ML13317A649
| ML13317A649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 06/21/2013 |
| From: | David Reeser Operations Branch III |
| To: | AmerGen Energy Co |
| David Reeser | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML11354A433 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML13317A649 (3) | |
Text
2013 Clinton Initial Licensed Operator Examination Outline Review I.
Operating Test A.
- 1.
JPM 513 - Perform a Locked High Radiation Area Entry Provide an explanation of how this JPM differs from JPM 410, Read a Survey Map, which was used on the previous two exams.
RESPONSE: The previous JPM simply required identification of information on the map. JPM 513 requires the examinee to determine requirements for entry based on information provided on the map.
B.
- 1.
JPM 516 - Select Volunteers and Authorize an Emergency Exposurfor a Life-Saving Operation Provide an explanation of how this JPM differs from JPM 450, Authorize an Emergency Dose for a Life-Saving Operation, used on the last examination.
RESPONSE: Previous JPM authorize a single individual and included the required briefing. JPM 516 evaluates three individuals, one of whom cannot be authorized due to a previous emergency exposure.
- 2.
JPM 514 - Determine Reporting Requirements per OP-AA-106-101 Provide an explanation of how this JPM differs from JPM 101, Prepare and Event Notification Worksheet, used on the 2009 SRO examination.
RESPONSE: Previous JPM was for ROs who had to complete a notification of an Emergency Classification. JPM 514 requires SROs to determine the reporting requirements (50.72) for ERDS failure.
C.
Control Room Systems
- 1.
JPM 414 - Parallel DG 1B with Offsite Power Replace of Modify - This would be the third consecutive exam in which this JPM has been used.
RESPONSE: JPM being replaced.
- 2.
JPM 517 - Turbine On-Line Tests Provide and explanation of how this JPM was modified from JPM 415 used on the 2010 examination.
RESPONSE: JPM 517 is an alternate path version of JPM 415.
D.
Simulator Scenarios
- 1.
Scenario 1, Event 8 Why is the Terminate and Prevent Critical Task specific to HPCS only?
Should include all applicable EOP-3 Detail F systems.
RESPONSE: Will be changed to include all applicable systems.
- 2.
Scenario 2, Event 8 Is there some sort of precursor, or indication for the loss of the RAT (e.g.,
a lightning strike or earthquake induced sudden pressure fault - see comment 4 below)?
RESPONSE: Event 8 now Event 9. There is no specific precursor other than failure occurs during automatic bus transfer with corresponding alarms to indicate reason for lockout.
- 3.
Scenario 3, Event 7 Low discriminatory value event; Minimal manipulation involved in response to event.
RESPONSE: Event modified to require start of standby pump to replace affected pump.
- 4.
Scenario 2/3 Add an additional Instrument/Component failure for either the BOP in Scenario 2 or the ATC in Scenario 3. This will give ROs 2 and 4 n+1 component failures (currently have only the minimum). Suggest adding the Scenario 4, Event 5 Earthquake to Scenario 2 (occurring simultaneously with the CD pump trip).
RESPONSE: I/C failure added to Scenario 2 for BOP.
- 5.
Scenario 3, Event 9 If not already designed as such, recommend starting the steam break small enough to allow the crew to exercise the RCS Leakage Off-normal before being forced to initiate the SCRAM.
RESPONSE: Event modified to incorporate Off-Normal implementation.
II.
Written Exam A.
Rejected K/As
- 1.
K/As should not be rejected solely because there is not a link in the K/A manual to 55.43(b).
RESPONSE: Discussed with facility author.
- 2.
At first glance the number of rejected K/As appears excessive (one or more K/As rejected on 23/75 questions and 14/25 SRO questions). A more detailed review indicated that only 9 (5 RO and 4 SRO) questions had K/As rejected during the initial outline preparation. Explanations provided by facility were evaluated and found to be acceptable.
RESPONSE: Discussed with facility. No additional action required.