ML20010D139
| ML20010D139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/2019 |
| From: | Greg Werner Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Entergy Operations |
| References | |
| Download: ML20010D139 (12) | |
Text
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: River Bend Station Exam Date:
11/18/19 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 2.1.7 2
E S
Would rather see at least one error. Perhaps have total flow on B33-R613 read something like 63.50 MLB/HR?
That is outside of the 10% error band, but it close to the sum of the individual loops in gpm. Also, is it operationally valid to say start at step 8.1 if step 7 has not been completed? Seems like it would be better to just say, perform the procedure. The task standard should state, Applicant completes the following, per the answer key, without any unrecovered errors RBS: Added fault for total flow on B33-R613. When plotted on graph the applicant must recognize the failure. JPM now SAT.
A2 2.1.31 2
X U
S The listed K/A of 2.3.1 is Ability to locate control room switches, controls, and indications and this JPM is not testing this JPM. Instead, the JPM is asking the applicant to simulate what would be done in the plant in the classroom environment, so they are not performing an administrative task. This is more appropriate as a Simulator or In-Plant JPM, or as a normal evolution in a simulator scenario. Additionally, the listed task standard has nothing to do with the JPM. RBS - Wrote a new JPM. JPM now SAT.
A3 2.2.44 2
E S
Rather than provide an answer form, the initiating cue should state to complete through Step 6.2.3, and to complete Attachment 1. The task standard should state, Applicant completes the following, per the answer key, without any unrecovered errors RBS: Changed cue to state step 6.2.3 and changed task standard. JPM now SAT.
A4 2.3.15 1
2 U
E S
I see too many issues with this JPM during administration. I am concerned that the applicants will ask for indications for Div 2 & 3, what inboard isolation indications look like, etc., making it LOD 1. We could not, not give them the information if asked. Additionally, like A2, this is a Simulator JPM disguised as an Admin JPM. Finally, I am concerned because there is nothing procedurally driving the JPM. RBS - Added an additional step to ask dose limits. While this JPM is an improvement, the added part is direct lookup, especially if the applicant asks for procedures, documents, etc. Better way to add that part of the JPM
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 is to have a two-part JPM. The first part is to determine the source and whether it is filtered or not. They then hand that in, get another cue sheet that gives them some dose rates in a room somewhere and ask stay times.
Question now EDIT. RBS - Changed part 3 to asking a dose rate. JPM now SAT.
A5 2.1.7 2
E S
JPM title does not match what is on the outline. The task standard should include determining correct specific volume and correct calculated loop flow rate (with appropriate error) as critical steps. I am concerned on how close the calculated value is to 33 kgpm. Rounding errors could make it possible to achieve an answer of 33 kgpm or slightly less. Suggest changing the loop temperature to 546°. RBS: Corrected outline will be submitted separately. Changed the task standard.
Changed cue to 548F. 548F is number on steam table and students dont have to interpolate. JPM now SAT.
A6 2.1.25 2
E S
No need for step 1 to be critical. If the wrong curve is selected, critical step 2 will be incorrect. Page 5 is from JPM A3, not for A7. Task standard is not correct for the given JPM. It is the listed task standard for JPM A3.
The task standard should state, Applicant completes the following, per the answer key, without any unrecovered errors RBS: Removed step 1. Corrected page 5 and task standard as required. JPM now SAT.
A7 2.2.18 2
E S
The task standard should state, Applicant completes the following, per the answer key, without any unrecovered errors RBS: Task standard updated. JPM now SAT.
A8 2.3.11 1
U E
S Does not meet the K/A of being able to control radioactive releases. Is operable the correct term for a non-tech spec piece of equipment? Why is RMS-RE107 inoperable? There is no documented reason why. If the instrument were operable then there would be nothing to for part 2 of the JPM, making this LOD 1.
RBS - Changed to a two cue JPM with second part asking what needed to be done to continue with the release. Need to add a step where applicant is handed a good permit to go with the second part. RBS -
Added step 2, now 3 steps to JPM. JPM now SAT.
A9 2.4.44 2
E S
Since this is a time critical JPM, the task standard needs to the state The applicant completes the following without any unrecovered errors within XXX minutes.
The cue asks only to determine the PAR scenario number and if the applicant simply writes the number 17, there is no way of knowing if they progressed through the flow chart correctly. Thus, add to the cue for the applicant to show the progress on the primary flow chart.
Additionally, there is no information on the cue about boundary dose. Add to the cue that boundary dose is
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11
[something less than 1000 mR TEDE] and [something less than 5000 mR CEDE is expected]. That makes the applicant at least aware information for that block of the flow chart is provided. RBS: Updated cue and task standard. JPM now SAT.
1 Simulator/In-Plant Safety Function and K/A JPMs P1 2
286000 K1.03 2
E S
What is the Enclosure 7 Key used for? Instead of the cue stating to start at step 3.6, have the cue state to perform Enclosure 7, and further state that the control room has verified closed the valves in steps 3.3 and 3.5, and that RHR pump B is secured. After step 3.6 is secured, the examiner can stop the JPM. RBS: There is no enclosure 7 key. The procedure mentions key if site used lock to lock the valves in position.
Currently the site uses zip ties to lock the valves in position. The operator would be required to break the zip tie in order to operate the valve.
Modified the cue as stated. JPM now SAT.
P2 7
212000 A2.01 2
E S
The JPM is written from Section 5, System Startup. Why is it not written from section 6.3, Restoring RPS from a Trip or Maintenance, since the cue indicates electrical maintenance was completed? RBS: Changed to section 6.3 to restore from maintenance. JPM now SAT.
P3 8
212000 K6.01 2
E S
Remove through step 6 from the cue, since the JPM is not stopping at step 6. The listed K/A is for System 212000 which is RPS. Should it be System 300000.
RBS: Changed cue and K/A. JPM now SAT.
S1 1
202002 K1.12 2
E S
Is it possible to put the recirc pumps in slow speed and have them completely finish the ARP?
RBS: Added cue to maximize flow in both recirc loops. Added critical step in examiner handout and added steps to task standard. JPM now SAT.
S2 2
204000 A4.02 2
E S
Eliminate the statement in the cue about the operator standing by to open WCS-111. That is cueing that the valve is not in the control room. The applicant should know that and know to call a building operator.
RBS: Removed from cue another operator will open WCS-111. Valve will be opened by applicant in the simulator on another panel. Based on paired JPM applicant can go to the other panel without compromising other JPM. JPM now SAT.
S3 3
214000 A2.22 2
E S
Are vibrations continuing to increase? If so, change the task standard to trip main turbine when vibrations exceed setpoint, and prior to the turbine automatically tripping.
RBS: Updated task standard. JPM now SAT.
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 S4 4
217000 A4.04 2
S JPM SAT. However, since the task standard is to restore water level to -20 to 51 inches, please include an examiner note that the JPM cannot be stopped until RPV level is greater than -20 inches.
RBS: Added note to stop when >-20 inches wide range.
S5 5
202002 A1.08 2
E S
Since some dampers are verified open and some are required to be opened, list the dampers required to be opened in the task standard.
RBS: Added manipulated dampers to the task standard. JPM now SAT.
S6 6
?
?
2 E
S The listed K/A is incorrect. It is a K/A for Primary Containment System and Auxiliaries. Please provide correct K/A.
RBS: Changed K/A as required. JPM now SAT.
S7 7
212000 A4.14 2
S Title page says Rest Reactor SCRAM instead of Reset Reactor SCRAM RBS: Corrected title on page 1 and 2.
S8 9
234000 K1.09 2
S K1.09 is probably a better K/A match than K6.07 RBS: Changed K/A.
ES-301 5
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 6
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: River Bend Station Scenario:
1 Exam Date:
11/18/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scen.
Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
X E
S List the function for tech spec 3.3.8.1. Added function.
Add steps on how to stop the diesel. Added steps.
3 E
S Add statement that may lockout B CCP. Added statement.
4 X
E S
List the function for tech spec 3.3.1.1. Added function.
5 X
S 6
X S
7 X
E Add a snap-shot of alternate level control blocks from EOP-1. Added snapshot.
8 X
S Reword safety significance statement for CT-2. Reworded statement.
2 2
2 E
S
ES-301 7
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: River Bend Station Scenario:
2 Exam Date:
11/18/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scen.
Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
X E
2 X
E S
Change the second EPA breaker is still closed with an undervoltage flag. Changed.
3 S
4 S
5 S
6 X
X S
7 X
S 8
X S
2 2
2 E
S
ES-301 8
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: River Bend Station Scenario:
3 Exam Date:
11/18/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scen.
Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
S 2
X E
S Bold the verifiable action steps the BOP will take. Bolded.
3 X
S 4
E S
Add statement that they may lockout B stator water cooling pump. Added statement.
5 S
6 X
E S
Change critical task statement to remove manually operating HPCS. Changed statement.
7 X
8 9
E S
Add event 9, HPCS failure, as another malfunction after EOP entry. Added event.
Critical task 2, remove statement that you can restore level using HPCS, since it failed.
Changed statement.
2 2
E S
ES-301 9
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: River Bend Station Scenario:
4 Exam Date:
11/18/19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Event Realism/Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scen.
Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
X S
2 X
E S
Add tech spec 3.1.3. Added tech spec.
3 S
4 X
E S
Can remove this event since there is a tech spec call in event 2. Removed event.
5 X
E S
Add tech spec 3.5.1 being applicable when control power fuses are pulled. Added tech spec.
Add the words from the SOP on how to start Div 1 diesel. Added.
6 X
E S
Correct header and event description that C pump trips and start A pump. Corrected.
7 X
S 8
S 9
S 2
2 1
E S
ES-301 10 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 11 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: River Bend Station Exam Date:
11/18/19 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
8 2
2 E
S All changes made. Scenario SAT.
2 8
2 2
E S
All changes made. Scenario SAT.
3 9
2 2
E S
All changes made. Scenario SAT.
4 8
2 2
E S
All changes made. Scenario SAT.
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 12 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Site name: River Bend Station Exam Date:
11/18/19 OPERATING TEST TOTALS Total Total Unsat.
Total Total Unsat.
Explanation Edits Sat.
Admin.
JPMs 9
3 6
0 Sim./In-Plant JPMs 11 0
8 3
Scenarios 4
0 4
0 Op. Test Totals:
24 3
18 3
12.5%
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).