ML17193A363

From kanterella
Revision as of 01:05, 30 October 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
302 Admin Items 2C - Delay Release 2 Yrs
ML17193A363
Person / Time
Site: Oconee  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/12/2017
From:
NRC/RGN-II
To:
References
Download: ML17193A363 (47)
v • d • e


Text

ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-J Facility: 2e?Y1L. Date of Examination: tc.2o)&

Developed by: Written: Facility NRC II Operating Facility NRC Thrget . Chief Task Description (Reference) a e Examiners Initials

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

-150 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.e)

-150 3. Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c)

-150 4. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.d)

[-120] 5. Reference material due (C.1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 3) 1yi3

{-90} 6. Integrated examination outline(s) due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-201-3, ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-D-1, ES-401-1/2, ES-401 N-112, ES-401-3, ES-401 N-3, ES-401-4, and ES-401N-4, as applicable (C.1.e and f; C.3.d)

{-85} 7. Examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility licensee (C.2.h; C.3.e)

{-60} 8. Proposed examinations (including written, walk-through JPMs, and scenarios, as applicable), supporting documentation (including Forms ES-301-3, ES-301-4, ES 301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-401-6, ES-401N-6, and any Form ES-201-2, ES-2013, ES-30i-i, or ES-301-2 updates), and reference materials due (C.1.e, f, g and h; C.3.d)

-45 9. Written exam and operating test reviews completed. (C.3.f)

-30 10. Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398s) due (C.1.l; C.2.g; ES-202)

-21 11. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review (C.2.h; C.3.f)

-21 12. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (Cli; C.2.f and h; C.3.g)

-14 13. Final license applications due and Form ES-201-4 prepared (C.1.l; C.2.i; ES-202) I31J

-14 14. Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor (C.2.i; C.3.h)

-7 15. Facility licensee management queried regarding the licensees views on the examination. (C.2 j)

-7 16. Final applications reviewed; 1 or 2 (if >10) applications audited to confirm qualifications I eligibility; and examination approval and waiver letters sent (C.2.i; Attachment 5; ES-202, C.2.e; ES-204)

-7 17. Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee (C.3.k)

-7 18. 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: Oconee Date of Examination: 12/05/16 Item Initials Task Description

1. a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401 or ES-401 N.
b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with T Section D.1 of ES-401 or ES-401N and whether all K/A categories are appropriately sampled.
c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics. /
d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected K/A statements are appropriate.
2. a. Using Form ES-301 -5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number of normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications, and major S transients.

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

A least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated from the 7 ((1$

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

c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative and quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301 -4 and described in Appendix D.
3. a. Verify that the systems walk-through outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301 -2:

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

K (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 I the form.

H R 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 U (2) at least one task is new or significantly modified 7 4 G (3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations H

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 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate. iW.

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

R d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections. 7 J3 L e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.

fl

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

.< IAPiiiited daure Date

a. Author 1f () fIz](.j4
b. Facility Reviewer (*) J% t&wca / 7iW I ) Iii s4
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) fre.jdA o*/ / P1 ti. ii- t.- II,
d. NRC Supervisor G. YcC I T>&L) r{t Q... k

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

  • Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines.
  • &12n1 arruAig tna Y Jgc-.

ES-20f Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2 Facility. Date of Examination.

Initials Item Task Description 1 a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401 or ES-401 N.

b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with 1 Section D.1 of ES-401 or ES-401N and whether all K/A categories are appropriately sampled.
c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.
d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected K/A statements are appropriate. (j1
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, and major S transients.

M b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number and U mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule L without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using at A least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated from the 1 applicants audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days.

c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative and in quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301-4 and described Appendix D.
3. a. Verify that the systems walk-through outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-2:

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

K (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 T the form.

H R 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 U (2) at least one task is new or significantly modified G (3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations -

H

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.

3r

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

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

N .

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

.

c.

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

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

f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO). 17 Printed Nam /5 e ate
a. Author °
b. Facility Reviewer ()
c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)  %#JL A E11re3 / 17ZJ 2
d. NRC Supervisor Cf..

.-j /

yS<IL Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

  • Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines.

____

______

_____

j%r it -2 ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3

1. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of IZ/05/P1t9 as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
2. Post-Examination m

Co To the best of my kpowl9dge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during t\) the week(s) of 1fO5/&./6 . From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not 0 instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those

- applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted

-o below and authorized by the NRC.

0)

CD CD PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE 0-h i.W}) 1ççCv

2. is% ç2
3. Ybl ) LI5hl Fiec-/- tJIZt. k/12.)Lb 8YP,ktE
4. J/pc4. g/y/,, ( 12 I& ft 5.Ctzs TA,1 rta q/ ic,7 I zI&..l(s 6.(k /U,rk2It C7T- 1-12-IT 7.L3L LJI.*L... It(I/i 4-)_, rzIis/t ç 8...r%.sL oRc _s c.t:; q-j. r 9.I,I,- IL/c.,e.s g i-r-t /1 1O.frt1 Dck Rn gg- ti
11. F tee.4 1ev.) fs! tt. iYE,46t-/A&

12_cj.&..2. 1,. - ç,.., z3 /)C7 V PI157jLPi, i_s-IT

13. jj eo

& Vt ,L

15. i4, 1o 9h ( $Y Pdo6JØ 1215-/C NOTES:

______________________ _____

____

____ ____

_____

____

_____

___

____

_____

. D i%T7( -?_

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

1. Pre-Examination

/

I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled tot the week(s) of tZ/05/1a 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 am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations andlor 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 m my kpowlde, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during (I) To the best of the week(s) of t2M/ZbI& . 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 by the NRC. y

-o below and authorized (0

CD PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE r.i

-.1 )

0

-h i.-7a ,L I 1A L-- q2)-gL. io- z&m

2. i-z-i /LJ1cI(,._JcA.__-

/liSt

3. 4,j°]
4. - 1-50-It BYP1JciJEC 1214ko___

5.Y\Pn t1k-irJf F.q-i,(L oE1Lpro& JIG

6. .TfleS JSd,t14J d J
7. T0 iL II/2/I 8.tY? c+ht cx.Mdo1 en tnr Ofl,.t 4_ t-(/-f7 9.f t/a/7 -/--EJ4E ct-- c____
10. it,I:,c tt -L-c
11. ckrJ-.. ro fc-7-f 12/i 12o 9,-,P Eedr- O,i._-Ii M7.ri4 rn t4N/f 1 4n NJS fldm Jflii II-)1-I,, //5/17 15.b4.)L iL xc1 iL*-I Th,

/

NOTES:

__________ ______

____

_______

_____

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

7. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowld9e, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of t%.I2ai- From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not

.

instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE(2) DATE NOTE i.AM L4 4ui 12-/4-7___

rJfr (q

.icAa4a .VL-1 %4.-?HM  !

4. ZA,I?q 11. 5f.øbj6,tdL p)Dflr / z 5.?1. i9?W L4 6YA11 VAN Yc <),1yWj4kt ppc./ t?)- Ié: v.- 1?-IEi_____
7. (3 5.t =-r WnfiL (-__ --

8.JAwTh jur 5)pl qc ftYL 4 (ftJC/t &z1 L1JØ

9. 1b I .j-;f4 tP L. 7-ç-t, 12.1 ytt tpsd 7-121 AJ IG) -/

1 t-t dr..... t) lb. 7-zctc c--i I

2. -j £

.jJ / 7-z5-t 7%4i 1/ Jt-2-7--7b

14. BAN f.iOR\5 R-o / Ve1j4r 7 2- (4 y
15. c% -Z-?(p ,______

NOTES:

___________

____ _______

_____

. O .

it7t -2 ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3

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

(1) To the best of my kowleJge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of IZJO5/Zot& . 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

-U below and authorized by the NRC.

Co CD PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE! RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATUR (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE r%3 1

0

-h 1.

2. azs F64e-6 j_roP.s Z4.f

,vjcjo %L&

N.) ,z/fa 3/-ec/ t,V,//,,n) Z1Ps Afl4cc)R t.-t -1, /2 -/t-fS tL cLS ) 116

5. 1Me ,AJ rt-z I S, fair ,..ct-to1I /z-f-lh. j21frfj___
6. Z.. ir t,Ps /tTXUCTo iz-/t Z 7Lfjjrpprj J/47c.J .fLr -:v1it /:J6/%
8. A7e .22.7 v.dCTaL ,
9. f f$ A. t .

12JifIi.. W 2) si, 1O,,*AIf 11.

12. Ccc Ii::::

cr Ac51 74tj_)gf.

c)fJ d1t15Dr m iz4-I 4 / ---

I (Jr

14. CLA Morø

.iJt-t PrOp -SI# i-r0--i-7 tto tz 15.

NOTES:

ES-301 Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-1 Facility: Oconee Date of Examination: 12/05/2016 Examination Level: RO X SRO Operating Test Number: 1 Administrative Topic Type Describe activity to be performed (see Note) Code*

Conduct of Operations

[KA:G2.1.45 (4.3/4.3)] D, R ADM-110, Diverse Verification of Reactor (20 min) Power (RO & SRO)

Conduct of Operations

[KA: G2.1.20 (4.6/4.6)] M, R ADM-111, Perform Manual RCS Leakage (20 min) Calculation (RO Only)

Equipment Control ADM-205, Determine LTOP Requirements

[KA: G2.2.14 (3.9/4.3)] D, R (RO Only)

(30 min)

Radiological Control ADM-305, Determine Posting and Access

[KA: G2.3.12 (3.2/3.7)] M, R Requirements of LPI Room Based on Plan View (20 min) (RO & SRO)

Emergency Plan N/A NOTE: All items (five total) are required for SROs. RO applicants require only four items unless they are retaking only the administrative topics (which would require all five items).

  • 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 Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-1 Facility: Oconee Date of Examination: 12/05/2016 Examination Level: RO SRO X Operating Test Number: 1 Administrative Topic Type Describe activity to be performed (see Note) Code*

Conduct of Operations D, R ADM-110, Diverse Verification of Reactor

[KA: G2.1.45 (4.3/4.3)]

Power (RO & SRO)

(20 min)

Conduct of Operations D, R ADM-S108, Determine if SRO License

[KA: G2.1.4 (3.3/3.8)]

Requirements are Met (SRO Only)

(15 min)

Equipment Control ADM-S204, Determine LTOP Requirements and

[KA: G2.2.14 (3.9/4.3)] N, R Any Required Actions (SRO Only)

(30 min)

Radiological Control ADM-305, Determine Posting and Access

[KA: G2.3.12 (3.2/3.7)] M, R Requirements of LPI Room Based on Plan View (20 min) (RO & SRO)

Emergency Plan ADM-S405, Determine Emergency

[KA: G2.4.38 (2.4/4.4)] Classification and Protective Action D, R (30 min) Recommendations (Complete Emergency Notification Form) (SRO Only)

NOTE: All items (five total) are required for SROs. RO applicants require only four items unless they are retaking only the administrative topics (which would require all five items).

  • 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 Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2 Facility: ___Oconee____________________ Date of Examination: 12/05/2016 Exam Level: RO X SRO-I SRO-U Operating Test No.: ______1_______

  • Control Room Systems: 8 for RO; 7 for SRO-I; 2 or 3 for SRO-U System / JPM Title Type Code* Safety Function
a. RO-101b, Align Emergency Boration During an ATWS Unit 1 EOP Rule 1 A, M, S 1

[KA: BW/E13 EA1.1 (3.4/3.2)] (10 min)

b. RO-P403, Initiate HPI Forced Cooling EOP Rule 4 (Initiate HPI Forced Cooling) D, L, S 4P

[KA: EPE 074 EA1.08 (4.2/4.2)] (10 min)

c. RO-501a, ES Channels 5 and 6 Recovery A, D, EN, L, Unit 1 EOP Encl. 5.41 (ES Recovery) 5 S

[KA: APE069 AA2.01 (3.7/4.3)] (10 min)

d. RO-702, Adjust Radiation Monitor Setpoints OP/1-2/A/1104/018 (GWD System) Encl. 4.9 & 4.10 D, S 7 PT/0/A/230/001, (Radiation Monitor Check)

[KA: SYS073 A4.01 (3.9/3.9)] (25 min)

e. RO-S404a, Establish EFDW Flow Through Startup Valves EOP Encl. 5.27 (Alternate Methods for Controlling EFDW D, A, L, S 4S Flow)

[KA: APE054 AA2.04 (4.2/4.3)] (15 min)

f. RO-805a, Perform Required Actions For a Turbine Building Flood D, A, L, S 8 AP/1/A/1700/010 (Turbine Building Flood)

[KA: APE BW/A07 AA1.3 (3.3/3.5)] (15 min)

g. RO-604, Perform a Manual Start of Keowee Hydro Unit 1 OP/0/A/1106/019 Encl. 4.5 (KHU-1 Manual Startup) D, S 6

[KA: SYS062 A4.07 (3.1*/3.1*)] (15 min)

h. RO-204, Align letdown with 1HP-14 failed in Bleed AP/1/A/170/002 (Excessive RCS Leakage) D, S 2

[KA: SYS002 A2.01 (4.3/4.4)] (15 min)

  • In-Plant Systems (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-I); (3 or 2 for SRO-U)
i. AO-804, AO Actions for Control Room Evacuation AP/1/A/1700/050 Encl. 5.6 (AP/EOP AO Actions for Control N, R, E, L 8 Room Evacuation)

[KA: APE068 AA1.07 (4.1/4.2)] (15 min)

j. AO-701, Restoration of ICS Auto Power AP/1/A/1700/023 Encl. 5.2 (Restoration of ICS Auto Power) D, A, E 7

[KA: BW/A02 AA1.3 (3.4/3.6)] (15 min)

k. AO-S403, AO Actions for Supply of Water to SSF AP/0/A/1700/046 Encl. 5.9 (Supply of Water to SSF) N, E, L 4S

[KA: GEN 2.1.20 (4.6/4.6)] (30 min)

  • All RO and SRO-I control room (and in-plant) systems must be different and serve different safety functions; all five 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 / 1 / 1 (control room system)

(L)ow-Power / Shutdown 1/1/1 (N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1(A) 2/2/1 (P)revious 2 exams 3 / 3 / 2 (randomly selected)

(R)CA 1/1/1 (S)imulator

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2 Facility: __Oconee_____________________ Date of Examination: _12/05/2016__

Exam Level: RO SRO-I X SRO-U Operating Test No.: ______1_______

  • Control Room Systems: 8 for RO; 7 for SRO-I; 2 or 3 for SRO-U System / JPM Title Type Code* Safety Function
a. RO-101b, Align Emergency Boration During an ATWS Unit 1 EOP Rule 1 A, M, S 1

[KA: BW/E13 EA1.1 (3.4/3.2)] (10 min)

b. RO-P403, Initiate HPI Forced Cooling EOP Rule 4 (Initiate HPI Forced Cooling) D, L, S 4P

[KA: EPE 074 EA1.08 (4.2/4.2)] (10 min)

c. RO-501a, ES Channels 5 and 6 Recovery A, D, EN, L, Unit 1 EOP Encl. 5.41 (ES Recovery) 5 S

[KA: APE069 AA2.01 (3.7/4.3)] (10 min)

d. RO-702, Adjust Radiation Monitor Setpoints OP/1-2/A/1104/018 (GWD System) Encl. 4.9 & 4.10 D, S 7 PT/0/A/230/001, (Radiation Monitor Check)

[KA: SYS073 A4.01 (3.9/3.9)] (25 min)

e. RO-S404a, Establish EFDW Flow Through Startup Valves EOP Encl. 5.27 (Alternate Methods for Controlling EFDW D, A, L, S 4S Flow)

[KA: APE054 AA2.04 (4.2/4.3)] (15 min)

f. RO-805a, Perform Required Actions For a Turbine Building Flood D, A, L, S 8 AP/1/A/1700/010 (Turbine Building Flood)

[KA: APE BW/A07 AA1.3 (3.3/3.5)] (15 min)

g. RO-604, Perform a Manual Start of Keowee Hydro Unit 1 OP/0/A/1106/019 Encl. 4.5 (KHU-1 Manual Startup) D, S 6

[KA: SYS062 A4.07 (3.1*/3.1*)] (15 min)

h. N/A
  • In-Plant Systems (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-I); (3 or 2 for SRO-U)
i. AO-804, AO Actions for Control Room Evacuation AP/1/A/1700/050 Encl. 5.6 (AP/EOP AO Actions for Control N, R, E, L 8 Room Evacuation)

[KA: APE068 AA1.07 (4.1/4.2)] (15 min)

j. AO-701, Restoration of ICS Auto Power AP/1/A/1700/023 Encl. 5.2 (Restoration of ICS Auto Power) D, A, E 7

[KA: BW/A02 AA1.3 (3.4/3.6)] (15 min)

k. AO-S403, AO Actions for Supply of Water to SSF AP/0/A/1700/046 Encl. 5.9 (Supply of Water to SSF) N, E, L 4S

[KA: GEN 2.1.20 (4.6/4.6)] (30 min)

  • All RO and SRO-I control room (and in-plant) systems must be different and serve different safety functions; all five 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 / 1 / 1 (control room system)

(L)ow-Power / Shutdown 1/1/1 (N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1(A) 2/2/1 (P)revious 2 exams 3 / 3 / 2 (randomly selected)

(R)CA 1/1/1 (S)imulator

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2 Facility: __Oconee_____________________ Date of Examination: _12/05/2016__

Exam Level: RO SRO-I SRO-U X Operating Test No.: ______1______

  • Control Room Systems: 8 for RO; 7 for SRO-I; 2 or 3 for SRO-U System / JPM Title Type Code* Safety Function
a. RO-101b, Align Emergency Boration During an ATWS Unit 1 EOP Rule 1 A, M, S 1

[KA: BW/E13 EA1.1 (3.4/3.2)] (10 min)

b. RO-P403, Initiate HPI Forced Cooling EOP Rule 4 (Initiate HPI Forced Cooling) D, L, S 4P

[KA: EPE 074 EA1.08 (4.2/4.2)] (10 min)

c. RO-501a, ES Channels 5 and 6 Recovery A, D, EN, L, Unit 1 EOP Encl. 5.41 (ES Recovery) 5 S

[KA: APE069 AA2.01 (3.7/4.3)] (10 min)

d. N/A
e. N/A
f. N/A
g. N/A
h. N/A
  • In-Plant Systems (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-I); (3 or 2 for SRO-U)
i. AO-804, AO Actions for Control Room Evacuation AP/1/A/1700/050 Encl. 5.6 (AP/EOP AO Actions for Control N, R, E, L 8 Room Evacuation)

[KA: APE068 AA1.07 (4.1/4.2)] (15 min)

j. AO-701, Restoration of ICS Auto Power AP/1/A/1700/023 Encl. 5.2 (Restoration of ICS Auto Power) D, A, E 7

[KA: BW/A02 AA1.3 (3.4/3.6)] (15 min)

k. N/A
  • All RO and SRO-I control room (and in-plant) systems must be different and serve different safety functions; all five 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 / 1 / 1 (control room system)

(L)ow-Power / Shutdown 1/1/1 (N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1(A) 2/2/1 (P)revious 2 exams 3 / 3 / 2 (randomly selected)

(R)CA 1/1/1 (S)imulator

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3 Facility:_Oconee Date_of_Examination:_12/05/16 Operating_Test Number: 1 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 ?5L criteria (e.g., item distribution, bank use, repetition from the last 2 NRC examinations) specified yj on those forms and Form ES-201 -2.

3. Simulator Criteria -- --

The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with Form ES-  ?(.

301-4 and acopy is attached. f P inted Name / Signature Date

a. Author
b. Facility Reviewerf*) /1 (/ /1,16_Il,
c. NRCChiefExaminer(#) frLrirk 4ioIs/ZtIO.7Z) 11ZS/f,
d. NRC Supervisor JS&NcS-? \C.&\

NOTE:

  • The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.
  1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

ES-307 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Facility: Oconee Date of Exam: 12/05/2016 Scenario Numbers: 1 /2/3/4 Operating Test No.: 1 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. The scenarios consist mostly of related events. cs *7 na
3. Each event description consists of
  • the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated
  • the malfunction(s) or conditions 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. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.

1W2

5. Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives.
6. 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.

7. The simulator modeling is not altered.

!

8. 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 TY fidelity is maintained while running the planned scenarios.
9. 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.
10. All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 (submit the form along with the simulator scenarios).

1 1. The scenario set provides the opportunity for each applicant to be evaluated in each of the applicable f1.

rating factors. (Competency Rating factors as described on forms ES-303-1 and ES-303-3.)

- 1A,

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).

,

,%43

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

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

1. Malfunctions after EOP entry (1 -2) 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 116
2. Abnormal events (2-4) 4 I 3 / 4 / 3 2j
3. Majortransients(12) 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 _- 7
4. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (12) 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
5. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) 1 / 1 / 1 / 1
6. EOP based Critical tasks (23) 3 I 2 I 2 / 2 NOTE:
  • The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.
  1. Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Facility: Oconee Date of Exam: 12/05/2016 Operating Test No.: 1 A E Scenarios 1 2 3 4 T M L N CREW CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION 0 I I T POsmON T C I S A B S A B S A B S A B A A T M R T 0 R T 0 R T 0 R T o L u 0 C P 0 C P 0 C P 0 C P M(*)

T E R IU RO RX 6 6 6 2 1 1 0 NOR 111 SRO-l I/C 4,5 4,5 2,4 6,7 4 4 2 SRO-U MAJ 7 7 8 8 2 2 1 TS 022 RO RX 11 0 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SRO-I I/C 2,3 2,3 3,5 3,4 4 4 2 SRO-U MAJ 7 8 8 221 TS 022 AX 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 1 10 NOR 1 1 1 1 111 I/C 2,3,4, 4,5 2,3,4, 4,5 2,3,4, 2,4 3,4,6, 6,7 4 4 2 5 5 5 7 MAJ 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 221 TS 4,6 4,6 5,7 4,5 0 2 2 AX 6 6 6 2 110 NOR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I/C 2,3,4, 2,3,4, 2,3,4, 3,4,6, 4 4 2 5 5 5 7 MAJ 7 7 8 8 221 TS 4,6 4,6 5,7 4,5 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 RD applicants. ROs must serve in both the at-the-controls (ATC) and balance-of-plant (BOP) positions. Instant SROs (SAD-I) must serve in both the SAD and the ATC positions, including at least two instrument or component (I/C) malfunctions and one major transient, in the ATC position. If an SAD-I 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 one-for-one basis.
3. Whenever practical, both instrument and component malfunctions should be included; only those that require verifiable actions that provide insight to the applicants competence count toward the minimum requirements specified for the applicants license level in the right-hand columns.
4. For licensees that use the ATC operator primarily for monitoring plant parameters, the chief examiner may place SAD-I aolicants in either the ATC or BOP position to best evaluate the SRO-I in maniputatinq plant controls.

ES-307 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Facility: Oconee Date of Examination: 12/05/16 Operating Test No.: 1

]

APPLICANTS RO-ATCtI RO-BOPI] RD El RD El SRO-I El SRO-l El SRO-l El SRO-l [Xl SRO-U El SRO-U El SRO-U [Xl SRO-U El Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO 123472341 2341234 Interpret/Diagnose 4,5, 4,5, 2,4, 6,7, 2,3, 2,3, 3,5, 3,4, 2,3, 2,3, 2,3, 3,4, 4,5, 4,5, 2,4, 6,7, 6,7 6,7 8 8 7 7 8 8 4 4 4 5 6,7 6,7 8 8 Events and Conditions Comply With and 4,5, 4,5, 2,3, 2,6, 1,2, 1,2, 1,3, 1,3, 2,4, 4,5, 2,3, 4,6, 4,5, 4,5, 2,3, 2,6, I I 6,7 6,7 4,6, 7,8 3,6, 3,4, 5,8 4,8 5,6, 6,7 4,5, 7,8 6,7 6,7 4,6, 7,8 se roceuures ,4 8 7 6,7 7 8 8 Operate Control 4,5, 4,5, 2,3, 2,6, 1,2, 1,2, 1,3, 1,3, 4,5, 4,5, 2,3, 2,6, 6,7 6,7 4,6, 7,8 3,6, 3,4, 5,8 4,8 6,7 6,7 4,6, 7,8 B oarus Sc) 8 7 6,7 8 Communicate 2,4, 4,5, 2,3, 2,6, 1,2, 1,2, 1,3, 1,3, 1,2, 3,4, 2,3, 2,4, 2,4, 4,5, 2,3, 2,6, 5,6, 6,7 4,6, 7,8 3,4, 3,7 5,8 4,8 3,4, 5,6, 4,5, 6,7, 5,6, 6,7 4,6, 7,8 anuA interact 7 8 5,7 5,6, 7 6,8 8 7 8 7

Demonstrate 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2, 1,2,

.

3,4 3 4 34 3,4, 3 4, 3,4, 3,4, 3,4, Supervisory Ability (3)

..

5,6, 5,6, 5,6, 6,7, 5,6, 5,6, 5,6, 6,7, 7 7 8 8 7 7 8 8 Comply With and 2,6 4,6 5,7 4,5 2,6 4,6 5,7 4,5 UseTech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an AC.

(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. (This includes all rating factors for each competency.) (Competency Rating factors as described on forms E$-303- 7 and ES-303-3.)

Final Written Sample Plan is a combination of Draft Approved Sample Plan and ES-401-4.

ES-401 Record of Rejected K/As Form ES-401 -4 Tier / Randomly Reason for Rejection Group Selected KA 1 / 1 APEO22 AK1.04 Q(5) Unable to write a discriminating question to the original K/A. Replacement K/A is APEO22 AK1.O1 on 9/13/16.

V 1 / 2 APEO32 2.4.9 Q(22) Could not write a discriminating question to the original K/A. Replacement K/A is APEO32 G2.4.11 2 / 2 SYSO28 (3.01 Q(60) Q(60) Oconee does not have a Hydrogen Recombiner. Replacement K/A IS SYSO4Y K3.02.

1 / 2 APEOO1 2.4.8 Q(82) Unable to write a discriminating SRO ONLY question to the original K/A.

Replacement K/A is APEOO1 2.4.41 on 9/13/16.

3 / 0 GEN2.3 2.3.7 Q(98) Unable to write a discriminating SRO ONLY question to the original K/A.

Replacement K/A is Gen 2.3 2.3.6 on 9/13/16.

ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6 Facility: Oconee Nuclear Station DateofExam: 12/5/2016 ExamLevel: RD SRO Initial Item Description a b* c

1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility. 7 i%
2. a. NRC KAs 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 RD or 2 SRO questions were repeated from the last two NRC licensing exams, consult the NRR/NRC CL program office).
5. Question duplication from the licensee 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 the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or other (explain)
6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent from the Bank Modified New bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest new or modified); enter the actual RD / SRO-only question 38 / 7 8 / 8 2 9 / 10 distribution(s) at right.

50% / 28% 10% / 32% 38% / 40%

7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RD Memory C/A exam are written at the comprehension/analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60 percent if the randomly ,,,,

/ 7 42 / 18 L- 2 yv selected K/As support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual RD / SRO question distribution(s) at right.

44% 28% 56% / 72%

8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of distractors.
9. Question content conforms to specific K/A statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified. I
10. Question psychometric quality and format meet the guidelines in ES Appendix B.
11. The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with the value on the cover sheet.

,

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author 4%j;yj If/1o-/1o
b. FacilityReviewer(*) / / -
c. NRC Chief Examiner(#) t&.V A.I4 If? lYlw.J
d. NRC Regional Supervisor I 3X,c& C--
  • Note: The facility reviewers initials/signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.
  1. Independent NRC reviewer initials items in Column c; chief examiner concurrence required.

Oconee 2016-302 Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

For Bank Questions - change the location of the correct answer. The purpose is to prevent an applicant from simply recalling the location of the answer on a recently reviewed bank question and get the correct answer knowing little else.

IAW, NUREG-1021, unsat Qs that appeared on previous NRC exams do not count toward the percentage for determining the quality of the submittal.

1 F 2 B E APE008G2.4.34 47Q2 S Modify the first question statement for grammatical New correctness. A procedure cannot dispatch an operator, but it can contain guidance, or the requirement, to dispatch an operator to open a breaker.

I.E. 1) The SRO will direct entry into __(AP/02 or AP/44)__,

which contains direction to open a breaker to fail 1RC-66 closed.

Incorporated.

2 H 2 B E EPE009EA1.01 43Q3 S The second part of the question appears to be independent New of what EOP Enclosure 5.1 states. Can this part of the question be answered by only knowing systems knowledge?

Incorporated.

Plausibility of B(2) and D(2) may not be acceptable because any time a very specific item is compared to a generally stated item, plausibility can be impacted. The second part of the question would be better stated if it tested the intended contrast between ES Channel 3 being required to be reset or not needing to be reset.

I.E. Prior to stopping 1A LPI pump, ES Channel 3 __(is / is not) required to be reset.

Incorporated.

3 H 2 B E EPE011G2.4.21 39Q4 Is it possible to delete the re- from B, C, and D?

S Incorporated.

New 1

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

4 H 2 B S APE015/017AK2.07 43Q5 No comments.

New 5 F 2 x B U APE022AK1.01 46Q5 C(1) and D(1) do not appear to be plausible. RCP shaft S binding does not seem credible. What documentation exists New that would indicate that shaft binding is a concern with RCPs?

New Q.

6 H 2 B S APE025AA1.03 46Q6 No comments.

New 7 H 2 X M U APE027AK3.03 43Q9 Will suction always be from the BWST when entering the S SGTR Tab? Could suction still be from the LDST if level has not dropped enough and pressure has not lowered enough?

The question stem does not state which steps of the EOP Tab have been completed.

Incorporated.

B(2) and D(2) may not be plausible. Any source of water, whether it be from the LDST or BWST, is cold with respect to the pressurizer. A risk of subcooling the pressurizer due to water being sprayed from one of those two tanks does not seem credible because the potential would always be present when using aux spray. Operators would just control spray flow to control pressure - maybe spray less?

Incorporated.

8 H 2 X B U EPE029EK1.01 2009B To add plausibility to PORV being open: suggest changing Q8 S RCS pressure to 2425 psigI.E. RCS pressure rises to 2425 psig.

New Incorporated.

2

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

C(1) and D(1) do not appear to be plausible. The first part of the question is only asking about the WHEN, not the magnitude. Any time a heat-up occurs, temperature is going to act first - even if rods fully insert into the core, even the most infinitesimal temperature increase will cause a corresponding infinitesimal amount of negative reactivity to be inserted. Furthermore, you are apparently relying on manual rod insertion, which takes time for the psycho-motor skills of the operator to initiate the negative reactivity insertion. Therefore, the only thing this part of the question really tests is whether an ATWS will cause temp to rise and insert negative reactivity.

Modified and used 5 EFPD to enhance plausibility.

9 H 2 X B U EPE038EA2.03 45Q10 Discuss the idea of changing 1000 gpm in B(2) and D(2) to S 440 gpm.

42Q10 Incorporated.

A(1) and B(1) may not be plausible. Why would an applicant choose the SG with the lower level? Help me understand the misconception that would cause an applicant to choose the SG with the lower level? Why would I ever not pick the SG with the higher level?

Modified stem info.

10 H 2 x N U APE040AA2.03 C(1) and D(1) do not appear to be plausible. At a glance the S applicant can see that one SG is above 900 psig and the other is less than 200 psig..what misconception would lead an applicant to determine that a LOCA was occurring versus a MSLB?

Incorporated.

11 H 2 N S APE054AA2.08 No comments.

12 F 2 M S EPE055EK1.01 2009 No comments.

Q48 13 H 2 x N U APE056AA1.33 3

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

C(1) and D(1) do not appear to be plausible. With no 4160 S VAC buses energized, what misconception could an applicant have that would lead them to choose open?

Consider having only one bus de-energized and then asking if a specific PORV Block Valve will open.

Incorporated.

14 F 2  ? B E/ APE057AK3.01 47Q13 U Can the reasons be deleted in the answer choices and still have four unique choices with one and only one correct New S answer? It appears that the only information needed to answer the question is the first part of each answer choice.

Incorporated.

15 H 2 B S APE065AK3.04 2009B No comments.

Q15 New 16 H 2 B S APE077AK2.03 44Q16 No comments.

41Q16 17 H 1 x N U BWE02G2.1.7 C(1) and D(1) are not plausible due to direct lookup S elimination of 0.22x106 lbm/hr. The question states that Emergency Feed is being used, not Main Feed. The only place 0.22x106 lbm/hr appears is with Main Feed. Providing a reference creates unacceptable plausibility.

Modified.

B(2) and D(2) are also not plausible with the reference provided.

Determined OK.

18 H 2 B46Q S BWE04EK2.2 16 No comments.

2009Q 18 4

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

19 H 2 N E APE003AK1.02 Discuss: An AUTO runback occurring without turbine control S valves throttling closed.this is a little confusing and may just require some discussion.

Enhanced.

No other comments at this time.

OK 20 H 2 N S APE005AK2.02 K/A Match note: Reactor Trip is accomplished by opening breakers.

No comments.

21 H 2 x N E APE028AK3.03 C(1) and D(1) may not be plausible. Containment S Temperature rising enough to cause reference leg to flash seems a little extreme. Would it be better to change the first part and test IS / IS NOT due to bubble formation in vessel head?

Incorporated.

22 F 2 x N U APE032G2.4.9 K/A requires testing knowledge in the presence of an S accident. This question tests only knowledge of loss of SR NIs while performing a general operating procedure.

KA Changed. - OK.

23 H 2 x B E APE051AK3.01 2009B Vacuum is not provided in the stem of the question. The first Q21 S part of the question is independent of the second part. The first part is a hypothetical, which asks for a condition that 2007 could cause TBVs to fail closed. The second part of the NRC question asks only for what the EOP directs the operator to Retest do, which includes using TBVs. Discuss placing the vacuum pressure in the stem as well as the turbine header pressure so that the conditions would clearly apply to both parts of the question.

Sat after modification.

24 F 2 B E APE061AA2.04 5

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

40Q23 Does the RB Evacuation alarm annunciate locally? If so, S then B and C are subsets of each other. More words in the New answer choices may be needed to differentiate the choices.

Changed format of Q. OK 25 F 2 x N U APE067AA1.01 To address the plausibility of B(2) and D(2), the distractors S would be more plausible if cylinder pressure was lowered to 175 psig at 0830, or raised to 1200 psig at 0830. Otherwise, it is highly likely operators who know nothing about the set points will still get the question correct.

Incorporated.

26 H 2 x B U BWA07AA1.3 45Q26 A(1) and B(1) are not plausible because none of the S parameters to determine if HPI forced cooling is required are 40Q15 even stated in the stem. Procedures never direct once-thru-cooling pre-emptive to meeting the conditions because you want to exhaust all options before creating a self-induced LOCA. Consider adding parameters to the stem which must be analyzed for HPI forced cooling.

Added parameters.

27 H 2 x N E BWE08EK1.3 Discuss deleting the high flow alarm from the stem. This S appears to be extra information that is not needed to answer the question. Its deletion would increase the plausibility of the distractors in the first part.

Incorporated.

28 F 2 M S SYS003A1.02 39Q28 No comments.

29 H 2 N S SYS003A3.03 No comments.

30 H 2 B E SYS004K3.03 2010A Why is a time stated in the initial conditions? No time is Q28 S stated in the current conditions. Suggest deleting the time unless there is a specific reason it needs to be stated.

New Incorporated.

6

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

31 H 2 x B U SYS004K5.15 45Q7 KA Match: How is knowledge of MTC being tested?

S Demineralizers affinity for boron is being tested as letdown New temperature changes. How is the .as it relates to MTC part of the KA being tested? If negative reactivity is inserted via boron, then negative reactivity must be taken out be withdrawing rods ----- no MTC knowledge is ever tested.

Modified.

32 H 2 x B S SYS005K6.03 44Q30 No comments.

2009B Q31 33 H 2 B S SYS006A3.06 40Q32 No comments.

New 34 F 2 B S SYS007G2.2.44 45Q34 No comments.

2009A Q34 35 F 2 N S SYS008A3.08 36 H 1 x x N U SYS010K5.02 Operational validity of the first part seems to be low, in that it S only tests someones knowledge of a definition. The second part actually tests the operators knowledge in a more relevant way. In an accident of this type it is way more important for the operator to understand that the temp downstream will be lower as compared to keeping two similar sounding words straight in their head. Recommend replacing the first part of the question.

Deleted.

Plausibility of distractors for second part are questionable.

To make the choices more acceptable, it may be better to play off of a misconception on how to use the mollier 7

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

diagram. As it is written now, all I need to understand is that temp will cool down as it is throttled.I do not need to know anything on how to figure out what downstream temperature to anticipate. In other words, no applicant will even need to crack open the steam tables to figure this out.

After peer checks - others believed modified Q OK.

37 H 2 B S SYS010K6.02 41Q36 No comments.

New 38 M 2 B S SYS012A2.06 39Q67 No comments.

New 39 H 2 B S SYS013A4.02 43Q55 No comments.

2008-301Q5 5

40 F 2 B S SYS013K2.01 44Q65 No comments.

40Q40 modifi ed 41 F 2 B S SYS022K3.01 42Q40 No comments.

New 42 H 2 N S SYS026A2.07 No comments.

43 H 2 N S SYS039 No comments.

44 H 2 B S SYS059A4.10 8

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

47Q24 No comments.

New 45 F 2 N S SYS061K1.05 No comments.

46 F 2 N S SYS061K3.01 No comments.

47 H 2 B S SYS062A1.03 41Q45 No comments.

New 48 H 2 B E SYS062K4.03 46Q49 S Change ASSUME NO OPERATOR ACTIONS to NO New OPERATOR ACTIONS ARE TAKEN. Appendix E instructs the applicants to not make assumptions.

Incorporated.

49 H 2 B E SYS063K4.02 43Q49 S Change ASSUME NO OPERATOR ACTIONS to NO 2009Q OPERATOR ACTIONS ARE TAKEN. Appendix E instructs 51mo the applicants to not make assumptions.

dified Discuss deleting ONLY from A. It may be more correct to define what your intention is by stating ONLY. I.E. being supplied by Battery #1 due to Battery Charger #1 not being energized.

Incorporated.

50 F 2 B S SYS073 4751 No comments.

New 51 H 2 B E SYS076K1.19 41Q51 S 9

Q 1. 2. 3. Psychomeric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other 6. 7. 8. Explanation LOK LOD Stem Cues T/ Cred. Partial Job- Minutia #/ Back Q- SRO B, M, N U, (F/H) (1-5) Focus F Dist Link Units ward K/A Only E, S

New Change ASSUME NO OPERATOR ACTIONS to NO OPERATOR ACTIONS ARE TAKEN. Appendix E instructs the applicants to not make assumptions.

Incorporated.

52 F 2 B S SYS076K2.01 41Q50 New 53 F 2 x N U SYS078K2.02

? Help me understand the plausibility of 3X1 and 3X3. There appears to be better choices for distractors. Discuss S changing the distractors to 1XD, 2XF, and 2XP. This will maintain better symmetry by using two choices from two different units and also use some of the other power supplies that power other Worthington backup compressors.

Incorporated.

54 F 2 N S SYS103G2.1.30 Allowing K/A match due to controlling atmosphere in containment penetration room. Difficult KA to meet due to RB being largely inaccessible for most modes of operation.

55 H 2 M S SYS103K4.06 44Q38 No comments.

56 F 2 N S SYS001K6.03 No comments.

57 - F 2 x x N E SYS002A3.01

+ To ensure one and only one correct answer, would it be safer S to move the RBNS level away from the setpoint at 0820? I would suggest raising it to 2 inches so that there is not an argument that it could still be running at 1 inch.

Incorporated.

58 H 2 N E SYS014A4.02 It appears that extra stuff is presented in the answer choices.

S Discuss reducing the choices to:

10

A. 1. OFF

2. place Diamond and FDW Loop Masters in MANUAL B. 1. OFF
2. leave ICS in AUTO Etc.

Some of original wording remains to ensure one and only one correct answer.

59 H 2 N E SYS015K5.04 Core Thermal Power Best is defined in the stem as (CTB),

S yet in the question statement it is referred to as CTPB? Is an editorial change needed to be consistent?

Incorporated.

Why is the word ONLY needed at the end of the first question statement?

Deleted.

60 H 2 N E SYS041K3.02 When a 50 psig bias is added to the setpoint, does that make S the new setpoint just 50 psi higher than the old setpoint, thereby creating a subset issue in that TBVs always open at setpoint unless they are malfunctioning? To address this, it may be better to be a little more specific on the wording of the answer choices. I.E.: (2) setting as selected on (controller number or name) vs (2) setting as selected on (controller number or name) plus 50 psi.

Modification to wording to address comment.

61 F 2 x M E SYS029G2.4.46 Can 1RIA-49 receive a HIGH alarm without one of the other 48Q55 S alarms that do cause RB Purge to isolate also annunciating?

The reason for this question is to ensure only one answer.

Yes.

62 + F 2 M S SYS033K4.01 No comments.

40Q61 63 + F 2 N E SYS072A1.01 Entry into a Tech Spec occurs if the conditions of applicability S are met. Be more precise with the question statement and ask if the conditions of the LCO are met or ask if a REQUIRED ACTION is required or not.

Incorporated.

11

64 F 2 x x N U SYS075A2.03 Is there enough information provided to solicit the correct S answer? If the Main Turbine trips at 21.75 inches Hg, what information in the stem is provided that guarantees that to be the case?

Conditions modified.

50% Power is a substantially high power level - it only makes sense that the turbine would trip before the MFW pumps and that the reactor would receive a trip signal from 50%.

Discuss.

Replaced.

65 F 2 N S SYS079K1.01 No comments.

66 + H 2 N S G2.1.19

+ No comments.

67 + H 2 N S G2.1.23 No comments.

68 F 2 x x N E G2.1.6 The distractors for the first half do not appear plausible when S you tell them that the BOP is performing the symptoms check while the OATC is doing IMAs. Discuss combining the first two bullets under Current Conditions and making them state:

The OATC and BOP are performing IMAs and Symptoms check iaw OMP-1-18 (or whatever the appropriate document). This will help avoid the cue which impacts the plausibility.

Incorporated.

69 F 2 B S G2.2.17 No comments.

47Q70 New 70 F 2 B E G2.2.2 Would operators move rods for imbalance control or 2009B S balance control? When balancing rods, is that balancing Q69 within a group? If so, is selecting the group really the only actions needed?

OK as-is.

12

All these actions must be performed iaw a procedure. This procedure reference should be stated in the question statement. This procedure should be supplied as part of the question references, or at a minimum the chief examiner needs to be informed of which procedure is directing these actions.

Incorporated.

When asking for the MINIMUM actions, if there is any other action for which the author was not aware, then the question has no correct answer. This is a risky question construction method.

Addressed.

71 F 2 B E G2.2.3 44Q17 S The statement is made in the Discussion section that EOPs direct to have only 1 RCP running during certain conditions.

New Please discuss with the chief examiner which EOPs contain this direction and under what circumstances.

OK 72 F 2 B S G2.3.11 No comments.

39Q70 73 F 2 B S G2.3.4 No comments.

48Q72 New 74 F 2 B S G2.4.39 No comments.

39Q74 75 H 2 B S G2.4.46 No comments.

40Q13 13

76 H 2 x N U APE008AA2.28 A(2) and C(2) do not appear to be plausible. How can a loss S of heat transfer be a reasonable misconception when CETs are lowering? By virtue of temp lowering one knows that heat is leaving the RCS without applying much thought.

Potentially could be fixed by changing the question statement to test: LOCA CD (IS / IS NOT) required to be initiated.

Modified.

77 H 2 N E APE015/017AA2.02 What is the purpose for stating that the bearing temp will rise S at a constant rate? Will it actually rise at a constant rate?

How could an operator predict that the rate will be constsnt.

This aspect of the question appears to lack operational validity. It would make more sense to simply test two temperatures, one of which requires the action (190F), and one which is plausible but wrong (225F).

Addressed.

Is it wrong for AP-029 to be used for the power reduction?

They have an option to use AP-016, but w need to discuss if it is unequivocally wrong to use AP-029. If an argument can be made that power can be lowered using AP-029, then some minor modification to the wording might be needed.

Addressed.

78 H 2 x B U APE025G2.1.20 Question does not appear to be SRO-only. The question can 41Q78 S be answered by only knowing an action and the reason for that action. I have read the justification for SRO-only 2009B supplied with this question as well as that which was supplied Q78 with ILT2009BQ78, but I still do not understand how procedure selection knowledge is required.

Q replaced.

79 H 2 x x N U APE054G2.4.20 Is the correct answer designated on the exam? The question S analysis indicates that C is the correct answer, yet the upper right hand corner contains a large bolded A. To retain plausibility, if needed ensure levels are such that the SGs are not considered dry.

Corrected.

14

Is the question testing the KA at the SRO level? It appears that the caution statement does not contain knowledge that is related to an SRO topic. It would be logical for an RO to know whether the depressurization needed to occur slowly or quickly. Discuss.

Q modified.

Where are the operators within the LOHT tabe at 0810 when the CRS is asked to make a procedure selection? Does it matter which procedure step is being performed? Discuss to ensure there is one and only one correct answer.

Q modified.

80 F 2 N S APE058G2.4.30 81 H 2 x B U BWE05EA2.2 How is FCD tab (distractors A(2) and C(2)) plausible? With 2009B S no intact SGs and no ability to put water in them, how does Q93 FCD appear credible? What heat transfer mechanism other than SGs is available to facilitate the FCD within that New procedure?

Modified.

82 H 2 x x M U APE001G2.4.41 KA Match: How does the continuous rod withdrawal relate to 46Q9 S the answer choices? Can I answer the question only by knowing that the reactor failed to trip from the control room (which is why Rule 1 is in progress)?

Modified to meet KA.

83 F 2 M S APE028AA2.01 41Q83 No comments.

84 + H 2 N S BWE03EA2.1 No comments.

85 H 2 M S BWE13G2.1.20 No comments.

42Q84 86 H 2 N S SYS004A2.19 No comments.

87 - H 2 M E SYS006G2.4.47 Instrument number needs to be added to the graph.

43Q89 S Incorporated.

15

88 H 2 x N U SYS061A2.03 KA Match: It appears that the second part of the question is S testing SRO procedure selection knowledge, but to answer this part of the question no knowledge of loss of DC is required. Discuss.

Q modified.

89 + F 2 N E SYS062A2.06 Modify the second part of the question. Entry into an LCO is S not correct terminology. If the Applicability conditions are met, you are in the LCO. You may meet the conditions of the LCO and no action statements may be required, but you are in the LCO. Therefore, the wording needs to test whether the Conditions of the LCO are met -OR- if any actions of the LCO are required to be performed.

Q modified.

90 H 2 x N U SYS063G2.4.2 Q does not appear to be SRO-only. The Q can be answered S by applying systems knowledge coupled with major EOP entry condition knowledge, both of which are required RO knowledge. Discuss.

Q modified.

91 - H 2 M S SYS011G2.2.22 No comments.

47Q91 92 H 2 B S SYS016A2.02 No comments.

48Q92 New 93 F 2 B S SYS017G2.2.38 No comments.

39Q92 94 H 2 B S G2.1.32 KA soft match on procedure selection as it applies to system 44Q95 limits of reactor trip on turbine trip and how procedure content will impact those trip features.

95 F 2 B E G2.1.40 Is the wording of the second part of the correct answer 47Q94 S correctly stating the words in the TS Bases? Does the bases 16

discuss the water only in the FTC or does it include all water above the flange?

Incorporated.

96 + F 2 B E G2.2.11 The question statement in the first part needs to reflect the 16-1 S actual wording of the procedure. The procedure only states Q95 that the removal of the change SHOULD be within one year.

This is not a requirement. Therefore the question statement needs to reflect that the procedure states SHOULD.

Incorporated.

97 H 2 M E G2.2.3 The first question statement states At this point? What 47Q85 S point? At 1500? More specificity may be needed here.

Incorporated.

98 - H 2 B S G2.3.6 No comments.

46Q98 99 F 2 M S G2.4.13 No comments.

40Q78 100 H 2 N S G2.4.44 No comments.

17

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-J Quality Checklist Facility: Oconee Date of Exam: December 14, 2016 Exam Level: RO SRO

. Initials Item Description a b c

1. Clean answer sheets copied before grading

. N/A

2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented N/A
3. Applicants scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations) N/A
4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as applicable, +/-4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail N/A
5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are justified ,tJ%t N/A
6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of N/A questions missed by half or more of the applicants Printed Name/Signature Date
a. Grader M.G.Donithan /2%//
b. Facility Reviewer (*) N/A
c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) M. A. Bates
d. NRC Supervisor (*) G. j. McCoy itfrt)z3

(*) The facility reviewers signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.

DUKE Scott ENERGY Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy ON0IVP 7800 Rochester Hwy Seneca, Sc 29672 ONS-2016-069 864.873.3274 864873. 4208 July 28, 2016 ScotLBatsonduke-energy.com Ms. Catherine Haney Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Subject:

Oconee Nuclear Station Operating Exam Outlines - 90 day submittal

Dear Ms. Haney:

In accordance with the provisions of NUREG-1 021, Duke Energy is submitting the operating exam outlines, quality checklists, and other documentation as required for the initial license operating exam scheduled for the week of December 5, 2016 at the Oconee Training Center, Oconee Nuclear Site. Submitted for review are:

  • Form ES-201-2, Examination Outline Quality Checklist
  • Form ES-201-3, Examination Security Agreement
  • Form ES-301 -1, RD Administrative Topics Outline
  • Form ES-301-2, RD Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline
  • Form ES-301-2, SRO (U) Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline
  • Form ES-301-2, SRO (I) Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline
  • Form ES-D-1, Scenario outline (four)
  • Form ES-401-4, Record of Rejected K/As If you require any additional information, or have any questions, please contact Sam Lark at (864) 873-3642 or Scott Bowen at (864) 873-4330.

Sincerely cb Scott L. Batson Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Enclosures www.duke-enetgy.com

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II July 28, 2016 Page 2 xc: Gerald J. McCoy, Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Division of Reactor Safety Operations Branch Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1 257 Mark Bates U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Division of Reactor Safety Operations Branch Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

DUKE Thomas 13 Ray ENERG Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy ONO1 VP 7800 Rochester Hwy Seneca, SC 29672 ONS-2016-087 o 864.873.5016 864.873.4208 September 29, 2016 Tom.Rayduke-energy.com Ms. Catherine Haney Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Subject:

Oconee Nuclear Station ILTI 6-2 NRC Exam 60 day submittal

-

Dear Ms. Haney:

In accordance with the provisions of NUREG-1 021, Operator Licens ing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, Duke Energy is submitting the written exam, operating exam, quality checklists, and other documentation as require d for the initial license exam scheduled for the week of December 05, 2016 at the Operator Training Center, Oconee Nuclear Site. Submitted for review are:

  • One set of Administrative JPMs with handouts
  • One set of Control Room/In-Plant JPMs with handouts
  • Form ES-201-2, Examination Outline Quality Checklist
  • Form ES-201-3, Examination Security Agreement
  • Form ES-301-2, RO Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outlin e
  • Form ES-301-2, SRO (U) Control Room/In-Plant Syst ems Outline
  • Form ES-301-2, SRO (I) Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline
  • Form ES-301-3, Operating Test Quality Checklist
  • Form ES-301-4, Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist
  • Form ES-DI for Four Simulator Scenarios
  • Form ES-D2 for Four Simulator Scenarios
  • Form ES-401-6, Written Examination Quality Checklist
  • RO written exam (with reference package)
  • RD written exam key
  • SRO written exam (with reference package)
  • SRO written exam key www.duke-energy.com

US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II September 29, 2016 Page 2

  • Exam questions with answer analysis
  • Reference material on a DVD If you require any additional information, or have any questions, please contact Scott Bowen at (864) 873-4330 or Sam Lark at (864) 873-3642.

Sincerely, Thomas D. Ray Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Enclosures

U.S. Nuclear Regutatory Commission, Region II September 29, 2016 Page 3 xc: Gerald J. McCoy, Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Division of Reactor Safety Operations Branch Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mark Bates U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Division of Reactor Safety Operations Branch Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

DUKE ENERGYe momasDiay Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy ONOIVP 7800 Rochester Hwy ONS-201 6-105 Seneca, SC 29672 o: 864.873.5016 864.873.40B December 19, 2016 Tom.Rayduke-energy.com Ms. Catherine Haney, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Subject:

OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION ILTI6-2 Post Exam Submittal

Dear Ms. Haney:

An NRC initial license operating exam was administ ered the week of December 5, 2016.

The associated written exam was administered on Dece mber 14, 2016. Oconee has no post exam comments. Enclosed for your review as direc ted by NUREG 1021 are the following:

  • A student seating chart,
  • The original student answer sheets,
  • The original signed exam cover sheets,
  • Two clean copies of the student answer sheets,
  • A copy of the RO exam,
  • A copy of the SRO exam,
  • An RO exam key,
  • An SRO exam key,
  • A compiled list of student comments and proctor answers.

If you require any additional information or have any questions, please contact Scott Bowen at (864) 873-4330 or Sam Lark at (864) 873-3642

.

Sincerely, Thomas D. Ray Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station www.duke-energy.com

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II December 19, 2016 Page 2 cc: Gerald J. McCoy, Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Division of Reactor Safety Operations Branch Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 Mark Bates U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Division of Reactor Safety Operations Branch Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17193A363&oldid=2006308"