presented. Get OPS MGR to write in email this is RO 49 H 2-3 S knowledge. Generic, all questions that OPS MGR or rep is asked to ensure that ROs are required to know this information this is documented in an email to Paul Farnsworth.

5. Lower level analysis, almost a memory. Not very high analysis

6. Put the two part answer for each distractor on separate lines.

Otherwise appears to be ok.

Addressed comment # 3. Will discuss comment # 4 with NRC Question is ok as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 50 F 3 S 064K6.08, NEW, Memory

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

1. KA appears to match

2. UNIT 1

3. HOW is this question determined to be fundamental. There are some analysis that has to be done if the applicant cannot remember whatever they are expected to remember to answer this question. I do not believe this is fundamental knowledge.

Is there someplace that this information is provided so that an applicant can read this analysis? Show if available.

4. Are the RO applicants expected to know from memory the TS 3.8.1.1, ask OPS MGT to verify this is correct.

5. For stem, put the AND on a separate line space, then put the last question. For example XXXXXXXX:

AND IF a Loss of Offsite Power (LOSP) were to occur, what would be the expected system result?

If this is not clear ask.

6. Distractor D. After the word gravity there is one to many character spaces before when starts, remove this character space. \

Discuss the above with the OPS MGR or representative to determine the above questions.

DFO pumps are part of the LCO above the line. Also basic system knowledge Incorporated comment # 3, 5 and 6 Will change to comprehension/analysis Question is ok as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 073A1.01, NEW, Memory 51 F 3 S

1. KA appears to match.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

2. Unit 1

3. Capitalize the word ONLY in distractors A and B and the word BOTH in distractors C and D. Generically done this way in other questions.

4. Is this information the RO is expected to know from memory?

Verify with the OPS MGR and obtain email if the OM agrees with this expectation.

Otherwise appears to be ok.

Revised question to incorporate comments Discuss with NRC - Ops Rep says RO knowledge Ok as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 076K1.07, NEW, Memory

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. There is one to many character spaces in Distractors C and D 52 F 2-3 S second part, after Water and before Heat. Need to remove one of them;

4. Appears to be ok.

Revised question to incorporate comments Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 078A4.01, Modified Bank 4391, Fundamental

1. KA appears to match

2. UNIT 1 53 F 2-3 S 3. Are these two annunciators in the control room? If they are say so.

4. Meets modified requirements.

5. Distractor C has an extra character space after the word cross-tie and before from. Remove this space.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

6. Appears to be ok.

7. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Revised question to incorporate comments OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 078G2.4.8, Modified Bank 4161, Comp

1. KA appears to

2. Unit 1

3. Change the noun name for 1-EOP-09 to read as procedure title actually does.

4. Punctuation inside quotes.

54 H 3 S 5. Action in stem should be action(s)

6. Punctuation inside the quotes in distractors and commas also in quote in distractor C prior to Section 2. Like .Trip Actions, Section 2.

7. Otherwise appears to be ok.

Revised question to incorporate comments OK as revised. drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 103A4.06, New, Fund. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

2. Change A and B 1 to In Modes 1 - 4 and Mode 6. That is more 55 F 2 X S plausible.

Revised question to incorporate comments OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 001K3.02, Bank, Comp. 1/29/15 drl 56 H 3 S 1. K/A is met.

Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 017K6.01, New, Fund. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is marginally met.

57 F 2 X S 2. The first part of the question is a GFE question.

3. The second part borders on trivia. Why would an RO need to

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only have that information memorized? Isnt there something more significant to test?

Comment #3: Wouldnt classify this as trivia. This is a TS compliance topic. This topic is covered in the Ops Policy. This is something ROs sign for on daily and monthly surveillance checksheets for minimum operability requirements of this system. Changed question to ask MINIMUM required operable channels/core quadrant If Ops Management is OK with this knowledge reequiremnt, than this is acceptable. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 029A2.03, New, Comp. 1/29/15

1. K/A is met.

2. Add Startup operations and the associated required valve lineups to K/A statement.

58 H 3 X S 3. C is not plausible. An operator would never think of using an EOP for a normal evolution.

Revised question - discuss with NRC OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 028A4.03, New, Comp. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

2. An NLO could answer this question. Why not ask how to do something on the panel in the control room. As written, C does not seem plausible.

Revised question - discuss with NRC Change second part of question to read Containment hydrogen 59 H 2 X X E concentration can be monitored ___: and make the second part of A&B read EITHER in the Control Room or locally in the Hydrogen Analyzer Cubicles Use that only if it is accurate. Drl 2/18/15 No changes made. Recommendation not accurate. Pf 2/25 Question revised.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 034A3.01, New, Fund. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

2. Reference the procedure in use during fuel movement.

60 F 3-4 X S Added procedure number OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 035K1.12, Bank, Fund. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

2. Reference the procedure number in use for the test. This would 61 F 3 S allow the ZMBP interlock to be activated.

Added procedure reference number OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 041K5.01 , New,Comp.1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

2. A and C are not plausible. Unless youve changed your SBCS there is nowhere in the scheme do you have valves maintaining 62 H 3 X S for a specified .time and then changing position to maintain a different value.

Post EPU this is the way SBCS works on a rx trip OK, I stand corrected. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 071K4.06; Mod., Comp.1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

63 H 3 S 2. Must be Unit 2 question to meet K/A.

Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 072A1.01; New, Comp. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

64 H 2 S 2. Unit 2 question.

Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 075K2.03, Bank, Fund. 1/29/15 drl 65 F 2 X X E 1. K/A is somewhat met.

2. Dont need third bullet. Just state that you are aligning the 1C

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only ICW pump IAW 1-NOP-21.03C.

3. D is not incorrect, this would just require entry into a TS LCO.

Clarify that all other swing components are currently in standby and then ask for the most desirable electrical alignment. Or give them that the A charging pump is OOS and the B pump is caution tagged with minimize use due to high packing leakage.

Then ask the same question, except this time the electrical alignment will stay on the A side. That might be a more insightful question, because having the AB busses powered from different sides is not very plausible. This would also become a higher level question.

Discuss NRC comments - driven by validation issues.

Refer to distracter analysis for explanations.

The question as asked can be answered by any ANPO. This is bordering on LOD < 2. There is little discernment associated with this question. You might as well just ask What is (are) the power supplies for the 1C ICW pump? The fact that you state that you are using an NOP to aloign the buses would be enough to let everyone know that everything is aligned B.

Perhaps if you stated you lost the B and had to start the C in place of theB ICW pump, then asked wak the ONP would have you do, it would be better. Drl 2/18/15 Re-wrote question. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.1.42, New, Fund. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

2. Unit 2 question.

66 3 F S 3. Are you certain this is a new question?

Modified from exam bank now referenced Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.1.45, Mod, Comp. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

67 3 H S 2. How was this modified?

Will bring exam bank question 3981 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only G2.2.1, Bank, Comp. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

2. D is weak. Why do you consider it plausible?

Changing the critical boron concentration is plausible but it would be incorect borate to achieve criticality within + / -500 pcm in the middle of a startup with a reactivity anomaly. Boration/Dilution is 68 2 H X E performed earlier in the startup process.

I agree that it would be incorrect, but why do you consider it plausible?

Drl 2/18/15 Adding boric acid is a negative reactivity insertion which is plausible but not procedurally correct. Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.2.13, New, Fund. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

69 2 F S 2. Pure memorization Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.2.23, New, Fund. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met

2. Is an AR required when DS 29 or 30 is written? If so, that should 70 2 F X S be added to the answer to make A and B more plausible.

Comment #2, AR not required per Ops Rep Question is OK. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.3.12, New, Comp. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met.

2. If I was not sure between B and D, I would choose B because it is seems to be a subset of D. I believe what you are trying to say is that the entry can be made and power changes may occur as 71 2 H X S long as Mode 1 is not entered.

3. Rephrase C to say all Regulating Rods must be inserted.

Made changes as noted in comments 2 & 3.

OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only G2.3.5, New, Comp. 1/29/15

1. K/A is met.

2. Question as written is confusing. First, make it clear that RM-23P is the portable rad monitor. Second change the question to read When the RM-23P is placed in service, which ONE of the following describes (1) the Control Room Alarm Function and (2) the location that the BMSL rad monitor can be read. Then adjust the answers accordingly 72 H 3 X S 3. C and D (2) dont make a lot of sense, if you put the portable rad monitor in service why would you not be able to read the indication there?

4. C(1) is questionable. If you have indication in the MCR, why would you not have alarm ability?

Revised question to incorporate all comments OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.4.17, New, Fund. 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is met 73 F 2 S 2. No references Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.4.47, New, Comp, 1/29/15 drl

1. K/A is NOT met. The question is supposed to test their ability to diagnose and recognize trends

2. EPIP-01 provided Comment #1: reworded stem so that the applicant must use 74 H 2 X S indications to diagnose the event rather than tell them what the leak rate is and to determine that it is a LOCA rather than SGTR or ESD.

This question was written from the perspective of a EPIP communicator which can be an RO.

OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.4.6, Bank, Comp. 1/29/15 drl 75 H 3 X E 1. K/A is met.

2. Subcooling and ECCS flow curves references provided.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

3. Not sure why someone would consider C with pressurizer so full and filling.

Comment #3: lowered prz level to 55% to make C more plausible (Pzr normal band 60-70%)

A seems to be a subset of D (or vice cersa). Also since the pressurizer is filling and all temperatures are lowering, someone choosing to get more ECCS flow © seems improbable. Drl 2/18/15 Re-wrote distractors. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 SRO ONLY Questions APE008AA.2.25, NEW, COMP. 01/20/2015

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. The first part appears to be ok with selection of procedure.

4. Second part of the question distractors is NOT as easy to describe. This does not seem to be something the SRO has to ponder upon with the TS being provided. Basically, this appears to be a direct look up with the TS attached.

5. I do not believe there is much to determine when two of the three Action steps provides the 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> and 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />.

6. Explain which TS B or C is actually being referenced?

76 H 2-3 X S 7. Do not see why anyone would select distractors C or D with ONLY in the distractors. Is this a possible answer? Discuss with licensee.

8. Can the question be provided without the TS? I realize this is not a requirement for the ROs to know action items greater than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, however, the SRO potentially could be asked to recall this without the reference. Ask OPS representative if this would be ok to do.

Need to discuss plausibility of C and D second part.

Comment #6: paragraph a, b & c are supplied as a reference. For selections C & D, this TS action applies (be in Cold Shutdown within

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />) for Pressure Boundary Leakage. It could be plausible for the applicant to interpret leakage through a code safety or PORV as pressure boundary. Discuss with NRC OK as written. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE025AG2.2.40, New, Comp

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1

3. Is it necessary to have the part of the stem that asks For the given conditions, I do not believe that this is necessary.

Ask licensee to see if this can be deleted.

4. What is the significance of using the level of 60 ft? I am not sure why this was selected. Have licensee explain.

5. The paragraph that starts with With the Refueling does not have to have that NO SDC cooling loops is in operation. This can be deleted. The applicants should understand this from the initial conditions presented. This part can be deleted.

6. The second question concerning the consequences. Please find 77 H 2-3 S a way to ask this without providing teaching in the stem. It is not necessary to state the loss of sufficient RCS recirculation through the core. This is teaching. Try to shorten this without this teaching.

Discuss with licensee.

Comment #3 Will review with Ops-deleted Comment #4: This is the normal refueling cavity level. This can be assumed??

Incorporated comments # 5 & 6 Discuss with NRC OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only APE026AA2.05, NEW, Fund

1. KA appears to MATCH

2. Unit 2

3. Not sure that in the first question that 1C is appropriate, should this be 2 C CCW pump since this is a Unit 2 question? Ask licensee if this is true.

4. Not sure this is SRO only. While the procedure provides the way to do this, the ROs should also know this from the way the system is designed. Why is this SRO ONLY?

5. Have licensee provide a diagram to show this physical piping line up. I have trouble visualizing this with what is going on.

During discussion at the region.

6. The second part of the question is most definitely RO 78 F 2-3 X S knowledge. The 19000 gpm is the max flow rate through the tube side. There is a step 4.5 of PNLs that shows that the maximum flow through a single ICW pump is 18,500 gpm. I would rather use that number than 19000 gpm. It is more operationally valid and makes more sense than the 19000.

Discuss with licensee.

Discuss with licensee if this is SRO only.

Incorporated comments #3, 5 (will provide drawing) & 6.

Discuss with NRC, Comment #4: Review discussion on page 2 of question (comment section) for SRO Only justification.

OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 EPE055EA2.02, NEW, COMP.

1. KA appears to match.

79 H 3 E 2. Unit 1

3. Is it necessary to have the MAXIMUM time because the time limit is 60 mins or less. Or as the table puts it as less than or

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only equal to 60 min.

4. Why are we not using for the first part the Unit 2 vs the unit 1 numbers and instead of using the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> mark. Discuss with the licensee. The time critical action list for Unit 1 shows 60 and Unit 2 shows 30. I would think that would be better to use than the 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> time limit.

5. What does it mean as the unit is the DC coping unit? I forgot, Please, have licensee explain.

6. Discuss why SRO only. OK. I guess.

Discuss the use of 30 vs 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.

Incorporated comments. Discuss with NRC Comment # 5: DC coping means that DC powered components were designed into the system to cope with a loss of one Safety DC bus This is close. The second part needs to be reworded. As written, I would always choose open because I know I need steam flow to induce NC. I think what you are trying to ask is is there too much cooling (do you need to open the ADVS more or less). Drl 2/18/15 Incorporated recommendation. Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 056AG2.4.30, MODIFIED BANK 4049, COMP,

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1 and 2

3. Licensee did not provide the Bank question this was modified from. This should have been in the package. Cannot verify if 80 H 3 S this question meets modified requirement.

4. From the question, it looks like we are asking to use the two parts in the distractors, the First as being Unit 1 and the Second being Unit 2? IS this correct? IF so, please add to each distractor Unit 1 and Unit 2, where it belongs.

5. NEXT time please add the appropriate EPIP section, to look at

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only rather than having to find it in the material.

6. Should there be a classification for each Unit at each time? I am not sure the way this is written is appropriate for both units.

Discuss with licensee.

Discuss to understand better.

Addressed comment #3. Will provide copy of exam bank Q# 4049 Comments 3, 4, 5 & 6. There can only be one classification for the SITE. The applicant must determine this from the two sets of times and conditions given. Discuss with NRC OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 077AG2.2.37, MODIFIED BANK 4427, COMP.

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. In the initial conditions, is HVS-1B the complete designator for this control circuit? Is there a Unit 1 designator in front? Ask licensee to change if necessary.

4. In the stem, should STOP be in all caps in the fifth bullet? Ask licensee.

5. In the stem. The question does not have to indicate that the 1B 81 H 2-3 S containment Cooling fan is NOT running. All it has to ask is in this configuration. The description above does not require the repeat of the actual status of the pump being stopped.

6. In all distractors, complete the sentence so that ie. For distractor C - ONLY the 1A Offsite Power Circuit is inoperable. Or for distractor A - Both are inoperable. It is not clear what is inoperable in A and B. Discuss if licensee does not understand comment.

7. While the question is identified as a comprehension it is really a memory because the applicant has to remember the issue associated with UNIT 1. This may be a fundamental level of

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only knowledge vice comprehension. Discuss type of question.

Otherwise appears to be ok with changes requested.

Incorporated comments #3, 5. Comment #4 stop is the action, AUTO is the switch position.

Comment #6: just above the selections is the word Declare. Put that in front of each selection and the sentence will be complete.

Comment #7: Ops Policy now states that with a CFC not running with switch in AUTO, declare that specific Offsite Power train inoperable ONLY when switchyard voltage is < 232 kV. Applicant has to use multiple parts of info to come to the correct response. Discuss with NRC This is Fundamental knowledge, but does meet SRO level. OK. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 003AG2.1.7, NEW, COMP, Used in HLC 21- Q 91, NRC,

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. Previous question marked NEW, however, body identifies significantly modified. Previous question not provided.

4. In second bullet, change quote sign () to inches. Same in each distractor, use inches vice the abbreviation.

5. In question 1, is it better to have prior to CEA recovery or the 82 H 3 S way it is?

6. Should in distractors A and B second part use reduce instead of reducing? And replace while with and. Discuss with licensee. Does it matter?

7. Be consistent with the use of a single quote () for procedure emphasis. Other places the () is used.

Otherwise appears to be ok.

Will address comment #3. This question was on the last NRC exam I

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Changed the condition in the stem of the question as well as the correct answer. It has not been entered into the St.Lucie exam bank as of yet.

Incorporated comments #4. 5, 6 & 7 Discuss with NRC OK as revised. Drl 2/18/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 APE068AA2.09, NEW, Memory,

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 2

3. Wording of bullet one is awkward. UNIT 2 has evacuated the Control room?

4. Be consistent with the use of periods. There is one at the end of the second bullet.

5. Distractors C and need first question need to be changed from Tcold instruments + 50 to just Tcold instruments. BY placing the 50 in there it reminds the applicant what instrument is at the Remote Shutdown Panel. I believe that the question just asks 83 F 2 E what instrument. Can we just have Th and Tc?

6. I doubt that the SROs would think there is ONLY one Tcold instrument. This is fundamental RO knowledge.

7. The second question is very wordy and may be misread by the applicants, can this be shortened. Look at this and see if it really is asking what you are trying to say.

8. Have OPS rep review and determine if it is reasonable for the SROs to have to know the minimum number of instruments from the table by memory? Want to make sure this is reasonable for the SROs to know.

Discuss changes with licensee.

Incorporated comments #3, 4 & 7

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Comment #8: Discuss with NRC and Ops Rep The revisions made thus far are good. Ricks comment about Tcold + 50 F is still valid. I understand that the procedure says to use Tcold + 50, but that is too big of a clue. If you reword the question to ask which instruments to use on the RSP, then you would not reference the + 50F.

drl 2/19/15 Incorporated recommendation. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 076AG2.2.25, NEW, FUNDAMENTAL,

1. KA appears to NOT match

2. Unit 1

3. Currently the way this question is written it does NOT ask anything about the Bases of Technical Specifications. What is provided in each of the distractors as answers is the sample requirements that are required by that annunciator.

4. The second part of the question provides sort of the bases, but it seems that the answers do not completely answer the question.

5. From page 27 of 26 last paragraph under 3/4.4.8 talks about the 84 F 2 X X S allowable concentration and maximum allowable doses. This is more of the bases information.

This question has to be reworked to match the KA.

Discuss with licensee.

Revised stem & selections A, C & D to include wording from bases The times given in the selections are directly from the TS bases for the LCO. Discuss with NRC to address KA match concern OK as revised. Drl 2/19/15 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only CEA13AA2.2, BANK 4047, COMP

1. KA appears to

2. Unit 2

3. At the end of the sentence incorporate whatever punctuation within the Quotes. For this example, it should look like

.Circulation Cooldown. Not .Circulation Cooldown.

4. Be consistent between questions. Every bullet has a period at the end. I really dont care just be consistent.

5. The TS speaks to INDICATED LEVEL. WE do not state that in the initial conditions, is that necessary?

6. Since there are NO references, are the SRO applicants expected to know 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> or 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. I would venture that the 85 H 3 S 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> is a standard number they hear all the time.

7. IN the first question, Hot Shutdown is written like this, however, in the TS it is in all CAPS, like HOT SHUTDOWN, which should it be?

8. For each distractor, put a line in between the first and second answer.

Otherwise appears to be ok.

Incorporated comments. The last bullet in the stem implies that is the indicated level. Discuss with NRC.

OK as revised. Drl 2/19/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 008A2.05, New, Comprehension

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1,

3. Add comma after s in RCPs, to place it inside the quotes. Generic Issue. There are a few more places in this question that the comma needs to be put in the quotes.

Corrected, ok as is now. 01/21/2015

4. Is it necessary to have the way HCV-14-1 fails? Fails closed! This is teaching. The applicants should know how the valve fails with the failed solenoid. Corrected, ok as is now. 01/21/2015

5. The questions distractors A and B, second part, should be reworded to remove the wording is still. I think that it reads ok without that. Corrected

6. I am not saying that IAW is not a known abbreviation however, it should most likely be written out. That is unless it is ok with licensee.

7. TS not provided. However, the answer D and distractor C have a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> knowledge requirement. Does management expect that SROs have this committed to memory?

This is beyond expectations of NRC requirements. Discuss with licensee. Corrected, ok as is now. 01/21/2015

8. Would like to see the second part start with what we are asking the applicant to evaluate. For example, Which one of the following (WOOTF) describes the TS applicability..

9. Also, since the TS 3.6.3.1, is in ALL distractors suggest to have this in the question 86 H 2 stem so the applicants do not have to read it 4 times. 01/21/2015 corrected.

10. Knowledge Level of question is low. First part is RO. Second part SRO but not very difficult. Is there some way to put a TS call that is incorrect but has to be determined because these distractors A and B have reduced flow? Potentially?

11. Discuss items above with licensee.

01/21/2015

1. Periods in the bullets, consistency.

Otherwise this question is ok.

S Incorporated comments.

Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 022A2.04, New, Comprehension,

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 2

3. In bullet after annunciator windows, second line it looks like Containment Fan Cooler Operationsbut has just tripped. I am not sure what is going on, but it looks like there is a space missing. Not sure. Please look at file to see what it is.

4. To the second to last bullet starting with 2-AOP., add a comma after Fans, like shown.

5. In first question, put the ? inside the quotes, like Fans?

6. In the questions, add the 1) and 2) to each of the questions.

This will ensure that the applicants do not associate the incorrect answer to each part. Enhancement.

87 H 3 E

7. Not sure in distractors C and D that provides the 5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> requirement. Would like to have this time frame removed. This Keys the answer in because of the time. Make it look like A and B first part.

8. What is the actual Reactor Vessel Support Structure limit on temperature? The question provides containment vessel design temperature of 264, but not the support structure. The way the question is written the questions distractors are written in the documents provided. This may

9. Otherwise appears to be ok with the above changes.

01/21/2015

1. Was this initially sent in? I cannot find in the emailed copy.

I believe that these comments should have been in the row for question #89. Look at the KA. We revised Q#89 per the above

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only comments in response to your pre-review. Discuss with NRC Question 87 review The fact that B and C have the same due date would lead the applicant to look at those two more closely. Additionally, with C and D sharing B1 heater info would lead to identifying B1 as the culprit. Therefore, C would be the most likely answer without knowing anything about the plant.

Change A to proportional heaters by 8/23 at 1800. Drl 2/19/15 Incorporated recommendation. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 013G2.2.22, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to matches.

2. Unit 2

3. Put the comma inside the quotes. After (RWT),

4. Are the SRO applicants expected to know that 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> requirement from memory? Discuss with OPS to ensure this is true.

5. The allowance for unlimited time to be in bypass does not seem to be plausible. I did not look, have licensee show the places that on a De-energized circuit that this is true. It seems that bypass would be a true answer. Discuss with licensee to 88 H 2-3 S understand. What ESFAS channels are those?

6. Next exam, when you identify that for example in this case the CSAS is referenced, please add that reference to the material so this does not have to be looked up separately. This makes it much faster for the review. Please.

Appears to be ok, ask licensee to show examiner how this works.

Discuss with NRC. Will bring references. This is a very unique TSAS due to the bases behind it (swapping over to a potentially empty sump which could lead to air binding ECCS pumps). Applicants should know this. It is also addressed in the Ops Policy on Tech Specs

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only OK as revised. Drl 2/19/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 022A2.04, NEW, COMP

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 2

3. Add a line break between question #2 and the first distractor.

This is all bunched up and it is not easy to read that way.

4. Should the first question actually be completes the statement?

It states identifies the actions, but the question has a fill in the blank. I am thinking that maybe we should just ask what is necessary to be done with RCS temperature and remove the teaching that is occurring in the stem, where we provide what actions are done in the procedure. The way it is written it will cue the applicants into what needs to be done. How about this, just ask what is the RCS temperature requirement? Answer:

same as written.

89 H 2-3 E/U 5. What conditions will cause the containment temperature would get to above 350 degrees? Is this possible during these accidents associate with this type of situation? Not sure that this would make sense. Need to have licensee explain why this is reasonable.

Addressed comment #3 and revised stem per comment #4 Comment #5: With the loss of adequate Cont Fan Coolers, the FSAR requires the RCS to be < 350 degrees within 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. Will bring FSAR reference. Discuss with NRC Hot standby and hot shutdown do not work with 264 F. Its too much of a stretch to assume that you can keep containment temperature that low at NOT. Its even a little stretch with Hot Shutdown, but at least plausible.

Change maintain Hot Stanby to Cold Shutdown. Drl 2/19/15 Incorporated comments. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only 039A2.03, NEW, however, used on HLC 20, Q 92, states significantly Modified.

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1

3. Previous question not provided in package.

4. Add a line space after question # 2 and (Reference Provided)

5. How much of the AOP-8.02 will be provided? Just the page provided with submittal or the entire procedure? Discuss with licensee.

6. Is it necessary to add the DATE this is occurring in the stem of the question? Ask licensee why or why not?

7. Does the question in # 2 need to identify the MAXIMUM time 90 H 3 E that the MODE 3 entry is accomplished? This is based on step 2.1 B RNO. 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />? Ask licensee.

8. Also need to ask when is the earliest time for question # 1.

Discuss with licensee.

Will provide old Q92 for reference. Incorporated comment #3 & 4 Will provide AOP-08.02 up through page 15 Discuss with NRC to address concerns from comments 6. 7 & 8.

With the reference provided this is NOT an SRO level question. Instead of asking them the time to be in Mode 3 ask them for the basis for the requirement to be in Mode 3. Drl 2/19/15 Recommend removing AOP reference. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 015G2/1/7. NEW, Comprehension,

1. KA appears to match 1-2 for 2. Unit 2 91 H SRO X U 3. In this question inches is used vice (), which I think is better.

only Just be consistent.

4. In stem of question use quotes for procedural name as done in other questions.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

5. Question is NOT SRO ONLY. This is basic reactor operating characteristics that an RO is required to know and does not fit the level of SRO ONLY.

6. The evolution of recovering from this situation may be SRO directed by the RO has to know enough to even recognize that is occurring.

7. This can be answered with RO knowledge. Two SR Examiners agree. This was discussed with the Branch Chief.

Question is not satisfactory and needs to be replaced. 016G21.1.20 Replaced question to address SRO ONLY concerns. Discuss with NRC

1. Need to clean up question put a 2) in the underline after Reactor Power.

2. Go ahead and state the specific TS for which they have completed the action.

3. Otherwise this is an acceptable question. Drl 2/10/15 Incorporated comments. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 016G2.1.20, NEW, FUND,

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1,

3. A. Put question mark inside quote.

B. Place noun name of 1-AOP-99 in quotes in the information section.

92 F 2 U 4. There is overlap between SRO # 88 and this question. Each concerns itself with the same instrumentation requirements for bypassing and the GENERIC time associated with this action.

IT turns out that 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> is the magic number an applicant has to remember. In both questions 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> is the clue to eliminate the two distractors with the next cold shutdown, can be also help with question #88 if the applicant didnt remember this.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

5. If this question is used vice 88 then put answers on separate lines, the way it is for me is hard to read.

The question has overlap issues and one of them needs to be replace, this question or # 88.

Discuss with licensee.

Revised question to address overlap concerns. Discuss with NRC Not certain new question is to the SRO level. Both TS actions are 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> statements. How the AFAS panel is designed is RO knowledge. Unless you go into some OPS Policy and talk about requirements there, this does not reach SRO level. Drl 2/19/15 Re-wrote question. Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 072A2.03, New, Comprehension,

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 2.

3. The information in the initial conditions of the question is written differently than the previous questions. In that, the power supply and procedure name are not in quotes as in the other questions. Be consistent!

93 H 1-2 X U 4. Question is NOT SRO ONLY. This knowledge is required of ALL individuals. Regardless if there is a failure or an actual alarm the expectation is the same of the individual in the plant.

There does not have to be an SRO to determine if they should evacuate or not.

5. Stem of the question only corresponds on what the operators do. The second part is not required by the question. This needs to add what direction should the Unit SRO direct?

6. May also be considered GET.

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

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

7. Very low comprehension, closer to a memory. What do you do with an ARM alarm when you are in the plant? Leave immediately.

8. If this is a TS item, then can potentially use that to make SRO only.

9. Question needs to be replaced.

01/22/2015

1. Question was changed to add SRO portion.

2. The new part of this question provides the answer or help to determine the answers for Questions 92 and 88.

3. By adding the TS portion we keep on testing the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> and next Cold Shutdown requirement.

4. Unfortunately, this change overlaps the described questions above.

Question still remains a U Revised questions 88 & 92 such that they no longer provide help to answer this question (i.e. next cold shutdown requirement was removed from 88 & 92). Discuss with NRC to address overlap concerns This is ok now. Put the words automatically upon the fuse failure after

__(1)___. Drl 2/19/15 Incorporated comments. Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.1.37, Bank 4404, Memory,

1. KA appears to match.

94 F 2-3 S 2. Generic plant.

3. As is the question appears to be ok, however, I would rearrange the stem and put the TS at the beginning of the question. This

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only makes the mind set to already know what area is being talked about.

4. Appears to be ok.

01/22/2015

1. Stem was changed.

2. Is it necessary to add most restrictive?

Appears to be ok as is.

Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.1.40, New, comprehension.

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 2

3. Is the first part, 23 feet RO systems knowledge? Or not? RO knowledge to answer this part.

4. Unit 1 and 2 differences. OK

5. DOES irradiated encompass recently irradiated? This appears to be a subset and could potentially make distractor B also a potential answer. Two potential answers.

95 H 2-3 X S 6. SRO knowledge? Is there a learning objective for the RO concerning this in the refueling lesson plan? Ask licensee to determine if this is true.

7. Discuss with licensee if SRO only or not?

01/22/2015 Missed that this was identified as Significantly Modified question from Q97 of the HLC 20 NRC exam. Previous question NOT provided. Unable to verify if it was significantly modified.

1. Include comma with noun name in quotes, be consistent.

2. Change distractors C and D first part to use the Unit 1 requirement of 23 feet above the fuel. This is a better distractor than top of fuel assemblies seated in the reactor pressure

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only vessel. This at least tests UNIT 1 and UNIT 2 Differences.

3. TS 3.91, decay time requires the reactor to be subcritical 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> before fuel can be moved. This knowledge requirement is above the line in TS and required knowledge of Reactor Operators.

4. Therefore the question does not test at the SRO level even though this knowledge appears in the bases. The answer can be obtained with only RO knowledge.

Question is not at SRO level. Unsatisfactory. Discuss with licensee.

Incorporated comments 1 & 2. Will provide modified question (#97)

Revised question to address SRO level concerns (3&4).Discuss with NRC OK as revised drl 2/19/15 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.2.17, New, Memory, 01/22/2015

1. KA appears to match.

2. Unit 1

3. Put noun name for the procedure in quotes, consistency

4. Have licensee explain what the Scheduled Work greater than 50% of a shutdown LCO. Does this mean looking at the LCO for that system? IF so, why was the LCO not provided? Have 96 F 2-3 S licensee explain. Which one is it?

Appears to be ok.

Incorporated comment #3 Discuss with NRC. No reference - direct lookup Even if provided, not a direct lookup. Focus on High Risk. We dont provide WM-AA-100-1000 Question is OK. Drl 2/19/15

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.2.38, NEW (From Q90 of HLC20 NRC stated significantly modified),

Comp

1. KA appears to

2. Unit 1

3. Is there a noun name for OPS policy 503? IS it necessary to put it in the stem? Ask licensee.

97 H 3 S 4. Put a line space after following:

Otherwise appears to be ok Incorporated comments # 3 & 4. Provide Q#90 HLC20 NRC OK as revised drl 2/19/15 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.3.14, NEW, Memory,

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1.

3. I think that it would be better to have the days in the stem and in the distractors, so that the applicants can figure out it that way.

Distractor B states by 1145 the NEXT day.

98 F 3 E

4. What actually would be provided to the applicant? I do not understand what pages would be provided? It looks like the attachment 2 and some other document, not sure what the other one is.

5. Will have to look at that LI-AA-102-1001. Explain to see if this provides a direct look up.

6. This question may be ok but have to look at that document to see if this is can be provided or if not can the applicant answer

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only the question 01/22/2015 Basically the entire question was re-written.

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1

3. IN bullet 3 the individual falls on the floor is in reference to the WEC SRO. IF this is the case, can we just state that, rather than stating the individual. I believe this would make this clearer.

4. Under 2000, the last bullet, can be shortened. Is it necessary to inform the reader that the amount of contamination (2500 DPM) was done on a portable frisker? Discuss with licensee.

5. Under time 2300, shorten first bullet. The hospital reported to the Shift Manager, that the injured individuals BAC was 0.5.

What are the units for BAC? If it has some unit designation, please add. This is a % so need to add the % symbol.

6. Is the entire attachment 2 going to be provided? Ask licensee what they had planned on providing.

7. The procedure SY-AA-100-1000 states that this is a based on a Confirmatory test. The report does not state that it was a Confirmatory test. This needs to be added.

8. In the second bullet under 2300, add the actual time that the investigation determined when the alcohol was consumed. This should be within the time the procedure describes when operators are NOT allowed to consume alcohol.

9. The Explanation states that the WEC SRO is not ACTIVE, from the information provided how would they know this?

ACTIVE has a specific definition and this cannot be determined from no information.

10. The explanation states that the individual has a contamination level of 1500 DPM, this is NOT the same as the information provided in the stem. Please determine what number to use!

11. Explanation states ONLY the 8 hr report is necessary, however the answer has TWO times for reporting. ??

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only There are many changes that should be made to make this new question easier to read and determine what is going on. If the above is not clear ask.

Incorporated #3, 5, 7 comments,

1. 4.This was referenced because this is what would be used in reality. Removed for bullet

1. 6 answer is yes

1. 9 This is noted if the applicant makes an assumption that the WEC is inactive so the rule would not apply. The bottom line is that the WEC holds a current license and the rule applies. At PSL normally WEC SROs dont stand shiftly watches (i.e. not active).

1. 10 & 11 This was an oversight from the previous revision. Updated The proposed answer explanation needs revised to accurately describe the scenario.

Otherwise, OK. Dl 2/19/15 Incorporated comments. Pf 2/25 Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.4.16, MODIFIED BANK 4148, COMP 01/23/2015

1. KA appears to matches

2. Unit 1

3. Consistent use of quotes for procedures.

99 H 3 E 4. Is it appropriate to state that the ADV is WIDE open? I think this should be 100% or something like that.

5. Need to add noun names for EOP 15.

6. In distractors that have Based on the Tcold rise. Change that to Tcold difference. Or something like that! I do not believe that referring to this as a rise. Tcold change, is better. And the same for the last bulleted item. All that has to be said is

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only Tcold has gone from 535 to 541 over the past few minutes.

7. The previous bank question has Success Path capitalized, in this example it is not. I would think that the capitalized version is the correct way. Licensee decide.

8. Should the bases and the procedural requirement be on two lines?

9. Is the SG level change or Tcold temp change really the BASES or is this the reason why it has to be done? Discuss with licensee. This is an important concept of this question.

Discuss with licensee.

Incorporated comment #3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Reworded the question (comment #8). Comment #9 Discuss with NRC OK as revised. Ensure that this does not overlap EOP-15 scenario in operationg exam. Drl 2/19/15 No overlap with EOP-15. scenario Pf 2/25 sig mod Question is Satisfactory. DB 3/11/15 G2.4.44, NEW, COMP,

1. KA appears to match

2. Unit 1

3. Unit 1 has NOT declared a GE but the EC of Unit 1 did.

4. Distractors A and C, has QRAB, what is the basis for this being plausible? I would think that QRA would be more plausible than this. When would the EC determine the combination of the both 100 E Sectors should be used? Is this ever done?

5. Recommend changing to QRA.

Discuss with licensee to determine if this is more plausible.

Reformatted bullets in stem Reworded to incorporate comments in #3

1. 4: EPIP directions state to use 10 meter indication. If wind direction

ST. LUCIE 2015-301 45 Day Review RO and SRO (Final PW Protected 1-29) RSB and DL Rev 01 ES-401, Rev. 9 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9

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

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

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

Q# LOK LOD (F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward K/A Only borders two sectors, include both of them (i.e. QRAB). QRA is plausible also but incorrect. Discuss with NRC This can be done by a Shift Communicator which is RO level of knowledge. A better second question would be to determine the PAR. Drl 2/19/15 Re-wrote question. Pf 2/25 sig mod Discuss with licensee to determine if this is more plausible.

Reformatted bullets in stem Reworded to incorporate comments in #3

1. 4: EPIP directions state to use 10 meter indication. If wind direction borders two sectors, include both of them (i.e. QRAB). QRA is plausible also but incorrect. Discuss with NRC This can be done by a Shift Communicator which is RO level of knowledge. A better second question would be to determine the PAR. Drl 2/19/15 Re-wrote question. Pf 2/25 sig mod ES-401, Rev. 9 2 Form ES-401-9

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist L Facility: 5+. Date of Exam: 3j Exam Level: RO SRO Initials Item Description a b c 1.

2.

Clean answer sheets copied before grading Answer key changes and question deletions justified k

3.

and documented Applicants scores checked for addition errors 9

(reviewers_spot_check>_25%_of_examinations)

4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as applicable, +/-4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail y f9

5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are justified 11/4 dfr

6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half or more of the applicants 4 I Printed Name/Signature Date

a. Grader /

b. Facility Reviewer(*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) . hk

d. NRCSupervisor(*) 444..

9z)Is

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