IR 05000263/1977009
| ML20024G355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1977 |
| From: | Barker J, Little W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024G354 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-263-77-09, 50-263-77-9, NUDOCS 9102110358 | |
| Download: ML20024G355 (4) | |
Text
.
.
_, _. _ - -. _
.,
._
_-
. _ _ - _ ____ __ _
_
_
.
".
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tNISSION OITICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCEMENT RECION III Report No. 50-263/77-09 Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 Licensect Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall
,
,
Minneapolis', IN 55401
.
Facility Names Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
, Inspection Att Monticello Site, Monticello, FJi
,
Inspection Conducted:, May 24-26, 1977
/
/
Inspector
. L. B rker
- 8 77 Aate signed Approved By:
e, C f
[
[
,
N clear Support Branch Ant ( signed
$
Inspection Summary Inspection on May 24-26. 1977 (Report No. 50-263/77-09)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, announced inspection of initial training, replacement training, and retraining of licensed and nonlicensed per-sonnel and licensed operator requalification training.
The inspection involved 19 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
(
-
9102110350 770609 PDR ADOCK 050
0
-
.......
.
,.
,
'
.
.
>
(
DETAILS
\\
Personn contacted
\\
\\
- h. Eliason
- W. Anderson,, Plant Manager
$11. Niteno, Mai t*D. Antony, Plant EngineeSuperintendent ons enance Super, operations and Haintenance
- W. Shamla n
- J. Pasch,, Training SPlant Engineer. rvisor Technical R. Scheinost, Qual upervisor W. Hill, Engineer,ity Engineer Instruments during theThe inspector also inte course of rviewed six
,
and journeyman machiniststhe inspection.other licensee enployees and instrument techniciansThey included both n i
- Denotes those present at the 2'
.
I!*S."i"S exit interview.
training activities fThe training program was reviewed licensed personnel are i to or rev en:ployeesascertain whether the requirements and the overa n
and commitments in the FSARconformance with Technical Sre that formal train for new employees,ing or Tl'
pecification retraining progra.
nspector verified licensed personnel, tech temporary or service p ms '
formal been established training program for pnicians, and craft ers t rative 1. nonlicensed/
controls ers i
industrial safetyand procedures,onnel listed above t that the mel for technician and craf temergency plan, an,d qualitcontro covers adminis-y assurance;nd security procedures, ty, a
formal e
technical training personnel includenthat the responsibilities have been, and fire fighti on-t he-j obretraining program gram requirements have be ng training; thattraining, assigned are provided instructions to en met; and that all fe assure that training pro-of twenty individuals. Training Program. vie
'lhe inspector re male employees on exposure.
"
The inspector reviewedre ACD 3.13, " Plant Person licensed annual retrainiof the total number of pl lie ant personnel had complet dnoted that alt nel The licensee indicated thpersonnel had completed ret er than 80%
ng, less than 50% of e
raining on the general non-maintenance this item would be coadministrative procedure at s.
rrected by using
.
O W
.
,
-
"
-
.
. - _
.
'
.
.
.
'
DETA113 (
1.
Personn contacted
- L.
Elinson, Plant Manager
- W. Anderson, Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance
- D. Antony, Plant Engineer, Operations
- l1. Nimmo, Maintenance Supervisor
.
- W. Shamla, Plant Engineer, Technical
- J.
Pasch, Training Supervisor R. Scheinost, Quality Engineer W.11111 Engineer, Instruments The inspector also interviewed six other licer.see enployces during the course of the inspection.
They included both new
_
and journeyman machinists and instrument technicians.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Training The training progre,m was reviewed to ascertatu whether the overall training activities f or new ceployees and the retraining f or non-licensed personnel are in conformance with Technical Specification requirements and commitrents in the FSAR. The inspector verified that formal training or retraining programs have been established for new employees, temporary or service personnel, nonlicensed/
licensed personnel, technicians, and craf t personnel; that the
'
formal training program for personnel listed above covers adminis-trative controls and procedures, radiological henith and saf ety, industrial safety, controlled access and security procedurcs, emergency plan, and quality assurance; that the retraining program for technician and craf t personnel includer on-the-job training, formal technical training, and fire fighting training; that responsibilities have been assigned to assure that training pro-gram requirements have been met; and that a12 female employees are provided instructions concerning prenatal radiation exposure.
The inspector reviewed licensee procedure ACD 3.13, 'Tlant Personnel Training Program." The inspector reviewed the training records of twenty individuals.
Uc noted that although greater than 80%
of the total number of plant personnel had conipleted general non-licensed annual retraining,1 css than 50% of the maintenance personnel had conpleted retraining on administrative procedures.
The licensee indicatst that this item would be corrected by using
.
(
-
-2-
-
,,
.- _ _..
,
,
,
o
,
.
-.
,
e
'
\\
o
.e I
security badge control (sindlar to controls used to insure annual
'
radiological health and safety retraining).
The inspector noted (
that although an on-the-job training program for machinists has been impicmented, there was no documentation of this training. The item had been noted on previous inspections.
The licensee took immediate corrective action to implement a program for document ation, l
The licensce's commitment on training is to meet the requirements of ANSI N1B.1-1971, which recemmends but does not require maintaining all training records, therefore this is not an item of noncompliance.
~ ~ ~,,.
The inspector noted that the mechanical apprentice program included
'
four years of formal classroom type (approximately 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br />) and on-the-job training.
He also noted that instrument technician training included approximately 1400 hours0.0162 days <br />0.389 hours <br />0.00231 weeks <br />5.327e-4 months <br /> of formal classroom and on-the-job training and that the instrument supervisor kept docu-j mentation of this training.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
-
3.
Licensed Operator Requalification Training The requalification program was reviewed to ascertain whether the licensed operator requalification training program is ef fective and in conformance with Regulatory requirements. The inspector verified that an operator requalification training program has been catab-11shed and includes preplanned lectures, attendance documentation, and ideatification of specific training aids to be used in lieu of an instructor; that on-the-job training requirements have been specified to include control manipulations, discussion / review of I
changes in f acility design, procedures, and license; and that records of licensed individuals are maintained to include completed course and yearly examinations, documentation of manipulations, documentation of required simulations of emergency and abnorcal conditions, results of supervisory evaluations of examinations, results of supervisory evaluations and observation of manipulations and simulations identified above, documentation of individual
.
study, and documentation of accelerated requalification training.
The inspector reviewed licencee procedure AWI 3.3.1, " Operator Requalification program." The program includes 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of scheduled Icetures plus all itens indicated above.
The inspector noted that an annual audit of the training and requalification programs had been completed by the Quality Engineer and recommended corrective action to deficiencies noted had been completed.
The inspector reviewed the training and requalification records of six Senior Reactor Operators, four Reactor Operators, one Senior Reactor Operator candidate, and one Reactor Operator candidate.
No itecs of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
(
-3-f
._ --
.
'
.-
.
-
o m
.
%
. Y
-
i
Exit Interviev
I l
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 26, 1977.
The inspector sutmnarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
-
(
.
e
$
e (
.
4-
-
.
,
.
.. _ _... -
_
,
,,
_,