ML20214P977
| ML20214P977 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/27/1986 |
| From: | Evans C NRC |
| To: | Roessler S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214P901 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612040448 | |
| Download: ML20214P977 (4) | |
Text
F t
To: S. Ross p. Acting anch Cheif, BWR section From:.C. . o ns, WR Instructor
Subject:
Differing Professional Opinion --Problems associated with the exclusive use of BWR-6 technology in the BWR reactor inspector course series During the 1986 clander year, the Technical Training Center instituted a fundaulmental change in which the BWR-4 technology (Browns Ferry) was replaced by the BWR-6 technology (Black fon). This change was precipitated by the acquisition of the Black Fon Simulator through a lease-purchase agreement between the NRC and the General Electric Corp. Because of the allocation of monies through the NRC budget,, the Technical Training Center (TTC) has been restricted in its ability to offer simulator training on other BWR model types. This restriction is a direct result of tying up the TTC financial resources on the Black-Fon Simulator.
The Black Fox Simulator is modeled as a BWR-6 with a nucleanet controlroom. The percentage of BWR's that are of the BWR-6 ventage is 10.81 precent. During the past year no simulator courses were conducted on a BWR-4. This is also the last year that a simulator course will be conducted on a BWF-3. The BWR-3 simulator course is a 1 week simulator course offered once a year. The present game plan for the for the TTC is teach all simulator courses on the Black Fan Simulator for the foreseeable furture.
The only plant with a controlroom similar to Black Fox is the Clinton Plant a BWR-6. The other BWR-6's do not in the general sense resemble the Black Fon Simulator. They do not have the Display Control System (DCS) of Black Fon. The DCS j consist of CRT's for display of process parameters. With the enception of Clintnn ar.d Susquehanna. no other BWR controtrooms have anyt.iing like DCS. Generally, other BWR's display plant parameters by meters and guages . Although all BWR controlrooms are different, the Browns Ferry simulator better resembles the mejority of BWR contro1 rooms.
The Black Fox simulator resembles 5.4 percent of all BWR controlrooms (only the Clinton Plant). The DCS system maybe beneficial for demonstrating system changesa to students, but I believe it fosters an untrue picture of typical controlroom.
. -r-8612040448 861128 PDR ORO NIED PDR l
L
~'- el oo.not os11 ewe we scuAa trato on a u;mv.eus . u.t. . _ __
atypicci to tho inductry. I furtner baliava that the *
.cbonconment of ths BWR-3/4 simulator courc a will hamper safety inspections of newly trained residents by depriving them of-the oppertunity to see a cimulator that is cimilar-toLthe BWR average. If the TTC were to reincorparate the BWR-4 simulator into its training program,
' them 1 believe the transition time for resident inspectors or reactor inspectors-to become familiar with their assigned plant's controlroom would be much shorter. In the present mode of operation, we must rely encessively on the initiative of the inspector to become familiar with his
~ ~
contro1 room. ,
Inaddition, the transition to teaching the BWR-6 technology for the systems and advanced courses for reactor inspectors deprives them of instruction on BWR -3/4 technology. Again I will point out that the BWR-6's makeup only 10.8 percent of all plants. When the TTC taught the BWR-4 technology, it represented 37.8 percent of all BWR's. Furthermore BWR-3's are much more like a BWR-4 than a BWR-6.
Because of the transition to the BWR-6 technology, the TTC management modified the advanced course to incorparate an enpanded BWR differences section. We spend 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> on differences which include the following topics.
We supposedly brigde the differences in containment design, reactivity control systems, recirculation system and recirculation flow control, emergency core cooling systems, and everything else in 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />. The 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> spent on differences makes up only about 5.6 percent of the course series training. It should be pointed out that the BWR-6 has a Mark 3 containment design constituting only 10.8 percent of all containment types. The Mark 1 containment f ound with BWR 3&4's constitute 51.35 percent of all containment types.
The over emphasis on the BWR-6 technololgy presents a concern in that the TTC is not adequately preparing inspectors for safety related inspections.
We are putting on the inspector the excessive burdon of having to become familiar with the majority of BWR's. This could have a signficant effect on the adequacy of inspection on BWR's that are other than.a BWR-6. I.believe this over emphasis on the BWR-o raises a significant safety question concerning the adequacy of the BWR instruction. It should be noted that the PWR training consist of separate instruction on all three FWR vender types ( Badcock and Willcon, Comoustion Engr.,and Wettinghouse). Furthermore, PWR training also includes simulator training on all three representive PWR vonder types. In fact at one time the BWR trainig included simulator exposure on the BWR-3,BWR-4,and BWR-6 (Perry Plant).
r_ - -
1 cm I
O'
/
1
. A, M}4 f'
/ N if df
/ . .
To: 5. Rosseler, Acting Branch Cheif, BWR section From: C. s, BWR Instructor
]2;Ol > V9H&
Subject:
Differing Professional Opinion - Problems associated with the enclusive use of BWR-6 technology in the BWR reactor inspector course series During the 1986 clander year, the Technical Training Center instituted a'fundaulmental change in which the BWR-4 technology (Browns Ferry) was replaced by the BWR-6 technology (Black fon). This change was precipitated by the acquisition of the Black Fon Simulator through a lease-purchase agreement between the NRC and the General Electric Corp. Because of the allocation of moneies through the NRC budget, the Technical Training Center (TTC) has been restricted in its ability to offer simulator-training on other BWR model types. This restriction is a direct result of tying up the TTC financial resources on the Black Fox Simulator.
The Black Fon Simulator is modeled as a BWR-6 with a nucleanet contro1 room. The percentage of BWR's that are of the BWR-6 ventage is 10.81. During the past year nc simulator courses were conducted on a BWR-4. This is also the last year that a simulator course will be conducted on a BWR-3. The BWR-3 simulator course is a 1 week simulator course offered once a year. The present game plan for the for the TTC is teach all simulator courses on the Black Fox Simulator for the foreseeable furture.
The only plant with a controlroom similar to Black Fox is the Clinton Plant a BWR-6. The other BWR-6's do not in the general sense resemble the Black Fox Si mul at or . They do not have the Display Control System (DCS) of Black Fon. The DCS consist of CRT's for display of process parameters. With the enception of Clinton and Susquehanna, no other BWR controlrooms have anything like DCS. Generally, other BWR's display plant parameters by meters and guages positioned just about anywhere . Although all BWR contro1 rooms are different, the Browns Ferry cimulator better resembles the majority of BWR controlrooms. The Black Fon simulator resembles 5.4 percent of all BWR contro1 rooms. The DCS system maybe beneficial for demonstrating system char.ges tc students, but I believe it facters an untrue picture of a typical contic1 room.
I oc not bGlieve w] sould train on e simulator.that is so
- otypical'to th9 industry. I furthar bollovo that th3 .
abandor. ment of the~BWR-3/4 simulator courses will hamper
. safety inspections of newly trained residents by depriving them of the oppertunity to see a simulator thet is similar to the BWR average.
Inaddition, the transition to teaching the BWR-6 technology for the systems and advanced courses for reactor inspectors deprives them of instruction'on BWR -3/4 technology. Again I will point out that the BWR-6's makeup only 10.8 percent of all plants. When the TTC taught the'BWR-4 technology, it represented 37.8 percent of all BWR's. Furthermore BWR-3's are much more like a BWR-4 than a BWR-6.
Because of the transition to the BWR-6 technology, the TTC management modified the advanced course to incorparate an expanded BWR differences section. We spend 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> on differences which include the following topics.
We supposedly brigde the differences in containment design, reactivity control systems, recirculation system and recirculation flow control, emergency core cooling systems, and everything else. The 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> spent on differences makes up only about 5.6 percent of the course series training.
The over emphasis on the BWR-6 technololgy presents a l concern in that the TTC is not adequately preparing instructors for safety inspections. We are putting on the inspector the excessive burdon of having to become familiar with the majority of BWR's. This could have a signficant effect on the adequacy of inspection on BWR's that are other than a BWR-6.
, . . - _ -. . -. - - - _ ~ - _ . , , - - - . - _ - , . - , . . . . -