ML040210003

Various Checklists for the Prairie Island Initial Examination - September 2003

ML040210003
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	09/08/2003
From:	Cooper P Nuclear Management Co
To:	NRC/RGN-III
References
50-282/03-301, 50-306/03-301
Download: ML040210003 (24)

Text

VARIOUS CHECKLISTS FOR THE PRAIRIE ISLAND INITIAL EXAMINATION - SEP 2003

ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1 Date of Examination: ?/8 - /p!z&

Task Description / Reference rating tests approved by administration guidelines reviewed with orization granted to give written exams

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2

=acility: Prairie Island Date of Examination: 09/08/2003 Item

1.

W R

I T

T E

N

2.

S I

M

3.

W

/

T Task Description

a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model per ES-401.

~

b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with Section D.l of ES-401 and whether all WA 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 WA statements are appropriate.

a.

b.

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

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

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.

(I)

(2)

(3)*

(4)

(I)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Veiify that the required administrative topics are covered.

c.

a. Verify that:

the outline(s) contain(s) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks, no more than 30% of the test material is repeated from the last NRC examination, no tasks are duplicated from the applicants audit test(s), and no more than 80% of any operating test is taken directly from the licensees exam banks.

the tasks are distributed among the safety function groupings as specified in ES-301, one task is conducted in a low-power or shutdown condition, 4-6 (2-3 for SRO-U) of the tasks require the applicant to implement an alternate path procedure, one in-plant task tests the applicants response to an emergency or abnormal condition, and the in-plant walk-through requires the applicant to enter the RCA.

b. Verify that:

c.

d. 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.

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

b.

c.

Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41143 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

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

d.

e.

Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections.

Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.

f.

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

3. Author I. Facility Reviewer (*)

. NRC Chief Examiner ()

j. NRC Supervisor Vote:

• Not applicable for NRC-developed examinations

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

WREG-102 1, Draft Revision 9 Page 24 of 25 Forms ES-201-3 "Examination Security Agreement" September 24,2003 4 Pages Follow 1717 Wakonade Drive East 0 Welch, Minnesota 55089-9642 Telephone: 651.388.1 121

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRAINING CENTER TITLE:

EXAMINATION SECURITY AGREEMENT

1. Pre-Examination PlTC 218 Q Revision 0

Page 1 of I I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing requalification examination scheduled for the week(s) indicated in this agreement as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about this examination to any unauthorized persons. An unauthorized person is any individual who has not been approved by the NRC chief examiner to receive specialized knowledge of the examination. I understand that I am not to participate in any instruction, tutoring, or examination involving those operators scheduled to be administered this licensinglrequalification examination from this date until completion of examination administration. Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in procedure PlTC 3.10 NRC Exam Security). 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 examination(s) administered during the indicated week(s). 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 operators who were administered this I icensingkeq ualif ication examination (s).

Examination Period fl&d ZQ m o 3 to 2 2 : 5!!02 I

Pre-Examination Printed Name Certification (1)

Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Post-Examination Certification (2)

Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date 7-2 / 4 3

-z!%4&3 Retention: Life of Plant j:\\pitforms\\pitc218 Source Document: PlTC Proc. 3.10

/

PRAIRIE lSLAND TRAINlNG CENTER TITLE:

EXAMINATION SECURITY AGREEMENT

1.

2.

PlTC 218 Q Revision 0 Page 1 of 1 Pre-Examination 1 acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing requalification examination scheduled for the week(s) indicated in this agreement as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about this examination to any unauthorized persons. An unauthorized person is any individual who has not been approved by the NRC chief examiner to receive specialized knowledge of the examination. I understand that I am not to participate in any instruction, tutoring, or examination involving those operators scheduled to be administered this licensing/requalification examination from this date until completion of examination administration. Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in procedure PlTC 3.10 NRC Exam Security). I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.

Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the examination(s) administered during the indicated week(s). 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 operators who were administered this licensing/requalification examination(s).

Pre-Examination Printed Name

, Certification (I)

Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Post-Examination Certification 12) 3 Retention: Life of Plant j:\\pitforms\\pitc218 Source Document: PlTC Proc. 3.10

PRAIRIE ISLAND TRAINING CENTER TITLE:

EXAMINATION SECURITY AGREEMENT

1. Pre-Examination PlTC 218 Q Revision 0 Page 1 of 1 I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing requalification examination scheduled for the week(s) indicated in this agreement as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about this examination to any unauthorized persons. An unauthorized person is any individual who has not been approved by the NRC chief examiner to receive specialized knowledge of the examination. I understand that I am not to participate in any instruction, tutoring, or examination involving those operators scheduled to be administered this licensing/requalification examination from this date until completion of examination administration. Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in procedure PlTC 3.10 NRC Exam Security). 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 examination(s) administered during the indicated week(s). 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 operators who were administered this licensinglrequalification examination(s).

Examination Period h4f4 28; 2003 to

&+,

22; zoo3 Pre-Examination Printed Name Certification (1 )

Date Date Date Date Date p a t e Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Post-Examination Certification (2)

Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Retention: Life of Plant j:\\pitforms\\pitc218 Source Document: PlTC Proc. 3.10

Exam Security Agreement additional information:

-Dennis Westphal has mailed the facility a letter stating post-examination certification

-Tim Losinski is off-site and we are unable to contact him.

We will send post-examination certifications to the Chief Examiner as soon as they arrive.

October I O, 2003 L-P 1-03-096 10 CFR 55 Mr. Chuck Phillips Chief Examiner USNRC, Region Ill 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351

Dear Mr. Phillips:

As a followup to the letter to you dated September 24, 2003, we are including two more Post-Examination Certification signatures to the Examination Security Agreement.

Their signatures were unavailable at the time of the previous submittal, as noted in that submittal.

Tim Losinskis signature is contained on the normal agreement signature page, attached. Dennis Westphals signature is contained on a separate statement page, attached also.

This letter contains no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments.

Please contact Jim Lash (651 -388-1 165 ext 4053) if you have any questions related to this letter.

Sin cere1 y, cc:

Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region Ill, w/o Roger D. Lanksbury, USNRC, Region Ill, w/o Attachments: Examination Security Agreement (2 pages) 171 7 Wakonade Drive East Welch, Minnesota 55089-9642 Telephone: 651.388.1 121 y a@

0C-l 5

Attach me n t Examination Security Agreement, PlTC 218 Q (1 page)

Post Examination Certification Statement of Dennis Westphal (1 page)

October I O, 2003 2 Pages Follow 1717 Wakonade Drive East 0 Welch, Minnesota 55089-9642 Telephone: 651.388.1 121

Y PRAIRIE ISLAND TRAINING CENTER TITLE: I EXAMINATION SECURITY AGREEMENT PlTC 218 Q Revision 0

I I

I Paae I of I 1

1. Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing requalification examination scheduled for the week(s) indicated in this agreement as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about this examination to any unauthorized persons. An unauthorized person is any individual who has not been approved by the NRC chief examiner to receive specialized knowledge of the examination. I understand that I am not to participate in any instruction, tutoring, or examination involving those operators scheduled to be administered this licensing/requalification examination from this date until completion of examination administration. Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in procedure PlTC 3.1 0 NRC Exam Security). 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 examination(s) administered during the indicated week(s). 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 operators who were administered this licensinglrequalification examination(s).

Examination Period M&Ca t B m o 3 to z 2. 7B03 Pre-Examination Printed Name Certification (1)

Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Post-Examination Certification (2)

Date

.Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date Date 7-w-83 9 / 5 3 Retention: Life of Plant j:\\pitforms\\pitc218 f;

Source Document: PlTC Proc. 3.10 t

/

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 09/08/2003 through 09/18/2003. From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide perfurmance feedback to those applicants who were administered these ticensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

Exception: I did evaluate a portion of the Audit Exam as previously reported to the Lead Examiner and documented in the PI Corrective Action Program.

-%-2&+2q 35 Date

L L

ES-30 1 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3

1. GENERAL CRITERIA

3.

Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model per ES-401.

I. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with Section D.l of ES-401 and whether all WA categories are appropriately sampled.

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

j. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected WA statements are appropriate.

3.

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

2. WALK-THROUGH CRITERIA To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(sf confom(s) with the qualitative and quantitative criteria specified on Fom ES-301-4 and described in Appendix D.

3.

Verify that:

(1)

(2)

(3)*

(4) the outline(s) contain@) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks, no more than 30% of the test material is repeated from the last NRC examination, no tasks are duplicated from the applicants' audit test@), and no more than 80% of any operating test is taken directly from the licensee's exam banks.

3.

Verify that:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) the tasks are distributed among the safety function groupings as specified in ES-301, one task is conducted in a low-power or shutdown condition, 4 - 6 (2 - 3 for SRO-U) of the tasks require the applicant to implement an alternate path procedure, one in-plant task tests the applicant's response to an emergency or abnormal condition, and the in-plant walk-through requires the applicant to enter the RCA.

3. SIMULATOR CRITERIA

j. 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.

Initials

3. Author

3. Facility Reviewerr)

3. NRC Chief Examiner (#

i NRC Supervisor Note:

• The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column uc", chief examiner concurrence required.

NUREG-102 1, Draft Revision 9 Page 24 of27

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 A )#1L Facility: Prairie Island Date of Exam: September 8-19,2003 Scenario Numbers/&&

Operating Test No.:

QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES 9lVb3

1.

2.

3.

Eac event description consists of 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.

The scenarios consist mostly of related events.

&he point in the scenario when it is to be initiated m t h e malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event m t h e symptomdcues 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 Drecedina 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.

The simulator modeling is not altered.

8.

9.

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

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

All other scenarios have been altered IAW Section D.5 of ES-301.

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

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

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

TARGET QUANTITATIVE ATTRIBUTES (PER SCENARIO; see section D.5.d)

1. Total malfunctions (5-8)

2.

Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2)

3. Abnormal events (2-4)

4.

Major transients (1-2)

5.

EOPs enteredhequiring substantive actions (1-2)

3.

EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2)

7. Critical tasks (2-3)

3. Author

3. Facility Reviewerr)

2. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

Actual AttripUtes Note:

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

lnitia ff Page 25 of27 NUREG-1 02 1, Draft Revision 9

Transient and Event Checklist OPERATING TEST NO.: 2 Form ES-301-5 Equivalent SCENARIO: I EVOLUTION TYPE I RO LEAD ss Major I

Reactivity I

I I

1. 4

1. 4

1. 4 I

Normal I

I I

A

1. I,

1. 2, #3, #5, #7 &

1. 8 Instrument/ Component I

1. 1,#2&#5 I

1. 3,#7&#8 I

I Major I

1. 4 I

1. 4 I

1. 4 C

I Normal I

I I

1. I,

1. 2, #3, #5, #7 &

1

1. 2,#5&#7 I

1. 1,#3&#8 I

1. 8 Instrument/Component This set of scenarios will be the simulator exam for 1 group composed of three SRO-I.

Instructions:

(1)

(2)

Enter the operating test number and Form ES-D- 1 event numbers for each evolution type.

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.

Whenever practical, both instrument and component malfunctions should be included; only those that require verifiable actions that provide insight to the applicants competence count towards the minimum requirement.

(3)

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-30 1 -6 SRO RO BOP SCENARIO 11 SCENARIO

~~

SCENARIO Competencies 1

2 2

1 2

3 3

234,597 18 Interpret I Diagnose Events and Conditions Comply With and Use Procedures (1 )

4 1,293 3

+

4 4 3 2

3,4397 394 437 ALL ALL Operate Control Boards (2)

Communicate and Interact 224,597 18 ALL ALL ALL I ALL ALL Demonstrate Supervisory Ability (3)

ALL ALL Comply With and Use Tech. Specs. (3) 3 Instructions:

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

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

27 of 27 NUREG-I 021, Draft Revision 9

Appendix D Scenario Outline Form ES-D-1 Event No.

1 Malf.

Event Event No.

Type*

Description VCOIA C

Loss of charging pump (RO)

~~~

RC21A C

Reactor vessel flange O-ring leak (RO) l 2

11 3

1 Various I

I I Rad monitor (R-I 1 &12) low flow (LEAD) {T.S}

Overrides 5

FW34NB 5

FW32

1) 4 I

MSOI B I

M I Steam line rupture inside containment [Ramp 35% over 5 minutes]

C C

AFW pumps fail to start (RO)

Trip of MDAFW pump on manual start I/

6 I

RP06 I

C I MSlVsfail to auto close

//

6 I DI-461 58c I C

I MSlVs fail to close in manual (ECA-2.1) (LEAD has CT actions)

DI-46159C 11 7

I CS03NB I C

I CS pumpsfail tostart(LEAD) 11 8

I CS02NB I C

I Caustic addition valves fail to open (LEAD)

Critical Tasks:

0 E-0 (E) Minimum containment cooling equipment 0

E-0 (F) Minimum AFW flow 0

ECA-2.1 (A) Reduce AFW flow

• (N)ormal, (R)eactivity, (I)nstrument, (C)omponent, (M)ajor NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9 40 of 41

Armendix D Scenario Outline Form ES-D-1 Facility: Prairie Island

' Examiners:

~

0 C.T. Phillips 0

NickValos 0

Robert Morris Initial Conditions: (IC-6)

Event Type*

I C

0 6% power Turnover:

0 0

Event Description SG pressure fails (HIGH) {T.S.} (LEAD)

SI accumulator check valve leakage (LEAD)

Event Malf.

1 No. 1 No.

S107A 4

11 3

I FW13A

ED18, ED19, DG07NB M

6 C

(1-5 I

SG02A SG tube rupture [IO%]

in I, 1 -(Deleted)

Pressurizer PORV leaks after RCS depressurization (RO)

II I-I I RC2iAor Scenario No.: 2003NRC-B Operators:

RO:

Lead:

ss:

Op-Test No.:

C I Main feedwater pump trips (RO - power reduction)

~~~

Loss of all AC power (ECA-0.0) with restoration from DG within 5 minutes C

Critical Tasks:

E-0 (A) Restore heat sink -OR-Manual reactor trip E-0 (C) Restore electrical power E-3 (A) Isolate ruptured SG 0

E-3 (C) Depressurize RCS 0

E-3 (D) Terminate SI

• (N)ormal, (R)eactivity, (I)nstrument, (C)omponent, (M)ajor NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9 40 of 41

~

Appendix D Scenario Outline Form ES-D-1 I

2 Facility: Prairie Island Scenario No.: 2003NRC-C Op-Test No.:

Examiners:

Operators:

C.T. Phillips RO:

0 NickValos Lead:

Robert Morris ss:

Initial Conditions: (IC-79%power Maximize pressurizer bypass spray flow 0

Ensure pressurizer heaters are in AUTO Turnover:

0 EG200 I

Generator gas temperature controller failure (LEAD)

RXO 1 4 I

Pressurizer low level bistable failure (No heaters) (RO)

Event Description 3

4 CC02A MS02B M

Main steam rupture outside containment before MSlV C

Standby CC pump fails to auto-start {T.S. 3.0.3) (LEAD) 3 I

CCOIB I C

I Running CC pumptrips 5

6 various C

ATWS (setup using computer assisted exercise)

TCOIA C

Turbine stop valve sticks open (LEAD) 7 I

N104A I

I I IR compensation causes P-6 failure (SR does not energize) (RO)

Critical Tasks:

0 E-0 (A) Manual reactor trip 0

E-0 (K) Minimum CCW pumps 0

FR-S.l (C) Negative reactivity insertion 0

FR-S.l (A) Isolate Main Turbine

• (N)ormal, (R)eactivity, (I)nstrument, (C)omponent, (M)ajor NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9 40 of 41

Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Equivalent OPERATING TEST NO.: 1 I

Normal I

H I

A

1. I,

1. 2, #3, #5, #7 &

1. 8 InstrumenVComponent I

1. 1,#2&#5 I

1. 3,#7&#8 I

I I

Major

1. 4

1. 4

1. 4 Reactivity C

I 1

Normal 1 #I,

1. 2, #3, #5, #7 &

1. 8 I Instrument/Component I

1. 2,#5&#7 1

1. 1,#3&#8 I

I 11 Major

1. 4

1. 4

1. 4 This set of scenarios will be the simulator exam for 3 groups composed of a SRO-U and two ROs.

Instructions:

(1)

(2)

Enter the operating test number and Form ES-D- 1 event numbers for each evolution type.

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.

Whenever practical, both instrument and component malfunctions should be included; only those that require verifiable actions that provide insight to the appljFants competence count towards the minimum requirement.

(3)

Author:

NRC Reviewer:

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 I

SRO Competencies I

SCENARIO 4

1,2 2,4 1,3 Interpret / Diagnose Events and Conditions 4

4 4

5 Comply With and Use Procedures (1)

Communicate and Interact 1

ALL 1 ALL 1 ALL I ALL Demonstrate Supervisory Ability (3)

ALL ALL ALL ALL RO SCENARIO 1

2 3

4 1,2 1,2 2,5 2,4 1,2 2

2,5 2,4 2,4, 1,2 4

2,4 2,4,

234, 5

ALL 4

I 2

2 2,4 l

3 Comply With and Use Tech. Specs. (3)

I I

I I

Notes:

(1 ) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.

BOP SCENARIO 1,3, ALL I iALLi:j; ALL ALL 4

Instructions:

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

27 of 27 NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9

ES-401 Written Examination Form ES-401-6 Quality Checklist I1 acility: Prairie Island Date of Exam: 09/8-1912003 Exam Level: RO/SRO Initial Item Description

1. Questions and answers technically accurate and applicable to facility.

2. a. NRC WAS referenced for all questions

b. Facility learning objectives referenced as available

3. SRO questions are appropriate per Section D.2.d of ES-401

4. Question selection and duplication from the last two NRC licensing exams appears consistent with a systematic sampling process

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 develoRed independently; or the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or other (explain)

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75% from the Bank Modified bank at least 10 percent new, and the rest modified).

Enter the actual RO / SRO-only question distribution+ /5/

f

/3

.f. Between 50% and 60% of the questions on the RO exam are written at the comprehension/analysis level; the SRO exam may exceed 60% if the randomly selected WAS support the higher cognitive levels.

Enter the actual RO / SRO question distribution +

Memory 9 / I D

8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers New C/A

~~~~~

9. Question content conforms with specific WA statements in the previously approved examination outline and is appropriate for the Tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified I O. Question psychometric quality and format meet ES, Appendix B, guidelines 1 1.The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct and agrees with value on cover sheet

a. Author

b. Facility Reviewer (*)

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#)

d. NRC Regional Supervisor a I b*

I I

-t-I

\\ate:

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

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

NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9 30 of 34 Form ES-403

'Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist" September 24,2003 1 Page Follows 171 7 Wakonade Drive East Welch, Minnesota 55089-9642 Telephone: 651.388.1 121

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist NUREG-1021, Draft Revision 9