ML20214P947

From kanterella
Revision as of 21:55, 18 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Views on 860827 Differing Prof Opinion Re BWR Technology Training.No Further Action Required
ML20214P947
Person / Time
Issue date: 08/29/1986
From: Roessler S
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20214P901 List:
References
NUDOCS 8612040438
Download: ML20214P947 (2)


Text

. .

o UNITED STATES {

y

/ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l a '

3 j TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER '

g OSBORNE OFFICE CENTER, SUITE 210 CHATTANOOGA, TN 37411

%'+, * * * *

  • p AUG 2 9 BIS Views of Stephen D. Roessler on DP0 dated 8/27/86 In his differing professional opinion, Mr. Evans points out that the curriculum for Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) technology training has undergone a relatively recent change from a BWR/4 base to a BWR/6 base. He further states that the phasing-out of BWR/4 and BWR/3 simulator training makes the current NRC simulator training not representative of the industry. Mr. Evans's major ccncern is that the TTC BWR training is not adequately preparing inspectors for safety-related inspections because of the emphasis on the BWR/6 design.

I disagree with this opinion for several reasons. The first of these .easons deals w'ith the nature of BWR technology training given to potential NRC inspectors. The thrust of the BWR technology training program is to give inspectors knowledge of major systems and system components present in the BWR design, system interrelationships, integrated plant response to normal and transient conditions, and technical specifications as discussed in the classroom and in a control room context. This knowledge then gives the inspectors tools which can be used in any BWR application. As such, the BWR base which is used for the curriculum makes little difference since use of any base in the BWR product line from BWR/2 through BWR/6 would be valid.

I've taught on BWR/3, BWR/4, and BWR/6 simulators and have visited many of the BWR sites. Based on my observations, there is no standard BWR/3 or BWR/4 plant. Within either BWR product line there are differences in plant systems and in control room panel l layout and appearance. Whatever simulator is used for NRC training will require coverage of plant design differences.

The TTC BWR course series has never been designed to teach inspectors how to be operators or to instill a detailed familiarity with any particular control room design. BWR simulator training of inspectors still involves some hands-on training as in the past.

Such training, however, is not designed to make the inspectors proficient in operating the equipment or to allow them to become so familiar with the control board that they could find a certain switch with their eyes closed. Rather the hands-on training is provided to given inspectors an indication of the scope and level of difficulty involved in the operation of certain equipment.

One of the concerns of Mr. Evans is that the Black Fox simulator has a Display Control System (DCS) which presents consolidated information in a compact but easily viewable format. This system l

in particular is the very strength of using the Black Fox simulator for training of NRC personnel. It allows for more information transfer to the student and allows the student to get a better appreciation for component response and system interaction.

8612040438 861128 PDR ORG NIED PDR

1 Differences across the BWR product lines are in fact covered during several modules in the BWR Advanced Technology Course (R-506B).

One of these modules provides substantial coverage of both the Mark I and the Mark II containment designs. It is worth noting that there have been only two BWR course series thus far using the BWR/6 base. It seems safe to assume that specific items in the curriculum will be either contracted, expanded, or refined as more experience is obtained using the new curriculum.

I consider that no further action is required on this differing professional opinion.

Stt. phen D. Roessler, Acting Chief BWR Technology Branch, TTC DQAVT, OIE

, , - , - , , . - - - - - - - , . - . , - - - ,v-,- - - , -- - - -,- - - - - , - - --,,,-,,,--.n--- , , , , . - -----.-r-,-_ ',,, .- - --- ---- - - - - - - - - ,-