ML15167A145

2015-04 - Draft Outline Comments

ML15167A145
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	05/05/2015
From:	Vincent Gaddy Operations Branch IV
To:	Energy Northwest
References
Download: ML15167A145 (2)

Text

DRAFT OUTLINE COMMENTS Facility: CGS First Exam Date: 4/24/15 Written Exam Outline (Date)

Comment Resolution RO Q#48 - K/A was replaced due to Exam writer spent a day attempting to could not write a question to this K/A correlate High Drywell pressure and Drywell 1

topic. Request more detail. Radiation levels and could not develop a question making this correlation.

SRO Q#95,97 - K/As replaced due to SRO #95 - While a question could be written, Could not write discernable SRO only the exam writer could not develop three question. Request more detail. credible distractors.

2 SRO #97 - This generic KA applies to both RO and SRO candidates alike. All questions developed could have been deemed to be RO knowledge also.

Administrative JPM Outline (Date)

Comment Resolution The SAG flowchart does not meet the This JPM was removed from the exam and intent of an E-Plan JPM. Which K/A replaced with an EP type JPM..

1 covers SAG knowledge? Need to justify or replace JPM.

Control Room / In-Plant System JPM Outline (Date)

Comment Resolution S2, S4, & S7 - all have electric plant S2 has no electrical plant actions.

shifts. Need further justification as to S4 does have electrical board actions.

1 why they meet the various safety S7 was replaced due to comment 2.

functions.

S7 has been on both previous exams - S7 was removed from the exam and a new 2 need to replace this JPM due to JPM was developed as a replacement.

predictability.

It does not appear that any ESF systems The EN designations for this JPM was 3 are actually operated in S2. Need to removed from the outline.

justify or replace JPM.

Does the simulator model the remote The operation of RCIC from the RSD panel shutdown panel? Does the remote was removed from the exam and replaced 4

shutdown panel JPM have other in-plant with a different plant JPM.

actions?

5 Is P-3 in the RCA - the R count says Added R to this JPM designation. OBDI 202 - IOLE Process Rev 1

3, but there is no R designation for P-3 Simulator Scenario Outline Comments (Date)

Comment Resolution Only 1 scenario that is going to be run Added an instrument failure to scenario 1.

(Scenario 4) has any instrument failures. I took a look at the event types for the Scenarios 1, 2, &3 are all component remaining scenarios and noted some that 1 failure exclusive. Need to replace some were classified as C should have been Cs with Is. classified as I Scenario 2 has two Is; Scenario 3 has one I; Scenario 4 has three Is; Scenario 5 (Spare) has two Is.

In general - Critical tasks need to be In progress.

2 bounded with some conditions that state by when the task must be accomplished.

Scenario 1 - I7&I10 are listed as SRO Corrected.

3 and BOP. Their BOP should be moved to Scenario 2.

I2, I5, I8 & I11 only get one I/C in ATC Added note to scenario guide. Reviewed position (3 in BOP position). This leaves guide and fairly confident ATC will get his us close to missing a requirement if bean.

4 these applicants do not respond to this one event. Need to add I for these applicants at the ATC position.

Scenario 1 - what is the reason for the Removed TSW pump swap normal evolution.

5 second normal (DG surveillance)?

Scenario 1 - does the uncoupled rod Yes - fully insert the control rod.

6 have verifiable actions?

Scenario 2 - does not have any I/C Corrected. Event 8 has a component failure failures after the major event designated. which has been indicated on its D-1.

7 Need to clarify what is being taken credit for or add two malfunctions.

Scenario 3 - DG fails to auto start - are Yes - Start the DGs.

8 there verifiable actions?

Scenario 4 - Is the electrical ATWS truly Yes - relays are failed to give ATWS 9 an instrument failure or is it a component condition.

failure?

Scenario 5 - CRD flow controller failure Corrected.

10 should be I not C. OBDI 202 - IOLE Process Rev 1