ML20233A921
| ML20233A921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/2020 |
| From: | Greg Werner Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Entergy Operations |
| References | |
| ES-301-7 | |
| Download: ML20233A921 (23) | |
Text
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: ANO1 Op Test Date: June 1, 2020 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.
General comments:
- 1. Admin JPMs that have a KEY should be included for each admin JPM and correctly marked as KEY for A4, as an example.
- 2. Header labels are all A1.
Each JPM should have its unique header label at the top (such as A1, A2, A3, A4, S1, S2, P1, etc).
- 3. Some task standards need improvement. See specifics below.
This helps with overlap, search criteria, etc.
- 5. Alternate path field is missing on attributes cover sheet. It might be better to have the cover sheet with initial conditions, initiating cue then on second sheet have the attributes and include Alt path field there.
You should compare your form to other sites in industry.
- 6. You should put the applicable procedure step (1108.03 step 4e as an example) in the JPM step so it is clear which step is being discussed in the write-up for comments/failures and also for clear
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 communications during validation week and draft submittals.
A1 Calculate Boron to maintain S/D Margin (2.1.43) 2 E
S
- 1. Title at top is A1
- 2. No key, screen shots of program, Table or Figure B6 not in JPM key.
- 5. Cant tell how you got your error bands. Key will fix this.
- 6. Task standard answer should be 631 + 14 ppm.
All comments resolved after validation week. Validation comments included as an addendum to this file.
A2 Calculate time to boil / Core uncover Estimation (2.1.25) 3 E
S
- 1. Title at Top is A2
- 2. Need to send original JPM that was modified to create this JPM-explained the original JPM in office prior to val week.
- 3. Step 3 error bars are incorrect. It should be 29.9 + 0.46
- 5. Step 4.2 low answer is incorrect. It should be 268.8 not 268.6.
All comments resolved after validation week.
A3 Perform SW Surveillance (2.2.12) 3 E
S
- 1. Title at top is A3
- 2. Step 4 error bars should be 97.5 + 0.5 psid Step 5 answer is 10 psid + 0.5 psid
- 3. The marked-up figures for key should have x y axis values written on graph, such as 4522 gpm for pump
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 curve, with line drawn up to value, then over or across to 87.5 psid.
All comments resolved after validation week.
A4 Ability to comply with RWP (2.3.7) 3 E
S
- 1. Title at top is A4
- 2. Task standard should have that max stay time is based on RWP limit not individual dose remaining for this JPM (to be clear from JPMs where the opposite is true).
All comments resolved after validation week.
A5 (SRO)
Assess risk for unplanned Maintenance (2.1.39) 3 E
S
- 1. Title at top is A5
- 2. No key
- 3. Not SRO only because after review you have to make some recommendation, do some TS call, or something at the SRO level to make the JPM for the SRO level license. Just needed to add the second step on the cue sheet and in JPM standard to compete SRO portion.
- 4. Title should be Review Boron calculationfor errors and refuse the package or something like that because it is incorrect.
- 5. Table or Figure B6 not in JPM.
All comments resolved after validation week.
A6 (SRO)
Review TTB calculation and(2.1.25) 3 U
- 1. Title at top is A6
- 2. Not SRO only because after review you have to make some recommendation, do some TS call, find and report errors to SM, or something to make the JPM at the SRO license level.
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 S
Licensee will modify for hatch closure within 30 minutes (an SRO only function)
All comments resolved after validation week.
A7 (SRO)
Determine operability of SW Pump
( 2.2.37) 3 E
S
- 1. Title at top is A7 All comments resolved after validation week.
A8 (SRO)
Ability to comply with RWP
( 2.3.7) 3 E
S
- 1. Title at top is A8
- 2. Dont cue to answer on answer sheet-use assess WCO determination and Conclusions All comments resolved after validation week.
A9 (SRO)
Classify an Event (2.4.41) 2 E
S
- 1. Title at top is A9
- 2. No key provided for EPIP form.
All comments resolved after validation week.
1 2
LOD (1-5) 3a I/C 3b Cues 3c Critical 3d Scope 3e Overlap 3f Perf.
3h Key 4a Minutia 4b Job Link 5
U/E/S 6
Explanation Simulator/In-Plant Safety Function and K/A JPMs General comments for all JPMS
- 1.
JPM standards should have a clear line item for where/when in the JPM the alternate path starts.
S1 1 (004 A4.07) 3 E
- 1.
Needs a title at top for S1
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 S2 2 (006 A2.02) 3 U
S
- 1.
Not alt path as written-the applicant starts on cue to verify reactor building sump not blocked and it is (need to back up the JPM a few steps and/or change the initiating cue to fix this).
- 2.
Cant start the JPM at the alt path
- 3.
Cueing (see above)
- 4.
Wrong title at top for S2 All comments resolved after validation week.
S3 3 (010 A2.03) 2 E
S
- 1.
Wrong title at top for S3
- 2.
Put an Alt path band after step 7.3 in the JPM standard to identify where alt path begins.
All comments resolved after validation week.
S4 4S (E04 EA1.1) 3 E
S
- 1.
Wrong title at top for S4
- 2.
Task standard need to have the text added with power from London Line.
All comments resolved after validation week.
S5 5 (028 A4.01))
3 E
S
- 1.
Wrong title at top for S5
- 2.
Step 8.2.3 not critical since not an action step.
All comments resolved after validation week.
S6 6 (064 A2.05) 3 E
S
- 1.
Wrong title at top for S6
- 2.
Step 7.9.6 is critical for the JPM.
All comments resolved after validation week.
S7 7 (E02 EA1.1) 1 E
S
- 1.
Wrong title at top for S7
- 2.
This JPM needs clarity for each of the four switches that are manipulated in the JPM standard.
All comments resolved after validation week.
S8 9 (071 A1.06) 2 E
S
- 1.
Wrong title at top for S8
- 2.
Wanted this to be alt path due to high radiation alarm, get isolation that fails to occur and applicant has to manually perform the alignment.
Licensee made it alt path because flow is too high and must stop the release. No auto isolation on rad at this plant.
All comments resolved after validation week.
P1 4S (041 A4.01) 3 E
- 1.
No title at top for P1
- 2.
Task standard is incomplete-needs
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 S
to have withdraw supply monitor, then close breakers S1 and S2, then reinsert supply monitor 2 7 2.
- 3.
Might be good to have a picture of this.
All comments resolved after validation week.
P2 8 (086 A4.06) 3 E
S
- 1.
No title at top for P2
- 2.
Task standard incomplete for alt path-need to have that when halon fails to actuate, then pull pin on pilot valve and pull down handle on reserve pilot cylinder to actuate halon.
All comments resolved after validation week.
P3 3 (006 A4.05) 3 E
S
- 1.
No title at top for P3 All comments resolved after validation week.
ES-301 7
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 8
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: ANO1 General comments on scenarios Op Test Date: June 1, 2020 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 General Comments for all scenarios
- 1.
ANO used to have a CT table, a procedures used list, and more clarity in the scenario guides.
- 2.
You should bold only things like CTs and TSs so they have emphasis.
There are way too many items bolded in the guides.
- 3.
Every TS call needs to have the LCO letter with it in D-1 and summary pages and for D-2 it needs the actual LCO condition in the guide.
Furthermore, for RPS instrument TS calls, you have to have information in the guide down to the function level because that is what we grade on for these types of TS calls (such as function 6 for Hi RCS pressure).
- 4.
Every switch that is touched must be in the D-2 guide. The right column in the D-2 guide is the applicant actions, which are the switches that are to be manipulated. This means that you cant just cut and paste from a procedure into the D-2 and submit that as the scenario guide.
For example, scenario 1, event 1, you have a note for the examiner that the applicant will start two items for the loss of bus event. All the other items, I dont know if that means the applicant may or may not start those items or they are already running and not necessary or what. You have to be specific in the guide of what is manipulated with its standard (ie you start the C-5B vacuum pumpthis is not a note but a gradable action).
- 5.
Critical tasks have a number and if they dont then assign one so it is clear (CT-1 is the first one in the scenario, CT-2, or if you have a specific CT number from your owners group list, use that number, such as CT-19). That number is applied each time the CT is referenced in the D-1 or D-2.
- 6.
If you dont use a CT table you must still put all the attributes for the CT at the front of the guide and then have the CT and its associated expected actions in the D-2 body of the guide (this is all the switches necessary to complete the task, the time if time critical, the bounding
ES-301 9
Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 conditions, and MOST of these should be based on parameters not procedure exits).
- 7.
Each line item in the guide must have an assigned position and the expected actions column to the right. You cant cut and paste items such as page 9 of scenario 1 where you have the ATC, NA, BOP, and SRO in one large field and the entire step out of the procedure in the right field next to it. If the ATC performs step 7, for example, then the ATC is the position field then all the items to the right are for the ATC.
Only the SRO directs procedure transitions and makes TS calls so this left to right format for the SRO applies in a similar fashion.
- 8.
Alarms for each event should be placed at the top of the event just under the event title with bullets and detailed windows and panels.
These are not examiner notes as you have described in scenario 1 event 2 page 7.
- 9.
For parameters to record for grading purposes, we will need to work thru the required parameters to capture for scenarios for grading during validation week.
ES-301 10 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: ANO1 Scenario: 1 Op Test Date: June 1, 2020 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 Add CT-23 for event 5 and CT-1 for event 8 on D-1 first page.
Note: All comments from validation week added as addendum to this file.
1 2
E S
Dont need.N/A in scenario guide. (page 6 at bottom of page).
Bulletize major alarms that occur for this event at the top for each event.
Cant tell if need to start air compressors or not, what about EHC pumps? This type of event is more dynamic is something fails or is tagged out at the beginning (this may be the case but I cant tell from the guide as submitted). For example, if one of the EHC pumps is out of service and then the standby fails to start, this could lead to low EHC pressure and cause secondary transients like the steam dump valves or turbine valves to oscillate or failthis displays control of the plant and provides more attributes for grading an applicants ability to operate the plant. Hard to grade LOD of the event without all the information.
All comments resolved after validation week.
2 2?
E S
Bulletize major alarms that occur for this event at the top. Need TS LCO and condition on page 7.
All comments resolved after validation week.
3 3?
U S
Major alarms need to be at top of event. Same story as above, page 9 is bad. Need to split steps by position (see general comment above on SRO/ATC/NLO/NA). Where is the TS LCO and statement? Where is the procedure step to secure the RCP once power is down? This is not an examiner note.
All comments resolved after validation week.
4 2?
E S
There is no event 4 in the D-2 right now. Event numbering is off from here to the end of this guide.
All comments resolved after validation week.
5 3
E Examiner note for CT not necessary for event 6 as labeled at top of this event. Bullets for alarms to start the event
ES-301 11 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 S
All comments resolved after validation week.
6 3
S 7
2 U
S CTs need basis in D-2, time, parameters as necessary.
All comments resolved after validation week.
8 3
E S
Numbering is off on the events. These are supposed to be ready to give when submitted.
All comments resolved after validation week.
9
ES-301 12 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: ANO1 Scenario: 2 Op Test Date: June 1, 2020 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 E
S Discussed remainder of scenario changes during in office review prior to validation week.
All comments resolved after validation week.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
ES-301 13 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: ANO1 Scenario: 3 Op Test Date: June 1, 2020 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 E
S Discussed remainder of scenario changes during in office review prior to validation week.
All comments resolved after validation week.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
ES-301 14 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: ANO1 Scenario: 4 Op Test Date: June 1, 2020 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 E
S Discussed remainder of scenario changes during in office review prior to validation week.
All comments resolved after validation week.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 E
S CT-16 bounded with faulted SG words. Need to clarify this for the guide because there is not a faulted SG (ie busted steam or feed line) in the scenario. A valve has failed and that is what should be included in the CT.
All comments resolved after validation week.
10 E
S No CT-8 in the D-2 guide.
All comments resolved after validation week.
ES-301 15 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 16 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Facility: ANO1 Op Test Date: June 1, 2020 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 0
2 2
2 1
3 U
S Discussed remainder of scenario changes during in office review prior to validation week.
All comments resolved after validation week.
2 8
0 2
0 2
1 1
E S
Discussed remainder of scenario changes during in office review prior to validation week.
All comments resolved after validation week.
3 8
0 2
0 3
0 0
E S
Discussed remainder of scenario changes during in office review prior to validation week.
All comments resolved after validation week.
4 10 0
2 1
2 0
0 E
S Discussed remainder of scenario changes during in office review prior to validation week.
All comments resolved after validation week.
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.
ES-301 17 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 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 18 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11
ES-301 19 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11 Site name: ANO 1 Op Test Date: June 1, 2020 OPERATING TEST TOTALS Total Total Unsat.
Total Total Unsat.
Explanation Edits Sat.
Admin.
JPMs 9
1 8
0 Sim./In-Plant JPMs 10 1
9 0
Scenarios 4
1 0
0 Op. Test Totals:
23 3
20 0
13%
Licensee came in office after draft submittal to work through comments and correct deficiencies prior to validation Comments from validation are uploaded as an addendum to this form.
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).
ES-301 20 Form ES-301-7 Rev. 11
- TS entries/actions were determined to be incorrect in a scenario(s).
Operating test notes Licensee came to region 4 office February to work out operating test comments. An updated version (rev 2) was provided on the files that week.
The week of February 20th a revision 3 of the operating test files was sent and then again updated on February 24th.
The operating tests were validated March 2, 2020, and the final rev 5 version of the operating test was submitted April 1st.
Comments from validation include the items at the end of this package Due to Covid-19 the Operating test administration was delayed until the first week in June, 2020.
S1-E 8.11.1 is the critical step, not 8.11.
Resolved S2-S Does the simulator model fluctuate amps as well as suction and dis pressure for the pump for these conditions?
No panel indication for amps. The simulator models voltage for A3 and A4 buses but it remains steady. Resolved.
S3-S S4-E Seems like closing London line breaker step 1.2.2 is critical? Not marked as C.
A1512 is normally closed. Then remove London Line from task standard. Resolved.
S5-S S6-E For step 5 of this JPM. Is it conduct of Ops that requires tripping the Diesel Gen? e might need a note that states that what governs the securing of the EDG.
Added guidance from OP-1015-043. Resolved.
S7-E Does pressure keep going down in the setup for the JPM? If not, then the task standard stating that before MSLI occurs is not needed.
It might take forever anyway to get to 600#.
It takes 11 minutes for MSLI at this starting pressure. Task standard was updated accordingly.
Resolved.
S8-E Wanted to see the bank JPM on a release with alarm RI-7460 or 7461 coming in and they must secure from the release that way. Do you have that in your bank?
I would rather the SRO-U applicants perform this JPM than three in-plant. There is minimal value for an upgrade to do the in-plant JPMs. This affects the outline and the schedule.
Dont have a bank JPM on this detector. SRO-U will do this one and two in-plants. Resolved.
P1-E Do we need a picture for inside the cabinet or can it be opened at power?
Yes. Provided and this comment is Resolved.
P2-E This would be the one to NOT have the SRO-U perform and instead perform S8.
The task standard still needs to have the actions for the Main Pilot cylinder. These are actions that get them to the alt path.
Also need to mark those first two steps as critical because they have to try that first and they are action steps. If they go straight to the Reserve cylinder then they did not even try the main cylinder and that would also be incorrect.
Done. Resolved.
P3-S Added Examiner notes for Alara purposes.
Addendum for validation comments Scenario 1 val week comments CT-23 needs added within 15 minutes to bound it properly Malfunction after EOP entry is 2 not 1 (in the table page 2)
Page 7 need examiner note that they may use AOP for condenser vacuum so insert it and its steps on the next page.
Insert various notes as marked up during prep week TS call incorrect for RCP seal cooler leak (Condition B not condition A for 3.4.13.)
Scenario 2 comments Add booth cue for event 2 after actuation that it was an I and C error. All bistables have been checked and all are clear - none are tripped.
Scenario 4 comments Misc comments provided to licensee (page and simple edit items).
Scenario 3 designated as spare and not used, therefore not uploaded to Adams.
Scenario 5 was originally the low power during outline submittal, it became scenario 4 with all the edits and it was ran on the applicants. Scenario 5 was removed from the exam as class size decreased over the span of the exam process (up to an including the audit exams).