ML120250290
| ML120250290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/2011 |
| From: | Bielby M NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB |
| To: | Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
| Shared Package | |
| ML11167A123 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254/11-301, 50-265/11-301 | |
| Download: ML120250290 (20) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:2011 QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION INITIAL EXAMINATION ADMINISTRATIVE FILES
ES-403, Rev. 9 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: Quad Cities Date of Exam: 6/13/2011 Exam Level: RO SRO. Initials Item Descri tion a b c 1.
- 2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented 3.
- 4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as ap licable, +/-4% on the SRO-onl reviewed in detail
- 5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are
'ustified
- 6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies ~ 4 1A /Vl" and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half 11t t/fI'Il or more of the a licants Printed Name/Signature Date
- a. Grader t;~~*
- b. Facility Reviewer(*) ___ ~---I-_:4--'--_---'r---______
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) b(Wr
- d. NRC Supervisor (*) ~/II
(*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.
ES-403, Rev. 9 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: Quad Cities Date of Exam: 6/13/2011 Exam Level: RO. SRO Initials Item Descri tion a b c 1.
- 2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented folIA
- 3. Applicants' scores checked for addition errors reviewers s ot check> 25% of examinations
- 4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as a licable, +/-4% on the SRO-onl ) reviewed in detail
- 5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are
'ustified
- 6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half ,.,4A or more of the a licants (I, Printed Name/Signature Date
- a. Grader
- b. Facility Reviewer(*)
1.~~~'
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) CARl..
- d. NRC Supervisor (*)
(*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.
Exelon. Exelon Generation Company, LLC Quad C.ities Nuclear Power Stati01) www.exeloncorp.com Nuclear 22710206'" Avenue North Cordova, Il61242~9740 KKM-I1-002 June 23,2011 Regional Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210 Lisle, IL 60532-4352 ATIN: Mr. Carl R. Moore
Subject:
NRC Initial License Written Examination The Initial License Written Examination was administered at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS) on June 13,2011. The candidates were briefed on the examination rules and no clarifying comments on any of the questions were given by the proctors. In accordance with NUREG-I021, Section ES-501, comments which resulted from the post-examination review and the examination analysis have been forwarded to the Chief Examiner, Carl R. Moore. This letter provides the notification that QCNPS will not be challenging any questions pertaining to the Initial License Examination, administered June 13,2011. In addition, the Station requests this examination and associated materials be withheld from public disclosure for a period of2 years to allow its use as an evaluation tool for subsequent initial license candidates. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Raymond J. Vend at (309)-227-4033. Respectfully, ~~K~~ Karl K. Moser Site Training Director Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station cc: Chief, Operations Branch - NRC Region HI NRC Senior Resident Inspector Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station JUN !4 ZOft
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 5'/.11 h t/l~s of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
- 2. Post-Examination To the best of my knowledge, I did got divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of .:rPI :r. qt~tom 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.
JOB TITLE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE
/JlImI /;?UHlir
;) i 00 '" i.r:A';"*~- S 1.2~~Q-{""\
~t-/
-m
~
b-/.r-¥ j:('-d/ v"" LI a lira/?. ,-z.1-""-__
)lit: 1:£ t2i1:.~ed.. ~*z 7.1/
VA L \ l!!AIO i'! 7-j:/'- 1/ trL( P I't"fl:)fL 1- ?'YI 1 -- 15 1/ 7*6 /, _ _
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 5/9(10 6hLf as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not 'been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
- 2. Post-Examination To the best of my knOw~dge, ! $tid not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of S'L' h IjI'fflrom 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 DATE NOTE
'd~A ~tZ{ ~=~.~o:::;::Z?'"-_~
- 70; i2!1(
.~. 27.=!.L
'-"," .", . . . , b.""
~
* -" L'P" ,..... '\'.J!4qr.... 1M. f ' : = = = I ! £ L ( T}1 lL-
- U " Y'AJ\
. ,JCd::?YL 'S> I JE=.. "" II kCd ( , Y' R=F:':'1 ; 1£1 ,,(. NL '£ ' -1 -k' l , -I.-£;f-IJ..+l-.J:;b-"bF+;;,.tq-----tii'_'-
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 weekes) of :i13r/r~if1/gs of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
- 2. Post*Examination To the best of my knowle~e, J di,d not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the weekes) of 4'/.1/' t/I"1.II From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.
PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE/ RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) DATE NOTE
- 1. l.J~\ M:t\~R- IT SVWM- ~~ s/r.it, ~,~.) * {J2f;;ft 1.)(O;q~ WI -~-
2.
- 3. ~,2. ~~
o:ruL Y"'"""b ----.~&Ji~~,,k
~ ~~,
6eAJ~
- 4. U>II!. fJ,~CCA... ':Tt-j Gr-0w,p L'<-cd =;.o~ ~,..---,/:i...."....~p=...=='--
- 5. ~tKtl-St:l:J.J.20/uIU. SIr'l'\ 0)' .. .
- 6. ~I'k=i(; L.AfF sezte.s..f-er
- 7. n1 tjq"n,~"} ').:>~~!h"
- 8. ~ __________ b
- 9. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
- 10. _ _ __
- 11. _ _ __
- 12. _ _ __
- 13. _ _ __
14._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,.----_ _ __
- 15. _ _ __
NOTES:
~ ES..201 Examination Security Agreement Form E5-201*3
!.AI f5
~
U1 U1
- 1. Pre:Examlnation 5'/.11 ~ t/I'I I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of as of the date ~z 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 Z NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered G'l these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC ""
j Q. (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 dooumented in the facnlty licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
- 2. Post-examination To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information conceming the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of S!'!)/(il-i/trff/ 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.
JOB TmE I RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE DATE NOTE
.riAm 4M,rS veo-rr 511/htiJr'\"H..
$fk F
II
~"h CJ,IJ'if1!:SUf(JJ"P d'==
~~~&
1; c Q' ~,P~/""f-
..... c £J1,?rc
- ~
~
111 IJJ g
~i1:~
!/tdL,OAf4R"
~r!t:(
iliilii== 11/
~
v<<.,n;tr-t 'Z-kj-/I -------- M "A\"'\~or-vlfi/iitrro.t. 0",0/1 "r-If"-tt ________ - - - - o CIl I
-..j I
- 15. ~"I.SO'" 5'.... ""~P...l VA t.IDII 1 o!f.. ?tJ. II ----
NOTES: ----
ES-403, Rev. 9 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403*1 Quality Checklist ility: Quad Cities Date of Exam: 6/1312011 Exam Level: RO. SRO Initials Item Descri tion 1.
- 2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented
- 3. Applicants' scores checked for addition errors reviewers s ot check> 25% of examinations
- 4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as ap licable, +/-4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail
- 5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are
'ustified
- 6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half 1'n4A or more of the a licants Ii, Date
- a. Grader
- b. Facility Reviewer(*)
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)
- d. NRC Supervisor (*) ,([n~"CI~~~rJ.*---LI....;'.L!....::'!:::~Pf.;E:I~~~~~
(*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.
ES-403, Rev. 9 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist Facility: Quad Cities Date of Exam: 6/13/2011 Exam Level: RO SRO. Initials Item Descri tion a b c 1.
- 2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and documented
- 3. Applicants' scores checked for addition errors reviewers s ot check> 25% of examinations
- 4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 +/-2% overall and 70 or 80, as a licable, +/-4% on the SRO-onl reviewed in detail
- 5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are
'ustified
- 6. Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half or more of the a licants Printed Name/Signature Date
- a. Grader {!;;~PAf
- b. Facility Reviewer(*) __ ...:...IJ~~i-~-'--_---;______
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) . ~~-.!:.~~~~~~~~~~-::::-.../ ltitl/rr
- d. NRC Supervisor (*) iWIII
(*) The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.
Exelon ExelOll GenerCltion Company, llC Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station www.exeloncorp.com Nuclear 22710 206'" Avenue North Cordova,ll61242-9740 KKM-I1-002 June 23,2011 Regional Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210 Lisle, IL 60532-4352 ATTN: Mr. Carl R. Moore
Subject:
NRC Initial License Written Examination The Initial License Written Examination was administered at Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS) on June 13,2011. The candidates were briefed on the examination rules and no clarifying comments on any ofthe questions were given by the proctors. In accordance with NUREG-I021, Section ES-501, comments which resulted from the post-examination review and the examination analysis have been forwarded to the Chief Examiner, Carl R. Moore. This letter provides the notification that QCNPS will not be challenging any questions pertaining to the Initial License Examination, administered June 13,2011. In addition, the Station requests this examination and associated materials be withheld from public disclosure for a period of 2 years to allow its use as an evaluation tool for subsequent initial license candidates. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Raymond J. Vend at (309)-227-4033. Respectfully, X~K~~ Karl K. Moser Site Training Director Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station cc: Chief, Operations Branch - NRC Region HI NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station JUN 1,4 20n
- ES-401 Tier I Group Randomly Selected KIA Record of Rejected KlAs (RO)
TIER 1 Reason for Rejection . Form ES-401-4 T1/Gl 295001 A1.04 Rejected A1.04 because the KIA is only applicable to BWR 5&6. became Random Iy selected A 1.08, but rejected because the KIA is only applicable 295001 Al.07 to BWR 1. Randomly selected A 1.07. TlIG1 295003 K3.07 Rejected K3.07 because isolation condensers are not included in Quad became Cities plant design. Randomly selected K3.05. 295003 K3.05 TlIG1 295003 K3.05 Unable to write a psychometrically sound question to K3.05 that was not became low level of difficulty. Randomly selected K3.01. 295003 K3.01 T1/G1 295021 K2.04 Unable to write a psychometrically sound question to K2.04 that did not became overlap with other questions. Randomly selected K2.06 but rejected it as 295021 K2.03 not applicable to Quad Cities. Randomly selected K2.03. T1/Gl 295023 K3.01 Rejected due to overlap with SRO question. Randomly selected K3.02. became 295023 K3.02 T1/G1 295024 K2.12 Rejected due to overlap with scenario events. Random Iy selected K2.13. became 295024 K2.13 T1/G1 295025 Kl.01 Rejected Kl.01 due to overlap with 295005 K1.01. Randomly selected became Kl.06 but rejected it due to overlap with 295005 K1.01. Randomly selected 295025 Kl.05 Kl.05 T1/G1 295030 A 1.01 Rejected due to overlap with SRO question 295026 2.4.18. Randomly became selected A1.05 295030A1.05 T1/G1 600000 2.4.02 Rejected because there are no EOP actions for plant fire on site. became Randomly selected 2.4.08 600000 2.4.08 T1/G2 295009 A 1.02 Rejected due to overlap with scenario events. Random Iy selected A 1.04. became 295009 A 1.04 T1/G2 295013 Kl.01 Rejected due to overlap with 2950262.2.44. Randomly selected K1.04 became 295013 K1.04
- ES-401, Page 27 of 33
- ES-401 Tier I Group Randomly Selected K/A Record of Rejected KlAs (RO)
Tier 2 Group 1 Reason for Rejection Form ES-401-4 T2/G1 209001 K2.01 Rejected due to being low level of difficulty. Randomly selected K2.03. became 209001 K2.03 T2IG1 223002 K5 223002 K5 category was rejected because there is nothing selectable became under category K5. Randomly selected K6.0S. 223002 K6.0S T2IG1 261000 K2.04 Rejected K2.04 because importance rating was less than 2.5. Nothing is became available under K2 that has an importance rating of 2: 2.5. Randomly 261000 A4.09 selected category K5, but rejected because nothing is available that has an importance rating of > 2.5. Randomly selected A4.09. T2IG1 262002 G2.2.39 Rejected due to over-sampling with SRO question. Tech Spec on same became system) Randomly selected 2.4.41 but could not write a RO level question. 262002 G2.4.50 Randomly selected 2.4.03 but rejected it because it was not applicable to the UPS system. Randomly selected 2.1.25 but rejected it because unable to write a question that did not conflict with the other UPS question on the test. Randomly selected 2.4.50 T2/G1 400000 A 1.04 Rejected due to overlap with a Cert Exam question. Randomly selected became A1.02. 400000 A 1.02 T2/G1 SSMP K6.01 RO Tier 2 total is 1 (one), therefore randomly selected for rejection from became Tier 2 category 6 questions because it had highest number of selections SSMP K2.01 (seven). Rejected SSMP K6.01 to place in category 2. Randomly selected K2.01.
- ES-401, Page 27 of 33
- ES-401 Tier I Group Randomly Selected KIA Record of Rejected KlAs (RO)
Tier 2 Group 2 Reason for Rejection Form ES-401-4 T2IG2 201001 A1.06 Rejected A 1.06 due to overlap with 29S022 A2.01. Random Iy selected Became A 1.04 but rejected it because head spray flow is not applicable to Quad 201001 A 1.03 Cities. Random Iy selected A 1.03. T2IG2 202001 K6.0S Rejected K6.0S due to overlap with Cert Exam. Randomly selected K6.02. Became 202001 K6.02 T2IG2 233000 K1.13 Rejected K1.13 because IR was less than 2.S. Randomly selected K1.16. became 233000 K1.16 T2IG2 241000 2.2.44 Rejected 2.2.44 due to oversampling with the RO exam. Randomly became selected 2.2.37. but rejected due to oversampling with the RO exam. 2410002.2.42 Randomly selected 2.1.27. Rejected 2.1.27 because unable to write a question because KIA is fundamental knowledge (low level of difficulty). Randomly selected 2.2.42. T2IG2 286000 A3.06 Unable to write a psychometrically sound question to A3.06. Randomly Became selected A3.04. 286000 A3.04
- ES-401. Page 27 of 33
ES-401 Record of Rejected KlAs (RO) Form ES-401-4 Tier 3 Tier I Randomly Reason for Rejection Group Selected KIA T3 2.1.40 Rejected 2.1.40 due to over-sampling with SRO 2.1.40 in Tier 3. became Randomly selected 2.1.41. 2.1.41 T3 2.3.11 Rejected 2.3.11 due to over-sampling with the SRO 2.3.11 in Tier 3. became Randomly selected 2.3.06 but rejected due to overlap with the RO 2.3.6 2.3.05 KIA in Tier 3. Randomly selected 2.3.05. T3 2.3.6 Rejected Generic 2.3.6 because importance rating was less than 2.5. became Randomly selected 2.3.7, but rejected due to over-sampling with the RO 2.3.12 portion of the exam in Tier 3. Randomly selected 2.3.11 but rejected due to over-sampling with the SRO portion of the exam in Tier 3. Randomly selected 2.3.12. T3 2.4.03 Rejected due to overlap with RO KIA 295026 2.2.44. Randomly selected became 2.4.38 but rejected it due to IR < 2.5. Randomly selected 2.4.04. 2.4.04
- ES-401, Page 27 of 33
ES-401 Record of Rejected KJAs (SRO) Form ES-401-4 Tier! Randomly Reason for Rejection Group Selected KIA T1/G1 295025 2.1.7 Rejected 295025 as a system due to overlap with 239002.A2.06. became Randomly selected unused T1/G1 topic 295019. Rejected 295019 2950042.1.7 because could not write SRO question that was different from a version on the 2009 ILT NRC Exam (already had 2 SRO questions on last two NRC exams). Reselected system 295004. T2IG1 215004 A2.04 Rejected 215004 system due to oversampling with the RO exam. became Randomly selected from systems NOT sampled twice on the RO exam. 239002 A2.06 Selected 239002 for the system. Maintained A2 as the category and randomly selected A2.01. Rejected A2.01 due to inability to write a psychometrically sound question. Randomly selected A2.06. T2IG1 261000 2.4.45 Rejected 261000 system due to oversampling with the RO exam. became Randomly selected from systems NOT sampled twice on the RO exam. 209001 2.4.45 Selected SSMP and system and preserved 2.4.45. Rejected 2.4.45 due to inability to write psychometrically sound question. Randomly selected from KlAs not selected twice. Randomly selected 2.4.50 but rejected due to not able to write psychometrically sound question. Randomly selected 2.4.30, but rejected due to not able to write a psychometrically sound question. Rejected SSMP as a system due to limited scope on SRO only knowledge. System is already tested on RO portion of the exam and one system JPM. Random Iy selected new system (209001) and returned to original generic KIA selection (2.4.45).
- T1/G2 T2IG1 295033 EA2.03 Random Iy selected 295033 as the system to reject the A2 category for a became became 259002 2.4.20 generic category to test at least one generic topic within the SRO Tier 1 295033 2.4.41 Group 2 category. This was done based on previous experience with Region 3 and suggested by OTPS. Randomly selected 2.4.41 259002 2.2.39 Rejected 2.2.39 because there are not.s 1 hour Tech Specs for reactor water level control. Randomly selected 2.4.20.
- ES*401, Page 27 of 33
Quad Cities 2011 Exam - JPM Review Comments A. GENERIC COMMENT - JPMs do not have Task Completion Standard. B. ADMIN JPMS
- 1. SRO Admin 1 - Review a Fire Impairment Permit Requiring Compensatory Actions
- a. Steps to determine consequences should be critical. Can't determine fire watch and backup suppression requirements unless impacts are first determined.
- 2. SRO Admin 2 - Use Procedures Related to Shift Staffing
- a. The "Initiating Cue" directs the applicant to identify the staffing adjustments that need to be made and the time constraints involved, but the JPM continues with conducting call-out.
- b. Suggest that a call-out list be provided so that applicant can conduct the call-out with the examiner roll playing the individuals being called.
- 3. SRO Admin 3 - Verify Reactor Mode Change Requirements
- b. Shouldn't the INITIAL/DATE column of Attachment E be left blank if the applicant is to perform step QCGP 1-1 step F.6.hh.
- 4. SRO Admin 4 - Verify a Liquid Radwaste River Discharge Permit
- a. What is the test of SRO level knowledge in this ,JPM. It is simply a calculation and does not require specific SRO knowledge or ability.
- 5. SRO Admin 5 - Classify a Security Event
- a. Initial Conditions should be set up in a timeline - otherwise events look like a collection of random events.
- b. Meteorological conditions should be earned and not provided as part of "Initial Conditions."
- c. Delete "highest" from "Initiating Cue"
- d. 2nd Evaluator Note - completion time should be less than 15 minutes, allowing for time to pass NARS form to a communicator and time necessary to establish communication with county/state (completion of roll call).
- 6. RO Admin 1 - Perform One-Rod-Out Interlock Surveillance
- a. This is not an administrative JPM, since there are manipulation of system components.
- b. Steps H.8-11 should be critical.
- 7. RO Admin 2 - Evaluate License Maintenance Requirements
- a. Change "Initiating Cue" to: "You are to review the above record of shift coverage for the 1st quarter, and determine your eligibility to assume shift for April 4th, 2011.
Give an explanation for your determination.
- b. Is there a fatigue rule component not evaluated here; specifically February 21 thru 25 at 8 hours per day, followed by Feb 26 and 27 at twelve hours a day, then Feb 28 thru March 4 at 8 hours a day. .
- 8. RO Admin 3 - Review Quarterly SBLC Pump Flow Rate Test
- a. Delete last two sentences of "Initial Conditions"
- b. Procedure mark up of section G is incorrect; step G.6 is marked "N/A" instead of step G.7
- c. ..IPM should probably include steps H.13 thru H.15 also.
- 9. RO Admin 4 - Disable a NUMAC ARM Channel
- a. This looks more like a "systems" ..IPM rather than an "Admin" ..IPM
- b. Delete " ... and directed you to bypass it." from the next to the last Initial Condition
- c. Delete the last Initial Condition (JPM is NOT time critical).
- d. Change initiating cue to "Disable ARM .... " Instead of "Bypass ARM .... "
C. CONTROL ROOM SYSTEMS JPMS
- 1. CRS a - Initiate Standby Liquid Control With RWCU Failure to Isolate
- a. This probably won't get by Pete
- 2. CRS b - Manual Initiation of RCIC
- a. Delete fourth bullet of Initial Conditions (The Unit Sup ... )
- 3. CRS c - Adjust Turbine/Generator System Load Set
- a. Suggest setting up a scenario that requires the operator to respond to an abnormal condition rather than an administrative limit (for example a bypass valve is open because the operator failed to adjust the load limit to maintain the 10% margin).
- 4. CRS d - Place Shutdown Cooling In Operation with Spurious Group II
- a. Include WHY SDC was secured in the initial conditions
- b. Move the new temperature control band to the Initiating Cue
- c. Is NSO expected to implement QCOA 1000-02 without direction from US?
- 5. CRS e - Energize 480 VAC Bus 15 With a Failure of the Normal Feed
- a. Move next to last Initial Condition to the Initiating Cue
- b. May want to include a reason for not reenergjzjng Bus 16.
- 6. CRS f - Bypass "A" Channel of the Reactor Mode Switch to Shutdown Scram
- a. Is this a normal procedure for Reactor Shutdown? If not explain why the procedure is to be performed in the Initial Conditions.
- 7. CRS h - Post Accident Pumping of the DWFDS to the WCT
- a. Revise so that applicant enters the procedure at step F.5.d; provide marked up procedure.
- 1) Step "C.1" is performed as part of ..IPM CRS d
- 2) Add steps/cues to trigger and stop pump
- b. Alternatively move cues from "Initial Conditions" to appropriate steps.
D. IN-PLANT ..IPMs
- 1. IP 'i' - Locally Start-Up a Diesel Generator With a Failure of the Vent Fan to Start
- a. Delete "Initial Condition" stating "The Unit Supervisor (US) has directed ... "
- b. Delete "Initial Conditions" with EO and revise "Initiating Cue" to include words stating that an EO is available to work with you.
- c. "Initial Condition" statements associated with Annunciators, DG Status, and Fuel Oil levels should be moved and listed as "Evaluator Notes" to be earned by the applicant.
- d. Revise Locked Box re-closure cue to address "break glass" scenario
- 2. IP 'j' -Inject Water Into the RPV Using the Condensate System Crosstie
- a. Delete "Initial Condition" stating "The Unit Supervisor has directed ... "
- b. "Initial Condition" statements associated with Condensate Status and'S-key" status should be moved and listed as "Evaluator Notes" to be earned by the applicant.
- 3. IP 'k' - Aligning Fire Protection Water to SSMP Room Cooler
- a. Initial Condition" statement associated with 'S-key" status should be moved and listed as "Evaluator Notes" to be earned by the applicant.
Quad Cities 2011 Exam - Scenario Review Comments
- 1. Scenario 1
- a. Event 1 - Other than valve positions there does not seem to be much system feedback for evaluation applicant response.
- 2. Scenario 2
- a. Event 3 - SIMOP direct to remove rod drift malfunction if ATC takes CRD FCV to Manual; should be taken to Manual AND. repositioned to normal flow.
- b. Event 3 -If the ATC takes no action before L-6 reaches position 12 OR if FCV is taken to MAN and the malfunction is removed. the rod will latch and rod insertion is no longer required.
- 3. Scenario 3
- a. What makes reclosing the FW Heater bypass valve a "critical task." This should be an analyzed transient.
- 4. Scenario 4
- a. Event 1 - Minimal activity for evaluation purposes
- b. General Comment - seems to be a set of very simple malfunctions with minimum response required until the Major Transient (ATWS with loss of Bypass Valves)}}