ML15002A229

2014 Braidwood Station Initial License Examination Outline Review Comments

ML15002A229
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	11/24/2014
From:	Morris R Operations Branch III
To:	Exelon Generation Co
Shared Package
ML14344A985	List: ML15002A205 ML15002A210 ML15002A225 ML15002A229 ML15002A263 ML15014A398 ML15014A401
References
Download: ML15002A229 (4)

Text

2014 Braidwood Outline Review Comments/Questions WRITTEN OUTLINE (ES-401-4)

1. On ES-401-4 explain why the original K/A was rejected for question #83 and why it would place double jeopardy with K/A 000061.K3.01.

Had typed wrong K/A on 401-4 and there is an overlap with the corrected information.

ADMIN JPMs (ES-301-1)

1. R-111A Perform reactivity calculation. How is this different than the calculations done prior to scenarios for reactivity changes during power maneuvers? If there is a scenario which requires applicants to calculate similar reactivity changes, dilution/boration, etc. it may be a repeat with the JPM. This is not allowed by NUREG, may want to have the specific section in mind just to let the licensee know. Usually, it is required for the scenarios as part of their turnover and activities required for the reactivity manipulations for taking credit. For the JPM consider alternative, alternate path, unusual situations if this type of activity is planned for the JPMs.

JPM has been changed to R-110, Off-site AC availability Surveillance K/A 2.1.31 was used on 2011 exam.

2. R-200 Perform worker Tagout checklist. Is this performance of an actual Tagout?

Explain what is meant by checklist. When was this tagout done in the past?

Must review completed Tagout for inaccuracies.

3. S-105 Response to a fire detector/suppression alarm. How will this be accomplished?

Is this an ADMIN JPM, if responding to an alarm and panel manipulations, sounds like a systems JPM. How does it relate to ADMIN, unless T/S documentations, etc.

US perform callouts for actions. No physical actions.

SYSTEMS JPMs (ES-301-2)

1. System JPM F - How does this fit the K/A A2.19, Synchronize 1A DG and respond to Gov Adj and overspeed trip failures? Why is this marked as a low power JPM? Usually DG JPMs can be done at any power. Low power is supposed to have some unique situations compared to being able to do it at any power level.

Will not count as low power.

2. In-plant JPM K - How does this match K/A A2.04? Is this K/A A2.05 (Automatic control malfunction) instead of A2.04 (pump failure or improper operation)

3. JPM A, C, E, G are the same K/A used during 2013 and 2011 but different systems and therefore, different JPMs. Explain how the same K/A was selected in a random

2014 Braidwood Outline Review Comments/Questions selection process but for different systems. For systems JPM it should be specific systems related K/A. Other activities, generic, K/As can be related to multiple systems.

For selection of systems JPM it should start with a systems K/A then it can expand with additional abilities KA specifics or generics.

4. Safety Function 4P has not been used in 3 exams for a JPM. Why?

Used in scenarios, not used in JPMs to prevent over-sampling.

SIMULATOR SCENARIOS

1. Scenario 14-1.

a. Change the turnover to tell the US that TS need to be verified. Place the applicant in a procedure that is being completed for the safety valve indication failure and have him determine that tech specs need to be addressed. If this is in the turnover, it is not likely we would give credit for TS bean for identification of TS. There should be additional beans for TS, it would not be wise to account this as one of the two TS for the scenario. Verify the minimum requirements for the scenario. Note that part of the TS sub-competency is recognize and locate. If you tell them they need to determine TS you done part of the sub-competency for them.

Will be fixed

b. Event 1 - Separate into two events, BOP normal and US TS.

Done

c. Event 5 - What is the expected reactivity manipulation after the runback to stabilize the plant?

Must borate to prevent getting to rod insertion limit. We will do a runback during validation to prove boron requirements.

d. Event 7 - If this is an ATWS, why does auto rod speed failure matter?

Rods will not move until rods in manual to make the rods move.

2. Scenario 14-2

a. Event 5 is not discussed in the scenario overview. What will be seen in the control room with the inverter failure and is it restored prior to the next event?

5 and 7 are separate LCO conditions. Event 5 does not have actions to take for response.

b. Event 7 - Similar to event 5 clarify the differences.

2014 Braidwood Outline Review Comments/Questions See above. Crew will have to respond to lose of indications. No actions in the control room.

3. Scenario 14-3

a. The reactivity change is similar to scenario 14-1 and both are selected for crew 1.

Why are the changes different enough to be allowed for the same crew? No consideration here, if it is the same for the same crew, it must be changed. You do not repeat same malfunctions, etc., for any crew unless it is a different actions and results and challenges are introduced. Different evaluation criteria, etx.

Will be changed to normal down power at beginning of shift.

b. Event 3 - Why is it written as May choose to enter? Is this a TS entry or not?

Will be confirmed next week during their validation and clarify during our validation.

c. Event 6 - What is the expected reactivity manipulation after the runback to stabilize the plant? See 14-1, Event 5.

Removed the reactivity credit portion of the event. Using as a C for single rod drop.

d. Event 8 - Will the SGTR start at the reactor trip and get larger or will it start when the crew enters ES-0.1? How big is the SGTR? We want to see significant conditions which effectively provides appropriate evaluation opportunities or criteria. Effectively enters and implements the procedures/actions.

This is an emergency boration

e. Event 6, 7, 8, & 9 are exactly the same as scenario 2013-3? The events after the major should be changed if the response from the 2013 scenario is the same.

f. Why is Event 7 considered a major, does the auto scram not work?

There is no Auto SCRAM

g. Make Event 6 two events.

4. Scenario 14-4

a. Event 1 - Separate the first event into 2 events.

b. Event 5 - How will the aircraft scenario be presented to the crew?

2014 Braidwood Outline Review Comments/Questions

c. Event 5 - Why another rapid down power? What are the procedural issues that will be different from the other scenarios?

5. Scenario 14-5

a. Event 7, 8, & 9 These are same as 2013-4. The events after the major should be changed if the response from the 2013 scenario is the same.