ML17213A216
| ML17213A216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/2017 |
| From: | Jesse Seymour Operations Branch III |
| To: | Point Beach |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16319A340 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML17213A216 (2) | |
Text
Point Beach 2017 ILE Outline Review Comments Written Exam Outline Comments NRC: The Tier 3 row needs to be split and include the totals from that page.
o Facility response: although it is not split in the available forms, it is normally split in submittals to the NRC. We manually made this adjustment in Adobe on the master.
NRC: T1/G1 appears to be grouped together in # column.
o Facility response: we explained that this is to ensure we show sampling exposure for both the generic and W/E specific KAs in that row.
NRC: For clarity, use the # column for question numbers to correspond with those found on the exam.
o Facility response: we added the question numbers in the # column.
NRC: Add a.0 to the importance for KA 013A1.01 o Facility response: this was fixed.
NRC: Regarding the sampling methodology for T1/G1, there is a concern with the number of non-sampled areas between RO and SRO T1/G1; would prefer to see some of the four non-sampled areas selected.
o Not sampled were Loss of CCW Uncontrolled Depressurization of all SGs (Facility comment: this was actually sampled by 040)
Loss of offsite power Loss of main feedwater o Over sampled were PZR vapor space accident Loss of RC makeup Loss of SW Inadequate Heat transfer o Facility response: we can deselect the two from the oversampled group and randomly pick two of the non-sampled for replacements. We dropped PZR vapor space accident and Loss of Nuclear SW, and replaced them by randomly sampling to get Loss of CCW and Loss of Main Feedwater NRC: Replace 2.1.29 with 2.1.2 for SRO T3, based on 10CFR55.43 tie.
o Facility response: replacement made.
NRC: Need to clarify the selection method regarding RO T2/G1 SYS 062 K5 rejection. Since the instructions say to pick from all of the systems once before selecting a second topic, why did you reselect to 075 K5.02 instead of reselecting another 062 K/A? Update the explanation for clarity.
Facility: we added detail to the explanation of sampling methodology to clarify this. We also added additional clarification to provide same depth of explanation on other areas.
Point Beach 2017 ILE Outline Review Comments Operating Exam Outline Comments NRC: There is no low power scenario (<5% per NUREG-1021); this is a should statement versus a firm requirement however. The lowest initial condition power level is 29% with startup activities in progress.
NRC: In Scenario 2, Event 2 (raise power to 50%), Form D-1 lists the BOP operator as receiving normal evolution credit, while the RO receives reactivity manipulation credit. The ES-301-5 information is inconsistent concerning the tabulation of credit from Scenario 2, Event 2; applicant SRO-I 1 is listed as receiving normal evolution credit from being in the BOP position during this event, however, RO 2 (who will also be in the BOP position during this same event) is not listed as receiving similar credit on the ES-301-5. Update the ES-301-5 form to reflect the D-1 information.
o Facility response: NUREG-1021 allows the power changes to be categorized as either reactivity or normal events (but not both). Based upon discussion, will update SRO-I 9 to get credit for a reactivity evolution in scenario 2, and a normal evolution in scenario
- 3. Also, RO 2 will be updated as not receiving credit for a reactivity event in scenario 2.
Will update ES-301-5 as required. Revised 301-5s resubmitted.
NRC: The D-1 forms for scenarios 1-3 all include 1PT-950 as being OOS. Likewise, all scenarios list 1W-3B, Control Rod Shroud Fan, as being OOS. Was this intended or a typo?
o Facility Response: intentional to minimize predictability.
NRC: in Scenario 4, ATC component malfunction credit may potentially not be allowed for both Events 5 & 7. The presence of diagnosis and verifiable action will need to be reviewed for both of these events when Form D-2 is submitted.
o Facility response: will revise the D-1 for scenario 4 to merge events 5 & 7 and only give credit for one malfunction to the ATC. ES-301-5s will be updated as necessary. Revised D-1 and ES-301-5s resubmitted.
NRC: Due to similarities in Admin JPM tasks between SRO and RO applicants, exam security will require running the applicable RO and SRO admin JPM combinations on the same day.
o Facility response: acknowledged and will check exam schedule accordingly.
NRC: Form ES-301-1 lists 4 out of 5 SRO Admin JPMs as being tasks that require the review of a completed procedure. Requested that facility explain thought process behind this.
o Facility response: wanted to ensure that SRO Admin JPMs were all tasks that were at the SRO license level.