RBG-43289, Responds to Re River Bend Station Simulator
| ML20129B976 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1996 |
| From: | King R ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| RBF1-96-0378, RBF1-96-378, RBG-43289, NUDOCS 9610230176 | |
| Download: ML20129B976 (4) | |
Text
m Ent:rgy operItions,Inc.
e Rever Bend Station 5485 U. S. Highway 61 O
PO Box 220 y
St. Francisville, LA 70775 Tel 504 336 6225 Fax 504 635 5068 Rick J. King Dwector Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affwrs October 10,1996 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
ATTN: Document Control Desk M/S PI-37 Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Reply to August 15,1996, NRC Letter River Bend Station - Unit I License No. NPF-47 Docket No. 50-458 File Nos -
G9.5 RBG-43289 RBF1-96-0378 Ladies and Gentlemen:
i 7
The attached information addresses an August 15,1996, NRC letter from Mr. Stuart A.
Richards, Chief Operator Licensing Branch, Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to Mr. Don Hintz, Chief Executive i
Officer, Entergy Operations Inc. (EOI), regarding the River Bend Station (RBS) simulator. The letter documented the results of an off-site NRC review of the RBS simulator problem report list, The problem report list appears to have been viewed as a discrepancy list which resulted in a mischaracterization of several problem reports. The RBS simulator problem report list is used to document questions and desired improvements as well as potential simulator discrepancies. The simulator problem report list at RBS is not a verified discrepancy list and no significant simulator degradations exist.
Several onsite internal and external reviews, inspections and assessments over the last two years have documented the River Bend simulator is ~ capable of supporting quality training.
In addition, the results showed the problem reports do not have a significant negative impact on operator training. Better communication between the NRC and RBS on the Ad/
9610230176 961010 PDR ADOCK 05000458 p
l
\\
Reply to August 15,1996, NRC Letter
. October 10,1996 RBG-43289 RBF1-96-0378 Page 2 of 2 purpose and contents of the list would have clarified the specifics of the current status of the River Bend simulator.
While the River Bend simulator is currently meeting ANSI /ANS 3.51985 requirements (with the exceptions listed on NRC Form 474 " Simulation Facility Certification", ), a substantial simulator upgrade project has been underway and is continuing to enhance simulator capabilities.
i Should you have any questions regarding the attached information, please contact Mr.
David Lorfing of my staff at (504) 381-4157.
Sincerely, RJK/JPO attachments cc:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington,TX 76011 1
NRC Sr. Resident Inspector P. O. Box 1050 St. Francisville, LA 70775 David Wigginton NRR Project Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M/S OWFN 13-H-15 Washington, DC 20555 l
J
1
=
ATTACHMENT l
The RBS simulator problem report list contains all open items identified (questions, problems, requests,...). RBS encourages operators, management evaluators, and instructors to document questions and desired improvements and enhancements concerning the simulator. The intention of the list is to solicit and encourage the identification of simulator improvement items no matter how insignificant they may appear. The problem reports are not screened or validated prior to being entered into the j
simulator problem report list. As mentioned during the NRC's request, the simulator problem report list reflects " raw data." Because of this, items identified on the list may be enhancements, desired improvements, misapprehensions, or merely reflect an operator, instructor, or observer questioning a given scenario or simulator response.
Reflecting this very low threshold for problem report initiation, simulator problem reports vary widely in validity and importance. Since RBS encourages this low threshold for simulator problem reports, it is particularly important to have an understanding of each problem and how it is graded to properly characterize that problem.
The Simulator Performance Verification and Configuration Management Procedure controls the disposition of simulator problem reports. This procedure defines four categories of Simulator problem reports. The problem reports are classified into one of these four categories.
Priority 1: "The degradation in training effectiveness is significant and simulator training should be minimized until corrected".
Priority 2: "There is some degradation in training effectiveness. The deficiency does not, however, render the training features of the simulator ineffective for training."
Priority 3: " The deficiency causes no specific degradation in training effectiveness.
The deficiency may be a distraction to students or instructors in the conduct of simulator exercises. The deficiency should be resolved to ensure simulator technical accuracy and training effectiveness."
Priority 4: "It is desirable to enhance the current capabilities of the simulator."
River Bend currently has no priority I simulator problem reports. Of the 29 problem i
reports listed as being of the most concern by the NRC, 5 have been resolved, 5 are rated as priority 2,16 are rated as priority 3, and 3 are rated as a priority 4. Of the problem reports listed, 18 of them were initiated within the previous 6 months.
Several problem reports on the "most concern" list were efficiency requests by instmctors for activation of a malfunction or enclosure by a single key stroke instead of using preprogramming or overrides. They do not reflect an inability of the simulator to produce a result. The current project to upgrade the instructor's console is addressing these issues.
Simulator fidelity observations in the emergency procedure inspection (report 50-458/95-
- 06) conducted in January 1995 identified the existing simulator fidelay problems were known and appropriate action plans had been initiated. It was also noted continuing Page1 1
ATTACHMENT o
simulhtor fidelity problems were being addressed by long term simulator upgrade projects such as the installation of the new core and thermal hydraulics model and the containment and activity transport models. Both of these models were installed as scheduled in late 1995. Based on personnel interviews, this repor: concluded there was strong management support for simulator upgrades and the simulator problems did not have a negative impact on training.
- Simulator fidelity observations in the licensed operator requalification program inspection report 50-458/95-27 conducted in. November,1995, concluded the simulator facility was serving training needs well. The inspectors did not find any simulator problems which would result in a significant negative impact on training.
Entergy Operations Inc. (EOI) Plant Support and Assessment Department, conducted a team self-assessment of Operator Simulator Training from August 5th through 9th,1996.
Using NRC Inspection Reports,. Audit / Assessment Reports, Configuration Control Procedure, Annual Test Plan, Root Cause Report, independent observations and interviews with instmctors and operators, the team evaluated the configuration control preg.am for simulator hardware and software to determine if the simulator accurately represents the operational characteristics of plant components and systems. The team also evaluated the scope of simulation to determine ifit was adequate to provide quality training. The team determined the simulator is able to provide quality training.
Several major simulator upgrades have been implemented in the past few years. Currently an improved instmetor console is being installed which will enhance troubleshooting ability and increase the number of usable malfunctions and overrides. River Bend continues to maintain a low threshold for simulator problem reports. This process along with the other ongoing enhancements ensures the RBS simulator supports high quality operator training.
1 f
Page 2