ML18061A166

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2017-12 Proposed Operating Test Comments
ML18061A166
Person / Time
Site: Grand Gulf Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 12/11/2017
From: Vincent Gaddy
Operations Branch IV
To:
Entergy Operations
References
Download: ML18061A166 (25)
v • d • e


Text

ES-301 1 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Attributes Job Content ADMIN Admin Topic LOD U/E/S Explanation I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job JPMs and K/A (1-5)

Focus Cues Steps (N/B) lap Std Key utia Link Files to be used as Handouts should include the word All Handout in the file title (ex. JPM AR2 surveillance) Done JPMs must clearly identify to Examiner what the applicants are All to be handed out and what ref materials are to be handed out or just made available. Done Applicant Handouts shouldnt identify the JPM as being Direct or Mod. And definitely not identify that JPM was used on a All previous NRC or Audit Exam (from JPM title) as it could be cueing. (see AR1) Applicants do not receive cover page

1. JPM is modified from May 2017 Audit exam? No See 2. Initiating Cues are present tense - CRS directs you to AS1 3 1 E Revised 301-1 JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat
1. Initiating Cue, second bullet See completed surveillance 06-OP-1B33-V-0005 Attachment II is redundant as it is stated in Initial Conditions. Removed from Cue
2. Why is Attachment IV provided? (Not in Init Cond or Init See AS2 3 2 X E Cue) Required to complete Attach II 301-1
3. Does Ops Dept agree that a CRS need only identify 2 of 3 errors? Change requirement to identify all 3 errors. Ops ok with 2/3 errors - leave as is JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 3

ES-301 2 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Attributes Job Content ADMIN Admin Topic LOD U/E/S Explanation I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job JPMs and K/A (1-5)

Focus Cues Steps (N/B) lap Std Key utia Link

1. Note: Direct from May 2017 NRC Exam (P-code)? Yes
2. If JPM is Direct from Bank, why is there an Original JPM provided (Tag out the LPCS jockey pump)? Removed
3. JPM Step 3, Notes - the relays identified and their descriptions dont appear to be consistent (E12-K93A, K95A and K30A) with other JPM steps. Note says K70A eliminates the 10.85 minute time delay for closing E12-See F048A then JPM Step 4 says E12-K93A is the 10.85 minute AS3 X X 2 U timer for Containment Spray Automatic Initiation. Revised 301-1
4. How does applicant document Performance Standard of JPM Step 4 (Critical Step)? Added lines for info on Cue Sheet
5. All required Tech Spec entries must include the appropriate Condition(s). How does applicant document Perf Std of JPM Step 5? Added lines for info on Cue Sheet JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat
1. Note: Modified JPM from May 2017 NRC exam. Task is the same with different rad levels and initial exposures. Initiating Cues are identical. Noted
2. Does last bullet in Initial Conditions This task is required for See AS4 2 X 4 E protecting valuable property (fuel) have an impact on the 301-1 Task Standard? If yes, then it is cueing - shouldnt an SRO be able to determine this based on info given on why containment entry is required? Bullet removed JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat
1. It is likely the applicants could perform parts of the task See successfully but not all - consider separating JPM Step 1 AS5 3 1 S 301-1 into separate Critical Steps that culminate in the correct classification. Left as is - must accomplish all parts Rev 3

ES-301 3 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Attributes Job Content ADMIN Admin Topic LOD U/E/S Explanation I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job JPMs and K/A (1-5)

Focus Cues Steps (N/B) lap Std Key utia Link

1. Bank JPM has 4 Critical Steps, but identical JPM states 1 Critical Step. Difference? Updated to reflect 4 Crit Steps
2. Applicant Handout shouldnt identify JPM as being Direct or Mod from Nov 2015 Audit Exam - cueing. Applicant doesnt get cover sheet See 3. Since JPM uses images for plant conditions, could this JPM AR1 2 X 1 E 301-1 be modified to run in parallel with AR2 in the Simulator?

Possible but not desired

4. If images are provided, they should be in color to match actual indications (SPDS Display). Ops considers current images good enough JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Static Simulator JPM
1. Both JPM and Original perform Surveillance 06-OP-1R20-W-0001.
2. The acceptable band for Port Gibson is too large - it allows for the voltage to be high/low of acceptance criteria - 4.45 is See OOS high, 4.05 is OOS low. Ensure other bands are AR2 3  ? E appropriate. Revised bank 301-1
3. What is purpose of JPM AR2 Surveillance highlighted file?

Removed

4. JPM says Setting is Classroom - should be Simulator changed JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 3

ES-301 4 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Attributes Job Content ADMIN Admin Topic LOD U/E/S Explanation I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job JPMs and K/A (1-5)

Focus Cues Steps (N/B) lap Std Key utia Link

1. Note: Direct from Bank JPM approved Feb 2014.
2. Note: Format of JPM is much improved over Bank (but still requires changes).
3. Initiating Cue has multiple bullets that dont seem to be operationally valid. Justify each bullet with reference if appropriate. Ensure Ops Dept is in agreement with all bullets being appropriate guidance if given from the Control Room. Bullets verified as required
4. Bullets used in Init Cue should NOT duplicate requirements from a procedure (cueing). Bullets used to minimize the See number of Examiner cues required during admin of JPM AR3 3 X? 2 X E 301-1 5. Bottom of Init Cue says Complete the shaded sections of Applicant Copy of EN-OP-102-01 Attachment 9.3 but Applicant Handout file doesnt have any shaded areas.

Delete this statement as guidance is provided in the first bullet. Deleted

6. How will applicants obtain dwgs? Provided by Examiner? If performed in the Classroom (as stated in the JPM), how will applicants locate the dwgs? JPM needs to be clear so Examiner knows what is required. JPM step states to provide drawings to applicant when asked JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat
1. Given Control Room evac, what phone would be used as the OHL to make notifications? TSC if available See AR4 3 3 E 2. Is second bullet in Notes to Evaluator operationally valid?

301-1 Would the form be read to the Communicator? Removed JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 3

ES-301 1 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Simulator / Job Safety Control Rm Functio LOD Attributes Content U/E/S Explanation JPMs n and (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job K/A Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link 301-2 S-7: Change title to Shift RR Pump B to Fast Speed Done Files to be used as Handouts should include the word Handout All in the file title (ex. JPM S2) Noted JPMs must clearly identify to Examiner what the applicants are All to be handed out and what ref materials are to be handed out or just made available. Noted Applicant Handouts shouldnt identify the JPM as being Direct or Mod. And definitely not identify that JPM was used on a All previous NRC or Audit Exam (from JPM title) as it could be cueing. (see AR1) Noted For Critical Steps, consider NOT underlining them. This can be confusing where underlining is used in procedures. Marked with All an asterisk and italicized should be sufficient. May consider use of shading the JPM step. Noted All Initiating Cues should be reviewed for present tense. All JPM All step Standards are past tense. Noted Consider using bullets in the Notes section of JPM steps. Also, All all text in the Notes does not need to be BOLD. Noted Consider using CRS for Control Room Supervisor in all Init Cues (add throughout JPMs). Also, consider using other widely accepted acronyms (like SM, RP for Rad Prot, HX for heat All exchanger, RCS, LOCA, etc) to minimize word fatigue on applicants. Recommend creating Exam Writers Guide list of common acronyms for consistency. Noted Add noun name to all components throughout JPM. Most examiners are not familiar enough with GG to know components All by just numbers. However, once per JPM step is adequate. If procedure step doesnt include noun name, then add to Standard block. Noted Rev 4

ES-301 2 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Simulator / Job Safety Control Rm Functio LOD Attributes Content U/E/S Explanation JPMs n and (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job K/A Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link Add procedure titles throughout JPM, especially in References, All Handouts and Initiating Cues. Noted Generally, Initial Conditions can be simplified to reduce effort required by applicants. Use All prerequisites are met or All Examiner cues at appropriate procedure steps. Also, order bullets roughly in chronological order as theyre used in JPM.

Noted Procedure NOTES and CAUTIONS are included as JPM steps.

Performance Standard is that the applicant reviewed the Note or Caution. This allows examiner to follow applicant through All procedure and it provides opportunity for examiners to provide feedback on whether or not applicants are meeting expectations for reading/placekeeping Notes-Cautions. Noted For procedure steps that are N/A, the JPM step Standard should All identify that applicant determined the step as N/A. Noted In JPM step Notes section, identify location first, then add notes All if applicable. (Consistent format) Noted For Task Overview (usually page 4) - delete (Detailed description of task) since its an overview. Also, recommend All using bullets to separate info like used in Notes to Evaluator.

Noted For JPM steps that are N/A, it isnt necessary to cut and paste All lengthy procedure steps. Especially true for steps that contain multiple sub-steps. Noted Rev 4

ES-301 3 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Simulator / Job Safety Control Rm Functio LOD Attributes Content U/E/S Explanation JPMs n and (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job K/A Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link For required JPM completion cue, is the GG template that this is provided via an Evaluator Note at end of JPM or that there is a JPM complete statement in the Notes section of the last JPM step? (inconsistent among Sim and In-Plant JPMs)

Recommend formatting all JPMs with Evaluator Note at end of JPM with notice to examiners that JPM is complete since Notes All are specific to individual steps. Noted Recommend not using the word terminated such that applicants get the wrong idea that JPM was terminated due to performing something wrong - recommend using JPM complete as this is what examiners usually say. Noted Examiner Notes should be used when procedure changes are required within the JPM. Clearly identify that the applicant will be All changing procedures during performance of the next step (see S7). Noted

1. Change identifier on JPM to C1 (not CR1 to match ES-301-2). Done
2. Change Initial Condition bullet from Requirements of C1 Engineering Procedure to All prerequisites have been met or equivalent Done See 3. Initiating Cue - second bullet is the first, with other two Bypass 3 X X E 301- 2 bullets as sub-bullets under the task assigned. Include the Control Rod in SOI number and section in the task assigned bullet if RACS appropriate for operational validity. Done Also, direct applicant to perform RACS 1 first so JPM can be written for consistent delivery. Revised JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 4

ES-301 4 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Simulator / Job Safety Control Rm Functio LOD Attributes Content U/E/S Explanation JPMs n and (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job K/A Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link Sample Test Item Review

1. ES-301-2 says Modified, JPM coversheet says New JPM is new, updated ES-301-2 forms.
2. ES-301-2 doesnt identify JPM as Low Power Updated ES-301-2 forms
3. JPM Step 4 - why Critical Step if starting Gland Seal Compressor is not Critical? Cooling is to RCIC turbine, not GS Compressor
4. JPM Step 7 - Informing the applicant to take appropriate action could be considered cueing them that a corrective action is required. This knowledge is what is being tested.

S1 The examiner should simply acknowledge any report given by the applicant. Revised Examiner Cue See 3 6 E 5. Revise Note in JPM Step 7: IAW P&L 3.2, 2000 rpm and Manually 301-2 thus applicant must secure the RCIC turbine. No change Startup RCIC 6. Note in JPM Step 9 states applicant can close Turbine Trip and Throttle Valve OR depress RCIC TURB TRIP pushbutton. However, depressing RCIC TURB TRIP pushbutton is JPM Step 10 so it shouldnt be identified in JPM Step 9 Notes. Also, depressing RCIC TURB TRIP pushbutton is NOT identified as part of Attach VI HARD CARD. This action would be authorized by EN-OP-200.

Revised

7. Clarify Task Standard to include 3 options (JPM steps 8, 9 and 10), using 3 bullets after the less than 2000 rpm statement. Task Std revised JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 4

ES-301 5 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Simulator / Job Safety Control Rm Functio LOD Attributes Content U/E/S Explanation JPMs n and (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job K/A Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link

1. Initial Conditions, second bullet: no comma after MSIV Fixed
2. JPM Step 1 should be the applicant reviewing Prereqs per SOI Step 5.4.1 and reviewing the CAUTION before Step 5.4.2 (reviewing the caution could be JPM Step 2) Will do for next exam
3. Is steam line break (Event 1) auto actuated when handswitch is placed from TEST to CLOSE? (so Sim Op only has to ensure it actuates) Yes - ensure
4. JPM Step 4 - are there temp indications or other diverse indications that applicant should observe to recognize/diagnose steam leak? If so, add to Perf Standard.

S2 Added Per ONEP CAUTION before step 3.1, since an isolation did not occur, shouldnt the applicant be required to See 3 11 X E confirm valid isolation by at least 2 independent indications?

Retest MSIV 301-2 Yes Slow Closure 5. JPM Step 5, Cue: If applicant asks for ATC to place Mode Switch to shutdown, will Sim Op perform the task? Yes

6. JPM Step 7: format like JPM Step 6. The step is Place MSL Drain handswitches to the CLOSE position Then the Perf Std is Placed B21-F019, INBD MSL DR OTBD DR VLV, handswitch to the CLOSE position. Done
7. There is no JPM is complete (terminating cue) - add to JPM Step 7 Notes section. Done
8. Task Standard: Delete 4th bullet (not a verifiable action) and JPM Steps 4 and 5 are not marked as Critical. Also, delete last bullet since its identified in 3rd bullet Done JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 4

ES-301 6 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Simulator / Job Safety Control Rm Functio LOD Attributes Content U/E/S Explanation JPMs n and (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job K/A Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link

1. Initiating Cue: Add noun name to F053A and procedure title.

Also, would the CRS direct the Operator to establish RHR S3 flow with HX outlet and bypass valves fully open or would they direct maximum cooldown rate? (Ops input). Use See Startup 3 X 8 E whatever is most operationally valid. Done 301-2 Shutdown 2. JPM Step 25 - restoring the plant to safe condition. Should Cooling F053A also be closed for a valve in discharge path? Not required JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 4

ES-301 7 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Simulator / Job Safety Control Rm Functio LOD Attributes Content U/E/S Explanation JPMs n and (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job K/A Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link

1. For Sim Setup - what is the trigger for SSW Pump A trip? >2 MWe Can it be set on both MW and MVARS so all applicants are required to adjust both? Yes - revised
2. JPM Step 5 - for procedure steps that are N/A, the Standard should identify that Applicant determined that steps (d) and (e) were N/A GENERIC COMMENT Noted
3. JPM Steps 14 and 15 - isnt it possible to build an IC to where initial voltage and frequency are below acceptable range, thereby requiring the applicant to demonstrate the ability to make adjustments? This would make both steps Critical for all applicants. Yes - IC changed
4. JPM Step 17 - Notes states that additional attempts to close S4 DG output breaker are allowed. 1) that guidance isnt in the procedure, and 2) if Ops says its ok for a competent See 3 X X X X U operator, how many attempts is acceptable? Added Start, Parallel 301-2 guidance that only 2 attempts are allowed and Load EDG 5. JPM Step 22 Cue - states to cue another operator will realign SSW A but isnt it appropriate to exam whether applicant can prioritize actions? Delete this cue. Also, in Notes, its not clear what remove the Diesel Generator from the bus and get load off the machine means if applicant does not have to unload and open output breaker. Is applicant expected to just open output breaker (unloaded and removed from vital bus)? Fixed
6. JPM Step 23 -Does Ops agree that applicant can unload DG then open output breaker? Yes
7. Sync scope switch - does Ops agree that leaving switch on is ok (not part of Task Standard)? Yes JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat S5 1. Resolve issues from Generic Comments. Fixed See JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat E

Startup H2 301-2 Recombiner Rev 4

ES-301 8 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 Simulator / Job Safety Control Rm Functio LOD Attributes Content U/E/S Explanation JPMs n and (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job K/A Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link

1. For Handout - missing page 9. Fixed S6 2. Initial Conditions: 1st bullet - change are operating to See E automatically initiated 2nd bullet - swap info such that 301-2 Secure SBGT cause of signal has been secured then high rad signal has cleared (order of how it would happen). Fixed JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat S7 1. Change title to Shift RR Pump B to Fast Speed Done
2. Initial Conditions: first bullet states power is 32% but does See Shift RR Pump 4 E step 4.2.1.1 (Prerequisites) state that power is stable 26-301-2 B to Fast 28%? Are past initial point in procedure Speed JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 4

ES-301 1 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 In-Plant Safety Attributes Job Content JPMs Function and K/A LOD (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job U/E/S Explanation Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link

1. Does JPM qualify as AP? Cue in JPM Step 12 states to cue applicant to establish SPC by an alternate means. How many alternate means are there available for the Initial Conditions other than RHR B? Cue revised to establish SP cooling
2. JPM Step 12 - Marked as Critical Step with Standard that P1 states Opened E12-F024A, RHR A TEST RTN TO SUPP POOL but fault is F024A fails to open. Standard should be See ES Align SP 3 X X X E applicant attempted to open F024A. Revised Standard 301-2 Cooling from 3. JPM doesnt include steps f and g of Attach X. With Cue RSP given in JPM Step 24, it is up to applicant to determine that f and g are N/A. However, performance of either step would constitute a JPM failure so need to be included in JPM. Cue revised
4. Task Standard - SPC A includes opening F024A. As stated above, Standard needs revised. Updated JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat
1. Handout did not include step 2.4.1 marked up as completed.

Fixed

2. Initiating Cue - need to identify EP-1 and attachment title.

P2 Added

3. JPM Steps 2, 3 and 8: Standards need to identify that valves hand wheel was turned until resistant was felt. Fixed Install N2 See ES 3 X E 4. JPM Step 8 - If maximum pressure is when F043 is fully Bottles on 301-2 open (126 psig), then Standard needs to identify minimum ADS Air pressure of 125 psig. Fixed Supply 5. JPM doesnt include a termination cue. Recommending adding Evaluator Note for examiner to stop JPM after applicant completes JPM Step 8. Added JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 3

ES-301 2 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 In-Plant Safety Attributes Job Content JPMs Function and K/A LOD (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job U/E/S Explanation Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link Sample Test Item Review JPM Replaced - plant panel did not match drawings and room location identified in procedure was incorrect. Facility recommended replacement of JPM.

1. Handout provided included procedure Section 6.5 but identified on JPM page 2 that only Section 6.4 is to be provided.
2. Initial Conditions - for 3rd bullet, identify that One attempt to manually initiate has failed Also, why include 4th bullet?
3. JPM Step 1 (and many others) in Notes, when panel drawing is identified, include (Fig 12).

P3 4. JPM Steps 2 and 5: Standards and Cues - when pushbuttons are depressed, they also need to be released.

See ES Locally 3 X X U Also, should procedures be updated to include release?

301-2 Initiate ATWS 5. JPM Step 4 - does TEST CH 1 light extinguish when switch ARI is placed to the TEST CH 2 position?

6. JPM Step 5 - does performance of this step actuate ATWS ARI/RPT? If so, then JPM Step 7 Note ATWS ARI has been initiated and the valves energized to vent the Scram Air Header should be moved to Step 5.
7. JPM Step 6 - Standard needs PERMISSIVE/SELECT added to switch title. Also, when switch is positioned to NORMAL, what is effect on CH 1 and 2 IN TEST lights and LOGIC INITIATE lights? If changed, add to Cue.
8. JPM Step 7 - does Ops expect a competent operator to return the switch to NORMAL? If so, then make step Critical and add to Task Standard.

Rev 3

ES-301 3 Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 In-Plant Safety Attributes Job Content JPMs Function and K/A LOD (1-5) I/C Crit Scope Over Perf Min Job U/E/S Explanation Cue Key Focus Steps (N/B) Lap Std utia Link

1. Steps performed for Diesel Driven Fire Pump B are duplicates for Fire Pump A - revise JPM to perform for only Diesel Driven Fire Pump A and the Motor Driven Fire Pump PB2 - removed Fire Pump B (steps 8-13). Validation time reduced from 30 min to 15 min See ES Return Fire 2 S 2. Initial Conditions - Change Fire Deluge has initiated to 301-2 Water Pumps was. Also, use full name for fire pumps - Done to Stdby 3. Update Initiating Cue from all three pumps to running Done
4. Update Task Standard to remove Fire Pump B - Done JPM revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 3

ES-301 9 Form ES-301-7 Instructions for Completing This Table:

Check or mark any item(s) requiring a comment and explain the issue in the space provided using the guide below.

1. Check each JPM for appropriate administrative topic requirements (COO, EC, Rad, and EP) or safety function requirements and corresponding K/A. Mark in column 1.

(ES-301, D.3 and D.4)

2. Determine the level of difficulty (LOD) using an established 1-5 rating scale. Levels 1 and 5 represent an inappropriate (low or high) discriminatory level for the license that is being tested. Mark in column 2 (Appendix D, C.1.f)
3. In column 3, Attributes, check the appropriate box when an attribute is not met:
  • I/C Focus: Initial conditions and/or initiating cue is clear to ensure the operator understands the task and how to begin. (Appendix C, B.4)
  • Cue: JPM contains appropriate cues that clearly indicate when they should be provided to the examinee. Cues are objective and not leading. (Appendix C, D.1)
  • Crit Steps: All critical steps (elements) are properly identified.
  • Scope (N/B): Scope of the task is not too narrow (N) or too broad (B).
  • Overlap: Excessive overlap does not occur with other parts of the operating test or written examination. (ES-301, D.1.a, and ES-301, D.2.a)
  • Perf Std: Task performance standard clearly describes the expected outcome (i.e., end state). Each performance step identifies a standard for successful completion of the step.
  • Key: A valid marked up key was provided (e.g., graph interpretation, initialed steps for handouts).
4. For column 4, Job Content, check the appropriate box if the job content flaw does not meet the following elements:
  • Minutia: Topics are linked to the job content (e.g., not a disguised task, task required in real job).
  • Job Link: JPM has meaningful performance requirements that will provide a legitimate basis for evaluating the applicant's understanding and ability to safely operate the plant. (ES-301, D.2.c)
5. Based on the reviewers judgment, is the JPM as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory? Mark the answer in column 5.
6. In column 6, provide a brief description of any (U)nacceptable or (E)nhancement rating from column 5.

Save initial review comments and detail subsequent comment resolution so that each exam-bound JPM is marked by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this form.

Rev 4

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Scenario Review Table Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Scenario: 1 Exam Dates: December 4-8, 2017 10 --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Real/ Reqd Verify Scen Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Proc Cred Action Action O-lap General Comments

1. Disagree with the Abnormal designator in Event Type. If CRS enters ONEP, it doesnt necessary impact the crew to A (CREW) can be misleading. This is GG practice.
2. Tech Specs need to have LCOs with each Condition identified that SRO must identify. Include Function for Instrumentation specs. Update all D-2s with addition details. Done
3. Add additional annunciators and alarms for all events (SBT requirement) Done
4. Add procedure step numbers in D-2s where applicable Done
5. Add post-scenario statement from NUREG 1021, Appendix D to scenario guide Added 1 2 S Start RHR A in Suppression Pool Cooling SOI LPCS Jockey Pump trip
1. Event may not count if CRS doesnt direct BOP to place RHR A in standby. Can event 2 X 5 E be constructed such that CRS will always direct RHR A to standby? Role Play added SOI to scenario to contact CRS as Shift Manager to place RHR A is standby.

Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat 3 S Seal Steam Regulator fails closed ARI CRD Pump B trip with HCU 32-17 accumulator fault

1. What are the Verifiable Op Actions for the ATC? Example of A (CREW) not being accurate. For HCU accumulator fault, ATC must depress HCU FAULT pushbutton to determine which HCU accumulator has the fault. Additionally, ATC will depress ACKN HCU FAULT to seal in current fault and reset 4 X 2 E annunciator to allow subsequent HCU faults to alarm. D-2s updated to reflect ONEP VOAs.
2. What exactly is the accumulator fault? Moisture accumulation in the instrument block of the accumulator, which requires instrument block to be isolated and blown down to remove moisture.

Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Rev 3

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Scenario Review Table Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Scenario: 1 Exam Dates: December 4-8, 2017 10 --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Real/ Reqd Verify Scen Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Proc Cred Action Action O-lap Low Pressure Feedwater Heater 4A Tube Leak with a failure to isolate

1. In D-2s, a Booth cue states multiply indicated VAR reading by 15 - what does this mean? Booth operator determines 4A feedwater heater level in inches using simulator drawings. Drawing only displays % of scale.
2. because direction from SOI 04-1-01-N23-1 is to reduce core flow to 70 mlbm/hr.
3. In D-2s, multiple procedures direct the downpower - which one has precedence? ONEP1 5 E Precedence depends on applicants decision. If power is being reduced to ONEP2 remove feedwater heater from service prior to HI-HI level, SOI and IOI will be SOI used for downpower. If power is being reduced after HI-HI level is received, Loss of Feedwater Heating ONEP will be used.
4. In D-2s, for Reduction in Recirc Flow ONEP, Steps 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.6 are missing.

Steps not applicable during event. D-2 revised to annotate steps are N/A.

Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat MT - Unisolable RCIC steam line break ONEP 6 E 1. Add (Scram) to end of Event Description. Added EP4 Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat EP2 MT - Low Power ATWS (<5% power)

1. Add with failed fuel to end of Event Description Fuel failure removed from scenario.
2. For CT-3 description on page 7, the systems that are required to be terminated and EP-2 7 1 E prevented for the conditions in this scenario need to be identified. Systems added to EP-2A CT-3 Safety Significance block
3. Move CT-3 to Event 9 Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat HPCS Service Water Pump trip
1. Identify the procedure the corrective action steps come from. Added to Summary 8 E and D-2s

?

Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Main Steam Tunnel steam leak

1. For CT-2 description on page 6, several blocks refer to radiation levels exceeding max 9 2 E safe values, but CT is When two areas exceed their max safe temperatures, CT EP-4 revised to change radiation levels to temperatures Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat 9 9 3 Rev 3

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Scenario Review Table Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Scenario: 2 Exam Dates: December 4-8, 2017 10 --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Real/ Reqd Verify Scen Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Proc Cred Action Action O-lap General Comments

1. Tech Specs need to have LCOs with each Condition identified that SRO must identify.

Include Function for Instrumentation specs. Update all D-2s with addition details.

Done

2. Add additional annunciators and alarms for all events (SBT requirement) Done
3. Add procedure step numbers in D-2s where applicable Done
4. Add post-scenario statement from NUREG 1021, Appendix D to scenario guide Added Transfer ESF Bus 17AC from ESF Transformer 21 to ESF Transformer 12
1. Add additional steps for 4.2.2.d to D-2s. Done 1 E 2.

SOI Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Narrow Range C Level instrument oscillations

1. Tech Spec is TRM 6.3.7 Additional details added 2 1 E 2.

ARI Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat ESF Transformer 12 Lockout with HPCS Diesel Generator auto start failure

1. Tech Spec is LCO 3.8.1, AC Sources - Operating Additional details added 3 1 E 2.

ONEP Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Control Rod 24-53 drifting in

1. Use full description of Control Rod in D-2s Done 4 E 2.

ONEP Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Control Rod 24-53 stuck at position 32

1. Does BOP have Verifiable Operator Actions? Raising CRD drive water pressure ONEP1 5 X 1 E 2. Tech Spec is LCO 3.1.3, Control Rod Operability Additional details added ONEP2 3.

Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat MT - Control Rod 32-27 drifting in. Reactor scram

1. Add number of Control Rod thats drifting to D-2s CR 32-37HJ added ONEP1 6 E 2. ONEP2 Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat MT - Hydraulic Block ATWS > 5% RTP EP-2 7 3 S EP-2A Rev 3

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Scenario Review Table Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Scenario: 2 Exam Dates: December 4-8, 2017 10 --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Real/ Reqd Verify Scen Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Proc Cred Action Action O-lap 8 1 S Reactor Feedwater Pump trip EP-2A ESF Bus 15AA power loss

1. Page numbers not aligned for this event Fixed 9 E 2.

SOI Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat 9 3 4 Rev 3

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Scenario Review Table Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Scenario: 3 Exam Dates: December 4-8, 2017 10 --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Real/ Reqd Verify Scen Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Proc Cred Action Action O-lap General Comments

1. Tech Specs need to have LCOs with each Condition identified that SRO must identify.

Include Function for Instrument specs. Update all D-2s with addition details. Done

2. Add additional annunciators and alarms for all events (SBT requirement) Done
3. Add procedure step numbers in D-2s where applicable Done
4. Add post-scenario statement from NUREG 1021, Appendix D to scenario guide Added Transfer RPS Bus B from normal to alternate power supply 1 S SOI Division 2 Diesel Generator lube oil leak 2 2 E 1. Tech Specs are LCO 3.8.3.E and LCO 3.8.1.B Additional details added ARI Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Division 2 ECCS initiation on spurious RPV low level signal
1. Tech Specs are LCO 3.3.5.1.B, 3.3.5.1.F, 3.3.6.1.A, B, and F, 3.3.6.3.B and 3.3.6.4.B SOI 3 7 E Additional details added ONEP Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Loss of condenser vacuum 4 S ONEP MT - LOOP/LOCA EP-2 5 2 S 1. Move CTs to Event 6 EP-3 Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat HPCS Pump trip
1. D-2s not clear for Verifiable Operator Actions for both BOP and ATC to get Component credit 6 X E 2. Not clear as to what procedure guidance is used to correct component failure. Added

?

details to D-2s Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Failure of Division 1 ECCS to automatically initiate

1. D-2s not clear for Verifiable Operator Actions for ATC to get Component credit Clarified ATC actions 7 X 1 E 2. Not clear as to what procedure guidance is used to correct component failure. Added

?

details to D-2s Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat 7 9 3 Rev 3

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Scenario Review Table Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Scenario: 4 Exam Dates: December 4-8, 2017 10 --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Real/ Reqd Verify Scen Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Proc Cred Action Action O-lap General Comments

1. Tech Specs need to have LCOs with each Condition identified that SRO must identify.

Include Function for Instrumentation specs. Update all D-2s with details. Done

2. Add additional annunciators and alarms for all events (SBT requirement) Done
3. Add procedure step numbers in D-2s where applicable Done
4. Add post-scenario statement from NUREG 1021, Appendix D to scenario guide Added Withdraw control rods to 10% Bypass Valve position 1 E 1. Add procedure used (SOI, ARI, etc) to scenario summary Done SOI Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat Condensate Pump C trip ONEP 2 S SOI HPCS CST Level Lo trip unit failing upscale
1. Tech Spec is LCO 3.3.5.1 Condition A and, LCO 3.3.5.1 Condition D (using Table 3 2 E 3.3.5.1-1) Additional details added ONEP
2. Add procedure used (SOI, ARI, etc) to scenario summary Done Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat 4 S Startup Level Control controller failing downscale ONEP ESF Transformer 11 trip with failure of 15BA4 to re-energize ONEP1 5 1 E 1. Tech Spec is LCO 3.8.7, Condition A Additional details added ONEP2 Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat ONEP3 MT - Main Steam Tunnel steam leak with failure of one steam line to isolate EP-4 6 1 S EP-2 MT - Feedwater Line B line break inside Drywell with B21-F065B power loss 7 E 1. Add procedure used (SOI, ARI, etc) to scenario summary Done EP-?

Event revised to incorporate comments - Sat 8 2 S HPCS Pump Trip EP-2 9 1 S LPCS logic power failure ARI 9 3 4 Rev 3

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Scenario Review Table Form ES-301-7 Instructions for Completing the Scenario Review Table: Use this table for each scenario to be evaluated 2 Check this box if the events are not realistic (Real) (e.g., pipe rupture followed by seismic event) OR if the events are not credible (Cred) because they do not obey the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

3, 4 In columns 3 and 4, check the box if there is no required action (Reqd Action) or verifiable action (Verify Action), as applicable. Examples of required actions are as follows: (ES-301, D.5f)

  • opening, closing, and throttling valves
  • starting and stopping equipment
  • raising and lowering level, flow, and pressure
  • making decisions and giving directions
  • acknowledging or verifying key alarms and automatic actions (Uncomplicated events that require no operator action beyond this should not be included on the operating test unless they are necessary to set the stage for subsequent events. (Appendix D, B.3).)

5 Check this box if the level of difficulty (LOD) is not appropriate.

6 Check this box if the event has a TS.

7 Check this box if the event has a critical task (CT). If the same CT covers more than one event, check the event where the CT started only.

8 Check this box if the event Overlaps (Scen O-Laps) with another event on any of the last two NRC examinations. (Appendix D, C.1.f) 9 Based on the reviewers judgment, is the event as written unacceptable (U) (requiring repair or replacement), in need of enhancement (E), or satisfactory (S)? Mark the answer in Column 9.

10 Record any Explanations or comments of the event here.

In the shaded boxes of the last row, calculate the values for each column as described below:

  • In column 1, sum the number of events
  • In columns 2-4, record the total number of check marks for each column
  • In column 5, based on the reviewer's judgement, place a checkmark only if the scenario's LOD is not appropriate
  • In column 6, TS are required to be 2 for each scenario (ES-301, D.5.d)
  • In column 7, pre-identified CTs should be 2 for each scenario (Appendix D; ES-301, D.5.d; ES-301-4)
  • In column 8, record the number of events not used on the two previous NRC initial licensing exams. A scenario is considered unsatisfactory if there is < 2 new events (ES 301, D.5.b; Appendix D, C.1.f)
  • In column 9, record whether the scenario as written Unacceptable, in need of Enhancement, or Satisfactory from column 11 of the simulator scenario table Rev 3

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Scenario Total Table Form ES-301-7 Facility: GG-2017-12 Exam Dates: December 4-8, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11

% Unsat Event Events TS TS CT CT Scenario Scenario U/E/S Explanation Totals Unsat Total Unsat Total Unsat Elements 1 9 0 9 1 3 0 5 E Original scenario missing TR 6.8.2 2 9 0 3 0 4 0 0 E 3 7 0 9 0 3 0 0 E 4 9 0 3 1 4 0 6 E Original scenario missing TS 3.8.1 Instructions for Completing the Scenario Total Table:

Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided.

1, 3, 5 For each simulator scenario, enter the total number of events (Column 1), TS entries/actions (Column 3), and CTs (Column 5).

This number should match the respective scenario from the event-based scenario tables (the sum from Columns 1, 6, and 7, respectively).

2, 4, 6 For each simulator scenario, evaluate each event, TS, and CT as (S)atisfactory, (E)nhance, or (U)nsatisfactory based on the following criteria:

a. Events. Each event is described on a Form ES-D-2, including all switch manipulations, pertinent alarms, and verifiable actions. Event actions are balanced between at-the-controls and balance-of-plant applicants during the scenario. All event-related attributes on Form ES-301-4 are met. Enter the total number of unsatisfactory events in Column 2.
b. TS. A scenario includes at least two TS entries/actions across at least two different events. TS entries and actions are detailed on Form ES-D-2. Enter the total number of unsatisfactory TS entries/actions in Column 4. (ES-301, D.5d)
c. CT. Check that a scenario includes at least two preidentified CTs. This criterion is a target quantitative attribute, not an absolute minimum requirement. Check that each CT is explicitly bounded on Form ES-D-2 with measurable performance standards (see Appendix D). Enter the total number of unsatisfactory CTs in Column 6.

2+4+6 7 In Column 7, calculate the percentage of unsatisfactory scenario elements: 100%

1+3+5 8 If the value in Column 7 is > 20%, mark the scenario as (U)nsatisfactory in Column 8. If column 7 is 20%, annotate with (E)nhancement or (S)atisfactory.

9 In Column 9, explain each unsatisfactory Event, TS, and CT. Editorial comments can also be added here.

Save initial review comments and detail subsequent comment resolution so that each exam-bound scenario is marked by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this form.

Rev 3

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet - Operating Test Totals Table Form ES-301-7 Site Name: GG-2017-12 Exam Date: December 4-8, 2017 OPERATING TEST TOTALS Total Total Total  %

Total Explanation Unsat. Edits Sat. Unsat.

Admin.

9 1 7 1 11.1 JPMs Sim./In-Plant 11 2 9 0 18.2 Replaced In-Plant JPM (PB2) was reviewed as Sat.

JPMs Scenarios 4 0 4 0 0 Op. Test 24 3 20 1 12.5 Totals:

Instructions for Completing the Operating Test Totals Table:

Update data for this table from quality reviews and totals in the previous tables and then calculate the percentage of total items that are unsatisfactory and give an explanation in the space provided.

1. Enter the total number of items submitted for the operating test in the Total column. For example, if nine administrative JPMs were submitted, enter 9 in the Total items column for administrative JPMs. For scenarios, enter the total number of simulator scenarios.
2. Enter the total number of (U)nsatisfactory JPMs and scenarios from the two JPMs column 5 and simulator scenarios column 8 in the previous tables. Provide an explanation in the space provided.
3. Enter totals for (E)nhancements needed and (S)atisfactory JPMs and scenarios from the previous tables. This task is for tracking only.
4. Total each column and enter the amounts in the Op. Test Totals row.
5. Calculate the percentage of the operating test that is (U)nsatisfactory (Op. Test Total Unsat.)/(Op. Test Total) and place this value in the bolded % Unsat. cell.

Refer to ES-501, E.3.a, to rate the overall operating test as follows:

  • satisfactory, if the Op. Test Total % Unsat. is 20%
  • unsatisfactory, if Op. Test Total % Unsat. is > 20%
6. Update this table and the tables above with post-exam changes if the as-administered operating test required content changes, including the following:
  • The JPM performance standards were incorrect.
  • The administrative JPM tasks/keys were incorrect.
  • CTs were incorrect in the scenarios (not including postscenario critical tasks defined in Appendix D).
  • The EOP strategy was incorrect in a scenario(s).
  • TS entries/actions were determined to be incorrect in a scenario(s).

Rev 3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18061A166&oldid=2413874"