ML20214P899
| ML20214P899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/28/1986 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Evans C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214P901 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612040416 | |
| Download: ML20214P899 (2) | |
Text
.
/
4 UNITED STATES N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556
- %,...../
NOV 2 81996 i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chesley B. Evans, Instructor BWR Technology Branch Technical Training Center Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
James M. Taylor. Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION (DP0 86-04)
On August 27, 1986 you filed a draft and a final version of a differing pro-fessional opinion (DPO) related to the adequacy of the BWR course series taught at the NRC Technical Training Center. The reviews and evaluations pro-vided by Mr. Roessler, Mr. Raglin and Mr. Grimes were provided to you in September 1986; subsequently, you also requested an impartial peer review.
An impartial peer review group comprised of senior representatives from the Division of Reactor Projects organization in Regions I, II, and III was formed by this office to address the substance of the issues raised by your DPO. The results of their review and evaluation, including the documents reviewed arid generated in connection with their effort, were documented in the enclosed November 12, 1986 report.
I consider their evaluation of the numerous points identified in the DP0 as both complete and objective. Several minor errors in one page of the evaluation have been corrected. A revised page is attached directly to this letter. The peer review group also made observations which are outside the direct scope of the DP0 and arc being pursued.
When reviewed upon its own merit, the issue of degraded inspection resulting from the shift to emphasis on BWR/6 technology for the TTC course series was found to be unsubstantiated by the peer review group. This conclusion is con-sistent with that reached by your immediate supervisor and managers.
As the responsible Office Director, I have determined that the DP0 fails to justify any modification of the management decision, policy position or exist-ing agency practice related to the BWR course series taught at the TTC. Conse-quently, I consider the DP0 resolved and by copy of this copy, am placing the l
enclosed report, which includes the DP0 statements, the peer review group's report and this response, in the Public Document Room. /
\\
x JjmesM.Ta r, Director Uffice of I pection and Enforcement (J
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
V. Stello, EDO R. M. Scroggins, RM PDR v B. G. Grimes, IE K. A. Raglin, TTC S. D. Roessler, TTC 8612040416 861128 PDR ORG NIED PDR
=-
ENCLOSURE
- 4. '0BSERVATIO'NS OF TRAINING ACTIVITIES 4.1 Simulator Observations
.The. Black Fox BWR simulator was evaluate'd during the course of the peer group review to determine whether it was atypical to most control room designs and to compare its effectiveness as a training tool.for
. inspectors when considering the differences in, and absence of, certain recorders, gages, and indicators comon to earlier model BWR control room displays. The review was conducted in part, while a course was in progress in order to observe student response to.the Display Control System (DCS) and CRT displays. A separate review was conducted to demonstrate simulator capability without student presence. The peer review group found the DCS and CRT application capability of the Black Fox Simulator to be " user
~ friendly." While there is little commonality to earlier control room designs or specific equipment panel location, this design is conceptually typical of the Safety Parameter Display Systems (SPDS) currently installed or being installed at commercial operating plants throughout the United States..This was considered to be a positive simulator attribute.
Notably, the availability and use of CRT displays are considered to be valuable operator / student aids in providing rapid and graphic system response visuals as a teaching device. The peer review group also considers the capability to demonstrate system performance in an integrated format to be a valuable instructional technique of benefit to newer inspectors here-to-fore not available to inspection personnel.
I The peer group also evaluated the simulator to determine whether an untrue picture of a typical BWR control room is portrayed because of the extensive use of CRTs in displaying process systems and parameters. While the nuclear design differs markedly from the BWR/2, 3 and 4 designs, the peer group concluded that the Black Fox Simulator can successfully bridge the gap and changes to accommodate appreciation and understanding of earlier models.
4
'4.2 BWR Technology Difference In some instances-the BWR course series curriculum has been modified from a purely Black Fox design to conform with more conventional BWR technology.
For example, the group noted that the reactor protection system logic presented in the curriculum has been modified to the more standardized 1 out of 2 taken twice approach.
Further, the peer group noted that instructors simulate operation of an earlier model design by selectively operating certain BWR/6 product line components, e.g. flux controller, EHC pressure regulator, rod control and feedwater heaters. Other system differences are accommodated for by
^
incorporating BWR Differences Training Sessions into the course curriculum.
(Appendix I.) The formal classroom training on BWR model type differences accounts for sixteen to twenty-five percent of the total time spent in the advanced technology course. This time does not include discussions and demonstrations of differences on the simulator between the instructor and student, estimated to be about five to ten percent of the time spent in the simulator course, j
- _ _