ML20207G912

Forwards Minutes of 861114 Meeting W/Util in Region I Ofc Re Use of Facility Simulator for OL Exams.Nrc Agreed That Portions of Operating Exam Could Be Conducted Using Simulator

ML20207G912
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/22/1986
From:	Eselgroth P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Josiger W POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
References
NUDOCS 8701070425
Download: ML20207G912 (4)

Text

.

.i  :

22 DEC 1988 Docket No. 50-286 Power Authority of the State of New York Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant ATTN: Mr. William Josiger Resident Manager P. O. Box-215 Buchanan, New York 10511 T'

Gentlemen:

Subject:

LICENSEE REQUESTED MEETING CONCERNING INDIAN POINT UNIT 3 OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS A meeting was held on November 14, 1986, at the NRC Region I office at your staff's request to discuss the use of the Indian Point Unit 2 simulator for operator licensing examinations. The details of the meeting are documented in Enclosure 1.

Your staff presented recommendations and justifications for using a non plant reference simulator for operator licensing examinations at your facility. The NRC agreed that portions of the operating examination would be conducted using the Indian Point Unit 2 simulator.

In accordance with Section 2.790 of NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Ccde of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

The meeting was beneficial and we appreciate your initiative in arranging these meetings. No reply to this letter is required.

Sincerely,

((1aal Signad By:

Peter W. Eselgroth, Chief Reactor Projects Branch No. 2 Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

Operator Licensing Meeting cc w/ enc 1:

R. Tansky, Training Superintendent M. Blatt, Director, Regulatory Affairs (Con Ed)

Fublic Document Room (PDR)

Local Public Document Room (LPDR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) '

NRC Resident Inspector State of New York

[

\

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY OL IP3 MTG - 0001.0.0 12/04/86 n701070425 861222 PDR AD3CK0500g6 V

U Power Authority of the 2 State of New York -22 DEC 1986 bec~w/ encl:

Region I Docket Room (with' concurrences)

Chief, OLB, DHFT, NRR S. Collins, DRP R. Keller, DRP J. Linville, DRP OL File 1

RI:DRP RIMRP RI:DRP Dudley/ cop /emw Ke' Or Eselgroth

) ft 12/ '//86 12 6/86 12/lk/86 490' 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY OL IP3 MTG - 0002.0.0 12/04/86 i

I

Enclosure 1 OPERATOR LICENSING MEETING

1. Introduction A meeting was held at the Region I office on November 14, 1986, at 10:30 A.M..The meeting had been requested by the Power Authority of the State of New York to discuss the use of the Indian Point Unit 2 simulator during licensing examinations for Indian Point Unit 3. The following people attended the meeting.

NRC Attendees R. Keller, Chief, Projects Section 1C i G. Meyer, Project Engineer N. Dudley, Lead Reactor Engineer B. Norris, Reactor Engineer R. Temps, Reactor Engineer Power Authority of the State of New York Attendees R. Tansky, Training Superintendent i B. Ray, Training Manager J. Mooney, Reactor Operator

2. Details The Indian Point Unit 3 training staff presented information to support their recommendation that the Indian Point Unit 2 simulator be used for licensing examinations for Unit 3 candidates on an interim basis until the Unit 3 simulator is ready for use in June,1988. The training staff addressed the NRC staff's concerns about the differences between the Unit 2 simulator and the Unit 3 facility.

i Changes have been made to the software disk used in the simulator for Unit 3 training. Reactor Coolant System temperature control and Pressurizer Level Control programs have been changed to reflect the Unit 3 control l programs. Also, setpoints have been changed to reflect the setpoints used at Unit 3. Prior to using the simulator, each licensing candidate is pro-vided two days of training on the differences between the simulator and the Unit 3 control room. An evaluation of the simulator training program by INPO has found that the utility is doing a good job of dealing with plant and simulator differences.

The facility staff stated that some equipment differences in the timulator are actually beneficial to training. Some automatic actions are not simu-lated, and candidates must learn to manually initiate some required equip-ment actuations. Unplanned simulator malfunctions are treated as actual failures and provide operators and instructors with additional training in responding to unexpected transients.

GL IP3 MTG - 0003.0.0 12/09/86

.o 1

The facility staff felt that even though the location of the controls and instrumentation in the simulator are different from the Unit 3 Main Control Room, the simulator does provide the most realistic environment for evaluating an operator's proficiency. Also, teamwork and plant aware-ness can best be evaluated in the simulator.

The NRC staff proposed evaluating SR0 candidates in the position of SRO, with licensed RO's operating the control boards. The NRC staff felt that the R0's could filter the information provided by the simulator and allow the SR0 candidate to make decisions without the confusion of simulator differences.

The NRC staff explained that there was no additional information gained by an examiner observing a candidate operating the simulator control panel since the candidate would also need to be evaluated for his knowledge of the control board in the Unit 3 Main Control Room. Therefore, in order to reduce the time of the examination and eliminate redundant evaluations candidates should not be observed in the simulator as control board operators.

A discussion followed which included who should perform the functions of the control room R0's during the examination, the specific modeling problems with the simulator, and the problems associated with different operating examination techniques.

The NRC staff closed the meeting by requesting additional information and agreeing to consider the use of the Unit 2 simulator as part of the operating examination for Unit 3 licensing candidates.

3. Additional Requested Information The NRC staff requested that the facility submit the following documentation for clarification purposes:

1. Changes made to the software disk which improved simulator fidelity to Unit 3.

2. A detailed listing of the differences between the simulator and Unit 3, including response differences.

3. Simulator scenarios which have been developed by the facility.

4. NRC Staff Resolution The operating portion of the licensing examinations to be held in February,1986 will include a simulator portion. Each candidate will be examined in the simulator during one simulator scenario which will last approximately one hour. The candidates will be evaluated on their ability to direct normal plant operations, diagnose plant response to instrument and component failures, and use of the Emergency Operating Procedures and the Emergency Plan. The candidates will not be evaluated on their ability 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY OL IP3 MTG - 0005.0.0 11/22/86 i

p .

^

n J

-__.- 1 e

, to locate instrumentation or. manipulate controls.on the simulater control panel. The facility will be recuested to supply two. persons'other than i licensing: candidates.to. operate the simulator as control board operators.

E y

e

$ +

t

'g:.

f

,-d e

s d

I "

rame

. -s , _

< _ ,, -.e o , _

J m 7

F _ .-

p,s s <<

i ' '

t,,. ,

9 e J , ,

t e ,f a

• 4,I

• e h

w.[ d ia 5 e' oy * .

5 { ' ** -i-,,. _

' L *

, 2 f ,

~

y.. l f ' ) ,

i 4 g

~

l e

. ~ g f.

.M 1,

4 i

I' 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY OL IP3 MTG - 0006'.0.0.

11/22/86 l

1 i

n 4

ad-..-,,-. ,- r ., - .. .. ,.,.,m,,y,,,,y,__, _, m,_ ym.,,. p,_ m,,, , ,.,..ec , . _ _ , , _ , _ _ ..,-,._yy y,. . . . . _ _ - - _ ,,m-..,y.,__.y.,