ML071440138

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC Comments on Draft Licensee-Developed Exam (Written & Operating Tests) (Folder 2)
ML071440138
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 03/12/2007
From:
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee
To: Todd Fish
Operations Branch I
Sykes, Marvin D.
Shared Package
ML062050096 List:
References
50-271/07-301, ES-401, ES-401-9 50-271/07-301
Download: ML071440138 (11)
v • d • e


Text

ES-401 Written Examination Review Worksheet VY 2007 Form ES-401-9 Note: Resolution of comments is included in italics.

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 U/E/S Explanation Focus Dist. Link units ward WA Only Instructions

[Refer to Section D of ES-401 and Appendix 6 for additional information regarding each of the following concepts.]

1. Enter the level of knowledge (LOK) of each question as either (F)undamental or (H)igher cognitive level.
2. 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).

3. Check the appropriate box if a psychometric flaw is identified:

Check the appropriate box if a job content error is identified:

0 The question is not linked to the job requirements (i.e., the question has a valid WA but, as written, is not operational in content).

0 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).

0 The question contains data with an unrealistic level of accuracy or inconsistent units (e.g., panel meter in percent with question in gallons).

0 The question requires reverse logic or application compared to the job requirements.

5. 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).
3. 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. 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 ES-401 2 Form ES-401-9

1. 2. 3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content 5. Other 6. 7.

Q# LO LO Flaws T/F Cred Parti Jo Minut #/ Bac Q= SR WE/ I Explanation S

J no link to RO duties/knowledge; replace Q i provide DW pressure (not exact setpt.)

i IQ wording awkward; re-phrase Q I '

cite EOP-4; provide values for SP level

I I 3. Psychometric Flaws I l v 2. 4. Job Content 15. Other1 6. I 7.

LOILOI Flaws Explanation Lin I I I Y l I E re-phrase Q

~

E provide value for DW pressure in STAs report S

S E replace Rx building wlsecondary containment S

i U D also correct; replace/fix D S

E add None to D S

S S

S S

X U WA mismatch. Auto system response does not

= Alarm Response Procedure. Replace Q

Explanation

-1 S

S

4.Job Content 5. Other 6. 7.

Flaws u/E/ Explanation Jo Minut #/ Bac Q= SR s b- ia unit k- WA 0 Lin s ward On1 E provide range/band for each choice

  • S
  • Atmospheric Drain Tank is part of Condensate System at VY E re-order choices I I I IX I lU IWA mismatch (basis not addressed); replace Q I I I I I IE !clarify EDG output breaker response in C & D I I I I 1 (E 1modifyA range to 100mr E Include Halon in C or D to provide balance in distractors.

S

Memo To: Todd Fish, NRC Chief Examiner From: ScottRua CC: Mike Desilets, VY Training Manager Date: April 19,2007 Re: NRC Exam Change Summary Todd, Outlined below is a summary of the changes that we have made to the exam based on our discussion and the NRC Exam Team validationheview:

A. Operating Exam:

1. Scenario #1:

a) Changed HPCl flow controller malfunction to fail at 0% vice 100% to aid in the level reduction to get us to the point where we need to RPV-ED.

b) It was the understanding of the exam team that based on the direction the crew takes to restore level the event sequence may be different for each crew.

c) At the discretion of the Lead Evaluator, the leak sizehate may be increased post scram to get the crew to RPV-ED.

d) Scenario summary has been revised to reflect the changes.

2. Scenario #2 a) Removed Event number 10 (trip of SLC Pump). This will still be part of the scenario. No credit will be given for the malfunction because there is no mitigation strategy based on plant conditions.
3. Scenario #3 a) Added a malfunction (Gland Seal Regulator auto failure) to ensure the ACRO/BOP gets credit for a component malfunction.

b) Changed the rod that will be stuck to allow the first rod to be used as to evaluate reactivity manipulations. Also, allowed a contingency should another rod need to be stuck based on the pace of the crew.

c) Fixed ES-D-1 to remove PClS Group Ill failure. It was actually a failure of the Scram Discharge Drain valves to close.

d) At the discretion of the Lead Evaluator, the Torus leak sizehate may be increased to get the crew to RPV-ED.

1

4. Scenario #4 a) Changed the cause of the loss of MCC-8A to an inadvertent breaker trip to shorten the timeline of the scenario.

B. Administrative JPMs:

1. RO A.l .a (Reactor Coolant temperature check) a) Made several more steps critical b) Attempted to change the outcome to allow them to start the pump if they didnt add 14.7# to pressure reading. There is only a 2F swing either way so depending on what they read and interpolate in the steam tables, it will be close either way.
2. RO A.l .b (Shutdown CRO Rounds) a) Made the 0.O.S High Torus temperature vice Low Torus temperature to account for realism.
3. SRO A.l .a (Perform Core Thermal Hydraulic Limits Calculation) a) Instead of having the candidate note a T.S violation has occurred, he will note that an administrative thermal limit has been violated. This was changed due to the inability to simulate a faulted 3-D Monicore Case.
4. SRO A.3 (Review Containment Purge and Vent Hours Log) a) The Vent and Purge hours log has been changed to show more realism. The log entries were too short and there were too many for the time of year. It has been changed to reflect longer periods and lasting deeper into the calendar year.

C. Simulator and In-Plant JPMs

1. S-3 (MRP to EPR) a) The simulator group was able to model the MPR to EPR swap to provide adequate simulation. This issue was discussed with the exam team and a contingency was established in the event this was not able to be done.
2. S-6 (Core Spray Full Flow Test )

a) Removed the first 4 steps of the JPM which were just communications and verifications. The JPM now starts out with these steps being complete. As a result, the form they are going to be using will already be started with some of the signoffs completed. The candidate will then start with the first component manipulation.

3. S-7 (Failure of PClS Group 5 to isolate) a) Modified the Simulator setup such that the initial conditions will have to be established each time the JPM is run due to a known simulator deficiency of not being able to snap a scenario to an IC that is in the middle of an ATWS.

0 Page 2

4. S-8 (Recirc Pump Start with failure of the field breaker to shut) a) This is a replacement JPM from the original based on your request to remove a CRD JPM due to how heavy the exam was in CRD malfunctions already. If this is not able to be run, it will be slightly modified to a recirc pump start with subsequent trip as the alternate path. This JPM remains a Safety Class 1 System.
5. P-1 (Local EDG Shutdown) a) Clarified initial KVAR loading for initial conditions and that the operator should lowet KVAR loading to zero KVARs out.

D. Written exam

1. Replacedmodified the following questions deemed as U (Unsat) by Exam team:

a) Number23 b) Number51 c) Number95

2. Enhanced the following questions based on final validation. These changes were discussed with the Exam Team:

Number 6: Made it clear in the time line when the loss of DC-2C occurred Number 26: Reworded the question to make it clear what we were testing. Because of the abnormal valve lineup of the RBCCW Surge Tank, the question needed to be enhanced to ensure there was no way there could be more than 1 answer.

Number 32: Made sure that it was clear that the pistol grip needed to be operated again, AFTER the correct switch (identified answer) was operated.

Number 39: Put in an initial vacuum to enhance the operationally driven question.

Number 82: After discussion with Gil, he thought it would be in our best interest to change distractor B to avoid any potential conflict.

Number 96: Clarified the EDG output breaker in answers Cand D.

If you need anything else or any additional clarification, let me know and 111 provide you whatever you may need. Thanks again for the support Todd.

Scott M. Rua 0 Page3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML071440138&oldid=2576883"