IR 05000315/1998003
| ML17334A651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17334A650 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-315-98-03, 50-315-98-3, 50-316-98-03, 50-316-98-3, NUDOCS 9802200430 | |
| Download: ML17334A651 (35) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
REGION III
Docket Nos:
License Nos:
50-315; 50-316 DPR-58; DPR-74 Report Nos:
50-315/98003(DRS); 50-316/98003(DRS)
Licensee:
American Electric Power Company Facility:
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Generating Plant Location:
500 Circle Drive Buchanan, Ml 49107-1395 Dates:
January 12-16, 1998 Examiners:
M. Bielby, Lead Inspector, Rill NRC M. Biamonte, Human Factors Assessment, NRC D. Desaulnier, Human Factors Assessment, NRC Approved by:
Melvyn N. Leach, Chief, Operator Licensing Branch Division of Reactor Safety
'F802200430 980213 PDR ADOCK 05000315
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY D.C. Cook Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 8 2 NRC Examination Reports 50-315/98003; 50-316/98003 This inspection report contains the findings and conclusions from the inspection of the licensed reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) requalification, maintenance and technical, and engineering support training programs.
The inspection of the licensed operator requaliTication (LOR) program included a review of training administrative procedures; review of annual written and operating examination material; observation and evaluation of operator performance and licensee evaluators during an annual requalification written and operating examination; an assessment of simulator fidelity; an evaluation of program controls to assure a
systems approach to training; and a review of requalification training records.
In addition. the inspectors observed routine activities in the actual control room. The inspectors used the guidance in inspection procedures 71001 and 71707.
The inspection of the maintenance and technical, and engineering support training programs included a review of the systems approach to training characteristics and elements as described in NUREG 1220, Revision
(1993), "Training Review Criteria and Procedures", interviews with maintenance, engineering support, and training staff and supervisors, review of training program implementation, and review of training program self assessments.
LOR programs were implemented in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55 requirements.
The maintenance and technical training programs were implemented in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.120 requirements; however, a non-cited violation for failure to maintain a systems approach to training for engineering support was identified by inspectors.
@~ra ~in Control room conduct of operations and decorum were effective at maintaining appropriate focus on plant and system evolutions.
(Section 01.1)
Overall examination material improved since the previous annual LOR program NRC inspection, although some job performance measure (JPM) and written examination deficiencies continued to exist. (Section 05.2)
In general, the requalification examination material bank contained the minimum attributes to provide an adequate evaluation of operator skills. (Section 05.2)
In general, the annual requalification examination met the minimum criteria in
.accordance with the guidance given in NUREG 1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," Interim Revision 8. (Sections 05.2, 05.3)
Some operator performance weaknesses for communications and crew briefs were observed during the requalilication operating examination.
(Section 05.3)
Licensee documentation and evaluation of operator performance showed improvement since the previous LOR program inspection.
(Section 05.3)
I
Appropriate security measures were implemented throughout the annual requalification examination.
(Section 05.3)
LOR program adequately revised to administer comprehensive examinations (Section 05.3.1)
The inspectors determined that the licensee's Training Department feedback process was satisfactorily implemented...(Section 5.4)
~Min n nce Implementation of a systems approach to training for the maintenance and technical training programs was adequate with known weaknesses in the area of continuing technical training and program evaluation.
(Section M5.1)
~En in erin The engineering support personnel training program failed to maintain a systems approach to training (NCV 50-315/316-98003-01).
(Section E5.1)
Licensee corrective actions for the engineering support personnel training program appeared adequate and were on schedule.
(Section E5.1)
0 era ion
Conduct of Operations 01.1 C nr IRoom rv tion a.
In ti n 717 7 The inspectors observed routine control room activities with both units in cold shutdown, observed control room turnover, reviewed control room logs, and questioned operators about plant and equipment status.
rv ti ns n
Fin in The conduct of control room operators was professional.
The inspectors observed that operators were attentive to control room panels and indications.
Three-way communications were used by the operators when performing plant manipulations.
Noise level was minimal and no annunciators were left in a prolonged state of alarm.
Business by non-control room personnel was conducted in a defined area behind the Unit Supervisor's (US) desk at the back of the control room. The inspectors observed the oncoming shift control room operators perform face-to-face turnovers and walkdown panels prior to their shift briefing, and return for a final update after their shift briefing.
Upon subsequent questioning by the inspectors, the operators demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of plant and equipment status.
The inspectors concluded that conduct of operations and decorum in the control room were effective at maintaining appropriate focus on the current plant and system evolutions.
Operator Training and Qualification a.
In ti n
1 The inspectors reviewed the following to assess the LOR training program's effectiveness regarding operator performance:
~
SALP 13 report No. 50-315/316-96001.
Resident inspector observations and reports covering the time frame of 1997 to presen 'j
~
LOR training report No. 50-315/316-97003 (DRS).
~
Initial licensed operator examination report No. 50-315/316-97305 (OL).
b.
Ob rvati n n
Fin in Poor operator performance in the plant, as documented in the above reports, was attributable, in part, to incorrect use of procedures or inadequate procedures.
The inspectors noted the licensee was continuing to take actions to improve operator performance pertaining to procedure usage.
The licensee's action items centered around procedure use and compliance, and overall procedure development.
The previous LOR program inspection conducted in March 1997 identified weaknesses in the licensee's process for developing operating examination material, and inconsistencies in the licensee's evaluation of operator performance on the annual operating examination.
At that time the licensee's program allowed operators to be returned to shift without remediation or evaluation after failing portions of the annual examination, and failed to conduct comprehensive examinations.
The licensee subsequently implemented program changes to meet requirements, eliminate evaluation inconsistencies, and to improve examination material.
A high failure rate on the initial operator license examination administered in July 1997 was attributable, in part, to poor preparation of the license applicants.
The licensee's knowledge of the examination development guidelines, attention to detail during examination development, and the ability to develop technically accurate examination material in accordance with the examination guidelines was considered poor. NRC examiners identified operating examination deficiencies in operator performance for communications, event diagnosis, and ability to determine the correct Protective Action Recommendation.
The licensee subsequently implemented corrective actions to address these identified deficiencies.
Q~nl ~in Based on past inspection reports, the inspectors concluded procedural usage and inadequate procedures continued to be a recurring problem although the licensee's corrective actions indicated some improvements.
The previous initial licensed operator and LOR training programs had not developed good examination material. Additionally, the March 1997 LOR program failed to implement adequate program controls for conducting remediation and comprehensive examinations.
As a result, neither of those past training programs could provide an effective evaluation to significantly improve operator performance.
The licensee subsequently implemented corrective actions to address deficiencies in its LOR and initial license training program.2 ualifi ti n Ex min ti n Mat ri I
In i n
1 The inspectors reviewed the written and operating examination material using guidance in NUREG 1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,"
Interim Revision 8, January 1997, and Appendix A checklist in Inspection Procedure 71001, "Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation." Since the inspection occurred during the first week of the licensee's annual requalification examination, and the preparation of subsequent week's examination material was incomplete, overall comparison of the examination material was not possible.
However, the examination material was compared to that administered during the previous LOR examination.
rv i n n
F'n in Overall, the dynamic simulator scenarios were comprehensive and provided quantitative attributes to evaluate the crews and individual operators on safety significant tasks and competencies.
The inspectors reviewed four scenarios administered during the inspection week. The combination of two scenarios administered to each crew did not repeat coverage of the same tasks.
The scenarios incorporated equipment out-of-service or had existing technical specification limiting conditions for operation as part of the initial conditions.
Generally, events were integrated rather than a series of unrelated occurrences.
Critical tasks and failure criteria were appropriate and clearly identified. A sufficient number of Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP) transitions and malfunctions after EOP entry were included in each scenario.
Deficiencies identified during the previous annual requalification examination were satisfactorily addressed.
Overall, the set of five JPMs met quantitative requirements to adequately evaluate the individual operators.
The JPMs contained clearly stated critical steps and termination criteria required for successful completion.
The inspectors reviewed five JPMs, two of which were conducted in the plant and three in the simulator. However, the inspectors observed that neither of the inplant JPMs required operators to enter the plant
, radiologically controlled area.
Additionally, JPM performance standards did not always use exact control and indication nomenclature, and criteria (switch position, meter reading).
The following specific JPM deficiencies were identified:
Inplant JPM, AE-O-N228,"Place the Backup AirCompressor in Service, Supplying the Plant Air Header," revision 3, did not meet the following qualitative
~ criteria listed in NUREG 1021, section ES-603, "Requalification Walk-Through Examinations": system was not critical to protecting public health and safety; system was not a risk-important, probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) identified system; and system had a Knowledge/Ability (K/A)rating less than 3.0 for ROs.
Inplant JPM, AE-O-E003, "ModifyFuel Oil Transfer Pump for Local Operation,"
revision 4, contained minimal challenge.
The operator had to initiallylocate the breaker cubicle and place the breaker'in the OFF position. The JPM required the operator to identify the terminal block for the I8 E technician so he could de-
term some wires and install jumpers.
Identifying the terminal block was of minimal challenge because it was identified in the procedure, and more than likely, the technician would have made the identification. Furthermore, although both units,were shutdown, the operator was directed by the licensee evaluator to describe the terminal block location rather than open the cubicle and actually identify the terminal block. The JPM noted that during training, the operators were allowed to actually open the cubicle door. The operator had to subsequently demonstrate closing and opening the breaker to allow the pump to restore the fuel oil day tank level.
~
Simulator JPM, RO-O-E121, "Perform Immediate Actions of E-0 Without Sl,"
revision 4, was minimally challenging even though it was designated alternate path, because the E-0 steps had been previously performed in each scenario.
The only "new steps" were identification of an open main turbine stop valve, failure of the main turbine to trip electrically, followed by the required initiation of closure of the steam generator stop valves. Additionally, 10 of 12 steps were incorrectly identified as critical. The non-critical steps included the following performance indicators that could not be measured objectively:
~
understanding, such as the significance of a certain plant or system response.
~
verification that an expected response has occurred.
~
passive observations such as monitoring the performance of a system.
The static portion of the written examination made good use of the simulator as a reference.
Although the open reference portion contained questions that were operationally oriented, the level of difficultywas low because over half of the answers could be found in procedure steps, cautions or descriptions, and were considered direct look-ups. As a result, the examination was more focused on finding the procedure where the necessary information was found, rather than how direction, guidance, and information found in the procedure could be used or interpreted.
Additionally, 7 of 17 open reference questions had no time validation.
The inspectors reviewed the overall maintenance of the examination material bank. The examination material bank was maintained in accordance with the guidance given in NUREG 1021, Form ES-601-2, "Evaluation Checklist for Facility Reference Material,"
Section I. The examination bank was considered to be dynamic, and met the minimum quantity for open-reference written examination questions, simulator scenarios, and JPMs.
c.
Q~nl i.~in The inspectors concluded that, in general, the requalification examination material contained the minimum quantitative and qualitative attributes to provide an adequate evaluation of operator skills. The dynamic scenarios were of good quality. Although
lf
'J
less pervasive, some examination material deficiencies identified during the previous LOR inspection continued to exist in the JPMs for identification of critical steps, and in the open reference written examination for use of direct look-up questions.
05.3 alifi i nEx min i n dmini r tionPr ti a.
In tion S 71001 The inspectors observed the licensee administer dynamic simulator scenarios and JPMs, and evaluate performance of four operating crews.
The inspectors also observed the licensee's administration of the two part written examination using the plant specific simulator.
The inspectors also attended the evaluator critiques.
b.
iv ti n n
Fin in During the week of LOR annual examinations, operators were taken off shift and placed on administrative hold until final examination results and required remediation were completed.
Each crew consisted of four licensed operators and one non-licensed shift technical advisor (STA). Each individual was required to take a written examination, and participate in two dynamic scenarios and a set of five JPMs.
'
The licensee's evaluation team identified no unsatisfactory crew performance during the simulator scenarios.
However, one individual was identified as having demonstrated unsatisfactory performance and required remediation prior to resumption of shift duties.
After observing dynamic simulator scenarios, the inspectors noted some weaknesses in operator performance.
The observed weaknesses were as follows: (1) some lack of completing the third leg of the three-way communications, (2) overall weak crew briefs, and (3) difficultydirecting emergency operating procedures (one SRO was consistently being helped by the other crew SRO).
The licensee evaluators thoroughly documented all aspects of crew and individual performances based on critical tasks, competencies, and operation's management expectations.
No evaluator miscuing or prompting was identified during administration of JPMs.
Licensee evaluations showed improvement since the previous NRC requalification inspection.
Appropriate security measures were taken throughout the examination process.
Individual operators were sequestered and separated into test groups during each portion of the examination process.
No potential examination compromise was identified.
No new simulator fidelity issues were identified during the examination observation (See Enclosure 2, Simulator Facility Report).
8'
~Con lignin The inspectors. concluded the licensee was adequately implementing the LOR training program in accordance with program guidance and regulatory requirements stated in 10 CFR Part 55.59.
The inspectors concurred with the licensee's evaluations of operator performance.
05.3.1 Pr ram vi edt A mini rC m rehensiveO er tin x min ti n In e in
1 The inspectors observed the licensee's administration of the Requalification Year 22 annual licensed operator operating examination, reviewed revisions to the licensee's training program management plan, and discussed the corrective actions taken to address administration of comprehensive annual LOR operating examinations.
servati n
n Findin During the 1996/1997 two year requalification cycle, inspectors identified the licensee had failed to conduct a comprehensive requalification annual operating test for all licensed operators.
The licensee's training program management plan allowed scenario evaluations to be performed at various times during the requalification training cycle vice in the aggregate during the annual examinations at the end of the cycle.
The inspectors observed that during the first week of the 1997/1998 annual LOR operating examination all licensed operators on four operating crews were evaluated in.
two scenarios and a set of 5 JPMs.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's Training Administrative Manual (TAM), Section 3.03, "Licensed Operator Requalification Training," Revision 16, and Section 3.03.05, "Licensed Operator Requalification Training Annual Exam Requirements," Revision 5. The documents were revised to require administration of the annual requalification operating examination (JPMs and dynamic simulator scenarios) within a seven day time period. Additionally, if a crew received an unsatisfactory scenario evaluation, and the subsequent scenario re-evaluation would exceed the seven day calendar limit, then the re-examination would also include another set of JPMs.
NUREG-1262, "Answers to Questions at Public Meetings Regarding Implementation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55 on Operators'icenses, Requalification Section" was also added to the TAM reference list.
The inspectors discussed preparation of a training department head procedure with the licensee.
The procedure described technical review requirements for revisions to the training program management plan. The administrative guidance required a person other than the author to review changes to ensure requirements contained in reference section documents continue to be enforced.
The licensee also reviewed NUREG-1262 to ensure any additional information provided by the NUREG had been reflected in the LOR progra The inspectors verified through document review that the licensee had immediately re-examined licensed operators who had not completed portions of their annual LOR operating examinations within seven days of each other.
Allof the operators subject to re-examination were qualified under the new revisions to the LOR program.
c.
~Cn lusions The inspectors considered the licensee's corrective actions to address its failure to conduct comprehensive annual LOR operating examinations to be adequate.
05.4 R
Iifi i
Trai in Pr r mF Ins tion S
1 The inspectors reviewed the following documents to assess the licensee's training program feedback system effectiveness:
~
Performance Assurance Audit QA-96-S-01, Plant Operations Policy, December 3, 1996 - February 15, 1997 Operations Training Self Assessment Team Report, January 20 - 31, 1997 Performance Assurance Audit PA-97-S-01, Special Audit to Assess Training Compliance to NUREG-1220 and INPO ACAD 91-015, January 28 - May 14, 1997 Performance Assurance Audit PA-97-26/NSDRC ¹248, Plant Operations Policy, June 6 - July 10, 1997 Performance Assurance Audit PA-97-21/NSDRC ¹247, Personnel Selection, Indoctrination, Training and Certification & Organization, July 22-December 3, 1997 in The licensee's training organization performed self-assessment activities by assessing identified individual operator and crew weaknesses, operator training requests, and plant and industry events.
Additional self-assessment processes included course evaluations, instructor evaluations, classroom feedback, simulator evaluations and critiques, and on-the-job training evaluations.
Also, the licensee's Performance Assurance group performed periodic audits of the Operations Training programs.
Subsequently, report results were evaluated, recommendations proposed, and priorities assigned for implementing corrective actions.
The licensee's self-assessments found that some issues identified several years earlier during internal audits had not been resolved and continued to remain open: certified instructor training requirements undefined; no organized instructor continuing training program exists; and instructors do not have copies of TAMs and are not informed of changes in a systematic manner.
The
licensee implemented timely resolutions to NRC identified weaknesses in its LOR program.
(section 05.3.1).
c.
~ngli~in The inspectors determined that the licensee's Training Department feedback process was satisfactorily implemented.
With respect to self-assessments and audits, problem identification appeared to be satisfactory; however, some tong-standing issues continued to remain open.
Miscellaneous Operations Issues 08.1 lo Vi I tion
-
6-7
- 1: Failure to conduct comprehensive operator licensing examinations.
The LOR training program procedure was revised to require a comprehensive annual operating examination for each licensed operator be conducted.
The facility licensed operators who previously had not completed comprehensive annual requalification operating examinations were re-examined and qualified under the new revisions to the LOR program.
Detail of corrective actions taken is documented in Section 05.3.1.
This item is closed.
r r
v I
ion M5 Maintenance Staff Training and Qualification M51
'nt n
hni I Tr '
a.
In e ti n
The programs reviewed were electrical maintenance personnel; mechanical maintenance personnel; instrument and control technician; and engineering support personnel.
Inspection results related to the engineering and support personnel training program are documented in section E5.1 of this report.
10 CFR 50.120 requires that training programs be established, implemented, and maintained using a systems approach to training as defined in 10 CFR 55.4. A systems approach to training requires (1) systematic analysis of the jobs to be performed, (2) learning objectives derived from the analysis which describes the desired performance after training, (3)
training design and implementation based on the learning objectives, (4) evaluation of trainee mastery of the objectives during training, and (5) evaluation and revision of the training based on the performance of trained personnel in the job setting.
The inspectors reviewed information related to 13 of the 25 characteristics of a systems approach to training as described in NUREG-1220. The review of the maintenance and technical training programs was a follow-up to generic training issues identified by the licensee during its investigation into an unexpectedly large number of failures in an initial operator licensing examination administered in August 1997. The inspection of the
tl
maintenance and technical training programs focused primarily on the systems approach to training characteristics related to systematic analysis, and trainee and program evaluation'.
Ob rv tin n
Fin in A limited review of training program implementation was conducted to assess instructor performance in all program areas and focused primarily on the ability of the instructors to deliver training, including on-the-job training and qualification. Interview results suggested that workers believed the training they had received was of good quality.
Workers and supervisors indicated that instructors assumed in-plant responsibilities during outages and that the in-plant work was a significant contributor to the perception that the instructors were technically competent.
The licensee's program evaluation activities for the last 2 years included a number of training program self-evaluations.
The overall results of those evaluations did not suggest any programmatic breakdowns of the licensee's implementation of the systems approach to training in the maintenance and technical programs.
However, three common issues: on-the-job training and qualification (OJT/OJQ); training effectiveness feedback; and continuing training were noted.
A self-evaluation of the maintenance OJT/OJQ program conducted in February'1997, indicated that OJT/OJQ task steps and standards were not consistently performed as written. The report also noted that refresher training was needed to maintain task proficiency. Self-evaluations in radiation protection training was conducted in August 1996 and indicated that continuing training was not always consistent with in-plant job functions and that the feedback process should be evaluated.
A self-evaluation of the chemistry training program conducted in October 1996, concluded that the training evaluation feedback process had not been effective.
Maintenance workers were interviewed to determine the specific status of issues identified in the self-evaluation.
Results indicated that maintenance workers did not believe that they were receiving enough continuing training. The training department indicated that efforts in recent years have been directed at training and qualifying junior
~ workers. The result has been that continuing training for previously qualified workers has been primarily on new procedures and processes, plant lessons learned, and industry events.
The limited amount of technical skills refresher training was identified by most interviewed workers as a concern and most noted that the longer they go without receiving skill refresher training the more they question their own task proficiency. The plant manager, maintenance department head, and the technical training supervisor also shared this concern.
However, the managers have recently initiated a new work schedule for maintenance that willbe integrated with the plant schedule and willestablish a dedicated training week for the maintenance crews.
Maintenance worker initial qualifications have been completed for the most part.
Therefore, future training activities will be focused on providing refresher training for all workers.
J H
g I'/,
J fi
Weaknesses related to continuing training appear to be the result of poor initial definition of tasks requiring periodic retraining to maintain proficiency. Additionally, program evaluation was not effective in identifying the need for refresher training by job incumbents despite a good record of conducting quarterly training effectiveness review meetings for each of the maintenance and technical training programs.
The problems with training program evaluation were documented and were being addressed.
c.
~Cn lusions.
The implementation of the systems approach to training for the maintenance and technical training programs was adequate with known weaknesses in the area of continuing technical training and program evaluation.
II.
En E5 Engineering Staff Training and Qualification E5.1 En in rtP r nn ITri in ro rm v
I in a.
In ti
The scope of the inspection of the training programs is detailed in Section M5.1.
rv I n A formal self-evaluation of the engineering support personnel training program was conducted in August 1995, in preparation for accreditation renewal.
At that time, the licensee identified some issues related to timeliness of certain training activities. The self evaluation noted that some Iong term engineers had not been training or waived and that position specific training was not being systematically presented.
However, the issues were not considered significant weaknesses and the licensee made the determination that the program was healthy overall.
During the 1996 implementation of the engineering support personnel program initial training courses, deficiencies were noted in the lesson plan content.
The deficiencies were of sufficient concern to cause the training department to cancel the implementation of the courses until such time as the content was corrected.
No additional initial training was offered until 1997 when the lesson plan content had been corrected.
However, the delay created by the 1996 cancellation resulted in some engineers hired since early 1996 exceeding the licensee's prescribed time for achieving system engineer qualification under the engineering support personnel training program.
In April 1997, licensee senior engineering management requested a self-assessment of the engineering support personnel training program.
That assessment found that position specific training for engineers was not formalized and that job proficiencies were not formally demonstrated before system assignments were made.
The self-assessment also noted that position specific training had previously been found as a
weakness in Quality Assurance audit PA 97-02 and in Condition Report 97-0500.
Additionally, the report identified that previous commitments made in response to Condition Report 94-2139 for system engineers to receive RO training by December 1995, had not been met.
Based on the known weaknesses in the lesson materials and on the specifics of the 1997 self-assessment of the engineering support personnel training program, the licensee decided to totally revise its approach to engineering training. The licensee has completed the following program revisions to support the development of a training program that is more focused on the job performance requirements of different types of engineers:
Needs analysis completed in September 1997 Job analysis completed in October 1997 Design program completed in January 1998 The licensee has scheduled the following items:
'omplete preparation of training materials in March 1998 Establish training and qualification records management in March 1998 Establish continuing training requirements and program in April 1998 The revised program is currently on schedule and expected to be in place by the end of 1998.
10 CFR 50.120(b)(1)'requires, in part, that the training program for engineering support personnel be established, implemented, and maintained using a systems approach to training as defined in 10 CFR 55.4 including, in part, an evaluation of training program effe'ctiveness.
The 1996 cancellation of the program due to lesson plan content deficiencies and the need to redesign the training program to address position specific training deficiencies is a failure to maintain the program and is considered a violation of 10 CFR 50.120.
This licensee identified and corrected violation is being treated as a non-cited violation consistent with Section VII.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.
(NCV 50-315/316-98003-01)
@~i~in
\\
A non-cited violation for failure to maintain the engineering support personnel training program using a system approach to training was identified.
(
Il'
V.
Mana emen M
in s X1 i
tin mm The inspectors presented the inspection results to members of licensee management on January 16, 1997.
The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.
The inspectors asked the licensee whether any materials held by the inspectors following the inspection could be considered proprietary.
No proprietary information was identified.
Attachment:
Simulation Facility Report
ft
PARTIALLIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Liven~
R. Allen, Maintenance Technician R. Anderson, Operations Training Specialist A. Blind, Vice President Engineering D. Cooper, Plant Manager M. Eberhardt, Licensing D. Loope,'Training Manager M. Mieran, Performance Engineer D. Noble, Radiation Protection K. Pinkowski, Performance Assessment J. Sampson, Site Vice President P. Schoepf, Engineering L. Tatrault, Operations Training D. Willemin, Training A. Zuber, Skills Training NIIN B. Bartlett, Senior Resident Inspector B. Fuller, Resident Inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 71001, "Licensed Operator Requalification Program Evaluation" IP 71707, "Plant Operations" IP 41500, "Training and Qualification Effectiveness" ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
~Oened 50-315/316-98003-01
~Clo ed 50-315/316-97003-01 50-315/316-98003-01 NCV VIO NCV Failure to maintain the engineering support training program using a systems approach to training.
Failure to conduct comprehensive operator licensing examinations.
Failure to maintain the engineering support training program using a systems approach to training,
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED CFR DRS EOP ES IP JPM K/A LOR NRC NRR PA OJT/OJQ OL PDR QA RO SALP SRO Sl STA TAM US Code of Federal Regulations Division of Reactor Safety Emergency Operating Procedure Examination Standards Inspection Procedure Job Performance Measure Knowledge and Abilities Licensed Operator Requalification Nuclear Regulator Commission NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Performance Assurance On the Job Training/On the Job Qualification Operator Licensing Public Document Room Quality Assurance Reactor Operator Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Senior Reactor Operator Safety Injection System Shift Technical Advisor Training Administrative Manual Unit Supervisor
I
'
t
Attachment
SIMULATIONFACILITYREPORT Facility Licensee:
D. C. Cook Facility Licensee Dockets No: 50-315/316 Operating Tests Administered: January 12-15, 1998 This form is to be used only to report observations.
These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings and are not, without further verification and review, indicative of noncompliance with 10 CFR 55.45(b).
These observations do not affect NRC certification or approval of the simulation facilityother than to provide information that may be used in future evaluations.
No licensee action is required in response to these observations.
While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, the following items were observed (ifnone, so state):
TEM D
Non h
>)
Ii,',
f
,,l f
0