ML22157A395
| ML22157A395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/2022 |
| From: | Bruce Bartlett NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB |
| To: | Exelon Generation Co |
| Bartlett B | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136A322 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML22157A395 (20) | |
Text
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[1]
Facility: FACILITY NAME Exam Date: EXAMINATION DATES 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.
Generic
- 1.
ALL JPM cover pages will need approval signatures and dates for final submittal. Repeat comment from the previous exam. DONE
- 2.
Ensure that examinee Cue Sheets reflect any changes made to the INITIAL CONDITIONS and/or INITIATING CUES. DONE
- 3.
Comments in red indicate what was changed to address the NRC feedback. If there is no red comment then the item remains open.
- 4.
Green highlight indicates the item was part of the Free Look.
SRO-A1.1 JPM510 COO 2.1.5 3
S NRC: Post OV Step 2 standard was revised slightly by removing an AND and replacing it with a THEREFORE in order to ensure clarity and remove an implication an additional operator in addition to the SRO would be required. DONE
Response
SRO-A1.2 JPM539 COO 2.1.4 2
S NRC:
Response
SRO-A2 JPM578 EC 2.2.14 2
S NRC:
Response
SRO-A3 JPM450 RAD 2.3.4 3
X 2019 S
NRC:
Response
SRO-A4 JPM482 EP 2.4.44 3
S NRC:
Response
RO-A1.1 JPM423 COO 2.1.20 3
S NRC:
Response
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[2]
Facility: FACILITY NAME Exam Date: EXAMINATION DATES 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.
RO-A1.2 JPM402 COO 2.1.19 3
S NRC:
Response
RO-A2 JPM512 EC 2.2.12 3
X 2021 S
NRC:
Response
RO-A3 JPM579 RAD 2.3.14 2
S NRC:
Response
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[3]
Facility: FACILITY NAME Exam Date: EXAMINATION DATES 1
2 3
Attributes 4
Job Content 5
6 Simulator/
In-Plant JPMs Safety Function 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.
S1 JPM215 4
202001 A2.03 3
X U
S NRC: 1. Delete the first bullet of the Task Standard as it is not part of the task standard. DONE
- 2. Steps 01 and 05 are critical steps and must be marked as such. DONE
Response
After review and discussions during the OV determined that step 1 is not critical as if it is not done then step 2 would reveal that step 1 had not been performed and the failure would be corrected. Agreed that step 5 is critical and marked it as such. The first bullet for the task standard was also deleted.
S2 JPM558 2
259001 A4.01 3
S NRC: Following the OV an examiners note was added and a marked up copy of the procedure for the candidate was added. DONE
Response
S3 JPM581 3
218000 K4.04 2
X X
E S
NRC:1. The procedure title should be spelled out. DONE
- 2. The use of the hard card should be specifically approved by the Unit Supervisor. The CRS directing the performing to use CPS 3101.01H004 does specifically authorize the use of the Hardcard. DONE
- 3. This JPM could be made more complicated because the wording in the hard card implies that the ADS BU Air Bottles are not actually in service until step 8.2.4 of 3101.01 has been completed and as written this is currently not required as the examinee is required to use the hard card. Change the Task Standard to match the hard card.
After reviewing the performance of the JPM during OV decided no changes were necessary. The last sentence in the hard card does imply that additional work is required to place the backup air bottles in service but the only additional steps are verification steps and no additional valve manipulation is required in order to place the backup air bottles in service. DONE
Response
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[4]
Facility: FACILITY NAME Exam Date: EXAMINATION DATES 1
2 3
Attributes 4
Job Content 5
6 Simulator/
In-Plant JPMs Safety Function 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.
S4 JPM580 4
245000 A4.01 2
S NRC:
Response
S5 JPM473 5
223001 A2.01 3
X 2019 Exam S
NRC:
Response
S6 JPM432 6
262001 A4.04 3
X 2021 Exam S
NRC:1. There is a NUREG limit of 3 overlaps allowed for the JPMs and there are a total of 5 in the submittal. This JPM was labeled as UNSAT due to exceeding the allowed number of overlaps This statement was in error and the NUREG limit was not exceeded. This JPM was never UNSAT. DONE
Response
212000 A4.02 3
S NRC:
Response
S8 JPM417 9
288000 A4.01 3
X E
NRC:1. Step 7 has the examinee place 1HS-VR101 in the neutral position in accordance with step 8.1.3.1.1 but does not ensure the examinee verifies the various dampers and fans go close and/or stop. Information added - DONE
- 2. Step 10 is written so that the control switches for tripped fans 1VR06CA AND 1VR06CB as well as 1VR07CA AND 1VR07CB are placed in After-Stop but the procedural requirement is that EITHER fan 6CA or fan 6CB as well as EITHER 7CA or 7CB are placed in After-Stop. Step 10 should be re-written to match step 8.1.3.1.4 of CPS 3408.01.
Steps match as the initiating cue has the candidate use the A fans-DONE
- 4. Add a note after comment 3 above to inform the examiner that the examinee should transfer to Section 8.2.1 of procedure CPS 3408.01 to perform manual startup of CCP.
DONE
- 5. Step 16 has the same comment as step 10, comment 2 above. Step 16 is now step 17 and is DONE
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[5]
Facility: FACILITY NAME Exam Date: EXAMINATION DATES 1
2 3
Attributes 4
Job Content 5
6 Simulator/
In-Plant JPMs Safety Function 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.
- 6. Step 22 add (1VR07CB) to the standard as a possible correct choice in accordance with CPS 3408.01, step 8.2.1.1.14 Step 22 is now step 23 - USE only A fans -
DONE
- 7. Step 23 add (1VR009B) to the standard as a possible correct choice in accordance with CPS 3408.01, step 8.2.1.1.15 Only A Fan - Done
- 8. Step 24 add (1VR06CB) to the standard as a possible correct choice in accordance with CPS 3408.01, step 8.2.1.1.16 Only A Fan - Done
- 9. Step 26 add (1VR004B) to the standard as a possible correct choice in accordance with CPS 3408.01, step 8.2.1.1.18 Only A Fan - Done
Response
295016 AA1.06 4
E S
NRC: 1. What is the purpose of providing Procedures 4003.01 and 4003.01C003 being given to the examinee?
During the OV the need for these procedures was verified -
no change was made - DONE
- 2. Should the Task Standard be modified to delete reference to these procedures? The task standard did not need to have reference to these procedures and so they were deleted - DONE
Response
263000 2.1.30 3
E S
NRC: 1. Step 6 is supposed to reference procedure 3503.01 step 8.2.3.6 but instead references step 8.2.1.5.6 which does not exist. The standard that is written down matches step 8.2.3.6. Corrected DONE
- 2. The same misnumbering reference is in steps 7 and 8 but the correct standards are written down. Corrected DONE
Response
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[6]
Facility: FACILITY NAME Exam Date: EXAMINATION DATES 1
2 3
Attributes 4
Job Content 5
6 Simulator/
In-Plant JPMs Safety Function 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.
P3 JPM428 8
295019 AA1.02 3
X 2021 S
NRC:1. The estimated time to completion has been changed from 10 minutes to 15 minutes. Was this based on the performance of the examinees this spring? Yes - DONE
- 2. There is a NUREG limit of 3 overlaps allowed for the JPMs and there are a total of 5 in the submittal. This JPM was labeled as UNSAT due to exceeding the allowed number of overlaps. This statement was in error and the NUREG limit was not exceeded. This JPM was never UNSAT. DONE
Response
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[7]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 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 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[8]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[9]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 Scenario: 1 (76% Power) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 Event Realism/
Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
Valve Surv. Test S
Scenario 1 is taken in its entirety from Scenario 1 of the 2021 ILT exam. Due to a reduction in the number of candidates by the licensee Scenario 1 and 5 from the 2021 exam were not used and were thus available for this exam. There are minimal comments and corrections for the 2022 ILT due to the comments and corrections being made during the previous exam. This Scenario was re-reviewed for the 2022 exam but no additional comments were made by the Chief Examiner.
2 RWCU Seal Leak S
3 Control Power Loss X
X S
Technical Specification call only.
4 Clogged oil filter S
5 Inadvertent Opening of SRV CT-1 S
6 DG FO Transfer Pump Failure to Start X
S 7
Loss of CY and a Rapid Shutdown S
8 LOCA/RAT Trip/Loss Div 3 Bus/TAF Blowdown X
CT-2 CT-3 S
- 1.
For each EOP entered (EOP 1, 6), identify expected EOP significant actions to be taken by each crew member. Simply stating perform EOP actions as directed is insufficient. Repeat comment from Free Sample.
Additional detail was added to the SRO portion for the applicable EOPs 9
LPCS Fails to Auto Start X
S
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[10]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[11]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 Facility: Clinton Scenario: 2 (Mode 2 at ~7% RTP) FREE LOOK Exam Date: January 2022 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 D-1 Turnover Section E
S
- 1.
Delete 2nd bullet; duplicates information in the 3rd bullet.
Deleted
- 2.
Provide a reason for cross-tying buses 1L and 1M (e.g., clean and inspection of 1M Main Feed Breaker).
to support maintenance was added
- 1. (N) Xtie 480V Buses X
E S
2019 NRC Exam; Scenario 3; Event 1
[2015 NRC Exam; Scenario 1; Event 1]
- 1.
Add step (likely open bullet): Verifies that both 6.9KV buses are supplied from the same source (RAT).
Added
- 2. (R)
Raise Power w/Rods X
S 2019 NRC Exam; Scenario 1; Event 1
- 1.
Ensure during validation that no other routinely expected alarms (routine for normal control rod movement) are received. Checked and SAT
- 3. (C) CR Reed Switch Stuck Open X
E S
2019 NRC Exam; Scenario 1; Event 2
- 1.
Modify bulleted item Determines channel 2 to read Determines channel 2 is faulted by selecting single channel with the DATA MODE push-button and alternately selecting CHAN 1 DATA and CHAN 2 DATA using the DATA SOURCE push-button.
Change made
- 2.
See marked up scenario guide for typos, etc.
Changes made
- 4. (C) Stuck IRM F Detector X
S 2019 NRC Exam; Scenario 1; Event 3
- 1.
Add bullet - Determines IRM F is not withdrawing with the other IRMs (detector IN light remains illuminated and OUT light does illuminate when other detectors OUT lights illuminate).
Change made
- 2.
Add note indicating that implementation of section 8.2.1 may wait until all other IRMs have been withdrawn.
Change made
- 3.
Consider modifying malfunction setup to activate the malfunction a few seconds after DRIVE OUT push-button is depressed. In this manner stuck detector may be identified by either observing IRM channel responses and/or when detector OUT light does not illuminate. This item was considered but during the OV it was determined that the stuck detector was identified by the operators without the need for the detector OUT light to fail. No changes
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[12]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 Facility: Clinton Scenario: 2 (Mode 2 at ~7% RTP) FREE LOOK Exam Date: January 2022 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 made
- 5. (TS)
NSPS Inverter Trip X
X S
- 1.
Revise 3rd BOP action bullet to include Reports annunciator 5060-1E in alarm to SRO.
Change made
- 2.
Revise 4th BOP action bullet to read Per ARP 5060-1E determines Change made
- 3.
TS call only
- 6. (C/TS)
RCIC Supp Pool Level Xmtr High Failure X
S
- 1.
Revise Initiation to read following Event 5.
Change made
- 2.
Automatic Actions - Does 1E51-F010 fail to close because of some malfunction or simply because 1E51-F031 fails to close automatically. May want to clarify.
Change made
- 3.
Revise the SRO action bullet for ORM 2.5.2 to include ORM action completion time (e.g., As soon as practical but no later than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />)
Change made
- 7. (C) CW Pump Clogged TW Supply Strainer S
- 1.
Has the clogged strainer malfunction been modified such that abnormal trends on the bearing temperatures is indicated on the computer points.
Will verify during the on-site week - Checked, yes and DONE
- 2.
Applicants may refer to CPS 3113.01 Section 8.3.7. However, the procedure does not give specific guidance to trip the CW pump. Pump may not be tripped if ARP is not referred to. This was observed during an earlier exam.
This was not observed during the OV nor the previous exam - DONE
- 8.
(M)
RPV Inst Line Break CT1 CT2 X
S 2019 NRC Exam; Scenario 2; Event 8
- 1.
Scenario guide for this event identifies the SCRAM as CT-2; should be CT-1 per the D1 and CT Bases Information section.
Change made
- 2.
For each EOP entered (EOP 1, 6(after ADS initiated) and 8), identify expected EOP significant actions to be taken by each crew member. Simply stating perform EOP actions as directed is insufficient.
Change made
- 3.
Scenario guide for this event identifies the BLOWDOWN as CT-3; should be CT-2 per the D1 and CT Bases Information section.
Change made
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[13]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 Facility: Clinton Scenario: 2 (Mode 2 at ~7% RTP) FREE LOOK Exam Date: January 2022 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
- 4.
CT Bases Information for CT-1 should also include the expected recorder point ID# as well as the setpoint (refer to event 8 ATC actions).
Change made
- 9. (C) Rad Monitor Failure -
VF Isol/VG Actuation Failure X
X 2019 NRC Exam; Scenario 2; Event 9
- 1.
Absent any indication of actual/potential fuel failure, are VF exhaust rad levels expected to rise to the level requiring VF isolation/VG Initiation? Yes
- a.
What are the first indications of an airborne problem with this event? Is the timing appropriate? Will the applicants have time to recognize changes in rad levels (if trends are checked will they show an increasing trend or a step change?) Are the PR006A-D radiation levels and associated alarms and actuations a direct result from the instrument line break or are they being forced by I/Os being manipulated? DONE
- b.
Consider adding fuel failure malfunction at a severity that will require VG auto initiation. DONE A review of existing documentation and observations during the OV demonstrate that VF/VG will initiate given these conditions. There is no need to add a fuel failure. DONE
- 2.
Are manual initiation of SBGT and manual isolation of VF critical tasks?
These are mitigation strategies necessary to prevent/minimize onsite exposures and offsite releases and affect the mitigating strategy. If radiation levels are high enough to warrant these actions, then it is critical for them to be completed. The RPV instrument line leak is enough to result in the necessary actuation but not large enough to meet the definition of a critical task. No change needed - DONE
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[14]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 Scenario: 2 (Free Sample) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 Event Realism/
Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[15]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 Scenario: 3 (90% Power) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 Event Realism/
Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
Swap HPCS Suction X
E S
- 1.
Event 1 should be split into two events. Event 1a should focus on the swapping of the HPCS suction valve and Event 1b should focus on the trip of the circuit breaker for valve 1E22-F015 and the Technical Specification decisions by the SRO. DONE
- 2.
If the BOP operator actually isolates the affected penetration flow path then this event would count as a component failure. As the scenario will not last 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> the SRO may hold off isolating the flow path and this event would then not have any verifiable actions for the BOP. Dont actually need a component failure for the BOP. Comment only - DONE 2
Load Reduction S
- 1.
OP-CL-108-107-1002 Degraded Grid Actions requires that the load reduction be completed within 15 minutes. The writeup in the D-1 could be read as either starting within or completing within 15 minutes. Add the completion requirement to the SRO bullets. DONE 3
MC Pmp Failure S
S 5
Hotwell Overflow S
- 1.
Add an examiner note that the ATC returns and controls hotwell level to between 36 and 55 inches as the low level alarm does not annunciate until 23 inches and will be outside of the normal level. In addition under no circumstances shall the hotwell level exceed 75 inches.per procedure 3104.01 Section 9.6 needs to be added to the D-1 Added - DONE 6
S
- 1.
Add the bullets from items 1 and 2 of ARP 5011.08E to check safety related bus voltages to be greater than 4000 volts to the BOP actions. Added - DONE 7 and 8 Trip RAT Failure, LOCA CT-1 CT-2 S
For each EOP entered (EOP 1, 6) identify expected EOP significant actions to be taken by each crew member. Simply stating perform EOP actions as directed is insufficient. Repeat comment from the Free Sample. Additional detail was added to the SRO portion for the applicable EOPs - DONE
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[16]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[17]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 Scenario: 4 (SPARE) (Mode 1 at 85%)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 Event Realism/
Cred.
Required Actions Verifiable actions LOD TS CTs Scenario Overlap U/E/S Explanation 1
(N) Perform Surveillance S
2 (TS) Valve Breaker Trip X
S Technical Specification only with no verifiable actions planned.
3 (R) Lower Rx Power S
4 (C) FC Pump Trip X
2019 S
- 1.
The ATC open bullets for notification of the SRO of the power reduction and RR FCV drifting shut should be solid bullets (or for the BOP). Made a solid bullet for the BOP - DONE 6
(C) RT Pump Saft Shear X
2019 S
7 (C, TS) ADS Timer Initiation X
S 8
(M) MSL D Leak, CT-1 CT-2 X
2019 S
9 (C) MSIVs Fail to Close X
2019 S
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[18]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 Instructions for Completing This Table:
Use this table for each scenario for evaluation.
2 Check this box if the events are not related (e.g., seismic event followed by a pipe rupture) OR if the events do not obey the laws of physics and thermodynamics.
3, 4 In columns 3 and 4, check the box if there is no verifiable or required action, as applicable. Examples of required actions are as follows: (ES-301, D.5f) opening, closing, and throttling valves starting and stopping equipment raising and lowering level, flow, and pressure making decisions and giving directions acknowledging or verifying key alarms and automatic actions (Uncomplicated events that require no operator action beyond this should not be included on the operating test unless they are necessary to set the stage for subsequent events. (Appendix D, B.3))
5 Check this box if the level of difficulty is not appropriate.
6 Check this box if the event has a TS.
7 Check this box if the event has a critical task (CT). If the same CT covers more than one event, check the event where the CT started only.
8 Check this box if the event overlaps with another event on any of the last two NRC examinations. (Appendix D, C.1.f) 9 Based on the reviewers judgment, is the event as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory? Mark the answer in column 9.
10 Record any explanations of the events here.
In the shaded boxes, sum the number of check marks in each column.
In column 1, sum the number of events.
In columns 2-4, record the total number of check marks for each column.
In column 5, based on the reviewer's judgement, place a checkmark only if the scenario's LOD is not appropriate.
In column 6, TS are required to be 2 for each scenario. (ES-301, D.5.d)
In column 7, pre-identified CTs should be 2 for each scenario. (Appendix D; ES-301, D.5.d; ES-301-4)
In column 8, record the number of events not used on the two previous NRC initial licensing exams. A scenario is considered unsatisfactory if there is < 2 new events. (ES-301, D.5.b; Appendix D, C.1.f)
In column 9, record whether the scenario as written (U)nacceptable, in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory from column 11 of the simulator scenario table.
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[19]
Facility: Clinton Exam Date: January 18 - 22, 2022 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
9 0
4 0
3 0
0 S
2 9
0 2
0 2
0 0
S 3
8 0
3 0
2 0
0 S
4 9
0 2
0 2
0 0
S Instructions for Completing This Table:
Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided.
1, 3, 5 For each simulator scenario, enter the total number of events (column 1), TS entries/actions (column 3), and CTs (column 5).
This number should match the respective scenario from the event-based scenario tables (the sum from columns 1, 6, and 7, respectively).
2, 4, 6 For each simulator scenario, evaluate each event, TS, and CT as (S)atisfactory, (E)nhance, or (U)nsatisfactory based on the following criteria:
- a.
Events. Each event is described on a Form ES-D-2, including all switch manipulations, pertinent alarms, and verifiable actions. Event actions are balanced between at-the-controls and balance-of-plant applicants during the scenario. All event-related attributes on Form ES-301-4 are met. Enter the total number of unsatisfactory events in column 2.
- b.
TS. A scenario includes at least two TS entries/actions across at least two different events. TS entries and actions are detailed on Form ES-D-2. Enter the total number of unsatisfactory TS entries/actions in column 4. (ES-301, D.5d)
- c.
CT. Check that a scenario includes at least two pre-identified CTs. This criterion is a target quantitative attribute, not an absolute minimum requirement. Check that each CT is explicitly bounded on Form ES-D-2 with measurable performance standards (see Appendix D). Enter the total number of unsatisfactory CTs in column 6.
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 11, explain each unsatisfactory event, TS, and CT. Editorial comments can also be added here.
Save initial review comments and detail subsequent comment resolution so that each exam-bound scenario is marked by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this form.
2 + 4 + 6 1 + 3 + 5100%
ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7
[20]
Facility: FACILITY NAME Exam Date: EXAMINATION DATES OPERATING TEST TOTALS Total Total Unsat.
Total Total Unsat.
Explanation Edits Sat.
Admin.
JPMs 9
0 1
9 Sim/In-Plant JPMs 11 1
4 10
. JPM S1 had a critical step not labeled as such.
Scenarios 3
0 0
3 Op. Test Totals:
23 1
5 22 4.5 %
There were no events or scenarios marked as UNSAT. There was one JPM marked as UNSAT 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 post scenario critical tasks defined in Appendix D).
The EOP strategy was incorrect in a scenario(s).
TS entries/actions were determined to be incorrect in a scenario(s).