ML050480149

12-2003 - Draft Outline Comments

ML050480149
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	12/30/2003
From:	Gody A Operations Branch IV
To:	Ray H Southern California Edison Co
References
50-361/03-301, 50-362/03-301 50-361/03-301, 50-362/03-301
Download: ML050480149 (3)

Text

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station NRC Initial License Examination 12/15/2003 Examination Modification Summary 9/9/2003 Document Change Required Reason ES-201-2 Change Facility Reviewers Initials to Facility did not develop written N/A for written examination checklist examination outline

• ES-301-4 Reduced number of critical tasks for Scenario time restrictions, and scenario 1 same CT is performed on scenario 2 Scenario 1 Changed event 5 to a (C) ALL Chief Examiner request to ES-D-1 Changed event 6 to a (M) ALL clarify number of for credit events to match ES-301-4 attribute totals

• Scenario 3 Switched sequence of Events 8 and 9 Provide additional crew ES-D-1 challenge in diagnosis for procedure transition Scenario 3 Changed event 8 to a (C) ACO Chief Examiner request to ES-D-1 clarify number of for credit events to match ES-301-4 attribute totals ES-301-1 RO Added identification of New, Bank, or Chief Examiner request Modified to each task ES-301-1 SRO Added identification of New, Bank, or Chief Examiner request Modified to each task ES-301-1 RO Clarified description of RO Task A1a Clarification required performance ES-301-5 Provided credit for all applicants (C) on Update for changes to ES-D-1 Comprehensive event 5 of scenario 1 Provided credit for all applicants (M) on event 6 of scenario 1 Provided credit for ACO (C) on event 8 of scenario 3

• Items changed based upon facility validation after outline submitted to NRC Note: Changed examination schedule to perform JPM S6 in the control room.

Annotated on schedule as S6 (C1)

SONGS INITIAL OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATION DRAFT OUTLINE COMMENTS Written Examination

• Authored by NRC.

Scenarios

• What are the actual attributes listed on Form ES-301-4? RESPONSE: The licensee will further review the attributes and provide feedback.

• Scenario 1, Event 1, is a raise power evolution used to satisfy the reactivity requirement. This can be a very slow evolution. Suggest that pressure be placed on CRS (e.g., in the form of an urgent need for power) to speed up the power increase.

RESPONSE: The candidates will be given a plant that already is diluting to increase power. Their validation of this scenario indicates that a sufficient power increase will occur within about 15 minutes.

• Scenario 1, Event 6, is what type of event? RESPONSE: They considered this event to be an extension of Event 5. However, after reconsideration, Event 5 will be changed to a component failure for all candidates and Event 6 will be considered the major failure event.

• Scenario 1, Event 2, what will be the effect on the plant of the governor valve closure?

RESPONSE: The governor valve closure will cause a plant upset that will require considerable operate effort to respond to the event.

• Scenario 2, Event 3, Why are you letting them get this failure corrected? I would like to leave in the failed condition. RESPONSE: The failure is not being corrected. The transmitter will remained in a failed state. They will allow a switchover to the redundant transmitter to be completed prior to the feedwater pump trip because it will excessively difficult to control the plant with the steam generator level control system in the manual mode.

• Scenario 2, Event 4, doesnt result in a cutback? If so, you cannot take credit for a reactivity evolution. RESPONSE: SONGS does not have an automatic cutback feature. Therefore the required load reduction will be conducted by the candidates.

• Scenario 3, Event 2, has a circulating water pump trip. Does this cause a vacuum decrease? If not, I would like to place the crew in a vacuum decreasing condition.

RESPONSE: The loss of one circ water pump will not cause a sufficient enough vacuum loss to cause a plant trip. Since they used a loss of vacuum event that would cause a plant trip if not corrected in their audit examination, they did not want to repeat the event in the actual exam. While a plant trip will not occur, their plant procedures require a plant load reduction if the circ water pump will be out of service for greater than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. It is expected that the candidates will quickly proceed to the power reduction.

• Scenario 3, Events 8 and 9, what type of events are these? RESPONSE: These are component failures, however, credit will only be taken for the steam driven AFW pump.

The candidates will have to respond and reset the AFW pump.

Walk-thrus

• Form ES-301-1 administrative topics does not list the new, modified, and bank topics.

RESPONSE: Licensee will add this information to the outline.

• RO Tasks A.1a, S4 and P2 appear to be overly simplistic tasks. RESPONSE: The licensee considers the tasks to be adequate. Will further examine during preparation week.

• Since you are only developing one new task, are the tasks S1, S4, S5, and P2 significantly modified to meet the ES? RESPONSE: Yes, these tasks are significantly modified. Three of the four were made alternate path JPMs.

• Has consideration been given to what tasks can be conducted in parallel?

RESPONSE: Yes, at least three of the eight can be performed simultaneously. They will continue to determine which other JPMs can be conducted simultaneously.

• I do not notice any JPM Tasks being conducted in the CRs. RESPONSE: The licensee will review the JPMs and determine which ones can best be performed in the CR.