ML20137E668
| ML20137E668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1985 |
| From: | Long R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Newton S GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| References | |
| SP-I-TMIA-007, SP-I-TMIA-7, NUDOCS 8508230322 | |
| Download: ML20137E668 (2) | |
Text
~f s 5
. uda 7
PO 7
Nuclear Mgq Sp ucmcrendum EdWt r-Tm$8 p?
g NA/556, 1984 March 1
Subject:
Observation of PSU THI-2 Operator-Training Date:
Februa ry 24, 1984
% rm >
W 'C From:
Robert L. Long Location: Cherry Hill Vice President - Nuclear Assurance
'85 AUG 22 A10:05 To:
Mgr.-Plant Training - THI, S. L. Newton Cmci~
,$$1 00CEimc',
ERANCH On Friday, February 24, 1984, I observed training of TMI-2 licensed operators and staf f at Penn State University Training /Research Reactor.
The following comments are provided for your review and appropriate followup.
1.
Conduct of the training began as scheduled at about 1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br /> and was concluded at about 1845 hours0.0214 days <br />0.513 hours <br />0.00305 weeks <br />7.020225e-4 months <br />.
2.
The training observed consisted of each trainee (six were involved) manipu-lating the reactor through a sequence of operations, including pulsed operation, square wave ocaration, and temperature / power coef ficient measurements.
3 The' manipulations were performed under the direction of PSU senior re-actor operations staff members.
No member of the PSU faculty was present for any of the operations.
4.
As I observed the last time I was at PSU, these senior operations staff members vary greatly in their instructional skills.
The operator super-vising the pulsed operations was passive ar.d did not try to engage the trainees in dialog and discussion of the activities and results.
The instructor for the power coefficient measurements was more active but limited in his theoretical knowledge.
Both instructors were asked questions to which they responded, "We'll have to ask Dr. Levine."
Since the students returned to THI at the conclusion of the session, there was no opportunity to resolve these questions.
5 I talked brie. fly with Professor Penkala, Robison, and Levine, and in-dicated that we would initiate a careful review of the PSU training in the April-May 1984 time frame.
I urged them to arrange a visit to TMI to see the Basic Principles Simulator after which we need to evaluate the appropriate mix of experiments and activities on the BPS and PSU Reactor for next year's TMI-2 SimulgQegu,a,l j{ gram.
gg Mt SOL A [fd,R_. ceca a u Tgl[
% w wer of __fjsf l-
- A _ -- _ _.._ -
_ m m:m _ [
Wmt _ _ _ _ _ _... _ m o o _.._ __ _ _ _
C-_
_._m m a _ __._________ _
G508230322 850102
- n-PDR ADOCK 05000289 q n.,
PDR G
h)._f(__
o
__-_. cm ym_
ACd
~
S. L. Newton March 1,1984 Page two 6.
In discussions with the trainees, it appears that the repetitive nature of the PSU annual programs is causing a decrease in interest.
At the very minimum a more active role of the PSU instructors would stimulate and trigger new questions and insights.
n c
Robert L. Long RLL:kg cc:
Deputy Director-TMI-2, J. J. Barton Director-T&E, R. P. Coe Chrm., PSU Nuclear Engr. Dept., W. F. Witzig