ML19099A111
| ML19099A111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/2019 |
| From: | Greg Werner Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Energy Northwest |
| References | |
| Download: ML19099A111 (20) | |
Text
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
Attributes 4
Job Content 5
6 Admin JPMs ADMIN Topic and K/A LOD (1-5)
U/E/S Explanation I/C Cues Critical Scope Overlap Perf.
Key Minutia Job Link Focus Steps (N/B)
Std.
All comments were resolved prior to exam approval A1 Conduct of Operations 2.1.5 2
S A2 Conduct of Operations 2.1.8 2
S A3 Equipment Control 2.2.41 3
S A4 Radiation Control 2.3.4 3
S A5 Conduct of Operations 2.1.5 2
S A6 Conduct of Operations 2.1.25 2
S A7 Equipment Control 2.2.40 2
S A8 Radiation Control 2.3.6 2
S A9 Emergency Plan 2.4.41 2
S 1
Simulator/In-Plant Safety Function and K/A JPMs S1 1
201001 A4.01 3
S S2 6
3 S
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 262001 A4.04 S3 3
239001 A4.01 3
S S4 2
259001 A4.02 3
S S5 7
215001 A2.07 3
S S6 9
233000 A2.08 3
S S7 5
290001 A4.01 3
S S8 4
205000 A4.09 3
S P1 1
295016 AA1.01 3
S P2 5
223001 A2.07 3
S P3 2
295003 AA1.03 3
S
ES-301 3
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 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:
The initial conditions and/or initiating cue is clear to ensure the operator understands the task and how to begin. (Appendix C, B.4)
The 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)
All critical steps (elements) are properly identified.
The scope of the task is not too narrow (N) or too broad (B).
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)
The task performance standard clearly describes the expected outcome (i.e., end state). Each performance step identifies a standard for successful completion of the step.
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:
Topics are linked to the job content (e.g., not a disguised task, task required in real job).
The 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.
ES-301 4
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Scenario:
1 Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
S 3
S 4
S 5
S 6
S 7
S 8
S 9
S 10 S
11 S
ES-301 5
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Scenario:
2 Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
S 3
S 4
S 5
S 6
S 7
S 8
S
ES-301 6
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Scenario:
3 Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
S 3
S 4
S 5
S 6
S 7
S 8
S
ES-301 7
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Scenario:
4 Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
S 3
S 4
S 5
S 6
S 7
S
ES-301 8
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Instructions for Completing This Table:
1 Use this table for each scenario for evaluation.
2 Check this box if the events are not related (e.g., seismic event followed by a pipe rupture) OR if the events do not obey the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
3, 4 In columns 3 and 4, check the box if there is no verifiable or required 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 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 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 (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory? Mark the answer in column 9.
10 Record any explanations of the events here.
In the shaded boxes, sum the number of check marks in each column.
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, preidentified 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 (U)nacceptable, in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory from column 11 of the simulator scenario table.
ES-301 9
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: Exam Date:
Scenario 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 11 Event Totals Events Unsat.
TS Total TS Unsat.
% Unsat.
Scenario Elements U/E/S Explanation 1
11 0
2 0
2 0
0 S
2 8
0 2
0 2
0 0
S 3
8 0
2 0
2 0
0 S
4 7
0 2
0 2
0 0
S Instructions for Completing This 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.
7 In column 7, calculate the percentage of unsatisfactory scenario elements:
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.
2 + 4 + 6 1 + 3 + 5100%
ES-301 10 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Site name: Exam Date:
OPERATING TEST TOTALS Total Total Unsat.
Total Total Unsat.
Explanation Edits Sat.
Admin.
JPMs 9
0 0
9 Sim./In-Plant JPMs 11 0
0 11 Scenarios 4
0 0
4 Op. Test Totals:
24 0
0 24 0
Instructions for Completing This 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).
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
Attributes 4
Job Content 5
6 Admin JPMs ADMIN Topic and K/A LOD (1-5)
U/E/S Explanation I/C Cues Critical Scope Overlap Perf.
Key Minutia Job Link Focus Steps (N/B)
Std.
A1 Conduct of Operations 2.1.5 2
X E
Update the task standard to include the names of the operators and the required positions. Add individuals whose quals will expire in < 30 days and < 14 days similar to A5.
Make OI-54 available.
A2 Conduct of Operations 2.1.8 2
X E
Based on the wording of the procedure I dont believe we can include identification of SCBA as required for the RO in the task standard.
A3 Equipment Control 2.2.41 3
S Change Validation time to 15 minutes A4 Radiation Control 2.3.4 3
S Have SWP-RPP-01 available A5 Conduct of Operations 2.1.5 2
X E
Im having trouble seeing the SRO function for this JPM. It appears to be similar to A1. Review ES-301, p10, c. All SRO administrative JPMs must be written at the SRO level. Is it because these are control room operators?
Have OI-54 available. Change validation time to 15 minutes A6 Conduct of Operations 2.1.25 2
X E
May need to adjust the task standard. Will need to get validation feedback first.
A7 Equipment Control 2.2.40 2
S Add no risk assessment will be performed to the initiating cue.
A8 Radiation Control 2.3.6 2
S Change the answer sheet to what does the procedure require.
A9 Emergency Plan 2.4.41 2
S Change task standard to reference the reference key 1
Simulator/In-Plant Safety Function and K/A JPMs
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 S1 1
201001 A4.01 3
S Will they get a pump trip or lift any relief valves if they dont take action in time? If there is an adverse action it should be in the task standard. Should this be counted as low power on the outline?
S2 6
262001 A4.04 3
S Is there a potential to transfer SM-7 to the backup transformer if the applicant doesnt recognize the failure?
Add step 5.4.1 is complete S3 3
239001 A4.01 3
X E
Add the valve numbers manipulated to the task standard.
Add steam in steam lines to initial conditions. Add examiner note on delay of opening MSIV S4 2
259001 A4.02 3
S Have RFW-V112A and 112B closed in setup.
Remove critical step from JPM step 7 S5 7
215001 A2.07 3
E As part of the setup have PPM 1.3.23 available also.
S6 9
233000 A2.08 3
X E
Should RCC-V-9A,B and 10A,B be part of the task standard since they are field actions. Looks like RCC-V-129, 130, 131 are required to complete the task so the task standard shouldnt be an OR statement.
S7 5
290001 A4.01 3
X Id like the individual valves that need to be manipulated in the task standard.
S8 4
205000 A4.09 3
S P1 1
295016 AA1.01 3
X E
Can we get pictures of the inside of the cabinets w/
and w/o fuses to assist with JPM step 2?
P2 5
223001 A2.07 3
X E
State that section 4.1 of 5.5.14 has been performed in the initial cue.
P3 2
295003 AA1.03 3
X E
State in the initial conditions section 4.1 is complete.
Id like to see section 4.3 completed during validation.
I may want to add to the JPM and the task standard.
Step 4.3 is non critical but will be performed from ground level.
For any JPM that states prerequisites have been addressed need to have a marked up copy made for the JPM.
ES-301 3
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 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:
The initial conditions and/or initiating cue is clear to ensure the operator understands the task and how to begin. (Appendix C, B.4)
The 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)
All critical steps (elements) are properly identified.
The scope of the task is not too narrow (N) or too broad (B).
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)
The task performance standard clearly describes the expected outcome (i.e., end state). Each performance step identifies a standard for successful completion of the step.
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:
Topics are linked to the job content (e.g., not a disguised task, task required in real job).
The 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.
ES-301 4
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Scenario:
1 Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
S 3
S 4
S 5
S Replace Tech spec call 6
S 7
S Why will the earthquake automatically trip the generator? Shouldnt the generator stay on until they trip it or some other protection mechanism takes over?
8 S
9 S
10 S
11 S
What is the time in core life for this scenario? The example scenarios in appendix D all list a time in core life.
ES-301 5
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Scenario:
2 Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
S 3
S 4
S 5
S 6
S 7
S 8
S What is the time in core life for this scenario? Update CT-1 with bounding criteria of not exceeding LL during ATWS once level is lowered.
ES-301 6
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Scenario:
3 Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S Delete 2
S 3
S Replaced with event 3 from scenario 4.
4 S
5 S
6 S
7 S
8 S
What is the time in core life for this scenario?
ES-301 7
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility:
Columbia Generating Station Scenario:
4 Exam Date:
2/25/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
S 3
S See scenario 3 comments.
4 S
5 S
6 S
7 S
What is the time in core life for this scenario?
ES-301 8
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Instructions for Completing This Table:
1 Use this table for each scenario for evaluation.
2 Check this box if the events are not related (e.g., seismic event followed by a pipe rupture) OR if the events do not obey the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
3, 4 In columns 3 and 4, check the box if there is no verifiable or required 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 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 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 (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory? Mark the answer in column 9.
10 Record any explanations of the events here.
In the shaded boxes, sum the number of check marks in each column.
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, preidentified 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 (U)nacceptable, in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory from column 11 of the simulator scenario table.
ES-301 9
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: Exam Date:
Scenario 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 11 Event Totals Events Unsat.
TS Total TS Unsat.
% Unsat.
Scenario Elements U/E/S Explanation 1
11 0
2 0
2 0
0 S
2 8
0 2
0 2
0 0
S 3
8 0
2 0
2 0
0 S
4 7
0 2
0 2
0 0
S Instructions for Completing This 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.
7 In column 7, calculate the percentage of unsatisfactory scenario elements:
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.
2 + 4 + 6 1 + 3 + 5100%
ES-301 10 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Site name: Exam Date:
OPERATING TEST TOTALS Total Total Unsat.
Total Total Unsat.
Explanation Edits Sat.
Admin.
JPMs 9
0 4
5 Sim./In-Plant JPMs 11 0
6 5
Scenarios 4
0 0
4 Op. Test Totals:
24 0
10 14 0
Instructions for Completing This 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).