ML21113A002

CG-2021-02-DRAFT Outline Comments

ML21113A002
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	03/04/2021
From:	Greg Werner Operations Branch IV
To:	Energy Northwest
References
50-397/21-02 50-397/OL-21
Download: ML21113A002 (1)

Text

PROPOSED OUTLINE COMMENTS Facility: CGS First Exam Date: 2/22/21 Written Exam Outline (Date)

Comment Resolution Rejected K/A question 22. I will allow the No action necessary 1 change, but you have written an SRO level question to this K/A in 2017.

Administrative JPM Outline (Date)

Comment Resolution The descriptions of A1 and A5 are identical. Replaced with modified bank JPM.

1 A5 must be written to the SRO level, so the JPMs should be different.

2 Is A9 time critical? Yes, noted a time critical A3. OFR should be FOR. can not Corrected typos 3

should be cannot.

4 A9. CLSSIFY should be CLASSIFY Corrected typo Control Room / In-Plant System JPM Outline (Date)

Comment Resolution Though not a strict requirement, I would like Made P3 an alternate path and have the upgrade to see either P1 or P2 as alternate path. As perform P3.

1 of now, none of the in-plants are alternate path, and would like to see one, and one that is performed by the upgrades.

The (E) designation is for emergency or Removed the designation.

2 abnormal in-plant. None of the simulator JPMs should carry this designation.

The Upgrade cannot perform both S6 and Changed the upgrade to perform P3 instead of P1 since they are both safety function 4. P1.

3 According to NUREG 1021, all five SRO-U systems must serve different safety functions.

Simulator Scenario Outline Comments (Date)

Comment Resolution Scenario 1, it is possible that events 4 and 5 Verified separate events 1 are a single event. Ill need to see it in validation. OBDI 202 - IOLE Process Rev 3