IR 05000423/1990006

Insp Rept 50-423/90-06 on 900604-08.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Training Program, Including Licensed Operator Training Program for Initial Licensing & Requalification Program for Licensed Operators

ML20059J856
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	08/14/1990
From:	Eselgroth P, Norris B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059J854	List: IR 05000423/1990006 ML20059J848
References
50-423-90-06, 50-423-90-6, NUDOCS 9009210002
Download: ML20059J856 (12)

Text

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

. . . _ _ . .

' .,

.c

,

.

AUG 16 M

'

Wh 4 U. 5. MUCLEhR REGULATORY COMMISSION RERIQM_I DOCERT Mot 80-423 LICENSE Mot WPP-49 REPORT Mot 50-423/90-06 LICER51El Northeast Nuclear Energy Company P. O. Box 270

,_

Martford, Connecticut 06141 FACILITY MAME Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 IRS.PECTION AT Waterford, Connecticut INSPECTORS: Norris, Project Inspector, DRP (Team Leader) Bonnett, Operations Engineer, DR8 Dixon, Reactor Engineer, DRS Pelton, Training & Assessment Specialist, NRR SUBMITTED BYt 4/ 6 /( Ous 90 Barry 8. Norris Date7 Project Inspector (8horeham)

Division of Reactor Projects APPROVED BYt 8' M ' 78 Peter W. Ese Voth, Chief Date Pressurized ter Reactor Section Division of eactor Safety

,

-

%o!c P l

- - . - . - - - - . - - . ---

. .

.

'

.

. .

,.  ;

, l

'

,

,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: [

'

A special announced team inspection of the training program at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3, was performed from June 4 to June 8, 199 This in-depth team inspection focused. on the implementation of the Millstone, Unit 3, training progra The

.

specific areas inspected were the licensed operator training l program for initial licensing, the requalification program for licensed operators, and the continuing training program for non-licensed operator No violations or deviations were identified within the scope of this inspectio The focus of the inspection was on how the operators. evaluated

.

training; how training was presented and the quality of the i

presentation and the materials used; how the training and operations departments interact to correct problems and how they {

updated lesson plans, procedures, and training materials; and how l the simulator is being maintained with respect to the simulator '

certification and its modeling of the plant.

The inspection consisted of interviews with licensed and non- ,

licensed operators, licensed operator trainees, instructors, and management in both the training and the operations departments; observation of on-going training in the simulator, classroom and on-the-job; and review of lesson plans, training procedures, student handouts, training records, and the experience profile of

. the instructors.

J Within the scope of the areas reviewed, the training programs at '

Millstone, Unit 3, are well designed, implemented, and supported by

'

both training management and eparations managemen Areas of program strengths and specific weaknesses are summarised. belows t

one concern was identified with respect to the size of the instructional staff for Millstone, Unit 3, operator training. As

'

described in paragraph 2 of the report, there is an expected loss i of three senior instructors within the staff utilised for the

training of the licensed operators. This reduction in the size of the staff may result in the facility being unable to maintain the current quality of training while conducting both requalification training of licensed operators and initial training of licensed and

non-licensed operator The team concluded that the training programs reviewed satisfied ,

all of the components of a systems Approach to Training (SAT) based

' program and that the programs are functioning well. The Job Task .

Analysis (JTA) is based on the procedures in use in the operations department and appears to be comprehensive, clearly defined.and well implemente The training facility component of the program is an overall strength in that it includes the classrooms, the simulator, the laboratories and equipment, and the instructors )

offices and support facilitie r

_____m+---__*w-m"'w- - - "eW'---ar-----

,

,,

' .

.

.

Inanection Resort Mo. 50-423/90-06 DETAILS BACEGROUND AND SCOPE OF IMSPECTION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers effective training of personnel to be an important part of safe nuclear power plant operation This inspection was in keeping with the

" commission Policy statement on Training and Qualifications of Nuclear Plant Personnel," as stated in the Federal Register *

(53 FR 46603), which states that the NRC will expand the method by which it monitors the industry training programs by_

performing post-accreditation reviews at selected site The inspection was conducted in accordance with NRC Inspection Procedure 41500, " Training and Qualification Effectiveness,"

and NUREG-1220, Trainina Review Criteria and Procedure NUREG-1220 provides the guidance and criteria to review a performance-based training program, commonly referred to as a systems Approach to Training (SAT). The criteria assess what are considered the five elements of an SAT progra These elements are systematic analysis of the jobs to be performed, Learning objectives that are derived from the analysis and that describe desired performance after training, Training design and implementation based on the learning objectives, Evaluation of trainee mastery of the objectives during training, and Evaluation and revision of training based on the performance of trained personnel in the job settin The specific areas inspected were the licensed operator training program for initial license, the licensed operator requalification program, and the continuing training program for the non-licensed operator The inspection included interviews with twenty-five licensee personnel, including licensed and non-licensed operators, licensed operator trainees, instructors, and management in both the training and the operations departments; obssrvation of on-going training in the simulator, classroom and on-the-job; and review of lesson plans, training procedures, student handouts, training records, and the experience profile of the instructor !

.. .__ _ _ _ _

.. .

'

.

.

,.

'

Insnaction Resort No. 50-423/90-05 3 L

The inspection focused on how the operators evaluated training, how training was presented, the quality of the presentation and the materials used, how the training and operations departments interact to correct problems, how training materials (lesson plans, procedures, and handouts)

are updated, and how the simulator is being maintained with  !

respect the simulator certification and the modeling to the  !

, plant.

! I

)

- OVERALL PROGRAM ASSE8SMENT ,

Trainina center The Northeast Utilities training center includes the simulators and classroom for all three Millstone station units and Maddam Neck. The training center is modern and designed i to be conducive to learnin During tours of the training '

E

' center and facilities, it was noted that most of the training *

aids, such as the gas chromatograph and the electrical switchgear, were site / unit specific, operational, and used ,

,

'

both for hands on training and the development of site specific methodologies and procedures. Nousekeeping in the entire training center was very goo The simulator for '

Millstone, Unit 3, is scheduled to be certified later this yea The modern, conducive to learning, site specific training facility was viewed as a strength of the training departmen Instructional staff The Millstone, Unit 3, operations training instructors interviewed were knowledgeable with respect to the SAT process and had been involved in all phases of the proces Most of I

the instructors were licensed or certified at the senior j Reactor Operator level and many had on-shift operating experience prior to joining the training department. The tema noted that all of the instructors showed pride in the training center and exhibited a commitment to ensure that each, student '

was getting the needed trainin This commitment included presenting training at a speed consistent with the ability of the- slower student while allowing the faster students the opportunity to progress through the program at their own spee The dedication of the Unit 3 instructional staff was viewed as a program strengt The Unit 3 supervisor of operator Training and the training coordinators all stated that it was their belief that the training programs had the full support of senior managemen In addition, the instructors also reported good management support and oversight of the training staff. The inspection team noted good morale and teamwork within the Unit 3 instructional staff and between the training staffs of the

_ _ _ _ _ . - - . - . - - - . - - - . - -

_ _

,

. ;

l: ,

'

-

nsonetion Renort Mo. 50-423/90-06 3 other unit Operations personnel reported good rapport with instructors and indicated that the instructors were knowledgeable and credible and that the training received was effective for suooessfully preparing them for their job The instructional staff interviewed reported excellent communications within the Unit 3 training staff and that communications within the Northeast Ut211 ties training department as a whole were improving. Personnel also reported excellent communications between the training department and the plant staff. A program that enhances the-oommunications between the plant staff and training is the Training Progran control Committee (TPCC). The TPCC is a two-member committee made up of the Supervisor, Operator Training MP3 and the MP3 Operations Manage Although the TPCC is required to meet twice per week, they actually meet almost dail Training Department communications were viewed as a program strengt The inspection team did identify one concern with respect to the sine of the training department for Millstone, Unit The staf fing level for Millstone, Unit 3, operator training is limited to thirteen technical peoplet two in supervisory positions (with- no instructional responsibilities), three coordinators (with part-time instructional responsibilities),

one coordinator position vacant, one instructor in training, and six full time instructors to teach the initial and requalification classes for the licensed. operators and.the on-going training for the non-licensed operators. Pour senior instructors are assigned to conduct the requalification program, and it is expected that three of those' four instructors will be leaving the instructional staff; thus leaving a core of relatively inexperienced instructors with little. operations experience. The concern is that Millstone, Unit 3, will not be able to maintain the current quality of training while continuing to simultaneously conduct requalification training for licensed operators and initial training for licensed non-licensed operator Trainina Katerials Training lesson plans, job task analysis data, and learning objectives are kept current through the Training Management system (TMs). This computer-based system, in conjunction with the procedures based job task analysis, ensures that plant modifications and plant procedure changes are analysed by the training department and the impact of the modification or change can be determined. As necessary, the associated training program materials and test questions can be modified to the current plant design and procedures. The TMs data base is also to maintain task lists, training records, and the skills and abilities of personne The TMs was seen as a program strengt !

-

i

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

. . .

.

I *

,

,

-

Insnection menort me. 50-423/s0-0s 4 L It was noted during the inspection that one lesson plan had l ohanges made to by the instructor without any evidence of management concurrence. It was discovered that this was due

,

i to a weakness within the TMS; that is, with respect to the  !

manner and timeliness with which the plant modifications and procedure changes are entered into the TM The weakness i

appears to be the inability to analyse the changes and incorporate the necessary changes into the training materiols  ;

,

prior to the time when that training material will.be needed for instructio If the change to the training material is not made prior to the training, this weakness could result in negative trainin Conversely, an unapproved change to the

'

training material could result in incorrect information being  ;

presented, which would also result in negative trainin overall, the operations staff expressed that the training programs and materials were good and that they had improved ,

over the past five year ^

l Evaluation of Trainino The Nuclear Training Manual requires an annual evaluation of each instructor in each instructional setting for which that instructor is certified (simulator, classroom, or on-the-job) .

During the inspection, the supervisor, operator Training, i i

informed the team that the facility had instituted a training program for the simulator instructors to more effectively utilise the simulato It was noted by'the facility that the instructors had used the simulator only as an evaluation tool; i that is, the instructors did not fully utilise all of the i

simulator capabilities (such as backup and freese) to teach the operator The simulator instructor improvement program is expected to be completed later this year. The management involvement in the instructor evaluation process is seen as a l program strengt The training evaluation process also includes a student i evaluation of the classroom and simulator training on a weekly i

'

basis. These evf ;uations are used as an input to the training revision process. .An area for improvement within thtw student evaluation process is the establishment of a-formal feedback mechanism to the students such that they are informed of actions taken based on their recommendation Providing students with a written feedback to their suggestions and concerns could facilitate student participation in the process of instructor and course evaluations, and enhance the quality of training materials and instruction b I

I L

, - . ~,,,,ww----ww~-,--~~-,w ~ -= -~ Y

_ _ .._. _ _ _ _ _

. . .

.

'

, ,

'

Insnaction Report No. 50-423/90-06 5 LICENSED OPERATOR PROGRAMS i i

The licensed operator programs were reviewed by interviews l

'. with inouabent operators, trainees for initial licensing, ;

observation of simulator and classroom training, and discussions with the instructors responsible for the trainin .

!

Two areas within the licensed operator area were focused ont i the initial licensed operator training program and the ;

requalification licensed operator training progra i i

One of the areas emphasised during the inspection was how the j training was received by the end product - the operator In general, the operators felt that the material was very good i and that the instructors were generally competent, both !

technically and instructionally, with some exception The ;

students had a hesitancy to utilise the feedback process since l'

they received no response to their comments, the facility stated that they were in the process of correcting that l specific area of concer Within the licensed operator training areas, many of the i; instructors stated that the amount of time for preparation and

administration-of the classes was inadequate due to both the size of the staff and the number of asshgnments unrelated to training.

[.

Initial Licehmed Onorator Program t

l Millstone, Unit 3, divides the initial licensing program-into t distinct areas for= those personnel who have not been !

previously licensed and those personnel who are upgrading from a Reactor operator (RO) license to a Senior Reactor Operator (8RO) license; these are called the Licensed Operator Initial l Training (LOIT) and Licensed Operator Upgrade Training (LOUT) i l programs, respectivel ;

l

,

During the inspection, both a LOIT class and a LOUT class were '

in progress. Up to this time, the classes had been separate; but for the first time and as part of the normal program, they were combined in the simulator. One of the exercises used for indoctrination to the simulator- atmosphere wa a-communications exercise where the SRO was placed behind a

. board and all information transfer between the SRO and Ros had to be via' oral communications. The inspection team concluded L that the exercise was a valuable tool for indoctrination to the control room atmosphere and also for the sco for diagnosis of the acciden F

..

1. -f 9- er-S* $4*+uga y*+g*g y dy - tyyv,-

._ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

l .

.

• .

,

Inannotion Resort Mo. 50-423/90-06 6 j Limammed Merater Ranualification Trainine f resmT) q The inspection team observed the requalitioation orows in the simulater. As a whole, the crews performed eatistastorily in handling the malfumations; however, two of the liosased I

remotor operators (who are normally plant equipment operators) had diffioulty in locating some of the control l board indications - specifically, the operators could not fine l the indication for the turbine exhaust hood temperature without the assistance of the senior control operato There was an observed difference in the performance of the operating crew and the staff cre The operating crews board operators were azooptionally observant in that during the examination mode scenarios, they were able to identify deficiencies and malfunctioning equipment before an alarm was ]

l initiated.

j

'

The LORT class observed, " Diesel sequencer," was very well prepared. The instructor was quite knowledgeable and was able i to draw the class into participating in the. lecture.' After l presenting the lecture (using plant drawings, sketches, etc.) I

! he further reinforced the training by showing a video tape of i how the sequencer worked and demonstrated it in the simulato l

Questions raised during class were answered during class, if 1 possible, or the instructors got back to the students with an I answer during the training wee .0 mom-LICENSED OPERATOR PROGRAM The review of the non-licensed training program consisted of interviews with the non-licensed training staff and Plant Equipment operators (PBos), and observation of classroom and

.

'

plant on-the-job trainin The program is conducted on a ,

three year oyale and is currently completing the second yea .

The non-licensed operators are required to attend training for one week out of every six. The material covered deals mainly with theory and plant systen knowledge, in some respects preparing the P30s for participation in a licensed clas Quisses are required at the completion of each week, with a performance standard of so %. At the suooessful completion of each week, the PEOs Qualifioation Book will be signed off by )

the respective shitt supervisor in the areas covere ;

Performance of practical factors and on-the-job training is provided to the PBos, but is the responsibility of the operations Departmen i

'

The classroom training observed was adequate. The instructor was knowledgeable of the subject material and demonstrated the i instructional skills and abilitier necessary to ensure optimal 1 learning. Ne of ten encouraged discussion and acknowledged the czperience that the PEOs have gained from the plant. In-plant

._ . _ - _ _ .

_ -

.

.

'

.

-

L ,

Inspection menort No. 50-423/90-06 7 walk-throughs are of ten conducted following the classroom sessions to reinforos the material that was covered in clas The paos of the classroom instruction is geared to-the self-paced qualifioation program currently incorporated at the plan Interviews .Jre conducted with four Plant Equipment Operator The operators indicated that the training department has improved the quality of training over the past two years and was doing an excellent job. They expressed an appreciation of the attention and dedication of the instructor which is considered a program strengt Peedback and communications between the PEOs and training department is goo The non-licensed training staff has undergone a reduction in manpowe The PRO Training Coordinator is also the only training instructo This is a weakness in the program as evidenced by a backlog of changes to the training material, reviews of lesson material, and inadequate time to properly prepare for classroom lecture .0 EXIT MEETING BUMMARY At_the exit meeting held on June 8, 1990, the inspection methods were described and major strengths and weaknesses were discusse The licensee was thanked for the cooperation during the -inspectio The personnel present at the exit '

aceting are listed in Appendix The licensee thanked the team for an open and professional attitude during the inspection. They clarified-to the team that the training department trains the operators, but that the operations department qualifies the operators -

specifically, this was applied to the non-licensed operator The licensee stated that the reduction in the number of experienced instructors was also of concern to them and had already been identified. They stated that they were currently discussing options to minimise the impact of the reductio At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspection team. . Based upon the NRC Region I review of this report and discussions held with licensee representatives during the inspection, it was determined that this report does not contain information subject to 10 CFR 2.790 restriction ._ _ ._. _ .. _.. _ _ . _ . . _ _ ._..-___ _ _ _ _ . _ .

,

.

.

.,

nanection Report N ~

50-423/90-05 i

l

,

APPENDIE 1 - PERSONNEL CONTACTED During the course of'the inspection, the following personnel were l contacted or interviewed, other personnel were also interviewed i during this inspection:

NORTEMAST UTILITIES J. Black - Director, Nuclear Training Department

• c. Clement - Director, Millstone, Unit 3

• M. Gentry - Operations Manager, Millstone, Unit 3 W. Mihalovits - Coordinator, Training Materials Management

'

L. Palone - Coordinator, Non-Licensed Operator Training B.-Parish - Assistant supervisor, operator Training {

W. Potter - Coordinator, Licensed operator Initial Training ,

• 3. Ruth - Manager. Operator Training '

• R. Stotts - Supervisor, Operator Training, Millstone Unit 3 i l

NUMARC '

• R. Ryans - Project Manager NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [

• Bonnett - Operations Engineer

• Dixon - Reactor Engineer l * Norris - Project Inspector (Team Leader)

l * Pelton - Training & Assessment specialist j * Raymond - Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Station l

• Attended Exit Meeting on June 8,-199 I

h i

e h

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

l

.  ;.

.

c e

,'

'

Inspection menort No.'50-423/90-06

APPENDIE 2 - DOCUMENTS REVIEWED During the course of the inspection, the following documents were reviewed by the inspection team:

NUCLEAR TRAINING. MANUAL NTM-1.02 Rev . Nue19ar Training Organisation NTM-1.03 Rev 1 Request for Training Assistance i

NTM-1.06 Rev i systematic Instructional Design

,

'

NTM-1.07 Rev 1 Needs Analysis NTM-1.08 Rev 1 Training Program control Committees NTM-1.10 Rev 1 Instructor Certification NTM-1.12 Rev 2 On-the-Job Training NTM-1.13 Rev 1 Student Evaluation NTM-2.01 Rev 2 Training Prograt Analysis l

'

NTM-2.02 Rev 2 Training Progrs2 Design  :

NTM-2.03 Rev 1 Training Program Development '

NTM-2.04 Rev 1 Training Program Implementation  :

NTM-2.05 Rev 2 Training Program Effectiveness ,

NTM-2.06A Rev 1 Trs'ning Program Modifications NTM-3.077 Rev 0 NU Millstone, Unit 3, Non-Licensed Training PJ>gran

,

'

MRAON PLANS I ELS-01-C Rev 0 Sequencer Training Performance Guide -

! ELC-01-C Rev 0 Emergency Generator Load Sequencer

,

SIMULATOR SCENARIOS >

LORT-EOP-SUP-1 Rev 0 EOP Revisions and Practice ,

skills / Operational Exam #EX8706 skills / Operational Exam #EX8809 i LP-LORT 90-6 Rev 0

.,

ERQCEDURES ,

OP-3202 Rev 5 Reactor Startup OP-3203 Rev 4 Plant Startup OP-3304C Rev 4 Primary Makeup and Chemical-Addition System OP-3305 Rev 5 Spent Puel Cooling and Purification (Raergency Make-up)

EOP-35/E-0 Rev 6 Reactor Trip or 8I BOP-35/E-1 Rev 5 Loss of Reactor or Secondary Coolant BOP-35/E-2 Rev 4 Paulted Steam Generator o EOP-35/ECA-0.0 Rev 4 Loss of All AC Power EOP-35/ECA-0.1 Rev 4 Loss of All AC Power Recovery w/o SI Required EOP-35/ECA-1.1 Rev 3 Loss of Coolant Recirculation EOP-3503 Rev 6 Shutdown Outside of the Control Room -

Attach. B

,

-e-.--,,,v*-+--- -.-e *-4v+w - +

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ -+ __ _ --_.._ . , . . . . - . .#. -. - - - - - -

-

... .

,

.. .

'

>

,

.

Inanection Resort No. 50-423/90-01

&PPEND12 2 - DOCUMENTS REVIEWED fcent.)

MISCELLhMEOUS Accreditation Self-Evaluation Report Training Performance Guide - Energency Diesel Generator Mandouts from TerJawork and Diagnostic Skills Team Training MP3 Task to Training Matrix with Objectives, PEO J

i l

!

L

!

e

2

= - - - -- + * - " ' ~ ~