IR 05000302/1978025
| ML20062F913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1978 |
| From: | Bradford W, Kellogg P, Taylor P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062F901 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-302-78-25, NUDOCS 7812210350 | |
| Download: ML20062F913 (5) | |
Text
.
.
.
.
,, 0 3 K' C o,,,
UNITEo STATES
>,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
',
.
.
[
R EGloN 11
,,- (
- '
t 101 M ARIETTA STREET.N.W.
-*
~
[
ATLANTA. GEORGI A 30303 o
r
%,
us j
.....
Report h 50-302/78-25 Docket No..
50-302 License No..
DPR-72 Licensee:
Florida Power Corporation P. O. Box 14042 Mail Drop C-4 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Facility Name:
Crystal River 3 Inspection at:
Crystal River 3 Site, Crystal River, Florida Inspection conducted:
October 16-19, 1978 Inspectors:
W. H. Bradford P. A. Taylor
-- -
i Approved by: -
\\
s- -
f /. <;. vy g; g P. J. Kellogg, Chief Date Nuclear Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on October 16-19, 1978 (Report No. 50-302/78-25)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of Operator Requalifica-tion training program and formal training and retraining programs for
.
nonlicensed plant personnel. The inspection involved 24 inspector hours onsite by two NRC inspectors.
Results:
Within the two areas inspected no item of noncompliance or deviatien were found in one area; one item of noncompliance was identified in the remaining area (Infraction - 78-25-01) Failure to implement training and retraining for nuclear auxiliary operators and assistant nuclear auxiliary operators, Details I, Paragraph 5.
.,..
. -..
'] fl A A I 0.3l70
-
.
-
.
-
..
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/73-25 I-1 Prepared byFwv/&44.2./
uNW DETAILS'I W. H. Bradfoi(d, Reactor Inspector
'Ddte Nuclear Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Su port Branch
'
'
,,
-
l{
s /J Y
/ l* $'/
u P. A. Taylor, Reactor Inspector Date Nuclear Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch
'
Dates of Inspection:
October 16-19, 1978 Reviewed by:D m/
//' 7 W P. J. Kellogg, Chici Date-d# Nuclear Support Section No. 2 Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch 1.
Persons Contacted Florida Power Corporation (FPC)
- G. P. Beatty, Jr., Nuclear Plant Manager P. F. McKee, Technical Services Superintendent
- W. R. Nichols, Operations Superintendent
- G. R. Westager, Maintenance Superintendent
- J. Cooper, Compliance Engineer
- P. E. Griffith, Nuclear Training Supervisor Several Nuclear Plant Supervisors, Nuclear Control Center Operators, Maintenance personnel and Technicians.
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
3.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable itees, items of noncompliance or deviatons.
Three unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraph 6.
.,
- eps e
.
.
,.
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-25 I-2 4.
Exit Interview A management interview was conducted at the conclusion of the inspection on October 19, 1978, with Mr. G. P. Beatty and other licensee staff members (denoted in Paragraph 1).
All subjects presented in these details were discussed.
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings with comments which are noted in Paragraphs 5 and 6.
5.
Training and Replacement Training The inspector reviewed training related documentation, procedures and interviewed seven (7) persons selected from non-licensed operators, mechanical and electrical maintenance, chemical and radiation protec-tion technicians, and nuclear technical support technicians to verify i
that the training described in Administrative Instruction AI-800,
" Conduct of Administrative Services" and Administrative Instruction AI-100, " Training and Retraining" was being provided for non-licensed personnel and met the requirements of Section 6.4.1 of the Technical Specification, ANSI N18.1-1971, Section 12.2 of the FSAR and Quality Procedure No. 2.51,
" Indoctrination and Training." The inspector determined through review of records and interviews that a general employee training program had been established through the imple-mentation of Administrative Instruction AI-800.
The inspector reviewed the departmental training program as described in implementing Procedure AI-100 which states in part that "each section supervisor (Operations, Security, Maintenance, Performance Engineering, Compliance, Chemistry and Radiation Protection, and Technical Support) is responsible for the development, administration and evaluation of the training and retraining of those personnel under his jurisdiction.
All training will conform to the requirements of ANSI N18.1-1971." This program appears to be weak in the areas of mechanical mainten nce, electrical maintenance, and chemistry and radiological protection sections in that training records indicate that very little departmentmental training has been accomplished during the past year.
The inspector found that qualification and training for non-licensed operators is practically nonexistent and that the licensee had not implemented the requirement for non-licensed operators to complete the Annual Shift Procedure Review, the Replacement Operator Evolution Record and the Operator Training in plant systems.
The afore stated Qualification and Training records for non-Itcensed operators indicated that non-licensed operators are not receiving the training required to properly prepare them for their work assignments.
Examples of this lack of training is as follows:
Of the 15 non-licensed operators - in the area of system training qualification which involves a total of 24 systems; 6 operators had
..
- .
de,
.
..
~
.
.
,.
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-25 I-3 completed 12 systems or less and 9 operators had not completed any of the systems qualification.
In the area of Annual Shift Procedure review, 8 operators had reviewed 8 or less procedures and 7 had cot completed any procedure reviews.
In the Replacement Operator Evaluation, only 1 operator had completed 3 items and 14 operators had completed none.
The failure to develop and administer a training program for non-licensed operators is not in accordance with the requirement of Section 6.4.1 of the Technical Specifications and Section 5.5 of ANSI N18.1-1971 and implementing Procedure AI-100.
This item of noncompliance is an infraction (78-25-01).
The licensee stated at the exit interview that a requirement for non-licensed operators to participate in systems qualification training Annual Shift Procedure Rc " w and Replacement Operator Evaluation Training has been placed into effect immediately (October 19, 1978). The licensee stated that the systems qualification card systems for non-licensed operator would be reviewed and upgraded and that each shift supervisor will review each non-licensed operator to determine the qualifications of the operator to work in the assigned area. This evaluation is to be completed and documented by October 26, 1978.
A subsequent telephone conversation was held on October 23, 1978 between Mr. Wessman of the NRC and Mr. W. Stewart, Director of Power Production for Florida Power Corporation on the subject of non-licensed personnel training.
Mr. Stewart stated that he would follow-up on the matter with plant management.
6.
Licensed Operator Requalification Training l
The inspector reviewed documents and training records to verify that a i
requalification training program for NRC licensed Reactor Operator (R0's) and Senior Reactor Operators (SRO's) had been established and I
was consistent with the requirements of the licensee's requalifications training plan Appendix 12C to FSAR, Section 6.4 of the technical specifications, and Appendix A to 10 CFR 55.
l The inspector reviewed training records of 8 licensed operators and interviewed 2 shif t supervisors in the control room to ascertain that discussion and review of changes in facility design procedures and l
license was being conducted.
i.-
.
_
__
.
..
.
,.. -
.
RII Rpt. No. 50-302/78-25 I-4 Within the areas inspected 3 unresolved items were identified.
1.
Semiannual report from the training coordinator to the operations supervisor is not being submitted as required by the FSAR Appendix 12C Section 6.2 and implementing procedure AI-800 (Conduct of Administra-tive services) enclosure (5) Section 4.2.
The licensee also noted this item in a QA audit No. 156 dated August 11, 1978. A reporting program was to be initiated by October 15, 1978 as specified in the QA audit.
This is an unresolved item and will be re-examined at a future inspection (78-25-02).
2.
A sampling of on-the-job training records was reviewed to ascertain that required reactivity control manipulations for licensed operators had been conducted.
These records for several licensed operators lacked the shift supervisor's initials which is required to verify completion of the reactivity control manipu-lations. The FSAR Appendix 12C Section 5.1.1 and implementing procedure AI-800, enclosure (5) Section 3.1.1 specifies that the shift supervisor take this action. The licensee also noted this item in a QA audit No. 156 dated August 11, 1978.
This is an unresolved item and will be re-examined at a future inspection (78-25-03).
3.
AI-500 (Conduct of Operations) Section 2.9 states in part that shif t supervisors will insure each member of his shif t has been informed of plant modifications.
In interviewing 2 shift super-visors neither was sure that all members of his shift were informed of plant modifications, as some plant modification were not discussed during instructional sessions held periodically during the shift, none are all shift members in attendance for these sessions.
The licensee was informed that a weakness may have developed in this area and that no measurable means is used to confirm that the requirement of AI-500 Section 2.9 is being completed.
The licensee stated that presently all completed plant modifications are forwarded to the training coordinator for classroom review.
It should be noted that classroom lectures are held on an average of every fifth week for shift personnel.
The licensee action in this matter should include a comprehensive review and upgrading of AI-500 Section 2.9 to ensure a prompt and effective scans to inform shift personnel of plant modifications is conducted.
This is an unresolved ites and will be re-examined at a future inspection (78-25-04).
-.
.
- .
go,
.
N v