ML072681198
| ML072681198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/2007 |
| From: | Reid J Constellation Energy Group |
| To: | Caruso J Operations Branch I |
| Sykes, Marvin D. | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML063560007 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-244/07-301 | |
| Download: ML072681198 (29) | |
Text
Constellation Energy-Generation Group June 29,2007 7 /3 167 Mr. John Caruso Division of Reactor Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415
Subject:
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 DRAFT 2007 License Operating Exam
Dear Mr. Caruso,
Enclosed please find the Draft operating exam for the Ginna 2007 License Class. The Gima Training Department in conjunction with Western Technical Services constructed the exam utilizing the guidance of NUREG-1021, Rev. 9 and NUREG-1122, Rev. 2. In accordance with 10CFR55.49 and NUREG-1021 section ES-201 Attachment 1 these materials shall be withheld from public disclosure until after the examinations are completed.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact the General Supervisor, Operations Training, James Reid at (585) 771-5415 or via e-mail jarnes.g.reid@constellation.com.
Sincerely, James G. Reid for Mark Geckle Manager, Nuclear Training
Attachments Enc.
Attachments:
Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5 Scenario 1 Exam Form ES-D-2 Scenario 2 Exam FOITTI ES-D-2 Scenario 3 Exam Form ES-D-2 Admin JPMs (5)
Form ES-C-1 Controllln-Plant JPMs (10)
Form ES-C-1 Applicable reference materials for scenarios and JPMs
June 20,2007 GINNA EXAM OUTLINE COMMENTS ODeratina Exam General comment - good job providing descriptions of JPMs SRO Admin A.l.b - appears to be overly simplistic task.
Sim JPM E - ensure does not overlap with scenarios.
In-plant JPMs - all three are bank JPMs. These JPMs primarily test plant component Scenario #I - seems pretty straight forward - no subtle plant challenges will evaluate location/familiarity consider revising or replacing at least one of these proposed JPMs.
further during validation.
Written Exam Tier 1, Grp 1, Itern 55, Q 49, 2.3.4 annunciator response tested on dynamic extensively Tier 1, Grp 1, Item 62, Q 52, check overlap with scenario #3.
Tier 1, Grp 2, Item 61, Q 83, WA entry level for AOP and EOP does not sound like SRO topic more RO.
Tier 1, Grp 2, Item 33, Q 59, check overlap with Scenario #3.
Tier 2, Grp 1, Itern 13, Q 89, system purpose and function does not sound like SRO topic.
Tier 2, Grp 1, Item 64, Q 90, TS entry does not sound like SRO topic more RO.
Tier 2, Grp 1, Itern 22, Q 13, topic may be difficult to write a discriminating 0.
Tier 2, Grp 1, Item 62, Q 20, try to write more than simple power supply Q - more integrated plant - may be okay in limited numbers.
Tier 2, Grp 2, Item 68, Q 92, system purpose and function does not sound like SRO topic.
Tier 2, Grp 2, Item 11, Q 30, power supply to Pzr Htrs may be difficult to write an adequately discriminating Q on this topic.
Tier 2, Grp 2, Item 35, Q 34, GFE topic okay if make the Q operationally oreinted.
Tier 2, Grp 2, Item 68, Q 37, make sure doesnt test same area as Q 24 (item 73).
Tier 3, Cat 4, 0100, make sure written at the SRO level knolwedge of RO actions
maybe RO level.
Review completed on 6/20 and called licensee and left phone message ready to discuss comments. On Monday 6/25 licensee returned my phone message from 6/20 and I provided comments in a telecom with Jim Reid and John Brown.
ES-401 Ginna Written Examination 3iW Form ES-401-9 Review Worksheet
- 6.
/E/S E
Licensee verified minimum overlap of written exam questions for last 2 NRC administered exams at this site.
J. Caruso and D. Silk reviewed this exam. Received written exam from licensee 7/17/07. Completed review by both Silk and Caruso and consolidating comments and on July 23, 2007 provided comments to licensee July 23-24, 2007 (one week after receiving the exam).
NOTE 1: Reviewed all questions against WA statements specified in the question.
NOTE 2: Resolution of comments in bold and italics print.
- 7.
Explanation Would prefer you edit this question to analyze a failed seal B&D are not plausible distractors. Operators check this parameter all the time and it is no more than a very simple set point Question. Replaced 0 using same WA Not a real tight KIA fit since you are using normal path vs an emergency path. Modify Q to have normal boration unavailable so that A or C are correct. May elect to state basis for KIA match since normal path is not normal for this EOP. Modified 0 to provide tighter WA fit.
- 3. PSYC X
X E
E S
S 1
- 4. Job Content Flaws H vs F the correct answer is the shortest which highlights the correct answer. Revised 0.
What is the CRF position - typo CRS? Fixed H v s F Done
- 5. Other U
~~
C&D why is entering the Loss of CCW procedure plausible on an increasing tank level? Also what procedure could be used or is required to be implemented? Revised distractors Whv is inlet temp. Dlausible A & B ?? Revised
- 4. Job Content Flaws Link RO nly
- 5. Other I 6.
Explanation U/OS D not credible since its a safety valve leak. Some one could argue A is correct if they think that Rx trip coming also conservative action. Rewrote D and A is wrong based on the Q conditions S
- 7.
II E
I E change to H vs F Done Exolain distractors C & D.
E S
S S
E Will provide clearer explanation of distractors.
Explanation provided H vs F? 2 bits of information reqd Done TVDO in D iustification Fixed S
S E
E
[ S I U
Too simple - not discriminating GFE level???
Modified Q Tighten stem Added words by design in stem H vs Fneed to know A&B battery supplies to the EDG Beef up plausibility statements for A&6
2 2
F12 Psyc
- ues -
me1 r/F -
X x
x is I 5. Other
- 4. Job Content F IWS Explanation S
S S I S
S Minor editing to the distractors and provided SK
/eve/ in stem E
S S
S A, C, 8, D dont seem plausible.. If the reactor had U tripped Temp would decrease if Rx s/d Replaced with a bank Q that tested same K/A S
I Can two of the distractors address valve actions based upon IA pressure? Also, C is subset of A.
Can we also consider testing with AOV 5251 discusss how these valves work together why does 7000 close at 100 and 5251 open at less than 90?
Modified Q E
S I
Psychome q - G I/US S
Flaws
- red. Partia Jist. I X
X Explanation
- 4. Job Contenl U
ZJGp unit:
What local controls are we locating or operating we are just verifying local ccw flows are normal. Set-point Q okay in limited #. Also stem needs to be tightened. 0 was revised to match the WA and tightenedclarified stem X
E S
- 6. I Explained why A & B not plausible -
7 S I II S
Also, A & B not plausible (inserting rods after trip breakers open). Typo for CRS not CRF second occurrence do spell check and edit exam. Modified distractors U
Modify A&C to indicate S/Gs already blown down to improve plausibility S I II MFW P? Revised distractors
artial Job. It Link Flaws
- 6. I II
- 7.
II IUS Explanation C add the word isolation to match D. Please revise 0 to delete closing AOV-294 too leading the applicants know this valve should be open. 0 revised Note: interlocks prevent Open Letdown isolation valves before oping Letdown orfice isolation valves making A sequence incorrect.
E S
S t
l E improved the explanations for the disfractors Whv is A plausible? Revised S I S
S Replaced original 0 since it overlapped with a JPM randomly selected new KLA and picked a 0 from the bank S
S S
- 2.
- 3. Psychometric Flaws I 4. Job Content Flaws I 5. Other I 6 I
- 7.
I The regional review of the Ginna written exam submittal concluded a total of 19 potentially unsat questions.
C hestion Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 a123107 Comment Make it a seal failure analysis 3eef up justification Use original bank item Typo (CRF) Add description of vortexing concern Make Higher cog Is required -not could be used... plaus. of CID Resolution Will modify as directed Developed new item CE APPROVED Will describe use of normal boration as part of emergency boration procedure Substituted bank item CE APPROVED description Done CE APPROVED 6
Modified as directed Done CE APPROVED Will modify wording and either justify C andD or modifv
Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 8/23/07 8
9 12 13 14 15 17 18 NB plausibility?
D plausibility?
Make higher cog More explanation of C/D Beef up justification Wording and clarification post-review rligher cog Typo - Explain D Modified CE APPROVED needs new look Will modify to say hot leg and cold leg instead of inlet and outlet of RHX Modified d
condition Will describe plausibilitv. If no good, will modify..
Described Done CE APPROVED Will discuss actuations on manual vs. all SI signals, or modify distractors if required Added to description CE APPROVED Will add additional info Added info Modified as directed Done Modified as directed Done
Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 8/23/07 Post review clarifications Too easy - change Q or replace KA 4dd something about design time for
>perability iigher cog
'ost review technical mod
'ost review clarification
'ost review editorial nclude SG level in stem
'ost review technical change Nhat does B mean?
'ost review clarification
- oncern about anything here that saysreactor CE APPROVED Changed structure of stem e
attachment I will take a shot at this. If John doesn't like, we can replace KA Modified CE APPROVED editorial Will modify Q as directed Added words to stem CE APPROVED Done CE APPROVED Reviewer said conditions implausible - changed back to oriainal Question -
Done CE APPROVED Will provide a better description Done CE APPROVED Added bullet that turbihe is in IMP-IN I have other questions 7
I
Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 38 is tripped CID subset of NB. Ask about both valves KA Mismatch? I
$8 Beef up N B explanation 49 Post review clarification similar, will substitute 1 without reactor trip, or develop new Modified CE APPROVED Will modify as directed Modified CE APPROVED If John says KA MM, then maybe will need new KA.
Our discussion mentioned that he was thinking 026 Ctmt Spray. This KA is APE 026 Loss of CCW.
I think ok. left as is 51 CE APPROVED We think that at the RO B/D plausibility?
level (for this item) that dispatching and notifying are synonymous. Would like to leave. Otherwise we probably have to write at SRO level Left as is pmof Modified as directed Done CE APPROVED If description not enough, then may need to modify distractors.
Modified
Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 8/23/07 Plausibility of no entry to TS (CID) 52 53 55 i6 i8 i9
- et rid of AOV-294?
'ossibly remove last part of A and describe ilausibility of B
'ost review clarification leef up explanation beef up P-10 explanation (Minutiae?)
directed New item, a lot to understand here. I think plausibility is apparent, they have to know a lot to answer this. We are talking about splitting headers, not combining them, which is usually the cause for TS entry. Should we discuss more?
Left as is CE APPROVED Will work on removing Left in, since this is RO section of exam, the system response is appropriate, and removing the valve seemed to make the question less discriminating, there wasn't much to ask. So I put it back in Will work on description of B plausibility, it is part of 3asis for 2 PORVs 3one sptions Vlodified as directed lone
>E APPROVED Nil1 add to description.
Nas just trying to meet the
Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 8/23/07 50 51 62 63 65 68 69 71 74 Post review editorial Why is A plausible Post review clarification Post Review technical mod Post-operating exam changes caused overlap with JPM Post review clarification NA? Explain Who cares?
Borderline. Never seen before KA, so if John feels as though it is minutiae and you do too, I would be happy to randomly reselect KA Added to description CE APPROVED Changed will to could in St Was attempting to make a connection to valves that are operated in this alignment. There just wasnt much there. If I add to reasoning and it is no good, I will modify A Modified A CE APPROVED Randomly reselected KA and replaced question CE APPROVED Will explain. It partially has to do with the PT identified for a short period of time, Will maybe look at something else, possible KA replace ReDlaced ouestion CEAPPROVED Ive used it before. Could this be considered ok based on the remainder of the exam? It meets KA
Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 a123107 Left as is. Was hoping borderline meant
'borderline good' CE APPROVED
Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 8/23/07 KA mismatch? Add actions. Add whether refs are allowed (they are not) 76 78 79 30 31 Post review wording change and technical change Weak KA tie Loose fit to KA. Modify slightly Plausibility of AID I think if we add actions to this it may not make the question any different. The actions for these procedures arent really mutually exclusive. I will give it a shot but I think for SRO this may be our best bet for discriminatory value Added actions, you guys can decide if you like them CE APPROVED (Tentative)
Because the topic is ATWS we pretty much had to do it this way. We would normally make choices between reportable and not reportable to nail the ka but this was related to ATWS.
Left as is, not sure what else to do. It would be non-discriminating to offer a distractor that says ATWS is not reDortable CE APPROVED I think ok but will mod as directed and see how it looks Modified but please check carefully for technical correctness CE APPROVED I think these are good. I will improve description Added to description CE APPROVED
Ginna 2007 NRC Examination Post Review Modifications Revision 2 8/23/07 Post review mod -plausibility 82 84 85 86 87 90 91 92 94 100 Plausibility of A/C Post review mod for realism Post review technical mod RCS temperature 1" bullet Discussion on D plausibility Post review modification - editorial Post review mod - clarification SG A level value?
Post review mod -tech clarification Will improve description.
RCPs are checked available prior to depressurization. Just not run Done CE APPROVED Will imDrove wording Done CE APPROVED Done
39 100 B/C plausibility?
Maybe can add something to make them realize an ATWS has occurred.
Otherwise, may need some work Modified stem so they have to interwet conditions for BID plausibility?
discriminating becauseit is fairly deep into AOP Fire procedure usage. I would like to leave as is with maybe a better explanation.
Left as is and added to description I
I ATWS I thouaht this was pretty Right now it looks like we have 2 previous NRC questions on the RO and none on the SRO exam. I will make a final check when all questions are dispositioned.
SUMMARY
OF NRC COMMENTS FOR GINNA OP TEST For the SROU outline - ES-301, pg 14, D.4.a, states: 1) the SROU should evaluate at least 5 different safety functions. You have selected 2 safety function 2 JPMs and 2) One of the CR systems or evolutions must be an ESF - revions made by licensee and G will be safety function.
JPM A JPM C JPM D JPM E JPM G JPM H JPM J JPM A.l.a Step 5 The comment should be modified to read, When the applicant reports the failure ask the applicant what he recommends and if he states I would refer to ER-CVCS.l give it to him. If the applicant fails open and has not recommendation for next steps then state this JPM is complete. Comment accepted.
Why is step 9, closing CCW return valves from RCP thermal barrier a critical step with regards to an emergency boration? Seal package concern Step 6 - verify step doesnt critical - temp is critical.
Step 17 should this be critical? Critical sfep JPM doesnt test operator understanding one critical step 9 to operate breaker.
Not very discriminating Step 1 is not critical. (Verify)
Step 5 should this be Critical?
Step 7 is not critical. (Verify)
Step 8 is not critical. (Verify)
License replaced with a new JPM What is the target cooldown temperature based on S/G pressure step 3 and 4?
Another one step JPM not very discriminating. Revised JPM to have applicant determine required target temp.
The Step 4 cue directs the applicant to take the alternate path. This does not meet the intent of an alternate path JPM. The alternate path must be directed by procedure or doesnt meet criteria for alternate path JPM. Modify or replace this JPM. This JPM was replaced with a new JPM.
Step 9 is not critical. (Verify) cue PZR level 30%.
Too simple??? Locate equipment and depress plunger???? Should be replaced does not test operator understanding. JPM I already easy operate two valves.
This JPM was replaced with a new JPM.
Provide an exam key for this one. Exam keyprovided.
JPM A.1.b JPM A2 JPM A3 JPM A4 Walk me through this one and provide me Attachment 14 per step 3 - not provided. Attachment 14 not needed for this JPM narrative revised.
This is a simple reading exercise comparing to lists of equipment and recognition one parameter is out of spec.
Step 5 not critical. (Verify) JPM revised to perform in the simulator to make it more discriminating and to make step 5 not ciritcal.
May need or desire to do this one in the simulator. JPM revised to perform in the simulator to make it more discriminating Should be time critical (15 minutes) because PAR has to go out with the 15 minute notification. Revised to reflect initial PAR is time critical and clarified secondary PAR.
General Comments on Scenarios: 1) If we are going to use surrogates we need to ensure that the applicants get assigned most of the critical response actions. 2) When specifying taking manual action of a controller or placing a controller in manual the script should indicated the steps to accomplish this action.
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 If the BOP position is filled by a surrogate, can establishing AFW flow greater than 200 gpm be a CT?
This was recommended by the licensee due to an applicant being dropped.
The licensee proposed testing all 3 remaining applicants on all 3 scenarios (Le, each will be tested in all 3 positions). This required a fourth scenario to be developed and validated during the validation week @e., 3 plus a spare).
Event #4 - does VCT M/U stay in manual? Revised Based on validation week changed load decrease rate from 1OWhour to 1 %/minute.
Are there any TS associated with Event 5 also switch to alternate controlling channel?. Yes, revised.
Event #6&7 - commence rapid s/d? Based on validation week changed from event 7 to event 3.
See licensees summary for additional changes made following validation week.
Event 6&7 - List affected CI & CVI valves that should be manually closed -
revised to address comment.
No surrogates are now planned for this exam.
L/clm 4SOLh0.J of- &&&&
f i c o f l #s On July 9, 2007, R.E. Ginna submitted the following NUREG-1021 (Revision 9) forms to Region I, NRC in support of an initial licensing examination scheduled for 8/27/07:
ES-301-1 ES-301-2 ES-301-3 ES-301-4 ES-301-5 ES-301-6 ES-D-1 ES-D-1 ES-D-1 Administrative Topics Outline (For Operating Test N07-1-1)
Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline (For Operating Test N07-1-1)
Operating Test Quality Checklist (For R.E Ginna Operating Test)
Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist (For R.E Ginna Operating Test)
Transient and Event Checklist (For R.E Ginna Operating Test)
Competencies Checklist (For R.E Ginna Operating Test)
Scenario Outline (For Simulator Scenario N-07-1-1)
Scenario Outline (For Simulator Scenario N 1-2)
Scenario Outline (For Simulator Scenario N-07-1-3)
Since that time, the operating test has undergone additional on-site validation testing, with the NRC present, resulting in changes to some of the documents originally submitted. The following summarizes these changes:
ES-301-1 The Type Code for JPM A2 changed from N, R to N, S. It was decided during validation week that the JPM would be more discriminating if the Simulator was used, rather than cues from the examiner, to provide the candidate with the necessary feedback for task performance.
The Type Code for JPM A3 changed from N, R to N, S. It was decided during validation week that the JPM would be more discriminating if the Simulator was used, rather than cues from the examiner, to provide the candidate with the necessary feedback for task performance, and to allow performance of some tasks rather than mere discussion with the examiner.
Administrative Topics Outline (For Operating Test N07-1-1)
The narrative of JPM Alb was changed to reflect that Attachment 14 would not be needed by the candidate as originally believed.
The narrative of JPM A2 was changed to reflect that the Simulator would be used as the setting.
The narrative of JPM A3 was changed to reflect that the Simulator would be used as the setting.
The narrative of JPM A4 was changed to reflect that the initial PAR is Time Critical and to more specifically define the secondary PARS.
ES-301-2 JPM D was changed out altogether. The original JPM was involved a transfer of Instrument Bus A from normal to maintenance feed and had a low LOD. This was a Control Roodn-Plant Systems Outline (For Operating Test N07-1-1)
bank JPM. The re-written JPM involved a transfer of the B Instrument Bus from the maintenance feed to normal feed (A reversal of the original task). This JPM is new. The new JPM also includes additional board action as the candidate must place several controllers in and out of automatic control prior to and after operating defeat switches.
On the final controller operation, the controller will fail and the operator will need to take manual action. The Type code on this JPM changed from S, D, to S, N. It was felt during validation week that this JPM did not meet the requirements of an Alternate Path JPM, even though the controller failure existed.
JPM E was changed to include the determination of the target cooldown temperature by the candidate. The original JPM provided the target temperature, therefore after validation the scope of the JPM was expanded.
JPM G was changed out altogether. The original JPM G was selected for the SRO Upgrade candidates and tested Safety Function 2. However, JPM H, also selected for the SRO Upgrade candidates, also tested Safety Function 2. The new JPM was selected to test a different Safety Function (5) and satisfy the requirement for the SRO Upgrade candidates to perform one JPM on an ESF in the Control Room.
JPM J was changed out altogether. The original JPM was a bank JPM that was determined to have a low LOD. A new JPM was developed and verified to have a higher LOD. The original JPM had two steps in which the candidate had to take actions in panels that were a few feet apart in the plant. The new JPM actually involves two separate tasks that would be expected to be performed by an operator outside the Control Room when identifying and responding to a Steam Generator Tube Rupture.
ES-301-3 The change involved the date that the author completed the checklist recorded as 8/10/07.
This date should be revised to 8/18/07 as subsequent re-work was needed on JPM A2.
ES-301-4 A second form was added to support a fourth Simulator Scenario (N07-1-4). During the NRC Validation week, the Licensee indicated to the NRC that only three of the four candidates originally intended to take the exam, would actually sit for the exam. Because of this, a decision was made between the Licensee and the NRC to have the three candidates rotate through the three positions (CRS, ATC RO, BOP), rather than use surrogates. Because of this, three scenarios and a spare would be needed; or a total of four (4) simulator scenarios. A fourth Simulator Scenario, which was the spare scenario produced by the Licensee for the 2006 NRC Exam, and not used for the NRC Exam, was used as a base scenario. Because the scenario had been placed in the Facility Licensed Operator Requalification Exam Bank, the scenario was substantially modified, and validated. The scenario was compared against the Criteria of ES-301, Section D.5.d and determined to have the necessary quantitative attributes. This is shown on ES-301-4, Page 2.
Operating Test Quality Checklist (For R.E Ginna Operating Test)
Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist (For R.E Ginna Operating Test)
ES-301-5 Because the Licensee has decided to send only three candidates rather than four, this form was modified to reflect that there would be two SRO Upgrade Candidates and one Instant SRO Candidate.
Transient and Event Checklist (For R.E Ginna Operating Test)
Additionally, because there are now four Simulator Scenarios rather than three, the crew position assignments to the specific scenarios were modified.
ES-301-6 Competencies Checklist (For K.E Ginna Operating Test)
Because there are now four Simulator Scenarios rather than three, the form was modified to show the competencies for Scenario 4 at the SRO and the ROATC position.
ES-D-1 Scenario Outline (For Simulator Scenario N-07-1-1)
Corrected typos.
ES-D-1 Corrected load decrease rate from lo%/ hour to l%/minute.
Scenario Outline (For Simulator Scenario N-07-1-2)
Moved Rapid Downpower event from Event 7 to Event 3.
Eliminated need to degrade SGTR to 10 gpm (removed Event 6).
The Block of the Automatic Rx Triu was changed to include a failure of the manual pushbuttons as well, requiring the operator to de-energize the 480 volt busses on the ATWS.
Corrected typos.
ES-D-1 Corrected typos ES-D-1 This scenario was added during validation week. During the NRC Validation week, the Licensee indicated to the NRC that only three of the four candidates originally intended to take the exam, would actually sit for the exam. Because of this, a decision was made between the Licensee and the NRC to have the three candidates rotate through the three positions (CRS, ATC RO, BOP), rather than use surrogates. Because of this, three Added the Tech Spec portion of the failure to the script for Event 5 (Przr Failure).
Scenario Outline (For Simulator Scenario N-07-1-3)
Changed IRPI Failure to MRPI Failure to reflect correct nomenclature.
Added (TS) to Event 5 for SRO.
Scenario Outline (For Simulator Scenario N-07-1-4) spare would be needed; or a total of four (4) simulator scenarios. A Scenario, which was the spare scenario produced by the Licensee for the
2006 NRC Exam, and not used for the NRC Exam, was used as a base scenario. Because the scenario had been placed in the Facility Licensed Operator Requalification Exam Bank, the scenario was substantially modified (New initial conditions, four new events added, four old events removed), and validated.
Several Changes to JPMs were considered:
JPM C JPM D JPM E JPM H JPM H Changed Performance Step 17 to a Critical Task.
Considered making Performance Steps 7, 10 and 14 Critical Steps.
Steps 7 and 14 deal with the Charging Pump Speed Controller going back to Auto operation after having been placed in manual for defeat switch manipulation. The procedure steps allow for either manual or automatic operation and therefore should not be critical. If the candidate places the controller in auto, or leaves the controller in manual, he is compliant with the procedure. On the other hand, Step 10 deals with the same issue on Przr pressure controller 431 K and does not offer the candidate the same option. The procedural guidance simply states to place the controller in auto, and therefore the task should terminate with 431 K in Auto. If not, the plant will be left outside of normal configuration. Step 10 was made a Critical Step.
Considered making Performance Step 2 a Critical Step. This Step when performed will render the JPM an alternate path JPM. The intent is to use the normal steam dump system to cooldown the RCS during a SGTR. However, when the step is performed the Steam Dumps will not open and the candidate will be required to implement an alternate path. This is step should not be a Critical Step because it will not be able to performed with success. This JPM was not changed.
Changed Performance Step 8 to a Critical Task. Changed Comment so that the cue originally provided in Step 8, was provided in part in step 8 (Level indicators on scale), and part in Step 9 (Actual Przr Level). Changed actual level cue from 30% to 4% to cause candidate to increase Charging Flow in Step 9.
Considered making Performance Steps 18 and 19 Critical Steps.
Decided against this because these steps relate only to closing off the ventilation in the Turbine Building as a precautionary against a potential radioactive release from the steam plant during a SGTR. If the steps were completed incorrectly, or not completed at all the essential task of isolating the ruptured Steam Generator from the steam plant is not affected. This JPM was not changed.
Several Changes to Simulator Scenarios were made:
N07-1-1 N07-1-2 N07-1-3 N07-1-4 ES-301-3 ES-301-4 ES-301-4b ES-301-5 ES-3016 On ES-D-1 changed Event 8 from M (Major Transient), to C (Component Failure) at request of Lead Examiner, and changed Event 9 from C (Component Failure) to M (Major Transient) also at the request of the Lead Examiner.
Corrected Typo on Page 31 in Examiner's NOTE.
Revised ES-D-1 to include attributes associated with the BOP at request of Lead Examiner. BOP receives credit for:
Event 6 (N)
Event 8 (C)
Event 9 (M)
Event 10 (C)
Corrected Typo on Page 30 in BOP Step to "Try to Establish MFW Flow to at Least One S/G," 2nd Bullet, 1" sub-bullet.
Revised ES-D-1 to include attributes associated with the BOP at request of Lead Examiner. BOP receives credit for:
Event 3 (N)
Event 6 (M)
Event 7 (C)
Event 8 (C)
Also assigned Events 7 and 10 as a component failure for the RO.
Revised ES-D-1 to include attributes associated with the BOP at request of Lead Examiner. BOP receives credit for:
Event 5 (C)
Event 6 (M)
Corrected Typo on Page 1 on ES-D-1 Initial Conditions, and on Page 2 narrative, 1 paragraph.
Revised ES-D-1 to include attributes associated with the BOP at request of Lead Examiner. BOP receives credit for Event 5 (N), as well as others that were previously listed.
Changed date of authorship from 8/10/07 to 8/18/07.
No Changes No Changes Added the ROATC individual attributes for SROUl and 2, and added the BOP Attributes for all three candidates. Re-totaled all individual attributes.
Revised the ROATC competencies and added competencies for BOP.