ML082830189
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| ML082830189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/2008 |
| From: | Garchow S Operations Branch IV |
| To: | Southern California Edison Co |
| References | |
| Download: ML082830189 (1) | |
Text
SONGS 2008-09 EXAM Draft Outline Review Comments (discussed with licensee on 6/13/08)
Scenarios:
- 1. Are the Reactivity events (2, 3, and 4) going to make the scenarios too slow?
Consider dumping normals and reactivities and go with all malfunctions.
- 2. Why are we putting SROI-3 and SROI-1 through all 4 scenarios? It should only take 3 scenarios for that crew. Should put SROI-3 on ATC for Scenario-3 and eliminate need for Scenario-4.
- 3. Which of the Scenarios are new or significantly modified?
- 4. Assuming only 3 Scenarios are needed, would like to re-order them:
Scen-1 = LOOP/SBO (***drop and replace with #4)
Scen-2 = SGTR w/ MSSVs failing open - outside CTMT (keep as is)
Scen-3 = SGTL/SGTR w/Stuck CEAs (***drop and replace with #6)
Scen-4 = LOOP/SBO w/RCP Seal Failure/SBLOCA (***move #4 to #1)
Scen-6 = LOOP w/Loss of MFW/Loss of ALL FW (***move #6 to #3)
JPMs:
No comments.
ADMINs:
- 6. Is RO-A.4 (public address and siren) really going to be performed by an RO in an event? Is this really a challenging task? Consider a more discriminating task.
- 7. RO-A.2 sounds difficult to grade. Make sure grading criteria is clear.
- 8. SRO-A.3 sounds like it could be too easy - will have to see how it looks when developed.
- 9. For SRO-A.4, will the form be faulted? Will the candidate be told how many errors to find?
Consider having the candidate fill the form out himself rather than reviewing a faulted form.