IR 05000250/1986046

Insp Repts 50-250/86-46 & 50-251/86-46 on 861117-21.No Violations or Deviations Identified.Major Areas Inspected: Training

ML20207T211
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	02/19/1987
From:	Debs B, Shymlock M, Vanderniet C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207T206	List: IR 05000250/1986046 ML20207T205
References
50-250-88-46, 50-251-86-46, NUDOCS 8703230311
Download: ML20207T211 (5)

Text

,

^

f 540g " '*

UNITE 3 STATES

_b 4, NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY CUMMISSIEN 3 '

o REGION 11

• .$a 101 MARIETTA STREET N.W.. SUITE 2900 o ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

%...../

Report Nos.: 50-250/86-46 and 50-251/86-46 Licensee: Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.: 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.: DPR-31 and DPR-41 Facility Name: Turkey Point 3 and 4 Inspection Conducted: November 17 - 21, 1986 Inspectors:

B. T. Debs C#

v /

f#u / /07 Date Signed 0'h C. L. VandernHt LL (/

"

Sl/ffh Date Signed Approved by:

~

M. B. Shymlock, Chief N

Date Signed Operational Programs Section Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY ,

Scope: This special, unannounced, inspection was conducted in the area of trainin Results: No violations or deviations were identifie .

I B703230311 870224 PDR ADOCK 05000250 G PDR

.-. . ._

. _ . . _ _ .. _

J b .

-

.

,

>

REPORT DETAILS

! Persons Contacted Licensee Employees

.

-* C. Miller, Nuclear Plant Training Superintendent

'

• T. A. Finn, Operations Supervisor - Nuclear

'

- *J. E. Crockford, Nuclear Operations Training Superintendent

• R. D. Hart, Licensing Engineer

• J. Arias, Jr., Regulatory & Compliance Supervisor

• R. A. Longtemps, Assistant Superintendent Mechanical

*J. W. Kappes, Maintenance Superintendent

'

• T.'V. Abbatiello, Supervisor Engineer

• J. M. Mowbray, Lead Mechanical Engineer

• G. C.-Shrader, Engineer

• D. . E. Boger, Authorized Nuclear Inspector *S. Collard, Supervisor,: Materials Codes, & Inspections

• H. E. Hartman, In-Service Inspector

• C. D. Kelly, Main / Spec. Training Supervisor i *K..L. Remington, In-Service Tester

.

• M. J. Crisle, Quality Control Supervisor

• J. F. O'Brien, Construction Quality Control Supervisor

• F. H. Fabor, Jr., Supervisor - NUC

• D. T. Hunt, Plant Security Coordinator Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, engineers, technicians, operators, security force members, and office personnel.

'

NRC Resident Inspectors

• D. Brewer

• K. VanDyne

• Attended exit interview Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on November 21, 1986, with

'those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed belo No dissenting comments were received from the license Although proprietary material was reviewed during the inspection, no proprietary information is contained in this repor , Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters

'

This subject was not addressed in the inspectio . _ - - - . - - - . - - - - - - . -.

- ,

{, -

4. Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they- are acceptable .or may involve violations or devia-tions. Two new unresolved items identified during this inspection are-discussed in paragraphs 7 and . General Employee Training The inspectors re-examined - the recent General Employee Training- (GET)

incident which resulted in the termination of one employee and disciplinary action against two others. . The incident was ' caused by a GET instructor changing a failing student's test grade to a passing grade. The student was later overheard boasting about the assistance of the instructor which prompted the licensee to investigate the matter. The inspectors interviewed the terminated instructor who admitted changing the student's grade and accepted full responsibility for the incident. The instructor did mention that he felt he had an unofficial approval from his direct supervisor to modify borderline grade The instructor also commented that there was insufficient time available to present all the GET material in a proper manner. The thspectors attempted to interview the instructor's supervisor and the student but were unable to contact either because they were on annual leave. Other. personnel involved in the incident were interviewed and testimony tapes of the student and supervisor were reviewed. In all cases the testimony and interview data supported the licensee report of the incident and their ensuing corrective actions. The inspector interviewed the new' GET supervisor and an instructor during a review of the current' GET program. The current program has been changed to prevent a recurrence of the grading incident. A new scoring system has also been implemented to reduce the number of scoring errors which were unusually high under the old progra The terminated instructor also told the inspectors that he had heard recently of an individual substituting for another individual during a facility administered GET tes The inspectors questioned training management regarding this possibilit Management stated that they had no knowledge of such an incident. The inspectors reviewed the signatures on GET tests against the signatures on the security cards for GET tests taken in September and early October 1986 in an attempt to identify any substitutes. That review did not surface any apparent abnormalities to substantiate the training instructor's statement. The review, however, did reveal instances where unescorted picture badges of two individuals did not match the information on their respective security cards. Security personnel were notified and the two individuals accesses were pulled pending resolution and corrective actio The inspectors were informed that apparently the picture badges and security cards had been transposed for the two individual a

~

.

6. Security Training (81501)

The inspectors reviewed several-security documents and letters including a letter dated September 4,1986, containing ' the standards and requirements

.for initial training and qualification, and recertificatio These standards and requirements are applicable to all security personne According to the aforementioned letter there are twelve written examinations designed to evaluate security personnel knowledge regarding firearms, first aid, and normal / contingency duties and' responsibilities of a Nuclear Security Officer. The minimum passing score for each examination is 70%.

The inspectors reviewed several written component examinations and discovered numerous instances where security personnel achieved less than the minimum passing score. Those failing were allowed to take a re-exami-nation on the same day. The results of the re-examinations were consider-ably higher than the initial examination Interviews with test admini-strators and prior students indicated that the initial tests were scored and each question and answer was discussed by the class. Several of those failing examinations were given the same questions on the re-examination, however, the order of the questions was modified. This practice is allowed by written training policy which states that if a person fails a test, a training department instructor will review the test with the person concerned, administer any remedial training deemed necessary, and allow the person to retake the test a second time. The licensee also informed the inspectors that the re-examinations were to be conducted on the employees own time. The inspectors questioned the practice of using the same questions on both initial and re-examinations since it appears that failed students are " taught" the correct answers and retested the same day which may not be testing retained knowledge. The adequacy of this procedural practice will be further evaluated by the NRC during a future security inspectio The inspectors reviewed selected results of the physical fitness examina-tions concentrating on the requirement to demonstrate the ability to run a distance of 440 yards in under two minutes. Each person is allowed a maximum time limit of one hour to complete all portions of the physical fitness test including the above task. Tested personnel may repeat any task as many times as desired until it is successfully accomplished or the one hour time limit expires, whichever occurs firs The inspectors observed many instances where run times were documented in the range of 1:55 to 1:59 minutes. Interviews with security personnel indicated that an individual is stationed at the end of the 440 yard course with a stop watch and calls out the time as personnel complete the run. The individuals usually run as a group and as each individual crosses the finish line it is their responsi-bility to remember the time called ou That time is then given to a trainer recording the times of the runners. The inspectors informed the licensee that the apparent high instance of marginal passing times would be further discussed by the NRC during a future security inspectio e - ,

, -

--

The . inspectors also. observed ' handgun training conducted on the firing range for security -personnel. The firing range target scoring was checked and

' found to be' completed in an efficient and correct manner. . Armed security personnel are required to complete proficiency training with a handgun',

rifle ~, and shotgun annually. : Each guard is allowed to be retested if they are unable .to qualify with a weapon, however, all guards must qualify with all weapons to remain in any armed position at the facilit . Quality Control Training and Qualification (419908)

The inspectors reviewed several of the training files of the QC Personnel

, for completeness in accordance with licensee administrative procedure

'

0-ADM-971, . Certification of Quality Control Inspectors. The inspectors found the files to be incomplete with regards to several of the documents L required by the procedure to be included in the records. The records also appeared to be missing copies of tests used in the certification of inspectors. The inspectors discussed this with the licensee and some of the missing documentation was retrieved and shown to the inspectors. .The inspectors stated that a thorough review of all QC Personnel training records needs to be accomplished to ensure their completenes The inspectors questioned the practice of taking exceptions to the requirements for qualifying QC inspectors. The licensee informed the inspectors that the requirements could be waived on recommendation of the QC Manager and that this was done in all instances. The inspectors noted the absence of documenting the waivers in the training records and feel complete documentation is necessary to ensure program congruency under management and personnel changes. The inspectors also noted that the eye examinations were performed by QC personnel and not medical personnel. This practice could lead to the possibility of erroneous examinations being administered. The area of 1 incomplete furi.ner review QC training by the NRC (URI records is to be an unresolved item 50-250/86-46-01 and 50-2 Licensee Assessment of Turkey Point Training The inspectors requested, from licensee management, any training assessments completed by the licensee. One'of the assessments, conducted by the PTN Training Assessment Task Team during February 1986, was a very detailed review of all the training at Turkey Poin The assessment was conducted by an 8 member team and appeared to have been conducted in a very professional manner. Many of the findings of the inspectors during this inspection were already identified by the assessment, especially in the areas of QC training. The inspectors received a copy of the assessment too late in their inspection to render a review of it during this inspection period. A management meeting was held with FPL representatives in the Region II Office on December 16, 1986, to discuss their internal assessmen A Meeting Summary was sent to FPL by letter dated January 26, 1987. This summary concluded that further inspection by the NRC would be required to ensure appropriate corrective action was taken with regard to the major findings of the assessment. Pending these inspection results, this will be left as an Unresolved Item (URI 50-250/86-46-02 and 50-251/86-46-02).

. .. .

_ _ _ _ _ - _