IR 05000220/1988005
| ML17055D881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1988 |
| From: | Lange D, Lumb T, Sisco C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055D880 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-88-05, 50-220-88-5, NUDOCS 8805310309 | |
| Download: ML17055D881 (8) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Report No.
50-220 / 88-05 License Rn.
DPR-63 Licensee:
Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration 301 Plainfield Road S racuse New York 13212 Facility Name:
Nine Mile Point
Inspection at:
Scriba New York Inspection conducted:
Februar 22 - 25 1988 Inspectors:
T.
Lumb, Senior perations Engineer C.
isco, Operations Engineer Da e
Date Approved by:
D. Lange, Chief, R Operations Section D te Summary:
Ins ection on Februar
25 1988 Re ort.No. 50-220/88-05 Areas Ins ected:
A routine, unannounced safety inspection was conducted, of the Nine Mile 'Point 1 (NMP-1) Licensed Operator Continuing Training Program (Requalification Training), in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the licensee's program.
The inspection consisted of reviews of training records, training program procedures and interviews with licensed operators.
Results:
Discrepancies in the documentation of the Licensed Operator retraining and continuing training were identified.
During a subsequent telephone conversation between the NRC and facility licensee management, the licensee committed to correcting the documentation problems.
The status of NMP-1 Licensed Operator Training is an unresolved item pending further inspection following correction of the documentation problems.
Results of interviews with members of the operations staff indicated that the licensed operators believe that the requalification training program is not effective in training the operators to perform job-related activities.
8805310309 380520 PDR ADOCK 05000220
'
DETAILS 1.0 PERSONS CONTACTED Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration T. J. Perkins, General Superintendent R.
B. Abbott, Station Superintendent (NMP-2)
K. Zollitsch, Training Superintendent R. T. Seifried, Assistant Superintendent of Training D. Straka, Supervisor Operations Training G. Roarick, Training Supervisor (Simulator Supervisor)
J. Aldrich, Superintendent of Operations A. Pinter, Site Licensing Engineer L. Wolf, Site Licensing Engineer C.
G.
Beckham, Manager QA Operations R.
V. Pasternak, Manager Nuclear Consulting Services
~
The inspector also interviewed other licensed operators during the inspection period.
1.2 U.S. Nuclear Re ulator Commission W. Cook, Senior Resident Inspector D. Florek, Senior Operations Engineer
Denotes those present at the exit meeting conducted on February 26, 1988 2.0 PROGRAM AREAS INSPECTED 2.1 Licensed 0 erator Trainin Documentation NMP Training Procedure NTP-11 was reviewed to ensure compliance with
CFR 55.59 (Requalification Program).
The inspector discussed implementation of NTP-11 with the Operations Training Supervisor.
Twenty-one (21) licensed operator training files were reviewed to determine compliance'ith NTP-ll.
Training documentation in the individual files was reviewed for completeness in accordance with section 5.2 of NTP-11 and 10 CFR,55.59, NTP-ll requires that each individual training file contain records of training lecture attendance including mandatory repeat sessions, examination results, required reading, on-the-job training and control manipulations.
The following deficiencies were found in the individual training files inspected:
1.
No doc'umentation existed of remediation training given for license holders scoring below 80K on quizzes, as required by section 5.2.6 of NTP-l.
Required reading was not documented as required by section 5.2.3 of NTP"11.
3.
Inconsistency in documentation of lecture attendance for Cycles 1,
7 and 8 of the 1987 Requalification Program.
Section 5.2. 1 of NTP-11 requires documentation of program participation.
The facility licensee did produce documentation of the remediation training given, in some cases, and was attempting to find documentation for the remainder of the cases in question.
The problem with documentation of required reading was identified in a previous inspection conducted by the NRC in April, 1987.
Training files were updated following the identification of that problem, but the documentation was not kept up to date.
Required reading consists mainly of procedure changes and significant Licensee Event Reports, some of which are discussed during training lectures.
These are documented on the list of lecture topics for each cycle, but had not been transcribed to the required reading section in the individual training files.
Cycle 1 of the requalification program was" a review of the 1987 written examination.
Cycle 7 was used for General Employee Training.
Cycle 8 consisted of any makeup training that was required.
In some operators'raining files, attendance at these cycles was documented and in some files it was not documented.
Due to the inconsistencies in the documentation, for individual training files, the inspectors were unable to determine which operators had attended Cycles 1,
7 and 8 and whether or not attendance was mandatory for any portions of these requalification training cycles.
The lack of documentation in the individual training files was identified.
Due to the discrepancies in the documentation of requalification training, the inspector was unable to determine the adequacy of the licensee's requalification program.
During a subsequent telephone call on March 1, 1988, Mr. Perkins acknowledged the documentation problems and committed to correcting the problems in accordance with NTP-11.
2.2 Licensed 0 erator Interviews The -inspectors interviewed three (3) licensed Reactor Operators and three (3) licensed Senior Reactor Operators (one Station Shift Supervisor, one staff licensee and the Operations Superintendent).
The results of the interviews indicated that the licensed operators believe that continuing training is not necessary for NMP-1 personnel due to the high level of experience among the operators.
Prior to September 1987, Nine Mile Point allowed licensed operators to "test out" of requalification training lecture attendance if they scored above 80% on the applicable section of the annual written examination.
The operators believe that continuing training is not necessary in all the subjects listed in 10 CFR 55.59(c)(2)
and that there should be some provision to allow requalification lecture attendance to be optional for operators who have demonstrated proficiency in the applicable subject.
CFR 55.59(c)(2) requires that the requalifi-cation program includes lectures on a regular and continuing bases but allows the scope and depth of coverage to be planned based on operator and senior operator written examination results and facility operating experience in the listed subject areas.
The operators believe that requalification training is designed solely to meet INPO and NRC requirements and is not effective in training the operator to perform job-related activities.
The attitude of the operations staff towards requalification training was discussed during the subsequent telephone call between Mr.'.
Johnston, and Mr. T. Perkins, on March 1, 1988.
3.0 EXIT INTERVIEW The ins ection P
scope and findings as detailed in this report were summarized on February 25, 1988 during an exit interview wit licensee
.
personnel (see paragraph 1.0 for attendees).
The inspector determined that no proprietary information was utilized during the inspection.