ML082830189

SO-2008-09-Draft Operating Outline Comments

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.