IR 05000219/1987028
| ML20236P746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1987 |
| From: | Blumberg N, Oliveira W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236P732 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-87-28, NUDOCS 8711180148 | |
| Download: ML20236P746 (9) | |
Text
_, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.
.
- /
.
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
'
REGION I
Report Nos.
50-219/87-28 Docket Nos.
50-219 License Nos. DPR-16
'
Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 388 Forked River, NJ 08731 Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Dates:
September 28 - October 2 1987 Inspector:
/
8 //7 W. Oliveira, Reactor Engineer dath ',
Approved by & -
/
N
/lfz[O7 N.Blumberg,[hief,Operati4nalPrograms date Section, Operations Branch, DRS,
,
Inspection Summary: R,og ine unannounced inspection on September 28 -
October 2, 1987 (Report No. 50-247/87-28)
Areas Inspected:
Nonlicensed staff' training which includes observation of work activities, training progress, and QA/QC interface with training.
Results: One violation (paragraph 2.3) was identified for licensee's failure take follow-up corrective action regarding discrepant test equipment.
8711100148 871110 PDR ADOCK 05000219 G
,
_
.l.
..
.
)
.
I DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted K. Bass, Supervisor, Maintenance & Construction Facility (MCF)
_
K. Barnes, Licensing Engineer
- J. DeBlasio, Plant Engineer
- R. Fenti, Manager, Quality Assurance (QA) Modifications / Operations
- P. Fiedler, Vice President and Director, OCNGS
- V. Foglia, Manager, Plant Materiel, MCF
.
- S. Fuller, Manager, Operations QA
- M. Heller,- Licensing Engineer
- J. Kowalski, Manager, Licensing
- H. Lapp, Manager, Training Department D. McMillan, License and Nonlicense Operator Training Supervisor
- W. Mulheisen, Shops, Tools, and Equipment Supervisor, MCF
- D. Pysher, Manager, MCF A. Rone, Director, Engineering E. Scheyder. Director, MCF
- T. Snider, Maintenance Manager, MCF J. Solakiewicz, Manager, QA Engineering & Systems United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- W. Bateman, Senior Resident Inspector, i
- J. Wechselberger, Resident Inspector-l
- Denotes those who attended the exit meeting on October 2, 1987.
,
2.
.Nonlicensed Training 2.1 Requirements
""
10CFR50, Appendix-B Criterion II, requires in part that a licensee Quality Assurance (QA) program shall provide for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and maintained.
The Operational Quality Assurance (0QA) Plan commits the licensee's l
'
training and qualifications of plant personnel be in accordance with ANSI N18.1-1971, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," and Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.5.3.1 requires training to be audited annually.
Add'itionally the 0QA Plan commits the licensee to Regulatory Guide 1.58, " Qualification of Inspection Examination and Testing Personnel," which endorses ANSI N45.2.6-1978
,
_
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
__ -
E q
l
.
-l
'
y
.
t
>
L i
2.2-Scope
.
?
'
The effectiveness of the implementation of the licensee's nonlicensed q
staff training program was assessed by reviewing the activities in j
- operations, maintenance (mechanical, electrical, and instrument and
,
control), engineering, and quality assurance (QA) areas.
'
To un'derstand and assess the effectiveness of training, the inspector l
reviewed the:
Implementing procedures as documented.in the Station Procedures
-
and the Training Department Administrative Manual.
(See Attach-ment I)
Qualification, experience and training of nonlicensed personnel,
-
supervision, and instructors.
Quality of the on-the-job training (0JT).
-
-
Feedback process including QA as it affects future training
.
'
plans.
The inspector observed shift turnovers and routine rounds by equipment operators.(EOs); and routine activities ty engineers, I
electricians, mechanics, inst-ument and control (I&C) technicians.
The activities reviewed, some of which are discussed below, are listed in Attachment I.
2.3. Observation of Work Activities and Findings The inspector observed a local leak rate test (LLRT) being conducted in accordance with procedure 665.C.006.
The inspector noted that the
!
leak rate monitor LR2 had an expired calibration sticker of September 23, 1987 and the test was being performed on September 28, 1987. The I&C technicians and their supervisor however were able to show the inspector that Station Procedure 112, Revision 17, paragraph 5.3.2, allows them to use the test equipment until the end of the month.
,
On October 1,1987 the inspector visited the Calibration Shop and found that the leak rate monitor LR 2 was returned and was being shipped to the manufacturer for recalibration.
The Calibration Shop lead technician was questioned about the OCNGS's recall system as it applies to che test equipment recalled and found out of calibration (discrepant).
In response to the question regarding recalled and found discrepant test equipment, the lead technician showed the inspector his log for issuing and accounting for Attachment 6,
" Controlled Test Equipment Discrepancy Investigation Card," cards.
l The cntries in the log covered a period from May 8, 1986 to April 12, 1987.. As described in the Station Procedure 112, Attachment 6 requires the users of the discrepant test equipment to evaluate and determine if the discrepancy will affect the results of their tests.
__
-
___
!
...
,
i Though the log itself is not required, it showed that 18 out of i
56 recipients of Attachment 6 did not respond.
The licensee did not take follow up corrective action regarding the validity of the test results to determine their impact or significance on plant safety. The above finding is contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion XII and Paragraph 5.2.16 of ANSI N18.7-1976,. committed to by the licensee in 0QA Plan Appendix C.
+
This is a violation (50-219/87-28-01).
,
The new Administrative Procedure A100-ADM-3053.01 that is replacing Station Procedure 112 does not address the tracking of Attachment 6 when they are issued. The licensee stated that they are correcting the new procedure evaluation forms to include the requirements for tracking Attachment 6 follow-up actions.
The inspector observed several Responsible Technical Reviewers (RTRs)
performing independent reviews of procedure changes as required by TS Section 6.5.1.
The RTRs were qualified in accordance TS Section 6.5.1.14 and were technically knowledgeable of the procedures being reviewed. An example of proper training was demonstrated when a RTR was observed processing an action to replace himself as an independ-ent. reviewer since he had performed one of the initial reviews.
The inspector observed the cognizant engineer brief his team prior to the start of the 18 month inspection of emergency diesel generator (EDG) No. 1.
This action is accordance with paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 of procedure 636.1.010 Revision 2.
The cognizant engineer was thorough and answered all the questions raised by the team members.
He was also observed monitoring the team's effort as in the case
,
of providing electricians guiaance in the inspection and repair of starter generator.
The electricians told the inspector that they were taught to seek guidance whenever they were not sure of their assignment.
,
The inspector concluded that the activities were conducted in accordance with the procedures by personnel knowledgeable in the requirements of the procedures and technical specifications.
One r
violation and no deviations were identified 2.4 Training Progress The Manager of the Oyster Creek Training Department reports to the Corporate Director of Training and Education and is responsible for
)
nonlicensed technical training.
In September 1986 the Training j
Department received INP0 Board Accreditation for all ten training j
areas. The licensee is preparing its' biennial self-analysis report
to the INP0 Accreditation Board.
j l
i i
L________-__-.
_
j
-____ -
.
.
!
The OJT phase of the Maintenance Training Programs is being implemented. Maintenance management's goal is to complete 25% of
the OJT training in 1987. The inspector interviewed maintenance I
personnel and they expressed a concern regarding adequate OJT.
They believe that the pressure from management to complete-their 0JT qualifications and the incentives being offered are conflicting with their feelings of being fully qualified to' perform a quality job.
The inspector addressed these concerns to management who stated that they are aware of the 0JT problem. One action taken, to illustrate their point, was to' acknowledge and accept the fact that their 1987 i
goal of 25% OJT in the Mechanical Maintenance area was too high and
!
could not be met without affecting the quality of the OJT training.
Another action management has taken is to provide a building to house the new Mechanical Maintenance Laboratory for OJT.
Finally management is considering revising the Maintenance Training Programs to be similar to the Equipment Operator's Training Program which includes a more
,
structured continuing training program.
The first revised training l
program is the Mechanical Maintenance, which is expected to be imple-mented in early 1988.
The Oyster Creek Basic Principles Training Simulator (BPT) is a l
relatively a new addition to the Training Department. BPT shows i
technical and non technical. plant personnel how the plant operates and how equipment failures and malfunctions should be handled so that incidents will not escalate into accidents.
Nonlicensed personnel interviewed spoke highly of BPT and the inspector was impressed with the BPT training when he visited the BPT Simulator.
The Plant Engineering Department has their own training program called Systems Engineering Training Program (SETP). The purpose of
SETP is to provide participants an in-depth understanding of plant i
systems operation, majot precautions and limitations for their operation and interactions with other systems.
SETP deals with 33 major engineering systems essential to plant safety efficiency.
Fifty percent of the training is expected to be on the participant's
,
own time. Other departments have sent their personnel to this training.
SETP is followed by specific training similar to the systems part of the Shift Technical Adviser (STA) Training.
The training staff of approximately fifteen licensee instructors, supervisors and management administer the technical training program for approximately 250 plant and supervisory personnel. The inspector
'
reviewed the training records of the personnel involved in activities which were reviewed during this inspection.
The records are current, complete, accessible and in compliance with regulatory requirements.
I (
l
,
L-_______-___-.
_
. - _ _.
__ ________-_-___-________ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ D
. _ _ _ - _
__-_
.o
'
t
,
"The nonlicensed training and' qualification effectiveness is measured by the licensee primarily through student and instructor evaluations, supervisory feedback, monthly interface meetings, and Corporate Training -
Advisory Counsel reports. QA audits and monitoring provide a secondary means for measuring the effectiveness of personnel training and quali-l fications.
Based on the above, the inspector concluded that Management has made significant progress since the last NRC Non License Training Program inspection (50-219/86-03) that was conducted in February 1986. Main-tenance management recognized that they have problems in fully imple-menting an INP0 accredited training program. They are, however, taking positive steps to correct the problems as in the case of OJT and they
,
are revising their training programs. No violations or deviations were
'
identified.
2.6 QA/QC Interface With Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station i
Two annual QA audits (S-0C-85-20 and 86-17) addressing training were reviewed and discussed with QA representatives. The audits were thorough and comprehensive, and all the identified deficiencies were corrected in a timely manner.
The Quality Deficiency Report (QDR)86-058 was presented to the inspector as evidence that 0QA had reviewed the concern raised by the inspector regarding corrective action follow up when M&TE are found discrepant (see paragraph 2.3).
The QDR however dealt with lack of established methods for determining validity of previous inspections rather than the lack of corrective action follow up and tracking of delinquent responses.
The inspector reviewed approximately thirty QA Monituring Reports to
!
identify any non licensed training deficiencies. There were no deficiencies reported and two reports (8726000 and 007) were very
'
complementary of.the training process.
A QA representative was assigned to monitor the 18 month inspection of the EDG No. I discussed in paragraph 2.3.
During the briefing, the QA representative reminded the cognizant engineer that hazardous waste coverage and the documentation thereof for such items as oily rags was necessary.
No violations or deviations were identified.
3.0 Management Meetings I
Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection I
on September 28, 1987. The findings of the inspection were discussed with the licensee representatives during the course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the October 2, 1987 exit interview (see paragraph I l
for attendees).
'
l
-________-_-_m
_.
(
,
At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspector.
The licensee indicated that no proprietary l
information was involved within the scope of this inspection.
~
t f
-
,
e
!
i t
l 1-j l
l I
l
,
i
[-a__---_____
_
..
..
'
!
ATTACHMENT I
.
A.
PROCEDURES REVIEWED 1.
Technical Specifications Section 6 2.
A100-ADM-3053.01 (Rev. D), Calibration of Maintenance Test and-Inspection Tools, Gauges, and Instruments.
(DRAFT)
3.
112 (Rev. 17), Oyster Creek Calibration of Maintenance Test and Inspection Tools, Gauges, and Instruments 4.
1000-PLN-7200.01 (Rev. 1-00), Supplement II to the 0QA Plan 5.
6234-PGD-2662 (Rev. 2), Integrated Maintenance Training Program Mechanics Nuclear 6.
6250-PGD-26650.01 (Rev. 1), Technical Staff and Manager (TS&M)
Training Program Description
!
7.
Oyster Creek Training Department Project Tracking Form dated
!
09/28/87
-1 8.
Memorandum Systems Engineering Training Program (SETP) dated 09/8/87
.
9.
GPU Nuclear Corporation Training and Education Department Organization Chart (2/87)
10. Audit Reports S-0C-86-17 (4/6/87) and S-0C-85-20 (3/14/86)
addressing Training 11. Quality Deficiency Report (QDR)86-058 (9/29/86) addressing lack of instructions for establishing methods in using Attachment 6 of Station Procedure 112 2.
ACTIVITIES REVIEWED 1.
Shift turnovers 2.
Mechanics and vendor representative open, inspect and repair the A &
B liquid poison pumps in accordance with work request (WR) 47002 and Procedure A100-SMM-3219.01 (Rev. 0), Liquid Poison Pump Fluid End Disassembly Inspection Reassembly.
3.
I&C technicians performing a check of the LPRM in accordance with Procedure 620.3.001 (Rev. 9), Low Power Range Monitor 4.
Mechanics, electricians, QA representative, conducting pre-inspection work in accordance with WR 4764S and Procedure 636.1.010
!
- -
(Rev. 2), Diesel Generator Inspection (18 Months)
!
L l
_----------o
~6
'
'W
';
p
.
.
.
.
.
_
]
]
e
~
O O
)
!$.
Q. (D
-
80.
.s
'"
8%,
i
_
m mo rD 9
-
5;
-
2=
V W
5 E
.
y
,
,
..
'ge
- w
$\\
')
+(t
__
. _.
..
_ -. _.
. _ _.
_ _. _ _,
_ _
___ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
-...
w-.
. - _
_%_.
., _,,, _,
.'
..
,
,
..
,'
s'
Attachinent 1 -
.
~5.
I&C technicians performing leak rate test of main steam isolation
~
i
.. -
. valve in accordance with Procedure 665.5.003 (Rev. 10), Main Steam Isolation Valve-Leak Rate Test'. Also observed an engineer discussing -
his revision 11 of the. same procedure with the maintenance foreman.
,,
6.
I&C' technicians performing LLRT of valve 16-61 in accordance with Procedure.665.5.006 (Rev.16), Clean Up System Local Leak Rate Test.
..
l!J 3,.
s
-
,
'
/'
.
,
ao f
-
'
-
f J
.
,,.
'a u
.
v
.
.
,
<
,
,
t
,*
- h l
'
!
'
,
,
i
,
M
'
-
1,4
~
i
..h i
i rj A
'
'
.......
. p
- l
I I
i dt i
..py,
,3
.
e
/
4 i
.
},a,
,
'
'
?
. x o
m
,
^"
- _
_ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _
_____-___-_______-_________.___3
-
__
_-
_ _ _ _ _ _