ML22250A665

Form: 2.3-1 Examination Outline Quality Checklist DC-Cook - 2022

ML22250A665
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	06/30/2022
From:	Ted Wingfield NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB
To:	Indiana Michigan Power Co
Wingfield T
Shared Package
ML21263A038	List: ML22250A665 ML22250A669 ML22250A671 ML22250A674 ML22250A677 ML22250A681 ML22250A685 ML22250A688
References
Download: ML22250A665 (1)

Text

• Form 2.3-1 Examination Outline Quality Checklist acility: *o c

(. oot.

Date of Examination: 7 / tf!/ 2 '2..

Item

a.

b.

a.

Task Description The outtine was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with the instructions in Section B of ES-4.1, and all knowledge and ability (KIA) categories are appropriately sampled.

Justifications for deselected or re*ecte.d KIA statements are acce table.

Using Form 3.4-1. Events and Evolutions Checklist, verify that the proposed scenario set contains the required number of normal evolutions, reactivity evolutions, instrument and component failures, manual control evolutions, technical specifications, and major transients.

b, There are enough scenarios (and spares) for the projected number and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule without compromising exam integrity. Ensure that scenarios will not be repeated on subse uent da s.

c.

Ensure that all scenarios are new or significantly modified in accordance with ES-3.4 and that no scenarios are du licated from the a licants' audit test(s).

d. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conforms with the qualitative and quantitative simulator set criteria s ecified on Form 2,3*2, rify that the administrative outline meets the criteria specified in the instructions on 3.2-1 and that no tasks are du licated from the a licants' audit test s.

y y

b.

Verify that the control room and in-plant systems outline meets the criteria specified in 10..*

the instructions on Form 3.2-2 and that no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' v y y

y y

audit test s.

1

-, *J--..............;............. -.........---:-'""'-----------'""'-----------+-+...-+...--n

c. Oermine Whether the number of job performance measures (JPMs) and JPM types is sufficient for the projected number and mix of applicants and ensure that no items are du licated on subse uent da s.

a. Assess whether the appropriate exam sections.cover plant-specific priorities (including robabilistic risk assessment and individual lant examination insi hts *

b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41, 1 O CFR 55.43, and 10 CFR 55.45 sampling is a ro riate.

c. Check whether KIA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are greater than or e ual to 2.5.

d. Check for du lication and overla across the exam and with the last two NRC

f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level {reactor operator or senior reactor o erator.

. Printed Name/Signature Date y y y y '( y

a. Author

,... &14,

{/_& 11.,_ L 1.U.,-.,,,t.,,{itliz :Jt/.ii)

_ J ,-l WHl:t:rEfN z- - -z :2 _

b. Facility Reviewer (*)

c. NRC Reviewer (#)

NRC Ghief Examiner NRC Supervisor

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

2-'"l... zt

1. An independent NRC reviewer performs the steps in column "c." This may be the NRC Chief Examiner if helshe did not develop the outline under review.

ES-2.3, Page 9 of 19 Gregory M. Roach Digitally signed by Gregory M. Roach Date: 2022.06.28 09:25:50 -05'00' Patricia J. Pelke Digitally signed by Patricia J. Pelke Date: 2022.06.30 10:08:49 -05'00'