IR 05000443/1993012
| ML20056E362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1993 |
| From: | Bettenhausen L, Prell J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056E361 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-93-12, NUDOCS 9308230236 | |
| Download: ML20056E362 (10) | |
Text
i
<
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 1 REPORT NO:
50-443/93-12 DOCKET NO:
50-443 l
LICENSE NO:
NPF-86 t
i LICENSEE:
Public Service Company of New Hampshire P. O. Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire DATES INSPECTED:
June 22 - 23, and July 26 - 28,1993 d.
/
8'- 6'- 98 INSPECTOR:
awes Itnes A. prell, Sr Operations Engineer Date WR Section, Operations Branch, DRS
'
APPROVED BY:
_ N 8 / 42 /4 7
~
~
Iee H. Bettenhausen, Chief Date j
Operations Branch l
Division of Reactor Safety l
I
,
9308230236 930817 I?
PDR ADOCK 05000443 t
G PDR gj{
.
SUMMARY: Inspection from June 22-23 & July 26-28.1993 Onspection Report No. 50-443/93-12)
Two inspections were conducted in response to the facility's stated intention to seek new licenses for three formerly licensed operators. The three operators' licenses were terminated at the facility's request in 1992 as part of actions taken by Seabrook related to falsification of auxiliary operator inspection round sheets. The purpose of the inspections was to review for adequacy the facility developed Auxiliary Operator Remedial Training Program and the Modified Operator Requalification Training Program, to interview the three operators who were seeking new licenses and their management and peers, and to observe for adequacy the requalification tests for the three operators. The Auxiliary Operator Remedial Training Program was designed and implemented to prevent reoccurrence of the previously-identified deficiencies with the auxiliary operator inspection rounds. The Modified Licensed Operator Program was designed to return the previously-licensed operators to a current status in requalification training. The inspectors concluded that the remediation program was well designed and addressed each of the problems identified as a possible contributor to the falsification of round sheets. The Modified Licensed Operator Program was determined to be successful based on the results of tests administered to these operators by the facility during the week of July 26-28,1993.
l
>
.
DETAILS 1.0 INTRODUCTION On March 1,1992, Seabrook Station initiated an investigation into the falsification of l
inspection round sheets performed by auxiliary operators. Inspection Report 50-443/92-08 describes the investigation and its early findings. As a result of Seabrook's investigation, three operators resigned from the facility, one operator had his employment terminated, and nine operators received suspensions lasting from three days to two weeks. Of the nine
-
operators who received disciplinary suspensions, two were NRC-licensed reactor operators
,
and one was an NRC-licensed senior reactor operator. These operator licenses were terminated at the facility's request.
During the time the operators were on suspension, facility management planned a remediation training program to return the operators to duty as auxiliary operators. A team consisting of representatives from upper management, the independent review team that had
,
investigated the problem, auxiliary operators (AO), and Training Department staff identified
performance concerns related to AO duties and responsibilities. Facility management then began a program to correct the concerns identified, and the Training Department developed a program for remediating the nine operators.
l The program developed by the Training Department, referred to as the Auxiliary Operator Remedial Training Program, began on March 23,1992. This program consisted of four l
phases: the Preparation Phase, the Classroom Phase, the On-the-Job Training (OJT) Phase, l
and the Monitored Watchstanding Phase. These phases are discussed in Section 3.2 below.
!
l Prior to returning to independent watchstanding duties, the AOs were approved by senior facility management. In order to receive this approval, each operator was interviewed independently by the Executive Director of Nuclear Production and received his and the President and CEO's approval. This approval was documented in each AO's Qualification Guide. On September 24,1992, all the AO Qualification Guides were signed off, and the AOs were allowed to perform independent watchstanding duties.
In the middle of February 1993, the three operators, whose licenses were terminated, began a program designed to bring them up-to-date in licensed training requirements and to reinforce skills and knowledge lost while they participated in the Auxiliary Operator Remedial Training Program. These operators participated in the phase 2 and phase 3 normal requalification cycles at Seabrook. On May 17, 1993, they began a ten-week Modified Licensed Operator Program designed to bring these operators to the same point in the station's requalification training program that they would have been if they hadn't missed any training since January 1992. This modified program consisted of four weeks of OJT training, two weeks of classroom training, and four weeks of simulator and classroom training. Specific details of this program are discussed in Section 4.0 of this report.-
A member of NRC Region I management and an inspector inspected the Auxiliary Operator Remedial Training Program and Modified License Operator Program. The purpose of this
.-.
.
=
._-
.
..
..
.
.
I
i inspection was to determine if these programs were effective and sufficient in correcting the
!
deficiencies identified with the Auxiliary Operators and to assess the program for returning l
l the three previously licensed operators back to licensed duties.
.
2.0 SCOPE The inspection included interviewing the three formerly licensed operators, their present and l
former managers, their peers, and key Training Department personnel; reviewing records of
the administered AO Remedial Training Program and the evaluations conducted of these
!
programs; reviewing the Modified Licensed Operator Program that was being administered;
!
and observing the requalification examination given to the three operators. Attachment I
{
lists those documents reviewed during this inspection.
l 3.0 AUXILIARY OPERATOR REMEDIAL TRAINING PROGRAM i
I
3.1 Remedial Plan Development In early March 1992, Seabrook began planning a remedial training program for those
,
auxiliary operators who had been identified as having problems with the inspection round l
logs. The operations staff and the training staff separately developed proposals for this
[
'
training. These separate proposals plus additional training assessments were integrated into a single training proposal and presented to station management on March 31,1992. Several l
key elements in the proposal presented to management were that the training should: address
!
the weaknesses uncovered by the Independent Review Team, NRC, and other plant staff
.
members; heavily involve the affected operators; involve station management; be monitored by the quality assurance organization; and retain the services of an industrial psychologist to l
identify specialized training needs that address the identified concerns. Station management j
,
endorsed the proposal. Detailed classroom training, which incorporated the above elements,
!
was conducted during April 6-17, 1992.
!
!
j Following the classroom training, an on-the-job training (OJT) and monitoring program was j
l initiated. This OJT program was designed to restore the operators to normal plant duties.
l l
Throughout the program, each operator was subjected to a series of formal task approvals
l and management interviews. This process was recorded for each individual in their own
!
qualification guide.
3.2 Plan Detail / Execution The designed AO Remedial Training Program specified three training phases followed by a period of monitored AO watchstanding. These phases included the following:
Preparation Phase _- Thi., two-week period of training consisted of the AOs o
independently perfor ning tasks related to correcting identified administrative
!
.
,
problems and weaknesses. Instructors also held meetings with the AOs to obtain information useful for designing subsequent segments of the remedial training l
program.
Classroom Phase - This two-week period of classroom training consisted of ensuring
that the AOs thoroughly understood management expectations and administrative requirements. Some of the topics covered during this period were: Management
,
Expectations; Industry Events and Human Performance; Core Values / Work Ethic, Values of Excellence; Operations Administration Watchstanding Practices; Completeness and Accuracy ofInformation; Regulatory Overview and Codes and Standards; Technical Specifications; AO logs and Technical Specification / Technical Requirements; and Fundamental Regulatory Reporting Requirements. Following the classroom training and written exam, the Exocutive Director of Nuclear Production and the Operations Manager met with the operators to determine the effectiveness of the training they had received.
OJT Phase - This one-week period of "in-plant" training applied the concepts and
i attitudes acquired in the previous training phase. The OJT included training and evaluation of each AO watch station by a peer. The peers had received two hours of refresher training on OJT instruction / evaluation the week prior to this training. Most sessions had one or more observers. These observers included on-site NRC representatives, members of the facility's executive management, members of the
,
i Operations Department and members of the Operations Training Department.
Monitored Watchstanding - This five-week period of in-plant training had each
operator stand a minimum of forty hours as the AO of Record and two, four-hour peer watches on each of the five AO watch stations. The operator's performance was monitored and frequently checked by Shift Superintendents to verify that all watchstanding requirements were satisfactorily met.
During the last three phases, each operator's progress was recorded in his individual "AO Remedial Training Program Qualification Guide." Tasks and courses re identified in this guide and initialed off when the operator successfully completed ther -
The Independent j
Review Team evaluated the remedial training and concluded in a Ma) 7,1992, report that l
the operators were ready to return to duty. In addition, upon completi%.'le tasks identified in the guide, the Director of Quality Programs was required to sign his name in the guide attesting to the fact that the program was effective. The Executive Director, Nuclear Production then met individually with each operator to determine if the operator had been remediated. If he was satisfied, then he and the President and CEO signed the operator's guide. At this point, the operator was considered remediated and allowed to return to normal dut._.
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
)
3.3 NRC Interview / Inspection Results
Based on interviews, the inspectors concluded that the three formerly-licensed operators had improved attitudes toward their job responsibilities. Each stated that they clearly understood
'
',
what they had done and how this differed from job expectations. All three operators expressed a heightened awareness for job performance and a higher standard to which operators, particularly licensed operators, are held. They each committed to maintain personally a high standard of job performance, including record keeping. In each case, the l
remedial training had a signi6 cant personal impact. The training made clear the regulatory
!
and management expectations and the personal responsibility of the operators. The remedial l'
training pointed out how the individual's conduct was viewed by others such as co-workers, the NRC, and the publie, which emphasized the necessity for a questioning attitude and maintaining accurate information.
i
!
During interviews, three peer Auxiliary Operators, who were not subject to the remedial training, stated that the remedial training had been effective. These individuals worked with the operators under remediation during the period of monitored watchstanding and were also acquainted with them as co-workers. They described the peer watchstanding as a good l
opportunity for information exchange and for obtaining a better understanding of the different
'
approaches to performing their job. The monitored watchstanding benentted all the
!
operations staff and provided added emphasis on properly performing theirjob l
responsibilities and maintaining accurate information. None of the interviewed Auxiliary Operators expressed any reservations or hesitation in working with the remediated AOs, including the three formerly licensed operators.
The inspectors determined through interviews that immediate management held high regards for the three operators. Previous, present, and future management of the three formerly-licensed operators were interviewed in order to determine if they had previous or present problems or concerns with these individuals, if they anticipated any problems with either the operators' peers or themselves by bringing them back on shift, and if they sensed anything on the part of the operators that could be detrimental to job performance. They all indicated that they had no prior problems with these operators, that these three operators had all tried to turn the remedial training program into a positive growing experience, that from this experience the operators had developed a more questioning attitude, that they felt the fellow
,
members on the crew would welcome the operators back, and that they felt that they could I
fully trust them to do their duty.
The inspectors concluded that the remediation program was well designed and addressed each of the problems identified as a possible contributor to the falsi6 cation of round sheets.
Upper management monitored the effectiveness of the program throughout its implementation. The inspectors verified that there was a 100% attendance record by all nine operators during the two weeks of classroom instruction, reviewed the quality assurance l
report that assessed the effectiveness of the AO Remedial Training Program, reviewed the lesson plans for applicability of content to rectifying the problems identi6ed with the AOs,
._
7 reviewed both the instructors' and operators' evaluation of the course, reviewed the three completed qualifications guides of the three formerly licensed operators and reviewed copies i
of their written examinations. Based on this review, the inspectors concluded that Seabrook had developed and implemented a remediation program that fully addressed the concerns r
raised by both the facility and the NRC.
'
4.0 MODIFIED LICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM
'
4.1 Plan Development i
After the AO Remedial Training Program was successfully completed by the nine operators, the facility developed a modified licensed operator training program for the three operators
whose licenses were terminated. This program was designed to bring the three operators to j
the same point in the facility's requalification program as if they had not missed any requalification training since January of 1992. This program was designed with the j
cooperation of the three operators and the Curriculum Advisory Committee. The Curriculum Advisory Committee members included the Operations Manager, the five Shift Supervisors, and three Training managers. Success of the modified licensed operator training program l
would be determined by the results of a requalification examination given to the operators.
This examinadon was designed and administered according to NUREG-1021, Revision 7, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards.
4.2 Training Plan l
The plan included inserting the three operators into the first two 1993 requalification cycles.
'
When completed the operators began a three-phase, ten-week Modified Licensed Operator Training (MLOT) Program:
!
On-the-Job Training (OJT) - This was a four-week effort in which the operators were
required to perform tasks or Job Performance Measures identified by the Curriculum l
Advisory Committee in an OJT Qualification Guide. These tasks mostly related to all the procedures that had been revised during the time the operators were involved in the AO Remedial Training Program. The two formerly-licensed Reactor Operators i
had 60 tasks identified in the OJT Guide and the formerly-licensed Senior Reactor Operator had 73 tasks identified.
Classroom Training - This was a two-week effort in which the operators reviewed all
the nertinent requalification lessons covered during the time they were off shift or in dial training. Self-study packages, supplemented with classroom instruction, ren were included. The operators were tested on this material only in limited cases.
Simulator and Classroom Training - This was a four-week effort in which the
operators received training to refresh their control board skills and to familiarize themselves on responding to plant emergencies. __
.
!
4.3 NRC Interview / Inspection Results The inspectors reviewed the OJT RO Qualification Guide, the OJT SRO Qualification Guide, the list of procedures the operators were required to review, the schedule followed by the operators during the Modified Licensed Operator Training (MLOT) program, and the results of requalification examinations taken by the operators prior to this occurrence. In addition, the inspectors interviewed the training staff and management conceming the MLOT program.
A review of the proposed requalification examination was also made. As a result of these reviews and discussions, the inspectors determined that Seabrook developed a comprehensive plan for bringing up to date the requalification training missed by the formerly-licensed operators during their remediation training.
4.4 Requalification Examination Upon completing the Modified Licensed Operator Training program, the operators were administered a NUREG-1021, Revision 7, requalification examination. The administration of this examination was observed by the NRC. The previously-licensed senior reactor operator and two reactor operators passed this examination. This examination consisted of a Section A and Section B written test, a simulator test consisting of two scenarios, and a plant / simulator walkthrough test where the candidates each had to perform five job performance measures. Based on the results of this examination, Seabrook has applied to the NRC for issuance of new licenses to these operators. The applications ask NRC to waive the requirement that the operators take and pass another NRC initial examination.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS The inspectors concluded that Seabrook management and station personnel were responsive in identifying the causes for the AO falsification of inspection round sheets and in designing and implementing a program that addressed each of the identified problems. This training program addressed not only the technical and legal aspects related to the job but also addressed ethics, attitudinal aspects, and human perception aspects of the job. The operators appeared to have responded well to the program and have developed a more questioning and responsible attitude while performing their duties. There were no problems detected on the part of management or the operators' peers in accepting the remediated operators back on duty. Portions of the remedial training are to be incorporated into the General Employee Training Program.
The Modified Licensed Operator Training Program was designed to bring the formerly-licensed operators up to current requirements with regard to the station's requalification training program. The program was designed to familiarize the operators with all the changes that have occurred to the plant and the operating procedures and to improve their control board skills. The inspectors concluded that the requalification examination was challenging and comprehensive and that the former operators displayed good technical knowledge and skills, e
_
_ _
.__.
_
__ _
_
__
i
-
i
!
.
.
.
'
q 6.0 EXIT MEETING l
The inspectors met with Seabrook personnel, identified below, at the conclusion of the f
,
l inspections on June 23, and on July 28,1993, at the Seabrook Training Center. A summary of the inspection results was reviewed. Potential concerns identified with issuing new licenses to the operators were identified. Licensee representatives acknowledged this information.
North Atlantic Enerev Service Corooration Personnel at Exit Meetings i
'
Name Title L. Carlsen Operations Training Supervisor (1,2)
J. Grillo Operations Manager (1,2)
R. Hanley Operations Training Manager (1)
S. Kessinger Senior Simulator Instructor (1)
P. Richardson Training Director (1,2)
J. Sobotka NRC Coordinator (1)
NRC Personnel J. Prell Senior Operations Engineer (1,2)
'
L. Bettenhausen Chief, Operations Branch (1)
(1)
Attended the June 23,1993, exit meeting (2)
Attended the July 28,1993, exit meeting i
!
Attachment: Documents Reviewed l
l l
[
!
i
,
l l-
..
-
-
-..
-
_
.
... -
_ _ _ - _ _
~
.
.
.
I
~
A'ITACHMENT 1 Documents Reviewed
!
,
i
!
LP N1534C Industry Events and Human Performance
,
l l
LP N1530 SSMM Procedure Identification and Changes l
Operations Administration - Operations Management Manual LP N1522
,
LP N1531C Operations Administration. AO Watchstanding Duties LP N1524C Operations Administration - Operations Administration Instructions
.
LP N1528C Attention to Detail /Self-Checking / Human Performance Enhancement
,
System / Root Cause Programs LP N1532C AO legs and Technical Specifications / Technical Requirements Interface
,
i
'
MS 1006I Completeness and Accuracy ofInformation LP N1525C Operations Administration - Operations Department Instructions LP N1526C Operations Administration - Operations Good Practices LP N1536C OJT Refresher l
l LP N1533 Operations Administration - Component Configuration Control NHY AO Remedial Training Program Qualification Guide
.
. -,