IR 05000245/1979020
| ML19254E658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1979 |
| From: | Caphton D, Sweinhart C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254E651 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-245-79-20, 50-336-79-16, NUDOCS 7911020130 | |
| Download: ML19254E658 (8) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. N'JCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I 50-24S/79-20 Report No. 50-336/79-16 50-245 Docket No.
50-336 DPR-21 License No. DPR-65 Priority
-
Category c
_
Licensee:
Northeast Nuclear Enerov Company P. O. Box 270
,,_
Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Facility Name:
Millstone Point, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:
Waterford, Connecticut Inspection conducted: Augus t 13-17, 1979 Inspectors:
Md/
h WOO
,
C. J. Cowgill ~III Reactor Inspector ate signM C.
K.
Sw e i n h a r t',
Reactor Inspector,
[
_
_
,
-
date signed Approved by:
MLi 8
[1
/
D. L. Caplitdn, Chief uclear Support
' dats si'gned Section I, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on August 13-17,1979 (Combined Report 'Os. 50-245/79-20 and 50-336/79-16)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of licensed operator requalification training; general employee training; craft and technician training; and unlicensed operator training.
The inspection involved 54 inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector and one NRC Co-op student.
Results :
No items of noncompliance were identified.
1260 040 Region I Form 12 (Rev. April 77)
7 911020 /Jo
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted P. Callaghat;, Maintenance Supervisor, Unit 1 P. Cassidy, Operations Technician, Unit 2 A. Cheatam, Hea.th Physics Supervisor
- J. Crosby, Operations Assistant, Unit 1 F. Dacimo, Quality Assurance Supervisor L. Evans, Operations Technician, Unit 2
- E. Farrell, Unit Superintendent, Unit 2
- C. Gilbert, Training Supervisor R. Herbert, Unit Superintendent, Unit 1 H. Haynes, I&C Supervisor, Unit 2 B. Jacobson, Maintenance Technician, Unit 2 J. Kelly, Operations Supervisor, Unit 2 J. McHugh, Chemistry Supervisor
'1. McRory, Training Coordinator, Unit 2
- E. Mroczka, Station Services Superintendent
- J. Opeka, Station Supervisor R. Price, Training Coordinator, Unit 2
- W. Romberg, Operations Unit 1 Supervisor F. Teeple, I&C Supervisor, Unit 1 R. Webber, Training Coordinator, Unit 1 USNR_C_
- W. Sanders, Reactor Inspector
- J. Shedlosky, Resident Reactor Inspector The inspector met with and interviewed other station personnel during the course of this inspection.
These included members of the Operations, Maintenance I&C, Quality Control, and Station Services departme,ts associated with both units.
- Denotes those in attendance at the exit interview conducted August 17, 1979.
2.
Licensed Operator Requalification Training a.
Program Review The inspector reviewed the licensee's program with regard to the requirements set forth in the accepted Operator Requalification Program and verified that, as currently established, the program includes the following:
an established, planned, continuing lecture schedule;
--
documentation of personnel attendance;
--
--
requirements for reactivity control manipulations; 1260 041
.
.
discussions / reviews of changes in facility design, procedures,
--
and facility license; and, review of abnormal and emergency procedures.
--
No items of noncompliance were identified.
The current licensed operator requalification program provides for remedial action to be taken in the event of the overall failure of the annual licensed operator requalification written examination. There is no current provision for any licensed operator review based on the failure of one or more parts of the examination.
The Licensee representative stated that a perfonnance review by management would be included in the program for failure of one.or more parts of the annual requalification examination.
This item is considered unresolved.
(245/79-20-01, 336/79-16-Olt)
b.
Record Review The inspector selected and reviewed the records of t:.n licensed o?erators for each of the station's operating units to verify that tie respective records contained the following documentation:
completed course and yearly examinations with answers;
--
manipulation of controls for reactivity changes required by
--
the prograrr; simulation or discussions of emergency /abnonnal procedures
--
and responses; and,
--
results of supervisory evaluations.
During the licensed operator record review the inspector identified four individuals licensed on Unit 1 and six individuals licensed on Unit II that were from two to six months behind in returning the required Emergency procedure review quizzes to the training department.
Each of these individ0als was a. nonoperating licensed staff member.
Prior to the completion of' the e'xaitiination all quizzes for these individuals had been returned to the training department with the exception of one person who was on vacation at the time of the inspection.
The inspector had no further questions regarding this matter.
The inspector identified no items of noncompliance.
1260 042
.
. c.
Personnel Interviews The inspector selected and interviewed six licensed personnel.
The interviews were directed at obtaining from these individuals a subjective appraisal of the content and effectiveness of the requalification training, as presented, and to confirm that the training adminstered was similar to that contained in the licensee's records.
The inspector identified no discrepancies or inconsistencies between the interview results and the licensee's records.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
d.
Performance Review Program During the 1978 annual requalification examination, one licensed reactor operator for Unit I failed three individual sections of the examination. He did,.however, receive overall passing grade for the entire examinatien.
His marginal perfonnance was brought to the attention of the operations supervisor in a timely manner.
The individual was interviewed and it was determined that his performance was due to short illness just prior to the examination.
He is activsly participating in the current lecture series and his performance in the program for this year to date is satisfactory.
The inspector had no furtner questions in this area.
3.
General Training a.
Program Definition The inspector reviewed the licensee's procedures listed below with respect to the progran definition requirements of:
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II; 10 CFR 19.12; 10 CFR 73.50; and ANSI N18.1. The procedures reviewed set forth formal training programs for:
new employees; temporary maintenance or service personnel; operations personnel; technicians; and craft personnel.
These procedures establish training programs which cover:
administrative controls and procedures; radiological health and safety; controlled access and security; industrial safety; emergency plans and procedures, tire training; and quality assurance indoctrination.
Formal training is also provided for female employees on the contents of Appendix A to Regulatory Guide 8.13.
Collectively, the procedures listed below address the training subjects described above.
ACP-8.01, Millstone Station Training, Revision 2 of April
--
9, 1979 ACP-8.02, Fire Fighting Training Program, Revision 3 of
--
December 5, 1978 ACP-8.03, HP Training and Retraining for Company and Contractor
--
Personnel, Revision 2 of September 8,1978 1260 00
.
ACP-8.04, Safety /First Aid Training for NNECO Employees
--
and Temporary Personnel, Revision 2 of April 9,1979 ACP-8.05, Security Trair,ing, Revision 3 of September 8,
--
1978 ACP-8.06, Emergency Plant Training, Revision 3 of May
--
1, 1979 ACP-AC-8.07, QA Training Program, Revision 1 of September
--
8, 1978 No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Pygram Participation The inspector reviewed the licensee's records to assure that the required training had been given.
In addition, the inspector conducted interviews with several of the iniividuals whose records were reviewed.
The interviews were conducted to verify that:
the scope of the training was similar to that contained in the licensee's records; the training as conducted was meaningful to those attending; and, that the arets presented were covered accurately and sufficiently from the participants' points of tiew.
Interviews were conducted with those personnel listed below:
two new employees;
--
two employees with more than one year of service;
--
two temporary employees; and,
--
--
two female employees.
No items of noncompliance were. identified.
4.
Craft and Technician Training a.
Program Definition 1.
On the job and formal technical training requirements for Chemistry-Health Physics, I&C Maintenance and Quality Assurance, department personnel are provided by the departmental procedures listed below.
Chemistry CP 800/200A Chemistry Department Training Program, Revision 1 of March 12, 1979.
1260 044
_ Health Physics HP 911/2911 Health Physics Department Training Program, Revision 1 of July 5, 1979.
Instrumentation and Control Unit I, IC 450, Instrument and Control Department Training, Revision 0.of January ll, 1979.
Unit II, IC 2450, Instrument and Control Department Training, Revision 1 of May 22,1979.
Maintenance Unit I, kP 790.1, Mainitenance Department Personnel Training, Revision 0, January 8,1979.
Unit II, MP 270ll, Training, Revision 1 of June 11, 1979.
Quality Assurance QA 1304, Non-License Training for QA/QC Personnel, Revision of June 8, 1979.
2.
Findings The Health Physics department training instruction contain provisions for contractor Health Physics technicians to review all department instructions prior to assuming watch duties.
For personnel on the licensee staff the same provision does not currently exist.
Licensee representative stated that provisions would be included in the training instruction to ensure that staff members have reviewed all department instructions prior to assuming watch duties.
This item is considered unresolved (245/79-20-02; 336/79-16-02).
No items of noncompliance were identified.
b.
Record Review and Personnel Interviews 1.
The inspector reviewed the records for and conducted interviews with selected employees to verify that the required ~ training had been conducted.
The interviews were directed at conforming that the selected individuals understand the information which had been presented and that they were able to describe how these instructions applied to their job positions.
1260 045
.
.
Those interviewed were in the following technical categories.
mechanics from Unit I and Unit II
--
I&C technicians from Unit I and Unit II
--
.
Chemistry technician
--
Health Physics technician
--
Building services supervisor
--
The inspector identified no inconsistencies between ths information cont-ined in the training records and the informatic provided during the interviews.
2.
Findings a.
The I&C department for Unit one revised the department training instruction in January of 1979.
The training record format required by the instruction was changed with the revised instruction.
The subject training records are currently being changed in format to contain all information required by the new instruction.
This has not yet been completed.
This is considered an unresolved item pending further inspector review (245/79-20-03)
b.
The chemistry department training instruction requires each technician to pass an annual written examination.
This examination is used to determine technical qualification for each individual to perform his assigned duties. The is no provision however for action to be taken in the event of a failure on the examination included in the instruction.
One individual failed the 1978 examination with a grade of 51.
He was not subsequently administratively removed from performing surveillance testing.
He was directed to review assigned lesson plans and retake the examination. At the time of the inspection the subject individual had not retaken the examination.
Discussions with licensee representatives revealed that the subject individual had not actually performed any chemistry surveillances.
The individual was formally removed from performance of chemical analysis by letter during the inspection.
Licensae representatives agreed to include provisions in their instructions to remove an individual from subject shift duties if he fails the annual examination, and to require a passing grade on a subsequent examination prior to reinstatement to the subject shift duties.
This item is considered unresolved.
(345/79-20-04,366/79-16-03)
-
No items of noncompliance were identified.
1260 046
.
-
5.
Unlicensed Operator Training Plant Equipment Operators (PE0's) are the unlicensed watch standers of the respective units' Operations Departments.
The training programs for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 PE0's are provided by:
Unit I, OP 250, Operator Replacement Training, Revision 0 dated
--
January 8,1979, and Unit II, OP 2250, Operator Replacement Training, Revision 3 dated
--
January 10, 1979.
The inspector reviewed these procedures and determined that they included requirements for on the job and technical training comensurate with the requirements of the job position.
The program also includes provisions for an annual retraining of all previously qualified operators.
During the course of the review the inspector identified three specific cases where in one P.E.0. could certify a prospective P.E.0. for specific tasks. The inspector discussed these areas with licensee representatives and they agreed that the certification signatures should be made by more senior personnel.
Specifically they agreed to assigning all qualification signatures to a shift supervisor or senior control room operator.
This item is considered unresolved pending the change and subsequent inspector review. (245/79-20-05, 366/79-16-04).
a.
Record Review The inspector reviewed the records of ten P.E.0.'s for each unit and interviewed selected P.E.0.'s to verify the required training had been conducted.
Interviews were directed at confirming that the selected individuals understand the infonnation that had been presented and that they were able to describe how each part applied to their specific duties.
The inspector identified no items of noncompliance.
6.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more infomation is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviation.
Unresolved items disclosed during the course of this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5.
7.
Exit Interview The inspector met with licensee representatives (identified in Paragraph 1) at the Millstone Point Station on August 17, 1979.
The purpose, scope and findings of the inspection as stated in this report were presented.
1260 047