IR 05000213/1986028

Insp Rept 50-213/86-28 on 861103-07.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Nonlicensed Staff Training

ML20211P791
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	12/09/1986
From:	Eapen P, Oliveira W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20211P682	List: IR 05000213/1986028 ML20211P676
References
50-213-86-28, IEIN-86-073, IEIN-86-73, NUDOCS 8612190138
Download: ML20211P791 (5)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /86-28 Docket N License No. DPR-61-Licensee: Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Engineering and Operations Group P.O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name: Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant  ;

Inspection At: Haddam Neck, CT Inspection Conducted: November 3-7, 1986 Inspectors: . .

N fvW. Oliveira, Reactor Engineer Q9 Afate'

Approved by: $r W Dr. P. K. Ehpen,' Chikf, Quality Assurance

/4[6![5 dhte'

Section, 08, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection on November 3-7, 1986 (Inspection Report No. 50-213/86-28).

Areas Inspected: Non Licensed Staff Trainin Results: No violations or deviations were identifie e 861212 3 PDR ADOCK 0500

O

,

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted W. Bartron, Maintenance Supervisor

• J. E. Beauchamp, Quality Assurance / Quality Control Supervisor

• G. Bouchard, Station Service Superintendent

• R. Brown, Operations Supervisor R. Caminati, Assistant Superviser (Elec)

• T. Campbell, Staff Assistant B. Danielson, I&C Supervisor

• J. Deveall, Operator Training Assistant Supervisor W. Eger, Mechanical Supervisor

• J. Ferguson, Unit Superintendent

• H. Haynes, Operator Training Manager

• P. L'Heureux, Engineering Supervisor (Acting)

• Pittornyak, Northeast Utilities Services Company (NUSCO) Operations QA Specialist D. Reilly, Supervising Ct1 Operator

• B. Ruth, Operator Training Supervisor United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• P. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector

• S. Pindale, Resident Inspector

• E. Conner, Project Engineer

Denotes those who attended the exit meeting on November 7, 1986. Non Licensed Training Introduction The effectiveness of the implementation of the licensee's non licensed staff training program was assessed by reviewing the following activities in operations, maintenance, instrument and control (I&C), engineering, and quality assurance (QA) area Shift turnover for auxiliary operators (A0s).

-

A0 activities such as conducting routine tours, stu t up, test and operation of Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) 2A, and RHR system and equipment verificatio On the job Training (0JT) and qualification of en A0 instructo .

A

-

Work Order (WO) 86-11049, "1B" Spent Fuel Pit Cooling Pump Reseal and Realignmen Electricians' activities such as tests of EDG 2 I&C technicians performing control rod alignment in accordance with PMP 9.1-1 Engineering activities such as controlled routing (CR) for NRC Information Notice 86-73, Nitrogen blanket for the DSWT, and replace-ment of a check valve to the Spent Fuel Building Sump Pum " Lessons learned" factored into the training progra Two QA audits and a Nuclear Review Board (NRB) audi .2 Details of the Review For each of the job functions identified in paragraph 2.1, the inspector reviewed the established training programs, implementing procedures, qualification and experience of personnel, qualification and training of instructors, quality of DJT, and the effectiveness of training as evidenced in daily activities. The comments and evaluations from the trainees, line supervisors, and instructors were also reviewed to establish how this feedback was factored into future training. Management and QA involvement in the training area was assessed for effectiveness. No violations or deviations were identifie .3 Observation of Work Activities The inspector witnessed the work activities indentified in paragraph The activities were conducted in accordance with procedures by personnel knowledgeable in

'.

the requirements of the procedures and technical specifications. This was especially evident in the following:

-

During the test of the EDG 2A heat exchanger, the A0 noticed an excessive packing leak from SW-V-140 valve. He prepared a Trouble Report tag and submitted the tag to the Supervising Control Operator (SCO) to record and track. The SCO explained that this type of tagging was new and being tested and was not in the trouble reporting procedure ACP 1.2- The question of using a calibrated stop watch was discussed between operations and electrical personnel during EDG 2A manual starting and loading test. The test was being conducted in accordance with SUR 5.1.17, Revision 15. The personnel agreed that acceptance or rejection time data shall be measured by the calibrated stop watc .

.

-

A valve line up was being conducted in accordance with SUR 5.1.4, Revision 20. The A0s stopped the activity when it became evident that the valve line up sheet did not reflect the actual line up. The sheet showed, for example, valves SI-110C & D instead of SI-117A & Another error in the sheet was valve SW-250A. This valve should have been listed as valves SW-250A & 8, and positioned in the throttled open to 2500 gpm vice in the closed position. The actual valves SW-250A & B did not have label plates. The inspector was advised that Operations is taking immediate action to correct these discrepancie An engineer was scoping CR 86-1739 for NRC Information Notice (IN) 86-73, "Recent Emergency Diesel Generator Problems". The scoping included: the applicability of the IN to the site EDGs; and evalua-ting the shutdown cycles of the diesels and reviewing them against the Nine Mile Point Unit I diesel problem Another engineer was performing an engineering review for a suitable replacement for the 1500 lb check valve to the Spent Fuel Building Sump Pump. The engineer used a " Substitution Replacement" document, which listed the steps necessary to assure that the replacement was at least equal to the original ite Computerized information for incorporating lessons learned from LERs into the training program was reviewed. LERs86-004, 86-008,86-011, 86-013, and 86-036 required action by training. The actions included preparing and revising lesson plans. The inspector observed that the required actions were adequately complete .4 Training Policy and Progress The Training Department at Connecticut Yankee (CY) is headed by the Supervisor of Operator Training. The Supervisor reports to the Manager of Operator Training at Millstone. The Technical Training for mechanics, electricians, health physicists (HPs)/ chemistry technicians and I&C technicians is conducted at the Millstone Training Center. The training for engineers and manager is the responsibility of the Manager of General Nuclear Training at Millston The key procedures reviewed for the training programs are:

-

Nuclear Training Manual (NTM) 3.0 Revision 0, "Non-Licensed Operator Initial Training Program Implementing Procedure".

-

NTM 3.07, Revision "Non-Licensed Operator Continuing Training Implementing Procedure".

-

Training Program Implementing Procedure (TPIP) - MM 124 86-235 CY,

"Mechnical Maintenance".

-

TPIP-EL3.116 " Production Test Electrical"

.

y ) '

t\ r ,.

- li :)\ f

=

s ,

5 4A b -

N, i / 't N . ,

t

. > ),

The procedures were developed in accordance with A1HPQ / guidelines. anb}

))( ,y 'i Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8,1977 " Personnel Selectica and(Ti in}ng". <] .

s.sv g-Tne A0 Training Program is scheduled for an INP0' Accredilit. ion Board Review in December 1986. The A0 lesson plans and 0JT card will be developed by February 1987. The other non licensed training programs including Technical Staff and Managers Training are schetaled for IN10' -

accreditation review in late 198 , ,

'

The inspector observed that the instructors' discus'sedf the technical, contentwithsubjectmatterexpertsandaccompaniedA0sontheirroutinej tours in an effort to enhance the technical and work orientation of the'

course material, n t 2.5 QA/QC Interface With Connecticut Yankee Training s

Two QA audits and one NRB audit reports were provided to the inspector. The QA audits were compliance audits that included system training. .The Refueling audit A60242 identified one training' deficiency regarding inadequate training for crane operators. This def,iciency was corrected in a timely manner. The Radwaste audit A60260 did not' identify any training problems. The NRB audit A30105 basically looked at General Employee Training (GET) and RG 1.8 (especially ANSI 18.1 matrix on minimum educa -

tion and experience). Onedeficiencywascorrectedf '

A QC inspector was observed witnessing the' test of the .EDG 2A hea't exchangers. This QC inspector was knowledgeable ~ '1n tQe test requirement . Management Meetings D -

'

-s t Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose ofs tSe inspection at the entrance interview on November 3, 1986.= The findings of the inspection were discussed with the licensee representativesNduring the-course of the inspection and presented' to licensee management at the November 7, 1986 exit interview (see paragraph 1 for attendees) 1 5l At no time during the inspection has written material providad to the '

licensee by the inspectors. The licensee indicated that no proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspectio ,

c ,\

/

K g s

\ s

%

/

\