IR 05000313/1990031

Insp Repts 50-313/90-31 & 50-368/90-31 on 901001-04.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Area Inspected:Training & Qualification Effectiveness

ML20062D558
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	10/31/1990
From:	Gagliardo J, Vickrey R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062D557	List: IR 05000313/1990031 ML20062D551
References
50-313-90-31, 50-368-90-31, NUDOCS 9011130356
Download: ML20062D558 (6)

Text

m

,

, . y

, '.

..

^;

.

.-

<

~

} ,

-

,

,

s  !

APPENDIX; *- b O.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY;COMMISSIONL '

.REGIONflV=

,

NRC Inspection Report: 50-313/90-31 Operating Licenses: DPR-51- 4

'

'50-368/90-3 .NPF-6 ,

Dockets: 50-3131 m 3 j

,

50-368- , _

Licensee: Entergy Operations, In +

P.O. Box 551 ,

' y" .

Little Rock,

Arkansas; 72203"

' Facility Name:'/ Arkansas- Nucletr One. (ANO) ' Unitsiliand 2+

'

InspectionAt:'AN0; site,Russellville,; Arkansas l Inspection Conducted: . 0ctobe'r: 1-4,1990)

Inspector: _ _

R.T. Vickrey, . Reactor. Insp(ctor. Operational '

<

NUh4

~.Dat ' '

. Programs Section/ Division:of Reactor!SafetyL z

,

'

Accompanied . . _ .

, . ,

• '

By: B. Brett, Consu nt,-Scienc_e Application; International' Corporation T Jame Consuitant, Science App ~ ++1on' International Corporation-g --

, ,

Approved:

,

.J\ E.1Gagl ardo,.5ection Chief. Operational 'Dat Program Section, Division of ? Reactor Safety

- (

4 ' I I. . , i .!'

Inspection Summary Inspection: Conducted October 1-4,1990'(Report 50-313/9031;.50-368/90-311

'

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection ofl training;and qt M . cation-

~

'

effectivenes <

.. . ..

Results: Within the area' inspected,:no violations =or? deviations wert

'

~

identified. Theitraining department has!made noticeable progress % everalt

areas. Although' weaknesses still: exist, theidepartmentiappears to have;at healthy attitude and continues to'.make improvements..;Thereais an effort to self-assessithrough internal' audit plans and evaluation; LThe department had a good understandingfof~ths plant training;needs and. supported.these. requirement ,,

' '

'

> -

o ,

',[ ' 9011130356 901031ADOCK 05000313 [in@t

'

W PDR I

-

-

y/'

K G PNV 9p -  ; '

&: -

3 ' jny ,,

,

L ,8 , Q, p ; L; '

-d f

-

. _ . . . . . . . . . ._ ..__ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _....._. -

. ,

__

'

,, . .

%

, ,

o ...

$

.f' '

i-2-

,

., 4

,0,gAILS o PERSONS CONTACTED-

• D. Barton, Maintenance Training-Supervisor

• D.,Boyd, Licensing Specialitt-

• E.. Force, Training Manager

.

.

• L. Humphrey, General Manager, Quality- .

• B.<Jackscn, Administration Training: Superviso .

• G.. King, Quality Assurance;0perations Training Supervisori

• S. Shelanskey,. Instructional Technologist

• J. Vandrigrift, Plant Manager, Unit N .-

• JL Waid, Ter.hnical Support Training Supervisort

• E. Wentz, Operations Training Supervisor

• J. Yelverton, Director. Operations The inspectors: contacted other licensee-personnel-during-the inspectio * Denotes' attendance at oxit interview conducted October 4, 199 ,

12.' TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION EFFECTIVENESS (41500)~

Thelicensee'strainingactivitieh.were-inspectedusingportions'ofthe-guidance contained in NUREG-1220F " Training Review; Criteria and. Procedures."'

The areas reviewed were selectedibased'on the scheduled training at the time'of ,

the inspection and<the< inspector's background'and;knowle'dge in'theisubjec '

areas. Interviews were sconducted)with training: department;coors..iators,

~ instructors, and' students. Inspection activities also1 included:'

,o A tour of;the,trairing facilities; '

a-

.o A review of selected trainingidepartmentLprocedures,; records,;and instructions;;

.

3;

' o .An audit of: training presentations and associat'edLlesson material;Lan' "

>

a-o A'reviewofprevious' licensed's" quality; assurance'auditsandassociatedi'

training: department corrective action . . 2.1 Tour' ofc the Training Facilities;

,. .!

,

. . . . i 'I[ ;3

".

ThelinspectorsLt oured;th'e licensee's trainingEfacilitiesw The findings fromL "

these tours'areidocumented below.

Maintenance trainers and personnel have

'shown11magination andrinitiativeLi'nideveloping training aidsiand devicesi;to'the 7  ; extent of. outgrowing the training 91ab. spaces.: Forithe short! term space; ['

, limitations, the training; department wustusing othercstoragevareasiandihail '

, designed severa1Jof.the' training; aids with roll-a-way feature's. ?The licensee- T

'

.hadcrecognized;that the developmentland use'of training aidsStoisupport

,

m , ,  ;

'

\

,

,

E.Ww

.

n

~

,

'

'

'

o Ry

.e

, .

/ d ';S. ~ '

+.

~'

xN

-

.

,; .

. u v

,'

'+

i . y?

d q

"' W P

<

i, g' ho 2

.

, ,.,

_ qp! j t

1. '

E IW2

,

+ W, 9. 3a W ' * +

'jd

.

-

'. ,

'

,

, I

-3-maintenance training would stretch'the capabilities of.the facilities and have a negative impact on training. 'The licensqe was in the process of evaluating _

future alternative methods to suppor_t maintenance training.. Training critique- 1 and procedure improvement identification forms were found to readily available !

for use by instructors and students ~ The. training department was aaking use'of their video production' equipment by filming? activities-'and equipment in.the' "(

field to enhance classroom training. Simulators were being maintafned to reflect plant status and modified as necessary-to. reflect change l The computer-based sof tware package for job task analysis'(JTA)', which had1been developed by the operations training department, was'very good in that it followed ANO procedures with regard to analysis methods and data alements

-

collected, and it provided a simple interface lfor the user. :I ti e rer esm-tatives believed it would greatly reduce-the. level of effort .- .:d -

maintain the operations JTA data: base and would facilitate the course development-process by placing critical data at the course designer's fingertip .2 Review of Licensee's Quality Assurance Audits and Associated Training Department Corrective Actions The licensees root cause analysis of previous. audit items appeared weak. The inspector reviewed the licensees last Quality Assurance Audit 1No'. QAP-4-90-conducted April 11 through May 24.'1990, of.the train.ing' department. The audit findings and the training department responses of:these items.were reviewe Although the training-department had responded to correct the individual-items of the audit, there did not appear to have been a full assessment of:possible root causes. This observation was brought totthe attention ofitheitraining manager.. The training manager recognized _that:there was probably underlying causes to the identified items and initiated an' internal: audit. The audit-began on October 1,1990, to verify the' training department's adherence.to training processes as delineated in the training: administrative (and training sequence procedure .3 Audit of Training-Presentatio n d Review of' Training Materials During the review of training matei n e , the inspectors noted that there'were several instances in which the material had not.been updated for 2 to 3 year The materia 1'which had not been recently updated included 10 Unit 2 simulator exercise guides, 8 reactor theory 11esson plans', and 2 plant systemLlesson plans. Although the quality of the' material did.not appear'significantly effected, the. lack of specific guidelines for the review and update of material'

_

was a program weakness that-was discussed with' the: license Operations training and the on-the-job training lesson plans showed good'

organization and detail. Terminal and enabling objectives were~ stated clearl Training outlines were sufficiently detailed to-guide the1 instructor.- ,

t il

]

v

}I ) i y7 4' 'j

-

'

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - -

_

'

. ;

L i

~4-The observations of training presentations disclosed good _use'of presentation materials, good instructional and delivery skills,-and excellent'. student -

trainer rappor While observing-Unit 2 simulator training, the' inspectors found the lesson "

. plans and course materials were clear and easy to follow. The interaction between the crew and instructors was very good. The instructor's-evaluation '

comment's at the end of the session were positive and constructive. Simulator ,

fidelity seemed to be very high. The students interviewed were supportive  !

of the simulator improvements,.the increased simulatet.. training time, and th !

training staff's extensive _use of related industry event ~

q 2.4 Review of Selected Training Department Procedures. Records, and Instructions

'

The technical content of training process procedures was very: good. Not onl did they specify what was to be done; they also described how to do:i The procedures did not, however, specify time frames for reviewing:and updating JTA'date bases or for-providing recurring training.: As noted in-paragraph.2.3, -

20 of the training documents reviewed had not.been. reviewed _and updated for-more than 2 year Job / tasks analyses for' health physics, instrumentation and. control maintenance, electrical maintenance and operations were reviewed.. Highlights are provided below: '

o Job analyses in all areas were prepared well and followed generally-accepted 'j practices within the systematic approach to.the training-process. -The  :

delineation of tasks appeared to be thorough. task statements were well 1 formulated, and methods used to select tasks for initial:and continued training were sound.- y

.

o The task analysis for health physics was noteworthy. It had been reviewed and updated in early 1989, ard all task: data elements showed good attention

'

to detail,

'

o The operations task analysis was in an eafly stage of development. Th tasks that had been; analyzed appeared to;be thorough:and' specific _ and had- ;

the clarity and precision characteristic ofsa sound analysis processt o o The licensee had decided to 'not pursue- task analyses for instrumentation and control. technicians and electrical maintenance craftsmen. 'The" licensee'

. was;also considering not completing the operations task analysis. lThe-inspectors,noted that'ANO procedures'(1064.013 '" Task Analysis,": Revision:1, dated August 20,1989) required that task ; analyses:be1 performed for- those- '

tasks selected for training 'underta jobianalysis- (paragraph 6.0). The ,

' instrumentation and control,< electrical maintenancei and cperations Job task analysis were specifically designated _bycAH0gProcedure 1064 ~.015.:

'

The inspectors, concluded that since they were a Lvital part-of the; systematic-

,

I ' '

. .-

-  :

'

.

. i( ( 't' i 33 ' '

' 1 ( ; ,

• 3

'

s 6

.

.

.

. .. . . . . . . . . . ..... _ . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _

i O

,

.

_

_

-5- _

,

-

approach to training process, the fatlure to perform the task analyses -

could adversely impact the quality cf training in these areas. In the -

plant instrumentation and control department, there was concern over [

erosion of system knowledge. That knowledge base could be a primary F resource in the task analysis. To the extent the system knowledge base is weakened, the results of the task analysis could be weakene .5 Interviews With Training Department Coordinators, Instructors, and Students Interviews were conducted with lead instructors for health physics, "

instrumentation and control maintenance, and electrical maintenance and an _

instructor from operations. Results of the interviews were very simila Highlights are provided below:

o Instructors were very strong in terms of subject matter expertise, learning =

materials development, and classroom presentation skills. They were weak, however, in the training process functions of analysis (job-task analysis  ;

or JTA) and design (formulation and sequencing of learning and enabling  ;-

objectives from skills and knowledge derived in the JTA). The training department had only one instructional technologist. Since the instructional technologists provide expertise in the systematic approach to training  ;

process, the licensee indicated that there were plans to add one more in  :

1991, and others in subsequent year l o Training department management was perceived as being connitted to providing a quality training program and had taken measures to obtain the necessary  ;

-

resource _

o The training advisory committee (TAC) concept was viewed as an ef fective mechanism for ensuring that needs in the plant are reflected in the training provided by the departmen _

o Lack of personnel resources was hampering the ability of the department to -

proceed with the task analysis, and the new course development activities were not likely to be completed in a timely manner, e s

Four operations personnel (one senior reactor operator and one reactor operator

~

from Unit I and one senior reactor operator and one reactor operator from Unit 2)

were interviewed. Points made by all four were similar. They are listed below:

o Training was adequate to maintain safe operation of the plan o In the classroom, learnino objectives were clearly stated and were covered thoroughly. Generally, instructors did a good job of presenting the training material, o The control room simulators provide good representations and simulations of the Unit 1 and 2 control rooms. Training scenarios were valid in thas they played likely events and replayed pertinent industry events and local event _

j I

!

l t .

a=

-. h

- . . -

.

>

d

'

,

!

o- On written tests, test items. reflected learning objectives covered _in- H clus:,and were fai '

o The greatest' area of weaknesses in operations' training concerned training ( 1 on design change. packages (DCP).' After DCP implementation. the training 1 department did incorporate procedure changes into training but was preceived *i as not doing'a: good 'jobiin teaching how the' interaction between system 1

. components had changedW '

~

]

Two managers (one shift supervisor cnd one maintenance superintendent).from; instrumentation- and: controls maintenance were interviewed. Key points from the 1 interviewarelistedbelog ,

'

j o ~ The basic' training block provided to.new; instrumentation and control

-

h apprentices was good. .It' developed basic skills' and acquainted new- '

personnel with AN01 systems, equipment, and procedures.< j

'

o - More advanced system training that would' provide:anLin-depth . examination i of- functions within a system and interactions between' systems was, lacking.~. j In the instrumentation ed controls maintenance departments, there had  ;

been an erosion- of systr.msu knowledge and 'expertiseRThere'was need for-the training departmeut to providetsystems-training'to fill;this! growing:

void.;-(The instrumentation and control maintenance trainingLdepartmen ,

had acknowledged that this was a problem and was seekingla! solution.)-~

-

- 1

,

q

.o The instrumentation and control training department was riot perceived as . 1 having the personnel resources to meet its:currentitraining; obligations: i and to develop and deliver newisystems: training' courses in' antimely ~ manne . .

.

o

-

The instrumentation and control training department'ha_d-' implemented some: o creative,initiativesforthetrainingLlab1(thevalve' setup:labwas.aigood d example). However, more space was;needed so that moreiequipment could=be a incorporated -into the laboratory portiordofstrainin '

o The training' advisory conunittee was a goodfmechanismlforL conveying , training needs to the. training department. The training. department!was perceived as; being as. responsive to instrumentation >and control, training needs"as-possibl ' CXI_T INTERVIE Theinspectorsmetwiththelicenseerepresentatives(denoted'in. paragraph 1) i on October 4,o1990' The inspectors summarized;thesinspection purpose," scope -

~

f and findings.. :The' licensee acknowledged the conenents and'did not; identify an,y '

specific proprietary information the,inspectorsp iThe NRCyresidert . inspector was present at;the exit meetin j

.

l a

t

'

q- ,  ! 1

,'

, 'r! , [ '

> I

<

[' j: 1:- t 0*- '; .j ; Y ,

.

'!

'

, .. j ,-) , [ i 1 i ( \ ,\'jj

'

1. SIOv

'

y [,,. ,

.

s N' * i. - 3 -

'

I^ =

1. * ~