ML081330642

NRC Comments on Draft Licensee-Developed Exam (Written & Operating Tests) (Folder 2)

ML081330642
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	01/29/2008
From:	Caruso J Operations Branch I
To:	Ludlam G AmerGen Energy Co
Hansell S
Shared Package
ML072851077	List: IR 05000219/2008301 ML073450458 ML080980369 ML081330603 ML081330610 ML081330618 ML081330623 ML081330625 ML081330642 ML081330652 ML081330656 ML081330659 ML081330660 ML081900466 RA-08-009, Draft - Outlines (Folder 2) (Facility Ltr. Dtd. - 01/16/08), Submittal of Initial Operator Licensing Examination Outline
References
U01688 050-00219/08-301
Download: ML081330642 (11)

Text

Oyster Creek Operating Exam Comments Simulator JPMs General Comments:

1. Specify if prerequisites have been met for those JPMs that have extensive prerequisites.

Done

2. Initial off the steps that have been completed on partially completed procedures. Remind licensee - Done

3. For alternate path JPMs in the script highlight in bold alt path actions - DONE

4. At the end of each JPM you have listed in BOLD type a terminating cue. Please delete these. This is really a task standard and does not need to be listed here. This is confusing and doesnt fit our normal template - DONE JPM #I - Change to have applicant do all switch manipulations. Offered option to startup a recirc pump from cold shutdown (Ist pump started) - They elected to use this option. DONE Step 7 -Why is it necessary to cue the applicant that the scoop tube may indicate less than loo%? After the exam will evaluate as a possible Sim fidelity and if so will document in Sim work request. Resolution: Not an issue during validation. Change cue to examiner note. Changes made - DONE JPM #2 - Perform Core Spray ST - seems like should be repetitive with dynamic in that same flow path also maybe overly simplistic.. Replaced simulator event that was similar.

OK JPM #3 - Scram TSV closure test - OK Step 6.3 in the procedure is not addressed in the JPM. This is a verify - no action step.

Recommend adding a performance step to the JPM or an examiner note. The JPM says to start a step 6.3 but the first JPM step is 6.4. Added examiner note - DONE JPM #4 - Control Reactor Pressure using the Isolation Condenser Tube Side Vents.

Recommend adding a pressure control band to the task standard and determining if the applicant can actually control reactor pressure. Need to see how this works in the simulator. - DONE

• • Resolution: Changed cue page so applicant knows to use JPM conditions - not simulator conditions. - No other changes on JPM. Cant see pressure decrease for LONG time due to vents being very small. DONE JPM #5 -The initiating cue tells the operator to maintain pressure below 3.0 psig.

Should the operator be required to actually maintain pressure? Need to see how drywell

pressure responds in simulator. Resolution: takes too long in simulator - do not have operator do this. OK Step 3 - should read 3.2.2 not 3.2.3 as written Fixed DONE JPM #6 - Transfer Buses - Used from last exam and direct from bank. Is this done prior to any SCRAM?? If so redundant to what will be tested on dynamic.

Resolution: Verified that this action is not taken during scenarios. Not done unless the shutdown is controlled and planned. OK JPM 7: Add step close the APRM drawer. - DONE JPM 8 - Swap control room ventilation fans. Performance step 11 - How would the applicant make the decision regarding how many refrigeration compressor circuit breakers should be closed? Can this decision be part of the JPM? Seems like the cue for this step is prompting. Resolution: OK - bring in an RMS alarm 1OF1 k ARM hi to cue the operator to take the action. Delete last cue to place the system in emergency mode. Now reads Place the control room ventilation system in the proper emergency mode Add labels to CR vent fans. VERIFY on site Step 12: remove the word emergency from Cue #2. Done revised to delete Cue Step 13 - reword cue too leading if on back panel at the time we can say that you have alarm dont give alarm response unless requested. If on the front panel let the applicant should ask whether that his alarm and we can say that this your alarm.

Done In-Plant JPMs

- Plant JPM 1 Procedure steps 1-4 are skipped. Recommend adding these steps to the JPM. DONE in plant portion of JPM (Le. getting equipment and racking in the SBO breaker (also a simulate / discuss task). Consider moving this JPM into the simulator? This JPM will be done partially in the plant for first 4 steps and the remainder will be performed in the simulator since OC has a fully operational SBO panel. Need to ensure that the in-plant JPM cuing sheet is provided in the in-plant packages + ABN-37 page(s) Revise cuing sheet to clarify scope of task for in-plant and Simulator portions of the JPM Done

- Plant JPM 2 - Trip Feed pumps locally - basically a one step JPM repeated 2 times i.e., identical actions to trip and verify all 3 pumps - seems overly simplistic. Agree.

Resolution: Revised JPM to trip recirc MG sets and recirc pumps. DONE

- Plant JPM 3 - Lineup Fire Water to Core Spray to raise Torus Water Level.

Initiating cue states the applicant should start at step 3.2.4. The JPM initial conditions state that the procedure is complete through step 3.3.3. It appears that

t the JPM was modified from Core Spray System 1 to system 2. The steps are not consistent throughout the procedure. Make steps consistent with procedure. FIXED Step 2 references step 3.3.4. Step 3 references procedure step 3.2.4. Corrected Step 7 references procedure step 3.3.5.4 but it stated that core spray system 1 is placed in PTL - not system 2. Corrected SRO Admin JPMs SRO 1 - Review Turnover Log - Okay but pretty simplistic Resolution: Evaluated in simulator - determined to be acceptable with changes. Added steps to evaluate Tech Specs and determine LCOs and AOTs. For the note on the log regarding APLHGR exceeding the limit - couldnt we give them the log to show the readings instead of the note. At the very least saying the RE is investigating is too leading. Done Note removed from log and printout provided need to remove Red highlight from out of spec reading - verify on site Step 4 - It is not clear how applicants would know that main condenser outlet temperature > 97 degrees? NJDEPs permit questions are not appropriate for NRC exams. Revised step 4 to change to a thermal limits problem. DONE SRO 2 - No key included - provide key prior to exam. Provided key. Also - provide entire procedure. Change cue - ask for reason for notification. DONE SRO 3 - They need to determine the applicable tech spec LCOs and action statements that are associated with the LCOs. Added examiner cue to request information if not provided. Done Step 7.1.4 states that Incorrect use of temporary procedure change for TS surveillance acceptance criteria of ESW flow > 3000 gpm. I do not see any indication of a TPC for the JPM? Resolution - make the TPC look more realistic.

Done SRO 4 - Modify Task Cue delete second and third bullets and modify first bullet and complete any required actions. The pregnant lady has adequate exposure left with 300 mrem and 162.5 mrem more exposure needed total 462.5 mrem which is less than 500. What is another reason for not picking her Replaced JPM This task is not an SRO required task to authorize this exposure this task is more generic GET level. In addition the task simplistic. Resolution: Replaced JPM with new JPM written at SRO level-Authorize emergency dose limits for 3 workers -

Replacement OK as submitted.

SRO 5: The PAR flow chart has a note which requires applicants to evaluate the potential sea breeze effect on PARS. Do we need to provide addition info to determine if a sea breeze is blowing? Add initial condition on PAR JPM cue sheet.

DONE

Part D, Item 4 of Appendix E indicate whether the task is time critical Fixed DONE RO Admin JPMs RO 1 - The applicants are expected to fill in all values for the log and identify the 2 out of spec readings. Want to validate this JPM in the Sim. Task Standard should say they should note all out of spec readings (safe operator standard) AND they should NOT note any in-spec readings as being out of spec (safe operator standard).

Resolution - validated in simulator - OK Step 12 - Differential level is not 250 units as stated in the task standard. It is 0.4 inches. Why do we need to provide them with the previous days water level?

Should they determine this from panel 9XR Corrected DONE RO 2 - Want to validate this JPM in the Sim DONE. This JPM needs to have an error margin+ or - for all critical steps based on readability (JPM steps 10-1 6, 18-21 )

Evaluate by examiner at the time. There are no graphs to read or interpret. Need a better answer key. Answer key provided. No error bands were provided - okay Conduct this JPM in classroom setting. Omit last step - change to calculate core power. (No PPC Comparison) DONE RO 3 - added pages El -1 and El -2 of attachment 201.1-2 to procedure given to applicant Done.

RO 4 - Recommend changing the Yarway A level to 8 4. This requires the applicant to determine that this instrument is not qualified for use based solely on step 3.4, not on step 3.5. It would be qualified for use by step 3.5 alone. This makes the JPM a little more challenging. Changed water level for Yarway A. DONE Scenarios - 1) Designate scenario #I as the spare 2) Need all new QC forms for Operating and Written Exams especially with changes to applicant number and scenario combos considering Scenarios 2, 3, and 4.

Make scenario #I the backup scenario Stuck rod is described in the event summary and page 18 of D-2 form but not in the D-I scenario outline. Fixed - corrected Establish objective failure criteria for critical tasks. Site has no such criteria established. Determine on a case by case basis by examiners. OK Page 8 - Delete last sentence of Booth cue, page 8 - too leading. Deleted done Page 10, typo initiation LPRM 36-1 78 corrected DONE Page 12, Note: Too leading - if SRO/crew hesitates too long contact lead examiner on head set and ask for direction. However, if they decide to trip the feedpump, then intervene and direct a normal shutdown. Better to swap events 5 and 6 and let them trip the pump if they make that decision. If they trip the pump and the reactor scrams, then initiate event 7. Changed cue - swapped events 5 and 6 DONE Page 19, bold type - all CT actions in scripts. DONE

Have SRO as a follow-up question classify some of the events. Done Event 3 - change exhauster blower cure to annunciator and motor trip. DONE Changed CRD pump to include making metallic noise. DONE Event 1 - event duplicates JPM 2. Replace either the event or the JPM. (verify)

Replaced event 1 with new event (RPS channel check failure) replaced with scram contactor test - DONE Event 4 - there is a RO Admin JPM #3 also bypasses an APRM that uses procedure 403 attachment 2. This event duplicates the Admin JPM. Actions between event and JPM are very different. Also deleted APRM event out of another scenario. OK Event 6 - list SRO actions. done Generic comment: Bold type - all CT actions in scripts. Done Page 19, 1) SRO actions do not include directing SCRAM. List ABN & EOP basis for SCRAM & ED. Need evaluation standards for scram (time, parameters etc)

Fixed Removed event 5 (EMRV failure) and replaced with recirc pump seal failure. Done Replace event 7 - redundant to Scenario Sim #I, events 4 &6. Reviewed in simulator - determined to be acceptable with added rod drift. The number of malfunctions available for the ATC is very limited due to limits on ATC. OK Generic comment: Bold type - all CT actions in scripts DONE - OK Have SRO as a follow-up question classify the event - not a call from SM. Done Event 6 - Added role play on RBCCW to RWCU - OK Added cue when to vent scram air header - Move to page 20 Done Events 1 in other scenarios for ATC already had several rod malfunctions (outward drifting and uncoupled). This is the only scenario that addresses a stuck rod -

actions are different (raise drive pressure). OK Events 3 redundant malfunction APRM (scenario 2, event 4) - please replace. Also similar to a JPM. Replaced event with RPV GEMACs level failure event. Moved to event 6. DONE Typo outline event 1, rod 26-1 1 Fixed OK Generic comment - List all titles of support procedures in the scripts Fixed OK Generic comment: Bold type - all CT actions in scripts fixed OK Have SRO as a follow-up question classify the event Done OK

Oyster Creek RO Exam 45-Day Version 7

5. Other I

Q=WA I SROonivI Ref I BIMIN Page 1 ES 40 1 -9 form OC Master ES 401-9 form.xls

Oyster Creek RO Exam 45-Day Version ES 401-9 form Page 2 OC Master ES 401-9 form.xis

Oyster Creek RO Exam 45-Day Version ES 401 -9 form Page 3 OC Master ES 401-9 fomxls

Oyster Creek RO Exam 45-Day Version ES 401-9form Q# 1. Lt

2. LOD

3. Psychometric Flaws

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other 0

I Sten Focu 3

2 3

3 1

1

0.

BIMIN

7.

Minutia #I units Back-Cues T/F Partial Q=WA

~ ~ ~ o n i y ward Ref Dist.

needed UIEIS

8. Explanation N

M S

Y Distracter C does not appear to be plausible. Change distracter C. No reference provided '%"revised and Please provide references that better support the answer E

reference provided.

S Done E

Y N

M Y

N N

Y N

M X

N N

S Y

Revise distracter A not plausible. Done REPLACE Q - SAME COMMENTS "B8D" distractors are no plausible. Important info but too simplisttc LOD=1 the answel IS obvious or should be. Replacement question UNSAT-A and D not plausible - revise as directed X

U Y

N N

X 11 UNSAT 17 Enhancement required 75 Total graded 9%

7 E

M Modified=

20%

S N

New=

71%

53 47 SATISFACTORY B

Bank=

15 75 H

43 57.3%

100.0%

14.7%

% UNSAT Page 4 OC Master ES 401-9 fom.xls

L W

U U

W E

z z

z -

X X

L ru I

45-Day Draft Version Oyster Creek SRO Exam t

4. Job Content Flaws

5. Other

3. Psychometric Flaws Q#

6.

7.

1.LOK 2.LOD BlMlN UIEIS (FIH)

(1-5)

Minutia #I units Back-Q=WA SRO only

7. Explanation ward Stem Cues TIF Cred.

Job-Focus Dist.

Link Partial Working Q needs work-The answer appears to be hutoff head of the Core

? If not the second tic and maybe it co since the required re to allow core s D: 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> notification to N about downscale. assume what you are s distractors are listed in the TS but the prop0 would be more conservative - if that is the case revis explanation to add this additional explanation. Also revised but "A" explanation doesn't make sense also need Functional Manager + SRO Licensee's exam team considers th Replace Q (both Q23 and 25 low LOD replace one of these Qs "D" not plausible. Revised "D" Discussed with Sam X

N Y

N S

H. andhe agrees 25 F

02-Jan F

9 36.0%

H 16 64.0%

100.0%

25 Sum 25 25 25 Total 25 1580.2 0

1 0

8 4

0 0

0 0

U B

Bank=

3 3

UNSAT E

M Modified=

5 12 Enhancement required S

N New=

17 10 SATISFACTORY Total 25 25 Total Graded 0

0 Number not graded 12.0%

%UNSAT ES 401-9 form SRO ES 401 -9