IR 05000322/1986017

Insp Rept 50-322/86-17 on 860908-12.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Nonlicensed Staff Training

ML20215M835
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/22/1986
From:	Eapen P, Oliveira W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215M832	List: IR 05000322/1986017 ML20215M831
References
50-322-86-17, NUDOCS 8611030347
Download: ML20215M835 (8)

Text

.

. . .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /86-17 Docket N License N NPF-36 Licensee: Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Inspection At: Shoreham, New York Inspection Conducted: September 8-12, 1986 Inspector: [//

W. Griveira, Reactor Engineer -

'

[f4

' date Approved b - audf Dr. P. C Eapen,' Chief, Quality Assurance 0 2 2, I 9 8 G date ,

Section, 08, DRS Inspection Summary: Routine, unannounced inspection conducted on September 8-12, 1986 (Report No. 50-322/86-17)

Areas Inspected: Non Licensed Staff Trainin Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

8611030347 E61023 PDR O

ADOCK 05000322 PDR I

_

. .

..

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted J. Alexander, Operating Engineer L. Calone, Manager of Operational Training

• R. Di Cola, Compliance Engineer

• V. Fallacara, Plant Operating Engineer

• R. Glazier, Quality Control Department (QCD) Section Head

• G. Gisonda, Licensing Supervisor

• R. Grunseich, Operational Compliance Engineer

• R. Jongeblued, Reactor Engineer

• L. Lewis, Outage / Modification Division Manager A. Mattessich, Watch Engineer

• J. McCue, Manager of Technical Training

• J. Natarro, Acting Director of Quality Assurance (QA), Safety and Compliance

• P. Pizzariello, Maintenance Engineer

• J. Powers, QA Auditor Engineer R. Reeves, Watch Supervisor J. Scalice, Operation / Assistant Plant Manager

• C. Seaman, QCD Manager

• D. Smith, Compliance Engineer

• J. Smith, Director of the Office of Training

• W. Steiger, Plant Manager

• M. Villeran, Instrument and Control (I&C) Engineer

• J. Wynne, Training Engineer During the course of the inspection, the inspectors also contacted other technical and administrative personne United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission J. Berry, Senior Resident Inspector

• C. Warren, Resident Inspector

• Denote; those who attended the exit meeting of September 12, 198 .0 Non Licensed Staff Training 2.1 Introduction The effectiveness of the implementation of the licensee's non lic-ensed training program was assessed by reviewing the following activities in operations, maintenance, instrument and control (I&C),

radiological controls, modifications, and quality assurance (QA)

area J

. .

..

--

Shift turnover for Equipment Operators (EOs)

--

E0 activities on all three shifts (reactor and control building rounds; clearing tagged out systems such as Fire Main Deluge System and operating Standby Liquid Control System).

--

Maintenance Work Request (MWR) 86-4325 for IT46*320-ADV-35 On the job training (DJT) and qualification of chemistry technician Semi-annual calibration of IRT portal monitor by health physicists (HPs).

--

Maintenance surveillances (battery check by an electrician,

,

and pressure switches by I&C technicians).

--

Station modification (SM)86-043, " Modification to Support 1E11, Pipe Support Anchor (PSA) 534 Lesson plans for EOs and I&C technicians. Also, Student and instructor evaluations in the E0 progra Training records of seven E0s, two STAS, one engineer, two maintenance foremen, five mechanics, two I&C foremen, five I&C technicians, two radiochemistry technician Two quality assurance (QA) audit reports and corrective action response Factoring lessons learned from LERs, Information Notices, IE Bulletins, and Correspondence and Information Letter Action Requests (CILARS).

The preceding activities were conducted in accordance with the lic-ensee's procedures by personnel knowledgeable in the requirements of the procedures and technical specifications. Working level personnel and management were aware of the roles of QA, QC, and personnel train-ing in safety-related work activities.

l The Plant Manager issued memoranda PM DIR 86-003 (March 3, 1986) and PM DIR 86-003 Revision 1 (August 4, 1986) to his Division Managers, Section Heads and First Line Supervisors to improve administrative controls over personnel training and qualification programs. One major element discussed in the memoranda was the training and qual-ification matrix charts. The inspector reviewed a matrix with an I&C foreman. He also reviewed individual matrices in training records

, (see paragraph 7).

i l

l

,. - -

- - _ - - - _ . .. . . _ . , _ _ .

-

_ . _ , . _ . _ _ _ __ , _ - . _ _ _ _ . - _ , _ ______

. .

Activities affecting non licensed-training were conducted in accord-ance with the licensee's commitments and procedures. No violations or deviations were identifie .0 Operations Department The shift turnovers for Equipment Operators (E0s) were orderly and thorough. The E0 training was in accordance with Station Procedure (SP)

21.006.01, Rev. 8, Training and Qualification Program. The Senior E0s and Operators were available to check out EOs in the OJT qualifications. The supervisor qualified his personnel and signed off their qualification waten card. E0's continuing training consisted of attending class with the operators. Training Department was assessing the feasibility of a separate training program for the E0 One Watch Engineer was observed instructing the E0s to review the cover page to a Station Equipment Clearance Permit (SELP). The cover page review was essential as it might contain special instructions not cited in the SELP tag out documen .

The EOs used check off lists that contained adequate acceptance criteria to obtain plant data while conducting the tours. The EOs were able to describe the actions to be taken whenever the instrument readings fell outside of the acceptance criteria. They also knew the actions to be taken if an equipment was inoperable or operating in an unsafe manne ,. The E0 training instructor's initial training included a five week Shift Operating Advisor course and On-the-Job-Training (0JT). Shift Technical Advisor (STA) training was in accordance with SP 21.006.01 and SP 51.006.0 .0 Maintenance Division The inspector reviewed the training programs of two departments in the Maintenance Division, i.e. the Maintenance Department and the I&C Department. Their training programs complied with FSAR Section 13.2 and ANSI N18.1 - 1971 " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel".

A Department training coordinator was cognizant of the INPO accreditation

, efh rt, and was working closely with the Office of Training.

!

4.1 Maintenance Department Training is conducted in accordance with Station Procedure (SP)

31.001.01, Revision 6, " Training and Qualifications of Maintenance Personnel". Initial training is performed at the Long Island Light-ing Company (LILCO) Production Training Center in Hauppaug, Long Island, New York. AdditionO training is conducted by either LILCO or contract entities as necessary. Refresher training for all mech-anical personnel includes: Modifications; Upcoming and Completed l Maintenance Activities; LERs and Significant Events Reports. Some of

. .

.,

this training is " tail board" training that is given by supervision usually following a Friday Safety Meeting. The inspector reviewed and discussed a tail board topic regarding use and implementation of the Station Equipment Clearance Permi Maintenance Work Request (MWR) 86-4325 was initiated to correct the problem of the IT46*320-ADV-35B valve's failure to pass it's quarter-ly surveillance stroke response time. The NRC inspector observed the preliminary inspection and trouble shooting by the lead mechanical inspector and witnessing by a QC inspector. When questioned by the NRC inspector, the lead mechanic stated that this and similar valves had failed during previous surveillances. The NRC inspector request-ed further information from the QC inspector about the prior surveil-lances (see paragraphs 6 and 8 for the followup of this concern). He was informed that the results of the inspection and trouble shooting effort had been turned over to supervision. Later the NRC inspector was informed that the problem had been assigned to I& .2 I&C Department Training is conducted in accordance with SP 41.011.10, Revision 7,

"I&C Technician Qualification Program." ANSI N45.2.6-1978, "Qualifi-cation of Inspection, Examination and Testing Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," is used to certify I&C technicians. Advance and refresher training is similar to that described for Maintenance Department Personnel. The inspector reviewed a computerized matrix of the qualifications of I&C technicians (LILCO and contractor). He also observed that the test of pressure switches 1321*PS0 20D was conducted in accordance with SP 44.116.07, "NSSS Main Steam Line Low Pressure Response Time Test", paragraph 8.140. The technicians were thorough, and worked closely with the control room personnel. They used calibrated test gage No.1153 and recorder (Visacorda) No. 729 and were knowledgeable of the care and limits of these instrument .0 Radiochemistry Department i A radiation control training program involving 21 weeks of formal train-ing, DJT and qualifications is being developed. This formal training

. program is scheduled to be implemented by the end of the year. The DJT l

'

and qualifications is scheduled for implementation by March 1987. The Self Evaluation Report (SER) will be submitted to INPO by early next yea The inspector observed a chemistry technician (chemtech) being qualified to perform a test of a sample taken from the Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) in accordance with SP 74.123.01, Revision 3, "SLCS Sodium l Pentaborate Net Weight / Heat Transfer / Boron Concentrate in Solution Verifi-cation by Chemical Analysis". The sample was analyzed in accordance with SP 78.011.16. The qualifier was a contractor, and member of a Task Force established by the licensee to independently qualify the chemtechs. This I

l l

__

. .

was the corrective action taken as a result of an NRC finding and a follow up licensee NRB/QA audit regarding qualification records of the chemtech The inspector reviewed the qualification form entitled " Radiochemistry Technician Qualification No. 2213" for SP 78. 011.16. These qualifi-cations are given to the Office of Training for developing the training program for INP0 accreditatio .0 Station Modification Department The cognizant site engineer (CSE) and the inspector walked down the Station Modification (SM)86-043 package and its changes for IE11 pipe support anchor (PSA) 5349. The CSE was well versed with the requirements and the procedures for developing and processing the modification packag He requested QC to perform a liquid penetrant test of the delta H weld joint shown in drawing IE11-33B-2-1. The inspector observed the welding of the support by two welders. The inspector later reviewed their welder qualification records and found them qualified to weld the suppor The CSE has previous nuclear experience and has been employed by LILCO for ten months. In that period he has received the following formal training:

BWR Familiarization (4 weeks); Safety Evaluator (4 weeks); ASME XI (1 week); Simulator training (1 week), QA Part II; and the SR-2 filing syste For OJT, he is qualified to Modification Engineer Guidelines and Directives (MEGADS). The CSE has given a familiarization lecture in accordance to the MEGADS to his peers in his sectio .0 Office of Training On September 1, 1986, the Office of Training was officially establishe The Director of the Office of Training (DOT) is the former Manager of the Nuclear Operations Support Departmen The new Manager of Production Training is the former Manager of the Plant (Shoreham) Maintenance Divis-ion. Production Training deals with non-licensed staff training. The establishment of the office of training, building of the new Training Center at Hauppaug, Long Island, New York, and developing INPO accredited training programs are examples of the efforts initiated by management to develop a LILCO-wide training progra The DOT memorandum DOT-86-0124 (August 19,1986) advised the Training Managers to heed to the attached letter from Mr. Dye, LILCO Executive Vice President to Mr. Strahm, INPO Group Vice President, Training and Education (August 8, 1986) regarding LILCO's commitment to develop INP0 accredited training programs. The accreditation status as of August 9, 1986, was as follows:

Program Utility Schedule For Self-Evaluation Reports Initial Present Commitment Commitment Operations Area 8/86 11/86

, .

Shift Technical Advisor 8/86 11/86 Instrument and Control Technician 3/87 9/87 Electrical Maintenance Personnel 6/87 7/87 Mechanical Maintenance Personnel 6/87 7/87 Chemistry Technician 1/87 1/87 Radiological Protection Technician 12/86 1/87 Technical Staff and Managers 6/87 9/87 The accredition of the licensee's training programs was orignially scheduled to be completed two (2) years after the issuance of the five (5)

percent power license. This schedule has been delayed because of the prolonged low power tests and staffing problems in the training organ-ization. Contractors are developing the training programs for INPO accreditio The inspector reviewed the training records. The records were complete and in compliance with ANSI 18.1 - 1971. Most of the records contained a matrix of the individuals qualifications. The matrices though adequate were in various forms. The inspector was advised that in addition to bringing their training records up to date as required by the Vice Presi-dent Nuclear (VPN) memorandum VPN086-48 (March 3,1986), the training record forms were also to be standardized by September 30, 1986 in accord-ance memorandum VPN 086-195 (August 8, 1986).

The inspector requested and received information (computerized) regarding the impact on training of selected LERs. The information was complete and identified actions including lesson plan numbers. The inspector also re-viewed the student critiques for the initial E0 training. One recommend-ation that was implemented was inclusion of the modification progra .0 QA/QC Interface with the Operating Divisions The manager of the QA Department (on site) reports to the LILCO Director of QA, Safety and Compliance and is responsible for the training of his personnel. The key document for training is QA Procedure (QAP) 2.1, Re-vision B, " Training of QA Department Personnel." This Manager recognizing that his personnel were not well versed with the QA requirements of radio-

- _ - . .-

.. .

.

logical controls instituted special training. This training included:

Radwaste Packaging and Shipping (3 days); Health Physics (2 days) with a follow up course specifically geared to Shoreham (3 days); and Nuclear Physics (40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> course was prepared to INPO guidelines).

The QC inspector involved in the surveillance of IT46*320-ADV-35B valve jointly inspected the valve internals with the lead mechanic and agreed that the problem was not a mechanical one since there appeared to be no binding between the valve body and seat. Supervision supported this view and turned the problem over to the I&C Department. The QC inspector also followed up the NRC inspector's question of why the valve was failing its quarterly surveillance tests and produced the valve history to confirm that the valve did fail previous quarterly surveillance tests. The QC inspector also found out that though this problem had been reported, an engineer had not been assigned to investigate i The QA Department conducts surveillance audits as well as QA audit Technical specialists are used to support the special QA audit The inspector reviewed two QA audits, the combined NRB and QA audit (NRB

,

NB-8G-01, Personnel Qualification and Training of Plant Staff Personnel; and QA QS-86-03, Corporate Nuclear Training Support Departments) and the quarterly QA audit (follow up) QA-86-11, Personnel qualification and Training. The initial NRB/QA audit was prompted by an NRC concern re-garding the documentation for supporting the qualifications of Radio-logical Control personnel. The initial audit was comprehensive and the responses were being continually monitored, verified and followed up by quarterly audits such as Q5-86-03. Management was being kept advised by:

the weekly QA Department (QAD) Report; QAD bi-weekly Audit Status; and the Safety and Compliance Monthly Report issued to higher management. The inspector also reviewed a memorandum of the NRB minutes of a August 27-28, 1986 meeting which included an update of the NRB Audit NB-86-0 QAD is beginning to conduct performance oriented audits in place of compliance oriented audit When a corrective action response is unsatisfactory a Corrective Action Request (CAR) is prepared and a copy is sent to the Vice President Nuclear and other responsible vice president .0 Management Meetings Licensee management was informed of the scope and purpose of the inspection at the entrance interview on September 8, 1986. The findings of the inspection were discussed with licensee representatives during the course of the inspection and presented to licensee management at the September 12, 1986 exit interview (see paragraph 1 for attendees).

At no time during the inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors. The licensee indicated that no proprietary information was involved within the scope of this inspectio *

- - ._ -. . .