XA0302230 EVALUATION OF TRAINING ACTIVITIES IN ARGENTINA



Similar documents
10 Nuclear Power Reactors Figure 10.1

NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS FOR ONTARIO - THE CONTENDERS October

V K Raina. Reactor Group, BARC

OPG READY TO DELIVER REFURBISHMENT OF DARLINGTON NUCLEAR STATION OPG also planning continued operation of Pickering Station

SPANISH NUCLEAR INDUSTRY. Antonio Cornadó Quibus President Spanish Nuclear Industry Forum

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SYSTEMS and OPERATION

HOW DOES A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WORK?

Russian Nuclear Power Program (past, present, and future) Dr. Igor Pioro Senior Scientist CRL AECL

Master Degree in Nuclear Engineering: Academic year

The Price-Anderson Act and the Three Mile Island Accident

Westinghouse AP1000 PWR and the Growing Market for New Nuclear Power Plants

Decommissioning of German Nuclear Research Facilities under the Governance of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research

COFRENTES NPP. March 14, Iberdrola Generación, SA Producción Nuclear Iberdrola Generación, SA Producción Nuclear 1

Q Q Change Change LFL

EXCHANGE OF STEAM GENERATORS IN PRESSURIZED WATE R REACTOR POWER PLANT S ABSTRACT

Teollisuuden Voima Oyj - General Presentation January Ilkka Mikkola Senior Adviser (Former Fuel Manager) Teollisuuden Voima Oyj

Public SUMMARY OF EU STRESS TEST FOR LOVIISA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT IN GERMANY - PROCEDURE, DATA, RESULTS -

Building New Generation Nuclear Plants Worldwide : AREVA's Experience

INTRODUCTION. Three Mile Island Unit 2

Foreign Obligations Notification Process

Prospect of Hitachi Nuclear Business (Boiling Water Reactor)

ANTEP 2015 Needs from China (NNSA)

Fukushima Fukushima Daiichi accident. Nuclear fission. Distribution of energy. Fission product distribution. Nuclear fuel

Steam Power Plants as Partners for Renewable Energy Systems

Nuclear Regulation for SMR in India Current Perspectives

The ACR : Advanced Design Features for a Short Construction Schedule

Elements of the Russian Emergency Preparedness Program

Management of delayed nuclear power plant projects

EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF OPERATORS AND MAINTENANCE STAFF AT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS IN JAPAN

Fission fragments or daughters that have a substantial neutron absorption cross section and are not fissionable are called...

Solutions for Nuclear & Renewable Power Generation

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1. Renewed License No. NPF-63

A short history of reactors

CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE FROM MODULAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Dynamic Behavior of BWR

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION WASHINGTON, D.C June 1, 2005

Government Degree on the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants 717/2013

Nuclear Safety Council Instruction number IS- 23 on in-service inspection at nuclear power plants

WEC PGP Workshop on Benchmarking Working Group #2 Report Buenos Aires, 20 April 2010

U.S. Commercial Power and Fuel Supply Outlook

Application of FPGA-based Safety Controller for Implementation of NPPs I&C Systems Vladimir Sklyar, Technical Director

Belgian Stress tests specifications Applicable to all nuclear plants, excluding power reactors 22 June 2011

Appendix 2 Ontario s Nuclear Generating Facilities: A History and Estimate of Unit Lifetimes and Refurbishment Costs

Current status of electricity generation at nuclear power plants

The Economic Benefits of Refurbishing and Operating Ontario s Nuclear Reactors

WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NUCLEAR OPERATORS. Performance Indicators

AP1000 Technology: Passive & Proven

8 Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) and Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs) - Issue 06

Operational Reactor Safety /22.903

International Symposium on Nuclear Security

Preliminary validation of the APROS 3-D core model of the new Loviisa NPP training simulator

Deregulation, Consolidation, and Efficiency: Evidence from U.S. Nuclear Power

Physics and Engineering of the EPR

RESPONSE BY THE AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION TO: ISSUES PAPER THREE ELECTRICITY GENERATION FROM NUCLEAR FUELS NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE ROYAL COMMISSION

AES-92 for Belene: The Mystery Reactor

Loviisa 3 unique possibility for large scale CHP generation and CO 2 reductions. Nici Bergroth, Fortum Oyj FORS-seminar

Levelized costs for nuclear, gas and coal for Electricity, under the Mexican scenario.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014

Decommissioning situation of Nuclear Power Plant in Japan

AREVA. Solutions for Nuclear & Renewable Power Generation

FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS ISE

Nuclear Power Plant & Systems David Downing / Kenneth Green. WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff / Sargent & Lundy TUESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2015

Belgian Stress tests specifications Applicable to power reactors 17 May 2011

May 23, 2011 Tokyo Electric Power Company

Energy Consumption Increases Slightly in Renewables Continue to Grow / Advantages Due to Weather, Economic Trend, and Immigration

Building a clean energy future for Latin America: A nuclear perspective. LAS-ANS, Santiago, July th, 2015

Fast reactor development program in Russia

Canadian National Report for the Convention on Nuclear Safety

Performance Monitoring & Optimization

Qualification of In-service Inspections of NPP Primary Circuit Components

TURKISH NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME NUCLEAR ENERGY PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DEPARTMENT


Mexican Efforts Towards Building a Design Basis Threat for Radiological and Nuclear Environment.

Generation IV Fast Reactors. Dr Richard Stainsby AMEC

Part 1 General and Administrative Information. Part 3 Applicant s Environmental Report Combined License Stage

LATIN AMERICAN NETWORK FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY LANENT R. Barrachina, J.L. François

Office Of Nuclear Energy Sensors and Instrumentation Annual Review Meeting

The Status of Nuclear Power in the World Before and After Fukushima

Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor BREST Project Status and Prospects

ANDRITZ Pumps Products, systems, applications

Swiss media visit to Olkiluoto August 15, 2014

Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants

Rosatom Investment Projects. Perspective in Europe and in the world

PROPOSALS FOR UNIVERSITY REACTORS OF A NEW GENERATION

Wall Thinning Trend Analyses for Secondary Side Piping of Korean NPPs

Improving reactor safety systems using component redundancy allocation technique

Nuclear A Canadian Strategy for Energy, Jobs and Innovation

Introductions: Dr. Stephen P. Schultz

Nuclear Education & Training in France. Support to Newcomer and Expanding Countries

U.S. Operators Perspective on Nuclear Liability

BWR Description Jacopo Buongiorno Associate Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering

Ontario Power Generation Pickering Fuel Channel Fitness for Service. August 2014

Fire Protection Program Of Chashma Nuclear Power Generating Station Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission 5/28/2015 1

WWER Type Fuel Manufacture in China

A Nuclear New Deal. Jacques Besnainou. President, AREVA Inc. AREVA

Nuclear Power in South Korea

AREVA, an unparalleled experience in building nuclear reactors

Nuclear Consultancy & Engineering Services

Control of Hazardous Energy LOCKOUT/TAGOUT 29 CFR

Transcription:

XA0302230 EVALUATION OF TRAINING ACTIVITIES IN ARGENTINA Alejandro D. SANDA ATUCHANPP ARGENTINA I came from Argentina. Do you know where Argentina is? Argentina is in South America, below Brazil. The area of the country is around 1.082.000 miles 2 (2.800.000 km 2), and we have 35.000.000 inhabitants. We have two Nuclear Plants in operation, and one under construction. The first one is Atucha I, of 357 Mw. It's being operated since 1974. It is the first NPP in Latin America. The Plant was built for Siemens - KWU (Germany). The other station, called EMBALSE, has a CANDU Reactor. It's sited in the Province of Cordoba, hi the center of the country. It was built by AECL (Canada), and it is a 648 MW unit. It's being operated since 1984. Very close to Atucha I, Atucha n NPP (projected for 745 MW) is placed, which is still under construction. Actually, the construction is stopped. The government of Argentina initiated a process of privatization of Nuclear Power Plants. So, one of the main tasks of the new owner will be the completion and start-up of this Plant (Atucha II NPP). Atucha I and Atucha n are PHWRs. This is Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors. Therefore we use Heavy Water as coolant and moderator, and Natural Uranium as fuel. Actually, we are in a process to incorporate slightly enriched uranium fuels, with U 235 content of 0.85 %. The fuel elements are fully assembled in Argentina: from the uranium mineral process to the assembler of the fuel bundle. Besides, we have a Heavy Water Plant and an Uranium Enrichment Plant also. I am the responsible of Training in Atucha I Plant. We have around 400 employees. My goal in this meeting is to hear about your experience hi Evaluating the Effectiveness of Training, since our experience about it is very weak. I know that in a teaching-learning process the last stage is to evaluate how it was. Do we need to improve something? Is effective the way we conduct training? How can we measure this? When the Plant began its operation, in 1974, Germans trained the initial crew. Afterwards, when we had to work alone (without any local German support) we didn't suffer big technical problems, because we had a new Plant!!. We didn't realized that a continuous Training Program was necessary. As time went by, technical problems start arising and it was necessary to develop a training program. The point here was that this program did not have been up-dated along the time. Since 1994, and with a new management, we realized that we were "frozen" in the time. Therefore we began a conversion process to up-date our Training tools. -207-

We began using a Full Scope Simulator, placed in Brazil, to train operations personnel (Actually, we began in 1987, by since 1994 we change our training target for the simulator) We developed an Interactive Graphic Simulator and a Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) program, with the support of TECNATOM (Spain). Finally we recycled our Training facilities to have a more comfortable environment for the students. But the missing point here was to establish a program to "measure" training effectiveness. We began to appreciate how effective is our training in areas such us maintenance, paying attention to dose reduction. But only for some specific task. Let's see some examples: 1) During the task of changing the seal of our Main Pumps, the collective dose rate was: In 1996 231.35 msv man. In 1998, 177.63 msv man. The last change was during this year and the collective dose rose to 176.46 msv man. Reduction 1996-1998 : 23 % Reduction 1998-1999 : 1% 2) Reactor vessel inspection: In 1994, for only 2 inspections, our collective dose was 46.15 msv man. In 1996, 4 inspections, it was 26.7 msv man. For 5 inspections, in 1998 the collective dose was 25.55 msv man. Reduction 1994-1996 : 42.15 % Reduction 1996-1998 : 4.29 % 3) Our refueling is on-service. That's why we have 2 refueling Machines. One is in service, meanwhile the other is in maintenance. Here the task is to replace the on duty refueling machine by the other: In 1992, for this task our collective dose was 241.15 msv man. In 1995, it was 134.15 msv man. The last replacement, in 1997, demanded a collective dose of 103.33 msv man. Reduction 1992-1995 : 37.35 % Reduction 1995-1997 : 23 % 4) In our reactor the fuel is inside a channel, called "coolant channel". We have 252 of these position channels. We cannot have the same coolant channel along the reactor life. Therefore, we have to sequentially replace these "coolant channels". In 1994, this task required a collective dose of 47.4 msv man (for 11 channels). In 1996, it was 27 msv man (for 69 channels). Reduction 1994-1996 : 43 % -208-

In general, we believe that we'll be able to appreciate the global effectiveness of our training, looking at parameters like (but for long period of time): * Less number of non-planned shutdowns due to human errors. * Less number of correctives works in the equipment, when preventive tasks were performed on them. * Less dose to perform equipment maintenance. * Less time to perform equipment maintenance. * Shorter outages, with less dose. * Less number of personnel accidents. *... and so on. But, I have to admit that It isn't easy to measure the relationship between this parameters and the Training. Now, here, I am learning how you are doing this task. -209-

ANNEX I Presentation transparencies -210-

ARGENTINA EMBALSE NPP (648 MW) ATUCHAI NPP (357 MW) ATUCHA II NPP (745 MW) -211-

ARGENTINA MAY 19 Installed Gross Power THEUMAL 49,51% (160 Plants) NUCLEAR THERMAL HYDRAULIC Total 1005 MW 9810 MW 9188 MW 20003 MW NUCLEAR 5,24% (2 Plants) HYDRAULIC 45,24% (80 Plants) Produced Gross Energy NUCLEAR THERMAL HYDRAULIC Total 713.3 MWe 3013.IMWe 1972.4 MWe 5702.8 MWe THERMAL 57% NUCLEAR 13% HYDRAU1 29% -212-

SINCE 1994 : CO Full Scope Simulator for operations personnel Interactive Graphic Simulator Systematic Approach to Training Program Recycled of Training facilities

CHANGE OF MAIN PUMPS SEAL 250 DOSE REDUCTION 1996-1998:23,22% - 1999: 1 % 1996 1998 1999

IN SERVICE INSPECTIONS REACTOR VESSEL DOSE REDUCTION 1994-1996:42,15% 1996-1998: 4,29% 1994 1996 1998

REPLACEMENT OF REFUELING MACHINE 250 -, DOSE REDUCTION 1992-1995:37,35% 1995-1997:23% to 0 1992 1995 1997

CHANGE OF COOLANT CHANNELS 11 CHANNELS DOSE REDUCTION : 43 % 1994 1996

How can we measure the "Effectiveness of Training"? Parameters to look after: 00 > Less number of non-planed shutdowns due to human errors Less number of correctives works in the equipment, when preventive tasks were performed on them Less dose / time to perform equipment maintenance Shorter outages, with less dose Less number of personnel accidents and so on