IR 05000029/1987014

Insp Rept 50-029/87-14 on 870831-0902.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensed Operator Training Conducted Since Nov 1986 & Future Training

ML20235Z604
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	10/15/1987
From:	Dudley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20235Z601	List: IR 05000029/1987014 ML20235Z600
References
50-029-87-14, 50-29-87-14, NUDOCS 8710210221
Download: ML20235Z604 (5)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

- .

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /87-14 Docket N License No. OPR-3 Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Facility Name: Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Staticn Inspection At: Rowe, Massachusetts Inspection Dates: August 31 to September 2, 1987 Inspector: _f A 49 _

[[k~h- k2 ;

N. Oudley, Se/ior Operations Engineer Date

'

Approved by: b '. .

_

}}]] /6 - /f - 8 7 R. KelleV, Chie Date Pressurized Water Reactor Section Operations Branch, DRS Inspection Summar_y: A routine inspection was conducted of licensed operator training which had been conducted since November 1986, and the licensed operator training which is planned for the future. Actions had been taken in the last two months to correct previously identified deficiencie Plans have been established for ccmpleting further impv sement kk G

kbbbk [

, _

- ,

i DETAILS

.1. Scope:

A review was conducted of the licensed operator training which has been conducted since. November 1986, and the training which is planned for the next 18 month Included in the review were the training records of an .l individual who had failed a facility administered requalification annua i examination, scheduled training which had been conducted in 1987, l rewritten lesson plans, and future schedules and milestones. The review focused on long term training program weaknesses which had been identified by past inspections and examinations. Examination Report 50-29/85-03(0L)

issued on March 25, 1985, identified a concern with the adequacy of the licensee's training material. The concern was highlighted in the SALP report issued in May 1985. Examination Report 50-29/85-22(O'L) issued on January 31, 1986, Inspection Report 50-29/86-03 issued on~ March 3, 1986, and Examination Report 50-29/87-04(0L) issued on June 1,1987, identified training program weaknesses in the area of integrated plant operation Examination Report 50-29/86-07(0L) issued August 26, 1986, identified

'

problems with the quality of the licensee's training materia Requalification Program Evaluation Report 50-29/86-20(0L) issued March 3, 1987, identified weaknesses in the requalification training program which !

were similar to the weaknesses which had previously been identified in the !

initial licensing training progra The weaknesses identified in the Requalification Program Evaluation Report had been identified by the facility in an internal audit conducted in August 1986, and confirmed by a facility investigation conducted in December 1986, 2. Findings The operator who was identified by the facility as failing the annual l written examination in November 1986, was provided with two weeks of '

retraining, was reevaluated, and was returned to shift wor The retraining consisted primarily of self study. The instructor who was i assigned responsibility for the operator's retraining was not knowledge-able in the areas of the identified operator's weaknesses. No documented ;

written training program was prepared to direct the operator's self stud Direct instruction appears to have been centered on the answers to the l questions from the written examination. The reevaluation examination contained, verbatim, the questions missed by the operator on the initial examination. The operator scored above 90% on the reevaluation examination. Due to the lack of structure and content of the accelerated retraining program, it is believed that the extent of the operator's knowledge weaknesses were not quantified, identified nor adequately strengthened by the retraining program. The Licensee's retraining program appears to require further strengthening in this area, which should be

'

provided by the Training Advisory Committee.

l l

l l-

)

!

E _

- _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

.

'.

l L 3 l

.The lesson plans.and enabling objectives used for the six week licensed operator training programs conducted between January 1987 and June 1987 showed no significant improvement over previous training material. The licensee decided after a meeting held with the NRC on June 23, 1987, to implement a segmented requalification program ~in August 1987, prior to all operators completing the six week training program I

!

The lesson plans prepared for the first segment of the new program are an improvement over previous lesson plans. Learning objectives have been rewritten, improved, and expanded. The rewritten learning objectives are less general, more specific to plant operations, and provide the operators with a more definitive statement of what should be learned. For example, the enabling objective, " Describe the mechanical forces exerted on a material subject to thermal shock", was rewritten to read, " Describe the forces exerted on the reactor vessel wall due to pressure, thermal. gradient, and neutron embrittlement."

i The segmented requalification program is scheduled to be taught from the ,

end of one refueling outage to the beginning of the next refueling outag '

This time period runs about 18 months. The segmented program and the previously administered training programs would not have met the require-ments for annual training on the Emergency Plan and Fire Protection. The training planned for the second segment was rescheduled to ensure annual training requirements were being me Prior to the plant startup conducted in July 1987 training was provided to all licensed operators on the changes and modifications made to the facility during the refueling outag The lesson plan for the training indicates that it was informational only in scope and that no formal evaluation was conducted to ensure understanding of the plant change !

Based on the previously identified lack of operator knowledge and understanding of plant changes conducted during the previous plant refueling outage, this level of evaluation warrants further licensee revie ;

Improvements and modifications have been made in the licensed operator training program since June 1987. These changes should result in more effective training for the licensed operator Some of the modifications are as follow Effective use of written examinations as diagnostic, evaluative, and learning tools is being made by the Training Department. A third party examination used as a diagnostic tool to identify areas which required retraining was administered at the beginning of the first requalification training segment. Written examinations at the end i of a training week were used to ensure that information was being retained by the operators. Incorrect responses on the examinations were discussed with the operators soon after completion of the examination. A brief unannounced quiz was used to identify the root ,

cause of a knowledge weakness identified on the previous week's j examinatio _ _ _ _ . _ - - _-

, -

,

~g m-

,; ~ 3 '

.y ' ' ,,

,

s 4

.-- .The Training Departmen". has implemented an~on-shift discussion .

i

.c program by assigning an~ instructor.'to be.at the plant betweenl4:00 pm' i and 8:00 pm each w'eekday to facilitate crew self-study-.of upcoming !

' requalification ~ material . -The; instructor does not provide any

'

i 7 . direct- instruction buttis provided.as a resource to the Shift :

Supervisor;to help develop crew discussions in the area.of future requalification topics'.

.A Training Advisory Committee has been.e'stablished to provide

~

-

direction for.the development of the; segmented training progra The Committee:is; responsible _for reviewing unsatisfactory operator

'

performance and.specifying corrective action Training on recent plant changes will be provided by a required reading program'and lectures presented.during each segment of the licensed operator training program. Evaluation of the information'

will be conducted at the end of each segmen The Training Manager maintains job charts for assigning and. tracking job responsibilitie Long term milestones and goals are still bein develope '

A feedback mechanism.for requesting. specific upgrade. training and for identifying errors in training material has been in place for-over'a year. ~Recently, the Training Department began-formally-

~

responding to each individual who provided f.eedback with'a letter

. indicating the-disposition of his request. In August there was an

~

. increase ~in'the number of feedback request (0 pen-item)'50-29/86-03-02, on integrated plant response not being addressed.by lesson plans.' Rewritten lesson plans on specific systems

.

.have incorporated requirementsito teach system interactions and-overall plant response. This' item will be reevaluated when a majority of the lesson plans have been rewritte . Conclusion-

'There was no significa'nt improvement in the training provided to licensed

~

operations between November 1986 and June 198 Since June 1987, there has been an improvement'in the organization of the licensed operator training

' program and the prepared lesson plan . Exit Interview

NRC Personnel:

. N. Dudley, Lead Reactor Engineer  ;

l- H. Eichenholz, Senior Resident Inspector i

,

- _ . :, w . , j

i J

Facility Personnel: q

'

L'. Heider, Vice-President l N. St.Laurent, Plant Superintendent

'

.T.'Henderson, Technical Director ,

R. Clark, Training Manager l R. Mellon, Assistant Technical Director D. White, Operations Training Supervisor i L. Bozek, QA Supervisor

~

J. Kay, Technical Service Manager  ;

,

The inspector presented the scope of the inspection and stated that significant improvements in the implementation of the licensed operator l training program had been made in the.past two months. The inspector '

stated.that problems identified in previous training practices had been discussed with the training department and that present programs appeared to be in place to prevent reoccurrence of those practices. The inspector noted the commitment of management to the training process both in the increase of the training staff and their support of the segmented retraining program. The inspector stated that it appeared that the same !

level of commitment would be required for an extended period of time to )

complete all the proposed program improvement l The inspector stated that the next phase of the evaluation process would i be to determine whether the training being provided by the segmented l program was effective and would require an evaluation of operator 1 knowledge level. The inspector stated that the NRC evaluation should not i disrupt any planned trainin The licensee's training representative stated that any type of NRC !

administered evaluation would require the facility to delay the segmented {

program for over a month, based on postponing training the week of the evaluation, the need to provide accelerated retraining for two weeks to the operators selected for evaluation, and the need to suspend operator training during the week of an upcoming accreditation revie !

The inspector. stated that the focus of the NRC evaluation would be on the material presented in the first two segments of the modified licensed operator training program and that additional retraining would be l unnecessary if the training provided by tne segmented program was ;

effective. Further discussions were conducted concerning the scope of M e i evaluation and number of operators who would be evaluate Since the exit interview a temporary suspension of NRC administered requalification examinations has been directed. Therefore the requalification program evaluation previously scheduled for the week of November 9, 1987, will not be conducte ;

l .

>

I

[

- -