IR 05000220/1985020
| ML18038A105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1985 |
| From: | Linville J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18038A104 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-85-20, 50-410-85-37, NUDOCS 8512260316 | |
| Download: ML18038A105 (14) | |
Text
. 4t.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report Nos.
50-220/85-20 and 50-410/85-37 Docket Nos.
50-220 and 50-410 License Nos.
DPR-63 and CPPR-112 Licensee:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, New York 13202 Facilities:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1&2 Inspection At: Scriba, New York Dates:
October 28 - November 1,
1985 Approved Inspectors:
S.D.
Hudson, Senior Resident Inspector C.S. Marschall, Resident Inspector P.H. Bissett, Reactor Engineer F.J.
Crescenzo, Reactor Engineer D.J.
Lange, Reactor Engineer
. ~-"-.
Jr.'invi lie, hief, Rea or
~Project Section No.
2C,LSRP I.
~l'
Date Ins ection Summar
- Inspection on October 28 to November 1,
1985 Combined Report Nos.
50-220/85-20 and 50-410/85-37 R i, i
i f
initial qualification of licensed operators at Unit 2, requalification of licensed operators at Unit 1 and technical training for mechanics, electricians and I&C technicians.
This inspection involved 144 inspection-hours by,two resident and three region-based inspectors.
Results:
No violations were identified.
8512260316 851203 PDR ADQCK 05000220 G
DETAILS Individuals Contacted K. Zollitsch, Superintendent, Nuclear Training R. Seifreid, Assistant Superintendent, Nuclear Training D. Straka, Supervisor, Nuclear Training The inspectors also interviewed other members of the licensee's training department and selected operators, mechanics, electricians and instrument and control ( I&C) technicians.
~Pur ose The purpose of this inspection was to evaluate the degree of effectiveness of the licensee's training program for initial licensed operators for Unit 2, licensed operator requalification for Unit 1, and technical training for mechanics, electricians and 18C technicians.
A significant portion of the inspection involved interview of those individuals who receive the training to gain their impressions of its effectiveness.
All interviews were conducted using the same set of questions.
The inspection also consisted of a review of selected records, observation of training in progress and examination of the licenses's training facilities.
Licensed 0 erator Trainin for Unit 2 The NRC examined the licensee's first class of candidates for operator licenses from June 11-19, 1985.
Ten of twelve candidates passed the Senior Reactor Operator examination and three of twelve candidates passed the Reactor Operator examination.
Those candidates who failed plus another 24 candidates were preparing for another NRC examination scheduled for the week of December 9,
1985.
Both classroom and simulator training in emergency operating procedures were observed.
Detailed lesson plans were found in use and the instructor s were very knowledgeable of the subject, matter.
A constant flow of people thru the simulator to an office tended to distract the students.
The inspectors also noted that the students did not treat the simulator as if they were actually in the plant.
This was apparently caused by repeating the exact same scenario four times to allow the students to perform at various locations in the simulator.
The licensee acknowledged the com-ments and stated that they would continue to stress realism and student attitude in the simulator.
The majority of those Unit 2 personnel who were interviewed were pleased with the quality and quantity of the instruction they had received.
They had high regard for the instructors and thought that training was respon-sive to their needs.
Two areas which they stated needed improvement were
l I
I-
more structured plant walkdown to better integrate the classroom instruction with actual plant hardware and more simulator time.
The inspectors questioned the licensee regarding the training provided for fueling handling at Unit 2.
Although this topic had been addressed in classroom instruction, no practical experience had been provided since the refueling equipment was not yet operational.
The licensee agreed to pro-vide on-the-job training, using experienced personnel, to those individuals involved in the fuel loading.
(50-410/85-37-01)
The licensee's action will be reviewed during a future inspection.
The inspectors also discussed with the licensee their analysis of the high failure rate for reactor operators on the initial exam.
Several factors were identified by the licensee:
a.
The simulator was not completed when the training began.
Therefore, all simulator training was performed at the end of the training pro-gram, rather than integrated with the classroom instruction.
b.
All of the operating procedures had not been developed when the training began.
c.
Several different basic text books were used as references for ther-modynamics and heat transfer.
This is now standardized.
d.
No written exams other than the audit exam were given during the last 2 months of training since this time was devoted to simulator training.
The licensee believes that these items have been corrected for the current class of candidates.
4.
Re uglification Trainin for Unit
The inspectors examined the training folders of several individuals who failed the most recent annual requalification exam to verify that they had received additional training and were reexamined prior to resuming licensed duties.
The licensee's procedures allow personnel directly involved in the review of the annual exam to be exempt from taking the exam.
The inspectors noted that one individual had been exempted for the last 4 years.
The inspectors stated that those individuals who are exempted from the exam should be periodically rotated such that no one person is exempt for more than 2 consecutive years.
The licensee has since significantly increased the number of senior reactor operators on the training staff and has agreed to periodically rotate the review duties for the annual requali-fication exam.
The inspectors observed a portion of the classroom training for requalification.
The material was well covered by the instructor Ct
~
The results of-t'%nterviews indicated a great deal of dissatisfaction with the requalification training program.
A frequent comment was that the lectures were boring because they were repeated year after year.
A major-ity expressed a desire for more training on auxiliary systems.
Instruc-tors lack credibility in the eyes of the operators because they do not spend much time in the plant
~
Many of the operators also feel that the Operations Management Committee (OMC) and the training department are not responsive to their concerns'his last comment may be the result of misunderstood communications.
The inspectors reviewed the notes of the OMC meetings for 1985 and discussed the training provided as a result of operator requests.
The training department had provided additional training on automatic oilers, 4160VAC breakers, and switchyard operations.
The inspectors found that the training department appears to be performing adequately and responsively but that some of the operators are not satisfied.
5.
Non-licensed Technical Trainin A.
References/Re uirements Nine Mile Point Station (NMPS), Unit 1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report NMPS Technical Specifications, Section 6, Administrative Controls ANSI N18. 1-1971 Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel ANSI/ANS 3. 1-1978, Selection gualification and Training of Per-sonnel for Nuclear Power Plants B.
Administrative Controls The following procedural controls were reviewed to verify their con-formance to those requirements listed above.
Administrative Procedure Nuclear (APN)-9, Administration of Training.
Nuclear Training Procedure (NTP)-3 Training for Electricians Steam Generating Plant NTP-6, General Employee/Radiation Protection Training NTP-7, Training and Continued Training of Instrument and Control Technicians NTP-9, Training for Mechanics Steam Generating Plant NTP-12, Unlicensed Operator Training
NucleamTraining Instruction (NTI)-1.1 Nuclear Training Depart-ment Organization and Responsibilities NTI-2.1, Individual Training Files NTI-3.1, Instructor Certi fication C.
Pro ram Review/Im lementation The inspect'ors reviewed the procedures listed above to verify that a
program was in-place that addressed training appropriate to various non-licensed technical disciplines.
Specifically, those areas re-viewed included electrical, mechanical, instrument and control, and auxiliary operator training.
Also reviewed was the licensee's train-ing program that addressed general employee training.
This area en-compasses the indoctrination, training and retraining of station personnel in the areas of radiological health and safety, security and access control, emergency planning, industrial safety and quality assurance.
The inspectors reviewed the implementation of the non-licensed tech-nical training program to ensure that the training presented is mean-ingful, topics are covered accurately and sufficiently, mechanisms are in place to identify those areas where training is needed or needs improvement, and records are maintained which accurately reflect classroom and on-the-job training.
Interviews were held with thirteen individuals to ascertain the ef-fectiveness and meaningfulness of the training program.
The various disciplines and respective job positions of those interviewed included:
four mechanics (mechanic, A,B,C, foreman)
four electricians (electrician, A,B,C, foreman)
four IEC technicians ( I&C technician, A,B,C, foreman)
one auxiliary operator
'B'he overall concerns of the training program expressed during the in-terviews were:
quantity and quality of training has improved significantly over the past two years.
quality of instruction in most instances was excellent, espe-cially in-house instruction.
classroom environment and training aids have improved.
training department is receptive to plant identified training need plant 4a cooperative in helping the training department meet established goals and objectives.
communication between the plant and training department is good.
instructor credibility has been established primarily'y employ-ing'instructors who previously worked in the mechanical, elec-trical and IEC departments.
Other areas reviewed to verify the implementation of non-licensed training included the following:
tours of the mechanical, electrical, and I&C classrooms and laboratories.
records of various training sessions and associated test grades student course evaluations Interviews were also conducted with plant supervisory personnel and the non-licensed training instructors to assess the adequacy of com-munications between the plant staff and the training department.
The plant staff is afforded, through various means, the opportunity to identify training needs in relation to upcoming major maintenance activities.
Examples of training as a result of performance-based initiatives include control rod drive overhaul training and planned Unit 1 turbine controls training.
The inspector also reviewed and discussed with QC personnel the re-sults of the most recent QA audit and QC surveillances.
The QA audit was of overall training department activities, and the two QC sur-veillances covered mechanical and electrical training.
Corrective actions for the audit findings were completed in a timely manner.
D.
Findin is No violations were identified.
Significant improvements were noted in the area of training and qualification for mechanics, electricians and IKC personnel.
Necessary I8C training program revisions were made recently to correspond with the actual conduct of activities.
Hechanical and electrical training program changes are currently un-der final management review.
As a result of these recent changes, some program aspects have yet to be fully developed or implemented (i.e.,
OJT training manuals, requalification training).
Continued progress in this area and the effectiveness of the non-licensed training program will be the subject of future NRC inspections.
6.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with training department representatives and senior cor-porate management to discuss the inspection scope and finding Based on NRC, Region I review of this report, it was determined that this report-does not contain information subject to
CFR 2.790 restrictions.