ML111470399
| ML111470399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/2010 |
| From: | Bielby M NRC/RGN-III/DRS/OLB |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML103080788 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML111470399 (37) | |
Text
2010 BYRON STATION IN ITlAL EXAMINATION ADMINISTRATIVE FILES
ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1 I
Facility: Bvron Station, Units 1 and 2 Date of Examination: Weeks of 9/27 and 10/04/2010 Developed by: Written - Facility IXI NRC 0 // Operating - Facility IXI NRC 0
-120
- 2.
NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.e) meb
-120
- 3.
Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c) meb Target Date*
- 6.
Integrated examination outline(s) due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-201-3, ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-D-l's, ES-401-1/2, ES-401-3, and ES-401-4, as applicable (C.l.e and f; C.3.d)
Task Description (Reference) meb Chief Examiner's Initials
(-70)
(-45)
-30
-14 11
-180 I 1.
Examination administration date confirmed (C.1.a; C.2.a and b)
I meb (7.
Examination outline@) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility licensee (C.2.h; C.3.e))
- 8.
Proposed examinations (including written, walk-through JPMs, and meb scenarios, as applicable), supporting documentation (including Forms ES-301-3, ES-301-4, ES-301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-401-6, and any Form ES-201-3 updates), and reference materials due (C.l.e, f, g and h; C.3.d)
Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398's) due (C.1.I; C.2.g; meb
- 9.
meb ES-202)
- 10.
Final license applications due and Form ES-201-4 prepared (C.1.l; C.2.i; meb ES-202)
-14
-14 11
-120 I 4.
Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.d)
I meb
- 11.
Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review (C.2.h; C.3.f)
Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.l.j; C.2.f and h; C.3.g) meb
- 12.
meb
~~~
~
11 1-90]
I [5.
Reference material due (C.l.e; C.3.c; Attachment 311 I NA
- 13.
11
-7 I
(C.2.i; C.3.h)
Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor meb
- 14.
Final applications reviewed; 1 or 2 (if >IO) applications audited to confirm qualifications / eligibility; and examination approval and waiver letters sent n
-7 I
(C.2.i; Attachment 5; ES-202, C.2.e; ES-204) meb
-7
- 15.
Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed meb with facility licensee (C.3.k) distributed to NRC examiners (C.3.i)
-7
- 16.
Approved scenarios, job performance measures, and questions meb
- Target dates are generally based on facility-prepared examinations and are keyed to the examination date identified in the corporate notification letter. They are for planning purposes and may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the facility licensee.
[Applies only] {Does not apply} to examinations prepared by the NRC.
ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3 3
- 1.
Pre-Examination rlz.f&. -
?
I - -
I I acknowledge that I have acquired speciaiized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of ddcd as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct ar indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
'1 i
? ;
5
- 2.
Post-Examination during the not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered the date that 1 entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, 1 did not feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted
- % I-
- 1.
Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of I-s/i/co as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensees procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
- 2.
Post-Examination To the best of my kno during the week(s) instruct, evaluate, below and authorized by the NRC.
not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1 )
DATE SIGNATURE (2)
DATE NOTE
ES-201 Examination Security Agreement Form ES-201-3
- 1.
Pre-Examination I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of ('f8/zaj* as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee's procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised.
q/Z 7/ Za/O -
- 2.
Post-Examination To the best of my knowled e I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing examinations administered during the week(s) of %/,+yzej~y From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.
/Z79ZhP PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1)
DATE SIGNATURE (2)
DATE NOTE
0 e
I l l I
n 4
0
ES-401 Record of Rejected WAS Form ES-401-4 Tier I Randomly Group Selected K/A RO TUG1 062 2.2.17 RO TUG1 065 2.2.18 RO TUG2 003 2.4.21 RO T2/G1 022 A4.04 1 Reason for Rejection Cant write relevant RO level question on Managing Maintenance Process on Loss of SX. Replaced with 2.2.15 to determine expected plant configuration.
Cant write relevant RO level question on Managing Maintenance Activities on Loss of IA. Replaced with 2.2.41 to interpret mechanical drawings.
Overlapped with SRO exam 029; also assessing safety functions for a dropped rod not a good fit for RO level. Replaced with 2.4.8 for knowledge of relationship of AOPs and EOPs.
Overlapped System JPM for CNMT Cooling. Replaced with A4.04 for CNMT readings.
EAL classification not RO responsibility. Replaced with 2.4.31 for knowledge of procedures.
Same WA on audit exam. Replaced with K5.05 for feed line voiding.
Same WA on audit exam. Replaced with K1.03 for fuel oil supply system.
Overlap with SRO exam. Replaced with A3.02 for emergency heat loads.
Cant write a relevant question for process of controlling equipment configuration of Rod Position System. Replaced with 2.2.40 to apply TS.
Oversampled-also on SRO exam. Replaced with 033 A2.02 for Loss of SFP cooling Oversampled-also on SRO exam. Replaced with 2.1.15 for knowledge of temporary management directives.
Overlapped SRO exam. Replaced with 2.1.20.
Overlapped SRO exam. Replaced with 2.4.39.
Cant write a relevant question about the Fire Protection procedures as related to Uncontrolled Depressurization of SGs. Replaced with 2.4.41 for EAL action levels and classifications.
Overlapped RO exam. Replaced with 2.4.32 for response to loss of all annunciators.
WA for Fuel Handling doesnt fit SI termination; Also oversamples topic with RO W/EO1 selected. Replaced with W/E08 2.1.7 for evaluating and making judgements for PTS.
Overlapped SRO admin JPM. Also, cnmt questions have been sampled so that cant write a unique question for available topics.
Replaced with 061 A2.05.
KJA for knowledge of chemistry limits doesnt fit with CNMT purge system. Replaced with 2.1.36 for procedures for core alterations.
Cannot monitor battery discharge rate from Byron MCB. Replaced with A4.02 for battery voltage indication, which is on the Byron K/A is for manuallautomatic transfer of control of IA system.
There are no manual or automatic transfer features of the IA system at Byron. Replaced with K4.02 for crossover to other systems.
KJA is double jeopardy with question # 3 (281 12)WA 004 K4.13.
Replaced with K5.06 for Operational implications of seal flow plus charging flow WA is not an RO function-determining the magnitude of a release from a FH accident is a Nuclear Engineer function. Replaced with AA2.02 for Occurrence of a FH incident.
ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1 Quality Checklist
- 4.
Grading for all borderline cases (80 k2% overall and 70 or 80, as applicable, +4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail Facility: '3 N Date of Exam: I o / S - / j 0 Exam Level: R O R S R O M I
W p # ( hQJ 2
I Initials Item Description a
b C
- 1.
Clean answer sheets copied before grading
- 2.
Answer key changes and question deletions justified I
and documented
- 3.
Applicants' scores checked for addition errors (reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations)
- 5.
All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades are justified rflrif5
- 6.
Performance on missed questions checked for training deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of questions missed by half or more of the applicants Printed Name/Signature Date
- a. Grader
- b. Facility Review r(*)
- c. NRC Chief Examiner (*)
- d. NRC Supervisor (*)
(*)
The facility reviewer's signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; two independent NRC reviews are required.
ES-403, Page 6 of 6
THERE WERE NO NRC COMMENTS AND RESOLUTION ON THE LICENSEE OUTLINE FOR THE BYRON 2010 INITIAL EXAMINATION.
Operating Test Comments JPM Comments
- SRO-U,-I, RO AI -RO AZRO/SRO A3-RO A I -SRO AB-SRO A4-SRO A5-SRO Si m/C Ra SimlCRg lPi*
Changed JPM step 9 cues from ACB 2412 BUS ALIVE light is LIT... and ACB 2422 BUS ALIVE light is LIT... to BUS 241 BUS ALIVE... and BUS 242 BUS ALIVE....
Added The examiner will provide approval signatures when required. to the Initiating Cue.
Added cue before JPM step 1 CUE: The reactor tripped at (NOTE to Evaluator: Fill in the time as 5 minutes before the JPM start time.)
Change step 2 cue from CUE: The SRO has signed step F.l.k. to Evaluator Note: Sign step F.l.k as the SRO.
Added step 3 cue Evaluator Note: Sign step F.3.g as the SRO.
Added to Step 1 and a calculator.
Changed JPM step 3 Standard from 44.33 PSIG ((44 to 45 PSIG) to 5 44.33 PSIG.
Changed JPM step 5 to OC GDT is 4 X I O 4 CURIES (Had left off the 4 )
Changed the Initial Conditions list of personnel to a table Removed from JPM steD IO: Cue: Loa entw made. by the U1 NSO, stating that this is an planned entrylP and ENTER Pl&nedin LOG. -
Added new 2. Jay Eby, ext 2473, is originating the Containment Entry Checklist, BAP 1450-T2. to the Initiating Cues.
Added Jay Eby and 2473 to JPM step 3 Standard.
Changed Plant Conditions step 4 Annunciator 0-38-E5, AcceleroqraRh Accel High is in alarm and the National Earthquake Center reports it as a 0.39 seismic event to separate steps: Annunciator 0-38-E5, Acceleroqraph Accel Hiqh is in alarm and The National Earthquake Center reports it as a 0.39 seismic event, Page 4 Added Close 1 CV8149A-C, and 1CV459 and 1 CV460. Close 1 CV8105 and 1 CV8106.
Page 5 Added Reactor Power is c 99.5% and and BOTH letdown heat exchangers to for maximum cooling.
Page 6 Changed remains to stabilizes at Page 6 Changed generator output cue to 1245MW Page 7 Added NOTE to When the candidate highlights the calorimetric calculation on the Alarm typer, direct the candidate to NOT select print, and provide the copy of the computer printout.
Page 8 Inserted new step 11 to Highlight the calorimetric calculation on the Alarm Typer and select PRINT, and moved cue to Provide the printout to this step.
Fixed typo (NI 41)
Following pages Renumbered steps appropriately, including the critical steps. Renumbered the critical steps on the summary page IO.
Page 9 Changed critical step 20 standard to 99.91% to 100.41%.
Added CUE: (if asked): The MCR controllers for AFOOSA-D on -PMOGJ indicate 0. to 1 p a g e
Operating Test Comments IPj*
IPk*
NOTE before JPM step 4.
Made the JPM specific for a 11 1 to 21 1 DC crossties. Filled in blanks to 21 1 or 11 1 as appropriate. Changed rev # to 4 and updated Revision Summary page.
Changed JPM step 3 from Cue:The meter selection switch is in the BUSposition to NOTE: The meter will read the same voltage in either the Bus or Battery position.
Removed Select Bus for the Bus Meter from JPM step 3 standard.
Removed Note before JPM step 7: The last two steps may be performed in either order -
the preference is to close DFI on the Bus this JPM is being performed on LAST. If on U1 step F.l.h (JPM #8) is performed first and on U2 step F.l.g. (JPM #7) is performed first.
Made the JPM specific to Unit 1. Filled in blanks to make Unit 1 as appropriate. Changed rev # to 4 and updated Revision summary page.
Removed Unit 2 locations from JPM step 1 Scenario Comments Scenario 10-1-95% BOL; steamline break inside ctmt; faulted SG Scenario IO-2-12% BOL; SGTR; SI Page 3 Changed IOR to IMF Changed Plant Summary to Plant Status Page 4 Changed CDICB-2 to CDICB-1 Added IOR ZAOO11CSO3PC 365 to event 3 to prevent candidate throttling OCW220 because of pump runout Page 5 Added and begin the ramp as soon as possible to event 6 Page 6 Made Verify with EO... and Check Oil Pressure OPEN Bullets as they are substeps of Starting the LO pump Page 8 Removed typo (I after RCP)
Page 14 Changed boration amount to 240 gallons and rods to 178 steps to better match Rema.
Page 17 Removed for train B Page 19 Changed to 18 CS pump is running and Group 6 phase B lights ALL LIT except CS PUMP A RUNNING light is NOT LIT Page 20 Inserted Page Break to keep Critical Task steps together on next page Page1 Changed 14% to 12% and 154 steps to 147 steps. Added The offgoing shift has just diluted 100 gallons and IA MDFP is 00s for maintenance.
Page 2 Changed 14% to 12% and 154 steps to 147 steps. Added The offgoing
Operating Test Comments Scenario IO-365% MOL; Primary Leak; ATWS Scenario IO-4-95% BOL;
-oss of FW shift has just diluted 100 gallons and IA MDFP is 00s for maintenance.
Page 3 Added Dilute 100 Gallons. Provide a boration/dilution log with 100 Gallons Dilution for Temperature Control to the oncoming crew. Provide 1 BGP 100-3T1 initialed up to step 27.
Added Place C/O tags on the 1A MDFP CIS, its aux oil pump CIS, discharge valve CIS, and recirc valve CIS.
Page 4 Added IBGP 100-3 to event 1 and event 2 actions (typo)
Page 6 Made turn on Synch Switch, Adjust Gen Volt and Adjust Gen speed OPEN Bullets Added Adjust Feedwater Flow as needed Page 7 Changed 1CV9149B to 1CV8149B Page 12 Added (1-10-D8) to PDMS inoperable; (1-10-86) to RIL alarm; (OWS graphic 5501) to Turbine RB; and (BP 4.6) to C-7 Page 14 Removed for train B Page 15 Inserted Page Break to keep Critical Task steps together on next page Page 17 Combined the steps to isolate steam flow and feed flow in one critical task. Bolded the critical steps and added note that (critical steps are bold)
Page 18 Added When necessary, bypass P-I 2 interlock using Bypass Interlock Switches A & B Page 4 Shanged to IMF TU01 D 9 1200 6 and added from an initial severity of 3
age 13 4dsed and bypassed age 8
- hanged raise to lower age 9
- hanged lCV9149B to 1CV8149B 4dded Orifice lsol Valves and Letdown Is01 Valves age 10
- hanged 1CV8148A-C to 1CV8149A-C Jage 11 4dded Recirc Valve Jage 15 3 J P a g e
Operating Test Comments Scenario 10-5100%
EOL; Unisolable Primary Leak Moved Check at least 1 CV pump running Page 1 Made MF TH08A 10 instead of 100 Removed TS call for events 4 and 6 Page 4 Made MF TH08A 10 instead of 100 Page 5 Changed leak size to 50 (per outline)
Page 6 Removed Verifylplace 1 CV112A to VCT Added step numbers Changed 1 CV8402B to 1 CV8401 B Verifylplace 1 VI29 to DEMIN Changed US step to Notify Rad Prot and Chemistry of change in CVCS lineup Page 9 Changed CREW actions to Notify Chemistry to calculate decontamination factor of letdown demineralizer & Notify Chemistry sample for DE 1-131 and gross radioactivity Added May place AB Charcoal Booster Fans OVAO3CB and OVAO3CF in service Page 11 Changed (0-37-e6) to (0-37-E6)
Made step to evaluate TS 3.7.9 an OPEN BULLET Page 13 Added Annunciator CNMT VENT ISOL (I-I-CCi) is LIT Changed Close 1 CV8324A to Close 1 CV8324B Page 14 Made step to evaluate TS 3.4.13 an OPEN BULLET Page 16 Remove for train B Page 18 Changed IF the leak size hasnt been increased before reaching step 7 to IF the leak size hasnt been increased before reaching step 17 Page 21 Changed 1S18804A to 1CV8804A
- Exelan, I
October 15, 2010 Nuclear Exelon Generation Company, LLC www.exeloncorp.com Byron Station 4450 North German Church Road Byron, IL 61010-9794 LTR:
BYRON 2010-0124 File:
1.10.0101 Mark Satorius Regional Administrator, Region Ill U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2443 Warrenville Road Suite 21 0 Lisle, IL 60532-4352 NUREG 1021 Rev. 9 Section ES-501 Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455
Subject:
Enclosed are the post examination comments for the 201 0 Byron Initial License Examination administered September 27 to October 8,2010. This submittal includes comments on two exam questions. It is our recommendation that question #91 be corrected to reflect a different correct answer than the original and grading adjusted accordingly, and that question #53 remain unchanged.
In addition, the items listed below will be hand delivered to Mike Bielby, Chief Examiner, or his designee, at NRC Region 111 offices.
Submittal of 201 0 Byron Initial License Examination Post-Examination Comments Written examination seating chart Graded written examinations with copy of each applicants answer sheet Master examinations and answer keys Questions I answers during the written examination Substantive comments / responses following the exam Results of any written examination performance analysis performed Original Form(s) ES-201-3, Examination Security Agreement, with pre-and post-examination signatures will be delivered as soon as all the post-examination signatures have been completed.
Per our discussion with Mike Bielby, we request the NRC withhold public disclosure of the exam in ADAMS for 2 years so we can have the exam available for internal use.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact David T. Gudger, Regulatory Assurance Manager, at 81 5-406-2800. For questions concerning the enclosure materials, please contact Robert F.
Peterson at 81 5-406-3228.
Respectfully, Daniel J.@nright Site Vice President Byron Generating Station DJEiRPFITLHicy Attachments cc:
NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Byron Station wlo attachments
ecc:
Illinois Emergency Management Agency - Division of Nuclear Safety, w/o attachments Site Vice President - Byron Station, w/o attachments Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, w/o attachments Regulatory Assurance Manager - Byron Station, w/o attachments Director - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs - Braidwood and Byron, w/o attachments NRC License Coordinator - Byron Training, with attachments Exelon Document Control Desk Licensing, w/o attachments
- Exelan,
~-
Exelon Generation Company, LLC www.exeloncorp.com Byron Station Nuclear 4450 North German Church Road Byron, IL 61010-9794 October 15,201 0 LTR:
BYRON 2010-0124 File:
1.10.0101 NUREG 1021 Rev. 9 Section ES-501 Mark Satorius Regional Administrator, Region Ill U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2443 Warrenville Road Suite 21 0 Lisle, IL 60532-4352 Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455 Submittal of 201 0 Byron Initial License Examination Post-Examination Comments
Subject:
Enclosed are the post examination comments for the 201 0 Byron Initial License Examination administered September 27 to October 8,2010. This submittal includes comments on two exam questions. It is our recommendation that question #91 be corrected to reflect a different correct answer than the original and grading adjusted accordingly, and that question #53 remain unchanged.
In addition, the items listed below will be hand delivered to Mike Bielby, Chief Examiner, or his designee, at NRC s.
Region Ill offices.
Written examination seating chart Graded wntten examinations with copy of each applicants answer sheet Master examinations and answer keys Questions / answers during the written examination Substantive comments / responses following the exam Results of any written examination performance analysis performed Original Form(s) ES-201-3, Examination Security Agreement, with pre-and postexamination signatures will be delivered as soon as all the post-examination signatures have been completed.
Per our discussion with Mike Bielby, we request the NRC withhold public disclosure of the exam in ADAMS for 2 years so we can have the exam available for internal use.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact David T. Gudger, Regulatory Assurance Manager, at 81 5-406-2800. For questions concerning the enclosure materials, please contact Robert F.
Peterson at 81 5-406-3228.
Respectfully Daniel J.@nright Site Vice President Byron Generating Station DJEIRPFITLHlcy Attachments cc:
NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Byron Station w/o attachments
ecc:
Illinois Emergency Management Agency - Division of Nuclear Safety, w/o attachments Site Vice President - Byron Station, w/o attachments Vice President - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, w/o attachments Regulatory Assurance Manager - Byron Station, wlo attachments Director - Licensing and Regulatory Affairs - Braidwood and Byron, w/o attachments NRC License Coordinator - Byron Training, with attachments Exelon Document Control Desk Licensing, w/o attachments
Byron NRC Exam Applicant Comments Question 53 Given the following plant conditions:
Annunciator 1-147, "Remote S/D Panel Trouble" is LIT SER Point 1846 is printed for "Remote Shutdown Panel IA Press LowLoss of Power Alarm".
Reference@) provided.
With this alarm LIT, Relay 1 PSL-IA9X is -( 1 )-,
and device 1 EL-IA009 is -(2)-.
A.
de-energized energized B.
energized energized C.
energized de-energized D.
de-energized deenergized Answer:
A Answer Explanation:
With low pressure, 'I PSL-IA009 is open, de-energizing relay I PSL-IAQX. Contact 1 PSL-IASX is NC, so is closed, energizing 1 EL-009.
The annunciator bas contact IPSL-IASX 3-4, which is NC, and has to be closed to bring in the alarm.
Provided reference: 6E-1-40301A06 K/A APE065 G2.2.41 Loss of Instrument Air: Ability to obtain and interpret station electrical and mechanical drawings.
Applicant:
Applicant's comment:
Choice L): *de-energited, de-energized is the correct answer.
The question did not state that Radwaste Panel alarm OPLOl J A6, "Panel lnst Air Supply Press Uvf was lit, as would be expected if IA pressure were low. Per NRC rules, since the alarm was not in, only a loss of power or blown fuse could cause the listed alarm. If the annunciator circuit had lost power or fuse FU4-X or FU4-Y had blown, then both Relay I PSL-IAQX and device 1 EL-IA009 will be de-energized.
The clarification came &fer the applicant completed the exam. Also, the clarification failed to address the lack of Radwaste Panel alarm.
Facility recommendation:
The applicant asked for clarification on question 53; "Is the failure a fuse or just loss of air?" The proctor's response was "Fuses are intact and the annunciator circuit has power available." The response was delayed while the clarification was being researched, and when the clarification was made, the applicant had turned in his exam and left. There were still 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> left before the end of the RO exam.
The clarification eliminates a loss of power or blown fuse as the cause of the failure, leaving Choice A: "de-energized. energized as the correct answer, because device 1 EL-IA009 is
Byron NRC Exam Applicant Comments energized. The clarification was justified because the applicant still has to interpret the drawing and was not cued as to the status of the listed devices by the clarification. 6E-1-40301A06 is attached, with an explanation of the answer written on it.
The applicant turned in his exam before the clarification was made. He had been informed his question was being evaluated, so the information would have been available to him had he chosen to wait for the response.
\\
The facility recommends making no change to the grading of the question.
'I L
.^
1 h
Byron NRC Exam Applicant Comments Question 91 Given the following plant conditions:
0 0
0 0
A Unit 1 is at 60% power.
The controlling Pressurizer Level channel indicates 100%.
The other hot calibrated Pressurizer Level channels indicate 40%.
CHG LINE FLOW HIGH LOW (1-9-D3) is LIT.
The AUTO and DECREASE lights on 1CV121 MIA Controller are LIT.
There is -(I)-
GPM charging flow. The SRO will direct -(2)-
to address the failure.
A.
0 B.
52 C.
52 D.
0 locally bypassing 1 CV121 per BOP CV-26, CV Valves Bypassing, Isolating and Restoration locally bypassing 1CV121 per BOP CV-26, CV Valves Bypassing, Isolating and Restoration manual control of 1 CV121 per 1 BOA Inst-2, Operation with a Failed Instrument Channel manual control of 1CV121 per 1BOA Inst-2, Operation with a Failed Instrument Channel Answer:
C
\\L,.
Answer Explanation:
The controller for 1 CV121 goes to minimum of 52 GPM flow when in AUTO and 0 demand. With the controlling P u level channel high, there will be 0 demand for charging.
This is a failed channel, addressed by 1 BOA Inst-2, which directs taking manual control to restore Pzr level to normal (46% at this power).
1 CV121 would be bypassed if the valve itself failed and could not be controlled from the MCR, and that evolution would be controlled by BOP CV-26.
Reference:
1 BOA Inst-2, Operation with a Failed Instrument Channel, BCB-1, Fig 34 KIA APE028 AA2.05 Pressurizer Level Control Malfunction: Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the Pressurizer Level Control Malfunction: Flow control valve isolation valve indicator.
Applicant's comment:
Choice D: "0, manual control of 1CV121 per 1BOA Inst-2, Operation with a Failed Instrument Channel" is the correct answer.
The controller for 1CV121 is controlled in automatic by the Master Pressurizer Level controller When the Master Pzr Level controller output goes to minimum demand, it lowers the 1CV121 controller demand to about 26%. The 1CVI21 "Decrease" light does not go on. 1CV121 has a control bias to maintain about 52 GPM charging flow.
-1
Byron NRC Exam Applicant Comments For the given indication in the question that 1 CV121 controller "Decrease" light is lit, there must be 0% demand on lCV121, indicating 1CV121 is closed. In this situation, charging flow will be 0 GPM.
Facility recommendation:
The Byron simulator used to respond in the manner stated in the question, with 1CV121 "Decrease" light lit when the Master Pzr Level controller had minimum demand, and maintained 52 GPM charging flow.
\\.A Simulator Work Request 11733 "M/A Station for 1CV121 should indicate approximately 26% in Auto when at minimum flow of 52 GPM" was created on 5/14/2009, based on IR 918608. The simulator was subsequently changed so that when the Master Pzr Level controller has minimum demand output, qCV121 "Decrease" light is not lit, and there is 52 GPM charging flow.
For the conditions stated in the question, if 1 CV121 'Decrease" light is lit, 1 CV121 will be fully closed, and charging flow will be 0 GPM, as stated in Choice D.
The facility agrees with the applicant's comment. The question should be changed so that Choice D: "0, manual control of 1CV121 per 1BOA Inst-2, Operation with a Failed Instrument Channel" is the correct answer.
SWR# 11733 Simulator Work Request Nuclear itation should indicate approximately 26%. It currently indicates O%, so when manual mode is mtered, flow immediately drops to zero. In IC 21, stabilized values on 1 LK-459 should be ipproximately 44% and 1 FK-121 should be approximately 67%. Investigate and repair.
'his was noted during IM training and feedback was submitted by C. Harrison, IMD via IR 91 8608.
Panel Information:
1 PMOSJ IC Information:
21 Initiator:
Training Requested By:
Reauested Date:
15/14/2009 Authorized Date:
511 812009 SRB Number:
Priority:
C Routine IDeferred: 1 Type:
Maintenance Resaondina Department:
SW IMalfunction Update Review Complete:
I Y
1
Completion Date:
7/6/2009 Closed Date:
na12009 Exam Security Review Complete
)Preliminary:
I Y JFlnal:
I Y
Remote Functions Added I
1 ueietea I
Malfunctions Added I
Deleted
c---------------
Appended on 5/15/2009 9:09:01 AM b Introduced the bias of 52 gpm for the controller 1 CV121 to indicate the correct numbers for the M/A station. At the same time the value of the normalization const CVKTNCCP was changed from 0.0033 (1/303) to 0.005 (1/200), which is the right normalization for the flow; 0-200 gpm.
The constant adjustment will require re-snap all ICs - put 1 CV121 and 1 FK459 controllers into manual right after IC load. Adjust the flow CVFTt21A to its nominal value (Le. in the IC 21 it is 135.5 gpm). Put the above controllers back into auto mode and re-snap the IC (from T.Holder).
Appended on 6/1/2009 6:34:49 PM by -
reset to ic21 inserted malfunction to fail controlling Pzr level channel to 100%
observed that master Pzr Lvl controller demand dropped to 0%
observed that in approximately 5 minutes, CV121 controller reached approximately 26%
placed 1CV121 in manual and adjusted charging flow above and below nominal 52 gpm restored 1 CV121 to automatic and observed that controller slowly returned to approximately 26%
observe that 1 LK-459 indicates approximately 44% in auto observe that 1 FK-121 indicates approximately 67% in auto imf rxl3a 100 observe that 1 LK-459 drops to 0%
observe that 1 FK-121 drops to approximately 26%
observe that 1 FI-121 indicates approximately 52 gpm place 1 FK-121 in manual and observe that flow remains approximately 52 gpm decrease demand on 1 FK-121 observe that flow reduces to 0 gpm as demand is decreased to 0%
increase demand on 1 FK-121 observe that flow raises above 52 gpm as demand is raised above 26%
place 1 FK-121 in auto observe that demand trends back to 26% and flow trends back to 52 gpm Training I
0 I
$1 00.00 Other Costs Total Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$1,200.00
t I
I init dnt I
N/A I
NIA I
Modified I
AR - Assignment Report rage I or 4 8 Go Back Print I New Search I Home AR 00918608 Report Aff Fac:
Byron AR Type:
CR Status:
COMPLETE Aff Unit:
00 Owed To:
A8861CAP Due Date:
06/11/2009 Aff System:
TM Event Date:
04/20/2009 LevellC lass:
Discovered:
WWPIMS AR:
Equip Tag:
CR 4/D Disc Date:
04/20/2009 How H02 Orig Date:
05/12/2009 Action Reauest Details
Subject:
==
Description:==
TRAINING SIM MIA STATIONS BEHAVIOR NOT MODELED PROPERLY-3 IS Originator:*-!
Supv Contacted: -
Condition
Description:
Training Simulator M/A station's behavior not modeled properly-3 issues.
Recently, when the behavior of some MCB Training Simulator M/A stations were observed, it was noted that behavior modeled was incorrect. There were 3 issues that were noted. One quite important one has to do with possibly all the 7300 M/A stations behavior in MANUAL mode. Another had to do with the responses of FK-CV121. A third issue has to do with the
'response of M/A stations SK-0509B h C for the TDFW pumps, After discussions with Brian Clark and Terry Holder, correttlons to the modeling of the Simulator are supposed to be already in the works, but for info, I will attempt to describe the Issues In detail below.
The first and most important issue was that the Manual response of each observed (thus probably all) 7300 M/A station was not proper. I n Manual, outputs ramp much faster than they should. A real 7300 M/A statlon output In Manual (with the behavior Byron has selected presently) takes 20 seconds to linearly ramp from 0 to 100 O/o output. The Simulator M/A stations observed ramped from 0 to 10Ooh In approximately that time, or less. I understand that this has significant implications, but thls should be corrected. Perhaps this is at the root of the reason Braidwood uses the other Manual behavior on all their plant 7300 M/A stations, including MFRV M/A stations? (IRs 742105, 298865)
The second issue had to do with the CVl2l controller M/A response.
A small variety of behaviors that were not accurate were observed. At one point, the CV121 M/A output was at zero with the Low Limit lite lit, but the FI-121 flow indikator stayed a t 52 GPM, which is incorrect. When FK-121 was put to Manual, the output did not respond to the Raise pushbutton, which is incorrect. Another time the CV 121 flow control M/A station output was driven to a low value by the LC459 output. With a stable, on scale M/A station output indicator reading, the CVl2l M/A station MANUAL button was pressed, and the M/A station output indicator immediately fell to zero percent, which is incorrect.
The real CVl2l flow controller M/A station output will not fall to zero when the M/A station is put to manual, but will freeze the signal to the valve, and respond to the Operators pressing of the RAISE and LOWER buttons, just like any other M/A station. The operator will be able to drive the 121 valve all the way shut in manual if he wanted, driving flow http://eamgenco.ceco.com/cap/servletiReportARSemlet 1 0/12/20 1 0
. AR - Assignment Report Page 2 of 4 to zero.
The confusion for modeling the 121 behavior comes in, I suppose, due to a bias of 26% which essentially is added to the signal coming from LC-0459, resulting in.52 GPM even when LC-0459 output is 0%. If LC-0459 were, for some reason, to put its output a t 0%, the CV121 controller set point is still: 0 + 26% = 26%.
The a 1 2 1 M/A station in AUTO under those condltions will maintain flow at approximately 52 GPM (flow range 0-ZOOGPM). Again, if the M/A station is put to manual, the control loop will go to manual just like any other loop, freezing the output and waiting for a MISE or LOWER button press from the Operator.
The third issue has to do with the TDFW pump M/A stations SK-05096 R C.
When either of those has been In MANUAL, their output may have been put at a value not the same as that of the Master Speed controller (SK-0509A).
Returning to AUTO must result in SK-5098 or C going to the same output as the Master, minus any bias dialed on the setpoint pot by the Operator.
When this happens in the real plant equipment, upon return to Auto, the difference will decay away in a fashion resembling an RC time constant curve. The time constant is dependent on a jumper and the Reset thumbwheel setting on the Controller card (SC-05096 &C). At present, this time constant is in the 30 to 45 second range. The exact response can be supplied to Simulator modelers quite easily. This decaying away of the difference is to smooth transfer from MANUAL. to AUTO modes, since normal bumpless transfer is not possible with the arrangement of those controllers (SC-05096 8t C).
On the Simulator, when either of those M/A statlons is switched to Manual, their output is simply snapping immedlately to the ouput of the Master station, which is incorrect. In the past, before being corrected wlth the Reset switch setting, this triggered very noticeable oscillatlons of the speed of both turbine driven pumps, which may or may not have settled out without Operator intervention.
Immediate actions taken:
Talked t-,
talked tol(lll)
Recommended Actions:
Correct the modeled behavior to make Operator training accurately reflect plant.
Why did the condition happen?
The training Simulator is only as accurate as the knowledge of the people who program it.
What are the consequences?
Inaccurate paradigms about how the real plant will respond to Operator intervention of controls, perhaps causing us to choose a poor option in response to a situation.
As mentioned earlier, this false belief about how the Main Feed Reg Valve MIA statlons respond may be a t the bottom of why Braidwood chooses the
'72" Manual behavior and Byron chooses the "linear" Manual behavior (20 seconds versus 6 seconds--see the other mentioned IRs).
Operable Basis:
Reportable Basis:
SOC Reviewed by:
http://earngenco.ceco. codcap/senrletlReportARServlet 1 O/I 2/20 10
SOC Comments:
Send to Training for Actions. dd 05/13/09 Include Braidwood Station input on this issue. SOC 051409 Simulator fidelity is an important issue. Recommend a WGE to Training to evaluate this issue and determine additional actions as needed. It is recommended that Braidwood take part in the evaluation such that the two stations take the same actions and the potential concerns regarding the Main Feed Reg Valve M/A stations is properly resolved. Good catch to Chris Harrison.
Feedback from-is as follows "The training items should come to training for action. A Simulator Work request needs to be written to investigate and/or improve response, or a Plant/Simulator difference be documented. Rich".
dd 05/13/09 Manager review performed by: 5 Manager Comments:
Concur with action to create simulator work request.
Per MRC 5-19-09 Create Action to address simulator training needs.
J lynamic AR Attributes GOOD CATCH:
'rend Codes rcq ETR104 Rank Lssignments Assigned To:
status:
COMPLETE Rssign #:
01 4ff Fac:
Byron Prim Grp:
ACAPALL Due Date:
05/29/2009 bsign Type:
TRKG Sec Grp:
Orig Due Date: ~ICI/~IP/C(CIW Jriority :
Schedule Ref:
Jnit Condition:
jubject/Dwcription: TRAINING SIM MIA STATIONS BEHAVIOR NOT MODELED PROPERLY-3 I S 02 Assigned To:
BYRNH Status:
COMPLETE bsign #
\\ff Fac:
Byron Prim Grp:
A8861TROPP Due Date:
06/05/2009 bsign Type:
ACIT Sec Grp:
Orig Due Date: 06/05/2009
'riority:
ichedule Ref:
Jnit Condition:
iubjectlDescription:
described in the IR, or a Plant/Simuiator difference be documented. Document SWR Create Simulator Work Request(s) to,..investigate and/or I mprove response as
numbers and/or resolution.
Assign #:
03 Assigned To:
BYRNH status:
COMPLETE Aff Fac:
Byron Prim Grp:
A8861TR Due Date:
06/ 02/2009 Assign Type:
ACIT Sec Grp:
Orig Due Date: 06/02/2009 Priority:
Schedule Ref:
Unit Condition:
Subjmescdption: Address simulator training needs http://eamgenco.ceco.com/cap/servlet/ReportARServlet I -'
10/12/20 1 0
Byron NRC Exam Applicants Questions and Answers Question 10 -
Applicant question:
Are you asking if the reactor trip is based ONLY on what happened to RCP 1D or on overall plant response?
Proctor response:
Consider the plant response ONLY to the RCP 1D trip.
Justification for response:
The bus that was de-energized is a power supply to 2 of 4 CDKB pumps and the Startup Feedwater pump, so if the applicant assumed that equipment was being operated, the plant would trip on a loss of feedwater. The intent of the question is to test RPS interlocks for a loss of RCS flow, and the response did not cue the applicant to the correct answer.
Question 13 1 Applicant question:
Provide noun names for the valves listed in question number 13.
Proctor response:
1SX147B 1B CNM ChilIer SX Bypass Valve 1 WOOO6B 1B & 1D RCFC Cffi Coils Inlet Header Outside CNMT Isol Valve 1W0006A 1A & 1C RCFC CLG Coils hlet Header Outside CNMT Is01 Valve 1W0056A 1A & 1C RCFC CLG Coils Outlet Header Inside CNMT Isol Valve 1 W0056B IB & 1D RCFC CLG Coils Outlet Header Inside CNMT Isol Valve Justification for response: The facility does not expect the applicants to know valves by valve number only.
Question 31 -
Applicant question:
Are any other alarms lit?
Proctor response:
Only if the alarm is expected as a result of the stated conditions.
Justification for response:
This response was from Appendix E, Part B 7: For example, you should not assume that any alarm has actuated unless the question so states or the alarm is expected to activate as a result of the conditions that are stated in the question.
Question33 w Applicant question:
When was the deluge valve opened?
Proctor response:
All necessary infomation is provided in the question.
Justification for response:
Providing a specific time for the valve to be opened couId have resulted in cueing the applicant to the correct answer, or even directing them away from the correct answer. No further information was needed to answer the question.
Question36 -
Applicant question:
Does tanks in Choice D mean 2 separate tanks?
Proctor response:
All necessary information is provided in the question.
Justification for response:
Providing the information of 2 separate tanks could have resdted in cueing the applicant to the correct answer, or even directing them away from the correct answer. No M e r information was needed to answer the question.
Question49 w Applicant question:
Does natural circulation flow refer to complete loop flow?
Proctor response:
Yes Justification for response: The intent of the question and the WA is to ask the effect of steam binding on natural circulation flow, not on reflux cooling. The clarification did not cue the student to the correct answer.
Byron NRC Exam Applicants Questions and Answers Question 53 -
Is the failure a fuse or just loss of air?
Proctor response:
Fuses are intact and the annunciator circuit has power available.
Justification for response: If a fuse was blown or power lost, a different answer would be correct. The applicant was not cued as to the correct answer, and they still must interpret the print in accordance with the supplied clarification.
Question62 -
Applicant question:
Does the question ask what is happening automatically or what we have to take manual action on?
Proctor response:
Change stem to...suppression will be AUTOMATICALLY actuated to...
Justification for response:
The question requires knowledge of the Fire Protection automatic response, so the clarification was appropriate to prevent the applicant answering what could be manually operated.
Question68 w Applicant question:
Stated that both choices A & B are correct, as the reactor operator will perform followup steps.of 1BEP-0 Attachment B with the procedure in hand.
Proctor response:
Answer the question in accordance with OP-AA-101-11 1.
Justification for response: The question was stated in accordance with OP-AA-101 - 1 1 1.
Also, Attachment B is NOT performed unilaterally by the reactor operator-the Unit Supervisor directs the reactor operator to perform that attachment.
Applicant Question74 ques tl on:
Is-lBFR S.1 a typographical error?
(Choice C referred to lBFR S I ; I was san-serif)
Proctor response:
Correct to lBFR S.l.
Byron NRC Exam Applicants Questions and Answers Question86 -
Applicant question:
Is it safe to assume all equipment actuated as required? Based on CNMT pressure of 22 psig.
Proctor response:
All necessary information is provided in the question.
Justification for response:
Applicants were read Appendix E and needed to evaluate equipment operation based on the conditions of the question.
Question 87 -
Applicant question:
Are we to assume only Bus 141 lost offsite power?
Proctor response:
All necessary infomation is provided in the question.
Justification for response:
Applicants were read Appendix E and needed to evaluate equipment status based on the conditions of the question.
(SRO)
BYRON NRC WRllTEN EXAM OCTOBER 8,2010 FRONT OF ROOM PROCTOR TABLE BACK OF ROOM