ML091730126: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML091730126 | | number = ML091730126 | ||
| issue date = 06/22/2009 | | issue date = 06/22/2009 | ||
| title = | | title = 09-301 & 05000366-09-301 Final Administrative Documents - QA Sheets | ||
| author name = | | author name = | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/DRS/OLB | | author affiliation = NRC/RGN-II/DRS/OLB | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| page count = 86 | | page count = 86 | ||
}} | }} | ||
See also: [[ | See also: [[see also::IR 05000321/2009301]] | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:. | |||
~l OZOr9-supl -final-forms-ills doc " '" | |||
Form ES*201*1 | |||
Facility: HATCtt Date of Examination: 4/'J.-oDQ | |||
Developed by: Written - Facility [E( NRC D /I Operating - Facility ~ NRC D | |||
Target Chief | |||
Date* Task Description (Reference) Examiner's | |||
Initials | |||
-180 1. Examination administration date confirmed (C.1.a; C.2.a and b) 1dIJG | |||
-120 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.e) 1l>K | |||
-120 3. Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c) | |||
7IifX | |||
-120 4. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.d) '7JJC | |||
[-90] [5. Reference material due (C.1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 3)] 1$n | |||
{-75} 6. Integrated examination outline(s) due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-201-3, | |||
ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-O-1's, ES-401-1/2, ES-401-3, and | |||
ES-401-4, as applicable (C.1.e and f; C.3.d) | |||
~ | |||
{-70} {7. Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility J:$u- | |||
licensee (C.2.h; C.3.e)} | |||
{-45} 8. Proposed examinations (including written, walk-through JPMs, and | |||
scenarios, as applicable), supporting documentation (including Forms JqfrL | |||
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) | |||
-30 9. Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398's) due (C.1.1; C.2.g; 1:$J1- | |||
ES-202) | |||
-14 10. Final license applications due and Form ES-201-4 prepared (C.1.1; C.2.i; | |||
ES-202) ~ | |||
-14 11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review 1$X | |||
(C.2.h; C.3.f) | |||
-14 12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.1.j; C.2.f and h; C.3.g) ~ | |||
-7 13. Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor | |||
(C.2.i; C.3.h) 1$/L | |||
-7 14. Final applications reviewed; 1 or 2 (if >1 0) 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 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 | |||
Facility: Date of Examination: | |||
Initials | |||
Item Task Description | |||
a b* C# | |||
1. | |||
w | |||
a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401. 1JU- I~ ~ | |||
R | |||
I | |||
b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with | |||
Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all KiA categories are appropriately sampled. fJfi( ~ ~ | |||
T | |||
T c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics. ~ ~A IL | |||
~ ~ ~t- | |||
E | |||
N d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected KiA statements are appropriate. | |||
2. a. Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number | |||
S | |||
of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications, | |||
and major transients. | |||
N4 N-' N-I | |||
I | |||
M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number | |||
U and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule | |||
L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using | |||
A at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated | |||
T from the applicants' audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days. | |||
0 To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative | |||
c. | |||
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 | |||
1 (2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the form | |||
T (3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' audit test(s) | |||
(4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified 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 | |||
,~ V | |||
c. | |||
(3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations | |||
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. /11-' AI-{ N'"'/ | |||
4. a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered | |||
in the appropriate exam sections. | |||
If( JIll ~ | |||
I~ J1. .,-JJ<. | |||
G | |||
E b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate. | |||
N | |||
E | |||
c. Ensure that KiA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5. -/11<. ~ *v~ | |||
R d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections. 1;fK ~ ~~ | |||
A | |||
L e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage. | |||
f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO). | |||
" | |||
~ WIA I' L... | |||
I~ IJt:ljl I{~ | |||
Ia ~ print1.Name~ | |||
a. Author 1S \A..NO ALJ-Ell..() -!'& . C. 4-~ | |||
~' | |||
b. Facility Reviewer (*) | |||
Wt.**~:~ | |||
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) tf'l.t-D1 | |||
d. NRC Supervisor 1--tittt1 | |||
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: HATCH Date of Examination: 4-/Z0/oq | |||
Initials | |||
Item Task Description | |||
a bO c# | |||
1. | |||
w | |||
a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401. I,4IA Alit t.1A | |||
R b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with | |||
I Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all KIA categories are appropriately sampled. jll~ AlA If/. | |||
T | |||
T c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics. II/A Alft ;.11 | |||
~ | |||
E | |||
N d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected KIA statements are appropriate. | |||
",'it 'tJA | |||
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 | |||
I | |||
and major transients. t!1 Itt 1!4L | |||
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 | |||
T | |||
at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated | |||
from the applicants' audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days. C, Ct. fMc | |||
L~l Cl f1.t | |||
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 altemate path, low-power, emergency, and RCA tasks meet the criteria | |||
on the form. .[4 ct, lJl£ | |||
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 :01 C£ tit | |||
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. l).-f | |||
I | |||
CL fiL~ | |||
4. | |||
G | |||
a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered | |||
in the appropriate exam sections. 1ft C/. NG | |||
E b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate. 1ft ~ fJ.~ | |||
N | |||
E | |||
c. Ensure that KIA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5. If.u. u fj/L | |||
R | |||
A | |||
d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections. rI U 1J10 | |||
L e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage. lA ct 't,tc | |||
f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO). f)J C? 11-1C. | |||
Ebw~LJoJoJ-f"S p?t~Nar%iSi?!m~ | |||
a. Author | |||
~ | |||
f)1{ -810' | |||
flJ1~ | |||
b. Facility Reviewer (0) r:hAOiF"<' IfidMlInd /('..11bA.l1 A- of?~~. | |||
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) '4~¥~ ( <,;'/;*-;2ffLtA.:0n 8RiLiJo Ckf;),!tU.£{l{) | |||
d. NRC Supervisor ~tU..'{: l&Jf~U.ultl / 1lI1T1 ... , ... | |||
r | |||
C7 | |||
Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required. | |||
° Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines | |||
itl | |||
Examination Outline Quality Checklist | |||
Facility: | |||
HATCH Date of Examination: Apr.'! ZOO9 | |||
Initials | |||
Item Task Description | |||
a b* 0# | |||
1, | |||
w | |||
a, Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401. IIi1L ~1 | |||
R | |||
T | |||
I | |||
b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with | |||
Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all KIA categories are appropriately sampled. n A,J | |||
T c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics. ~ tL;i | |||
I~ | |||
E | |||
N d. Assess whether the jUstifications for deselected or rejected KIA statements are appropriate. I-G J | |||
2. a. Using Form ES-301-S, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number | |||
S | |||
of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:43, 14 November 2019
| ML091730126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/2009 |
| From: | NRC/RGN-II/DRS/OLB |
| To: | Southern Nuclear Operating Co |
| References | |
| 50-321/09/301, 50-366/09/301 | |
| Download: ML091730126 (86) | |
See also: IR 05000321/2009301
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. ~l OZOr9-supl -final-forms-ills doc " '"
Form ES*201*1
Facility: HATCtt Date of Examination: 4/'J.-oDQ
Developed by: Written - Facility [E( NRC D /I Operating - Facility ~ NRC D
Target Chief
Date* Task Description (Reference) Examiner's
Initials
-180 1. Examination administration date confirmed (C.1.a; C.2.a and b) 1dIJG
-120 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.e) 1l>K
-120 3. Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c)
7IifX
-120 4. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.d) '7JJC
[-90] [5. Reference material due (C.1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 3)] 1$n
{-75} 6. Integrated examination outline(s) due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-201-3,
ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-O-1's, ES-401-1/2, ES-401-3, and
ES-401-4, as applicable (C.1.e and f; C.3.d)
~
{-70} {7. Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility J:$u-
licensee (C.2.h; C.3.e)}
{-45} 8. Proposed examinations (including written, walk-through JPMs, and
scenarios, as applicable), supporting documentation (including Forms JqfrL
ES-301-3, ES-301-4, ES-301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-401-6, and any Form
ES-201-3 updates), and reference materials due (C.1.e, f, g and h; C.3.d)
-30 9. Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398's) due (C.1.1; C.2.g; 1:$J1-
ES-202)
-14 10. Final license applications due and Form ES-201-4 prepared (C.1.1; C.2.i;
ES-202) ~
-14 11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review 1$X
(C.2.h; C.3.f)
-14 12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.1.j; C.2.f and h; C.3.g) ~
-7 13. Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor
(C.2.i; C.3.h) 1$/L
-7 14. Final applications reviewed; 1 or 2 (if >1 0) 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 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2
Facility: Date of Examination:
Initials
Item Task Description
a b* C#
1.
w
a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401. 1JU- I~ ~
R
I
b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with
Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all KiA categories are appropriately sampled. fJfi( ~ ~
T
T c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics. ~ ~A IL
~ ~ ~t-
E
N d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected KiA statements are appropriate.
2. a. Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number
S
of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications,
and major transients.
N4 N-' N-I
I
M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number
U and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule
L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using
A at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated
T from the applicants' audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days.
0 To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative
c.
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
1 (2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the form
T (3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' audit test(s)
(4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified 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
,~ V
c.
(3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations
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. /11-' AI-{ N'"'/
4. a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered
in the appropriate exam sections.
If( JIll ~
I~ J1. .,-JJ<.
G
E b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.
N
E
c. Ensure that KiA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5. -/11<. ~ *v~
R d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections. 1;fK ~ ~~
A
L e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.
f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO).
"
~ WIA I' L...
I~ IJt:ljl I{~
Ia ~ print1.Name~
a. Author 1S \A..NO ALJ-Ell..() -!'& . C. 4-~
~'
b. Facility Reviewer (*)
Wt.**~:~
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) tf'l.t-D1
d. NRC Supervisor 1--tittt1
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: HATCH Date of Examination: 4-/Z0/oq
Initials
Item Task Description
a bO c#
1.
w
a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401. I,4IA Alit t.1A
R b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with
I Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all KIA categories are appropriately sampled. jll~ AlA If/.
T
T c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics. II/A Alft ;.11
~
E
N d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected KIA statements are appropriate.
",'it 'tJA
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
I
and major transients. t!1 Itt 1!4L
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
T
at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated
from the applicants' audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days. C, Ct. fMc
L~l Cl f1.t
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 altemate path, low-power, emergency, and RCA tasks meet the criteria
on the form. .[4 ct, lJl£
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 :01 C£ tit
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. l).-f
I
CL fiL~
4.
G
a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered
in the appropriate exam sections. 1ft C/. NG
E b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate. 1ft ~ fJ.~
N
E
c. Ensure that KIA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5. If.u. u fj/L
R
A
d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections. rI U 1J10
L e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage. lA ct 't,tc
f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO). f)J C? 11-1C.
Ebw~LJoJoJ-f"S p?t~Nar%iSi?!m~
a. Author
~
f)1{ -810'
flJ1~
b. Facility Reviewer (0) r:hAOiF"<' IfidMlInd /('..11bA.l1 A- of?~~.
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) '4~¥~ ( <,;'/;*-;2ffLtA.:0n 8RiLiJo Ckf;),!tU.£{l{)
d. NRC Supervisor ~tU..'{: l&Jf~U.ultl / 1lI1T1 ... , ...
r
C7
Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
° Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines
itl
Examination Outline Quality Checklist
Facility:
HATCH Date of Examination: Apr.'! ZOO9
Initials
Item Task Description
a b* 0#
1,
w
a, Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401. IIi1L ~1
R
T
I
b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with
Section D.1 of ES-401 and whether all KIA categories are appropriately sampled. n A,J
T c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics. ~ tL;i
I~
E
N d. Assess whether the jUstifications for deselected or rejected KIA statements are appropriate. I-G J
2. a. Using Form ES-301-S, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number
S
of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications,
and major transients. NIA Jjlc AltA
I
M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number
U and mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule
L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using
A at least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated
T from the applicants' audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days.
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
I (2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the form
T (3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' audit test(s)
(4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified on the form
(5) the number of alternate path, low-power, emergency, and RCA tasks meet the criteria
on the form.
b. Verify that the administrative outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-1:
(1) the tasks are distributed among the topics as specified on the form .
(2) at least one task is new or Significantly modified
(3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations
c. Determine if there are enough different outlines to test the projected number and mix
of applicants and ensure that no items are duplicated on subsequent days.
4. a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE inSights) are covered
in the appropriate exam sections.
G
E b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 5S.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.
N
c. Ensure that KIA importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5.
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). JV~ IV/A M;/f
a. Author ~~I.ANO ~ALa~'~:i9Z'Zr/hfto t-'Z'PS b. Facility Reviewer (*) c, d.
NRC Chief Examiner (#)
NRC Supervisor
£d~,>? ~ed.
1.H. ~
,1.-727.)
.* ~ :(. WlblfAdAI / A.if(
.~3f.
-.)1
~"Jfli;(fZur---
p
1:4
ftar J
Note:
.
# Independent NRC reviewer initial items in ~ "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines
,-nN\<7 ~ ~9-2.Dl-2 w~ ~ Wl{"(~ 0'!C~iN\,
()-A;\'fi ~ wtt-9 IM11'ttLLvt ~iA~.
ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3 1. Pre-Examination
.~ . ". i//(J')/J,{J'() 1
I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of '(pol ).0(' 7 ~s 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 licensee's 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) ofilJtr'l/Wo' From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.
PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE
u..... . ~~:(5/llo?
'7J~c::;z;;;jl G'/I(Jc]} (i)
~ Sj(~9_-
.rtls [eve Tor
I'
1'------ .,(.~~-r /;~~
~~~ Alf/lt'!
SHIP( S~vl.SOe
p/UJ1-.f 6I.2e...cifov-
P}4"+ D.~ra.+tJr
SHIFT /hJ4-lYI4(Q£I2-
S1 m '-' to -fo-- ,-c:cJ.,,., ,'Lien
:;<r ~~;E~;
llli72tcl
1.1U8!JZr.~ ~~
oS i V'I'I\.\..lct+or E.1'vrlt Il\Jeer
JJ in-UlA'{a.l..CcOR.. P ~A)A.lt9"
Ej(,E.Lo~ ...,tZ-C; $L--,PPcJfL1 Me;., L
sn / / vJ,1 /1 ,./'
[2.-/-07 L~ ~'1ToCi_
ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3 1. Pre-Examination
oPT 'I~/i1{)b'l
I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of o{/~ob[)e 'j 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 licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised. 2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of'-l!d.O-ljl:30!qlFrom 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 DATE N TE 1V~~ 7~*OI'T,~~ 51.;.!L
2. t;r~ I{ E::stM! frJtrjJt£~r :s. I o~ 3. 4.
'A.tv\...
[< K51lWt-l!&P
,,yokEt. ~~~ ~~
5. nA.. Do-$ 6. ATliOJ CAaipu.
~£"
'5SS
~~$4C SJ:)j~
cY5CJ~
7. ~~~~LL lVe\.J ~: C~;;:iilEf;:~~ 1O~A.m.l C. Wtl4lov"1
~"\~r'
tV.......
7~)
s\J~\{-
~uc
FT' &n'Pi'l>;:,C\lP£ 2\1 ISo ft
10".. of 0 IV.
ji
5'-11-- ~
s:./I-
5 'CR
OCr:t4'1"1-~
>t'-/o'£
1171. 'Po 'all LL.l?S $i MlH. . R-rr:? §2.= of'~ Ide I 09 12. :1.1.oI.M~ t"C,",Y :Til s-l ... ,j"... S"h{,J'i 13. &-/2 .&2'~1 OP£72A7A>>'J.!$:.. d7lrl7. 2/..?7 14 . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -------- 15 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ NOTES: ---------- ----
6A~~ ()~ J..-
Fagan. Frank N. From: steven.beck@exeloncorp.com Sent: Wednesday, May 06,200910:33 AM To: Fagan, Frank N. Subject: RE: Hatch Security Agreement I concur with the statement below: "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 04/20/09 - 04/30/09 . 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." Steve Beck Training Support Manager Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 717.456.3243
Original Message-----
From: Fagan, Frank N. [1] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:56 AM To: Beck, Steven C. : (GenCo-Nuc) Subject: Hatch Security Agreement We have recently completed our NRC exam and are having the Security Agreement signed off. Since you are off-site we can take care of this via email. Would you please read the below and, if you agree with it, indicate so in a reply email to me. The email will be attached to the security agreement and sent to the NRC for their final records. Thank you. 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 04/20/09 - 04/30/09 . 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.
This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Exelon Corporation family of Companies. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank You.
Edmund, Charlie M. From: Vaughn, Wesley [wesley.vaughn@englobal.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4: 17 PM To: Edmund, Charlie M. Subject: RE: Hatch security agreement Hi Charlie! Good to hear from you ... Yes, I agree with the NUREG paragraph. Hope all is well at Hatch ... Wes
Original Message-----
From: Edmund, CharlieM. [2] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:13 PM To: Vaughn, Wesley Cc: Fagan, Frank N. Subject: Hatch security agreement Hey Wes, Hope things are going well at your new job. We have completed the NRC Exam for HLT 4. You are on the security agreement for this exam and we need to get you signed off. Would you please read the below paragraph from NUREG 1021 ES 2-1-3 Security Agreement and, if you agree with it, indicate so in a reply email to me. The email will be attached to the security agreement and sent to the NRC for their final records. Thank you. Charlie Edmund 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 04/20/09 - 04/30/09 . From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC
1
ES-301 Administrative Topics Outline Rev 1 (FINAL) Form ES-301-1 Facility: Plant E. I. Hatch, HLT 4 Date of Examination: _4-20-2009 - Examination Level: RO SRO X Operating Test Number: _2009-301_
Administrative Topic Type Describe activity to be performed
(see Note) Code*
Verify Fuel Movements
Conduct of Operations N,R
G 2.1.35 3.9
Admin 1
Perform ECCS Status Check and determine a valve is
Conduct of Operations N,S
out of position. G 2.1.29 4.1, 4.0
Admin 2
Given a inoperable Tech Spec component, initiate a
Equipment Control N,R Admin 3 Required Action Sheet (RAS). 2.2.23,4.6 Radiation Control
N,R Given an inoperable ODCM Effluent Radiation
Admin 4
detector, determine the required actions. G 2.3.11, 4.3
Emergency Procedures/Plan
N,R Review/Authorize Emergency Exposures
Admin 5
G2.4.38, 4.4
NOTE: All items (5 total) are required for SROs. RO applicants require only 4 items unless they are
retaking only the administrative topics, when all 5 are required.
- Type Codes & Criteria: (C)ontrol room, (S)imulator, or Class(R)oom
(D)irect from bank (::; 3 for ROs; ::; 4 for SROs & RO retakes)
(N)ew or (M)odified from bank (<:: 1)
(P)revious 2 exams (::; 1; randomly selected)
ES-301 Control Roomlln-Plant Systems Outline -Rev 2 (FINAL) Form ES-301-2 Facility: HATCH Date of Examination: _4-20-2009- Exam Level: RO SRO-I X SRO-U Operating Test No.: _2009-301_
Control Room Systems@ (8 for RO); (7 for SRO-I); (2 or 3 for SRO-U, including 1 ESF)
System / JPM Title Type Code* Safety
Function
a. Perform IRM Overlap Test, AlllRMs Do Not Pass Test. (JP25038) L,D,S 215003, SF 7 b. Shutdown Cooling Isolation Failure. (JP13047) A,L,N,S 223002, SF 5 c. Diesel Generator Manual Start Surveillance (Trip Failure) A, D,S 264000, SF 6 (JP25034) d. Perform A Manual Startup Of HPCI, Controller Failure Low, A, D,S 295031, SF 2 Alternate Path (JP00502b) e. Over Ride And Open PSW Isolation Valves, (JP20003) M,S 295018, SF 8 f. Override and Open MSIVs In An Emergency (JP01414) D,S 295025, SF 3 g. Using the Override Switches, Vent the Torus With the CAD A,M,S 295038, SF 9 System, (JP01363) In-Plant Systems@ (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-I); (3 or 2 for SRO-U) i. Inject SBLC Locally (JP01112) A,E,M,R 295037, SF1 Modified with failure of the "A" pump to start requiring start of the "B" pump. j. From the Remote Shutdown Panel, Start RHR in Torus Cooling D,'E,R 295013, SF 5 (JPOO720) k. Transfer 600 VAC Essential (LPCI Bus) From Normal To Alternate D,R 203000, SF 4 (JP02718)
All RO and SRO-I control room (and in-plant) systems must be different and serve different
safety functions; all 5 SRO-U systems must serve different safety functions; in-plant systems
and functions may overlap those tested in the control room.
* Type Codes Criteria for RO / SRO-I / SRO-U
(A)lternate path 4-6/4-6/2-3 (C)ontrol room (D)irect from bank $9/$8/$4 (E)mergency or abnormal in-plant ;:::1/;:::1/;:::1 (EN)gineered safety feature - / - / ;:::1 (control room (L)ow-Power / Shutdown system) (N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1(A)* ;:::1/;:::1/;:::1 (P)revious 2 exams ;:::2/;:::2/;:::1 (R)CA $ 3/ $ 3 / $ 2 (randomly (S)imulator selected)
;:::1/;:::1/;:::1
ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3
Facility: fI-~ TfL- h all,;20/.2tb5Date of Examination: ;J. ott:) 'l- $01 Operating Test Number:
Initials
1. General Criteria
a b* c#
a. The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with
sampling requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 55.45, operational importance, safety function distribution).
b. There is no day-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered
during this examination.
c. The operating test shall not duplicate items from the applicants' audit test(s). (see Section D.1.a.)
d. Overlap with the written examination and between different parts of the operating test is within
acceptable limits.
e. It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent
applicants at the designated license level.
2. Walk-Through Criteria
a. Each JPM includes the following, as applicable:
* initial conditions
* initiating cues
* references and tools, including associated procedures
* reasonable and validated time limits (average time allowed for completion) and specific
designation if deemed to be time-critical by the facility licensee
* operationally important specific performance criteria that include:
- detailed expected actions with exact criteria and nomenclature
- system response and other examiner cues
- statements describing important observations to be made by the applicant
- criteria for successful completion of the task
- identification of critical steps and their associated performance standards
- restrictions on the sequence of steps, if applicable
b. Ensure that any changes from the previously approved systems and administrative walk-through
outlines (Forms ES-301-1 and 2) have not caused the test to deviate from any of the acceptance
criteria (e.g., item distribution, bank use, repetition from the last 2 NRC examinations) specified '.... ,6 /?,tf .iflAf
on those forms and Form ES-201-2. :W t..t/ f7n-
3. Simulator Criteria
The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with
Form ES-301-4 and a copy is attached.
a. Author
b. Facility Reviewer(*)
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)
d. NRC Supervisor
-.
NOTE: * The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.
# Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column "c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4
Facilty: JJ If Te- h Date of Exam:'i I :2~6ln~~;tNumbers: J/2J :3 Operating Test No.: .j()eCj- 3c:> I
QUALITATIVE A TIRIBUTES Initials
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. W~ ce., ~
2. The scenarios consist mostly of related events. f/J,~ ~ 1hfl,
3. Each event description consists of
* the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated
* the malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event
* the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew
* the expected operator actions (by shift position)
* the event termination point (if applicable) 1[4 ct: ~
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. ItlJ CC 1W-
5. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics. IrA Crt. 11IL
I~
6. Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain
complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives. ~ .Pof!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. IttJ Ct! 1JIl
S. The simulator modeling is not altered. 11J.-J ~ ~
9. The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator
itJ, ct
performance deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated
to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios. U
10. Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario.
All other scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section 0.5 of ES-301. fJ.l CC 1)1(.,
11. All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6
(submit the form along with the simulator scenarios). .zN. CC- ~
12.
13.
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).
The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position.
il(J.. I~
~~ ~
~
Fl I 1'"Z- 11'- ~
Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d) Actual Attribute -- -- --
1. Total malfunctions (5-S) ~ /6 / 5 {,f) u:. ~
2. Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2) 2. / Z/ I IJ C/.. 1/JJ(
3. Abnormal events (2-4) '3 / '2.../ :3 [fJ M 111<..
4. Major transients (1-2) I / Z./ I (JJ t-t'.. ~
5. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (1-2) d. /I / I ltt. u ~
6. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) I / Z/ t ltJ tt!- ~
7. Critical tasks (2-3) :3 /:3 / .2 W c.c, 11IL
ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4
iJJ()/:;'()(J~ Date of Exam: Scenario Numbers:l-// / Operating Test No.: ).oD9 - 31) I
QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials
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.
3.
The scenarios consist mostly of related events.
Each event description consists of
,
* the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated
* the malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event
* the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew
* the expected operator actions (by shift position)
* the event termination point (if applicable)
4. No more than one non-mechanistic failure (e.g., pipe break) is incorporated into the scenario
without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event.
5. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.
6. Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain
complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives.
7. If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary clearly so indicates.
Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints.
Cues are given.
8. The simulator modeling is not altered.
9. The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator
performance deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated
to ensure that functional fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios.
I
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. (jJ
11. All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6
(submit the form along with the simulator scenarios).
12. Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events
specified on Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios).
13. The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position.
Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.S.d) I 'f; Actual Attributes
1. Total malfunctions (5-8) 6 / /
2. Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2) 2- / /
3. Abnormal events (2-4) ;3 / / tt .ct
4. Major transients (1-2) t / /
5. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (1-2) 2- / /
6. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) 0 / /
7. Critical tasks (2-3) 3 / /
(
ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: HATCH Date of Exam: 4/20/09 Operating Test No.: 2009-301
A E Scenarios
P V 1 2 3 4 T M
P E 0 I
L N CREW CREW CREW CREW T N
I T POSITION POSITION POSITION POSITION A
I
M
C S A B S A B S A B S A B L U
A T R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 M(*)
0 C P 0 C P O' C P 0 C P
N Y R I U
T P
E
RO RX 3 1 2 1 0 D NOR 0 1 1
SRO-I
IIC 1,4 2 2,3,4 5 4 2
SRO-U MAJ 5 6 2 2 1 D TS 3,4 2 0 2 RO RX 1 1 0 D SRO-I
NOR 1 1 1
D SRO-U
IIC 4 4 2
MAJ 2 2 1
D TS 0 2 2 RO RX 3 1 2 1 0 D NOR 0 1 1
SRO-I
I/C 1,2,4 2,4 3 5 4 2
SRO-U MAJ 5 6 2 2 1 D TS 1,2 2 0 2 RO RX 1 1 0 D SRO-I
NOR 1 1 1
D SRO-U
I/C 4 4 2
MAJ 2 2 1
D TS 0 2 2 Instructions: 1. Check the applicant level and enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-1 event numbers for each
event type; TS are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must serve in both the "at-the-controls (ATC)"
and "balance-of-plant (BOP)" positions; Instant SROs must serve in both the SRO and the ATC positions,
including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunctions and one major transient, in the ATC
position. If an Instant SRO additionally serves in the BOP position, one I/C malfunction can be credited
toward the two I/C malfunctions required for the ATC position.
2. Reactivity manipulations may be conducted under normal or controlled abnormal conditions (refer to
Section D.5.d) but must be significant per Section C.2.a of Appendix D. (*) Reactivity and normal
evolutions may be replaced with additional instrument or component malfunctions on a 1-for-1 basis.
3. Whenever practical, both instrument and component malfunctions should be included; only those
that require verifiable actions that provide insight to the applicant's competence count toward the minimum
requirements specified for the applicant's license level in the right-hand columns.
ES*301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES*301*5 Facility: HATCH Date of Exam: 4/20/09 Operating Test No.: 2009-301
A E Scenarios
P V 1 2 (spare) 3 4 T M
P E 0 I
L N CREW CREW CREW CREW T N
I T POSITION POSITION POSITION POSITION A
I
M
C S A B S A B S A B S A B L U
A T R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 M(*)
N Y 0 C P 0 C P 0 C P 0 C P
R I U
T P
E
RO RX 3 1 1 0 D NOR 0 1 1
SRO-I
I/C 1,2 4 2 4 2
SRO-U MAJ 5 1 2 1 D TS 0 0 2 RO RX 1 1 0 D SRO-I
NOR 1 1 1
I/C
D SRO-U
4 4 2
MAJ 2 2 1
D
11=
TS 0 2 2
RO RX 3 1 D NOR 0 1 1
SRO-I
I/C 1,2,4 3 4 2
SRO-U MAJ 5 1 2 I;,~ ~. 1 D TS 2,4 2 0 I~ ;:' 2 RO RX 1 1 0 D SRO-I
NOR 1 1 1
D SRO-U
IIC 4 4 2
MAJ 2 2 1
D TS 0 2 2 Instructions: 3. Check the applicant level and enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-1 event numbers for each
event type; TS are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must serve in both the "at-the-controls (ATC)"
and "balance-of-plant (BOP)" positions; Instant SROs must serve in both the SRO and the ATC positions,
including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunctions and one major transient, in the ATC
position. If an Instant SRO additionally serves in the BOP position, one I/C malfunction can be credited
toward the two I/C malfunctions required for the ATC position.
4. 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 applicant's competence count toward the minimum
requirements specified for the applicant's license level in the right-hand columns.
ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6
Facility: Hatch Date of Examination: 4/20/09 Operating Test No.: 2009-301
APPLICANTS
D D D D
*
RO
*
RO RO RO
SRO-I SRO-I D SRO-I SRO-I D
SRO-U D SRO-U D SRO-U D SRO-U D
Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
RO SRO SRO RO
Interpret/Diagnose 1,4 1,2, 2,3, 2,4
Events and Conditions 4 4
Comply With and 3,5 6 6,7 6
Use Procedures (1)
Operate Control 3,6 1,6
Boards (2) ,8
Communicate all all all all
and Interact
Demonstrate all all
Supervisory Ability (3)
Comply With and 1,2 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
Facility: Hatch Date of Examination: 4/20/09 Operating Test No.: 2009*301
APPLICANTS
(SPARE)
D D D D
* *
RO RO RO RO
SRO-I SRO-I D SRO-I SRO-I D
SRO-U D SRO-U D SRO-U D SRO-U D
Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
RO SRO
InterpretiDiag nose 1,2 1,2
Events and Conditions
Comply With and 3, 5,7
Use Procedures (1)
Operate Control 1,2,
3,6,
Boards (2)
7
Communicate all all
and Interact
Demonstrate all
Supervisory Ability (3)
Comply With and 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 1 Rev. 9 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401*1
Facility: HA'TC-H Date of Exam: APRJL 2009
RO KIA Category Points SRO-Only Points
Tier Group
K K K K K K A A A A G A2 G* Total
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 * Total
1. 1 4 3 2 4 3 4 20 3 4 7
Emergency & 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 2 3
2
Abnormal Plant N/A N/A
Evolutions Tier Totals 5 4 3 5 4 6 27 4 6 10
1 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 26 2 3 5
2.
Plant
2 1
3
1
3
1
3
1
5
2
4 3
1 1
3
1
3
1
3
1
4
1
4
12
38
0
13
1 2
5
3
8
Systems Tier Totals
3. Generic Knowledge and Abilities 1 2 3 4 10 1 2 3 4 7
Categories 2
3 3 2 1 2 2 2
1. Ensure that at least two topics from every applicable KIA category are sampled within each tier of the RO
and SRO-only outlines (Le., exceptfor one category in Tier 3 of the SRO-only outline, the ATler Totals@
in each KIA 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 \11 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 that are
not included on the outline should be added. Refer to ES-401, Attachment 2, for guidance regarding
the elimination of inappropriate KIA 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 KIAs 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 1 and 2 from the shaded systems and KIA categories.
7. *The generic (G) KIAs in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the KIA Catalog, but the topics
must be relevant to the applicable evolution or system.
8. On the following pages, enter the KIA 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 KIA catalog, and enter the KIA numbers, descriptions, IRs,
. and point totals (#) on Form ES-401-3. limit SRO selections to KIAs that are linked to 10 CFR 55.43 .
-
ES-401 Record of Rejected K/As Form ES-401-4
Tier / Randomly Reason for Rejection
Group Selected KIA
III (RO) 295027EK2.02 Hatch does not have Mark 3 containment; randomly re-selected
295026EK2.01
III (RO) 295025 G2.1.27 Generic statement did not match high reactor pressure; randomly re-
selected G2.1.23
211 (RO) 203000G2.4.41 Generic statement did not match RHRILPCI Injection Mode for RO
knowledge; randomly re-selected G2.4.8
211 (RO) 207000K5.02 Hatch does not have an Isolation Condenser; randomly re-selected
264000K5.06
211 (RO) 209002K6.02 Hatch does not have High Pressure Core Spray; randomly re-
selected 206000K6.02
211 (RO) 223002K3.13 Hatch does not have an Isolation Condenser: randomly re-selected
223002K3.11
211 (RO) 259002A4.05 Hatch does not have run out flow reset controls; randomly re-
selected 259002A4.01
212 (RO) 201004K4.02 Hatch does not have rod sequence control system (RSCS) any
longer; randomly res elected 201001K5.02
112 (SRO) 295011AA2.01 Hatch does not have a Mark 3 containment; randomly re-selected
295017AA2.01
211 (SRO) 262002A2.04 Hatch is a BWR 4 (vs BWR 1); randomly reselected 262002A2.01
After 3/25/09 in-office visit wi Hatch:
211 (RO) 262002A3.01 This KIA will be double jeopardy for SRO Q#80 (262002A2.01);
consequently replaced KIA wi 262002 K3.01 [None of the
remaining abilities would work for the same reason or they were not
applicable at Hatch] Sample Plan Tier totals still meet ES-40 1-1
requirements, i.e., at least 2 in each category.
3/3 (RO) G2.3.7 Cannot write a discriminating question for Radiation Work Permit
topic; replaced wi randomly selected G2.3.13
211 (SRO) 300000 A2.01 Cannot write a discriminating question at the SRO level for
instrument air filter malfunctions; replaced wi randomly selected
223002 A2.06
ES*401 2 Form ES*401*1
ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1
Emeroency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 1 (RO I SRO)
E/APE # I Name I Safety Function K K K A A G KIA Topic(s) IR #
1 2 3 1 2
295001 Partial or Complete Loss of Forced
~ z..q5 b Ol "v:..2.A)3 kJ.G
Core Flow Circulation I 1 & 4
R
g '2.9?1)03 .6; Z *4-. 34- f.4.2
295003 Partial or Complete Loss of AC / 6 II?-
295004 Partial or Total Loss of DC Pwr / 6 R R2Q$o04 AA 1. 0 3 (I:, .f
295005 Main Turbine Generator Trip / 3 R K z.q S"05AK3,Dif f..!l.J.
S p.. 2.'HiGt>" It. KI.Ot S2Q'SC()(..G,2.1 *;17 R3.7 s4.0
295006 SCRAM 11 /l..
f? Z"'f$O,(,..AI\2-.01 ~.I
295016 Control Room Abandonment I 7 If?
R Z't~t>l8 A1C.3.03 ~3.1
295018 Partial or Total Loss of CCW / 8 P...
295019 Partial or Total Loss of Inst. Air 18 g <<.. 2.,5 o,~ A.A2.. O~ 11:.3."
295021 Loss of Shutdown Coolina / 4
-;:; R it. ~q SO;t I ~ :2 A"I 35,.. S2PJ$bZ/ AA 2. 0$ ~3.t $~S
295023 Refueling Acc I 8 <<. S f2.. 'l."JS 0 23. A,A.I, O't, 5~5t>2.3~ 2.+. .g- ~3"" 54-. "3
R 2~ 5 D;l.4- 1; "'2.0b ~+'I
295024 High Drywell Pressure / 5 :R.
295025 High Reactor Pressure / 3 P. r2.. 'l-~soQ S ~ 2. I. 23 ~4<;
S1.'1SDZbA1.b> 53,C)
295026 Suppression Pool High Water J< C; ~3,~
Temp. I 5 R. '2 CJ502" r; K l. D/
~~- T'. ~
295028 High Drywell Temperature /5 R .> , ~2"~O2.~ fA L v:? j SZP)5o'Z'UE A 2. O,!- 123., S4-.2
295030 Low Suppression Pool Wtr Lvl/5 ~ R7.Q Sl)30 Ke: I. 02- R~.s
295031 Reactor Low Water Levell 2 R. RZ'1.$03lfAI. 01, R~4-
R3.h
295037 SCRAM Condition Present ~l~$f)3'7 E'K2. 12.
and Reactor Power Above APRM
Downscale or Unknown 11
R
S RJ,q?03<6 .(:;.1(1.02. ~ S Z5035f~2.4.? M.2 $4,2-
295038 High Off-site Release Rate I 9 ~
fJ.. S R(,"O"ooA~1.0( ) 5 C()OCis 2.4.4-9 p.$' >4.4
600000 Plant Fire On Site I 8
<<.7bOf)()f>G;1.4-A- P4.;;
700000 Generator Voltage and Electric Grid
Disturbances I 6
R
KIA Cateoorv Totals: 14 3 ~ 4- '3 4- Group Point Total: ;xo/ 2017
31 7
ES-401 3 Form ES-401-1
I ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1
EmerQencv and AbnollTlal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/GrouD 2 fRO I SRO)
E/APE # I Name I Safety Function K K K A A G KIA Topic(s) IR #
1 2 3 1 2
295002 Loss of Main Condenser Vac I 3
295007 Hioh Reactor Pressure I 3
295008 Hioh Reactor Water Levell 2 $ s2t}?ooMi2.4.2.0 54,3
295009 Low Reactor Water Levell 2
295010 HiQh Drywell Pressure 15 R P. 1..t1150 ! t):; 1 . 2. *2..2- 14*0
295011 Hioh Containment Temp 15
295012 HiQh Drywell Temperature 1 5
P. '}!1 SO/3AK. 2.01 fS.("
295013 HiQh Suppression Pool Temp. 1 5 IZ
295014 Inadvertent Reactivitv Addition 11
:; 51-'1~{)11C;2. Z. 4-0 S4-.7
295015 Incomplete SCRAM 11 R Az, 5D(S ~ 1,2.4-2- f3,c)
:5 2-Q501'7AA2. o 1
- 5
295017 Hioh Off-site Release Rate I 9 51,2.
R33
295020 Inadvertent Cont. Isolation I 5 & 7 ;< ~2'5f>2.f)AK (.Os;
295022 Loss of CRD Pumps 11
295029 HiQh Suppression Pool Wtr Lvii 5
295032 High Secondary Containment
<<2. '7S 032. f.Aj .1>3- 'R3.1
Area Temperature 1 5 R
295033 High Secondary Containment
Area Radiation Levels 1 9
295034 Secondary Containment
Ventilation Hioh Radiation 1 9
i<'2..C}503 5 E A2 .02. R2.'t
295035 Secondary Containment High ,...
Differential Pressure I 5
295036 Secondary Containment High
SumplArea Water Levell 5
R'5oopfJO £1<3.0(0 IR3-j
500000 HighCTMT HydroQen Conc. 1 5 If),
KIA Category Point Totals: \ I I ! I J. Group Point Total: 7/ 7/3-
l(;l 3
ES-401 4 Form ES-401-1
ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1
Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 1 (RO / SRO)
System # / Name K K K K K K A A A A G KIA Topic(s) IR #
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
R 2 O~t>OOG, 2, 't,g A!3,&
203000 RHRlLPCI: Injection R
Mode
<<:2-05oooK;;' . .01 1/<3. I
205000 Shutdown Coaling R
206000 HPCI R. R P, lPfJ? c¥;t) /<5. b't / R. Z Dhf>>DK.0. D2 lR$:~
*'
1<3.
z.e.:ffiOO IsgtatioR (~fMl'geIIC1i
Condenser
~~?F
11<:20~OOIA4,04-/
I~
R209oc> (A4-.DS
209001 LPCS
28SeS2! ~~(;,;g
iR 1/1 OlJo)l..4,o'3 ~3.E'
211000 SLC IR-
212000 RPS << 5 I~ 212 0.,.011"/,01, ~212oDOt::;Z,2.3C. 1R34 <;;4.2..
/2, R 2IGO.o3AI,os ~3.b
2150031RM
<<,21~(">'f- K {g, or V<3,2
215004 Source Range Monitor R.
215005 APRM / LPRM I~' R.1./5bDSt;2,/.ZD; /:?:;.iSOO?G! 2. .4,1/ R4.f.o
R4,()
f< 2.1'7{)C1ol<;;} ,03 lRZ/7
217000 RCIC rz
~ZI'6~(>I<I,ob It?')
218000 ADS fI,.
R. 1.1. 3 DoZ Kg.II I~;(,lt
223002 PC IS/Nuclear Steam
Supply Shutoff
R
:; K'2-~"'~i'2-A3.0 I; 5'2'?-'100 2G.. 2. 4-.1/? R3,/': t;.4.D
239002 SRVs t<
A2'7?oo;l.A 4-.t){ / S2-S".:t>Z.~2, 4, 20 RJ.8' <;4,?,
259002 Reactor Water Level f<- ~
Control
R. 2f>1l)()O A'2 1/2 ~3.2
261000 SGTS K
~
R. "U'2 ()Ol )(<(.02 f?2.~
262001 AC Electrical
Distribution R, 1"201)/ K4.0S' !Z3*1
A3.(1) 52J,2""2 A2.l>{ R2.~ Q,g
5: rz (? 2(/2-002
* 262002 UPS (AC/DC)
263000 DC Electrical
Distribution
R R
I(
<<.2h3()t)oA2.0Z
(<.:Zb4- (>(,IC> J< 4-.01-J R.?bf.a>D 1<5".()b
r<2.b
G'/.
- ' R.3.4
264000 EDGs
300000 Instrument Air IZ S R '3 {)() {)()() J< I, 031 s: ?06 o(;>oJr2 * t> I P,2,8 £2,8,
400000 Component Cooling IZ
R. 4oIJooo 1<3. 01 Rz*9
Water
KIA Category Point Totals: OZ J. J.. 4 ~ c< ;;Z ~ ~ g 3 Group Point Total: ')fc/ 26/5
5
ES*401 5 Form ES-401*1
ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1
Plant Systems - Tier 21Group 2 (RO / SRO)
System # / Name K K K K K K A A A A G KJA Topic(s) IR #
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
g 1~'2.0/~1 )<5.02 1I'\2.{,
- 201001 CRD Hvdraulic
201002 RMCS
201003 Control Rod and Drive
Mechanism
~IOOZlftS9S _
201005 RCIS
201006 RWM
202001 Recirculation R 1<:1..020011<9-. or] IR2..~
202002 Recirculation Flow Control
204000 RWCU R f?, 204-0l7t> fl4-.1>'} 1<,2.,
214000 RPIS
215001 Traversing In-core Probe lIZ r<;Z 100'" A::;:,03 F?2S
215002 RBM !<. 1<.2/5' t't>2./<(' ,(.)Lf 1'<2,g
216000 Nuclear Boiler Inst.
219000 RHRlLPCI: Torus/Pool Cooling
Mode
RZ.Z3!H)f 1<3,0'1 /l.2,8
223001 Primary CTMT and Aux. IZ
Ii. 2Zfc, OO( .t:2.,o2. /l.2.<)
226001 RHRlLPCI: CTMT Spray Mode ~
230000 RHRlLPCI: Torus/Pool Spray
Mode
233000 Fuel Pool Cooling/Cleanup ,~ I ~Z.;;'OO.::>Ui 2.2. -z..r; 5 2gd~/. U t:?S.2 G4. J
234000 Fuel Handlina Equipment
e.. R. 2. ?Fj ()()/ Kt;. 09 11.'3.4-
239001 Main and Reheat Steam
239003 MSIV Leakaqe Control
R. Z.41 We> J( I. 1-.<;;"' I?Z,g
241000 ReactorlTurbine Pressure
ReQulator
R
245000 Main Turbine Gen. / Aux.
256000 Reactor Condensate
259001 Reactor Feedwater
268000 Radwaste I( 5 fal?SPPe>/t2.0/, 2bgoooG,1.4.2/ Ie 2..) S4.h
271000 OffQas
272000 Radiation Monitoring
286000 Fire Protection r< R. 28't9t>o A I. t> { h.~
288000 Plant Ventilation
290001 Secondary CTMT :; :;; 2. 0; O()l?/ A 2.04- <;3.'7
290003 Control Room HVAC
290002 Reactor Vessel Internals
KIA CateQory Point Totals: I ( 1 I :J..( f 1 I I J GrouP Point Total: I;), / 12/3
3
ES*401 Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3) Form ES*401*3
Facility: HATCH Date of Exam: APvll 200fj
Category KJA# Topic RO SRO-Onl'l'
IR # IR #
2.1.;}.7 ~V 5" I
1.
2.1.3( 1<.0 4,b I
Conduct 2.1. g-, Ro "3,b I
of Operations
2.1.Z0 SRa 4,G I
2.1.
2.1.
Subtotal
2.2. /'5" Rv 3.9 I
2.2. 2 5 t<D ~/2 I
2. 2.2. -3q A.t) 3,51 I
Equipment
Control 2.2. / I SRo 3,3 I
2.2.7 SI<.V 3,b I
2.2.
Subtotal
2.3./f 1<:0 3,1- I
3.
Radiation
Control
* 2.3.7
2.3.1/
2.3.5
P,D
Sko
SRo
3.S- I
4-.3
2, '1 t
I
2.3.
2.3.
Subtotal ~ ....
2.4. I I!..o 4,(. I
4. 2.4.9 !<o 3,e I
Emergency 2.4.22- 5>/2-0 4,4- J
Procedures I <;;fLo
Plan 2.4.30 4-, I /
2.4.
2.4.
Subtotal
Tier 3 Point Total 10 7
ES-401 Record of Rejected K1As Form ES-401-4
Tier / Randomly Reason for Rejection
Group Selected KIA
111 (RO) 295027EK2.02 Hatch does not have Mark 3 containment; randomly re-selected
295026EK2.01
111 (RO) 295025 G2.1.27 Generic statement did not match high reactor pressure; randomly re-
selected G2.1.23
211 (RO) 203000G2.4.41 Generic statement did not match RHRILPCI Injection Mode for RO
knowledge; randomly re-selected G2.4.8
211 (RO) 207000K5.02 Hatch does not have an Isolation Condenser; randomly re-selected
264000K5.06
211 (RO) 209002K6.02 Hatch does not have High Pressure Core Spray; randomly re-
selected 206000K6.02
211 (RO) 223002K3.13 Hatch does not have an Isolation Condenser: randomly re-selected
223002K3.11
211 (RO) 259002A4.05 Hatch does not have run out flow reset controls; randomly re-
selected 259002A4.0 1
2/2 (RO) 201004K4.02 Hatch does not have rod sequence control system (RSCS) any
longer; randomly reselected 201001K5.02
112 (SRO) 295011AA2.01 Hatch does not have a Mark 3 containment; randomly re-selected
295017 AA2.01
2 II (SRO) 262002A2.04 Hatch is a BWR 4 (vs BWR 1); randomly reselected 262002A2.01
After 3/25109 in-office visit wi Hatch:
211 (RO) 262002A3.01 This KIA will be double jeopardy for SRO Q#80 (262002A2.01);
consequently replaced KIA wi 262002 K3.01 [None ofthe
remaining abilities would work for the same reason or they were not
applicable at Hatch] Sample Plan Tier totals still meet ES-40 1-1
requirements, i.e., at least 2 in each category.
3/3 (RO) G2.3.7 Cannot write a discriminating question for Radiation Work Permit
topic; replaced wi randomly selected G2.3.13
2/1 (SRO) 300000 A2.01 Cannot write a discriminating question at the SRO level for
instrument air filter malfunctions; replaced wi randomly selected
223002 A2.06
(
ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6
Facility: rt..~'f"" ~.r.. ttA1"t.\o\ Date of Exam: "., f3o/I."'" Exam Level: RO ~RO:i
Initial
Item Description a b* c*
1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility.
2. a. NRC KJAs 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 indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:
_ the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or
_ the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or
_ the examinations were developed independently: or
.0he licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or
_ other (explain)
6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent Bank Modified New
from the bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest
new or modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only
question distribution(s) alright.
7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO Memory CIA
exam are written at the comprehension/ analysis level:
the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent ifthe randomly
selected KJAs support the higher cognitive levels: enter
the actual RO / SRO question distribution(s) at right.
4'J" I g '0 ;-7'. / 12 't
8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers
or aid in the elimination of distractors.
9. Question content conforms with specific KJA 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 Quidelines 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.
Date
a. Author
b. Facility Reviewer (*) i.jtl~" IGo; t=-1 ~ 1.J11Aj/RAA'~1"'" f7~ .D
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) 9.fiLLtJ.O CASA UtuU / ~. ( VGYfb /lb
tv\~ll.13A~ fORtrM.tw4NtJ./ rt'L.h(j, 1 ,~
d. NRC Regional Supervisor
-
Note: * The facility reviewer's initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.
# Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column 'c"; chief examiner concurrence required.
N-I ~fJ.c, &el{~ ~tt~lt p~ ~~ provrvted-tt> lt~u\'s:ee..
\V\, ZOt> g.
ES-401, Page 29 of 33
ES-401 Hatch Spring 2009 Written Examination (Review of DRAFT) Worksheet Form ES-401-9
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EiS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
GEN 3 8 7 3 6 RO Exam Review Summary: 13 Sat items; 5 items Enhancement
Suggestions; W 43 "Req'd" Enhancement Items; 2714 UNSAT
items (36%) [breakdown of reasons to the left]
GEN 1 2 1 2 6 SRO Exam Review Summary: 1 Sat item; 1 item Enhancement
Suggestion; ++ 17 "Req'd" Enhancement Items; +a 6 UNSAT items
(48%) [breakdown of reasons to the left]
GEN 32143 Review of RO Higher Order Items: 43/75 = 57.3% GEN Several cases of when the use of fill-in-the-blank statement(s) made
the questions less precise and/or too long. (Q# 22, 25, 28, 55, 60,
66)
GEN Several questions have potential overlap issues with other test
questions (43/53, 47/61, 75/87). Questions with very close KlAs or
topics should be justified in the remarks section for the questions.
GEN It's okay to limit the written questions to the current Recirc MG set
configuration even though the simulator may reflect the next version
(Variable Frequency Drives). The applicants have been trained on
both versions and could be tested on the new version during the
operating exam if the licensee implements the mod. If the mod is
not implemented, then the licensee will provide "gap" training before
the mod is implemented in the actual plant.
GEN [Jan 09] Initial DRAFT validation (5 SROs + 3 ROs) indicated 4 to 5
hours to complete and scores ranging from 56 (SRO exam) to 84.
GEN For regional consistency, put all references that will be distributed to
the applicants in one handout package. Remove the graphs from
the stem of the questions.
Instructions
[Refer to Section 0 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 (LOO) 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 (Le., 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 (Le., the question has a valid KIA 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 (Le., 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 KIA and those that are designated SRO-only (KIA and license level mismatches are unacceptable). 6. Enter question source: (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew. Check that (M)odified questions meet criteria of ES-401 Section O.2.f. 7. Based on the reviewer's judgment, is the question as written (U)nsatisfactory (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactory? 8. At a minimum, explain any "u" ratings (e.g., how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met).
ES-401 2 Form ES-401-9
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws S. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-S) Stem Cues TIF Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
1 H 2 x x N y 201001 KS.02
e 1. Cred Dist: The 1st part of "C" and "D" (lower than normal) is not
plausible because the 2 nd part of these choices [excessive
S cooldown and pump runout, respectively] aren't potential
implications of lower than normal flow indication. For example,
high CRD temperature may be a potential implication of a
lower than normal CRD flow condition.
2. Cues: The phrase in the first sentence [" .... in which the CRD
pump remains running ... "] is not necessary because the CRD
pump would normally stay running following a scram. The
applicant should assume that the plant equipment performs as
designed. This phrase could cue an operator applicant who
thinks that the pump normally trips. (thus making "c" and "d"
less plausible.)
3. Cues: The word "SIGNIFICANTLY" in the stem is not
necessary to elicit the required response and can potentially
cue an operator that "A" and "B" are correct because they each
contain a synonymous word, i.e., "EXCESSIVE."
4. 04/24/09: Changes incorporated; question now includes two
figures to choose from for CRD flow indication. Question is SAT
2 H 2 N e 202001 K4.07
S 1. Because the last choice "D" is not counterbalanced [NUREG
1021, Appendix B, Section C.2.f], then an applicant who does
not know the MG set trips may not pick "D" because it does not
look like the other choices. Options are to make another choice
into two sentences OR make "D" say ONLY the 1A Reactor
Recirc pump will trip.
2. Be consistent on use of capital letters. 1st bullet in stem uses
lower case letters whereas choices all have upper case.
Consider eliminating the word "reactor"
3. 4/24/09: Changes incorporated; Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO BIMIN U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
3 H 2 x N IJ 203000 G2.4.8
S 1. Partial: "D" can potentially be argued as correct because the
word "required" could be interpreted to mean that not all ECCS
pumps are necessary to reverse the lowering level trend.
2. Partial: "A" can potentially be argued as correct because the
following is a TRUE statement: "lAW 34AB-R23-001-2, "Loss of
600 Volt Emergency Bus", energizing 600 VAC bus "2C" using
the 4160/600V "2CD" Transformer is NOT allowed until the
reactor is in Mode 4. ~- True statement.
Suggest the followirig:
'WOOTF completes the following statement?"
In accordance with CP-1 (Alternate Level Control, Steam
Cooling, and Emergency Depressurization) and 34AB-R23-001-
2 (Loss of 600 Volt Emergency Bus), ....the operator
__ (1 )_ _ to use the "2CD" transformer and LPCI injection
and DW Spray flow (2) _ _ used concurrently.
a. is permitted; may be
b. is permitted; may NOT be
c. is NOT permitted; may be
d. is NOT permitted; may NOT be
3. 01-9-09: Licensee pointed out that since the injection valve
power supplies are affected in this question that the "D" choice
could not be argued as correct. Also, Comment #2 is easily
corrected by using a phrase "given these plant conditions."
Changed "A" & "B" to "NOT"; "C" & "D" changed to "allowed
when discharge pressure lowers."
4. 4/24/09: Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
4 14 2 x N 204000 A4.09
S 1. Cues: The second sentence in the stem contains a cue, i.e.,
i parenthesis phrase ("Blowdown mode to the Main Condenser").
An applicant may not know the RWCU alignment for vessel level
control and this information is not required to elicit the correct
response.
2. To prevent subset issues, refine the choices to clarify ONLY and
also to eliminate the reasons:
a. ONLY at the 2H 11-P602 panel; OPEN
b. ONLY at the 2H11-P602 panel; CLOSED
c. At the 2-H11-P602 AND 2-H11-P614 panels; OPEN
d. At the 2-H11-P602 and 2-H11-P614 panels; CLOSED
3. 4/24/09: Comments incorporated; Question is SAT
x M 205000 K2.01
5 IT 2
S 1. Change the stem question to read "WOOTF predicts the status
of the RHR Pumps?
2. Consider streamlining "A" and "D" to read BOTH pumps remain
running (BOTH pumps have tripped).
3. Job-Link: Is it normal to have 2 loops running in SDC'g?
Discuss wi licensee.
4. According to licensee, procedure allows two 100f.s running in
SDC'g, e.g., when swapping loops. [Placing 2" Loop of SDC'g
In Service W Unit in CSD or Refuel, Parallel SDC'g loop
operation: 34S0-E11-010, Section 7.4.4.]
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
6 H 2 x x N e 206000 K5.08
S 1. Partial: An applicant may argue that there is no correct answer
because the phrase "discharge directly to the suppression
chamber air space" could be interpreted to mean that the main
flowpath for the HPCI steam exhaust will be limited to the torus
airspace (not true, even though this is the first part of the correct
answer "B"). The HPCI steam exhaust would be partially
discharging to the airspace.
2. Cue: The applicant is allowed to ask for noun name of a valve
(Le.,2E41-F104). The noun name of this valve would
potentially give away the answer since it is the only choice with
this.
Suggest re-wording the question as follows:
"WOOTF identifies the potential impact of these check valve
failures during a subsequent HPCI auto-initiation on low reactor
water level, including the control room indications for these
check valves?"
a. water hammer in the HPCI steam exhaust line; these
check valves have no control room indication
b. high torus pressure; these check valves have position
indication available in the main control room.
C. Water hammer in the HPCI steam exhaust line: these
check valves have position indication available in the main
control room.
d. High torus pressure; these check valves have no control
room indication.
3. 4/24/09: Comments incorporated; Question is SAT
7 H 2 N S 206000 K6.02 8 i 2 N S 209001 A4.04
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN UlEtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
9 H 2 x x N e 209001 A4.05
S 1. Cues: The stem question contains the phrase "lAW 30AC-OPS-
003-0, Plant Operations." This phrase can cue an applicant
(who doesn't know the auto-initiation setpoint) that either 1) the
setpoint must be quickly approaching and conservative decision
making to manually start the pumps is prudent OR 2) the auto-
start may not have occurred.
2. Note: The question stem contains 30AC-OPS-003-0 however;
the question references section in LXR has NMP-OS-007. Are
there two different procedures with the same requirement?
3. Cred Dist: LXR plausibility explanation states that procedure
auto-start setpoint is -101" whereas TS setpoint is -113". What
does "procedure auto-start setpoinf' mean?
4. 04/24/09: Comment #1 incorporated. Question is SAT
x N tJ 211000 K4.03
10 ~ 1 x
S 1. Partial: The first fill-in-the-blank statement asks for the "primary"
means of ensuring that boron remains in solution. The word
"primary" is undefined. During normal operation the air sparger
is used prior to taking samples. The air sparger can potentially
be argued as a "primary" means to ensuring boron remains in
solution.
2. Stem Focus: The 2nd fill-in-the-blank statement is worded in a
way that suggests that the tank heaters ensure the reactor will
remain in hot shutdown irrespective of control rod position. [The
32% level ensures that the reactor will remain subcritical
provided the plant remains in hot shutdown.] Therefore, there is
potentially no correct answer.
3. LOD=1: This question is borderline AO knowledge (with the
exception of the HSD [B]. Suggest keeping the 2 nd part and re-
working the 1st part to ask about any control room alarms that
reflect a situation where the heaters aren't working correctly.
4. 4/24/09: Comments incorporated; Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
11 1=1 2 x x N 212000 A 1.07
S 1. Job-Link: Is there ever a time where the operator would perform
Iii: this evolution at 100% power? Which procedure is being used
to perform this evolution? Discuss wi licensee
2. Stem Focus: Which specific rod position information at 2H11-
P603 is the stem question referring to? Is it the 4-rod group
display? Is it the full core display?
3. 4/24/09: Changed to 30% power. Changed choices to include
full-in; intermediate; blank overtravel beyond full-in. Question is
SAT
12 H 2 x M 1J 215001 A3.03
S 1. Cred Dist: "A" and "c" are not plausible because BWR shear
valves (SLC, TIP) must be manually actuated. An automatic
shear valve is not a common misconception. (See NUREG
Appendix B, C.2.g) Therefore, with no operator action,
automatic severing of the TIP can never occur.
2. 4/24/09: Licensee re-worked question to ask about TIP position
following a group 2 isolation signal. Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOO
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Oist. Link units ward KIA Only
13 i 2 x x B e 215002 K6.04
S 1. Cred Oist: "A" is not plausible because all the other choices are
"actions". "A" is the only choice that is not an action.
2. Stem Focus: Can the RBM automatically shift without a rod
selected?
Suggest re-working the question as follows:
The operator is moving a centrally located control rod when the
APRM "B" channel fails upscale. While the control rod remains
selected, the operator bypasses the APRM "B" using the
joystick.
WOOTF identifies the effect this action will have on the RBM "B"
Channel?
a. The RBM will automatically use the "C" APRM cha,nnel to
monitor the neutron flux in the locality of the selected rod.
b. The RBM will automatically use the "C" APRM channel to
determine one of three upscale setpoints.
c. The RBM will automatically use the "0" APRM channel to
monitor the neutron flux in the locality of the selected rod.
d. The RBM will automatically use the "0" APRM channel to
determine one of three upscale setpoints.
3. 4/24/09: Licensee incorporated comments. Question is SAT
14 H 3 M S 215003 A 1.03
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
15 H 2 x N e 215004 K6.01
S 1. Cred Dist: "A" is not plausible because the SRM was withdrawn
before the voltage failure happened and there wasn't a rod block
at that time.
Suggest re-wording the last bullet in the stem as follows:
The "1A" SRM chassis at Panel H11-P606 experiences a failure
that causes the detector supply voltage to lower to 20VDC. The
SRM indication dropped to 10 cps.
WOOTF choices completes the following statement?
A Control Rod Block _(1)_ occur because _(2)_
a. will; the SRM count rate is at the downscale setpoint
b. will; the detector voltage is low
c. will NOT; of the IRM Range switch positions
d. will NOT; the SRM count rate is still reading 10 cps
2. Cues: Thl;l last bullet in the stem provides the normal detector
voltage (350VDC) and this information is not required to elicit
the correct response.
3. Cues: The "B" choice provides the word "INOP" trip versus
simply stating the condition, i.e., high voltage low.
4. 4/24/09: Licensee incorporated comments; Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
16 H 2 x x N Y 215005 G2.1.20
E 1. Cred Dist: "C" and "D" are not plausible because if one of these
choices was correct, then the other choice would also be
S correct. (always want to maintain vacuum and stay in allowable
region) Therefore, an applicant who does not know the OPRM
immediate actions can eliminate both of these choices.
2. Q=KlA: Question is more associated with the recirculation
system (MG set power supply, immediate operator actions for
dual pump trip) than with the APRM/LPRM/OPRM system.
Suggest modifying the question to more directly hit target
neutron monitoring system KIA:
Unit 1 is operating at 100% power with all OPRMs inoperable
when the 1B Reactor Recirc Pump trips.
WOOTF actions is required, including the reason for the action?
a. Manual Scram; all OPRMs are inoperable
b. The APRM simulated thermal power (STP) high trip
setpoint must be changed; Two Recirc Loops are not
operating
c. The APRM simulated thermal power (STP) high trip
setpoint must be changed; all OPRMs are inoperable
d. Manual Scram; Region of Potential Instabilities has been
entered
3. What is the power supply to the MG set lube oil system? Is it
fed from the "1B" 4160 VAC bus?
4. Cues: This question may provide the applicant with a cue for
Q#68. Discuss double jeopardy with the licensee. The question
is testing the same thing as Q#68, i.e., reactor must be
scrammed when OPRMs are inoperable
5. 01-29-09: Discussion wi licensee indicated that "C" was
plausible to insert rods to get the plant above 25 "Hg. Since "D"
is the only one left that is not plausible, then this is
enhancement.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
17 H 2 x N .e 215005 G2.4.11
S 1. Cues: The last bullet in the stem ["No entry conditions for the
EOP flow charts have been met or exceeded."] is telling the
operator that a scram condition with reactor power at 3% isn't an
EOP entry condition. This could provide information for other
questions on the test. Discuss wi licensee. May need to
provide OW pressure, RPV level, etc.
2. 4/24/09: Comments incorporated; Question is SAT
18 !2 2 N S 217000 K2.03 19 H 3 x x M .e 218000 K1.06
S 1. Cues: The 2nd bullet is not necessary because the first
sentence states that a loss of offsite power has occurred. This
bullet is teaching the applicant the impact of a loss of offsite
power on the 4160 VAC Distribution system. This information is
not necessary to elicit the correct response.
2. Cues: The two bullets after the diesel is started [Core Spray
auto starts at shut off head] is "teaching" the applicant the CS
low level setpoint and also is alerting him that these are low
pressure pumps. This information is not necessary to elicit the
correct response.
3. Stem Focus: Spell out LOSP [Loss of offsite Power]
4. 04/24/09: Enhanced stem by incorporating time line; Question
is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
20 F 1 x x x N IJ 223000 K3.09
H E 1. Q=KlA & LOD=1: This question is not a plant specific question.
This is a GFES question, Le., high containment temperature
S always makes level instruments read higher than actual. ["B"
correct]. Suggest developing the question to target a Caution 1
situation.
2. Cred Dist: "C" and "D" are not credible because they defy the
fundamental GFES principle (Le., they each state that indicated
level will be less than actual).
3. Job-Link: The stem states "If all other parameters remain the
same ... ". This phrase could potentially make the question
invalid because in the actual plant other parameters (level, DW
pressure, reference leg temperatures, etc.) WILL change.
4. 01-29-09: Discussed w/ licensee that some level instruments
are compensated for reactor pressure or drywell temperature
(Fuel zone and wide range); Therefore, question is plant specific
and distractors plausible.
5. 4/24/09: Licensee wrote new question to require evaluating
Caution 1 - - requires distributing reference but avoids
interference w/ SRO Q# 79. Question is SAT.
21 H 2 x x N IJ 223002 K3.11
S 1. Q=KlA: The question is written to target 290003 (Control Room
HVAC), K1.04 (Knowledge of the physical connections and/or
cause effect relationships between CONTROL ROOM HVAC
and Nuclear Steam Supply Shutoff System (NSSSS/PCIS).
This is not the correct KIA. The correct KIA should target how a
loss or malfunction of the PCIS system will affect one of the
plant ventilation systems. Suggest writing a question where an
RPS MG set trips and ask applicant to predict RX Bldg HVAC
valve status/indications.
2. Stem Focus: The correct answer "D" reads as if this action is
required to be performed manually (Le., "must be aligned to the
Pressurization mode). This shift will occur automatically.
3. 04/24/09: Licensee targeted RPS MG set trip impact; however,
licensee proposed manual alignment as incorrect choices (not
plausible). Subsequently modified to have choice either
Isolation mode or Pressurization mode. Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN UlEtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
22 H 2 x B S 226001 K2.02
1. Stem Focus: Combine the first sentence with the first bullet.
2. Stem Focus: Re-word the 3 rd bullet to say "1 A and 1B RH R
pumps are running in the Torus Spray Mode"
3. Stem Focus: Make the fill-in-the-blank statement into one
sentence (vs. bulletized).
4. 4/24/09: Comments incorporated; Question was SAT already.
23 ~ 2 x x N 1J 233000 G2.2.25
e 1. Q=KlA: The question does not require knowledge of, the bases
for this tech spec. Suggest providing TS Bases Figure B3.5-21
S and re-word question to also ask the applicant to identify the
point of reference on typical fuel bundle from where level is
measured. Since this information is included in the bases, this
will meet the KIA.
2. Stem Focus: The first sentence needs to specify that fuel
movements are occurring IN THE FUEL POOL. Otherwise, TS
3.7.8 does not apply.
3. 01-29-09: Discussed wi licensee that RO knowledge of fuel
pool level TS may be sufficient to meet KIA since ROs are only
responsible for bases associated with TS safety limits.
4. 04-24-09: Allowed licensee to use LCO 3.7.8 requirements to
meet KA. Comment #2 incorporated; Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ 8ack- Q= SRO 8/MIN U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
24 H 2 x x N e 239001 K5.09
S 1. Cues: The second part of the first sentence ( ... and a main
turbine trip occurred.) and cue an unknowledgeable applicant
that the stop valves and control valves are closed. This
information is not necessary to elicit the correct response,
because the actions of TC-1 will ensure the turbine is tripped.
2. Stem Focus: Re-word the 2nd sentence: "The operators have
completed the following placards lAW 34A8-C71-001-2, Scram
Procedure:
3. Stem Focus: Include the titles for each of the placards
4. Stem Focus: Re-word the stem question: 'WOOTF identifies a
component that will still be contributing to the RPV cooldown?
5. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; Question is SAT
25 g 2 x x M e 239002 A3.01
S 1. Cue: The 1sl bullet could provide a cue to an unknowledgeable
i applicant that ADS will cease at 50 psig. Suggest stating that
Reactor pressure is at 39 psig.
2. Stem Focus: Re-word the stem question as follows: 'WOOTF
predicts which ADS valve light indications are illuminated at
Panel H11-P602?
3. Stem Focus: The fill-in-the-blank statement may be confusing
to some applicants. Discuss the following with the licensee:
a. ONLY the red light is illuminated
b. ONLY the red and green lights are illuminated
c. ONLY the red and amber lights are illuminated
d. The red, amber, and green lights are ALL illuminated
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LaD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EiS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
26 H 3 x x M e 241000 K1.25
S 1. Cred Oist: "C" and "0" are virtually the same. If they are
different, the choices require additional clarification as to which
comes first (pressure scram signal vs neutron flux signal). This
is impossible to predict.
Suggest re-wording "C" and "0" as follows:
c. turbine control valves throttling closed, followed by a control
valve position scram signal
d. turbine control valves throttling closed, followed by a high
reactor pressure scram signal
2. Stem Focus: Ensure that the 1st three bullets are the exact
wording on the labels at the control panel.
3. Ensure that this is verified on the simulator. This question has
the potential to be invalid if the plant response is more than one
option.
4. 4-24-09: Licensee ran on simulator and found that runback
always begins from 100%; therefore, the amount of time to get
the load limit below 35% exceeds the amount of time allowed
before the turbine trips. Remedy was to tell them that a
runback was occurring (providing a timeline) and then asking
which controlling valve caused runback and final status of
turbine. Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
27 H 3 x x N IJ 259002 A4.01
S 1. Job-link: The question poses a scenario which may not be
addressed by 34S0-N21-007-2, i.e., unplugging the RFP
controller and transitioning to the speed setter mode of control.
Section 7.3.7 (RFPT Alternate Startup) is written for rolling the
feed pump and using the speed setter to control RPV injection
manually. Section 7.3.8, (RFPT Recovery From Loss of Normal
Speed Control) appears to be the closest procedure for this
postulated scenario. In this case, it appears that as soon as the
RFP controller is unplugged that the speed setter will take over.
(Confirm w/ licensee).
2. Job-Link: Assuming that the postulated scenario can be
addressed by 34S0-N21-007-2, Section 7.3.8 (RFPT Recovery
From Loss of Normal Speed Control), then this procedure does
not contain guidance with respect to continuing a plant startup.
In fact, conservative decision-making and plant management
could require that power be maintained until the RFP controller
is replaced.
3. Partial: Since the speed setter automatically takes over control
when the RFP controller is unplugged, this question is more
targeted to the plant management decision to continue the
startup versus only testing the applicant's knowledge of the
manual speed setter operation. In this case, the applicant could
potentially argue several correct choices, i.e., test item would
have to be thrown out.
Suggest removing the portion of the each choice related to
whether the startup may/may not continue and only test on the
controls/alarms that are pertinent to this mode of manual
operation.
4. 4-24-09: Re-aligned question more closely w/ procedure
guidance and eliminated RO making decision whether startup
could continue. Licensee focused question on systems
knowledge. Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
28 H 2 x x B IJ 261000 A2.12
S 1. Q=KlA: The item (as written) does not require the applicant to
use procedures to correct, control, or mitigate the consequences
of the high rad level situation. The 2nd portion of the question is
a "verification" step of actions that occur automatically. An
example of meeting this KIA would be to require the applicant
identify the procedure that contained the veJification steps or
require the applicant to identify procedure actions to minimize
any additional fuel bundle damage.
2. Stem Focus: Re-word the first fill-in-the-blank statement as
follows: "The total number of Standby Gas filtration trains that
will automatically start is _(1 )_." [Unit 1 and Unit 2
parenthesis information is not required to elicit the correct
response since the choices imply both units.]
3. 4-24-09: Licensee's replacement still had only systems
knowledge and didn't target the A2 KIA req't. Added AOP entry
requirements. Question is SAT
29 H 3 x x N e 262001 K4.02
S 1. Q=KlA: This item (as written) more appropriately tests KIA
262001 K3.06 [how a loss of AC affects RPS]. The required KIA
is knowledge of circuit breaker features that cause automatic
breaker trips.
Suggest keeping the stem and asking the applicant to predict
how the 4160VAC breakers will respond (vs. how RPS will
respond).
2. Partial: "C" is not plausible because the word "significant" is
relative; therefore, an applicant would deduce that the 2G
normal feeder transient was a significant threat to plant
operation (already) and then eliminate this choice only based on
the meaning of the word "significant."
3. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
30 ffi 1 M Y 262001 K4.05
S 1. LOD=1: Need to add another element related to an interlock or
design feature to this question to ensure LOD = 2 or more.
(NUREG Appendix B, Section C, Low Discriminatory Validity)
2. 4-24-09: Licensee changed to require applicant's knowledge of
Test Switch position and light indication required for breaker
closure.
31 i 2 x N S 262002 A3.01
Y 1. Q=KlA: Sort of matches the KIA. Seems more like previous K2
KIA (now deleted) "Knowledge of electrical power supplies to
S the ... " Consider adding something to the question requiring
the applicant to know that the power does/does not flow through
the Vital AC Static Transfer Switch.
2. 4-24-09: Due to double jeopardy w/ SRO Q# 80; licensee
unable to write a discriminating question that avoided double
jeopardy; therefore, another KIA selected. New question is
SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
32 f? 2 x x x B i 263000 A2.02
S 1. Partial: "0" can be potentially argued as correct since step 4.2.1
in the procedure, directs the operator to shutdown operating
equipment or reduce load on the equipment if ventilation cannot
be restored.
2. Stem Focus & Q=KlA: The stem question does not match the
choices, Le., the choices include a reason. The stem should
state that the batteries are being charged (Le., float vs. equalize)
Re-word the stem question to better target the choices and meet
the KIA ... Le.,
'WOOTF predicts how the DC Electrical System is affected by
the loss of ventilation and also identifies a required action in
accordance with 34AB-T41-001-2, Loss of ECCS, MCREC, or
Area Ventilation System(s)?
3. #/units: reword "A" to say "Start Emergency Exhaust Fans
2Z41-C014 and 2Z41-C015." Refine each choice to have an
impact and a procedure action.
4. 4-24-09: Licensee's proposed new question included the word
"significant", which is subjective. This was changed. Question
is SAT.
33 I 2 x M e 264000 K4.06
S 1. Cred Dist: "c" is not plausible because an applicant who does
not know the Woodward Governor will choose between 0 and
10 and always pick O. Consider asking which knob (and
providing the picture in the stem) at 0 will cause the fuel supply
to shut off. (speed droop, synchronizer, load limit, and syn
indicator.)
2. 4-24-09: Comment incorporated; Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
34 H 3 N e 264000 K5.06
S 1. Stem Focus: Limit each choice to correct or NOT correct. The
words "operational implication" are not necessary to meet the
KIA because one implied operational implication of load
sequencing (as it applies to Diesels) is the precise time at which
a piece of equipment becomes available to the operator.
2. 4-24-09: Comment incorporated; Question is SAT
35 H 3 N S 268000 A2.01 36 IT 2 x B e 286000 A 1.01
S 1. Stem Focus: Re-word the 1st sentence as follows: "A Turbine
Building fire protection sprinkler system actuation causes the fire
main header pressure to lower to 98 psig.
2. Stem Focus: Re-word the 2nd sentence as follows: "Assuming
that this is the lowest pressure achieved, which ONE of the
following predicts how the fire pumps respond?"
3. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; Question is SAT
37 H 3 x N i 295001 AK2.03
S 1. Stem Focus: Modify 1st bullet: "Recirculation pump speeds are
both at 63%.
2. Stem Focus: Modify 2nd bullet as the operator would see i.e.,
Mlbm/hr (vs. % steam flow).
3. 04-24-09: Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
38 E 3 x x N e 295003 G2.4.34
S 1. Stem Focus: The 3rd bullet states that the lights are located on
1R43-P001 A. Is this correct? The procedure and lesson plan
state these lights are located on 1R43-P003A.
2. Stem Focus: Re-word the stem question to ensure that the
question refers to one switch with two positions:
"WOOTF choices completes the following statements for locally
starting the EDG and flashing the field using the 1R43-P003A
EDG Control Switch lAW 34AB-R43-001-1, Diesel Generator
Recovery?"
3. Stem Focus: Re-word the 2 nd fill-in-the-blank statement to refer
to the "EDG Control Switch" (vs. control switch).
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT
39 H 3 x N e 295004 AA 1.03
S 1. Cues: The 2 nd part of "B" and "D" [lAW 34AB-R22-001-2] is not
necessary to elicit the correct response and could potentially
provide a cue to an applicant who does not know the correct
mitigating procedure following a loss of 2R22-S016.
2. 4-24-09: Changes incorporated; question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
40 ~ 2 x x x N e 295005 AK3.04
S 1. Stem focus & Q=KlA: To ensure the KIA is being directly
addressed, consider clarifying the 2 nd fill-in-the-blank statement
as follows:
"This main generator trip arrangement protects the turbine from
_(2)_ "
2. Stem Focus: The phrase in the 1st bullet "due to a problem with
the lubricating oil system" could potentially be mis-interpreted.
Which turbine trip has occurred? We could provide the name of
the trip without providing the setpoint, etc.
3. Cred Dist: How is the 2 nd part of "0" plausible (overheating)
when combined with a sequential generator trip? Discuss
changing "overheating" (in "B" and "0") to more plausible
choices such as "bearing damage and "blade damage",
respectively.
4. Stem Focus: Can the unit be at 100% povver (instead of 40%
power)? Discuss how this may make the lube oil turbine trip
more significant with respect to reason for sequential generator
trip.
5. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT
41 H 2 B S 295006 AK1.01
Used on NRC '07 exam
42 IT; 3 x N S 295010 G2.2.22
1. Stem Focus: "a" should be "an" (before the word entry). Also
consider removing the word 'listed" from the fill-in-the-blank
statement.
2. Stem Focus: Clarify the fill-in-the-blank statement by adding
question: 'WOOTF completes the following statement?"
3. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question was already SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
43 F 2 x x x N e 295013 AK2.01
H S 1. Q=KlA: This question may be a better fit for Q#53 KIA
(abnormal vs. emergency). Discuss overlap issues wi licensee
(double jeopardy for not knowing EOP allowance to use 2 loops)
and, if necessary re-select another KIA.
2. Cred Dist: "A" is not plausible because the stem has the words
'ALL REQUIRED RHR" systems capitalized
3. Cue: The capitalization of the words ("ALL REQUIRED RHR")
could potentially cue the operator that the answer must be
greater than one-pump flow. (7,700 gpm) Also, Q#55 provides
the flow rate for one pump configuration.
Suggest re-working the question to ask the applicant whether
one or two loops are required and what the limiting total flow
value is. (17,000 or 23,000).
4. 4-24-09: Used draft submittal Q# 53 to target this question KIA.
Question is SAT
44 i 3 x x M e 295015 G2.2.42
1. Partial: There may be no correct answer because whether the
NRC would issue a violation is subject to many reviews.
Suggest re-wording the question to say: 'While RWL is in this
band, a Tech Spec Safety Limit value has/has not been
exceeded and adequate core cooling as defined in ???"
2. Stem Focus: The definition of adequate core cooling is in what
document at Hatch? This needs to be in the fill-in-the-blank
statement to ensure the question cannot be appealed.
3. Cue: Since the 151 sentence in the stem only deals with water
level and the 2 nd fill-in-the-blank sentence starts off with the
words 'While RWL is in this band ... " this could potentially cue
the applicant that RWL has exceeded the safety limit setpoint.
Suggest changing the 151 sentence to read "Unit 2 is in an
ATWS and reactor water level is being controlled at -155 to -185
inches and reactor pressure is being maintained at 900 psig."
This way if the word "violation" (see item 1 above) is changed to
"value", then the applicant has to know the pressure safety limits
also.
4. 4-24-09: Question re-worked to ask if TS safety limit exceeded
and whether adequate core cooling exists. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
45 ITI 2 x N W 295016 AA2.01
E 1. Partial: "A" can be argued as correct because this is a "gross"
method of control rod status. (The stem does NOT state that all
blue lights have illuminated.)
2. Job-Link: 31 RS-OPS-001-1, Section 4.4 provides the guidance
to shutdown the reactor (from outside the control room) if this
was not achieved when the control room was evacuated. The
test item (as written) assumes that an ATWS has occurred,
which may be outside the design basis of the procedure. In
other words, the required control room evacuation is the single
failure and an additional failure (ATWS) is beyond the scope of
the procedure.
Suggest writing a question where the control room had to be
evacuated and the immediate operator actions could not be
performed, i.e., no manual scram. Ask the applicant to identify
an approved method (lAW Section 4.4) to complete the scram
(SDV level switches) and to verify that a scram had been
achieved (visual verification of each scram valve) as opposed to
some of the other "unapproved" remote indications could
potentially indicate a reactor scram had been achieved such as
lowering water level, lowering pressure, etc.
01-29-09: Discussed wi licensee that the intent was focused on
the words "reactor power", i.e, the numerical value. (not a gross
determination). Licensee said this could be fixed with word
changes. (enhancement only)
3. 04-24-09: Re-worked question to align wi 31 RS-OPS-001-1
guidance for locally scramming Rx and confirmation of
shutdown. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN UlEtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
46 m x x N e 295018 AK3.03
S 1. Stem Focus: The 1st sentence is confusing because it is
backwards, i.e., reactor power is 0% before being at 100%.
2. Partial: "C" can be argued as potentially correct because the
stem doesn't specifically ask the applicant for the reason for i
I
step 4.7 of the procedure. Consequently, the applicant can
argue that since the fuel pool cooling pump remains running that
the "entire procedure" has accomplished this.
Suggest re-wording the question as follows:
Unit 2 was operating at 100% power and a manual scram was
inserted due to a loss of RBCCW. The following conditions
currently exist:
- 2A RBCCW Pump is running
- 2B and 2C RBCCW Pumps can NOT be started
- 2P42-F033 and 2P42-F034 valves have been manually
closed
WOOTF identifies the reason that the 2P42-F033 and 2P42-
F034 valves are closed lAW 34AB-P42-001-2, Loss of
RBCCW?
This action will ensure that.. ..
a. CRD pump ...
b. Recirc pumps ...
C. Fuel Pool clg pumps ...
d. The 2A RBCCW pump is protected from runout conditions.
3. 4-24-09: Suggestion incorporated except changed "C" from FPC
pump cavitation to isolate RBCCW surge tank; question is SAT
47 H 2 x x B S 295019 AA2.02
1. Stem Focus: WOOTF predicts the final MSIV positions, only
with respect to the availability of a pneumatic supply?
2. Cues: This question may overlap with Q#61. Discuss double
jeopardy with the licensee. The words "Drywell Pneumatic
System" in Q#61 provide a clue to the applicant for this
question. Consider re-lNording Q#61.
3. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOO
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN U/EIS Explanation
Focus Oist. Link units ward KIA Only
48 H 3 x M S 295020 AK1.05
. 1. Cue: Since the exact section of the procedure is being provided
in the stem, are the 151 two bullets necessary?
2. 4-24-09: 1st two bullets don't provide cue; acceptable to leave
as-is. Question is SAT
49 F 2 x x N Y. 295021 G2.4.35
H S 1. Cred Oist: "C" and "0" are not plausible because the plant is in
an emergent abnormal condition (Le., total loss of shutdown
cooling); therefore, an applicant who does not know the
procedure content could eliminate chemistry concerns based on
the sense of urgency.
2. Q=KlA: This item was developed around the REASON that a
step is being performed. The KIA asks the applicant for the task
to be performed.
Suggest re-working question to ask applicant to identify a local
AO task (only provide two tasks) listed in 34AB-E11-001-2 and
also ask applicant to identify the reason for the task.
3. 4-24-09: Licensee wrote new question; Question is SAT
50 H 2 x x N y. 295023 AA 1.04
S 1. Cred Oist: An applicant who does not know the water level can
deduce that "A", "B", and "C" are not plausible because there is
no way to tell exactly what dose rate a partially uncovered fuel
bundle will yield. Therefore, the unknowledgeable applicant
would conservatively assume that the highest possible radiation
reading was the correct answer.
2. Job-Link: For "0" (upscale), isn't there a pegging circuit
available on the ARMs to preclude a continuous upscale
reading?
3. 4-24-09: Question re-worked to eliminate subjectivity
associated with dose rates following uncovery of a fuel bundle.
Question now asks for lowest fuel pool level achieved and
prediction of MCREC system status. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
51 Pc 2 x x B lj 295024 EA2.06
e 1. Q=KlA: This is an "elusive" KIA. (Note: licensee indicated this
was on the NRC '05 exam) The test item (as developed) asks
S the applicant to identify the effect of high drywell pressure on
torus water temperature; however, a more appropriate derivative
of the KIA is to require the applicant to determine or interpret
torus temperature as it relates to a high drywell pressure
condition. For example:
Unit 1 was operating at 100% power when loss of Feedwater
occurred and the following plant conditions currently exist:
- All control rods inserted
- Water level +20" and rising
- Reactor pressure 1000 psig (LLS)
- Drywell pressure 4.0 psig
- Torus pressure 3.8 psig
- Torus water temperature 89 deg
Given these current plant conditions, which ONE of the following
is indicated?
a. ONLY an SRV tail pipe vacuum breaker is stuck open
b. ONLY a broken SRV tailpipe
C. A small steam line break in the drywell coincident with a
stuck open Rx Bldg to Torus Vacuum Breaker
d. A small steam line break in the drywell coincident with a
stuck open Torus to Drywell Vacuum Breaker
2. Cred Dist: "c" is not plausible because there is no reasonable
correlation between the location of the leak in the drywell and
water temperature.
3. 01-29-09: Discussed wI licensee that this question previously
used by Tim Kolb on NRC developed exam. The question can
be enhanced to make adequate (enhancement only).
4. 4-24-09: Used question wI grammatical enhancements.
Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOO
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Oist. Link units ward KIA Only
52 H 2 x M e 295025 G2.1 .23
S 1. Job-Link: Per 31 EO-EOP-107-2, Step 3.2.12, the operator
should FIRST use the flow controller (2E41-R612) and then
(only if necessary) use the F008. The applicant could potentially
argue that there is no correct answer because the stem question
specifically requires the operator to answer the question in
accordance with the procedure.
Suggest asking the operator which component should be used
(controller or F011) and then asking which way to manipulate
the selected component (raise/lower setpoint OR open/close
valve).
2. 4-24-09: Question re-worked to align more closely wI guidance
provided in EOP-107-2. Question is SAT
53 H 2 x x N e 295026 EK2.01
S 1. Q=KlA: This question may be a better fit for Q#43 KIA
(abnormal vs emergency). Discuss overlap issues wI licensee
(double jeopardy for not knowing EOP allowance to use 2 loops)
and, if necessary re-select another KIA.
2. Stem Focus: Add "in accordance with 34AB-T23-003-1 " to the
end of the stem question.
3. 4-24-09: Original draft Q#53 was used to replace Q#43 as
recommended. This question was replaced wI a new question
testing whether LOCA override switch was required and max
req'd Hx loop flow. Question is SAT.
54 H 2 x x M e 295028 EA 1. 03
S 1. Cred Oist: To make "B" more plausible, add the reason why the
chillers aren't allowed during extremely high OW temperatures.
(what is the reason? Not listed in EOP-100-LP-20311 lesson
plan). To make "A" more plausible state "is NOT allowed to be
restarted because the high drywell pressure isolation has the
potential for increased release rates.
2. Partial: Will "0" work also?
3. 4-24-09: Replaced the reasons wI more plausible ones.
Question is SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
55 H 2 x x N e 295030 EK1.02
S 1. Cues: The 4th bullet in the stem (7700 gpm one pump flow)
provides a cue for Q#43.
2. Stem Focus: The 2nd fill-in-the-blank statement does not read
well (grammatically) with the 2nd part of choice "C"
3. Stem Focus: Make both of the fill-in-the-blank statements read
grammatically correct.
4. 4-24-09: Changed 2A RHR flow to 7000 gpm; all other
comments incorporated. Question is SAT.
56 IS 3 x N e 295031 EA1.01
S 1. Stem Focus: Need to ensure the stem is worded lAW 31 EOP-
010.
2. Stem Focus: Need to ensure that the question is asking for the
expected control panel flow indication (vs. "will be injecting").
3. Stem Focus: Combine 1st bullet with the first sentence and
change Unit 2 WAS operating .(vs. IS)
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT.
57 i 2 x x N e 295032 EA 1.03
S 1. Cue: The loss of SW could potentially lead an unknowledgeable
operator to a temperature start feature. Why is the bullet
necessary? Will the standby cooler (2T41-B004B) auto-start
(regardless of loss of SW) when room temperature rises to 100
deg?
2. Stem Focus: Use the word "its" instead of "the" in the following
sentence: The "A" RCIC Room Cooler is operating with THE
control switch in the RUN position.
3. 4-24-09: Eliminated loss of SW aspect. Comments
incorporated; question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
58 H 2 x N y. 295035 EA2.02
S 1. Cred Dist: "B" and "D" are not plausible because an applicant
without knowledge of elevated/ground release patterns could
guess that the release is always higher when the blowout panels
go. Release rates remaining the same with/without the blowout
panels is not plausible because some of the radioactive steam
will not be filtered via the SBGT system filter and rad levels near
the plant will go up.
Suggest writing a question related to what could cause a hi dP
in the Rx Bldg and how this would affect the Rx Bldg flow
indications used during a prompt offsite dose calculation (TRN
52, MIDAS INPUT DATA ACQUISITION)
2. 4-24-09: Licensee re-worked question to ask how negative
pressure is affected and how the stack release rate is affected
following a trip of C007A. Question is SAT.
59 F 2 x N Y. 295037 EK2.12
H e 1. Q=KlA: The test item is targeted towards KIA EK1.07, Shutdown
Margin. The required KIA is ED2.12, Rod control and information
S system. For example, the first large portion of the stem is not
necessary to answer the question, i.e., the only item in the stem
that is required is the fill-in-the-blank statement, The operating
crew can determine that the reactor will remain shutdown under
ALL conditions when _ _ .
Suggest providing the applicant with rod panel indications and/or
RWM screen indications and asking the applicant to interpret
these indications with respect to ATWS actions.
01-29-09: Discussed w. licensee how removing choices "B" and
"C" and providing applicant wi rod position indications to assess.
2. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/MiN U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
60 H 2 x x M 295038 EK1.02
S 1. Cues/Cred Dist: The words in the stem "to protect the public
from radioactive release" make "B" and "0" [perform a fast
reactor shutdown] not plausible.
Suggest eliminating the fill-in-the-blank statements and ask the
applicant the following question. "WOOTF identifies whether all
automatic actions have occurred and also identifies the required
actions lAW 34AB-B21-001-1.
2. 4-24-09: Eliminated words "to protect the public ... "; instead,
asked applicant for procedure requirements. Licensee stated
that NFPB @ 100% = 1100 - 1800 mr/hr. Trip is active at 18%
power but not active when> 20% power. Question is SAT.
x x x N 300000 K1.03
61 i
S 1. Cues: This question may provide the applicant with a cue for
Q#47. Discuss double jeopardy with the licensee. The words
"Drywell Pneumatic System" may provide clue to applicants on
why the inboard MSIVs remain open in Q#47. Suggest simply
stating that instrument air has been aligned to supply pneumatic
loads in the drywell.
/
2. #/units: Where is the drywell air flow rate meter? Can it be
observed? If so, then provide the applicant with the actual
meter name, panel location, and flow value. Does the alarm
come in? If so, provide the alarm in the stem, then ask the
applicant to predict the expected actions. What are the valve
names/numbers that will isolate? Ask the applicant to identify
these valves and predict their position.
3. Cred Dist: In "C" and "0", change the word "since" to "because".
The changes in item #2 (above) will make "C" and "0" more
plausible.
4. 4-24-09: All comments incorporated; licensee explained
proximity of measured flow and piping configuration. Question
is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
62 ~ 1 x x N Y 400000 K3.01
S 1. Q=KlA: This question is targeting KIA 264000 (EDGs) K6.07
[Knowledge that loss of cooling water system will have on EDG].
The correct KIA deals with component cooling water, i.e., the
system that is normally cooled by service water.
2. Cred Dist: "B", "C", "D" are not plausible because "A" is
ALWAYS correct, i.e., will run until major component damage
occurs.
3. 4-24-09: Licensee replaced question to target RBCCW.
Question is SAT.
63 H 3 x x N y 500000 EK3.06
e 1. Partial: "A" can also be argued as correct because the PC
flowchart directs spraying the drywell at this time and the spray
S flow can be attributed for some removal of flammable aerosols
and scrubbing effect.
2. Stem Focus: The stem refers to "EOP strategy" instead of
specifically referring to 31 EO-PCG-001-1, Primary Containment
Gas Control. This makes the question less precise and could
potentially lead to multiple correct answers.
3. Stem Focus: The stem states that [hydrogen and oxygen] are
8% and 7%, respectively. Is this in both the torus and drywell?
Only drywell? These items matter with respect to the actions in
31 EO-PCG-001-1.
Suggest re-working the question to ask the applicant for when
the containment hardened vent path is used, (only for hydrogen
oxygen problems or for both hydrogen oxygen and containment
pressure) AND/OR ask the applicant for when the venting
process in 31 EO-PCG-001-1 is/is not allowed to proceed
irrespective of release rates.
01-29-09: Discussed w/ licensee that procedures prohibit
spraying when torus level is > 197.5" ; therefore, "A" is totally
incorrect. (enhancement only)
4. 4-24-09: Comment #1 addressed by adding NOT statements to
"B" and "D". Comment #2 addressed as recommended.
Comment #3 addressed by including both spaces. Question is
SAT
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
64 Ii 1 N tJ 600000 AK1.01
S 1. LOD=1: This question will not provide any discriminatory value
on the exam.
Suggest re-working the question to state that a certain MCC is
on fire. Ask the applicant which type of extinguishing agent
(lAW a fire plan procedure) can be used, including when water
can be used (lAW fire procedures).
2. 4-24-09: Jointly developed new question w/licensee because
the licensee's proposed replacement question had non-credible
choices "A" and "B." Question is SAT.
65 H 2 x x N tJ 700000 G2.4.4
1. Partial/Cred Dist: "B" is also correct because an applicant could
argue that the symptoms provided in the stem also warrant a
S prudent entry to 34AB-R22-003-1 (Station Blackout) even
though this procedure would subsequently be exited since 2
emergency busses are still energized. Consequently, "A" and
"B" are not plausible since none of the conditions presented in
the stem are indicative of a station blackout condition.
Suggest presenting the applicant with indications that eliminate
the possibility of the busses being de-energized but warrant
entry to 34AB-001-0. What indications would the operator look
for to identify that the buss was still energized but that grid
voltage was causing the problem? Provide those indications
and ask the applicant to identify the procedure (degraded vs
loss of bus) and also to identify an action from the procedure.
01-29-09: Discussed w/licensee to re-word the stem such that
"B" was totally incorrect; i.e., short term entry as a reference
could not be argued as correct.
2. 4-24-09: Licensee's proposed replacement questions contained
partially correct answers ("A" and "B") because 34AB-S11-001-
0, Step 4.4 stated that it may be necessary to enter SBO 34AB-
R22-003-1/2. Also, "A" and "B" weren't plausible given the 1st
bullet. I developed new question and provided to licensee.
New question targets the allowed min voltage at the switchyard
(Modes 1, 2, 3) and 4KV bus voltages/times that required
starting EDGs lAW 34AB-S11-001-0. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
x N E G2.1.27
66 E 2
S 1. Stem Focus: the word "primary" is not necessary to elicit the
correct response.
2. Stem Focus: the purpose of the RWM should be referenced
lAW either Tech Specs, FSAR, something.
3. Stem Focus: The use of a fill-in-the-blank statement is
unnecessary.
4. 4-24-09: Changed question to incorporate all comments and
made distractors more plausible by referring to wrong bases for
safety limits. Question is SAT.
67 H 2 x x x M Ml G2.1.31
S 1. Job-Link: In the pictures, the flow is indicating 400 gpm without
any turbine speed. How is this possible?
2. Stem Focus: The question is confusing because the procedure
section 7.1.4.2 states to place controller in MAN @ 50% when
a controller has malfunctioned in AUTO? The stem doesn't
state that the controller had a problem.
3. Job-Link: Is the controller required to be placed in MANUAL
when the cause of the spurious trip was being reset? Did the
trip occur while RCIC was initially running?
4. Plausibility analysis for choice "B" appears to be a cut-and-paste !
instead of the actual plausibility analysis for the panel location.
5. 01-29-09: The controller picture was correct, when 400 gpm is
indicated there is a solid digital bar that comes up. Also, the
Section 7.1.4.2 is for either when a initiation signal is present or
an auto controller failure has occurred.
6. 04-24-09: Discussed system procedure wi licensee to gain
understanding of guidance to roll RCIC wi initiation signal
present; i.e., ramp generator unavailable; therefore controller
must be in MANUAL at 50%. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
68 i 1 x x x N IJ G2.1.39
S 1. Cred Dist and/or LOD=1: "B", "C", and "D" are not plausible
because "A" can never be wrong, In other words, an
unknowledgeable operator can always argue that when
presented with worsening conditions in the reactor, the best
thing to do is scram it. He can never be wrong.
2. Partial: Why is it necessary to state that the SROs are out of
the control room? Is iit conceivable that IF the SROs were in
the control room that "A" isn't the correct answer?
3. Cues: This question may provide the applicant with a cue for
Q#16 (or vice versus). Also discuss double jeopardy with the
licensee. The question is testing the same thing as Q#16, Le.,
reactor must be scrammed when OPRMs are inoperable.
4. 4-24-09: Provided replacement question to licensee which tests
applicants knowledge of a caution in 34GO-OPS-001-1 related
to extended operation just below or just above the POAH.
Question is SAT.
G2.2.15
69 i 2 x N S
1. Stem Focus: Combine the 1st sentence and the 1st bullet with
one statement as follows: "The crew is implementing a tag out
for the Unit 2 Core Spray system and the 2E21-F019A keylock
control switch at panel P601 has been placed in the "CLOSED"
position.
2. Stem Focus: Why does the fuse have to blow, versus stating
that the power supply to the solenoid is removed? Re-word the
stem question as follows: 'WOOTF predicts how the valve and
actuator will respond if the solenoid valve power is removed?
3. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N UlEtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
70 ~ 2 x x N 1J G2.2.25
e 1. Partial & Stem Focus: Because the stem does not explicitly ask
for the basis behind the MCPR safety limit, then an applicant
S
could potentially argue that fuel damage is significantly
increased due to stored decay heat ("B") and zirc water reaction
(''e).
Suggest asking plainly, WOOTF is the basis for the MCPR
Safety Limit, in accordance with the Tech Spec Bases?
01-29-09: Discussed wI licensee that stem should be re-worded
to ask for the bases behind a safety limit (like pressure, or
MCPR) (enhancement only)
2. 4-24-09: Re-worded question wI bases from TS and used other
bases wording for incorrect choices; using wording from bases
makes this question plant specific. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/MIN UlEtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
71 H 2 x x x N Y G2.2.39
e 1. Job-Link: At 10:10, the SS declared 2 accumulators inop. lAW
TS 3.1.5, B.2.2, the SS can declare both rods inoperable per the
S rod TS 3.1.3. In this case, the mode switch does not have to be
placed in the shutdown position.
2. Stem Focus: The word "earliest" is confusing and can lead to
multiple answers. Re-word the stem question as follows,
WOOTF identifies the time that the reactor mode switch is
REQUIRED to be placed in the shutdown position lAW TS 3.1.5.
3. Job-Link: The SS declaration of 2 accumulators is subjective
because the stem does not state that the accumulator pressures
are less than 940 psig. In other words, the stem doesn't provide
an accumulator alarms, etc. which would indicate that
accumulator pressure is indeed less than 940 psig.
Consequently, an applicant could potentially argue that the time
requirement to manually scram the reactor is not defined well
enough by the question.
4. Q=KlA: This question seems to test the 34AB-C11-001-1
required manual scram action (Step 4.8) vs the Tech Spec
action (see comment #1 above)
5. 01-29-09: B.1 is applicable in either case because drive water
pressure must be restored> 940 psig regardless of whether the
rod is declared inop. (enhancement only)
6. 4-24-09: Reworked question to require TS knowledge (above-
the-line RO knowledge) related to when the mode switch must
be placed in shutdown. Comment #1 concern was explained
that because both CRD pumps are O.O.S, then Condition "0" is
invoked, Le., place mode switch to shutdown within 20 minutes.
Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
72 f; 2 x x N tJ G2.3.14
S 1. Partial: Since the amount of H2 injection at Hatch has varied
over time [as low as 8 scfm to as high as 45 scfm] and because
34S0-P73-001-1 does not specify the 100% max rate for the
current chemistry plan, then the applicant could potentially
argue any of the answers as correct.
2. Stem Focus: Combine the 1st sentence and the fst bullet into
one statement as follows: "Unit 1 was at 35% when the
Hydrogen Injection System was placed in the AUTOMATIC-
EXTERNAL mode of operation lAW 34S0-P73-001-1, Section
7.1.4, (title).
3. 01-29-09: Discussed wi licensee that system has an automatic,
shutdown feature of 25 scfm; therefore, applicant could not
argue that any flow was correct.
4. 4-24-09: Comment #2 incorporated; question is SAT.
73 i 1 x x N tJ G2.3.7
S 1. LOD=1: This KIA may be difficult to write a discriminating
question for. .. discuss substituting with the licensee. The
question (as written) is targeting general rad worker knowledge
for the definitions of very high rad area [area in which individual
could receive absorbed dose> 500 radihr]; airborne radiation
~ (> 0.3 DAC); contaminated area [Beta-gamma of 1000
dpm/1 00cm 2 or Alpha of 50 dpm/100cm 2 ] Question (as written)
does not discriminate at the licensed level.
2. Cred Dist: "A" is not plausible because a very high radiation
area [area in which individual cquld receive absorbed dose>
500 rad/hr] will always require a special RWP (as outlined in
general rad worker training). "B" is not plausible because of
grammar, i.e., doesn't fit with the fill-in-the-blank phraseology.
3. Stem Focus: Try to avoid "not" questions, i.e., WOOTF is
"not" .... This question is the same concept (without).
4. 4-24-09: Licensee could not write a discriminating question for
this KIA; provided substitute KIA G2.3.13. New question is
SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues TIF Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
74 F 2 N S G2.4.1
H 1. Ask the licensee if there are any differences between the entry
conditions on Unit 1 vs Unit 2. If so, then add this information to
the plausibility analysis.
2. 4-24-09: Licensee stated there are no differences between
units for the entry conditions. Question is SAT.
75 H 2 x x x N E G2.4.9
S 1. Cred Dist: "A" and "B" are not plausible because an applicant
can deduce that throttling RHR side valves can't affect reactor
pressure. Consequently, an unknowledgeable applicant (one
who doesn't know mitigation strategies associated with a loss of
shutdown cooling) can indirectly surmise that Shutdown Cooling
has been lost.
Suggest re-working the question to ask for differences in the
strategies contained in 34AB-E11-001-2, "Loss of SDC'g" for
different low power conditions. For example, what's the
difference between the strategy for when the RPV head is on vs
when the head is off (following a loss of shutdown cooling).
2. The stem asks the applicant to predict the status of "shutdown
cooling" as either "in service" OR "has been losf'. Be more
specific and ask the applicant for the pump status, i.e., running
or OFF. As written, the applicant could potentially argue that the
pumps would continue to run (which is true) and that throttling
the bypass valve F048B (choice "A")
3. Cues: This question provides a cue for SRO Q#87 that raising
reactor water level is a low power mitigation strategy for a loss
of Shutdown Cooling. Discuss overlap wi the licensee.
4. 4-24-09: Re-worked question wi licensee to ask how 2B RHR
pump is affected and how reactor pressure must be controlled
following an inadvertent High DW pressure signal wi Unit 2 in
Mode 3. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOO
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation
Focus Oist. Link units ward KIA Only
76 H 2 x N e 212000G2.2.36
S 1. Cues: The stem states that an "error" occurred which implies
that something is broken or inoperable. This is not necessary
to elicit the correct response. Suggest re-wording the stem to
reflect the "as-left" relay setpoints. (Let the applicant identify
the error.)
2. Cues: The stem identifies that P003A and P003C are
associated with the "A" RPS MG Set. (Let the applicant identify
that these relays are associated with the "A" RPS MG set vs
telling them.)
3. Cues: The 34S0-C71-001 procedure refers to the component
as "Equipment Protection Circuit Breaker." The question stem
is worded as "RPS Power Monitoring Assembly," which is
similar to the Tech Spec wording. This can help the applicant
identify that only one is inoperable (vs. 2). Suggest Re-wording
the stem to use the same terminology as the system operating
procedure.
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT. SRO-only
based on knowledge of TS basis definition of "EPA."
,
77 H 2 x x N IJ 233000G2.1 .28
S 1. SRO-only: The applicant can eliminate "A" and "B" using
systems knowledge of the skimmer/pool arrangement. The
applicant can also use systems knowledge to eliminate "0"
because of the prerequisite flow path requirement, Le.,
Shutdown Cooling must be in service.
Suggest re-working the question to test when the SPENT FUEL
STORAGE POOL LEVEL LOW alarm would be received, Le., at
approximately 22' 0.5'" above the top of seated fuel assemblies,
and what E-plan call is appropriate.
I
2. Stem Focus: Re-word the stem question to say 'WOOTF
choices completes both of the following statements?" i
3. 4-24-09: Eliminated the stem status of fuel pool gates because
this now requires SRO knowledge of procedure requirements for
placing SOC'g in service (only allowed in Mode 5) and refueling
configuration status. Additionally, this question does not merely
test procedure's overall mitigative strategy; this question tests
detailed knowledge of subsequent procedure steps from
memory. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
78 F 2 x x N U 239002 G2.4.18
e 1. SRO-only: Discuss wi licensee. Unlike Tech Spec Bases, most
EOP Bases are required knowledge for RO applicants.
S Licensee states that question targets 10CFR55.43(1),
"Conditions and Limitations in the facility' license". Ask the
licensee how this item is related to facility license (tech specs).
RO applicants also have overall knowledge of the EOPs (KIA
importance rating of 3.3), including bases for 5 SRVs required.
Suggest asking how many SRVs are required and then the
correct procedure in the event that this number of SRVs cannot
be opened.
2. Partial: An applicant could potentially argue that 4 is the
minimum number of SRVs because the reference provided
(BWROG EPGs/SAGs, Appendix B, Section 17.22, pg B-17-55)
states that FOUR SRVs is the least number of SRVs satisfying
the second criteria of MNSRED. What Hatch procedure
identifies the bases for the EOP steps? Lesson Plan EOP-
Curves-LP-20306, pg 55 of 78 states that 5 SRVs required at
Hatch following conversion to two year operating cycles. Is
there an EOP bases document (other than a lesson plan) at
Hatch that identifies 5 SRVs for MNSRED?
3. 01-29-09: Because this was a borderline case, agreed with
licensee that question could be enhanced with suggestion (see
above). (enhancement only)
4. 4-24-09: 5 SRVs required minimum number at Hatch; 4 was
previous number with lower power cores. I proposed
replacement that asked min # of SRVs required and allowable
release rates for EOP-1 08-1, Altemate Emergency Depress.
Licensee didn't want proposal because required too detailed
knowledge of 2 lines on EOP bases graphs associated wi
reason for 5 SRVs. Compromise was to ask for min # of SRVs
and the bases for the number. SRO-only because of analytical
methodology used to determine min # of SRVs, i.e., doesn't
involve systems knowledge. RO knowledge is min # of SRVs
whereas SRO knowledge is reason or basis behind the min #.
Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 8ack- Q= SRO 8/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
79 H 2 x x N lj 259002 G2.4.20
e 1. Cred Dist: "A" and "8" are not plausible because no drywell
temperatures (near reference legs) are provided. Actual reactor
S level can only be plausible as an answer if the corresponding
temperatures are provided.
Suggest re-working the question to ask what the implication of
erratic instrument behavior and high reference leg temperatures
is .... and also require the applicant to determine the correct
procedure to proceed with, CP-1 AND CP-2 or ONLY CP-2.
2. Cues: the words "flashing observed" are strong enough to
eliminate "A" and "8" as plausible since "A" and "8" don't include
CP-2. Suggest using words such as "erratic instrument
behavior.
3. 01-29-09: Discussed wi licensee that because wide range and
fuel zone recorders have compensation for pressure and
temperature (respectively), that "A" and "8" are plausible.
Licensee agreed to incorporate suggestion (enhancement only)
4. 4-24-09: Re-worked question to ask for where the steps were
contained for ED when RPV Flooding is required and also ask
for whether the Wide Range Instruments can be used to
determine RWL after MCFI. SRO-only because of 1st portion,
i.e., procedure selection. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
80 H 2 x N 1J 262002 A2.01
S 1. SRO-only: "B" and "C" can be eliminated by systems
knowledge (Le., knowing that the batteries aren't available
because the fuse is downstream of the inverter and the batteries
are upstream). Once "B" and "C" have been eliminated, then
the correct answer can be determined by knowing that a loss of
Vital AC results in a loss of FWH and does not cause the Mark
VI DEHC system to de-energize.
Suggest asking the applicant to predict the impact (Le., loss of
FWH or turbine trip) and also to identify IF the loss of FIW
heating requires change(s) to MAPFAC(p) curve.
2. 4-24-09: Licensee's proposed replacement no longer hit KIA. I
provided substitute question which asked for where the 2R25-
S063 would be powered from immediately following a loss of
600VAC Bus 20 and knowledge of TS 3.0.6 allowances for
cascading loads not required to be declared inoperable.
Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
81 H x x N e 268000 G2.4.21 (Good idea for a tough KIA, but may be better
suited for Q#100 KIA - Discuss w/ licensee)
S
1. Partial: "D" may be argued as correct for two reasons: 1) the
stem doesn't ask for the most limiting reportability time and 2)
the unidentified leakage would require a TS required shutdown
BASED ON A PRINCIPAL SAFETY BARRIER (RCS) BEING
DEGRADED. Therefore, an applicant could pick "D" and
indirectly be correct.
2. Stem Focus: Does "C" and "D" refer to 00AC-REG-001-0 or
REG 0024? Ask licensee to explain the word "form" in each of
these choices. Ensure that wording reflects the correct
procedure name and number.
3. This test item may better fit the KIA for Q#1 00. [Knowledge of
events related to system operation/status that must be reported
to intemal organizations or external agencies, such as State,
NRC, or the transmission system operator.) Discuss using this
question w/ Q#1 00.
4-24-09: Kept Question as Q#81; however, addressed
comments by 1) asking for SOONEST required action; 2) DW
pressure at 0.6 psig and steady;and 3) UID leakage increased
from steady state to 55 gpm over past 24 hours. Question is
SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. B.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
B2 H 3 x x x M e 1. Partial: SCC Flowchart requires performing RC(A) point "A."
[Does this mean to enter the RC RPV Control (non-atws)
S Flowchart?] The applicant could potentially argue that there is
no correct answer since 34AB-C71-001-2 is not listed in the
SCC Flowchart.
Discuss wi licensee change "B" and "0" to RC RPV Control
Flowchart. Also, 34GO-OPS procedures allow entering 34AB-
C71-001-2S, (step 7.15 in fast shutdown procedure)
2. Q=KlA: 1st part of KIA requires predicting impact of hi airborne
radiation on the reactor building (secondary containment). A
more closer tie to the KIA can be made by asking the applicant
to predict whether the Rx Bldg HVAC will isolate or not (based
on given rad monitor readings). Agree that SBGT is a part of
secondary containment and this could be the licensee's intent.
Discuss wi licensee.
3. Stem Focus: 1) Reword the first sentence as follows: "Unit 2
was operating at 100% power when an unisolable steam line
break occurred in the Main Steam Line Tunnel area." {This will
allow eliminating 1st bullet}.
2) Re-word the 2nd fill-in-the-blank statement as follows: lAW
31 EO-EOP-014-2, Secondary Containment Flowchart", the SS
is required to enter (2) "
3) Why is the last bullet required? ("Several other area radiation
monitors in the area indicate as high as 200 mr/hr." 4) Re-word
the stem question 'WOOTF choices completes the following
statements?"
4. 4-24-09: Last bullet required to precisely describe situation as
ONLY one area above Max Safe. Comments incorporated;
question is SAT. SRO-only b/c of procedure selection.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
83 H 3 x N- E 2950006 G2.1.27
1. Stem Focus: 1) Re-word the 2 nd fill-in-the-blank statement as
follows: The Shift Supervisor is required to enter __(2)_ .
2) Bullets 5 & 7 are redundant. Suggest providing the control
room panel number and the white light indications because
bullet 7 information is not necessary to elicit the correct
response.
3) Re-word the 1sl fill-in-the-blank statement as follows: "The
__ (1 )__ depressurized the scram air header."
2. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT. SRO-only
b/c of procedure selection.
84 H 3 x x N E 295008 G2.4.20
S 1. Q=KlA & Stem Focus: KIA requires knowledge of EOPs during
a high water level condition. The correct answer, "C", applies
when vessel level is not high. Discuss wi licensee how KIA is
being met.
Suggest eliminating the OW Spray piece of the question and ask
applicant which procedure is required to stop vessel injection
[i.e., either 31 EO-EOP-113-2 or 31 EO-EOP-114-2] and whether
level is required to be lowered [or not required] at this time. As
written, question introduces Primary Containment Control
knowledge (drywell spray) condition which may not fulfill the
intent of the KIA.
2. Stem Focus: Re-word the stem question as follows: 'WOOTF
choices completes the following statement? The SS is required
to enter __ (1) _ _ and _ _ (2) _ _ to lower vessel
level.
3. Stem Focus: Stem does not indicate whether RHR pumps have
been secured. Applicant could argue that OW Sprays were
secured but the RHR pumps were left running. In this case,
there are no correct answers.
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT. SRO-only
because of branching decision points deep in EOP contingency
and procedure selection.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
85 H 2 x x x x M tJ 295014 G2.2.40
S 1. SRO-only: RO knowledge is the information "above-the-line."
In other words, the knowledge that BPWS is required when
power is less than 10% in modes 1 & 2 is RO knowledge.
Suggest asking the applicant to apply tech specs and TRM
requirement for BPWS and/or RWM instrument.
2. Cred Dist: "A" is not plausible because if RWM is inoperable
below 10%, then Tech Spec LCO for 3.1.6 is always required to
be entered. The "reason" in choice "A" (TS compliance for the
banked position withdrawal sequence is met) is also not
plausible because the stem states that the group withdraw limit
is 18 and the rod went to 20.
3. Cue: Q#66 may provide the SRO applicant with a double
jeopardy, i.e, will miss two questions if he doesn't know the
power level at which bank pOSition withdrawal sequence is
required.
4. 4-24-09; Question is SAT.
86 H 2 x x N tJ 295017 AA2.01
S 1. Cred Dist: "C" and "0" [don't emergency depressurize] are not
plausible when an unisolable steam leak is blowing into the
turbine building and offsite dose is 1050 mr/hr TEDE. [The only
way to stop leak is to depressurize.] Ask licensee for their basis.
May be more plausible to change "C" and "0" to cooldown while
maintaining less than 100 deg/hr cooldown rate. Another
possibility is to ask applicant to identify whether release is a
ground or elevated release and what the emergency
classification is. (was this on last exam?)
2. Re-word the first sentence as follows: "Unit 1 was at 80%
power when an unisolable Main Steam Line break occurred in
the Turbine Building."
3. 01-29-09: Discussed wi licensee that because the Rad Release
Flowchart procedure identifies 1000 mr/hr as the requirement for
ED, then not depressurizing is plausible.
4. 4-24-09: RR flowchart requires ED at 1000 mr/hr if a primary
system is discharging. SRO knowledge of E-plan. Question is
SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOO
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Oist. Link units ward KIA Only
87 H 2 x x N fiJ: 295021 AA2.03
S 1. SRO-only: RO knowledge can be used to eliminate choices "A"
and "0", i.e., knowledge of natural circulation level is RO
knowledge. RO knowledge can be used to eliminate choice "B"
because the unavailability of 1E11-F009 suction flowpath
eliminates the 34S0-E11-010-1, Shifting Shutdown Cooling
Loops, selection.
Suggest re-working question to include applicant's knowledge of
appropriate attachment to trend temperature and/or pressure in
15 minute intervals.
2. SRO-only: RO knowledge of LCO 3.4.7 less than or equal to 1
hour action statement B.1, "Initiate action to restore one loop of
RHR shutdown cooling subsystem or one recirculation pump to
operation" immediately.
3. Stem Focus: Re-word the second fill-in-the-blank statement as
follows: "The Shift Supervisor is required to enter
_ _(2)
4. Cues: This question provides a cue for RO Q#75 that raising
reactor water level is one low power mitigation strategy for a
loss of Shutdown Cooling. Discuss overlap wi the licensee.
5. 4-24-09: Changed 2nd part of question to require selection of
appropriate procedure attachment (vs frequency of temperature
monitoring). Question is SAT.
88 H 3 x N e 295023 G2.4.45
S 1. Partial: The applicant can potentially argue that "A" is also
correct since the "highest priority" action is not defined in a plant
procedure. [Ask licenseejln other words, the applicant may
argue that contacting Health Physics is just as important as
evacuating the refuel floor.
2. 4-24-09: Replaced question wi another question which asks for
alarm that requires entry to SC flowchart (RO knowledge) and
required procedure lAW SC flowchart (SRO knowledge).
Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem' Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/E/S Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
89 H 3 x x N e 295026 EA2.03
S 1. Minutia: The choices contain very distinct flowchart
designations and may be impossible to understand without
distributing the flowcharts.
2. Job-Link: How can torus temperature be 192 degrees and rising
with all rods inserted? (no AlWS) Is this thermodynamically
possible?
Suggestion: The knowledge of whether pressure can/cannot be
adjusted to avoid ED is SRO level knowledge. The knowledge of
whether the cooldown rate can be exceeded is also SRO level
knowledge. Given that, suggest re-working the question to put
the applicant in the unsafe region of HCTL and ask if pressure
can/cannot be adjusted to re-enter the safe region (to avoid ED).
In other words, CP-1, Emergency Depressurization is required
or not required.
3. For regional consistency sake, provide all references in
separate handout, i.e., remove HCTL graph from the stem of
the question.
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated. Question is SAT.
90 H 2 N S 295028 EA2.04
For regional consistency sake, provide all references in separate
handout, i.e., remove DWSIL graph from the stem of the question
4-24-09: Comment incorporated. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EiS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
91 H 2 x N Wi 295038 G2.4.9
S 1. Q=KlA: This KIA may be impossible to hit, i.e., High Offsite
Release and knowledge of low power/shutdown implications in
accident mitigation strategies. As written, the KIA is not testing
knowledge of how being at a low power or being shutdown is
affecting an accident mitigation strategy. Discuss replacing KIA
with the licensee.
2. 01-29-09: Discussed with licensee that PAR reference provided
to applicants would have the protective action guidelines "whited
out"'; therefore, the PAR call could potentially be a low power
mitigation strategy if applicant assumes PAGs were lower since
a refueling outage was occurring.
3. 4-24-09: PAR recommendation has thresholds "whited" out.
Low power mitigation strategy involves assessment of whether
event makes evacuation more dangerous lAW NMP-EP-109,
Section 6.1.5 and 6.1.6.
92 H 2 x N lj 300000 A2.01
S 1. SRO-only: This is a hard KIA to make into SRO question. As
written, the question can be answered using systems knowledge
because the set points (2P52-F565 valve and Startup Level
Control Valve) are all the information that is necessary to
deduce the correct answer ("D").
Suggest writing question related to Diesel Generator starting air
system and incorporate operability determination on Diesel.
Another suggestion is to keep question as is and incorporate
SRO actions that would occur in the work control center for this
scenario, i.e., WR classification, Maintenance Rule Risk
assessment, or Fire Protection LCOs. May need to select
another KIA if unable to write a discriminating question.
2. 4-24-09: Could not write question for EDG starting air because
the air admission valves fail open (Le., EDG starts when filter
becomes clogged). Replaced KIA w/ 223002, A2.06. New
question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
93 H 1 x x x N e 600000 G2.4.49
S 1. Cred Dist: "A" and "B" (the normal way of manually initiating
C02) are not plausible because the stem states that the CO2
system failed to actuate following the room fire. In other words,
the applicant would not consider pushing the C02 start button
because the stem states that "C02 is NOT being discharged
into the "1A" EDG Room"
Suggestion: Is there a way that we can describe the indications
and then the applicant can deduce the status of the CO2
system?
2. #/units: The exact name on the red light label should be used in
the stem (vs "red light associated with the fire protection
system"). Make this into another bullet.
3. #/units: Use the exact name on the START pushbutton (as
identified in procedures) in choices "A" and "B".
4. Stem Focus: Refine (or consolidate) the bullets to allow using a
"WOOTF choices completes the following statements?
5. Stem Focus: Refer to the actual emergency bus associated
with 1A EDG when asking for whether loads are operable. Add
actual TS number (instead of saying lAW Tech Specs).
6. 4-24-09: Comments #1, 2, 3, 4 incorporated. Re-worked
question to ask how to manually actuate EDG C02 system and
implication of two loops of LPCI being inoperable once EDG is
inop. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EiS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
94 f,f 2 x x x x M G2.1.20
S 1. #/units: Is this the Generator Lockout reset switch, on panel
1B31-P003A(B)? If so, then specifically state the lockout switch
label name and location.
2. Job-Link: According to 3480-B31-001-1, The M-G set
generator lockout relay will trip UPON receipt of any of the
following signals:
* Starting sequence incomplete 15 seconds after drive motor
breaker closed
* M-G drive motor overcurrent
* Generator neutral overvoltage
* M-G drive motor ground overcurrent
* Generator/pump motor differential overcurrent
* Generator exciter field overcurrent
* MG drive motor differential overcurrent
* Pump motor (locked rotor) overcurrent
* Generator exciter field under voltage
The question stem states that the pumps tripped as a result of a I
reactor water level transient. Will the generator lockout relay be !
tripped?
3. Partial: Discuss w/ licensee. Since the 34S0-B31-001-1
procedure for re-starting a recirc pump (step 7.1.2.3) does not
state that Shift Supervisor approval is required to reset the
lockout, then the applicant may argue that there is no correct
answer?? In other words, 34S0 does not require Shift
Supervisor approval but 31GO does?
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated by eliminating postulated
scenario and simply asking for procedure and requirements for
resetting the U1 Recirc Pump MG set lock out relays. Question
is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
95 I 2 x x N e G2.2.11
S Discuss the last exam appeal related to jumper approvals and
authorizations wi licensee from the last exam for lessons learned.
1. Job-Link: Current question has the potential for appeals
because 40AC-ENG-018-0 states that Plant Review Board
"REVIEW" is required. Does this mean the same thing as
"APPROVAL?" Whose approval is required?
2. Job-Link: 40AC-ENG-018-0, Section 5.2.1 states that a purple
TM tag is not required if the Shift Supervisor "approves" the TM
as having a condition with "EXISTING HANGING HAZARD."
The HPCI skid can potentially be argued as being hazardous to
hanging a TM tag?
3. Stem Focus: Re-word the stem as follows: 'WOOTF activities
requires a temporary modification tag and also identifies
whether the Plant Review Board's approval is required to
implement the temporary mod lAW 40AC-ENG-018-0?"
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated by adding note and tightening
the stem wording to closely align to the procedure requirement.
Question is SAT.
96 F 2 x x N e G2.2.7
S 1. Partial: NMP-AD-006, Section 4.6 states that the on-duty SM
can NOT perform the function of the SLM. The applicant could
potentially interpret that choices "c" and "D" are referring to the
on-duty SM. In this case, the applicant could argue that there is
no correct answer.
2. Job-Link: 42SV-TET-003-1 not provided with disc or hard copy
reference material. Ask licensee to provide cover page(s) that
reflect this test as requiring NMP-AD-006 classification as an
IPTE.
3. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated and re-worded licensee's
proposal to incorporate exact wording from NMP-AD-006
regarding a "Senior Line Manager."
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
97 H 2 x x x N e G2.3.11
S 1. Partial: An applicant could potentially argue "A" as correct
because 31 EO-EOP-012-2 does not specifically say that venting
until 1.85 psig is incorrect. [It says that venting only as
necessary to maintain torus pressure less than 56 psig.] Does
this mean that venting MUST be secured at 34 psig? 43 psig?
2. Cues: Last bullet in the stem has capitalized word
[OFFSCALE]. This could cue an applicant with no knowledge of
the torus vent opening elevations. Suggest changing the bullet
to "> 300 inches."
3. SRO-only: This item may not be testing any of the 10CFR55.43
areas. If the intent is to tie to 10CFR55.43 (5) [assessment of
plant conditions and selection of procedures], then re-work the
question as follows:
"WOOTF identifies the required procedure to vent the Primary
Containment and also identifies the release rate requirements
during the venting process in accordance with 31 EO-012-2,
Primary Containment Control?"
a. 34S0-T48-002-2, Containment Atmospheric Ctl & Dilution
Systems, Section 7.3.3, Fast Drywell Vent
Vent irrespective of offsite release rates
b.31 EO-EOP-1 01-2, Emergency Containment Venting
Vent irrespective of offsite release rates
C. 34S0-T48-002-2, Containment Atmospheric Ctl & Dilution
Systems, Section 7.3.3, Fast Drywell Vent
Venting MUST be secured if approaching General Emergency
Release Rate Limits
d. 31 EO-EOP-1 01-2, Emergency Containment Venting
Venting MUST be secured if approaching General Emergency
Release Rate Limits.
4. 4-24-09: Comments incorporated; question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
98 H 2 x x N y. G2.3.5
e 1. Partial: 73EP-RAD-001-0, "Radiological Event" mixes the terms
"abnormal radiological condition", "unusual radiological
S condition", and "radiological event." Ask the licensee if the term
"radiological event" is defined in 73EP-RAD-001-0, "Radiological
Event." If not, then there is no correct answer to this question
as written. Suggest using the term "unusual radiological
condition."
Ask the licensee if 73EP-RAD-001-0, Section 4.1.2 is referring
to an E-plan classification lAW 73EP-EIP-001-0).
2. Partial: An applicant can potentially argue that the Shift
Supervisor and Shift Manager are equivalent since both have
the highest NRC license (SROs). The applicant may argue that
the Shift Supervisor has the authority to declare an emergency.
3. Stem Focus: Suggest asking the applicant to identify the
definition of the term "NORMAL dose rate" [highest reading in
the past 24 hours excluding the current peak value.] and to
identify the ARM reading which requires declaring an
UNUSUAL EVENT lAW 73EP-EIP-001-0. This meets the KIA
at the SRO level because the applicant must demonstrate the
ability to use fixed rad instruments to implement the E-plan.
4. 01-29-09: Discussion wi licensee that stem wording could be
tightened to align with the 73EP-RAD-001-0 procedure. Also
verified that second fill-in-the-blank statement would include an
"in accordance with" statement to ensure applicant's could not
argue that Shift Manager was equivalent. Licensee pointed out
that stem already said the LOWEST level management.
(enhancement only)
5. 4-24-09: Question re-worked. Question is SAT.
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/MIN U/EtS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
99 H 1 x x N Y G2.4.22
e 1. LOD=1/Cues: The last bullet of the stem states that RCIC is the
only method available to add negative reactivity to the core.
S Consequently, an SRO applicant who has no knowledge of the
SC Control flowchart can deduce that "I}" "C" is the correct
answer.
2. SRO-only: The selected generic KIA has an importance rating
of 3.6 for ROs. Discuss wI licensee how this affects the
development of an SRO-only test item.
3. Ask the licensee if the EOP lesson plans are the official EOP
step basis document at Hatch.
4. Possible Alternative: Suggest asking question related to steam
cooling procedure ... perhaps ask applicant to identify steam
cooling procedure is required (vs another procedure such as
emergency depressurization) and/or pose situation where RCIC
becomes available ..... do you stay at pressure or ED? Basis?
5. 01-29-09: Discussed wI licensee modifying stem to eliminate
the strong cue ("only method to add - reactivity). Also verified
that EOPs preclude using RCIC if SLC is available. Also
modified stem make 2 nd fill-in-the-blank statement have an "in
accordance with" statement.
6. 4-24-09: Re-worked question to ask EOP bases for allowing
RCIC to continue to operate (made choices "B" and "D"
plausible by stating level was -70" and HPCI/CRD unavailable)
and asking for procedure selection regarding the steps to
jumper out the Hi temp isolation signal. Question is SAT.
------
1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8.
Q# LOK LOD
(F/H) (1-5) Stem Cues T/F Credo Partial Job- Minutia #1 Back- Q= SRO B/M/N U/EIS Explanation
Focus Dist. Link units ward KIA Only
100 H 2 x x N Y G2.4.30
S 1. Q=KlA: This question does not meet the KIA because it does
not target a specific event related to a system's initiation or
status. Discuss using Q#81 to meet this KIA because it seems
like a better fit, Le., reportability due to excessive in leakage
requiring a TS shutdown.
2. Verify with the licensee that there will be no E-plan classification
JPMs which could overlap with this written test item (Le., NRC
notification w/l 1 hour).
3. Stem Focus: Re-word the stem question to say the LATEST
time that the SRO is required to make the notifications (vs. "is
allowed")
4. 4-24-09: Re-worked question to pose a specific event which
required reportability assessment. Question is SAT.
ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1
Quality Checklist
Facility: ttA-TC-H- Date of Exam: 4/3D 01 Exam Level: RO [0" SRO 0
Initials
Item Description a b c
1. Clean answer sheets copied before grading ~
2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified
and documented
~Al AJ)t %
3. Applicants' scores checked for addition errors
(reviewers spot check> 25% of examinations) ~
4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80,
as applicable, +/-4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail
~4 % JJ/A-
5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades
are justified
p/A- % AJj,
6. Performance on missed questions checked for training
deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity
.'8fl.,
of questions missed by half or more of the applicants
Printed Name/Signature Date
a. Grader :Ph'\\i~ G. Gf~~/rlM~ ~J ,,)O!
b. Facility Reviewer(*) VIA ~
c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) '&RLl~o eA8ALt c12;n /~./1/JJ/. ZZ'i!a1
I r;.,.....
d. NRC Supervisor (*) UALwULl.VJI@Ut.AJtU / A"JJJ111-t~WIY
"'if--.
...... d61/)/~~
I l '--/
(*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC;
two independent NRC reviews are required.
}}