ML063380383
| ML063380383 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/2006 |
| From: | David Silk Operations Branch I |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Northeast |
| Sykes, Marvin D. | |
| References | |
| RO 401-9 | |
| Download: ML063380383 (4) | |
Text
F 32 42.7%
U 10 13.3%
54 bank H
43 57.3%
E 38 50.7%
2 mod 100.0%
S 26 34.7%
19 new
?
I 1.3%
100.0%
75 Bank 72.0% Beaver Valley New 25.3% Beaver Valley
- 4. Job Content Flaws Total 26 2.9 1
1 0
10 0
0 0
0 0
4 1
26 26 F
7 26.9%
H 19 73.1%
100.0%
U 5
19.2%
8 bank 3 mod E
10 38.5%
S 11 42.3%
15 new 7
0 0.0%
100.0%
26 30.8%
57.7%
Summary of Siqnificant ODerating Test Comments for IP 3 General comment for JPMs.
There were many steps that were designated as critical but were not. The licensee was instructed to make changes to indicate that these steps were not critical.
Admin JPMs Two JPMs were identical on RO and SRO exam. Licensee was informed of the need to discriminate between license levels and therefore exam content between the RO and SRO need to be different.
One of the above mentioned JPMs had the applicants perform actions that were contained in a Functional Recovery Guideline. This is not appropriate material for the admin JPM section.
Shutdown margin calculation and review JPMs were removed from the test because there was no set procedure to use as a reference in determining the acceptance criteria for a SDM calculation. These JPMs were replaced by an overtime review JPM.
E-plan notification JPM for RO was replaced with a rad release JPM.
SRO classification JPM was modified to have applicant manually complete the notification form.
Simulator / Plant JPMs JPM Sim-C was originally designated as an alternate path JPM but it was not. Changing it to a normal JPM did not impact overall quantitative criteria for this portion of the exam.
JPM Sim-E had an incorrect I.C. that needed to be re-snapped.
Simulator Scenarios The assignment of malfunctions to some applicant positions was revised based upon validation to ensure each applicant met the minimum requirements.
Scenario 2 deleted a designated critical task because it was not a critical task.
After reviewing the four proposed scenarios, the chief examiner chose to use scenarios 4, 3, and 2 (with 1 as the back up) as opposed to the licensees intention to use 1, 2, and 3 (with 4 as the back up).