IR 05000155/1986010

Insp Rept 50-155/86-10 on 860624-27.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Effectiveness of Nonlicensed & Licensed Personnel Training

ML20203C780
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	07/14/1986
From:	Hasse R, Phillips M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20203C755	List: IR 05000155/1986010 ML20203C752
References
50-155-86-10, NUDOCS 8607210073
Download: ML20203C780 (6)

Text

__

, ,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

.

Report No. 50-155/86010(DRS)

'

Docket No. 50-155 Licensefio~.DPR-06 Licensee: Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue

. Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name: Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant Inspection At: Charlevoix, MI Inspection Conducted: June 24-27, 1986

'

Inspector: Pl4 -T (o Date 7' /

Approved By: M. illips, Chief 7Y 'lT

+

Operational Programs Section Date Inspection Summary Inspection on June 24-27, 1986 (Report No. 50-155/86010(~DRS))

Areas Inspected: Ttoutine, announced inspection of tWeffectiveness of non-licensed personnel training (Inspection Procedure 41400) and licensed personnel training (Inspection Procedure 41701).

!

Results: In the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie i i

86072*0073 e60715

PDR ADDCK 05000155 G PDR

% - _ . , _ , _. . ,_.._. -

. .

DETAILS 1. Pe_rs_o_n_s Contacted Consumers Power Company

• D. Hoffman, Plant Superintendent G. Withrow, Maintenance and Engineering Superintendent

• R. Buckner, Training Supervisor D. LaCroix, Nuclear Training Department

• R. Alexander, Technical Engineer

• L. Monshor, QA Superintendent USNRC

• S. Guthrie, Senior Resident Inspector Other personnel were contacted as a matter of routine during the inspectio * Denotes those attending the exit interview on June 27, 198 . Training _ Pr_ogram Effectiveness This inspection was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the licensee's training programs for both licensed and non-licensed staf The inspection was not designed to be a detailed evaluation of the licensee's overall training program. This evaluation is currently performed by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) as part of the training program accreditation process. At the time of this inspection, the licensee had submitted the Self Evaluation Reports (SERs)

to INP0 for five of the ten training programs subject to accreditatio Those programs submitted were (1) non-licensed operator, (2) control room

. operator (RO), (3) senior control room operator, (4) shift technical advisor, and (5) instrument and control technician. The licensee expects to submit the SERs for the remaining programs during the Fall of 198 To assess the effectiveness of the current training program, the inspector reviewed 26 events (11 LERs and 15 deviation reports) to determine if they were caused by inadequate training and if lessons learned were factored into the training program when appropriate. The inspector also reviewed training records to determine if the training programs were being implemented and evaluated requalification examination results for licensed personnel to determine the effectiveness of the requalification program, Licensed Operator Training Pr_ogram (41701)

The inspector reviewed the structure of the licensed obrator training program and found it to be adequate. The adequacy of the program for initial license candidates (R0 and SR0) was attested

k

. -

E to by a 100 percent pass rate for the last approximately twenty candidates. The licensee was in the process of initiating a qualification card system for this training program to provide better control and documentation of the training receive The results of the last three licensee administered annual requalification examinations are given in the following tables:

] Reactor Operators J 0sl

_

Year _

A_verage Grad _e_ (% Failures)

'

Instruments Theory Systems _and Controls Procedures Overall 1983 77 (27%) 86 (0%) 89(0%) 82(9%) 83 (27%)

1984 85 (0%) 85 (0%) 86 (0%) 84 (9%) 85(18%)

1985 85 (7%) 87 (0%) 87(0%) 82(14%) 85(14%)

Senior _ Reactor Operators (SR0s) ,

Year *prageGrade(%Failu_res) _

Administration Theory Systems Procedures and Tech Specs Overall 1983 81(22%) 88 (0%) 88 (0%) 77 (11%) 84 (11%)

1984 84(7%) 86 (0%) 86 (0%) 81(15%) 85(15%)

1985 84 (17%) 91 (0%) 81(8%) 85(8%) 86 (17%)

NOTE: Failures are defined as a grade less than 70 for an individual section or less than 80 overal The inspector verified that all examination results were evaluated by the licensee and the results of that evaluation incorporated into the requalification progra Those individuals failing requalification examinations were immediately removed from licent:ad duties and placed in an accelerated requalification pr. gram. They must successfully complete a requalification exe sination prior to returning to licensed duties.

< The inspector reviewed the training files for several licensed personnel and found no discrepancie .

k _ _ . _ _ - -

. .

b. Non__lic_ense_d Personnel Training Programs (41400)

The inspector restricted his review of non-licensed personnel training to the maintenance (mechanical and electrical) and instruments and controls (I&C) area The I&C Training Program had recently been formalized and documented in the plant administrative procedures. The program consisted of three elements. These elements were (1) skill training provided primarily by a General Offices Program; (2) plant systems and plant provided by the site training branch; and (3) on-specific training the-job training (0JT) provided by the I&C organization. All current I&C technicians have been qualified under this program on a

" grandfather" basis. This was justified on.the basis of the plant experience and skill levels of the current I&C staf The mechanical and electrical maintenance training program had not been formalized to the same extent as the I&C program. The licensee plans to formalize this program using the I&C program as the mode At present maintenance training is provided by an apprentice type program supplemented by systems and plant specific training by the site training branch on an as requested basis. There is more variation in the skil' and plant experience levels in the maintenance area than the I&C area due to recent personnel turnover. The inspector verified by review of work assignment logs that the less experienced personnel were assigned to work with more senior personne A review of training records for both maintenance and I&C persannel indicated that they were receiving the required General Employee Training as well as systems and plant specific trainin c. _ Review of Plant Events

_

The inspector reviewed 26 plant events to determine if training deficiencies contributed to the cause of the event or caused recovery to be less than optimum. With ora possible exception, there were no indications of a lack of training program effective-ness. The inspector gained the impression that the level of knowledge of work and administrative control procedures was less than optimum. This impression was formed by a review of the following events:

(1) Deviation Reports (DRs) 85-03, 86-02, and 86-04 - Issuing expired procedures for use in the fiel (2) DR-85-106 - Maintenance personnel entering radiation area without proper dosimetr (3) DR-85-68 - Disassembly of incorrect valv N J

. _ -

, ,

(4) DR-85-99 - Failure to process a work order throurh a QC after it had been changed from a "non-Q" to a "Q" jo (5) LER-86-04 - Failure-i.o perform an analysis at the frequency required by the Technical Specifications.

.

These events involved both licensed and non-licensed personne Events (2) and (4) hud inadequate training identified as the primary cause. Although event (3) had listed weaknesses in local control procedures as the primary cause, the corrective action taken placed considerable emphasis on upgraded . training in the local control process. Event (5) involved a recent change in the Technical Specifications. Failure to update operating procedures was listed as the root cause. However, lack of training in . Technical Specifications changes was contributory. The corrective action to be taken did provide for appropriate training in this change, but did not address training in technical specification changes in general. The' events described in Item (1) are included since the corrective action taken in response to the first occurrence (DR-85-03) emphasized training (memorandum to all staff). The corrective action taken for later similar events (DRs-86-02 and 86-04) emphasized the necessity for completing biennial procedure reviews on schedule. The inspector agreed that issuing an expired procedure was probably more effect than cause. Since the use of expired procedures represents a failure to follow licensee administrative procedures, this item is considered unresolved l

p(ending NRC review of the effectiveness of corrective action 155/86010-01).

It was difficult to assess the _ extent.of any training weaknesses in the administrative control area. Each of the events involved-a different control procedure and each had other contributing factors. The inspector discussed his concerns with licensee management. They indicated that they also had a concern in this

> area and had given a high priority to resolving the issue. This would most probably take the form of upgraded fonnal training in the work and administrative control area. This is considered an open item for future NRC review (155/86010-02).

The inspector verified that any identified training weaknesses and lessons learned are factored into the training program. These items may be identified by the plant staff or the Training Branch. The items are tracked and the lesson plans incorporating the training are documente . Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in

order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is

<

presented in Paragraph .

l 5 t

1 .

k  ;

. .

g ._ - - . . - - __ ., - - . - . . ~ . . - ..

I-i

1 Open Items

,

Open items are matter which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by-the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. An open item disclosed

during this inspection is presented in Paragraph . Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Peragraph 1)

at the end of the inspection on June 27, 1986, and summarized the purpose, scope, and findings of the inspection. During.the interview,

! the licensee indicated the inspector had no access to proprietary r

information.

i i

!

!

.

4 ,

i

1-i

i

'

i I b l i i

~

<

'

r t 1 l

l

__

__ - -. .._ __ _ - - . _ - , , . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . .