ML20153A662
| ML20153A662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/2020 |
| From: | NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB |
| To: | Exelon Generation Co |
| Roach G | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19121A179 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML20153A662 (18) | |
Text
Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 ES-301 Facility: QUAD CITIES Exam Date: March 16 - 25, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 ADMIN Topic LOD Attributes Job Content Admin U/E/S Explanation JPMs and K/A (1-5) I/C Critical Scope Perf. Job Cues Overlap Key Minutia Focus Steps (N/B) Std. Link NRC: The JPM must clearly identify the Task Standard against which task performance will be (1) General Comment: Lack measured IAW NUREG 1021, APP C, B.3.
of Acceptable JPM Task X Accomplishing the Task Standard is how the critical Standard steps of the JPM are identified. No specific Task Standard is identified in most Admin JPM write-ups.
NRC: See General Comment (1).
E SRO-A1.1 Conduct of 2 Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM Operations S summary page.
2.1.5 NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: See General Comment (1).
JPM Set up page incorrectly notes that Step 51.a.(10) is not checked for Saturday day shift because control rod K-10 lost RPIS. The I/C states rod K-5 lost RPIS.
E SRO-A1.2 Conduct of The 1st Initial Condition on the last page (sheet Operations 2 for the applicant) is incorrectly repeated.
2.1.36 S Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM summary page.
Setup paged corrected to list rod K-5.
Repeated initial condition removed.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: See General Comment (1).
For consistency, should remove the comment This JPM is not time critical. From the Initial Conditions or add it to all the other non-time E critical JPMs.
SRO-A2 Equipment Control 3 Define EFP 2.2.14 S Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM summary page.
Not Time Critical statement removed.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 ES-301 EFP definition added to step.
NRC: See General Comment (1).
For consistency, should remove the comment This JPM is not time critical. From the Initial Conditions E or add it to all the other non-time critical JPMs.
SRO-A3 Radiation 2
Control Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM 2.3.6 S summary page.
Not Time Critical statement removed.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: See General Comment (1).
This JPM is linked to KA 2.4.41 which is EAL classification per the Summary page and the ES 301-1. The JPM is associated with PARs. KA E 2.4.44 would be more appropriate. Update ES-301-1 and the JPM Summary page.
SRO-A4 Emergency 3 TIME CRITICAL Procedures/Plan 2.4.44 Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM S summary page.
ES-301-1 and JPM summary page updated to reflect the appropriate KA.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: See General Comment (1).
The Evaluator Notes prior to the 2 Steps which identify components out of position should be changed to require the applicant to reposition the components in order to successfully complete critical step, not simply identify and report the component out of position.
E What required actions make this an Administrative RO-A1.1 Conduct of JPM vs a Simulator JPM? Should the applicant be 2
Operations expected to annotate previous steps incorrectly 2.1.31 filled out?
S Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM summary page.
Critical steps revised to include repositioning the mispositioned components.
The JPM task is an administrative step in preparation for an upcoming PMT.
Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
ES-301 NRC: See General Comment (1).
Need to review the completed copy of OP-AA-105-102, Attachment 1, provided to the applicant to actually assess the JPM. Assuming the completed copy accurately reflects only the Initial Conditions E
provided, the first 2 Critical Steps appear correct.
RO-A1.2 Conduct of 2 Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM Operations 2.1.4 summary page.
S JPM was revised to require the candidate to complete the OP-AA-105-102 attachment from scratch and determine if sufficient hours have been completed.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
FREE SAMPLE NRC: The JPM must clearly identify the Task Standard against which task performance will be measured IAW NUREG 1021, APP C, B.3.
Accomplishing the Task Standard is how the critical steps of the JPM are identified. No specific Task Standard is identified in the JPM write-up. Since this is an administrative JPM which requires work on the simulator control boards, a possible Task Standard could be, Substitute a rod position into the RWM for control U rod M-10 and fill out QCOP 9950-07, Attachment B as the preparer/installer. Filling out Attachment B is what makes this acceptable as an Administrative JPM. Therefore, completing steps F.1.a. and F.1.j. should be critical steps in addition Equipment RO-A2 2 E to the already identified steps for entering the Control substitute position.
2.2.14 Annunciator 901-5 B-3 should be called ROD WORTH MIN BLOCK In the Initial Conditions S section on both the examiner and applicants copy.
JPM steps F.5.f. through F.5.k. are incorrectly labeled IAW QCOP 9950-07. They should be labeled F.1.f. through F.1.k.
QCOP 9950-07 Note specifically requires Attachment B preparer or reviewer to be a QNE.
Since the applicant is not a QNE, they will ask for a QNE to review their work. Performance Standard for step F.1.b incorrectly states that the applicant will ask for the US or ANSO to serve as
Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 ES-301 the reviewer. These watch stations are filled by personnel who will not be a QNE.
Response
Task Standard statement updated to include filling out Attachment B as the preparer/installer.
Corrected statement about the reviewer to state that the QNE will be requested. Corrected annunciator name. Corrected step labelling for F.1.f. through F.1.k.
Steps F.1.a. and F.1.j. annotated as additional critical steps.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: See General Comment (1).
Since this is an administrative JPM which requires switch manipulations on simulator control room panels, a possible Task Standard could be, Perform QCOP 1800-01 Step F.1 for Radiation ARM 15 and complete required portions of the RO-A3 2 E Work Package for documenting completion of the Control 2.3.5 Post Maintenance Testing as the performer.
Completing portions of the Work Package is what makes this acceptable as an Administrative JPM.
S The Initial Conditions on the last page (sheet for the applicant) incorrectly states that ARM 14 (TIP Cubicle), not ARM 15 (Torus Area), has been returned to service by IMD.
Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM summary page.
Initial conditions and JPM steps revised to utilize ARM 16 after pre validation.
Task updated to include completion of the work package paperwork.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 ES-301 Simulator/In-Plant Safety Function Critical Perf.
I/C Cues Scope Overlap Explanation JPMs and K/A LOD Steps Std. Key Minutia Job Link U/E/S (1-5)
NRC: Would closing BOTH 1-1201-2 and 1-1201-5 be critical steps as the valves are in series and closing either will isolate RWCU from the RCS?
Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM E summary page.
1 a 2 Both the 1-1201-2 and 1-1201-5 are valves listed in 211000 A4.06 the same procedure step and listed as an AND S statement. Since closing either valve will isolate the line, the performance standard was revised to state OR for the critical step allowing either valve to meet the critical step.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: None.
b 3 2 S 239001 A4.01 FREE SAMPLE NRC: The JPM must clearly identify the Task Standard against which task performance will be measured IAW NUREG 1021, APP C, B.3.
Accomplishing the Task Standard is how the critical steps of the JPM are identified. No specific Task U Standard is identified in the JPM write-up.
Performance standard for step HC.13/F.5.b.
incorrectly calls out operating MO 1-2301-9. It 2 3 should be MO 1-2301-8.
c E 206000 A2.06 K/A listed on the ES-301-2 JPM Outline form lists this JPM as covering K/A 206000 A2.06. The JPM lists the associated K/A as 206000 A2.02. Either is S appropriate but outline records should match administered exam material. Adjusting either record to match is acceptable.
Performance standard for step HC.15/F.5.d. has the word MANUAL misspelled.
Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM
Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 summary page.
ES-301 Step H.C.13/F.5.b. corrected to state MO 1-23.1-8 Task Standards listed in each step.
NRC: The Task Standard and the Cue Sheet for the Applicant incorrectly state place the HPCI system in pressure control mode. The JPM is supposed test the applicants ability to line up HPCI for injection and control RPV level.
Performance standard for step HC.15/F.5.d. has the word MANUAL misspelled. (Still not corrected)
Response: Task Standard statement updated to reflect injection.
Spelling error corrected.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: For Critical Step F.1.m the procedure has the operator throttle MO-1-1001-16A to achieve desired cool down rate. The performance standard indicates the valve is to be fully closed for max E cooling. What would direct the operator to fully close the valve?
5 d 2 219000 A1.08 Response: Step F.1.m performance standard and S cue revised to state to establish desired cool down rate by throttling closed MO 1-1001-16A. Cue is also provided that another NSO will monitor cool down rate once the 16A valve is throttled.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: JPM Does not have a Task Standard. Add an overall Task Standard.
Validation time of 20 minutes does not seem accurate. 10 minutes seems more reasonable.
E Time Compression 4
e 2 217000 A4.03 Response: Task Standard statement added to JPM S summary page.
After testing with Operators validation time was revised to 12 minutes.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: Why are steps F.8.i.(9) and F.8.i.(12)(d) not Critical Steps? F.8.i.(9) is associated with the E synchronization of the main generator onto the grid and F.8.i.(12)(d) is associated with restoring the 6 2 SYNCH SWITCH which is considered critical earlier f 262001 A4.04 S in the JPM for breaker 6-7.
Response: Steps for turning the Sync switch OFF
Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 revised to show as NOT critical steps. This does ES-301 not prevent shutting the breakers and has no consequence if left.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: None.
7 2 S Time Compression g
212000 A4.02 NRC: Performance Standard for step F.2.c.(5) incorrectly lists the SBGTS FAN DISCH DMPR as 1/2-7503B should be 1/2-7507B.
Performance Standard for step F.2.c.(6) incorrectly lists the SBGTS flow indicator as 1/2-7504-13B should be 1/2-7540-13B. This error is repeated on E step with loss of MCC 19-4 and again when A train of SBGTS is started.
Performance Standard for Critical Step F.2.b 9 2 incorrectly calls for flow to be observed on 1/2-7504-h 13B. The flow should be observed on the 1/2-7540-261000 A2.07 13A as the A SBGTS train has now been started.
In addition, the EPN is incorrect as noted above.
S Response: F.2.c.(5) step corrected to list 1/2-7507B F.2.c.(6) and loss of 19-4 steps corrected to list 1/2-7540-13B F.2.b after start of A train corrected to monitor flow on the 1/2-7540-13A.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: Task Standard includes securing the 1A RBCCW pump. The JPM is ended prior to accomplishing these Critical Steps. Add QCOP E 3700-02, Attachment A steps to secure the 1A RBCCW pump to the JPM.
i 8 2 400000 2.1.30 Response: Task Standard statement revised S
removing the start of the 1A RBCCW pump.
NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: Critical Step F.2.a.(1) performance standard should state Depresses A through G E DEMIN OUTLET E VALVE and H DEMIN 2 OUTLET MO 2-3302H close pushbuttons j 295031 EA1.11 2 according to procedure QCOP 3300-12.
S Response: The performance standard revised with the actions performed on each panel listed separately.
Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 ES-301 NRC: JPM is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: None.
6 k 2 S 264000 A3.03
9 Form ES-301-7 ES-301 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.
10 Form ES-301-7 ES-301 Facility: Quad Cities Scenario: 1 Exam Date: March 16 - 25, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Realism Required Verifiable Scenario Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation
/ Cred. Actions actions Overlap 1 Normal event Reverse Main S Condenser Flow NRC: BOP actions to ensure Service Water parameters are holding steady in E band and to direct shutdown of the 1/2 diesel fire pump after a 30-minute run 2 following an EHC pump fault do not appear to be required actions for the plant X conditions given.
Degraded EHC Pump S Response: Service water and fire diesel actions listed in error, deleted.
NRC: Event is satisfactory with changes made.
Reactivity event NRC: This event is coded as a component failure for the ATC. The ATC has no verifiable actions which are not associated with the reactivity maneuver of event four. Per NUREG 1021, ES 301, Page 16, a power change can be counted 3 U as a normal evolution or as a reactivity manipulation, and similarly, a component failure that immediately results in a major transient counts as one or RR Pump X X the other, but not both. The BOP does have a verifiable action during this Trip/Emergency Power event (opening MO 1-0202-5A). This event can be counted as a component Reduction S failure for the BOP.
BOP manually lowers reactor recirculation pump speed.
Response: Event revised and credited as ATC Reactivity and SRO TS.
NRC: Event is satisfactory with changes made.
4 Event 4 revised to ATC component failure (APRM Ch. 1 failure)
S APRM Failure 5
S Event 5 revised to ATC component failure (DFWLC failure)
DFLWC Failure 6
HPCI Spurious Start X X S NRC: What is boundary condition for CT grading? (If a blowdown is not performed before what condition is met)
What is the purpose for dispatching an EO to start the Unit 1 DGCWP at the E start of the event?
7 HPCI Steam Line Break X ATC manually performs plant cooldown at < 100F/hr using ADS valves.
and Fuel Failure S
Response: CT bounding criteria is: QGA 500-1 Entry not to exceed 15 minutes after two or more areas of the same parameter are above max safe.
The EO is dispatched to start the DGCWP to accomplish the Operate area coolers step from the EOP.
11 Form ES-301-7 NRC: Event is satisfactory with changes made.
ES-301 NRC: What is boundary condition for CT grading? (If RB ventilation is not isolated before what condition is met).
ES-D-2 does not specifically list Event 8. Last four pages of ES-D-2 should say E Event No. 7/8.
8 RB Vent Failure X
S Response: CT bounding criteria is: Time of manual isolation not to exceed 30 min from discovery of unisolable HPCI steam leak. (EAL entry condition)
Event 7/8 listed at the top of each of the last four pages.
NRC: Event is satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: Scenario is Satisfactory with changes made.
8 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 E S
12 Form ES-301-7 ES-301 Facility: Quad Cities Scenario: 2 Exam Date: March 16 - 25, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Realism/ Required Verifiable Scenario Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Cred. Actions actions Overlap 1 Normal event Start RFP X S 2 Reactivity event Raise Reactor Power S
3 Uncoupled Control X S Rod 4
ERV Acoustic Monitor X S Failure 5
X S RFP Vent Fan Trip 6
CW Pump Trip S
7 Degraded RBCCW X S Pump BOP manually controls reactor pressure with Turbine Bypass Valves and then ADS 8 valves once condenser back pressure degrades.
Loss of Condenser S ATC manually lowers power with recirculation pumps and control rods as Vacuum necessary to maintain condenser back pressure < 6 in Hg ATC manually controls RPV level at ordered reduced level band IAW with QGA 101 NRC: No actions for CT 3 are listed in the D2. Scenario is ended prior to restoring level above MSCWL. Since RPV level would not have gone below MSCWL, CT 3 does not U appear applicable to this scenario. Level should be recovered by the crew to 0 to 48 9
Hydraulic ATWS XX X inches IAW QGA 101 once hot shutdown boron weight has been added. At this point the S scenario can be terminated.
Response: CT 3 was not applicable; the scenario was revised to remove CT 3.
NRC: Event is Satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: Scenario is Satisfactory with changes made.
9 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 E S
13 Form ES-301-7 ES-301 Facility: Quad Cities Scenario: 3 FREE SAMPLE Exam Date: March 16 - 25, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Realism/ Required Verifiable Scenario Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Cred. Actions actions Overlap 1 S Normal event BPV Testing NRC: The event should be coded as a C - All on the D-1 form and not counted as a component malfunction for the BOP. Specifically, the BOP just simply exits the test when BPV 9 fails to open. There is no actual verifiable action taken to stabilize the plant or E correct the condition with the valve failing as is in the closed position.
2 X ASD Cell Failure S Response: Event 1 revised to remove the failed BPV and action for aborting the test, Event 2 revised to add an ASD cell failure for SRO TS call.
NRC: Event is Satisfactory with changes made.
3 Event 3 revised to be ATC component failure. (Recirc MASTER controller failure)
Master Controller S Failure 4 Reactivity event Raise Power with S Recirculation NRC: Performance standard for ATC when placing the RBM in bypass per QOP 0700-05, E says place the joystick in CH B. It should state, CH 8.
5 RBM Channel Failure X X Response: Corrected typo to state CH 8.
S NRC: Event is Satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: Annunciator Response Procedure QOA 912-1, C-7 directs the operators to refer to Abnormal Operating Procedure QOA 4700-02 for a trip of an IAC. QOA 4700-02 directs the operators to verify a SAC in operation and that the crosstie valve AO 1-4799-221 opened.
These actions are not listed in the D-2 form.
6 E IAC Trip Response: Scenario guide D-2 revised to include actions for directing QCOP 4700-02 and S the SAC and the AO 1-4799-221.
NRC: Event is Satisfactory with changes made.
7 ATC/BOP maintaining level manually from 0-48 with RCIC or the SSMP.
Condensate Pit Failure S
8 BOP manually starts the 1/2 EDG when it fails to auto start on loss of voltage to bus 1/2 EDG Auto Start X S 13-1.
Failure
14 Form ES-301-7 NRC: What boundary condition is placed on CT1. How will the examiners know if the ES-301 critical task not being performed has led to irreparable damage? If drywell sprays are not used, will this LOCA lead to containment pressure reaching PCPL or deign temperatures being exceeded? If not, then the task is probably not critical, and if so then the CT should be written similar to when torus pressure exceeds 5 psig and when in the safe region of the DSIL curve initiate drywell sprays before drywell pressure exceeds PCPL or the drywell design temperature limit (281F?). CT2 has a natural boundary element of an automatic blowdown occurs and CT3 lists blowdown before reactor level reaches MSCRWL.
E 9 Action to start second CRD pump is directed to BOP as a verifiable action. This appears to LOCA XXX X be an action that the ATC would be performing based on equipment located on the 901-5 S panel.
ATC/BOP manually control reactor water level 0 to 48 using low pressure ECCS.
Response: CT 1 is bounded by 281 degrees, containment design temperature. CT 1 statement updated to include the bounding criteria.
NRC: Event is Satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: Scenario is Satisfactory with changes made.
9 0 0 0 0 2 3 6 S
15 Form ES-301-7 ES-301 Facility: Quad Cities Scenario: 4 Exam Date: March 16 - 25, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Realism/ Required Verifiable Scenario Event LOD TS CTs U/E/S Explanation Cred. Actions actions Overlap Normal event NRC: Crew turnover indicates Unit 1 is at 90% power for load following. The ES D-1 and E simulator setup page indicate initial conditions for Unit 1 include being at 100% power.
1 Swap Bus Duct Response: Power deviation was in error, Scenario guide revised to use 100% power Coolers S consistently.
NRC: Event is Satisfactory with changes made.
2 DW Rad Monitor X X S Failure 3
RFP Flow XMTR S Failure Reactivity event NRC: Assign ATC responsibility for shutting down the 1B RFP after they lower RR speed to achieve core flow < 9 MLB/hr. Consider this a continuation of the ATCs event 3 verifiable actions.
E SRO incorrectly directs ATC to lower reactor power with Recircs per QCGP 3-1 until core 4
flow is 9.0 MLB/hr. Should be 90 MLB/hr.
Power Reduction S Response: D-1 revised to silo the events as the 1B RFP failure (event 3) and the Power reduction for the reactivity move (event 4). Guide revised to target the power reduction at 85% Mlbm/hr core flow and 90%FCL.
NRC: Event is Satisfactory with changes made.
NRC: ES-D-2 has BOP placing 1/2 B train of SBGT in START position. Why not OFF E position?
5 X
SBGT Low Flow S Response: D-2 revised to state that the 1/2 B SBGTS train be secured after starting the 1/2 A train.
6 BOP manually starts a SCW pump which fails to auto start.
Degraded SWC Pump S
7 ATC/BOP performs RPV cooldown using ADS valves MSL Break S
8 Electrical ATWS X X S 9
DW Sprays Failure X X S 9 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 S NRC: Scenario is Satisfactory with changes made.
16 Form ES-301-7 ES-301 Instructions for Completing This Table:
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, 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 (U)nacceptable, in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory from column 11 of the simulator scenario table.
17 Form ES-301-7 ES-301 Facility: QUAD CITIES Exam Date: March 16 - 25, 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 Scenario % Unsat. Explanation Event Events TS TS CT CT Scenario U/E/S Totals Unsat. Total Unsat. Total Unsat.
Elements NRC: Scenario is Satisfactory with changes made.
1 8 1 2 0 2 0 8.3 E NRC: Scenario is Satisfactory with changes made.
2 9 0 2 0 3 1 7.1 E FREE SAMPLE 3 9 0 2 0 3 0 0 S 4 9 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 pre-identified 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 11, 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.
ES-301 14 Form ES-301-7 Facility: QUAD CITIES Exam Date: March 16 - 25, 2020 OPERATING TEST TOTALS Total Total Total %
Total Explanation Unsat. Edits Sat. Unsat.
Admin.
9 0 9 0 JPMs Sim/In-Plant 11 0 8 3 JPMs Scenarios 4 0 2 2 SATISFACTORY SUBMITTAL Op. Test 0%
24 0 19 5 Totals:
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.
Enter the total number of (U)nsatisfactory JPMs and scenarios from the two JPMs column 5 and 2.
simulator scenarios column 8 in the previous tables. Provide an explanation in the space provided.
Enter totals for (E)nhancements needed and (S)atisfactory JPMs and scenarios from the previous 3.
tables. This task is for tracking only.
- 4. Total each column and enter the amounts in the Op. Test Totals row.
Calculate the percentage of the operating test that is (U)nsatisfactory (Op. Test Total Unsat.)/(Op. Test 5.
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%
Update this table and the tables above with post-exam changes if the as-administered operating test 6.
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 post scenario 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).