ML20210P394

Forwards Unit 3 Ccr/Unit 2 Simulator Differences & Corrective Measures,Evaluations for Which Simulator Can Be Used Effectively for Training Unit 3 Operators & Corrected Simulator Differences,Per 861114 Meeting

ML20210P394
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/09/1987
From:	Ray B POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:	Dudley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
BJR-87-003, BJR-87-3, NUDOCS 8702130380
Download: ML20210P394 (15)

Text

^

• • .,'"~ indian Point 3 s Nuclear Power Plant P.O. Bor. 215

. Buchanan, NewYork 10511 914 739.8200

1. > NewWrkPbwer 4# Authority January 9, 1987 BJR-87-003 Mr. Noel F. Dudley Lead Reactor Engineer U.S. N.R.C. Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Re: Simulator Examinations

Dear Mr. Dudley:

Notice of the results of our November 14, 1986 meeting has been received from Mr. Eselgroth. I appreciate the NRC's resolution of the Power Authority's concern for operating examinations at the Indian Point 2 Simulator.

Although the information regarding the simulator (changes, differences, and scenarios) has been forwarded to the NRC with the February, 1987 examination preparation material, I am forwarding an additional copy for your retention.

044-Bryan J. Ray l

v Training Coordinator BJR:ac cc: R. Tansky w/o attachments S. Bridges w/o attachments C C ,l~J -. , u ,; s y,.

i.._ ._ _ , q 2 '

870109 V 05000286 PDR _

)h

- . . . .~ . . - .. . =

S. ,.

Attachments I: IP-3 CCR/IP-2 Simulator Differences

Attachment II: Evaluations'for Which Simulator Can Be Used Effectively For Training IP-3 Operators Attachment III: Evaluations Where Differences Have An Impact-On The Use-of The IP-2 Simulator-For Training and For Evaluation Attachment IV: Analysis Of The Effect Of Simulator Differences On The Use Of The Emergency Operating Procedures Attachment V: Simulator Differences-Corrected 1

o J

4 l

s t

)

1 i

, - , . ,. , , - --..---~,--.m, ,m _ , e-, .r. --

-,gm, y --- ,. ------4 , - , - - m ~ ,o,

ATTACHMENT I IP-3 CCR/IP-2 Simulator Differences and Corrective Measures This attachment will detail specific differences between the IP-3 CCR and the simulator and will denote those differences that can-be corrected or masked by instructor intervention.

The list is broken into two sections:

• Significant Differences

• Insignificant Differences ,

• Differences Transparent to the Operator Significant IP-3/ Simulator Differences Can Be Difference Corrected

1. Boron InjectionTank is located No on the suction of'the SI pumps as opposed to the discharge side.

2. Phase A containment Isolation No

, reset controls in the IP-3

-CCR are independent reset buttons while at the simulator the~ isolation valve switches i are used.

3. The Blackout Sensing Logic differs Yes between the simulator and IP-3

4. Motor Control Center 36C which is No h associated with 31 Diesel is not installed on the simulator.

5. IP-3 CCW system has two separable Yes headers while the simulator has one header.

6. The Rod Control In-Hold Out Switch No in the simulator operates the re-verse of the one in the IP-3 CCR.

7. High S/G level and SI are generator No trips on the simulator, but are turbine trips at IP-3.

-._,,,,,n &J - - a v ,,,,o 2 ATTACHMENT I IP-3 CCR/IP-2 Simulator Differences and Corrective Measures Significant IP-3/ Simulator Differences (continued)

Can Be Difference. Corrected

8. The plant computer has been- No removed from the simulator.

9. All safegaurds loads powered Yes from 2A also have have supply breakers from 3A.

10. Simulator does not have a No microprocessor controlled data logger for main gen-erator RTD's, but utilizes a multi point strip chart.

11. Simulator-does not have auto No transfer of instrument bus power for 31 and 32 inst.

busses.

12. Simulator has two speed No l

circulators the, IP-3 has variable speed circulators.

l

13. Electrical power distribution No

! for station auxiliaries is i different.

l

e 4 ..

A

^

ATTACHMENT I IP-3 CCR/IP-2 Simulator Differences and Corrective Measures Insignificant IP-3/ Simulator Differences Can Be Difference Corrected

1. Simulator has only one cold No leg injection path per loop.

2.- The Boron Injection Tank is -Yes recirculated with the Boric Acid Transfer Pumps on IP-3 but not on the simulator.

3.- Recirculation ~ Switches operate Yes-equipment in a different sequence on the simulator.

4. . The feed pump' master controller No is on the flight panel in the simulator,- in the foxboro racks on IP-3

5. Turbine governor valves operate No simultaneously on the simulator, sequentially on-IP-3.

6. The CVCS makeup integrators are No electronic digital on the sim-ulator, mechanical digital on IP-3.

7. The RHR system valve alignment No different on the simulator.

8. The saturation meter on the sim- No ulator is in. degrees F vs psi.

9. The service water bypass gate No controls are located in the control room on the simulator, IP-3 controls are in the field.

! 10. RPI scales are in inches in the No i simulator, IP-3 indicator scales are in steps.

F l-ATTACHMENT I IP-3 CCR/IP-2 Simulator Differences and Corrective Measures Insignificant IP-3/ Simulator Differences (continued)

Can~Be Difference Corrected

11. Equipment controls and alarm No indicator locations may vary somewhat.

12. Plant controls are of modular No construction at IP-3 but not on the simulator.

13. Reactivity parameters on the No simulator are cycle 1.

14. UNI recorder has split scales on No the simulator but not on IP-3.

15. Protection channels are fed Yes from different inst. busses.

16. Post TMI incident design changes No are installed on a separate panel changing control room appearance.

(

l 17. An L&N bearing monitor is installed No

, in the simulator vs. a Fluke monitor on IP-3.

l

18. FCU wier levels are digital on the No simulator and recorded, only analog on IP-3.

19. Diesel Gemerator numbering sequence No is different on the simulator.

i 20. Series containment isolation valves No are operated by one switch on the simulator, two switches on IP-3.

21. Simulator does not have a MSR vent No chamber modification.

22. Generator controls respond the reverse No l

of the IP-3 plant.

1 ATTACHMENT I -

IP-3 CCR/IP-2 Simulator Differences and Corrective Measures Insignificant IP-3/ Simulator Differences (continued)

Can Be Difference Corrected

23. Simulator does not have a fire display No and control panel.

24. Various trip setpoints are Yes slightly different.

25. Source Range loss of detector Yes voltage and high flux at shut down alarms are blocked by P-10 on the simulator.

26. Rad monitor recorders are located No within the operating area of-the simulator, IP-3 recorders are behind the flight panel.

27. S/G blowdown reset is via pushbutton No on the simulator switches on IP-3.

28. Turbo-graf recorder for turbine vib- No ration has been replaced with several mini-recorders on the simulator.

29. Low vacuum is indicated by white No j - lights adjacent to the vacuum re-corder on the simulator vs. an annunciator on IP-3.

s

- y ..c -c, - - - - ,%,,-, r. . - ,.,,-p--- yo-y- . . , .,w-.-

~

ATTACHMENT I IP-3 CCR/IP-2 Simulator Differences and Corrective Measures Differences Transparent to the Operator.

Can Be Difference Corrected

1. RTD's for RCS-hot and cold No legs are located in the RCS piping vs. bypass manifolds on IP-3

2. Simulator has no S/G tubes No plugged vs. 12% plugged on IP-3.

3. Simulator has no secondary Yes plant steam leakage. ,

4. Simulator has auto transfer Yes of;DC control power for 480V bus breaker control.

I i

--,....-.,,..._,,,,,-n , , - - . , , , , . - . , ._.,,-,,,,_.-,.-..------,.,-c, , . , _ ,. , , - - - .

E-3 8 SOo E-0 ct;p 37 ES-3.1 9 See ES-0.2 step 19 ES-3.2 7 See ES-0.2 step 19 I

I f

- - , . - - -e,-a--,,,,,- - - - ,,-- - - _ , , , , . , , , , , _ , - , , . , , - _ - - - - . , - . . . _ , , . . . , , . _ , _ , . . , . , . _ , _ , _ _ _ _ , , _ _ . _ , , , , , , _ . _ , , , . _ , , , , , _ , , , ,

~

l s i '.

~ PROCEDURE STEP COMMENT.

.ES-3.3 7' Same as ES-3.2 step 7 ECA-0.0 9 Valves deenergized by a loss of ,

power cannot be manipulated by the instructor as a local operator action.

11 Cannot decrease generator H2 pressure on the simulator.

ECA-0.l' Attach. Simulator load distribution is 1 different.

7h. Valves 899A,B do not exist on the simulator..

ECA-1.1 9 Valves 1851A,B do not exist on the simulator.

ECA-1.2 4 Valves 1869A,B do not exist on the simulator.

Manual cold leg injection isolation valves in containment are not simulated.

ECA-2.1 6 Valves 1851A,B do not exist on the simulator.

ECA-3.1 1 Valves 1851A,B do not exist on the simulator.

ECA-3.2 No problem ECA-3.2 No problem

-ECA-3.3 No problem-1

! FR-S.1 1 DC distribution panels not simulated FR-S.2 NO PROBLEMS FR-C.1 1 SI valves different FR-C.2 1 SI valves different t FR-C.3 NO PROBLEMS FR-P.1 3 OPS arming setpoint is 297 F on simulator 6 Valves 1851A,B do not exist on the simulator.

In general, the emergency operating procedures can be effectively utilized by the operators using the IP-2 Simulator with only-minor exceptions. These have been pointed out above and do not reflect major problems with the use of the procedures nor has our experience. indicated any major problems.

4 1

i l

'4 f

i I

~

ATTACHMENT II EVOLUTIONS FOR WHICH SIMULATOR CAN BE USED EFFECTIVELY TO TRAIN IP-3 OPERATORS NORMAL OPERATION AND TRANSIENTS

• Rx and plant startup to full power ,

• Load changes throughout the source, intermediate and '

power range l

• Rx and plant shutdown to hot shutdown

• Plant cooldown to 350F

• Plant cooldown on RHR to cold shutdown MINOR MALFUNCTIONS AND INSTRUMENT FAILURES

• All NIS operations and malfunctions

• All primary process instrument failures such as:

Tave PZR level and pressure SGWLC

• All Rod Control malfunctions including stuck and dropped rods

• All RCP malfunctions

• All Reactivity control malfunctions

• All CVCS malfunctions

• All Rx protection malfunctions

• Primary, Secondary and support system pump trips

• Performance of routine surveillance tests

• Component inoperability requiring actions specified in the technical specifications

• Primary, Secondary and support system leaks that may or may not result in a unit trip but do not result in the actuation of the ESF systems

• Loss of an instrument bus i

• Unit trip

• Loss of all AC power except that restoration is different (see differences) i

. . . - - . , - . - _ . _ _ , . - - - . _ _ - _ - - . _ - - - _ . . _ . - _ . , _ _ _ - , _ , _ . _ , . _ . _ . . , . . . , - . _ - _ _ , _ ~ - - _ , _ _ - , _ .

.1 ATTACHMENT III EVOLUTIONS WHERE DIFFERENCES HAVE Mi IMPACT ON THE USE OF THE IP-2 SIMULATOR FOR TRAINING AND FOR EVALUATION MAJOR MALFUNCTIONS

• Primary, Secondary or support system failures that result in the actuation of SI, will require that operator to be aware of the differences specified in the differences list attachment I

'* Electrical malfunctions including loss of various busses, MCc's etc. are significantly different as noted in the differences list. While the general electrical bus arrangement is similar, the blackout logic, bus loads and diesel tie in are all different. This is what causes

the most confusion. Certain aspects can be masked by the t instructor but this will continue to be a major difference.

• SI system valve incorrect alignment malfunctions l are difficult. While much of the SI system is the same, i IP-3'has 2 headers (BIT and Non-BIT) IP-2 only has 1.

This results in different valve designations'during'SI valve alignment checks.

• Problems with the BIT are difficult due to the design differences as noted in Attachment I.

• Phase A problems difficult only from the aspect of rosetting Phase 'A'. The isolation of the containment, the valves involved, and the system affects are virtually the i same.

1 p In several of the above, manual operator action is necessary i

to resolve the differences. This may serve as an exercise in re-enforcement of the need-to verify automatic actions.  ;

i i

4 5

1 l

)

r

ATTACHMENT IV ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF SIMULATOR DIFFERENCES ON THE USE OF THE EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES PROCEDURE STEP COMMENT E-0 9 Fan cooler ~ damper switches 12 Can't be done either unit not simulated 16 -Phase 'A' valve arrangement and logic very different 22 BIT valves can't be done 26 Subcooling check different but uses same indication 37 FCU valve control switches different but hasn't presented a major problem ES-0.1 NO PROBLEMS ES-0.2 19 SI valves different but can be simulated to accomplish the same effect without much problem 31 Same as step 19 ES-0.3 10 SI valve alignment E-1 6 See E-0 step 37 25c SI valve alignment ES-1.1 1 See E-0 step 37 15 BIT valves totally different 17 IVSW valves unit 2 only has 1410 and 1413 not 6200 and 6201. This doesn't present a major problem ES-1.2 NO PROBLEM ES-1.3 See differences list ATT I ES-1.4 See differences list ATT I

' Basically these procedures can be accomplished in their entirity provided the instructor place designators on the recirc swithces indicating the different numbering cchomo. All actions performed by the switches are virtually identical between the two units.

E-2 NO PROBLEM

ATTACMMENT V SIMULATOR DIFFERENCES CORRECTED The following items have been' deleted from the simulator

. differences list you have in your possession.

1) Full power on the simulator for the IP-3 load is now 100%, and corresponds to 1000MWe.

2) The Main Turbine and MBFP speed digital indicators have been changed to analog as in IP-3

3) The Turbine runback for the NIS dropped rod is now functioning on the simulator

4) The Tave program used at IP-3 has been incorporated onto the program disk for the simulator.

5) IP-3 specific setpoints for Rx Protection and Safeguards actuation have been incorporated i

i l

, - - . , . . ,,- -. ~. -- -. ,.,.- ... .- ,,,- -- ,, - - - --.----- -,- - - - -,-- - - , - -

.--- -. ..- ,.-.., _.