ML070610425
| ML070610425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 12/18/2006 |
| From: | Johnson G Operations Branch I |
| To: | Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| Sykes, Marvin D. | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML060800104 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML070610425 (13) | |
Text
Comments on Pilgrim 2007 Exam Outline Comment GAJ BY GAJ GAJ Comment Resolution Use Scenarios 2,3 and 4; Scenario #1 Spare Agreed via TELCON 1211 4/06 Agreed via TELCON 12/14/06 Ensure ADMIN JPMs for SROs are more in depth than ROs Ensure questions 22 and 41 are sufficiently different to avoid double jeopardy Ensure system questions with G WA have a correlation with the system. See ES-401 Attachments 1 and 2 for guidance WAS for questions 3,80 and 93 may not correlate to the base system. Should discuss with CE before attempting to write questions.
GAJ Agreed via TELCON 1211 5/06 Agreed via TELCON 1211 5/06 Agreed via TELCON 12/15/06 GAJ For Scenario #1, events 9,lO and 11 are really an extension of the same malfunction and should not be counted as separate events. Will need to revise ES-301-4 I
Agreed via TELCON I
PAP I exam but is not noted as P I 1211 8/06 Heat Balance JPM is a repeat of Aug 2002 Agreed via TELCON 12/1 8/06 Pump tagout is similar to JPM on Aug 2002.
Recommend doing a fan or compressor tagout.
3 of 4 scenarios have neutron monitor instrument failures. Does not appear to provide appropriate diversity.
No ES-301-6 included in package.
JPM #1 is virtually the same as Aug 02 and Oct 03 exams. Ensure limits for repeat are not exceeded Agreed via TELCON 12/18/06 Agreed via TELCON 12/18/06 Agreed via TELCON 1211 8/06 Agreed via TELCON 12/18/06 PAP Form ES-301-5 not filled out correctly. This is intended to show that each position is provided the opportunity to get the appropriate number of tasks.
Shifting TBCCW pumps for a vibration is a repeat from Aug 2002 scenario.
Agreed via TELCON 12/18/06 I
~~~
~
Agreed via TELCON 12/18/06 PAP
ES-401 Written Examination Review Worksheet Pilgrim 2007 Form ES-401-9 I
N S
E V
N E
Y N
S Y
N S
Y N
U Y
N S
Y N
S Y
N S
Note: Resolution of comments is included in italics.
- 1.
- 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws I 4. Job Content Flaws
- /
Back-inits I ward Explanation B implausible; press up temp up (GFES)
Revised B Note in explanation pressure control mode does NOT inject into RPV Seems a rather simple question (not very discriminatory)
Two SRO validators got it wrong Revised explanation This is not an operational question. Reword.
Selected new WA; new question
- 1.
- 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
1#
LOK LOD (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job-Minutia
- /
Back-Q= SRO U/E/S Focus Dist.
Link units ward WA Only Enter the level of knowledge (LOK) of each question as either (F)undamental or (H)igher cognitive level.
Enter the level of difficulty (LOD) of each question using a 1 - 5 (easy - difficult) rating scale (questions in the 2 -
4 range are acceptable).
Check the appropriate box if a psychometric flaw is identified:
e The stem lacks sufficient focus to elicit the correct answer (e.g., unclear intent, more information is needed or too much needless information).
The stem or distractors contain cues (i.e., clues, specific determiners, phrasing, length, etc.).
The answer choices are a collection of unrelated true/false statements.
The distractors are not credible; singleimplausible distractors should be repaired, more than one is unacceptable.
One or more distractors is (are) partially correct (e.g., if the applicant can make unstated assumptions that are not contradicted by stem).
The question is not linked to the job requirements (Le., the question has a valid WA but, as written, is not operational in content).
The question requires the recall of knowledge that is too specific for the closed reference test mode (Le., it is not required to be known from memory).
The question contains data with an unrealistic level of accuracy or inconsistent units (e.g., panel meter in percent with question in gallons).
The question requires reverse logic or application compared to the job requirements.
e e
e e
Check the appropriate box if a job content error is identified:
e 0
0 e
Check questions that are sampled for conformance with the approved WA and those that are designated SRO-only (WA and license level mismatches are unacceptable).
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?
- 7.
Explanation At a minimum, explain any U ratings (e.g., how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met).
ES-401 2
Form ES-401-9 2
2 1
3 i
3 i
i 3
4 i
3 4
2 i
2 1-2
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws TIF Cred. I Dist. +
X X
lack- =
- 7.
Explanation
~
~~
Two correct answers. A is also correct (see top of reference page)
Changed A to output amp This is not operationally oriented but is a direct fit to the WA so it is acceptable IN Is I Y N E D(2) seems implausible with only 40% inputs.
Reword to A Rod Block ONLY should have occurred.
Y* N S* Partial WA mismatch: does not predict the impact of the malfunction However it fits the major part of the WA Ti
~-
~
Seems a rather simple question (not very discriminatory)
Two SRO validators got it wrong IN IE Marginal minutia for RO Revised to be clearly RO y IN Is I
y IN Is I
IN lE In D add High Radiation Done
- 7.
Explanation In C add either the A-5...
Done Simple power supply question, however meets WA A
implausible since it is a subset of 9.
Add at ASP to stem All distractors changed K-1 10 and K-1 1 1 should start/load before any of these actions are required. Need to modify stem.
Done Ensure stem conditions establish a major LOCA.
Add Drywell Pressure increasing Done
ES-401 2
Form ES-401-9
- 1.
- 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
- 7.
Q#
LOK LOD (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job-Minutia
- /
Back-Q= SRO UlUS Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward WA Only 27 L 2
Y N
S 28 L 2
Y N
E D implausible at 90% power Changed to Turbine Trip and Rx Scram
ES-401 2
Form ES-401-9 Q#
- 1.
- 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other
- 6.
- 7.
LOK LOD (F/H)
(1-5)
Stem Cues T/F Cred. Partial Job-Minutia
- /
Back-Q= SRO U/WS Explanation Focus Dist.
Link units ward WA Only
ES-401 2
Form ES-401-9
'artial 2
Form ES-401-9
T/F
- 7. -
Explanation Marginal minutia to use valve #
Changed to use nomenclature Weak WA match but good operational question C
implausible; just adds heat Changed CY add bullet in stem Rx pressure is 300# to ensure LPCl initiation Done KIA mismatch. KIA is supposed to be Emergency Plant Evolutions, not normal operations such as surveillance testing New question Rephrase stem; to ensure that does not match grammatically with all distractors Done Marginal minutia for RO (WA=3.4 for RO)
Reselected WA; new question
Job Content Flaws I 5. Other I
- 6.
- 7.
3ack-Q= SRO WE6 Explanation ward W A Only Y
N S
IY IN Is I
Acceptable WA match since PSE is a related facility control...
Iy Iy Is I
Y Y* E Need to select procedures for 43(5);1n C cooldown per procedure PNPS 5.3.35.1 Done Y
Y* E Need to select procedures to be 43(5); make distractors symmetrical Done Y
Y S
add bullet to stem: RPV Pressure 950 psig to facilitate ED Done Iy IY Is I
- 3. Psychometric Flaws
- 4. Job Content Flaws item ocus -
Dist.
Link X
KIA On1 Y
N E
Y Y
S Y
Y E
Y Y
S Y Y s*
Y Y
S Y
N U
Y Y
S Y
Y S
Y Y s*
Y Y
U Y
Y S
- 7.
Explanation Stem needs work to make more SRO level.
Provide data and have SRO conclude HCTL problem.
Done Need to select procedures for 43(5)
Done SAMG are SRO This is a DLO for SRO with TS 3.1 O.B(3) available.
Two implausible distractors (,,C and D).
Deleted 3.7 0.8(3) from references; revised C and D.
SUNS1 in question
~
2 implausible distractors A(2) and C(2) considering PNPS 2.4.143 has been implemented Revised C and D
- 3. Psychometric Flaws I
- 4. Job Content Flaws
- 5. Other Dist.
Link
- 6.
- 7.
Ainutia
- / I unite Q= SRO WA Only Y
Y Back-ward -
U/US Explanation
+
E B appears to be implausible given near normal plant conditions (no accident)
Revised B Y
Y Iy IE 1
in explanation Y
U Seems like minutia to ask specific steps to address a commitment made for a TS change.
Developed new question y Iy Is I
Y Y
E Explanation needs revision (two areas, not one) r JDone