ML063250279

11-2006-Draft-Operating-Exam-Comments

ML063250279
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	10/30/2006
From:	Division of Reactor Safety IV
To:	Southern California Edison Co
References
50-361/06-301, 50-362/06-301 50-361/06-301, 50-362/06-301
Download: ML063250279 (5)

Text

SONGS Oct 23, 2006 Exam-APP-E - OPERATING EXAM COMMENTS - ADMIN JPM

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 RO1 (A1a) S U(S) All JPMs should follow format of APP C of NUREG-1021. Admin JPms need classroom for location.

No supporting documentation marked up as key (ie where data was selected from references and where data is recorded {Att 2 of procedure in this case}). Items corrected during validation.

RO2 (A1b) S E(S) Need more content in the standard such as what components are off of bus 2B04, why things are checked/selected as mentioned in the standard and the procedure. Items corrected during validation.

RO3 (A2) S U(S) concern that this Admin JPM has too many tags for a timely JPM with a large class size. No supporting documentation such as PIDs, marked up for key. Validation time was acceptable with tag count as is therefore no change to JPM.

RO4 (A3) S 1 U U(S) Unacceptable JPM-question stem is poor, answers are predictable. New JPM written.

SRO1 (A1a) S S A1a for RO is same JPM- see its comments.

SRO2 (A1b) S E(S) A1b for RO is same JPM- see its comments.

SRO3 (A2) S E(S) Need more content in the standard as determined from review of TS.

SRO4 (A3) S 1 U U(S) A3 for RO is same JPM- see its comments. New JPM written.

SRO5 (A4) S U(S) Need more content in the standard as determined from review of EPIP documents. Also, this is time critical and should be marked accordingly. Changed to time critical and added content in standard to clarify answer.

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 any U or E rating in the explanation column.

7. Save initial review comments as normal black text; indicate how comments were resolved using blue text so that each JPM used on the exam is reflected by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this form.

- Page 1 -

- Page 2 -

SONGS Oct 23, 2006 Exam-APP-E - OPERATING EXAM COMMENTS - SYSTEM JPM

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 S-1 D X U(S) Dont understand how this is classified as alternate path. The candidate either doesnt do anything different than the procedure or the jpm standard is not written correctly. No Task standard field in JPM format. Task std added and explained why it is alt path by utility.

S-2 D E(S) step 3 has std as < 0.0 scfm, should be equal to 0 scfm. Why are steps 2.1.2-2.1.4 N/Ad? Explained by utility and changed minor edits as requested.

S-3 D S S-4 D S S-5 D E(S) No Task Standard in JPM.Edits completed as requested.

S-6 D E(S) step 6 in jpm has incorrect step from procedure. Listed as step 6.1.6 and in procedure it is 6.1.7. Task standard missing. Merge step 20 and 21 into one step for clarity. Edits completed as requested.

S-7 D S S-8 D S P-1 S E(S) why is step 4 critical but others such as 4, 5, not? Step 14 is marked critical in procedure but not in this jpm. Why? Critical task in Jpm is different than when in plant and det. Cooldown time for edg based on load.

P-2 S E(S) task description is incorrect. Corrected as requested.

P-3 S S

- Page 3 -

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 any U or E rating in the explanation column.

7. Save initial review comments as normal black text; indicate how comments were resolved using blue text so that each JPM used on the exam is reflected by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this form.

- Page 4 -

SONGS Oct 23, 2006 Exam-APP-E - OPERATING EXAM COMMENTS - SCENARIO 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 S 2 S 3 S 4 S 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, rate the scenario set as (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.

11. Save initial review comments as normal black text; indicate how comments were resolved using blue text so that each JPM used on the exam is reflected by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this form.

- Page 5 -