IR 05000482/1990001
| ML20006D552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1990 |
| From: | Gagliardo J, Mccoy M, Vickrey R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006D547 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-482-90-01, 50-482-90-1, NUDOCS 9002140037 | |
| Download: ML20006D552 (7) | |
Text
-
y
=
m
.
,
-
'-
,
p,
..
.
.
h APPENDIX U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
E i.r i
NRC Inspection Report: 50-482/90-01 Operating License: HPF-42 Docket: 50-482
,
L
. Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 o
Facility Name:- Wolf Creek Generating Station
!
Inspection At: Wolf Creek Generating Station Inspection Conducted: January 8-11, 1990 Inspectors:
Yf/h
'
.R. B. Vickrey, Reactor Inspector, Operational Date
.
Programs.Section Division of Reactor Safety
- ~
i
[
b
% 0 $D f
'
Q. M. G. McCoy-Thompson, Human Factors Date !
Assessment Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor-
Regulation f
V
Approved:
! )
q.E.#agliardo, Chief,OperationalPrograms Datie
!
Sect' ion, Division of Reactor Safety Inspection Summary
'
Inspection Conducted January 8-11, 1990 (Report 50-482/90-01)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of training and qualification effectiveness and related followup items.
Results: Within the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were
~
identified. Overall, the functioning of the training department, the quality
,
of the' instructors and instruction, the relationships within the training i
!
department, and the relationship between the training department and the plant e.
,
1L
,
i Ci
>
- _. -,
o,.
..
'4,
..
.
,
.-2-
,
p
,
.
.
staff were found to be satisfactory. The classroom and simulator training appeared ~
'
to be well implemented, and the training material and student records were well
!
r L
monitored and current. Several weaknesses were identified in the training
'
' department concerning student evaluations and a formal training modification and feedback system in the classroom. Staffing and turno'ver issues were
'
addressed as a potential area of concern within the training department, h.
t
i Y
i
'
'..
.
h e
.
,
t i
f I
u
\\'
e
!
,
s
.:
y_
_
-.m
,
b,,
..,
,
-..
,
.
-3-DETAILS
'
j
,
1.
PERSONNEL CONTACTED l
I WCNOC i
.
i
- S. G. Wideman,l.icensing Specialist
'*G. D. Boyer, Plant Manager
- W. B.- Norton, Manager Technical Support
,
- J. Gilmore, Supervisor Operator Training
.
- D. L. Fehr, Manager Operationc Training
,
- J. A. Bailey, Vice President Nuclear Operations
- M. H. Megehee, Supervisor Compliance Engineering
.i
'*J. D. Weeks, Operations Manager
- J. A. Zell. Training Manager
,
- T. Damashek, Supervisor
,
- C. W. Russo, Supervisor Training Development
- ;
R. L. Westman, Supervisor B.Manwaring,InstrumentationandControl(180)
,
,.
~
R. S. Robinson, Supervisor I&C Maintenance
-
!
.
<
(.
. C. E. Parry, Director Quality
W. M. Lir.dsay, Manager Quality Assurance
-
"
H. Stubby, Supervisor Technical Training l
-
The NRC inspectors contacted other licensee personnel during the-inspection.-
+
.
_
NRC
- B. L. Bartlett, Senior Resident Inspector
- M. E. Skow, Resident Inspector
'
,
- Denotes those attending the management exit meeting on January 11, 1990.
!
2.
TRA1HING AND QUALIFICATION EFFECTIVENESS (41500)
This area was inspected using portions of the guidance in NUREG-1?20,
Training Review Criteria and Procedures."
In evaluating the strengths of the licensee's training program, emphasis was not directed towards any particular i
area. The areas reviewed were selected based on their evailability in the scheduled training at the time of the inspection, and the inspectors' background and knowledge in the subject areas.
Interviews were conducted with the manager j
of training, the manager of operations training, the supervisor of operator
-
. training, the licensed supervisor of simulator instructors, the supervisor of
training development, the instructional analyst, two licensed instructors, two senior reactor operators, and two reactor operators.
In addition, simulator training sessions and four classroom sessions involving requalification and operator training were observed.
Inspection activities also included:
A tour of the training facilities and control room;
-
,
n
.
, -. _.
.n--
.-
-
c...
--.
.
- -
,-.-
o
.
.
,
+
,
'
j
A review of selected training department piocedures; and
An audit of training presentations and a review of the associated
training material.
2.1 Tour of the Training Facilities and Control Room 2.1.1 Training facilities a
A training department tour was conducted to evaluate the instructional settings and aids available for training purposes. The classroom settings were determined by the inspectors to be generally above average with multiple training aids and
,
support equipment for on-the-job-training (0JT) instructions.
'
The training department maintained all of their training files in a computer system. Demonstrations of the system revealed that all student and instructor training could be tracked, and a job requirement matrix, which allowed a student's training history to be matched against the position requirements, was in place
'
for most positions. An additional computer system referred to as the "1MPACT" system was used to ensure that training was kept current. All licensee event i
reports, safety evaluation reports, etc., were entered into the computerized
"!MPACT" system and the computer system for tracking and maintaining employee files. The training staff reported that these systems also were effective for
'
the successful monitoring of training materials, lesson plans, and student and instructor records.
2.1.2 Control Room During the control room tour, the inspectors observed that abnormal plant parameters for equipment had been generally reflected on the training simulator.
Visitors and other activities were controlled to minimize distractions or inter-ference with the watchstanders at their stations. The control room notebook was reviewed to verify that active manipulation forms were being used for the current requalification period. Abnormal equipment, instrumentation, and indications were observed for comparison with those simulated during simu1Mor training.
2.2 Review of Procedures The inspectors reviewed Procedure ADM 06 224. Revision 9. " Licensed Operator Requalification Training Program." The requirements of this procedure was used during the inspection to evaluate the simulator and classroom observations.
Procedure ADM 08-205, Revision 7, " Training and Requalification Program (Maintenance and Modifications)," was reviewed to evaluate the OJT program for maintenance personnel. This procedure had been revised and reflected the increased management attention and support to enhance the OJT program.
2.3 Audit of Training Presentations and Review of Associated Trainino Material The inspectors audited classes related to the fundamentals for licensed operator initial training, emergency-plan training for station operators, events training for licensed operators, and simulator training.
..
.
.
'
- -
e
,
i
.
-
.,
.
-5-i All lesson plans reviewed were generally accurate and complete, and all provided terminal and enabling objectives. They were found to be useable and were well received by the students. The clear majority of individuals-interviewed were satisfied with the materials used in their training, including the visual aids and the classroom and simulator lesson guides.
All operators and instructors interviewed were satisfied with the simulator training program. Observatien of simulator instruction verified that the instructors generated relevant, useful discussions with the students and that the students seemed to be receptive to the instructor's comments and to the simulator scenarios. The written outlines of the scenarios were well written, provided objectives and discussion questions, and appeared to be effective in aiding the learning process during simulator training. The self-critiques and discussions at the end of each scenario were useful for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the student's performance.
Furthermore, the
-
majority of individuals interviewed reported that simulator modification request forms were useful for keeping the scenarios accurate and current, and for providing feedback to the students regarding their concerns and comments.
The use of videotaping during the simulator training sessions provided
,
additional feedback to the students on the strengths and weaknesses in their performance. The simulator staff maintained the simulator as close as possible to actual plant conditions. They weekly monitored the tags and maintenance requests in the plant control room, and placed matching tags and maintenance requests on the simulator panel. Overall, the simulator training was found to be well developed and implemented.
2.4 Interviews with Training Departmant Supervisors, Instructors, and Students The majority of the individuals interviewed reported overall satisfaction with the training department. Specifically, all of the individuals interviewed stated
,
that the instructors were 31 ways prepared for classes, provided accurate and
thorough lesson guides, presented the material clearly, and interacted well with
the students. Observations of the classroom and simulator training verified these reports. The instructors observed were well prepared, used visual aids when i
appropriate, responded well to questions, generated relevant discussion, and demonstrated an overall good control of the classroom and simulator sessions.
The majority of the individuals interviewed iadicated that there was a good relationship within the training department between the different departments, between instructors, and between instructors and their supervisors and managers.
All of the instructors interviewed reported that instructor training was
'
effective. Videotaping was one method of instructor training that seemed to be particularly well received. Actual classroom scenarios encountered by the instructors were role-played and recorded for other instructors to view and discuss. The individuals interviewed also indicated that there was a good relationship betweert the training department and the plant. All of the operators and instructors interviewed reported high levels of mutual respect and effective communication between plant operations and the training staff.
,_
-
_
.
If
-
-=
a
.
l4
'
.
,
'
~..
- Several areas of potential weaknesses were identified however. Through
.
observations and interviews, the inspectors noted that there appeared to be
)
limited use of student evaluations of instructors in the classroom setting.
!
Interviews with instructors indicated that student evaluations of the instructors
. and ihe courses were not required, and that the students rarely completed the
-
available evaluation forms. This limited use of student evaluations prevents
, the instructors from receiving ongoing student assessments of the effective-ness'of their teaching methods and materials.
Interviews with the training staff also indicated that there was limited use of
"
a forma 1' training modification and feedback system in the classroom.
Specifically i
there did not appear to be a formal mechanism in place to track how student input and concerns were addressed by instructors and used to update lesson plans and materials. Furthermore, a formal written response was not provided to students i
regarding their observations and concerns.
In summary, there did not appear to
. be a well developed tracking system for how student's concerns were addressed
!
.
and responded to.
- The majority of the individuals interviewed reported concerns regarding staffing and turnover. The instructors also reported added stress and workload because of the vacancies within the training department.
In summary, the operators, i
instructors, and training supervisors expressed concern that the training department may not attract and retain the quality and quantity of staff it needs.
No violations or deviations were identified in the review of this program area.
3.
FOLLOWUP 0F PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED INSPECTION FINDING (92701)
'
_
3.1 (Closed) Open Item (482/8821-01)
In NRC In3pection Report 50-482/88-21, the licensee's procedure ADM 06-224,
!
Revision 7. "1.icensed Operator Requalification Trainino Program," step 6.5.2.1 allowed two working days prior to the removal of a licensed individual from
- onsite duties and placing him/her in an accelerated requalification program after failure of a requalification examination. The inspectors informed the licensee that this did not meet the intent of 10 CFR Part 55 for prampt removal of the individual from licensed duties. The licensee committed to revise Procedure ADM 06-224 to require immediate removal from licensed duties of operators who fail a requalification examination.
.The inspector reviewed Procedure ADM 06-224, Revision 9, step 6.5.2.1 which stated, in part, "Upon notification of any failure listed in step 6.5.2.2, the
!
affected individual shall be removed from Licensed Duties.
If the individual
,
'
is standing watch at the time of notification, he will be allowed to complete e
that watch." This action meets with the NRC's intent for prompt removal from-licensed duties. This item is considered closed.
%
/
..
c. : : s-u.
p,
., ".
-
bjg
%6 -
- +
t;
+ ) m;
,
.
3,
-' --
%; s. ;g.m.y
,.
7. (* ~.
,4
.
t
-
q
'
-
.
?
,
,
.
.'XIT 1NTERVIEW
-
t
... inspectors met with'the licensee. representatives-(denoted in paragraph 1) ~
on January 11,-1990. The intpectors sunnarized the-inspectir.,n purpose, scope,.
and findings. The licensee acknowledged the connents and did not identify any
.
specific proprietary information to the inspectors. An NRC resident inspector was present at the' exit meeting.-
,
,
-
'
,
!.
..
i
C
.
..
- - _ - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - -
s------.-
,
-
-- - - _ -, - -. - _ -