IR 05000482/1988021

Insp Rept 50-482/88-21 on 880711-15.Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Nonlicensed Staff Training Program,Licensed Operator Training Program & Related Followup Items

ML20153E490
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	08/17/1988
From:	Gagliardo J, Hunter D, Greg Pick NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20153E444	List: IR 05000482/1988021 ML20153E440 ML20153E462
References
50-482-88-21, NUDOCS 8809060332
Download: ML20153E490 (17)

Text

}i'

'

i

.

-

,

,

.

.

'-

APPENDIX B U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION

. REGION IV l

MRC Inspection Report: 50-482/88-21 Operating License:'NPF-42

'

Docket: 50-482 .

.

Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) i facility Name: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) ,

,

Inspection At: WCGS, Coffey County 3 Burlington, Kansas inspection Cenducted: July 11-15, 1988 ll

!

Inspectors: r(), b ~~

D. R. Hunter, Senior Reactor Inspector Datt !

'

Operational Programs Section, Division of

>

Reactor Safety 4.

b  !

A% -

ifi93f

G. A. P,fi kf IJeactor Inspector, Operational Tge ;

Prograhs W etton, Division of Reactor <

Safety '

'

,

i Approved: ,

1. IN

. Date/ ,

,

,

SeI.Gagliardo, Chief,OperationalPrograms ion, Division of Reactor Safety t

. Inspection Samary Inspection Conducted July 11-15, 1988 (Report 50-48?/88-21)

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of the nonlicensed staff TTaining program, Itcensed operator training program and related followup items, 8s09060332 eso902 _

DR ADOCK 0500

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

-

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

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

'

l

.

• 4

, . ., ,

>Results: Within the three areas inspected, two violations were identified Tra11ure to follow procedures, paragraph 2, and failure to implement adequate corrective action, paragtaph 4).

. r

4-

}

I

!

r

'

t

'

!

!

!

.4 I

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

_p - .

H , s' b ' ;I y . ,

! '. '. y , ,

/

t ;

'

1

-

ih1 DETAILS

' Persons Contacted

,

WCNOC ,

I *B. D. Withers President

'

• F. T. Rhodes, Vice President, Nuclear Operations

• G. D. Foyrsr, Plant Manager

+*C. E. Party, Manager, Quality Assurance (QA)

J. hil, Manager, Nuclea* Training

'

+*0. L. Maynard, Manager, Licensing i

• C.11., Fcwler, Manager, Instrumentation and Control (I&C)

+*C. M. Estes, Manager, Operations j *J. L. Houghton, Operations Supervisor l *A. A. Freitag, Manager, Nuclear Plant Engineering

! R. W. Holloway, Manager, Maintenance and Modifications ,

l +8. McKinney, Manager, Technical Support ]

'

+ 0. Fehr Superintendent, Licensed Operator Training

• C, G. Patrick, Supervisor, Quality Systems

• R. S. Benedict, Manager, Plant Inspection

• R. D. Flannigan, Superintendent, Compliance

<

,

• P. C. Riyse, Quality Training Coordinator i ++J. E. Gilmoro, Supervisor, Licensed Operator Training

• C. T. Hoch, QA Technician

+*H.;K. Chernoff, Licensing Engineer

• L. Railey, Maintenance Training Coordinator

• R. L. Buffum, Electrical Program Training Coordinator

• L. Hitch, QA Clerk J. McMahon, Supervisor. Technical Training C. Weedthe, Quality Control (QC) Training Coordinator l G. Smith, Coordinitor Licensed Operator Requalification Training

'

NRC l

• B. L. Bartlett, Senior Resident Inspector

+ M. E. Skow, Resident inspector

+ L. .L r=11en, Director,' Division of Reactor Projects l

+ D. D. Chamberlain, Chief, Project Section A  ;

,

i

'

• Attended exit meeting on July 15, 1988. ,

+ Participated in telephone exit briefing on July 22, 198 . FojlowuponPreviouslyIdentifiedInspectionFindings (Closed)UnresolvedItem(482/8719-01): Failure to Obtain Comission Approval Prior to Dec.reasing Scope of RegliaTITication Program -

-

Precedure ADM 06-224', Fevision 5. Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program," allowed a 1 month grace period in which onshift licensed personnel could make up any missed watchstanding shifts. This

>

'

- - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

,

.

..

. . , ,

effectively allowed onshift licensed individuals 4 months to meet their onshift requirements. These requirements involved standing a minimum of seven 8-hour or five 12-hour shifts in a calendar quarter. The implementation of the requirtrrent to allow 4 months to complete onshif t 50.54(1-1) of 10 CFR vart 5 watchstanding(hours Section 50.541-1) states, wasin untrary pa', t, to that Section the licensee roay not, except as specifically authorized by the Commission, decrease the scope of the operator requalification progra During this inspection, the NRC inuettor verified through review of Procedure ADM 06-224 Revision 7, ". ice' sed Operator Requalification Training Program," that the procedure wu corrected and agrees with the Comission approved requalification prog,*am. This item is considered  ;

close (Closed) Open Item (482/8719-02): Removal of Individuals From Licensed Duties - As identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-482/87-19, Ticensee management policy allowed an individual, who had scored lest than 80 percent overall on the requalification examination, to continue perfonning licensed duties until there existed a convenient time for removal from shift duties. The NRC inspectors informed the licensee that the intent of the accelerated requalification program portion of 10 CFR Part 55 was to ensure that individuals, identified as needing additional training, were promptly removed from licensed dutie During this inspection, the NRC inspector reviewed Procedure ADM 06-224 Revision 7. "Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program "

Section 6.5.2, which covered the accelerated requalification progra Procedure ADM 06-224. Revision 7, Step 6.5.L.1 6110wed two working days to remove a licensed individual from onshift duties and place him/her in an accelerated requalification program. This procedure did not agree with the requirements specified in the licensee's documented licensed operator

.'

accelerated requalification program described in U$AR Section 13.2.1.2.9.

-

'

Section 13.2.1.2.9 states,. it part, "Licensed individuals who are in the accelerated requalification training program because of examination  ;

, results are relieved of all licensed duties." These provisions of

'

Procedure ADM 06-224, which would allow an individual to remain onshift ,

for up to two days following his/her notification and entry into the I accelerated requalification program, appear to deviate commitments of the  ;

USAR as cited above. The licensee has formally notified the NRC that a systematic approach to training has, however, been implemented. This

'

superseded the USAR sections on requalification training. During  !

subsequent discussion, the licensee comitted to revise Procedure ADM 06-224 to require immediate removal from licensed duties of operators who fail a reaualification examination. The open item regarding the removal of individuals from licensed duties is considered closed; however, pending NRC review of the revised Procedure ADM 06-224, and the updated USAR  ;

section on requalification training, this is considered an open item (482/8821-01).

I

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

- 2

, .

.

,

t  ;

. , o l

'

'

.. , ,

,

'

5 ,

i The NRC inspector reviewed the accelerated r9 qualification training i records for the two individuals who had failed their 1987 requaltfication '

examination. The following items were reviewed: the initial requali- ;

fication examination; the memoranda that info m d the individuals that ;

they were to be removed from onshift licensed duties, including the reaso ,

for the removal and the remedial training scheduled for them; and, the <

memoranda which listed the training schedules and the retake examina-tion date. During review of the documentation, the inspector noted that 8 days

'

had clapsed between formal notification to one operator and the beginning ,

of the training. From review of control room logs, the NRC inspe: tor ,

determined that the affected individual had functioned as a watchstar. der for six watches during the period of August 11-16, 1987. The individual had been notified on August 11, 1987, that remedial training would be necessar Procedure ADM 06-224, Revision 5. "Licensed Operator

'

Requalification Training Program " Step 6.5.2.5.2, dated June 19, 1987, (the revision in effect at the time of the occurrence) stated that: "An i individual enrolled in an accelerated requalification program shall be i removed from all licensed duties until he has successfully completed the '

,

accelerated requalification program." WCGS Technical Specifications (TS) 6.8.1 requires, that, "Written procedures shall be established, i implemented, and maintained covering . . . a. The applicable procedures recomended in Appendix A of RG 1.33. Revision 2 February 1978."  !

Procedure ADM 06-224 supplements this requirement. Appendix A of  ;

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.33, requires that safety-related activities !

carried out during the operations phase should be covered by written procedures. The licensee's failure to remove the subject individual from i all licensed duties following his failure of the annual requalification I examination is an apparent violation (482/8821-02).

(Closed)OpenItem(482/8719-03): Failure to Implement 10 CFR 55 Rule j Change Notification Requirements - ErT69 a previous inspection, an NRC ,'

inspector determined that the licensee did not have a procedure to implement the new notification requirements for a change in licensed operator status established on May 27, 1987. 'Section 55.53(g) of 10 CFR Part 55 and Section 50.74 of 10 CFR Part 50 established the new reporting requirements for licensed operator status changes. The NRC inspector verified that Procedure ADM 01-033. Revision 16. "Instructions Describing Reportability Review and Documentation of L.icensee Event Reports (LERs)

and Defect Deficiencies," Sections 5.5 and 4.9 dated October 27, 1987, contained the necessary guidance to implement the new requirements for notification to the NRC. This item is considered close (Closed) Violation (482/8632-01): Failure of Post-Test Review to

- Identify an Out-of-Specification Value and Institute Proper corrective Action - As identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-482/86-32, during the post-test review of STS MT-019, dated October 19, 1985, the reviewers failed to identify and take appropriate corrective action. The reviewers did not restore the "as-listed" out-of-specification value of the average specific gravity to within the limits in accordance with Procedure ADM 02-300, "Surveillance Testing " Step 5. .

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __

.

.'. , , ,

.

During this inspection, the NRC inspector verified that the Supplemental Correction Report corrected the errors discussed previously. The NRC inspector verified that the licentee conducted training on this issu Attendance sheets documented the required reading of this violation and the licensee's response to the violatio The licensee had also implemented "Desk Top Instructior.s." These instructions required the data to be verified and double checked. This item is considered close (Closed) Unresolved Item (482/8718-01): Verificat_ ion of Fire Watch for Fire Dampers - As discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-482/87-18, the T Eensee had not considered 20 fire dampers as inoperable during tne performance of modification activities (PMR 02009).

The licensee stated that it was a conscious decision not to retest the dampers since testing of the dampers before the modification had demonstrated them to be operable. As identified during the previous NRC inspection, the NRC inspector determined that the dampers were modified to such an extent that they should have been declared inoperable and reteste Document review and interviews revealed that Work Requests 70143-87 and 70144-87 were issued on April 13, 1987, to conduct post-modification operability testing of the modified dampers in accordance with the WCS TS surveillance tests. STS MT-036 and STS MT-03 The inspector verified through document review that the modification activities associated with the fire dampers, including the post-modification testing, was completed on October 13, 1987, returning the fire dampers to the fully operable conditio The 3RC inspector determined that a fire watch had been established on April 6,1987. Fire impairment Pemit 87-132 and 87-133. The fire watch continued through December 27 (87-132) and 28 (87-133) for the power blocks due to the discovery of degraded fire penetration seals. The provision of a fire watch for the penetration seals provided some level of protection for the fire dampers, which reduced the safety significance of the licensee oversigh The NRC inspector detemined that the fire dampars should have been declared inoperable although the licensee argued that the fire dampers were operable based on previously completed testing (i.e., the modification activities did not affect the operability of the dampers). A fire impairment permit should have been issued in accordance with Administrative Procedure ADM 13-103, Revision 3. Step 4.1., "Fire Protection: Impaiment Control " which required the establishment of a fire watch as a result of the impaimen The licensee's failure to issue a "Fire Impairment Request" in accordance with the requirements of Procedure ADM 13-103, establishing the required fire watch during the damper modification activities, is another example of the apparent violation of TS 6.8.1 (482/8821-02).

__

, ,'

-- .

.

.

-

/ -

s'

{f % .

' 7 This unresolved item is considered close '

No other violations or deviations were identified in the review of this inspection' are . Nonlicensed Staff Training (41400)

Selected portions of the nonlicensed staff training program were reviewed to verify implementation of TS 6.3, Unit Staff Qualifications; ANSI /ANS 3.1-1978 Selection.end Training for Nuclear Power Plant Personnel; USAR Section 17.2.2.7, Personnel Training and Qualification; and USAR Section 13.2.2, Nonlicensed Plant Staff Training. Selected procedures and documents were reviewed, as identified in Attachment 1 and selected personnel were interviewe The licensee received accreditation of their remaining required training progrens from INP0 in early 1988. All the applicable licensee training programs have now been accredited by INP The required reading programs were reviewed and interviews conducted in the maintenance and IAC areas. Each group (e.g., maintenance, HP, chemistry, operations) conducted and controlled their own required reading program. The program was used extensively to keep plant personnel up to date with plant and industry matters. The recuirements did not appear to be uniform or consistent within the groups an: could be improved to provide more detailed guidance for hana' ling required reading. This matter was discussed with the licensee for consideration and is an open item (482/88?l-03) pending further review of the overall controls and implamentation of the required reading program. In the areas reviewed, it appeared that the licensee's program for nonlicensed staff personnel training met convaitments and requirement No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this inspection are Licensed Operator Training (41701)

The NRC inspector reviewed, in part, the licensed operator requalification training program to determine the effectiveness of the training being presente The NRC inspector selected the licensee event reports (LERs) listed in Attachwnt 2 to detemine the training provided. The training provided before the event, if any, was reviewed to determine if it could have prevented and/or mitigated the consequences of the event. If any training was provided after the event, it was also reviewed to evaluate the effectiveness of the training presented to prevent recurrence of the even The NRC inspector determined from discussions with the licensee that generally formal classroom training before the events consisted of systems t

.

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _- -____________ - ____-___ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

. training received during the initial operator license training progra Control manipulations and attention to the control panels had been practiced during routine simulator exercise Training presented after the events occurred consisted of placing the LER in required reading for six of the LERs and counseling the licensed individuals involved. The NRC inspector confirmed, through review of required reading attendance sheets, that the LERs were placed in required reading as stated in the LER. The NRC inspector determined that two of the events had been discussed in "Plant / Industry Events" presented in licensee requalification cycle three and one event was discussed in licensee requalification cycle five. For two of the events the inspector found that no training was conducted after the event. This appeared to be ineffective corrective action. This can be demonstrated with the following example:

"

LERs 482/85-019, 482/86-008, and 482/87-018 were issued to report the same type of event. Each event occurred when a licensed operator placed the Auxiliary Feedwater Actuation Signal (AFAS) block switch in the "Permit" position. Since both main feedwater pumps were secured an AFAS and Stcon Generator Blowdown and Sample Isolation Signal (SGBSIS) were initiated. Corrective action, for all of these instances included counseling the licensed operator onshift at the time and placing the LER in the operations required readin f- Additionally, after the two initial occurrences, the control procedure step sequence was altered. The root cause of the problem was not identified and thus action to prevent recurrence was not take The NRC inspector determined that the training corrective actions being implemented appeared to be ineffective for preventing recurrenc Procedure KGP-1210 Revision 1, "Corrective At tion," f tep 7.1.10 requires, in part, that the appropriate division manager shall specify the corrective actions necessary to prevent recurrences of the deficienc Procedure QAP 16.1, Revision 1 "Corrective Action for QA Program Breakdowns," Section 6.0 requires, in part, that corrective action control as established in this procedure shall assure that significant conditions adverse to quality are promptly corrected to preclude recurrence in eccordance with KGP-1210. Procedure QAP 16.1, also provides criteria for detennining if a condition constitutes a significant condition adverse to quality. Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 requires, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that the cause of significant conditions adverse to quality be deternined and that corrective action be taken to preclude repetition. The failure to implement effective correction to prevent recurrence of the above LERs is an apparent violation (482/8821-04).

'

The inspector also found that i.E3 482/87-57 identified four previous occurrences of an administrative failure to establish the appropriate fire watch. The corrective action involved training the licensed individuals through required reading. As reported in the LER, the licensee

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

-

, .

h I

'

'

.i *

l f . , , , i

!

9 i acknowledged after this fifth similar occurrence that the previous corrective actions were not effective and required enhancemen i The NRC inspector reviewed the required reading program described in Procedure ADM 02-103, Revision 8. "Required Reading." llequired reading

'

attendance sheets for the period July 1987 through April 1988 were reviewed. The required reading reviews were completed within the prescribed time limits, with the exception of one operations crew, which r was late in returning their sign-off sheets during March and April 198 t c The NRC inspector determined that the crew with the delinquent attendance ,

, sheets were candidates in the hot license class. The NRC inspector ,

learned from discussions with licensee representatives that the candidates !

will be required to review all of the missed required reading after taking ;

and/or passing the NRC License Examinution but before assuming licensed ;

'

dutie The operations manager was required to certify his review / approval of information to be placed in required reading. This involved nothing more than signing his name after the title listed on the infonnation cover pag If the information was considered important enough to be read imediately before going on shift, it was to be marked "essential." The required reading process appeared to be satisfactory, but one weakness existed in the material covered. Since required reading was utilized to

,

implement corrective action, which involved training, it needed to be l

better controlled by licensee management. The required reading cover '

sheet did not specify what licensee management expected the licensed operators to learn from the material, when it was used as a training ;

corrective measure. To be more effective, consideration should be given to placing common controls / requirements over the various discipline i required reading programs. This is a second example of an open item  !

(482/8821-03).  ;

The NRC inspector reviewed the following lesson plans related to  ;

"Plant / industry Events": p Lesson Plan Number l LR 10 108 03  ;

-

LR 10 108 04 l LR 10 108 05 I i LR 10 108 06 I LR 10 108 07

- LR 10 108 08 ,

l

All lesson plans appeared to be technically soun ,

l l

l The results of the last tnree annual requalification examinations and initial examinations are summarized in Attachment f

!

\

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

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _-_ - __ _ ___

'

. s

'. * - .  ;

,

!

The 1988 requalification training hours were divided as follows:

Simulator 48

, Classroom 165

! Self-Study 37 i Evaluation / Exam 12 i W

'

Total l This resulted in the following breakdown of a licensed operators time in

-

training: 18 percent simulator, 63 percent classroom, 14 percent ,

self-study, and 5 percent evaluatio .

i The following area reviewed by the NRC inspector appeared to indicate a weakness in the licensee's program for use of procedure : Procedure ADM 02-021, Revision 10. "Use of Procedures in Operations," ,

established guidance for the use of Operations Procedures. The procedure

'

required, in aart, that an individual verify that the procedure being  ;

utilized is the current revision. Additionally, the hRC inspector t determined from dise.ussions with licensee representatives that company

~

policy required the users to familiarize themselves with a procedure i before using it. This relied upon the operators knowledge and abilities without providing any guidance.

The following examples indicated possible areas where more familiarity was needed in procedure usage: When training on a new system design, the training department did not always have the procedures available in time r j to provide the required training; as described previously from the

'equired reading sample reviewed, operations required reading covered '

items selected by the operations manager without the necessary management guidanc ,

Based on the above, there appeared to exist the possibility for a licensed L individual to be required to use a procedure which had never been seen before. Additionally, if the step sequence of a procedure, which L described how to operate a system / component were changed, there appeared ,

' to be no formal mechanism to assure that the licensed operators were notified of these change The NRC inspector determined from review of licensee procedures and interviews with U censee representatives that no formalized mechanism existed to request needed and/or desired training. Generally, training requests were made to the training department through a telephone

- conversation. This method did not provide sufficient controls and/or

checks to ensure that the training would be implemented. Additionally, i this method did not allow for documentation of training completed as requested nor did it provide any my to document the reason why the training could not be impleuente The license

fonnally implemented a systematic approach to training on August 26, 1987, by sending a letter to NRR stating that the licensed

_

_ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -___ ___ __ _ _ -

..

'

, *. + g ,

..-

.\

operator programs had been accredited and that the programs were based on a systems approach to trainin No other violations or deviations were identified in the review of this inspection are . Exit Interview _

The inspection scope and findings were sumarized with those individuals identified in paragreph 1. The licensee did not identify as proprietary anything provided to nor reviewed by the inspector During a telephone conversation on July 22, 1988, the inspectors sumarized the changes in the inspection findings with those individuals identified in paragraph _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ __ -_ _________ __ - __ _ . _ .

. .

,s  %. ,.

-

,

ATTACHMENT 1 The following documents were utilized:

'

ADM 01-005, Revision 3 Superintendent of Maintenance Duties and

'

Responsibilities

ADM 01-012, Revision.2, I&C~Sup'ervisor Duties and Responsibilities

ADM 01-014, Revision 5, Fire Protection Coordinator Duties and Responsibilities ,

ADM 01-044. Revision 5. Results Engineering Supervisor Duties and i Responsibilities

*

ADM 02-007. Revision 5 Nuclear Station Operator Trainee Qualifications and Responsibilities l

l ADM 02-103, Revision 8. Required Reading

.

ADM 02-210, Revision 8, Operations Watchstation Qualification

* ADM 03-801, Revision 2, Health Physics Technician Training Program

ADM 04-004, Revision 9, Chemistry Technician Training Program

*

ADM 05-100. Revision 3. Results Engineering Organization and

Responsibilities

'

0- * ADM 05-110 Revision 6 Results Engineering Personnel Qualification and Training

'

ADM 05-401, Revision 3, Reactor Engineering Personnel Qualification and

,

Training i *

ADM 05-501, Revision 1. Results Engineer Technician Training Program l

• ADM 06-200, Revision 9. General Employee Training

ADM 06-211 Revision 3 Nonlicensed Operator Requalification Training

/ ' ADM 06-230. Revision 6, Instructor Training, Qualification, Continuing Trainina, and Certification

ADM 06-251, Revision 3 Crane Operator Training and Qualification

ADN 08-205, Revision 6. Maintenance Department Training and Requalification Program

ADM 08-221. Revision 3. On-the-Job Training Program for WCGS Maintenance Personnel

• ADM 08-805, Revision 5, Instrumentation and Control Personnel Training Program

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

.

.* - s, o

ALM 08-814 Revision 2, Instrumentation and Control On-the-Job Training Program s

ADH 13-200, Revision 3. Fire Protection Training Program

KGP 1000, Revision 2 Trair.ing and Qualification Records

KGP 1804, Revision 2. Assignment and Responsibility for Training Representative Duties

KGP 1851. Revision 1, Professional and Supt.rvisory Training Program

Course Content Letter, LOI 029. Revision 2, dated November 2, 1987

Policy II.10.0, Revision A Nuclear Operations

• Policy II.16.0, Revision 2, Nuclear Training Division

Policy III.33.0, Revision 2. Indoctrination and Training

XP 800, Revision 5. Training Division Organization

KP 801, Revision 2. Manager Nuclear Training Qualification and Responsibilities

KP 802, Revision 3 Superintendent General Training Qualification and Responsibilities

KP 803, Revision 2, Suparintendent License Training Qualification and Responsibilities

,

• KP 804, Revision 3 Supervisor Technical Training Qualifications and Responsibilities

• KP 805, Revision 3, Supervisor Academics Qualification and Responsibilities

• KP 807, Revision 2 Supervisor License Training Qualification and Responsibilities

• KP 844, Revision 2, Training Impact System

QPM 14, Revision 5, Training, Qualification, and Certification

• QP 14.1, Revision 3 Training by Quality Department

• QP 14.2, Revision 4 Qualification and Certification of Inspection Personnel

• QP 14.3, Revision 4. Qualification and Certification of Examination Personnel

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

's * ' *

QP 14.4, Revision 0, Qualification and Certification of Quality Branch Audit Personnel

QP 14.5, Revision 1 Qualification of Quality Engineers

QCI 12.1-001, Revision 2. Inspection of Housekeeping

QA Audit Report TE: 50140-K180, dated October 9, 1987

• QA Audit Report TE: 50140-K186, dated November 16, 1987

QA Audit Report TE: 50140-K191, dated January 20, 1988

QA Audit Report TE: ')140-K198, dated March 9, 1988

QA Audit Report TE: 50140-K209, dated May 26, 1988

• QA Audit Report TE: 50140-K215, dated July 7, 1988

. .

'o

. - ATTACHMENT 2 The following LERs were reviewed:

LER Number SUBJECT 86-008 Placing the Block Switch in "Permit" Results in Auxiliary Feedwater Actuation Signal and Steam Generator Blowdown isolation Signal 87-018 Placing the Block Switch in "Permit" Results in Auxiliary Feedwater Actuation and Steam Generator Blowdown Isolation 87-030 Potential Transformer Failure Causes Partial Loss of Offsite Power and Reactor Trip and Subsequent Shutdown Sequence Actuation During Restoration 87-034 Ineffective Connunication Allows For an Open Door Wnich Created a Control Room Pressure Boundary Breach 87-041 Personnel Errors Result in loss of Power to Control Rod Movable Gripper Coils Causing a Reactor Trip 87-042 Personnel Error Leads to High-High Steam Generator Level Resulting in Feedwater Isolation Signal 87-048 Personnel Error - Improper Actions Cause Fatality and Results in Engineered Safety Features Actuations and Loss of Residual Heat Removal 87-049 Failure to Supply Temporary Power Source to Batteries Results in Battery Discharge Causing Multiple Engineered Safety Features Actuations87-051 Engineered Safety Features Actuations - Procedural ,

'

Deficiency Causes Two Main Feedwater Isolations and an Auxiliary Feedwater Actuation 87-057 Failure to Fully Understand Requirements Causes Technical Specification Violations - Hourly Rather Than Continuous Fire Watches Established

n ,

L

. .

.o 3

-

ATTACHMENT 3-

.

.,

Summarized below are the last 3 years requalification and initial f examination result Year Requalification Examination Results [

1985 Twenty-seven SR0s and five R0s took the examination with 96 percent of the SR0s passing and 100 percent of the R0s passing the examination. After remedial ;

training and reexamination all SR0s passed. Three SR0s were exempt from the examination because they prepared / administered the test. Two SR0s were exempt ,

because they.had recently received their SRO license.

1986 Twenty-four SR0s and five R0s took the examination with l 88 percent of the SR0s passing and 100 percent of the j

< R0s passing. After remedial training and reexamination '

all SR0s passed. Three SR0s were exempt from the l

examination because they prepared / administered the tes Two SR0s were exempt because they had recently

'

received their SR0 license. Six R0s were exempt because they had recently obtained their R0 licens I

1987 Ten SR0s and five R0s took the examination with l 90 percent of the SR0s passing and 80 percent of the i

R0s passing. Upon remedial training and reexamination !

all SR0s and R0s passe l

,

Two SR0s were exempt from the examination because they l prepared / administered the test. Three R0s were exempt ;

because they had recently obtained their operator's

,

!

!

t j license. Eighteen SR0s and six R0s were not selected due to the change to 10 CFR Part 55 which allows a !

biannual examinatio [

. Yeir Initial Examination Results  ;

<

1985 Four SR0s and one RO took their respectivi excainations !

with 100 percent of the SR0s passing and the one RO i failin No reexamination was take !

'

.

.

f 1986 Five SR0s and nine R0s took their respective I

,

i examinations with 80 percent of the SR0s passing and i 89 percent of the R0s passing. Upon reexamination all t i SR0s and R0s had a 100 percent pass rat j t

1987 >Seven SRO: and six R0s took their respective

examinations with 100 percent of the SR0s passing and I 67 percent of the R0s passing. Upon reexamination the i R0s had a 100 percent pass rate, i

i

l

,

!

-

)

. .

.a'3,

.

The number of individuals licensed following the fall 1987 initial license examination totaled 34 SR0s and 17 R0 .