ML15084A080: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:DRAFT OUTLINE COMMENTS | {{#Wiki_filter:Attachment 6 OBDI 202 - IOLE Process Rev 1 DRAFT OUTLINE COMMENTS Facility: | ||
Written Exam Outline (Generated by NRC on 9/10/14; Comments Based on 11/20/14 Proposed Revisions) | Comanche Peak First Exam Date: | ||
Comment | 03/23/15 Written Exam Outline (Generated by NRC on 9/10/14; Comments Based on 11/20/14 Proposed Revisions) | ||
and 2 questions. See NUREG-1021, ES-401, Section D.1.b. | Comment Resolution 1 | ||
Question 63: When the site has to do an | Question 53: The proposed replacement K/A, generic 2.1.14, is not one of the K/A statements approved for use in Tier 1 and 2 questions. See NUREG-1021, ES-401, Section D.1.b. | ||
infrequent, planned gaseous release, as | The subject matter became Question 26, Tier 2, Group 1, 078 Instrument Air. The K/A statement was changed to Generic 2.1.23. | ||
Processing System (GWPS) (example: | 2 Question 63: When the site has to do an infrequent, planned gaseous release, as described in FSAR Section 11.3.3.1, ventilation would be controlled as part of the process. Assuming there is a procedure to conduct this discharge, it would seem that design parameters associated with the Gaseous Waste Processing System (GWPS) (example: | ||
FSAR Table 11.3-2) would be monitored to ensure that appropriate actions are taken if alarms/trends associated with them require some action. Verify that there are no parameters tied to GWPS design controls that are not monitored in this situation. | FSAR Table 11.3-2) would be monitored to ensure that appropriate actions are taken if alarms/trends associated with them require some action. Verify that there are no parameters tied to GWPS design controls that are not monitored in this situation. | ||
Editorial: Add the Date of the Exam to | This issue was discussed with the licensee. | ||
Based on review of system design, there were no ventilation components within the purview of a Reactor Operator during a gaseous discharge that would allow for writing an adequate question to this K/A statement. Therefore, this K/A statement was rejected, and replaced with Tier 2, Group 2, 035 Steam Generator, K/A Statement A1.02. | |||
3 Editorial: Add the Date of the Exam to the Tier 3 form (Form ES-401-3). | |||
Editorial comment resolved. | |||
Administrative JPM Outline (Date) | Administrative JPM Outline (Date) | ||
Comment | Comment Resolution 1 N/A - written RO exam only Control Room / In-Plant System JPM Outline (Date) | ||
Comment | Comment Resolution 1 N/A - written RO exam only Simulator Scenario Outline Comments (Date) | ||
Comment | Comment Resolution 1 N/A - written RO exam only}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:41, 10 January 2025
| ML15084A080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/2015 |
| From: | Vincent Gaddy Operations Branch IV |
| To: | |
| laura hurley | |
| References | |
| Download: ML15084A080 (1) | |
Text
Attachment 6 OBDI 202 - IOLE Process Rev 1 DRAFT OUTLINE COMMENTS Facility:
Comanche Peak First Exam Date:
03/23/15 Written Exam Outline (Generated by NRC on 9/10/14; Comments Based on 11/20/14 Proposed Revisions)
Comment Resolution 1
Question 53: The proposed replacement K/A, generic 2.1.14, is not one of the K/A statements approved for use in Tier 1 and 2 questions. See NUREG-1021, ES-401, Section D.1.b.
The subject matter became Question 26, Tier 2, Group 1, 078 Instrument Air. The K/A statement was changed to Generic 2.1.23.
2 Question 63: When the site has to do an infrequent, planned gaseous release, as described in FSAR Section 11.3.3.1, ventilation would be controlled as part of the process. Assuming there is a procedure to conduct this discharge, it would seem that design parameters associated with the Gaseous Waste Processing System (GWPS) (example:
FSAR Table 11.3-2) would be monitored to ensure that appropriate actions are taken if alarms/trends associated with them require some action. Verify that there are no parameters tied to GWPS design controls that are not monitored in this situation.
This issue was discussed with the licensee.
Based on review of system design, there were no ventilation components within the purview of a Reactor Operator during a gaseous discharge that would allow for writing an adequate question to this K/A statement. Therefore, this K/A statement was rejected, and replaced with Tier 2, Group 2, 035 Steam Generator, K/A Statement A1.02.
3 Editorial: Add the Date of the Exam to the Tier 3 form (Form ES-401-3).
Editorial comment resolved.
Administrative JPM Outline (Date)
Comment Resolution 1 N/A - written RO exam only Control Room / In-Plant System JPM Outline (Date)
Comment Resolution 1 N/A - written RO exam only Simulator Scenario Outline Comments (Date)
Comment Resolution 1 N/A - written RO exam only