ML23160A180

2.3-1 Examination Outline Quality Checklist

ML23160A180
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	03/16/2023
From:	Constellation Energy Generation, NRC/RGN-III
To:
Gregory Roach
Shared Package
ML22007A047	List: ML23160A178 ML23160A180 ML23160A183
References
Download: ML23160A180 (1)

Text

Form 2.3-1 Examination Outline Quality Checklist

Facility: Dresden Nuclear Station Date of Examination: 4/10/2023

(Y)es I (N)o Item Task Description a b* c#

z instructions in Section B of ES-4.1, and a. The outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with the :v, w all knowledge and ability (KIA) categories are 'f I= appropriately sampled.

a: b. The outline does not overemphasize any systems, evolutions, or generic topics. '{.....

?:: c. Justifications for deselected or rejected KIA statements are acceptable. 'f --'/A "

a. Using Form 3.4-1, Events and Evolutions Checklist, verify that the proposed scenario set contains the required number of normal evolutions, reactivity evolutions, instrument '{

and component failures, manual control evolutions, technical specifications, and major y transients.

a: b. There are enough scenarios (and spares) for the projected number and mix of 0

~ applicants in accordance with the expected crew composit ion and rotation schedule y

> without compromising exam integrity. Ensure that scenarios will not be repeated on I U5 :2 subsequent days.

c. Ensure that all scenarios are new or significantly modified in accordance with ES-3.4 y y and that no scenarios are duplicated from the applicants' audit test{s).

d. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conforms with the qualitative and y quantitative simulator set criteria specified on Form 2.3-2. 'I

a. Verify that the administrative outline meets the criteria specified in the instructions on y I Form 3.2-1 and that no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' aud it test(s}.

en b. Ver ify that the control room and in-plant systems outline meets the criteria specified in

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

, a.. audit test(s).

c. Determine whether the number of job performance measures (JPMs) and JPM types is sufficient for the projected number and mix of applicants and ensure that no items are y '1 duplicated on subsequent days.

a. Assess whether the appropriate exam sections cover plant-specific priorities (including probabilistic risk assessment and individual plant examination insights). 1 '1

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

_J appropriate. '/

<( c. Check whether a: KIA importance ratings (excep t tor plant-specific priorities) are greater y y w than or equal to 2.5.

z w y

(!) d. Check for duplication and overlap across the exam and with the last two NRG exams. y

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

f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (reactor operator or senior 'I '/

reactor operator).

a. Author Printed Derek Siuda I - °t~h ~e~~.A"'/ /o Zl

\\ ILJU --,,..,, bz.

b. Facility Reviewer (*) Jonathan Chaoman I ---~

c. NRG Reviewer(#) UV' NRG Chief Examiner NRG Supervisor

• The facility licensee signatu re is not applicable for NRC-develo ped tests.

1. An independent NRG reviewer performs the steps in column "c." Th is may be the NRC Chief Examiner if he/she did not develop the outline under review.