ML19207A138
| ML19207A138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/23/1979 |
| From: | Collins P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-98 NS-16(4)-VI-B, NUDOCS 7905300180 | |
| Download: ML19207A138 (20) | |
Text
.
r NS 16(4) VI 3 REACTCR OPERATOR TRAINING PRCCRAMS UTI'.I":ING NUCIJ.AR PCWER PLANI SIMULATCRS Sy P. F. Collins
- Abstract The Nuclear Regulatory Cet=sission (NRC) requires that all operators of the controls of nuclear facilities be licensed.
Applicants for licenses must pass vr.cten examinaticas and operating tests administered by NRC.
So=e individuals =ust be m mined prior to ini:ial criticality at a facility, while others cust have had extensive actual operating experience at a comparable reactor to si: for these exami,ations. Opera:-
ing experience =ay be obtained through approved raining pro-grs=s that utilize nuclear power plant si=ulators.
Since 1969, NRC's predecessor, the USAEC, has accepted four such training programs that are administered by the nuclear power plant system vendors. The progra=s consist of (1) nuclear fund.3mentals courses, (2) research reactor opratica, (3) nuclear power plant design lectures, (4) obseriation at operating nuclear power planta, and (3) simulator operations.
- Paul F. Collins graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1952 with a 3.S. in mechanical engineering. He serted in the J.S. Army from May 1952 to Septe=ber 1953 as a Second Lieutenan: in the Transporta-tion Corps. He worked for DuPont, Savannah 1.iver, in the Reac:ce Depart-meut from 1953 to 1965.
In June 1965, he joined *.he U.S. Atemic Energy Co:xnission as an exa=iner for the Operator Li:ensing 3 ranch, Washing::n,
~
- 3. C., and became the 3rsach Chief in 1969 and is presently seriing in that capacity.
79053 00 /IO
.m.
O J u G,w:,'4r
NS 16(4) VI 3-2 Individuals seeking licenses after plants become opera-tional =ust demonstrate their proficiency at reactor controls during examinations.
In 1971, the USAIC approved :he use of si=ulators in training progra=s and during the exasinations.
These programs are limited to personnel from facilities having control rooms that are closely parallel to that of the si=ula-tor.
NRC also requires thac licensed individuals pcnicipate in requalification programs that require licensees :o =anipulate reactor controls through a specified number of evolutions dur-ing their license :enures. To ~4m4 **e the nu=ber of plant evolutions solely for requalification, =anipulation of s1=ula-or controls is permitted, providing the s1=ulator's operating characteristics and control room are similar to thet of the facility involved. Final evaluation of the merits of using s1=ulators rather than operating plants is the knowledge and understanding exhibited by trainees during the administration of anminations. NRC anminers have found that individuals trained using simulators have a better understanding of plant responses to transient conditions and abnormal situations and also are = ore confident in answering questiens that require prediction of plant responses to postulated situations. Also, s1=ulators are extre=c.ly ef fective for exanising and evaluac-ing individuals. NRC, believes that s1=ulators, used in conjunc-tion with comprehensive training programs, are eff ective train-ing devices and intend to encourage their use in future training programs.
"he require =ent that reactor operators =us: demonstrate their qualifications and receive licenses frem the NRC to perform their functions was established as a statutory requiremen: by :he U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954.A
- Further, RL c m q q.y,
O b v 4,
.)
7 NS 16(4) VI 3-3 pursuant to the Act, the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Chapter 10, Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilirius,2 provides that the R2 controls of any reactor licensed under Part 50 shalA not be sanipulated by anyone who is not a licensed operator or a senior oparator as provided in 10 CFR Par: 55, Operator's Liceases.' Part 55 establishes the R3 procedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to operators and senior operators and therefore governs the regulatory program of operator licensing.
This article reviews U.S. experience in the use of nuclear power plant si=ulators in reactor operator training programs. The article was updated frca a paper" that was presented at the 1973 IAEA Sy=posium on F.xperience R4 from Operation and Fueling of Nuclear Power Plants.
TYPES OF LICENSES AND ELLv.INATIONS The Co=sission presently issues two types of licenses.8 In general, R5 anyone who sanipula:es reactor controls =ust be licensed as a reactor opera-tor, and those who direct the activities of licensed operators must be licensed as senior reactor operators. Practically speaking, the reactor s
operator in a power sta: ion would be the control roca operator, and his shift supervisor would normally be the senior reactor operator. Herein, the two types will be referred to as " operator" and " senior operator."
The Cournission examiners aMnister both written and operating a m 49ations to tes: the *cicwiedge of applicants for licenses.
- he written examiestion for the operator consists of :he fol'.owing seven
.f.y.
hN)6ehND
NS 16(4) 7I 3-4 categories:
1.
principles of reactor operatien, 2.
features of facility design, 3.
general operating characteristics, 4
instrumentation and controls, 5.
safety and energency systens, 6.
standard and energency operating procedures, 7.
radiation control and safety.
The written avn d"ncien for the senior operator consists of the above seven categories plus the following:
1.
reactor theory, 2.
radioactive nacerials handling, disposal, and hatards, 3.
specific operating characteristics, 4
fuel handling and core paraneters, S.
administrative procedures, conditions, and limitations.
The operating test at a nuclear pcwer station nor= ally consist.1 of both an oral esanisation during a plant walk-through and an actual denonstra-tion at the reactor console during a reactor startup. The scope of both portions of the operating test is the sane for both operators and senior operators, except that the senior cperator is expected to answer questions as Lf he were the operator's supervisor. The scope of the oral and operat-ing test consists of (1) reading and interpretation of control instrunenta-tion, (2) =anipulatien of the control equipnent, (3) ability to operate
%A y
-4 NS 16(4) VI 3-5 other facility equipment, and (4) knowledge of radiological safety practices and radiation =enitoring equipment. An operator would be expec:ed to recognize abnormal reactor behavior and notify his shift supervisor, whereas the senior operator would be ev.cted to ' cow wha: to do.
Some personnel =ust receive their examinations and licenses prior to ini:ial fuel loading and startup of a f acility, since licensed operators must be present at this time. Obviously, an actual startup de=custration as part of :he operating test cannot be given at this time, and reactor and plant responses can only be discussed between the applicant and the nami9er.
'"hese operating tests are com=only known as " cold" examinations, as opposed to " hot" "='4m tions, which refer to :he test that includes actual operation of the reactor.
LICENSE APPLICATION AND ELIGI3ILITY Applicants for operator or senior operator licenses cust submit a signed application to the Coi:=11ssion.
In addition, an authorized representa-tive of the f acility at which the applicant will be working must cer tify that the applicant has a need for the license, has completed a training program (supplying the details of such), and has learned to operate the reactor controls competently and safely. A report of medical ernninntion of the applicant on an NRC fars =ust also be submi::ed.
Eligibill:7 of an applicant for examination is deter =ined af:er receipt of the application. The appid. cation =ust describe.hc : raining :he appli-can: has :sceived 2: :his fa 111t7 and, for " hot" examination applicants, indicate the startup and shutdown experience he has accumula:ed.
~&
NS 16(4) VI 3-6 Si ilar infor=ation is required of applicants for " cold" examinations, except the certification of actual operating experience on the reactor.
In lieu of this experience on the reactor, eligibility for " cold" examina-tion say be dete. hed on the basis of certification that the applicant has had extensive operating experience at a comparable facility.
REQUIR. T.CS FOR IIAMINATICN PRIOR TO CRITICALITY (COLD EGMINATION)
Prior to the advent of nuclear power plant simulators, an applicant was eligible for cold examination provided (1) he had or had held an operator's license at a comparable facility; (2) he had a certification of the necessary experiences if the co= parable facility was not subject to licensing (e.g., reactors operated by the Department of Defense); or (3) he had passed an NRC-administered written examination and operating test at a comparable facility but was not issued a license.
It should be stressed that most trainees receive experience in excess of the programs outlined herein to acquire the desired competence. iiovever,
era inations are administered to individuals who =eet these require =ents.
Methods 1 and 2 are essentially self-explanatory, but the method 3 needs s
further explanation.
~4 hen it beca=e apparent is the United States that the number of nuclear power plants were going to increase at a rapid rate, it also beca:e apparent that sufficient operators and senior operators could :ot be supplied from operating plants unless the plants beca:ne training facilities instead of N,b 2,'d 9
NS 16(4) VI 3-7 production facilities. Consequently, the nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendors proposed that training programs be developed that would assure :he availibility of well-qualified individuals to staff the large nu=ber of plants espected to become operational in the seventies.
The first program, proposed by the '4estinghouse Electric Corporation consisted of (1) a nuclear funda=entals course, including the operation of a research reactor; (2) a design lecture series directed toward the facility for which the license was needed, and (3) residence at an operat-ing nuclear power plant for 6 =enths where the trainees would participate in day-to-day activities as well as classroom studies. Hence, one operat-ing plant was used as a c m'ning facility.
At the co=pletion of the program, the trainees were administered an AEC a m untica, and those who passed were issued a certification letter stating thac they had set the requirements of an operator for that facility. Licenses were not issued to these trainees. This outlines
=ethod 3.
PROG 2AMS UTILIZING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SIMUI.ATCRS Although one power plant was being utilized part time as a training facility, it was apparent that the number of facilities that were available for ::aining rould be very limited. Consequently, General Elec:ric Ccmpany proposed that a nuclear power plant si=ulator be incorporated in a : raining prograa to provide trainees with the necessary control =anipulation to neet eligibility requirements for cold examination.
60S230
NS 16(4) VI 3-8 Individuals who successfully complete a training program that utill:es a nuclear plant simulator will be considered eligible for cold eynminations provided that they have completed an appropriate course in nuclear techno-logy fundamentals, they have =anipulated the controls of any nuclear reactor throughout teu complete startups, and they have observed several months of daily ope stion of power reactors as =e=bers of shif t operating crews.
The decision to i=plement these procedures is based on several pertinent considerations, including (1) the completeness and accuracy with which the simulators are constructed; (2) the aztent to which the si=ulators provide various types of control room experience to the trainee, including the ability to si=ulate cor=al startup and shutdown operations and a =ulti:ude of casualty drill situations; and (3) the extent of operating experience of the si=ulator instructors.
Presently, training progrs=s utilising nuclear power plant si=ulators are in effect for the NSSS vendors General Elec:ric, 'Jestinghouse, Babcock and 'Jilcox, and Combustien Engineering. To determine that the si=ulators
=et the requirements of (1) and (2) above, they were compared with the information in the Final Safety Analysis Report of the facility after which it was nodeled and with detailed drawings of the facility's control rocm.
The comparison included the number of systa=s si=ulated, the degree of sf nlation, and the fidelity of s1=ulation.
In addition, the cu=ber and type of nalfunctions were evaluated as to : heir adequacy for the intended training purposes.
k$().k)k [$3.
NS 16(4) VI 3-9 F'nal acceptance of a nuclear power plant si=ulator depends on the compa._aon of the si=ulator's response to various transien:s with that of the plant's response as determined during the startup testing progrs=.
The competency of the trafsing staff is determined by senior operator examina-tions.
Thus, the first use of s1=ulators was brought about to enable the large nu=ber of trainees that were entering the nuclear industry to obtain the necessary operating experience.rithout using an operating nuclear power plant as a training facility. To date, cver 900 individuals have been trained at the centers that utill:e the si=ulators. A unique feature of these programs is that the certification responsibili:7 is transf erred from NRC to the cralsing staff. Of course, the programs and the evaluation process are audited very closely. Farr of the audit consists of administration of ev' 4"*tions to the initial groups of trainees.
RIQUIRDfENTS FCR HOT ELufINATION First Method In order to be eligible for an ava"4 acion af ter a facili:7 achieves s
criticality, an individual nust receive on-the-job training that includes plant maneuvering and two reactor startups under the direct supervision of a licensed operator or senior operator in addition to formal classroom tr:if ning.
803232
NS 16(4) VI 3-10 During the administration of axaminations, applicants =ust de=enstrate their proficiency at the reactor controls by perforsing reactor startups from a substantially suberitical condition until generation of nuclear beat.
These startups can involve a substantial amount of downti=e at a facility to properly prepare individuals for eynmir ntions and to administer examina-tions.
In addition, scheduling of the examinaticas can be complicated by unexpected requirement for power, which is outside the con:rol of :he plant staff.
Second Method Thus, NRC has approved of training programs that utili:e si.ulators for the ::aining startups and for the control =anipulation portion of our e7nmim=tions.
To da:e, these programs have been li=ited to personnel of plants having control roo=s that closely resemble that of the si=.ilator.
In addi: ion to the : raining center maneuvering, the applicant must have manipulated the controls of a re. actor during power changes or other signifi-cant reactivi:y.hanges that may or say not include reactor startups. These training programs require several months residence ac the training center, one of which is devoted to operation of the s1=ulator controls.
Third Method NRC has determined that it is acceptable to use nuclear power planc simulators in determining the qualifications of indiv' duals who apply for licenses af:er initial criticality.
The Opera:or !icensing 3 ranch will consider ::sining progra=s that utill:e appropriate nuclear power plan: si.=ulators for startup experience 80S233
NS 16(4) VI 3-11 for =eeting the eligibility require =ents of er*4 cations.
In addition, a reac:or startup will not ce required as part of the operating test, pro-viding that appropriate certification regarding an individual's ability to =anipulate the controls is contained in his application.
In order for the applicant to be eligible for this alternate program, the following require =ents must be =et.
1.
The applicant =ust have manipulated the controls of his reactor facility during five significant reactivity changes that =ay or =ay not include reactor startups.
2.
The applicant zust have participated in an NRC-approved ::aining program that includes training at a nuclear power plant simulator.
3.
The application sust contain a certification from the s1=ulator training center attesting to the applicant's abili:y to sanipulate the controls and keep the reac:or under control during a reactor startup, predict instru=ent response and use the instru=entation during a reactor startup, follow the facility startup procedure, and explain alarms and annunciators during this operation.
The s1=ulators used in the prograss =ust meet the present requirements 9
for simulators in Faragraph 3.e, Appendix A, 10 CFR Part 35, na=ely, that the simulator reproduce the general operating chara:.=ristics of the faci-lity involved and that the arrangement of instrunencation and con::ols of the ti=ulator is similar to that of the facility involved.
Aq < a<y 4 u il u ky.+
NS 16(4) VI 3-12 RIQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSE RENEh'AL Recently, the NRC required that licensed individuals participate in requalification programs as a condition for license renewal wi:hout reexamina-tion. One requirement of the program is that licensees =ust have canipulated the reactor controls through at least ten reactivity changes during the 2-year : enure of thes.: license. Simulators that reproduce :he general operat-ing characteristics of the facill:7 involved and have an instru=entatio-and control arrangement similar to that of the facility involved nay %
used to neet the manipulation requirement of the regulation. To date, the use of the simulators in these requalification progrs=s has not been evaluated.
GR0k"Di 0F SIMULCORS IN THE U.S.
3ecause si=ulators are now approved for use in a variety of training progra=s, utilities are developing their own training centers that u:ilize nuclear power plant si=ulators. Five utility training centers utilizing eight si=ulators are scheduled to be operational by 1976. ~hese include the Tennessee Valley Authority (2); Censolidated Edison C,apany of New s
York (1); Carolina ?cwer and Light Cocpany (1); Duke Power Ccmpany (1);
and a joint venture by Public Service Electric and Gas Cc=pany of New Jersey, General Public Utill:ies, and Philadelphia Elec:ric and Gas Cempany (3).
803235
NS 16(4) 71 3-13 ADMINISTRATION OF EIAMINATIONS UTILIZ!NG SDW1ATORS During the examinations, the applicant must de=onstrate his proficiency at the controls during normal, abnor=al, and e=ergency condi:icns. First, two applicants are examined si=ultaneously at the control panels of the s1=ulator. '4hile one applicant is performing a reac:or startur, from a substantially subcritical condician through criticality to sc=e low power level, the other is being interrogated regarding the re=ainder of the control roo= panels. At the ec=ple tion of the first startup, the roles are reversed.
Nexr, the simulator staff is requested :o initia11:e the si=ulator to a steady-state power level. All pertinent controls are placed in =anual, and one applicant is assigned to the reactor controls and the other to the plant controls. The appitcants are then required to de=onstrate their proficiency during power increases and decreases. Once again, the applicants switch roles and perfor= additional exercises.
Not all the applicants perform the sa=e exercises. Variations include establishing and verify 4 *:g heatup races, loading the curbine, and conducting
' ovever, each applicant is expected to be able to an orderly shutdown.
d perform all of these operations.
s Af ter the aminer observes an applicant's performance of nor=al opera-ciens, che applicant =ust demonstrate his proficiency during si=ulated abnor=al situations. For exa=ple, during a reactor startup, the examiner obseries :he applicant's perfor=ance as he manipulates the con:rols, predic:s instru=ent responses, and establishes reactor periods. ~ hen, =alfunctions G.yp., >J r)id%$ O c,,
NS 16(4) VI 3-14 such as a red drif t or nuclear instru=entation failure are initiated, and the applicant's response is evaluated. After loading the. turbine, the bypass valves are failed full open or closed as pcuer is increased. Cm several occasions, the ~iner " reports" via :elephene that an inciden:
is happening in the plant which requires control rocs action pursuant to facility procedures c technical specifications. Usually, the examiner concludes by initiating a scrc.m. exucpt where the applicants have scrs=ned because of a previous =alfunction, and once again evaluates the applicant's perfor=ance.
The exami ations also include assigning applicants :o the role of senior operators. During such eine they are expected to direct the activi-ties of the operators during abnormal situations. The examin.stion for two applicants requires between 3 and 4 hr.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF T*dE SDTLATORS One advantage of the s1=ulator in exami-ations is that :he examiner can observe the applicants actually periors several not al and abnormal operations. This is beneficial to the examiner and the applicant because the evaluation of the individual is based on =any procedures rather then a few, as is necessary during a talk-through of normal and abnor=al operr.tions.
A second advantage is that the exa=lf.er can observe the operator sonitoring rapidly changing pr.raneters and exercising cc=plete con:rol over a given abnor=al situation; in a talk-thrtugh of an abnormal or emergency situation, each changing para =eter sust be da.scussed separately, and the priori:7 the operator would place on his actions is difficul: to deter =ine.
c p o., t j 1 s s ) r% d 1
NS 16(4) VI 3-15 There has been an excellent correlation cf the results of the written avaminations and plant walk-throughs with the perfor=ances at the si=ulators.
Those who perfor=ed unsatisfactorily at the si=ulator also indicated narginal or inadequate knculedge during the remainder of the oral test.
Those who performed adequate 17 at the s1=u.iator also passed :he written examination and balance of the oral test.
Some disadvantages have been noted in conducting exam' nations using the si=ulator, but nany, if not all, can be eld d.ated as the development of these :rahing tools continues. First, procedures had not been prepared for all the casualties that were progra=ced. Hence, in some cases, the examiner had to evaluate an applicant's performance based en his evn ksculedge of proper operating techniques rather than on an approved facility procedure.
In cases where the examiner was in doubt as to the appropriateness of the operator's actions, consultations were held with facility =anagement prior to naking a final evaluation.
The ini-ial examina:1ons were so ewhat longer than the nor=al :cid av'-4-ation.
The s1=ulator portion required between 3 and 4 hr and the remaining oral portion about 4 hr.
This was partly due :o :he fac: :he plant construction was not sufficiently complete a: :he ti=e of ini:al simulator c' #antions.
Different examiners conducted the si=ulator portion and oral portion of :he examination for the same individual.
~his resulted, at times, in an applicant explaining some syste=s and procedures nere than ence. However, more recent avan'na tions utilizing the 31=ulator indica:e that the :ime required for :he examination is comparable to the ti=e required for cold exa=inations hat do not use a si=ulator.
60: % 8
NS 16(4) VI F16 COLD EXRiINATION RESULTS In addition to cold m "4"ations utili:ing the simulator, cold examina-tions have been administered to individuals who had receives training at the sinulator training center. ~hese ayanhneians were ad=inistered at the individual's plant following the nor=al cold operating test procedures.
During the administration of these eyn-imtions, the e.uniners found : hat the applicants were more confident in predicting reactor and plant response to given nor=al and abnormal operations than applicants who had not attended
- he training center. Also, they exhibited a greater understanding of nor=al and e=ergency procedures. 3ased on experience to date, NRC has determined that the simulator is a useful training tool and examining device.
CONCLUSICS The training cf nuclear power plant operators, like the design, con-struction, and operation of these reactors, has evolved considerably during the past decade.
I= proved techniques for training, such as :he nuclear power plant simulator, have been and should continue to be developed.
NEC has kept abreast of all training developments and have tried to cooperate to the fullest extent vich facili:7 licensees in the consideration of such techniques as they apply to the training and licensing of operators.
NRC shall contiaue to encourage and to facili:ste the use of any i= prove-sents that naintain or enhance the cenpetence of operating personnel.
0
NS 16(4) VI 3-17 References 1.
Atomic F.nergy Act of 1954, as a= ended.
2.
U.S. Ccde of Federci Recuk:ict.s, Title 10, Part 30, LicensL=g of Production and Utilization Facilities.
3.
U.S. Ccde of Feders! Recahricr.s, Title 10, Part 35, Operator's Licensees.
4.
- 2. F. Collins, Reactor Operator Training Prograns Utili:ing Suclear Power Plant Si=alatcrs, 6ceedir.cs cf Su=csi:a-On I:rerier.ce fMa
- re.nrir.: cr.d Fuelir.: of.Yuclear h er ?h nta, 7i e r.ra,.4 ua w h,
Ca t.
12-12, :373.
5.
Guide for the Licensing of Facility Operations, Scluding Senior Operators, USAIC Report WAS*d-1094, November 1965.
h k
U U uh ' t J
N_S,16(4) VI 3-18 S
Additional Uncited References 1.
Personnel Training and Qualification, Tr:r.s. Amer. Ilucl. Soc., 17, Suppl. 1: 1 9 25 (1973); also, USAEC Report CONF-730819.
2.
Ralph Cooley, Su= mary of E3R-2 Training - Past, Present, and Future, Trcns. Aner.1/ucl. Soc., 14: 317-313 (1971).
3.
U.S. Atomic Energy Co absion, Washington, D.C., Personnel Selution and Training, Letter to Safety Guide Recipients, Apr. 9, 1971.
4.
P. F. Collins, Operator License Examinations Using Nuclear ? ver Ilant Simulators, Trcns. Amer. llue!. Sce., 13:
804-8G3 (1970).
S.
Prcceedings of :G e S;,=csi:ct cn Traint:c of :he':ec: ?::i:iry.*ersonnel, Ga:Linbm, Tenn., A.rr. 19-2:, 197:, USAEC Report CCUE' -710416.
6.
W. P. Johnson, The Yankee Companies' Experience with Staffing and Training of Nuclear Power Plants, NJ. A-er ?/ncl. Sec., 12:
15 (1969).
7.
P. F. Collins, AEC Licensing Requirements for Operators of Nuclear Plants, Alls Trcn., 12(1) (June 1969).
S.
Letter to J. C. Deddens, Sabcock and Wilcox Co., Use of 3 and W Si=ula-tor.in Orarator Training Programs, USAEC Division of Reactor Licensing, Oec. IS, 1968.
9 F. L. Kelly, AEC Licensing Require =ents for Operations of Nuclear Plants, F~'eceedi,:s c'.=ersennel f d~inismeien Section C:n'ere-ce. Willic s? c~.
7.
Cer- : ~-i =. : 9" *.
bw)o (.,,l a.
p 4
i
NS 16(4) VI 3-19 10.
E. N. Cra:ner, Role of Sinulators in Deternining Licensing Eligibility f or Operat.or Prior to Initial Criticality,.VacI. Sc 'em, 10(3): 250 (May-June 1969) 11.
G. G. Abbey, Development of Large Scale Operational Sinulators for Power Plant Operator Training, ::r 5c:s..Yucl. Sci., 21(1):
975-977 (1974).
12.
D. E. 'doward, Boiling Water Reactor Training Center,.Vac!. Sr.g. fr.r.,
IS: 415416 (May 1973).
13.
J. K. McNally and W. L. Chen, Digital Simulatior of the Calver: Cliffs
.5cr.s. 1'uc !. Sci., 20 (1) :
774-779 (1973).
Nuclear Power Plant,.:::
14.
Si=ulators Key to Operator Training, ?ccer, 117(6):
64-67 (June 1973).
15.
Nuclear Power Plant Traini,g, Combustion Engineering, Connecticut, 51-page brochure, 1973.
15.
J. Turner, Simulators for Nuclear Plant Cperator Training, ?=cr Sr.c.,
76(6): 26-32 (June 1972).
17.
W. Guppy and F. Kelly, The New Training Canter for Nuclear Power Plant Operations at Zion,.9ec. Amer. ?cer Caf., 33:
294-301 (1971).
13.
D. F. 'danlen, Modular Concepts Approach for Individual Training Needs of 3eactor Plant Personnel, T.v.s. Arev. ?,5cs. Sec.
13(2):
804 (1970).
19.
R. C. Knoble, Training Perspective on the Use of the 3*A 51=ulator, T.v.s. Arte..Yu s. Sec., 13(2): 802-303 (1970).
20.
S. Grines, Operating Experience with the Cardinal Plant Training Si=ula-tor,.5 2 s. Amer. 1.tes. Scc., 13(2):
802 (1970).
809242
~*
NS 16(4) VI 3-20 21.
J. C. Deddens, PWR Si=ulator Training, fluc!. llews, 12(11):
50-53 (Neve=ber 1969).
22.
W. 3. 3ehnk, Staffing and Training for Nuclear Power,.Orrer Im.,
73(8):
50-52 (August 1969).
23.
R. M. Rosser, Cenputers in Nuclear Plant Si=ulation, paper presented at the 1968 Forun of the ce=puter Task Force of the Mechanical and Elect =1 cal Equipnent Analysis a'nd Control Project Team ('MAC) of the Edison Electric Institute, 3altimore Hotel, New York City, Cet. 1-3, 1968, USAEC Report CCNF-681058-1.
24.
Technical Personnel Qualificatica and Training, pp. 5.2.1 to 3.2-71 of Amendnent 4 to the Pilgris Station License Application (Replies to AEC-Staff Cc==ents), Dec. 28, 1967, Docket 50-293.
809243
.