ML20268A076
| ML20268A076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/2020 |
| From: | Bryan Bergeon Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| To: | NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB |
| Bergeon B | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19213A180 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML20268A076 (38) | |
Text
ES-401 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 Q
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 1
H 3
X N
U E
NRC:
- 1)
Is knowledge of the SFSCs, from memory, RO level knowledge? It is unclear if this question is of the RO-level; Is the objective provided an RO-level learning objective for this?
- 2)
Need to add Steam Tables to list of references to be provided (currently no list of provided references is included in the question pedigree).
Licensee:. Recommend revising status from U to E
- 1)
Any licensee is expected to be able to perform a SFSC.
Knowledge of what it takes to recognize severe challenges to the SFSCs from memory is RO level for other reactor types. An RO level learning objective for PLP has been located that does include from memory. However, during actual performance of the task to evaluate SFSCs, the procedure would be in hand. Revised stem to provide PCS and CORE Heat Removal pages of the SFSCs for reference to improve the operational validity.
- 2)
It was thought that steam tables were an automatic handout provided. Added Steam Tables to list of references.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question, as submitted, is considered an Enhancement and not an Unsat. Question is SAT, as revised.
2 H
3 X
N E
Provided reference NRC:
- 1)
Since PORV lift setpoint is determined via the lowest operable Tcold, is stem clarification needed to the stem as it states, PCS is at 400oF and subsequently PCS Temperature input to LTOP Controller PY-0105A fails to 450oF?
- 2)
Extra spacing between programmed and LTOP in part (2) of the stem.
- 3)
Since a plant heat-up is being performed, a trend (HU Rate) for PCS temperature should be provided. (may have to adjust the explanation accordingly)
Licensee:
- 1)
The HU rate does not need to be specified, since the stem states the evolution is in accordance with SOP-1C.
- 2)
Fixed extra spacing.
- 3)
No. The elapsed time from start to finish is only 6 minutes.
At the procedural limit, temperature could only change 10°F max.
NRC:
- 1) Agree with licensee comment
- 2) Agree with licensee changes made. Question as revised is SAT..
- 3) Agree with licensee comment
ES-401 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 3
H 2
X X
N U
NRC:
- 1)
Part 1 of the question is LOD=1; question difficulty could be enhanced by providing a SG level and trend, in lieu of providing MFW pump status.
- 2)
Separately, at the time of the plant trip and both MFW pumps tripping, AFW may not initiate (SG level needs to lower to 30%, as discussed in the answer explanation).
There is a period of time (albeit a short time; entirely dependent on decay heat) until SG levels meet AFW initiation logic, providing for 2 correct answers. Part 1 of the question is flawed based on ambiguity of the stem wording.
Licensee:
- 1)
Did not discover the ambiguity during validation as 8/8 got this correct and would suggest these corrections are enhancements vice correcting unsat flaws. Reworded first part to raise LOD as suggested.
- 2)
Additionally, as written with no timeline for the first part, there is only one answer. AFW will auto start. Recommend removal of partial flaw. In fixing the first part as suggested, the second was also corrected.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comment 1 and changes made.
- 2)
Disagree with comment 2; the question wording could be misinterpreted as a point in time after the trip (will initiate vs has initiated based on if the low level start setpoint has been reached). Question was flawed as submitted and has been corrected due to the change made as part of comment
- 1. Question as revised is SAT based on the change made in licensee comment 1.
4 H
3 N
E FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
Consider swapping choices A and B, such that part 2 is shortest to longest.
Licensee:
- 1) Swapped choices A and B as suggested.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question as revised is SAT.
5 H
3 M
S Provided reference (embedded)
NRC:
- 1)
Based on the answer explanation, it appears that both the amber and red lights should be illuminated. Please clarify answer explanation.
Licensee:
- 1)
Both Lights will be lit, but that is not what the question asks.
The auto start of the LO pump causes the normally dark RED light to illuminate. The Amber Auto lite is lit when the auto start circuitry is properly aligned for auto start.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made (clarification added to answer explanation). Question as revised remains SAT.
ES-401 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 6
H 3
M S
2020 ILE Audit (modified) 7 H
3 X
N U
NRC:
- 1)
Part 1 and Part 2 of the question are too far disconnected and testing widely different points (App B, C.1.f). Part 1 is asking CCW operating parameters (unrelated to the K/A),
while the Part 2 is directly addressing the interrelations between the loss of the RHR system and RHR heat exchangers.
- 2)
Part 2 stem could be clarified by stating if the B-train of SDC were in service, as an applicant may misunderstand if SDC were in service and assume that the A-train SDC Hx is no longer isolated.
- 3)
Overlap with Question 31.
Licensee:
- 1)
Replaced question NRC:
- 1)
Replacement question (same K/A) is SAT. No overlap concerns with Q31.
8 H
3 X
M N
E NRC:
- 1)
Question is considered a new question, based on the substantial changes made from the bank question.
- 2)
AOP-36 step 4.3 RNO appears to require all PCPs tripped after CCW has been lost for > 10 mins, provided the temperatures or flows listed (in step 4) are not adequate; in this case, they wouldnt be as there is no flow due to the loss of CCW and all temps would be rising. Based on this, it appears that temperature trips > 10 mins become irrelevant as all PCPs would be required to be tripped.
Question could remove any concern with the distractors if the stem were to say, for example, In accordance with AOP-29, which PCP temperature
- 3)
Pump EINs are unneeded. Delete EINs and list parameter name in answer choices.
- 4)
Move FIRST to between will and require" Licensee:
- 1)
Change pedigree to NEW based on subjective comment.
- 2)
Made suggested edits.
- 3)
Replaced EINs with parameter names
- 4)
Moved FIRST.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question as revised is SAT.
ES-401 Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES-401-9 Refer to Section D of ES-401 and Appendix B for additional information regarding each of the following concepts:
- 1.
Enter the level of knowledge (LOK) of each question as either (F)undamental or (H)igher cognitive level.
- 2.
Enter the level of difficulty (LOD) of each question a 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult); questions with a difficulty between 2 and 4 are acceptable.
- 3.
Check the appropriate box if a psychometric flaw is identified:
Stem Focus: The stem lacks sufficient focus to elicit the correct answer (e.g., unclear intent, more information is needed, or too much needless information).
Cues: The stem or distractors contain cues (e.g., clues, specific determiners, phrasing, length).
T/F: The answer choices are a collection of unrelated true/false statements.
Cred. Dist.: The distractors are not credible; single implausible distractors should be repaired, and more than one is unacceptable.
Partial: One or more distractors are partially correct (e.g., if the applicant can make unstated assumptions that are not contradicted by the stem).
- 4.
Check the appropriate box if a job content flaw is identified:
Job Link: The question is not linked to the job requirements (i.e., the question has a valid K/A but, as written, is not operational in content).
Minutia: The question requires the recall of knowledge that is too specific for the closed-reference test mode (i.e., it is not required to be known from memory).
- /Units: The question contains data with an unrealistic level of accuracy or inconsistent units (e.g., panel meter in percent with question in gallons).
Backward: The question requires reverse logic or application compared to the job requirements.
- 5.
Check questions that are sampled for conformance with the approved K/A and those K/As that are designated SRO-only. (K/A and license-level mismatches are unacceptable.)
- 6.
Enter questions source: (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew. Verify that (M)odified questions meet the criteria of Form ES-401, Section D.2.f.
- 7.
Based on the reviewers judgment, is the question, as written, (U)nsatisfactory (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactory?
- 8.
At a minimum, explain any U status ratings (e.g., how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met).
ES-401 5
Form ES-401-9 Q
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 9
H 2
B E
NRC:
- 1)
Consider rearranging answer choices from shortest to longest.
Licensee:
- 1)
Rearranged answer choices as suggested NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comment and changes made. Question is SAT.
10 F
F 3
2 X
N N
U S
FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
Whether a manual trip PB action is similar to that caused by the ATWS circuitry is trivial. The net result is that the reactor trips.
- 2)
Initial conditions add no value to question. Bulleted items can be answered without them.
- 3)
Recommend revising the question to test whether RPS/ATWS have failed with choices of: No trip required; Only RPS circuits have failed; Only ATWS circuits have failed; BOTH RPS and ATWS circuits have failed.
Licensee: recommend the status be E vice U
- 1)
This format included an initial condition, that set up an ATWS scenario, which clearly linked the question to the E/APE of the KA, that made the initial condition pertinent.
The two available pushbuttons for manually tripping the reactor work differently. There is a specific learning objective for this knowledge.
- 2)
Rewrote question as suggested, but recommend the status be E vice U.
NRC:
- 1)
After discussion with the licensee, the as submitted question was SAT (and not an enhancement as the licensee suggested). The question, however, was rewritten to test the same concept in a more straight-forward fashion. The revised question was chosen to be utilized and is considered SAT.
11 F
3 N
S
ES-401 6
Form ES-401-9 Q
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 12 H
3 X
M E
Provided reference NRC:
- 1)
In the provided EOP Supp 11, the table heading and procedure heading information is cut-off.
- 2)
While distractors A and C are plausible, nothing in the stem points to using the 100 and 500 psia curves. Suggest replacing with values using the 900 psia curve and interpolation of the 600 psia (difference between 900 and 300) curve to increase distractor plausibility.
Licensee:
- 1)
NO cutoff was evident when reprinted.
- 2)
Made suggested adjustments NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question as revised is SAT.
13 H
3 M
S 2020 ILE Audit (Modified)
ES-401 7
Form ES-401-9 Q
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 14 H
3 X
N M
U Provided Reference NRC:
- 1)
With EOP Supplement 9 provided, the statement in the stem REFER to EOP Supplement 9 (provided) is not necessary.
Applicants should know which supplement to utilize, given the question. This is not consistent with other provided reference questions.
- 2)
Answer explanation of actual level being 43% appears incorrect. 43% appears to correlate to the 500 psia PCS pressure curve, while 46% PZR level (actual) corresponds to the 1000 psia PCS pressure. This does not change the answer.
- 3)
Applicant could use any of 3 different curves (500 psia, 1000 psia, or 1500 psia) and obtain correct answer. Recommend changing answer/distractors from % bands to specific values.
- 4)
Question is considered modified instead of new, due to necessary changes to support comment #3.
Licensee:
- 1)
Fixed like other question(s).
- 2)
Although the step in the EOP, is only looking for PZR level being greater than 40% (which is why bands were used), we changed choices to specific values.
- 3)
None of the NRC comments support the U status, and do NOT explain how the submitted distractors are not credible.
Each distractor has a plausibility statement in the pedigree.
Recommend status as E vie U.
- 4)
Changed history to modified.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee changes made in comment 1.
- 2)
Agree with licensee changes made in comment 2.
- 3)
The question as submitted was unsat due to operational validity; being able to determine the correct answer using incorrectly (for the wrong reason). The revised question is SAT.
- 4)
Agree with licensee comment 4
ES-401 8
Form ES-401-9 Q
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 15 H
3 2
X N
S NRC:
- 1)
Is Escalation a commonly used term?
- 2)
What is the basis for the 30 second time frame? Wont the level control system respond to the level decrease to cause levels to rise during that same 30 second period?
Licensee:
- 1)
Yes, Escalation is performed in accordance with GOP-5, Power Escalation in MODE 1. Added Power.
- 2)
NO, the capacity of the failed open recirc valve is huge.
Level control response is very slow.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question as revised remains SAT.
16 H
3 M
S 2017 ILE (modified)
ES-401 9
Form ES-401-9 Q
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 17 F
2 X
X N
U E
Provided Reference (embedded)
NRC:
- 1)
Justification for part 1 distractors dealing with containment heat load sates that the applicant can incorrectly conclude that critical service water pressure is less than 42 psig.
Based on the information provided, how can the applicant correctly eliminate (or assume) that critical SW pressure is NOT < 42 psig (Rx trip criteria to even trip the Rx)?
Recommend providing a specific service water header pressure.
- 2)
Part 1 of distractors C and D are not credible. The trip of the reactor in step 1.1 is tied to receipt of the listed alarms, none of which are related to containment heat load.
Licensee: Recommend status be E vice U.
- 1)
The alarm setpoint for EK-1163-65 are all 45 psig.. Thus you meet entry conditions for the AOP when the header pressures are less than 45 but greater than 42 psig, and you perform step 1.1 because the alarm is not clear. A bullet stating SW pressure is added.
- 2)
Disagree with the comment that part one of distractors C and D are not plausible. The step given in the stem is a continuous action step and applies through out the procedure. As explained in the distractor justifications, the actions of step 17 are designed to reduce load and and raise the pressure of the service water system. Per the bases, if these actions dont restore header pressure >42 psig, then the reactor is tripped. This makes Part 1 of the distractor plausible. However, we did change part one of distractors C and D.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee changes made.
- 2)
Agree with the licensee comments such that the distractors are plausible as originally submitted, based on the provided justification - question as submitted is considered an enhancement and not unsat. Part 1 of distractors C and D, as revised, provides for improved clarity. As revised question is SAT.
18 F
3 N
S 19 H
3 N
S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 20 H
3 2
X B
E NRC:
- 1)
Question has a stem focus flaw on indications and timing of those indications: Consider rephrasing the stem such that its clear that initial readings were taken at a specific point and then, after rod withdrawal, a 1/M plot was performed and following readings were taken (i.e. ensure clarity exists between conditions at time=0 and time=1)
- 2)
Stem should be rewritten to avoid negatively stated question (App B, C.2.e)
Licensee:
- 1)
Added clarifying actions and timing
- 2)
Reworded to removed negative stem NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question as revised is SAT.
21 F
F 3
2 X
N N
U NRC:
- 1)
Part 2 of the question is considered minutia for RO level knowledge (from memory), as ROs would not typically operate this equipment. Is there a specific learning objective to show that ROs must know locations (this appears to be non-safety related) of equipment embedded in AOP attachments from memory?
Licensee:
- 1)
Replaced KA. NEW KA see 051G2.1.8. Developed new question. Revised ES-401-4 NRC:
- 1)
Replacement question is SAT.
22 H
2 N
S 23 H
3 N
S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 24 F
2 X
N U
E Provided reference (embedded)
NRC:
- 1)
Part 2 appears to be SRO-only, as, despite the action to verify an operable door is locked closed in the affected air lock within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (RO knowledge), the stem is asking for the reasoning for hanging a caution tag on the door. While this is in support of the TS required action, the direction to do so only exists in a note in the AOP. This appears to be outside the bounds of the objective provided, which covers mitigative/stabilization actions in AOPs.
- 2)
It is also unlikely that a Caution Tag would be used to control performance of a TS Required Action.
Licensee:
- 1)
Part of the mitigative strategy is to control the use of the door. ROs are responsible for NOTES and Cautions in the procedures. The objective provided, includes the words in accordance with the applicable AOP, which is where the NOTE is found that explains why the actions listed are taken. Part two is NOT SRO ONLY per the facility rep, as Admin 4.02 section 9.0 contains a note explaining the use of Caution Tags. This is RO level knowledge. Added Note to reference.
- 2)
Modified B2 and D2 to remove the phrase every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to eliminate the appearance of a TS RA being under the control of a caution tag.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comments that part 2 of the question is not SRO-only. Question is not unsat as originally submitted and is considered an enhancement.
- 2)
Agree with the licensee changes made to part 2 of distractors B and D. The revised question only requires the RO applicant to know the action without the appearance/misconception of TS required action knowledge
> 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> from memory; as the requirement is based on Admin 4.02 and AOP note. Revised question is SAT.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 25 F
3 N
E NRC:
- 1)
Answer explanation appears to support that the question is SRO-only due to specific procedural action (assessment of plant conditions and selection of a section of a procedure in which to mitigate the event, vice focusing on the overall mitigative strategy of OTC and the requirements to support OTC. Recommend enhancing answer explanation to support the RO level statement (system lineup to accomplish the mitigative strategy) in the pedigree.
Licensee:
- 1)
Added clarification to the explanation for justifying the knowledge required for this question is RO level.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 26 H
3 X
M U
E NRC:
- 1)
Are applicants expected to know from memory, the calculations contained in AOP-23 Att 1, as the attachment cannot be provided?
- 2)
What is the basis behind the <4 and >5 gpm? Why are the values not <4 or >4? In the question as provided, the applicant is clearly incorrect if they end up with a leakrate between 4 and 5 gpm.
- 3)
There does not appear to be enough information provided to make AOP-24 a plausible distractor. The applicant does not have the values necessary in AOP-24 Att 1 (Bkg, Rc, FAE) to determine a primary to secondary leakrate; and by default, the applicant must enter AOP-23 and perform the leakrate calculation in order to answer part 1 of the question.
Licensee: Recommend revising status from U to E
- 1)
Yes, in its shortest form. The question is posed as a operational situation where a leak may be occurring. The data is given so that the examinee can determine if a leak is occurring, approximate its magnitude, and what procedure should be used. None of the given data causes an alarm.
The % to volume conversions are well known.
- 2)
Getting a number between 4 and 5 surely indicates something is wrong with the calculation, but it doesnt clue the examinee to what. Adjusted the 5s to 4s. Recommend the status be changed from U to E.
- 3)
AOP-24 is plausible if the rise in BD rads over the 12 minute time frame is interpreted to be an adverse trend in one of the rad monitors listed in the entry conditions for AOP-24. As stated above, the examinee does NOT have to enter AOP-23 by default to perform the leak rate.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question, as submitted, is considered an Enhancement and not Unsat. Revised question is SAT.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 27 F
H 3
4 X
N U
E Provided reference (embedded)
NRC:
- 1)
The answer explanation states the caution prior to step 4 implies there is no loss of starting power, nor field flash power. This appears to contradict the statement above discussing step 1.4.e.1 (page 6) of EOP Supp 7.
- 2)
The stem seems overly complicated to arrive at the desired answer. Why not simply state that D10 has been separated from battery D1 per MVAE-DC-1.
Licensee: Recommend status change from U to E or S.
- 1)
The Explanation states that the ED-11A and ED-21A will remain supplied from the batteries even after separating the DC bus from the batteries. The explanation has been revised to remove any reference to the Supplement because the Supplement is NOT in use. The Supplement identifies that the Field Flash and Start Circuit are powered from Battery #1 and the local breakers involved, which are different than those specified in the stem of the question.
- 2)
See adjustments based on comment 1.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made to the answer explanation. Question, as submitted, is considered an Enhancement and not an Unsat. Question is SAT, as revised.
28 H
2 N
S NRC:
- 1)
Reference SOP-36, Section 7.2.1 in answer explanation (supports 10E-04% power auto unblocking of trips).
Licensee:
- 1)
Added suggested reference, and TS Bases page 3.3.1-10.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question remains SAT.
29 H
3 N
S NRC:
- 1)
Add valve to MO-3064 description in Situation 1 of the stem (similar to Situation 2).
Licensee:
- 1)
Added valve to situation 1.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question remains SAT 30 H
3 N
S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 31 H
3 M
E NRC:
- 1)
The 2nd bullet point seems fragmented; consider rephrasing to something to the effect of One minute after the air line to CV-3006 was damaged, PCS pressure has
- 2)
The question creates double jeopardy with Q7, as the applicant must know how CV-3006 fails in Q7 and how the failure impacts PCS temperature. The question is only considered an enhancement; however, the question should be modified to eliminate the overlap with Q7.
Licensee:
- 1)
Revised wording as suggested.
- 2)
Reworked question 7 NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT. No overlap converns with Q7.
32 H
3 X
N U
E NRC:
- 1)
Correct some formatting in initial conditions (Pressurizer Pressure is)
- 2)
Are ROs required to know, from memory, SI throttling criteria based off of given set of plant conditions? This appears contrary to ES-401, where discerning a set of plant conditions and selecting what procedural action to take (thats not related to the overall mitigative strategy). The learning objective provided does not fit the question (question is not limited to the overall mitigative strategy, as written).
- 3)
Recommend stating requirements for SI throttling criteria in answer explanation (explanation simply states that PZR level, SG level, and RVLMS are met).
Licensee: Recommend status change to E vice U.
- 1)
Corrected formatting.
- 2)
Per the Facility Representative, the knowledge required in the original question is expected of ROs. However, even though the step is a continuous action step, it would be performed with procedure in hand, vice memory. The stem was revised such that recall of the subcooling requirement is necessary, an item that all licensees are expected to know from memory. An objective covering this knowledge was added to the pedigree.
- 3)
Added specified requirements to explanation.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee changes made.
- 2)
Agree with the licensee comments and addition of RO level learning objective, such that the originally submitted question is considered an enhancement and not unsat.
Revised question is SAT.
- 3)
Agree with the licensee changes made.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 33 F
2 X
N U
E NRC:
- 1)
The question stem vaguely references a LB LOCA, however, each part of the question appears to be asking SIT operation under two different circumstances: 1) a large break LOCA where SITs inject to the PCS and 2) a smaller break LOCA where a controlled depressurization is performed and SITs are isolated prior to injection. The question should be limited to ONE concept and not ask two separate questions in one.
Licensee: Recommend status change from U to E
- 1)
Disagree that the stem was vaguely referencing a LOCA. (it was stated that the plant tripped due to a LOCA. Disagree that it is two different situations. In the submitted question, a LOCA occurred reducing PCS pressure. The second part follows if the recovery actions are in progress. Revised question.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comments that the question in considered an enhancement and not unsat as submitted, as there is a stem focus concern, however, this does not make the question unsat. The revised question eliminates the potential for any applicant confusion (stem focus) and is SAT.
34 H
3 X
M U
E NRC:
- 1)
Question is fragmented, asking two questions at two different points in time (one at 1005 with given conditions, then another at 1006 with a change in conditions). While a question can have two parts, the question should be one question, not two different questions. Question is very convoluted to ask the alarm setpoint and rupture disc limit.
Question could be improved by simplifying the question (reducing the mental steps) and asking with a given rate of QT pressure rise, 1) when the high pressure alarm would come in, and 2) when the rupture disc would blow. This would be one question, with two different parts, based on one set of initial conditions.
Licensee: Recommend status be changed from U to E.
- 1)
Fixed as suggested. Disagree that this was fragmented.
Operationally, a rise in QT pressure would be addressed as originally proposed, and met the maintaining part of the specific KA.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comments that the question was considered an enhancement and not unsat as submitted.
Agree with licensee changes made. The revised question is SAT and asks both parts of the same question is a clearer, more concise manner.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 35 H
3 B
S 36 F
3 M
S 37 H
3 B
S 2008 ILE 38 F
3 M
S Provided reference 39 H
3 M
E 2017 ILE (modified)
NRC:
- 1)
Recommend adding the bypassed channel and how the reset (unblock) coincidence changes from 3/4 to 2/4 in the answer explanation. It is mentioned, but not detailed in the distractor analysis and should be expanded upon in the answer explanation.
Licensee:
- 1)
Explanation revised as suggested.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 40 F
2 N
S 41 H
3 B
S 42 F
3 2
N S
43 H
3 M
E NRC:
- 1)
For stem clarity, recommend separating the first bullet in the stem into two separate bullets.
- 2)
Is the word yet necessary (in the 3rd bullet in the stem)?
Licensee:
- 1)
Split first bullet into two
- 2)
Deleted the word yet from 2nd bullet NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 44 F
2 B
S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 45 H
3 B
E NRC:
- 1)
Is this feature specific to the FW pump speed controllers or generic to all similar controllers (appears it is generic to all)?
- 2)
Spell out abbreviated (PF) in stem.
Licensee:
- 1)
Specific to Feed Pump controllers. Other controllers may look like these but may have some functions that are not used.
- 2)
Spelled out Programmed Function NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 46 H
3 N
E NRC:
- 1)
Consider rephrasing the 2nd bullet of the stem to say risk instead of impact. Impact implies part 2 will happen, whereas, its a large increase in the risk of it happening.
Licensee:
- 1)
Changed impact to risk in the second bullet NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 47 F
2 X
N U
NRC:
- 1)
Part 2 of the question (i.e how the question is meeting the K/A), requires the RO have knowledge of the TS bases. This appears to be SRO-only per ES-401 Att 2.
Licensee:
- 1)
Revised part two of the question to ask how the required volume is verified.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee changes made to part 2 of the question.
Question as revised is SAT 48 F
3 N
S 49 F
3 B
E NRC:
- 1)
In the stem, considering stating that alarm EK-0547 for 125VDC bus ground just alarmed, rather than when a DC Bus ground occurs. This would enhance the operational validity.
Licensee:
- 1)
Enhanced as suggested NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 50 F
3 M
E 2020 Audit (modified)
NRC:
- 1)
Considering enhancing distractor A to include from T-10A as in the original question.
Licensee:
- 1)
Changed to lower case each first letter of each choice, and enhanced to include from T-10A as suggested.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
- 2)
Is the description of T-10A storage tank or Fuel Oil Storage Tank? Difference between the original and the modified question.
Licensee:
- 1)
Per the Table of contents of SOP-22 Emergency Diesel Generators, 7.6.2, T-10A is the Fuel Oil Storage Tank.
Edited #50 distractor A to reflect that name. That changed the length of the distractor. Moved the correct answer to B and re-arranged the others from shortest to longest.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee changes made. Question is SAT.
51 H
3 N
E NRC:
- 1)
Formatting issues (bullet alignment, one of the loads on the bus trips not bulleted).
- 2)
Monthly surveillance procedure should be referenced, as the stem is stating that all switches are aligned per that procedure.
Licensee:
- 1)
Corrected formatting
- 2)
Referenced MO-7A-1 NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 52 F
2 N
S 53 F
2 N
S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 54 F
H 3
X N
U E
NRC:
- 1)
The question does not match the K/A. The initial conditions provide for the physical connections and the cause/effect relationship between the IAS and containment air, however, the stem is asking Until air is restored to containment how are pressurizer level and pressure maintained. The physical connections, and the cause/effect relationships, between the two (IAS and containment air) are irrelevant given the wording of the question stem, as the applicant is being asked, with air isolated, until it is restored, how are PZR level and pressure maintained?
Licensee: Recommend status change to E
- 1)
The facility disagrees with the NRCs assessment of this question. As stated, the initial conditions provide for the physical connections and the cause/effect relationship between the IAS and containment air Enhanced the stem by replacing Until air is restored to containment with Given these conditions. This question meets the KA.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comments and changes made to the question. The submitted question is considered an enhancement and not unsat. The revised question is SAT.
55 H
3 2
N E
NRC:
- 1)
Is clarification needed that the equipment hatch is not only closed, but secured via bolting, as required by LCO 3.9.3?
Licensee:
- 1)
Added and held in place by four bolts.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee changes made. Question is SAT.
56 F
2 N
S 57 H
3 X
B U
NRC:
- 1)
Question does not match the K/A. Question only requires knowledge of the number of PZR heaters that re-energize >
36%, not the busses which power those heaters.
- 2)
Question is considered UNSAT as it does not appear to have been previously utilized on an approved NRC exam.
Licensee:
- 1)
Added a loss of bus 1D to stem.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee changes made to the question.
Question is SAT as revised.
58 H
3 N
S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 59 H
3 M
S 60 H
3 2
M N
S Provided reference NRC:
- 1)
Question is considered new based on the changes made from the bank version.
Licensee:
- 1)
Changed history to NEW 61 F
2 3
X N
U Provided reference NRC:
- 1)
Question is using backward logic to attempt to meet the K/A.
Question would be better suited asking what the maximum SFP level is (provided in the stem) and the impact associated with exceeding the high level, rather than asking what the level change in the SIRWT would be for a certain rise in SFP level.
Licensee: Recommend status change from U to E
- 1)
It is not backwards logic to ask the reason for a limit.
Transferring water to/from the SIRWT and SFP is part of the equipment and controls associated with the SFP Cooling system mentioned in the KA. Rewrote as suggested NRC:
- 1)
Disagree with the licensee comments that the original question was an enhancement and part 2 was not backwards logic. The original submitted question was unsat. The revised question is SAT to eliminate the relationship to the SIRWT and tests the applicants understanding of SFP level and the reasoning for it.
62 H
3 M
S 63 H
2 3
X N
U E
U NRC:
- 1)
The 2x2 question should not have changing conditions, such that the applicant is answering two questions based off two separate conditions/actions.
Licensee: Recommend status change to E vice U.
- 1)
The changing conditions are very operationally oriented, as the overspeed testing is usually performed just prior to synchronization. Revised to remove changing conditions.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comments that the question was operationally valid and testing the same concept. The original submitted question was considered an enhancement and not unsat. The revised question, which tests the same concept in a clearer, more straight-forward fashion, is SAT.
NRC: (post-exam comments)
- 1)
Question is deemed unsat as submitted & administered as there is no correct answer. See post-exam comments.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 64 H
3 B
E Provided reference (embedded & provided)
NRC:
- 1)
Embedded reference in the question stem was also included as a handout. Recommend enhancing the embedded reference quality and eliminating the separate handout.
- 2)
What would the rad monitor indicate/show with an internal CPU failure? Would it also indicate high out of range? The distractor justification does not specify.
Licensee:
- 1)
NOT possible due to software limits of the exam bank.
- 2)
Changed from internal CPU failure, to Low out of range.
Revised explanation.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT.
65 F
2 B
E FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
Distractor (all) plausibility justifications need enhancement to state what rad monitors will cause the associated actuations.
Licensee:
- 1)
Enhanced all distractor plausibility statements to include applicable rad monitors that cause or allow the stated actuations.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee changes made. Question is SAT.
66 F
2 N
E NRC:
- 1)
Reference Admin Procedure 4.00 in stem.
- 2)
Question 66 and 67 are too similar, testing the same concept. While this question is not unsat on the surface, there is an overlap concern that would best be remedied by changing this question (Q66) to not test MCR access control.
Licensee:
- 1)
Referenced Admin 4.00 in stem
- 2)
Since part one had the similarity with q#67, it was reworded to test a different part of shift turnover practice, instead of access control for the MCR.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee changes made. Question is SAT.
No overlap concerns between the two questions exist with the revision to Q66.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 67 F
2 N
E NRC:
- 1)
Consider phrasing both bullets of the stem part 1 and 2 to read consistently (i.e. rephrase part 1 to read in the same format as part 2).
- 2)
Question 66 and 67 are too similar, testing the same concept. While this question is not unsat on the surface, there is an overlap concern that would best be remedied by changing this question (Q66) to not test MCR access control.
Licensee:
- 1)
Reformatted to be more consistent
- 2)
Left q#67 as is. Revised part 1 of Q#66.
NRC:
- 1) Agree with the licensee changes made. Question as revised is SAT. No overlap concerns between the two questions exist with the revision to Q66.
68 H
3 2
X N
U NRC:
- 1)
Distractors A and C are not plausible, as the given S/G levels in the initial conditions show.
Licensee: Recommend status be rated E vice U.
- 1)
It was thought that the NO responses were plausible for the examinee that did not understand the request for information from the CRS and thought it was more important to report that at least one SG was not meeting the required levels. Recommend status be rated E vice U. Reworded Distractors A and C to be YES responses that still dont meet the standard with the clarification.
NRC:
- 1)
Disagree with the licensee comment that the two distractors were plausible. The question stem provides that one S/G is clearly > 5% and the two distractors with NO are eliminated without determining why the communication standard is incorrect. The question submitted was unsat.
Agree with the licensee changes made and the revised question is SAT.
69 F
3 2
M S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 70 F
2 N
E S
Provided reference (embedded)
NRC:
- 1)
Reference embedded is not legible.
Licensee:
- 1)
The print out from the Exam Software program is legible.
But the format that was sent to you was not because the conversion from one language format to another was needed to password protect it. This conversion made the graphic you got illegible. No change necessary.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee assessment that printed version is legible with no issues, compared to the electronic version.
Question is SAT with no revision.
71 H
2 N
E Provided reference NRC:
- 1)
Question stem states the applicant is tasked with manipulating both A and B valves, but then only discusses any manipulations with the A valve. Stem should address both valves (i.e. normal unlock and closure of B valve).
Licensee:
- 1)
Added a bullet to unlock and close valve B as suggested.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee changes made. Question is SAT.
72 F
3 X
N E
NRC:
- 1)
In part 2, are the applicants expected to know, from memory, the change in MWT by placing an additional L/D orifice online? Is there a learning objective to support this, or is this minutia to know from memory (considering the heat balance is routinely done using the PPC and not via manual calculation)?
Licensee:
- 1)
Added a bullet to stem giving the amount of MWT rise by adding one Letdown orifice.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee changes made.
- 2)
In part 1 of the answer distractors, why did the % power change increase from 1% to 2%?
Licensee:
- 1)
This change was due to validation feedback; there wasnt much MWth difference between 0.5% and 1.0% (and the limit used to be 1.0%).
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments. Question is SAT.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 73 F
2 X
B E
NRC:
- 1)
Is EOP Performance Standards defined anywhere? Does the stem lack clarity here? Should the stem reference To meet the EOP Performance Standards in accordance with Admin Procedure 4.06, EOP Development and Implementation, The NCO-R will Licensee:
- 1)
Yes, they are delineated in Attachment 15 of Admin 4.06.
Added the referral to the stem NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT.
74 F
3 N
S Security Related Information - Withhold from public distribution 75 F
2 X
N U
NRC:
- 1)
Based on the information provided (and the answer explanation), how can the applicant determine the SOM EOC is or is not operational? The applicant may understand and recall the note in EI-3, but may choose distractor D, which could also be correct.
- 2)
Question creates double jeopardy for SROs with Q99.
Licensee: Suggest the minor edit to the question change the status from U to E.
- 1)
By adding a brief timeline and indicating that this classification is the initial classification, there is no way the SOM could be operational, because they dont know the event occurred (as this is the initial classification).
- 2)
Adjusted Q#99 to remove perceived double jeopardy.
NRC:
- 1)
Disagree with the licensee comment that the original question was an enhancement. Without the timeline added, the question could have two partially correct answers. The revised question, as the timeline has been added and that clarification now exists in the stem, is SAT.
- 2)
Agree with licensee comment that due to changes made to Q99, no overlap concerns between the two questions exist.
76 H
2 B
S 2008 ILE 77 H
3 N
S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 78 F
H 3
N E
NRC:
- 1)
Part 1 of the stem should be rephrased for clarity and subjectivity (avoid the use of imply)
Licensee:
- 1)
Although the background document specifically uses the word imply, the first part was edited to remove it.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comment and changes made.
Question is SAT.
79 H
3 X
M E
NRC:
- 1)
While it is preferred, and not required, that PCS pressure be within 50 psid of the ruptured S/G, shouldnt the correct answer D, be some value within 50 psid of the A S/G (i.e <
890 psid)?
Licensee:
- 1)
The criteria is met as the SG pressure is < 940 psia. While not within the 50 psid, the initial conditions would not support a 50 psid due to a loss of subcooling. Adjusted initial conditions.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee changes made. Question is SAT.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 80 H
H 3
3 X
N N
U NRC:
- 1)
The question, as written, does not match the K/A. The K/A topic is LOAF, however, the question is centered around PCS pressure reduction strategies. The question is attempting to meet the K/A by providing the overarching LOAF scenario, however, that is not necessary information to answer the question. Justification does not discuss the correlation.
- 2)
How is Supplement 39 directed from EOP-7.0? Step 38 references Supp 33 for PCS cooldown. Where is the tie from EOP-7.0 to Supp 39 (to support the K/A match)?
Licensee:
- 1)
Replaced question NRC:
- 1)
Does it matter if the S/G is > -84% (i.e. A S/G is -80%)?
Since A S/G is 80% (i.e not lower than -84% and not subject to the feed restrictions), can you feed A S/G at any rate and B only < 300 gpm (i.e. 10% FRV bypass valve open)? I dont see where EOP-7.0 specifies the difference.
Need to ensure there is only 1 correct answer.
Licensee:
- 1)
The question intended to allow only one answer, but I see the potential for a post exam appeal. I changed the stem bullet for the A S/G, to -75%, making both levels less than -
84% 2 minutes later, and only one answer.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee changes made. Question is SAT.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 81 H
3 X
N U
E NRC:
- 1)
If a complete loss of IA occurred at 1000:00, why would IA header pressure be 50 psig and lowering four hours later?
Does not appear to be operationally valid. Is the applicant to assume that FW purity air is aligned?
- 2)
Is there sufficient information in the stem for the 1000:00 conditions such that the CIVs are inoperable - what makes the CIVs inoperable in these conditions? With accumulators and air pressure > 50 psig, will they function? Are they operable until a certain point (minimum pressure, specific #
of operating strokes, etc)?
Licensee: Recommend the minor clarifications change the status to E vice U.
- 1)
The third bullet states repairs had begun at 1000. The first bullet states complete loss of air - that would include FW Purity Air.
- 2)
Procedurally, the reactor is tripped if erratic equipment response occurs. Clarified the first bullet to link the low air pressure at 1000 with the still lowering pressure at 1300. As stated in the explanation, the CIVs are Air to CLOSE, and on a loss of air, they will open. That is why they need to isolated.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comment that the question should be considered an enhancement and not unsat, as minor changes eliminate potential confusion or misconception that may occur while answering the question. The revised question is SAT.
82 H
2 N
E NRC:
- 1)
Consider rephrasing the bulleted parts 1 and 2 of the stem for clarity (soonest is an awkward wording choice here).
Stem could also be rephrased into a single statement -
Alarm (1) requires the earliest action to (2)
Licensee:
- 1)
Restructured as suggested.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 83 H
3 X
N E
FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
Distractor A does not appear plausible, as its not plausible that the PZR level controlling channel would remain operable under conditions requiring swapping of controlling channels.
Licensee:
- 1)
Enhanced the answer explanation to improve the plausibility statement of distractor A. Cited procedural governance that allows a specific amount of error and still be operable.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 84 F
3 2
N S
85 H
3 N
S 86 H
3 X
N U
NRC:
- 1)
For consistency, separate the P-52A auto-start bullet into a separate time action (ie. At time 1001:00, )
- 2)
Question matches the (a) part of the K/A and not the (b) part. If the question cannot test to both aspects of the K/A, the question scope should be limited to the highest cognitive level or an alternate K/A be selected (ES-401 D.2.a).
Licensee: Recommend changing status for U to E due to past practice.
- 1)
Separated as suggested.
- 2)
In the past, and with other examiners, the use of TS and required actions were accepted as procedures used to correct control or mitigate as part b of the A2 KAs, since the TS have defined conditions, and required actions. Revised part two to address procedure use part of KA.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with the licensee comment.
- 2)
Disagree with the licensee recommendation that the question be considered an enhancement and not unsat.
The submitted question is unsat. The revised question is SAT.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 87 H
3 X
N E
S FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
Consider clarifying part 1 of the stem to specify TS 3.5.2 Condition D, or since this would eliminate the need for the applicant to determine the difference in applicability between TS 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 (PCS at NOP/NOT), clarify the TS conditions and required action wording.
Licensee:
- 1)
Clarified stem to clearly state LCO 3.6.6 Condition C to more accurately describe the specific action of Containment Cooling Capability. (not ECCS). The question is about containment cooling systems (3.6.6), and plant systems (3.7.7 CCW, and 3.7.8 SWS), NOT emergency cooling systems (3.5). While the loss of Bus 1D would make one LPSI train inoperable, it does not reduce the available ECCS flow to less than 100% of the required ECCS flow, and 3.0.3 is not entered from 3.5.2. Each of the following Tech Specs has a condition for having less than 100% of the required post accident (containment cooling 3.6.6, CCW 3.7.7, SWS 3.7.8) flow with an action to enter 3.0.3 Immediately. This question is asking about the version in 3.6.6.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 88 F
3 X
N U
NRC:
- 1)
Question matches the (a) part of the K/A and not the (b) part. If the question cannot test to both aspects of the K/A, the question scope should be limited to the highest cognitive level or an alternate K/A be selected (ES-401 D.2.a).
Licensee: Suggest changing status from U to E
- 1)
Revised second part of question to more clearly meet the b part of the KA.
NRC:
- 1)
Disagree with the licensee recommendation that the submitted question be considered an enhancement and not unsat. The original question was unsat due to not meeting the (b) part of the K/A and only the (a) part. Revised question is SAT and meets both parts of the K/A.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 89 F
3 N
E NRC:
- 1)
Recommend adding failed to the power supply issues.
- 2)
Do TS require a unit shutdown under the conditions provided? Recommend rephrasing such that the Unit is in Mode 1 with a shutdown in progress.
Licensee:
- 1)
Added failed
- 2)
No a SD is NOT required for these conditions. Revised the stem - simpler.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question was revised SAT to 1) eliminate part 2 due to FSAR applicability and validated difficulty and 2) revised part 1 for improved clarity.
90 H
3 X
N U
NRC:
- 1)
Question matches the (a) part of the K/A and not the (b) part. If the question cannot test to both aspects of the K/A, the question scope should be limited to the highest cognitive level or an alternate K/A be selected (ES-401 D.2.a).
- 2)
Reference LCO 3.7.8 Cond C requiring entry into LCO 3.0.3 in the answer explanation.
Licensee: Recommend changing status from U to E as in question 86.
- 1)
In the past, the use of TS and required actions were accepted as procedures used to correct control or mitigate as part b of the A2 KAs. Revised part two to address procedure use part of KA.
- 2)
Referenced LCO 3.7.8 Condition C in the explanation.
NRC:
- 1)
Disagree with the licensee recommendation that the submitted question be considered an enhancement and not unsat. The original question was unsat due to not meeting the (b) part of the K/A and only the (a) part. Revised question is SAT and meets both parts of the K/A.
- 2)
Agree with licensee changes made.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 91 F
3 X
N U
NRC:
- 1)
Question matches the (a) part of the K/A and not the (b) part. If the question cannot test to both aspects of the K/A, the question scope should be limited to the highest cognitive level or an alternate K/A be selected (ES-401 D.2.a).
Licensee: Recommend changing status from U to E as in question 86.
- 1)
In the past, the use of TS and required actions were accepted as procedures used to correct control or mitigate as part b of the A2 KAs. Revised question to meet part b of the KA.
NRC:
- 1)
Disagree with the licensee recommendation that the submitted question be considered an enhancement and not unsat. The original question was unsat due to not meeting the (b) part of the K/A and only the (a) part. Revised question meets both parts of the K/A.
- 2)
Agree with licensee changes made.
- 3)
Reword bullet in stem - it will take 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> to replace (answers/distractors use repair. Reword to something like repairs are estimated to complete in 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> Licensee:
- 1)
Reworded the bullet to state: Repairs are estimated to be completed in 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> NRC
- 1)
Agree with licensee changes made, question is SAT.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 92 F
2 X
N E
FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
Include the Warning in SOP-28 Section 7.6.2.h in the distractor analysis/explanation.
- 2)
Distractor B does not appear to be plausible. Energizing the SFP overhead crane to prevent unintended lifting of neutron sources. This can logically be eliminated without any license level knowledge.
Licensee:
- 1)
Enhanced the explanation by including an excerpt from the procedure directing the energizing of the SFP crane, and the warning.
- 2)
The author disagrees that logic alone can solve this question. The entire operation is under the supervision of an SRO, which requires license level knowledge. Knowledge of how the equipment works when it is energized, or de-energized is part of the SROs job. It is entirely possible to confuse these steps, as it is an infrequently performed evolution. Just five steps before the warning, there is a step to ENSURE the New Fuel Elevator is energized, followed by a step that PLACES the fuel bundle that is to have its source removed in the New Fuel Elevator (while it is energized).
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 93 H
2 X
N U
E Provided reference (embedded)
NRC:
- 1)
Embedded reference is not legible.
- 2)
Question pedigree states the K/A is being met as applicant is making an operational decision based on instrument interpretation, however, the applicant is being given that the TS is not met on CST volume (and not having to make a decision based on instrument interpretation). This does not match the K/A.
Licensee: Recommend the status is E vice u.
- 1)
Formatting issue corrected for legibility.
- 2)
The operational decisions being made are two fold. First when does the Operability of the backup water supplies have to be first verified, and second, is the subsequent performances of the verification subject to the time extension rules of the tech specs. These are operational judgements as to when and how the tech spec requirements are met. Enhanced the explanation for how this meets the KA.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question, as submitted, is considered an Enhancement and not an Unsat. Question is SAT, as revised.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 94 H
H 3
3 X
N N
E S
Provided reference FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
In Rev 14 of the ORM, it appears that Table 3.24.2 should be provided (not 3.24.3). Is Rev 14 current?
- 2)
How is Distractor A plausible? Rev 14 of the ORM does not appear to have a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> only action requirement. Is Rev 14 current?
- 3)
Reorder answer choices from shortest to longest (Swap B and C).
Licensee:
- 1)
ORM is now Rev 15. Table 3.24.3 is the table that has the hose designated for the maintenance of SFP Cooling and SFP Makeup from the FLEX pump.
- 2)
Distractor A was rewritten to be plausible as an entry into specification 3.0.3 to convene an OSRC within 10 business days. This is plausible for the examinee that sees the nonfunctional hose as having no specified action.
- 3)
Swapped order of B and C, and made B new correct answer.
NRC:
- 1)
Question provided in the submittal is that of a linear heat rate question, whereas the Free Look question provided was ORM requirements for SFP cooling and SFP Makeup from the FLEX pump.
Licensee:
- 1)
Original question was replaced as it was considered to be less operationally valid than the replacement.
NRC:
- 1)
The provided question dealing with Linear Heat Rate is SAT and is not to be included with the Free Look questions.
95 H
3 N
S
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 96 F
2 X
N U
E FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
Clarify that the PCS Pressure SL has been violated.
- 2)
Distractor B is not plausible, as this requirement does not exist.
- 3)
Distractor C is not plausible, as the notion is contradictory (not reduce modes due to the SL being applicable until all fuel removed from RPV).
- 4)
Reorder answer choices from shortest to longest (Swap A and B).
Licensee:
- 1)
Clarified stem to state PCS pressure SL exceeded and peaked at 3000 psia.
- 2)
Rewrote choice B to be plausible.
- 3)
Rewrote choice C to be plausible.
- 4)
These changes resulted in no needed change to the order of choices from short too long.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 97 F
3 B
S FREE LOOK
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 98 H
2 3
X B
M E
FREE LOOK NRC:
- 1)
Was this bank question previously used on an NRC exam?
- 2)
Consider formatting enhancements to the question (adding (1) and (2) to the question stem, underlining the tanks T-101C and T-68A, spacing between the dates and times).
- 3)
Reference CH 6.23 Att 3 in the answer explanation for the 5 psig limitation.
- 4)
How is distractor B plausible? Is there a time to release from sample (one does not appear to be given in CH 6.23)?
- 5)
Distractor D justification implies there is a sample time requirement - what is it and in what procedure? Example -
failing to meet the 15-day minimum decay duration would be a plausible distractor. If distractor is plausible, justification needs enhancement.
Licensee:
- 1)
After a search, it was discovered that this version of this question was used on the 2014 NRC exam at PLP. The question has been significantly modified to make acceptable for use on the 2020 exam.
- 2)
The format has been changed to make easier to read.
- 3)
CH 6.23 has been added to the answer explanation.
- 4)
The distractor plausibility statements have been enhanced.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT 99 F
2 M
N E
NRC:
- 1)
Question is considered new due to the substantive changes made from the bank question.
- 2)
Typo on the word personally
- 3)
Question is an enhancement by itself, but creates double jeopardy with Q75. Q75 requires the applicant to know who will be contacted first, VB county, while Q99 cues the applicant that VB county will be contacted first. Additionally, Q75 states the SM will declare the EAL, whereas Q99 requires the applicant know that the SM provided initial PAR recommendations.
Licensee:
- 1)
Changed to NEW.
- 2)
Fixed Typo
- 3)
Removed reference to Shift manager from Q#75, addressed the other comments at q#75.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT. No overlap concerns with Q75.
- 1.
LOK (F/H)
- 2.
LOD (1-5)
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
Source (B/M/N)
- 7.
Status (U/E/S)
- 8. Explanation Stem Focus Cues T/F Cred.
Dist Partial Job-Link Minutia
- /Units Backward Q -
K/A SRO Only 10 0
F 2
B E
NRC:
- 1)
The question does not state a reference will be provided.
Applicants are not expected to know this from memory, and the objectives provided do not support memorization.
Licensee:
- 1)
Revised to provide wall charts as reference.
NRC:
- 1)
Agree with licensee comments and changes made.
Question is SAT
ES-401 38 Form ES-401-9 RO TOTALS:
B= 12 F= 30 E= 31 Additional Notes: 13.3% of RO questions assessed as unsatisfactory.
M= 17 H= 45 U= 10 N= 46 SRO TOTALS:
B= 3 F= 9 E= 13 Additional Notes: 20% of SRO questions assessed as unsatisfactory.
M= 2 H= 16 U= 5 N= 20
GENERAL COMMENT
S:
- 1. There are 13 (RO) / 2 (SRO) questions with references/attachments provided (Note: 6 of the 13 RO references are embedded graphics).
- 2.
Questions from the previous 2 NRC Exams: __0__(RO)/__0__(SRO)
- 3.
Average difficulty is __2.63_ on the RO exam and 2.68 on the SRO exam.