ML13263A371

Multi-Unit Operator Training and Certification Program and Request for Review

ML13263A371
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	09/19/2013
From:	James Shea Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Mccree V, Widmann M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC Region 4
Shared Package
ML13263A381	List: ML13263A371 ML13263A383 ML13263A384
References
Download: ML13263A371 (11)

Text

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1 101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 374A2 September 19, 2013 Mr. Victor M" McCree U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 245 Peachtree Center Avenue, NE, Suite 1200 Marquis One Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257 Attn: Mr. Malcom T. Widmann

Subject:

Reference$:

10 cFR 55.5 Wafts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and2 Facility Operating License No. NPF-90 Facility Construction Permit No. CPPR-92 NRC Docket No. 50-390 and 50-391 WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, MULTI-UNIT OPERATOR TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW

1) Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) letter to NRC, "watts Bar Nuclear plant.

units 1 and2 Multi-unit operatorTraining and certification program and Request for Review," dated August 27,2010

2) TVA letter to NRC, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units I and2 Multi-Unit Operator Training and Certification Program, Revision 1," dated November 18, 2010

3) NRC letter to TVA, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and2 Multi-Unit Operator Training and Certification Program, Revision 1," dated April 1 1,2011 By letter dated August 27,2010, (Reference 1), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted the "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Multi-Unit Operator Training and Certification Program and Request for Review" (the Plan). By letter dated November 18, 2010, TVA submitted Revision 1 to the Plan. The Plan described the approach for ensuring that a sufficient number of licensed operators will be available to operate Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2 prior to Unit 2 initialfuel load. TVA described the plan to seek dual-unit operator licenses for prospective WBN Unit 2 operators using a training program that was based on a rigorous analysis of the differences between Unit 1 and 2. In these submittals, TVA included a summary of its conclusions regarding the nearly identical design and operation of Unit 1 and Unit 2. In addition, TVA included a detailed report on WBN Units 1 and 2 differences and a differences training plan.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 September 19, 24fi ln reference 3, the NRC acknowledged the TVA Multi-Unit Operator Training and Certification Program and preliminarily concluded the proposed differences between Unit 1 and Unit 2 are not so significant that they would affect the operator's ability to operate each unit safely and competently.

Subsequent to the NRC's initial review, TVA has continued to assess the dual-unit operator training plan and has updated the Watts Bar Unit Differences and Training Plan Report to incorporate facility changes that have reconciled previously described plant differences.

Specifically of note, a digital control system has now been installed in Unit 1 which reconciles approximately 50 percent of the differences identified in the previous Multi-Unit Operator Training and Certification Program. Accordingly, TVA has revised the Multi-Unit Operator Training and Certification Program to the extent that the enclosed version supersedes the previous version in its entirety. provides the Watts Bar Unit Differences and Training Plan Report. This report confirrns the criteria of NUREG 1021 Section ES 204 and provides analysis required by NRC Regufatory Guide 1.149, C.2 - Use of Simulation Facility for Multiple Plants. Enclosure 2 provides the Watts Bar Unit 1 and Simulator Differences. Consistent with the approach described in Reference 1 and 2, TVA plans to submit'dual unit' license applications with waivers of NRC administered written and operating examinations where appropriate.

There are no new regulatory commitments in this letter. Should you have questions regarding this request for review, please contact D. J. Hostetter, Unit lntegration Manager, at (423) 365-2308.

lly, Enclosures cc (Enclosures) sident, Nuclear Licensing

1. Watts Bar Unit Differences and Training Plan Report, September 2013

2. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Simulator Physical Differences List NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 2

Enclosure {

WatE Bar Unit Differcnces and Training Plan Report, Septembe r 2013 Watts Bar Unit 1 and Simulator Differences

4.

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Simulator Physical Differences List

1. Recorder LR-77-134 is a different model than the plant recorder due to unavailability. The recorder installed in the simulator is similar in form, function and physical appearance and displays the same information. See Simulator lnitial Certification Exception Report ER-8 for more detail.

Panel M-11 houses the Generator Core Condition Monitor. Due to floor space limitations only the left half of this panel is physically simulated. The right half of the panel houses no instrumentation so its exclusion causes no adverse affect on training. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-5.

There is no audio or video equipment installed in the reference plant. The Simulator has cameras and microphones installed to provide post training feedback on operator performance and communication skills. This equipment is located atop the panels or in the ceiling presenting no obtrusion to operator vision. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-6.

Local control panels L-11A and L-11B are not included in the physical simulation. The controllers housed on these panels, LIC-3-148, 150, 164, 171, are installed on the side of panel L-10. Operation of these controllers in the reference plant is from local panels located in the field adjacent to each pump. In order to enhance simulation of these remote operations the controllers were added to the scope and located on this end panel. The layout on the simulated panel resembles their positions on the remote panel. To verify setpoints or control level with these instruments the operator will take identical actions to the reference plant controls, but must role play that he does not have both A and B train controls side by side. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-7.

The MOV shunt trip switches used for fire protection (0-HS-13-204, 205) are located in a different position on the simulator than in the plant. These switches provide a shunt trip for various Unit 2 valves in the case of a fire emergency. The switches are located on the Unit 2 portion of panel M-278 in the reference plant. They have been relocated to a similar position on the Unit 1 portion of this panel for the training simulation. Since the location is in the same general area and requires the operator to walk to the same general board location as in the plant, this difference is considered to have no impact on training. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-g.

Annunciator panel 1-XA-55-30 is a different model in the simulator than the plant. The simulator model has white test and acknowledge pushbuttons located slightly closer together than the plant. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-10.

The Simulator does not have the standby lighting installed as in the plant. During operator training scenarios the lighting is normally left energized, PR-233 was used to evaluate the training impact of this difference, no negative training occurs. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-1 2.

A number of tag and labeling differences which are considered to have no impact on training. These include such items as letter spacing, font, letter thickness, exact placement, etc. All of these differences are considered minor and present no false information to the operator.

2.

3.

6.

7.

8.

5.

Page I

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Simulator Physical Differences List

9. A number of recorder scales have minor differences in major and minor division height and width. These scales have the same range and number of divisions as the control room scales, thus displaying the same information and presenting no impact on training. A complete listing of the subject scales is available.

10. Electrical Control Board panel ECB-1 is not included in the scope of simulation. This panel houses the containment closed circuit television system and is not within the training scope of the simulator.

1 1. Portion of panel ECB-S is not included in the scope of simulation. The Roane line was omitted due to lack of space.

12. ECB-S and ECB-6 house six meters for displaying A, Section 1 and Bus 2 Section 3. ldentical replacement simulator replacement meters do not have voltage Operations personnel in the plant) but are the same digits. See Exception Report 15.

B, and C phase voltage for Bus 1 meters could not be purchased. The buttons (which are not used by size and shape with similar display

13. The right portion of ECB-7 and ECB-8 are panels represent approximately five feet simulation due to space limitations.

not included in the scope of simulation. These of blank panel which was omitted from the

14. Panel ECB-4 is not included in the scope of simulation. At the time of simulator procurement this panel was a blank section approximately four feet in length. Due to space limitations this empty section of panel was deleted from the physical simulation. In January of 1993 plant modification DCN-19899 was implemented to relocate various alarms from a panel located on the operators desk to two annunciator boxes to be located on ECB-3 and ECB-4 with the annunciator acknowledge switch located on ECB-4. In the simulator the annunciator boxes have been located at ECB-2 and ECB-3 with the acknowledge switch at a vacant position between ECB-2 and ECB-3 due to the absence of panel ECB-4. This installation was evaluated as producing no negative training since the equipment is installed adjacent to its MCR location and the operator will perform identical actions as in the reference plant.

15. The Unit 2 portions of panels M-12,26,27A, and 278 are not included in the scope of the physical simulation. The reference plant for the Watts Bar Training Simulator is Unit 1, all plant equipment necessary for the operation and surveillance of Unit 1, including common equipment, is available in the simulation. The simulation scope of Unit 2 equipment in common systems is included to the degree necessary to support Unit 1 operation.

16. Eberline LCD display has characters shifted to the right. The information from the Eberline is readable and redundant display is provided on the lCS. See Exception Report ER-17.

17. Various incandescent lamps in the Simulator have been replaced by LED lamps that are slightly different from the replacement LEDs used the plant in order to be compatible with the simulator electronics. The only visible difference to the operator may be a slight change in intensity and/or color tone, however, intensity and/or color tone serves no identifying function on the MCB panels. No negative impact or adverse training will occur as a result of this change. See Exception Report ER-21.

18. Operator training 2-way radios are not the same model as used in the plant while their operation is the same. These simulator radios give an encrypted transmission to prevent interception of the signal during exams. Note that these radios' microphones are not as Page 2

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Simulator Physical Differences List sensitive as the plant models and must be spoken to directly in front of a user's mouth. The Simulator Review Board approved this difference; see 07-20-2012 SRB meeting minutes.

19. The stand-alone copier machine located in the main entrance hallway of the simulator is not in the same location as in the plant MCR. In the plant the copier is located near panel 1-M-

31. In the simulator it is located behind panels 1-M-2 & 1-M-3.

20. The DCS configuration at the plant is different than the simulator. Specific differences include, but are not limited to different system monitoring applications and the absence of CPs from the block detail display in Foxselect.

21. Synchroscope meters on 1-M-1, 0-M-26, & ECB-7 do not match the plant. They fit the same form and function, but there are cosmetic differences.

Page 3 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Simulator Physical Differenceg List

1.

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Simulator Physical Differences List Recorder LR-77-134 is a different model than the plant recorder due to unavailabilig. The recorder installed in the simulator is similar in form, function and physical appearance and displays the same information. See Simulator Initial CertiftcaUon Exception Report ER for more detail.

Panel M-11 houses the Generator Core Condition Monitor. Due to floor space limitations only the left half of this panel is physically simulated. The right half of the panel houses no instrumentration so iF exclusion causes no adverse affect on tnaining. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-5.

There is no audio or video equipment installed in the reference plant. The Simulator has cameras and microphones installed'to provide post training feedback on operator performance and communication skills. This equipment is located atop the panets or in the ceiling presenting no obtrusion to operator vision. See Simulator Initial Certjfication Exception Report ER.

Local control panels L-1lA and L-118 are not included in the physical simulation. The controffers housed on these panels, LIC-3-146, 150, 164, 171, are installed on the side of panel L-10. Operation of these controllerc in the reference plant is ftom localpanels located In the field adjacent to each pump. In order to enhance simulation of these rcmote operations the controllErs were added to the scopo and located on this end panel. The layout on the simuhted panel resembles their positions on the remote panel. To verify setpolnts or control level with these instruments the operator will takE identical actions to the reference plant conbols, but must role play that he does not have both A and B train controls side by side. See Simulator InitialCertification Exception Repoft ER-7.

The MOV shunt Oip switches used for fire protection (0-HS-13-204, 205) are located in a different position on the simulator than in the plant. These switches provide a shunt trip for various Unit 2 valves in the case of a fire emergency. The switches are located on the Unit 2 portion of panel M-278 in the reference plant They have been relocated to a similar position on the Unit 1 portion of this panel for the training simulation. Since the location is in the same general area and requires the operator to walk to the same general board location as in the plant, this difference is considered to have no impact on training. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-g.

Annunciator panel 1-XA-55-30 is a different model in the simulator than the plant. The simulator model has wfiite test and acknowledge pushbuftons located slightly closertogether than the plant. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-10.

The Simulator does not have the standby lighting installed as in the plant, Dudng operator tsaining scenarios the lighting is normally left energized, PR-233 was used to evaluate the taining impact of this difference, no negative training occurs. See Simulator Initial Certification Exception Report ER-1 2.

A number of trag and labeling differenoes which are considered to have no impac-t on training. These include such items as letter spacing, font, letter thickness, exact placement, etc. All of these differences are considered minor and present no false informatlon to the operator.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Page I

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Simulator Physical Differences List

9. A number of recorder scales have minor differences in major and minor division height and width. These scales have the same range and number of divisions as the control room scales, thus displaying the same information and presenting no impac.t on training. A complete listing of the subject scales is available.

10. Electrical Control Board panel ECB-1 is not included in frre scope of simulation. This panel houses the containment closed circuit television system and is not within the training icope of the simulator.

11. Portion of panel ECB-5 is not included in the scope of simulation. The Roane line was omitted due to lack of space.

12. EC&s and ECB house six meters for displaying A, B, and C phase voltrage for Bus I Section 1 and Bus 2 Section 3. ldentical replacement meters could not be purchased.

The simulator replacement meters do not have voltage buttons (wtrich are not used by Operationslersolnel_in the plant) but are the same size and shape with similar displa!

digits. See Exception Report 15.

13. The right portion of EC&7 and ECB are not included in the scope of simulation. These panels represent approximately five feet of blank panel which was omitted from the simulation due to space limitations.

14. Panel ECB-4 is not included in the scope of simulation. At the time of simulator procurement this panel was a blank section approximately four feet in length. Due to spaoe limitations this empty section 9f panel was deleted from the physical simulation. In January of 1993 plant modification DCN-19899 was implemented to relocate various alarms ftom i panel toiateO on the operators desk to two annunciator boxes to be located on ECB-3 and ECB-4 with the annunciator acknowledge wvitch located on ECB4. In the simulator the annunciator boxes have been located at ECB-2 and ECB-3 with the acknowledge switch at a vacant position betureen ECB-2 and ECB-3 due to the absence of panel ECB.4. This installation was evaluated as producing no negative training since the equipment is installed adjacent to its MCR location and the operatorwill perform klentical actions as in the reference piant.

15. The Unit 2 portions o!panels M-12, 26,27A, and 278 are not included in the scope of the physical simulation. The reference plant for the Watts Bar Training Simulator is Unit 1, all plant equipment necessary for the operation and surveillance of Unit 1, including common equipment, is available in the simulation. The simulation scope of Unit 2 equipment in

@mmon systems is included to the degree necessary to support Unit 1 operation.

16. Eberline LCD display has characters shifted to the right. The information from the Eberline is readable and redundant display is provided on the lCS. See Exception Report ER-12.

17. Various incandescent lamps in the Simulator have been replaced by LED lamps that are slightly different frgm t[e replacement LEDs used the plant in order to be compatibte wtth the simulator electronics. The only visible difference to the operator may be a siignt change in intensity and/or color tone, however, intensity and/or color tone serves no identifying function on the MGB panels. No negative impact or adverce training will occur as a reEirlt of this change. See Exception Report ER-21.

Page 2

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Simulator Physical Differences List

18. Operator training 2*ay radios are not the same model as used in the plant while their operation is the same. These simulator radios give an encrypted transmission to prevent interception oJ the signal during exams. Note that these radios' microphones are not as sensitive as the plant models and must be spoken to direcfly in front of a use/s mouth. The Simulator Review Board approved this differenoe; see O7-2O-2O12 SRB meeting minutes.

19. The stand-alone copier machine located in the main entranoe hallway of the simulator is not in the same location as in the plant MCR. In the plant the copier is located near panel 1-M-31. In the simulator it is located behind panels 1-M-2 & 1-M-3.

20. The DCS configuration at the plant is different than the simulator. Spedftc differences include, but are not limited to different system monitoring applications and the absence of CPs from the block detaildisplay in Foxselect.

21. Synchro?9ope meters on 1-M-1, O-M-26, & ECB-7 do not match the plant. They fit the same form and function, but there are cosmetic difialences.

Page 3