ML13343A304

PV-2013-11 Draft Operating Test Comments

ML13343A304
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/09/2013
From:	Kelly Clayton Operations Branch IV
To:	Arizona Public Service Co
laura hurley
References
Download: ML13343A304 (5)

Text

Attachment 10 Page 1 of 5 OBDI 202 - I OLE Process PV 2013-11 DRAFT OPERATING TEST COMMENTS ADMIN JPM S JPM# 1. Dyn (D/S) 2. LOD (1-5) 3. Attributes

4. Job Content Errors 5. U/E/S 6. Explanation (See below for instructions)

IC Focus Cues Critical Steps Scope (N/B) Over- lap Job-Link Minutia RO (A1) D 3 X S RO (A2) D 3 S RO (A3) D 4 S RO (A4) D 3 S SRO (A 5)A1 D 2 E S This JPM approaches level 1 difficulty. They are given that there is one error. They find a corrected leak rate and apply next step

- system inop. It needs one more item to be more discriminatory.

Add second math error and change cue to find non

-clerical math errors. Done JPM is Sat.

SRO (A6)A2 D 3 S SRO (A7)A3 D 3 S SRO (A8)A4 D 3 S SRO (A9)A5 D 3 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 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 reviewer

=s judgment, is the JPM as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactory?

Attachment 10 Page 2 of 5 OBDI 202 - I OLE Process

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.

Attachment 10 Page 3 of 5 OBDI 202 - I OLE Process PV 2013-11 DRAFT OPERATING TEST COMMENTS CONTROL ROOM/IN

-PLANT SYSTEM S JPM S JPM# 1. Dyn (D/S) 2. LOD (1-5) 3. Attributes 4. Job Content Errors 5. U/E/S 6. Explanation (See below for instructions)

IC Focus Cues Critical Steps Scope (N/B) Over- lap Job-Link Minutia S 1 D 3 S S 2 D 3 S S 3 D 3 S S 4 D 4? S Remove words in cue sheet for "due to containment isol valve closing."

S 5 D 3 S S 6 D 3 S S 7 D 3 S S 8 D 3 S Not alt path as marked.

S9 D 3 E S Waiting on status from operations on 4 manual pushbuttons. Do all 4 manual trip pushbuttons have to be pushed to trip the reactor? Is it a failure if only 2 or 3 buttons are pressed and the reactor is tripped?

Yes, Ops expectation is that all 4 must be tripped and so this was included in the task standard.

P1 S 3 S This JPM uses mostly pictures of control panel/breaker. It could be performed from an alternate location if desired.

P2 S 3 E S Multiple cues with position indicator. Remove, only give this cue if asked, and then only indicate by pointing, etc. JPM step 9.g. Should we read flow for them, or point?

Same comment for step 9.h. Cues added to point to a value for flow and JPM is now Sat.

P3 S 3 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 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.

Attachment 10 Page 4 of 5 OBDI 202 - I OLE Process

5. Based on the reviewer

=s 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.

Attachment 10 Page 5 of 5 OBDI 202 - I OLE Process PV 2013-11 DRAFT OPERATING TEST COMMENTS SCENARIO S Scenario Set 1. ES 2. TS 3. Crit 4. IC 5. Pred 6. TL 7. L/C 8. Eff 9. U/E/S 10. Explanation (See below for instructions) 1 X S 2 X U S This scenario is essentially the spare from last year's exam. Change out first four events, event five change the type of DG failure to something different.

Done. Scenario is now Sat.

3 X E S Replace event 2 and event 4 (on previous year's exams), ensure different rod used for dropped rod than 2010

-scenario 2 dropped rod.

Done. Scenario is now Sat.

4 X E S Replace event 2 since on 2010

-scenario 1.

Done. Scenario is now Sat.

Justification for last CT page 2 of 3 sounds bogus. Says SG safeties may result in uncontrolled cooldown and may exceed cooldown rates. SG safeties maintain max pressure at setpoint and no cooldown.

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 reviewer

=s 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.