ML060790007

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Facility Post-Examination Comments for the Dresden Initial Examination - February 2006
ML060790007
Person / Time
Site: Dresden  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/06/2006
From:
Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
To:
NRC/RGN-III
Shared Package
ML060670299 List:
References
50-237/06-301, 50-249/06-301
Download: ML060790007 (3)


Text

FACILITY POST-EXAMINATION COMMENTS FOR THE DRESDEN INITIAL EXAMINATION - FEBRUARY 2006

Exel on, F x d o n Leneratian Company, LLC www rxeloncorp.com Dreiden Nuclear Power Statlo" Nuclear 6500 North Dresden R a d Morrii It 6oqio 9/65 February 17, 2006 SVPLTR # 06-0012 Attention: NRC Region Ill Administrator 2443 Warrenville Road Suite 210 Lisle, IL 60532-4352 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249 Submittal of Post 2006 Dresden Initial License Examination Comments

Subject:

Enclosed are the post examination comments for the 2006 Dresden Initial License Examination.

This submittal includes comments on 10 questions. It is our recommendation that one question be removed from the exam and one other question corrected to reflect a different correct answer from the original submittal. In addition to the recommendations, eight questions were reviewed per Exelon procedure TQ-AA-210-5108, Post Examination Test Item Analysis, due to 3 or more candidates missing those questions. Those questions were found to be acceptable as written Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Pedro Salas, Regulatory Assurance Manager at (815) 416-2800.

Respectfully, m.13d

-G-A.L Danny G. Bost Site Vice President Dresden Nuclear Power Station

Enclosures:

(Hand Delivered to Chuck Phillips, Chief Examiner, NRC Region Ill)

Dresden ILT 05-1 NRC Post-exam Review cc:

(without attachment)

Chief, NRC Operator Licensing Branch NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Dresden Station

Dresden ILT 05-1 NRC Postexam Review

  1. 08:: Answer: B

References:

LPCl System Lesson Plan DRE203L 1001, and DOP 1500-03 Containment Spray Cooling Mode of Low Pressure Coolant Injection Systems.

Change correct answer from 6 to A due to original answer being incorrect. The ofuinal question was written with the premise that the LPCl initiation was a seal-in logic. The original conditions have drywell pressure at +5 psig. When conditions change and drywell pressure drops to +1 psig, a valid LPCl initiation signal is no longer present, so the spray valves will not close automatically. This would make A the correct answer. (See enclosed electrical prints)

  1. 73: Answer: C

References:

UFSAR section 15.2.4.1 Inadvertent MSlV Closure with Direct Scram, Core and System Performance.

Remove the question from the exam as none of the four possible answers reflects the current value. The original question was written using the UFSAR Rev. 3 for Dresden Station, Section 15.2.4.1.3. The correct answer per this document is 1144 psig. During exam review it was discovered that General Electric had performed a new analysis, Extended Power Uprate. Per GE-NE-A22-00103-10-01 Dresden and Quad Cities Extended Power Uprate table 3-2 Peak Steam Dome Pressure for the conditions given would be 1140.6 psig. This was not one of the possible answers for the candidates. (See enclosed documents)

Additional auestions subiecl to review Per Exelon Standard Procedure TQ-AA-210-5108, Post Examination Test Item Analysis, questions missed by three or more trainees require analysis. The questions were reviewed for the following four criteria:

1. Review each question to ensure it is worded clearly and is not ambiguous. Ensure that it is properly constructed.
2. Review each question to ensure that it ties properly to the learning objectives condition, performance, and standard.
3. Review each question to ensure that it is technically accurate.
4. Review each question to ensure that adequate material was presented to allow for achievement of the associated learning objective.

Question numbers 3, 33, 44, 61, 87, 95, 98, and 99 were reviewed against these standards and found to be acceptable as written. No further action is required.