ML042990560

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
RB-09-2004 - Draft - Operating Exam Comments
ML042990560
Person / Time
Site: River Bend Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 09/23/2004
From: Gody A
Operations Branch IV
To: Hinnenkamp P
Entergy Operations
References
50-458/04-301, NUREG-1021, RB-09-2004 50-458/04-301
Download: ML042990560 (3)
v • d • e


Text

S:\DRS\OB\EXAMS\rb\RB-INIT-EXAM 09-2004\RB 2004 - NRC DRAFT EXAM COMMENTS\RB 2004 -Draft-JPM ADM App E Review.wpd APPENDIX E - REGION IV OPERATING TEST JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURE QUALITY REVIEW MATRIX

1. 2. 3. Attributes 4. Job Content 5. 6.

JPM# Dyn LOD Errors U/E/S Explanation (D/S) (1-5) (See below for instructions)

IC Cues Critical Scope Over- Job- Minutia Focus Steps (N/B) lap Link ADM-R01 S 3 X S ADM-R02 S 3 E(S) The JPM has tolerances on some inputs used to compute the RPV water level, however, the RPV water level answer does not have a tolerance. FIXED ADM-R03 S 3 S ADM-RS04 S 2 S ADM-S01 S 3 X E(S) Time after shutdown is different in Steps 1 and 2. They both should be 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />. FIXED ADM-S02 S 3 X E(S) JPM Step1 directs the completion of Blocks 5, 6, and 8, however, 5 and 6 are blank on the master.

The same problem also exists with JPM Step 5. FIXED ADM-S03 S 3 S ADM-S05 S 3 E(S) Should the scram time be identified? In Step 1 of JPM, uses Procedure EIP--2-001 for the standard X section whereas Procedure EIP-0-001 is used for the comment section. Procedure. JPM Step 3 says to use Form GSUN0952.1-99-93 (Dec). This form is for a General Emergency instead of the Site Area Emeragency. FIXED Instructions for Completing Matrix This form is not contained in or required by NUREG-1021. Utilities are not required or encouraged to use it. The purpose of this form is to enhance regional consistency in reviewing operating tests. Additional information on these areas may be found in Examination Good Practices Appendix D. Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided.

1. Determine whether the task is dynamic (D) or static (S). A dynamic task is one that involves continuous monitoring and response to varying parameters. A static task is basically a system reconfiguration or realignment.
2. Determine level of difficulty (LOD) using established 1-5 rating scale. Levels 1 and 5 represent inappropriate (low or high) discriminatory level for the license being tested.
3. Check the appropriate box when an attribute weakness is identified:
  • The initiating cue is not sufficiently clear to ensure the operator understands the task and how to begin.
  • The JPM does not contain sufficient cues that are objective (not leading).
  • All critical steps (elements) have not been properly identified.
  • Scope of the task is either too narrow (N) or too broad (B).
  • Excessive overlap with other part of operating test or written examination.
4. Check the appropriate box when a job content error is identified:
  • Topics not linked to job content (e.g., disguised task, not required in real job).
  • Task is trivial and without safety significance.
5. Based on the reviewers judgment, is the JPM as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactory?
6. Provide a brief description of problem in the explanation column. Provide conclusion on whether JPM SET criteria satisfied (i.e., number/distribution of safety functions, A.3 and A.4 integrated with parts B/C, Admin topics per section meet ES).

- Page 1 -

S:\DRS\OB\EXAMS\rb\RB-INIT-EXAM 09-2004\RB 2004 - NRC DRAFT EXAM COMMENTS\RB 2004 -Draft-JPM SYS App E Review.wpd APPENDIX E - REGION IV OPERATING TEST JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURE QUALITY REVIEW MATRIX

1. 2. 3. Attributes 4. Job Content 5. 6.

JPM# Dyn LOD Errors U/E/S Explanation (D/S) (1-5) (See below for instructions)

IC Cues Critical Scope Over- Job- Minutia Focus Steps (N/B) lap Link CRS-01 S 3 S CRS-02 D 3 S CRS-03 D 3 S CRS-04 D 3 S CRS-05 S 3 X E(S) not sure step 1 should be critical FIXED CRS-06 S 3 S CRS-07 D 2 S CRS-08 S 1 X U(S) low discriminatory value; only 3 steps (performed twice) with little-or-no opportunity to fail.

REPLACED IPS-01 S 3 S IPS-02 S 3 S IPS-03 S 3 X S BU-01 D 3 S BU-02 D 3 X E(S) not sure step 1 should be critical FIXED Instructions for Completing Matrix This form is not contained in or required by NUREG-1021. Utilities are not required or encouraged to use it. The purpose of this form is to enhance regional consistency in reviewing operating tests. Additional information on these areas may be found in Examination Good Practices Appendix D. Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided.

1. Determine whether the task is dynamic (D) or static (S). A dynamic task is one that involves continuous monitoring and response to varying parameters. A static task is basically a system reconfiguration or realignment.
2. Determine level of difficulty (LOD) using established 1-5 rating scale. Levels 1 and 5 represent inappropriate (low or high) discriminatory level for the license being tested.
3. Check the appropriate box when an attribute weakness is identified:
  • The initiating cue is not sufficiently clear to ensure the operator understands the task and how to begin.
  • The JPM does not contain sufficient cues that are objective (not leading).
  • All critical steps (elements) have not been properly identified.
  • Scope of the task is either too narrow (N) or too broad (B).
  • Excessive overlap with other part of operating test or written examination.
4. Check the appropriate box when a job content error is identified:
  • Topics not linked to job content (e.g., disguised task, not required in real job).
  • Task is trivial and without safety significance.
5. Based on the reviewers judgment, is the JPM as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactory?
6. Provide a brief description of problem in the explanation column. Provide conclusion on whether JPM SET criteria satisfied (i.e., number/distribution of safety functions, A.3 and A.4 integrated with parts B/C, Admin topics per section meet ES).

- Page 1 -

S:\DRS\OB\EXAMS\rb\RB-INIT-EXAM 09-2004\RB 2004 - NRC DRAFT EXAM COMMENTS\RB 2004 -Draft-Scenario App N Review.wpd APPENDIX N - REGION IV OPERATING TEST SCENARIO REVIEW MATRIX Scen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Explanation (See below for instructions)

Set ES TS Crit IC Pred TL L/C Eff U/E/S 1 E(S) ES-301-4 lists 3 abnormal events, but only 2 seem to be in scenario.

FIXED 2 E(S) ES-301-4 lists 3 abnormal events, the scenario tally claims 4, and the reviewer only sees 2; form also lists 2 malfunctions after EOP entry, but scenario only includes 1; FIXED 3(B/U) E(S) ES-301-4 lists 2 abnormal events, but the reviewer does not see any AOP entries. FIXED; B/U scenario switched with #2 during validation week to eliminate excessive overlap with audit exam.

Instructions for Completing Matrix This form is not contained in or required by NUREG-1021. Utilities are not required or encouraged to use it. The purpose of this form is to enhance regional consistency in reviewing operating test scenario sets. Additional information on these areas may be found in Examination Good Practices Appendix D. Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided.

1. ES: ES-301 checklists 4, 5, & 6 satisfied.
2. TS: Set includes SRO TS actions for each SRO, with required actions explicitly detailed.
3. Crit: Each manipulation or evolution has explicit success criteria documented in Form ES-D-2.
4. IC: Out of service equipment and other initial conditions reasonably consistent between scenarios and not predictive of scenario events and actions.
5. Pred: Scenario sequence and other factors avoid predictability issues.
6. TL: Time line constructed, including event and process triggered conditions, such that scenario can run without routine examiner cuing.
7. L/C: Length and complexity for each scenario in the set is reasonable for the crew mix being examined, such that all applicants have reasonably similar exposure and events are needed for evaluation purposes.
8. Eff: Sequence of events is reasonably efficient for examination purposes, especially with respect to long delays or interactions.
9. Based on the reviewers judgment, is the scenario set as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactory?
10. Provide a brief description of problem in the explanation column

- Page 1 -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML042990560&oldid=2199002"