IR 05000334/1989008
| ML20247L861 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1989 |
| From: | Eselgroth P, David Silk NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247L836 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-334-89-08, 50-334-89-8, 50-412-89-08, 50-412-89-8, NUDOCS 8908010366 | |
| Download: ML20247L861 (6) | |
Text
__ _ __- - _ -
\\
W
,.
j[,, $;
'
.
i
'
'
O.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'
g
REGION I
" INSPECTION REPORT NO. : 50-334/89-08 and 50-412/89-08 FACILITY DOCKET NOS.
50-334 and 50-412
<
FACILITY LICENSE NOS. _DPR-66'and_NPE-73 LICENSEE:
Duquesne Light Company Post Office Box 4
'Shippingport,' Pennsylvania 15077'
FACILITY:
Beaver' Valley Power Station, Units 1-and 2
, INSPECTION DATES:
May 1-5, 1989 INSPECTOR:
7/F L1 David M. Silk Ddte
-
Senior.0perations Engineer
,
APPROVE'D BY:
- '
A
d Peter W. Eselg Chief
/ Da'te PWR Section, O tions Branch, DRS INSPECTION SUMMARY:
Routine unannounced inspection on May 1-5,1989 (Inspec-tions Report No. 50-334/89-08 and 50-412/89-08).
AREA INSPECTED: An inspection'was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of-the licensed operator training program. The inspection included discussions with cognizant training personnel, review of documentation, and interviews with
,
l
' licensed operators from Units 1 and 2.
RESULTS: It was concluded that the licensee was implementing an effective train-ing program for licensed operators and the program was in accordance with 10 h
CFR 55. 'No violations were identified.
l
!
8908010366 890721
PDR ADOCK 05000334
Q PDC i
,
'
.
.
.s
-
. _ -
'
_ _
'
l l
l
.
.
!
l
[
DETAILS L
I 1.0 PERSONS CONTACTED DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY
- T. Burns, Director, Operations Training
- R. Druga, Manager, Technical Services
- D. Hunktik, Director, QA Operations
.T. Kuhar, Supervisor, Licensed Operator Training F. Lipchick, Senior Licensing Supervisor
- T. Noonan, General Manager, Nuclear Operations L. Schad, Supervisor, Simulator Training
- B. Sepelak, Licensing Engineer
- D. Spoerry, Manager Nuclear Training U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- J. Beall, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present during exit meeting held on May 5, 1989.
The inspector also contacted other licensee personnel during the course of the inspection.
2.0 INSPECTION SCOPE
This inspection was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the licen-sed operator training program. Most of the inspection effort focused on the licensed operator requalification training.
Various operator records were reviewed, such as, classroom and simulator training received, job performance evaluations, quiz and examination results, and any necessary remedial training that was required.
Lesson plans were reviewed for content, importance to safety as well as relevance to plant conditions or events.
The training manual was reviewed to determine overall program implementation.
Details of the inspection are discussed below.
3.0 DETAILS OF THE INSPECTION 3.1 MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT Evidence of increased senior management involvement was noted late in the last SALP period with the commitment to provide a new simulator specific to Unit 2.
The simulator should significantly enhance the quality of training available to the Unit 2 operators.
The target date for completion of the simulator is March 1991. Management involvement in steps towards operator training improvements was also evidenced by particular changes made to the organization of Training Department in March 1989. The major aspect of the reorganization delegated the responsibilities of simulator training, licensed
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
- - _ _
- _ _ _ _
-
-
_-_-
-
- - _ -
w
-
n
.
' operations-training and non-licensed operations training from the operations training director to newly. created supervisor positions.
This should enable the Director of Nuclear Training to maintain a.
. broader perspective of.the overall training program.
In December 1989, Beaver Valley will be due for its four year INPO re-accredi-tation'. The accreditation board will review Beaver Valley's responses to INPO identified weaknesses and recommendations'and the
- status of the licensee's self identified weaknesses and then make its decision..
Presently, Training and Operations are meeting to determine future operator staffing needs.. During interviews with licensed operators there was -a concern expressed that there are presently a minimal number of licensed operators to perform control room duties. This concern was reinforced by the fact that, except for a few Unit 2 SRO upgrade candidates, 'there are no licensed operator candidates-in the training pipeline. The training program to train a licensed operator
~
is approximately three years in length. According to licensee
,
personnel, now is the-first time that there is an adequate supply of experi'enced non-licensed individuals to be promoted to fill licensed positions as they open.
Several years ago while training operators in preparation for the startup of Unit 2, new personnel or Shipping-
.
port personnel were put.through the training program to fill the-licensed operator positions. This possibly could have' accounted for the relatively.high failure rate among licensed operator candidates
- during that period. By having personnel with' site specific experi-ence ready to' fill licensed positions, the licensee's training program should be able to build upon this knowledge and experience.
The~ Training Department appears.to have an acceptable method to manage its activities.
For example, the Training Department has a tracking system in place to follow various items as they are incorpo-rated into the training program. These items include licensee event reports, significant operational event reports, INPO safety evalua-tion reports, plant incident reports, NRC inspection reports, NRC identified weaknesses from examinations, and operations suggestions for training. The tracking system entails the material to be in-corporated, the course or lesson plan which will be affected, the dates when the change was requested and when it is to be implemented, the originator of the request or change, and the status of the item.
The inspector verified that several past items had been incorporated into the training program. Also, the licensee is currently develop-ing a training matrix which is used for tracking replacement and requalification training. This matrix traces a job task to a lesson L
plan, an operating manual, simulator training, 0JT (on-the-job train-ing), and JPMs (Job Performance Measures). The licensee then uses a rating factor based upon the task's difficulty, importance and frequ-L ency (of performance) to determine which groups of trainees receive l
the training and how often.
Thus, the licensee appears to be coordi-nating its training program of initial and requalification training based upon the systems approach to training (SAT).
E___
__
__ _ _ _ _. _ _
. - _.
, - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -._
-
.
L 3.2 REVIEW 0F DOCUMENTATION The inspector reviewed various training and personnel files. A review of the results of the latest annual requalification exami-nation revealed that the licensee's contractor provided a detailed breakdown of the operators' scoring on the questions. The licensee used this information in its Retraining program Cycle Report 1987-88 to recommend topics to be emphasized in future requalification train-ing. The licensee will be using the same contractor to perform this year's annual written examination. This continuity should enable the contractor and the licensee to observe trends in the licensee's training performance from cycle to cycle.
The 12 training modules that are conducted during the two year train-ing cycle appear to cover every area pertinent to reactor safety.
Lesson plans for various classes were reviewed and were found to contain system description information; system interaction and inter-connection; instrumentation and controls; normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures; and technical specifications as applicable to the topic of discussion.
The Training Department prepares notebooks for each module for each operator to minimize note taking so that the operator can focus on the material presented in the lecture.
During the 1987-1988 requalification cycles, each operator received 144 hours0.00167 days <br />0.04 hours <br />2.380952e-4 weeks <br />5.4792e-5 months <br /> of classroom instruction and 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> of simulator train-ing. The inspector was unable to monitor any classroom or simulator training sessions due to the fact that there was no training being conducted in order to have operators available to support the Unit 2 outage. The inspector randomly checked classroom attendance records and verified that required 10 CFR 55.59(c) control manipulations were documented as being completed.
Records for required annual control manipulations were about four months behind. Manipulations for reactor startups performed in January had not yet been recorded in the individuals' files. The inspector did verify that the manipula-tions had been performed by verifying that the simulator lesson plans for that module contained startup manipulations. The inspector also verified that various operators who had scored less than 80% on module quizzes were retrained and re examined.
The inspector reviewed job performance evaluations of operators from both units and found that most operators were evaluated as "Excell-ent."
In the course of reviewing the above files, the inspector discovered that an individual had failed an original quiz and the makeup quiz was also the lowest evaluated operator of the two units.
The inspector was told by the licensee that Training does look for trends in an operators' performances and notifies the operations department regarding such individuals.
- - - _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ - - - - _ -
- -
t n. :
,.
'In'deve' loping lesson plans and scenarios for licensed operator train-ing, an extensive checklist is used to ensure that such items as 10 CFR requirements, tracked. action items, pertinent. industry events, and NUREG 1122 (Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors) abilities are incorpo-
-rated or refere.nced. This detailed review appears to ensure that thorough simulator training is being-conducted for the operators.
Unit 2 operator simulator training uses the Unit 1 simulator. When discrepancies arise between the units, the crew then talks through an event or procedure using a mock-up of the Unit 2 control room.
Parts of the training manual were being updated to' reflect changes in the requalification examination process and changes in the DLC organi-zation. By reviewing the licensee's documentation, it appears that the program is being conducted in accordance with its training manual'.
3.3 INTERACTION WITH OPERATIONS The Training Department appears to have a good working relationship with Operations.
In October 1988 the Operations Training Committee was formed that is composed of two operations supervisors, director of operations training, manager of nuclear training, supervisor of training,- and the supervisor of licensed operations training; In addition, an on shift reactor operator (RO) and a senior reactor
' operator (SRO) are invited to attend. The committee discusses
~
training needs for operations, objectives for training modules and the effectiveness of training. Also, Operations and Training work together to produce the JPMs. Training develops the JPMs while Operations validates them.
As of May 1, 1989, a new Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP) revi-sions were implemented.
The Training Department developed a pilot training session to expound the revisions by providing a step by step review of the revisions and the reason for the revisions. The train-
-
ing department prepared for the operator training of the revised E0Ps in accordance with BVPS-EOP Executive Volume, Appendix G.
The Unit Nuclear Operating Supervisor and the Director of Operations Training determined the extent of operator training on the revised E0P. The E0P training was validated by selecting one operating crew from each unit to participate in the pilot training program.
Each crew was trained on the revisions to their respective E0Ps and was then evalu-ated on their performance in simulator scenarios which emphasized the revisions. The crews performed satisfactorily. Operations super-visors were satisfied that the classroom training that the two crews received was sufficient to ensure the operators could effectively implement the revised E0Ps to safely operate the plant. After having validated the classroom training, the training was then given to all j
the operators and they were quizzed to test their knowledge.
Class
!-L _ - _ - _ _ _
-_
._- -
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
______- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ - - _
_ _ - _ _ _ _.
.
.
, _
.
__
-
--_-_- _ -- _ -
- _ - -
_
.
..
.y A
"l
,
.
,
N.
'"
,.
,
6:
L averages,for the'EOP. revision training was in the mid 90s. Three,
'
operators did fail.the quizzes and were subsequently retrained. The
'
>
<
operators received the E0P revision training before the revised E0Ps
.were implemented.
'
Regarding sicolator training, the operators commented that the simu-lator train'.ng overly stressed the formality of verbatim procedure compliance and use of clear precise communications. The operators felt that the~ simulator should be used to improve their operating skills and' abilities 'rather than concentrating their attention to precise protocol. The Training Department was. aware of these comments.from the operators. During the course of the inspection a
' total'of 14 R0s.and SR0s were interviewed from the units. Their general impressions were that the Training Department was receptive and responsive to operators' suggestions or. requests for training and
.the' operators felt that the quality of. training they have been receiving'has been improving over time and that it is pertinent to their, job.
4.0 MANAGEMENT MEETINGS Licensee management was informed of the scope and purposd of the inspec-tion at the entrance meeting conducted on May 1, 1989. The overall wrclusions of the insnection were discussed with licensee representatives
., the exit meeting conducted on May 5, 1989,
f
-
.------._.,--.-._,-u--
-