ML16341A029
| ML16341A029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1984 |
| From: | Beckham D, Bender L, Buzy J, Crocker L, Elin J, Pate R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341A028 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-OL-84-02, 50-275-OL-84-2, NUDOCS 8406260516 | |
| Download: ML16341A029 (14) | |
Text
QANINTION REPORT XO.
-275/OL 84-02 ghCIIZTY-Diablo Can on Nuclear Pover Plant Unit l DOCXET XO:
O-nS aalu'ation of 'Training and Ixaaination of Shift hdvisor
'ayon Nuclear Fever Plant, San Luis Obispo, California
~
0Jaditors:
Do clLhaa, Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of H Factors Safety
.6 vrence D.
rocker,,Section Chief Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human ctors Safety candidates at Diablo during April, l984.
D e
6 z3 Dat seph J.
Buzy icensee Qualificat on Branch Divisi of Human actors Safety
/
Da uis S. Bender icensee Qualifications Branch Division of Huaan Factors Safety Robe J. Pate, Chief Operati ns S ction D
e ohn 0. Elin Operator Licensing Exaainer Dat hpproved:
obert J. Pate C ief Operations Section D
e
.;SlShRY:
Qm purpose of the visit vas to evaluate the prograa of traixdiag and certification of the Diablo Canyoa Shift hdvisors and to assess their ability to provide adequate advise based upon their previous operatic experience and their detailed hnovledge of the Diablo Caayon Facility.
The licensee's traiaiag aad certification prograa for Shift Advisors was adequate and in coaforaance vith general industry criteria for Shift hdvisors.
I I Il
- Persons Contacted r
C o Thoraberry p tlant Manager
&. G. Crockett, Senior ?over Production Iagiaeer W. Hartin, Traiaiag Manager PJ. Holden, Assistant Trainiag Sanager
'P. F. Sargent, Senior Traiaing Xastructor T. Iahay, Shift kdHaor D. Fordhaa, Shait Mvisor P. Snave)y, Shift Advisor B. avis, Shift Advisor D. Riley, Shift Advisor E. Hyde, Shift hdvisor D. Barkley, Shift Advisor J. Saley, Shiit Advisor
- Indicates attendaace at the exit interviews on April 11 and April 25, 1984.
2.
Sco e of the Evaluation:
hn initial evaluation team coeposed oi three members of the I.icensee Qualifications Branch, Division of Human Factors Safety, NRR, and an Operator Licensing Examiner from Region V visited the site during the veek of April 9, 1984.
This team reviewed, as part of the evaluation of the licensee's Shift Advisor Program:
a.
The resumes of the Shift Advisors.
b.
The procedure developed by the licensee vhich describes the duties and responsibilities of the Shift Advisor.
c.
The traiaing program provided to the Shift Advisors by the licensee.
d.
The weekly quixxes aad the final written examination administered to the first group of Shift Advisors.
e.
The results of the oral examinations administered to the first group of Shift Advisors.
hdditionally, interviews vere conducted vith the following individuals:
f.
Three aeabers of the facility staff vho hsd administered portions of the Shift Advisor oral exaainations.
Selected aeabers of the facility operating staff ragardiag the Shift Advisor program.
h.
Right of the aine Shift Advisors.
J fp P
C 0i
~
~
h.jollovup evaluation tcaa coeposed of the Chief of the Operator 5icensiag Sranch, Division of Iuaaa Factors Safety, NR; the Chief of the Operator Licensing Sectioa, Region V, aad an Operator Licensing Exaaiaer, Jtegion V, visited the facility during the veek of hpril 23, 1984.
This teaa, es part of the evaluatioa; a.
Revicvcd the final exaaination for the second group of Shift Advisors prior to it's adainistration.
b.
lhnitored the licensee's adaiaistration of the final examination for the second groap of Shift hdvisors.
c.
Independently graded tvo examinations and ccepared the results to the facility staff's grading of the same examinations.
d.
hudited three oral cxaainatioas administered by the facility.
The evaluation team did not aake a pass/fail recommendation on any individual candidate but rather evaluated the licensee's program for training and certification oi these candidates.
3.
ht the tiae of the initial SRC team visit, four Shift hdvisors had completed the facility traiaing program.
Three of these Shiit hdvisors vere vorking vith the plant operating shifts on a 12-hour rotating shiit basis.
The fourth Shift hdvisor vas undergoing a veek of training at a simulator.
Five additional Shift hdvisor candidates vere in the licensee's training program.
The 12-hour shift schedule of the Shift hdvisors contrasted to the five shift rotation scheme oi the licensee's operating crevs.
The licensee intended to assiga a Shift hdvisor to each of the five shift sections upon the coerpletion of certification of the five Shift hdvisors vho vere in the training program.
The Shift hdvisor vould then rotate as a shiit aeaber for both vatchstanding and for requaliiication training.
Thus the Shift hdvisor vould participate in the same rcqualification program as the shift crevs.
4.
Shift hdvisor Procedure The procedure governing thc duties and responsibilities of the Shiit Advisor vas TP TO-840, 'Responsibilities and Duties oi the Shift hdvisor."
Revision 1 of this procedure, dated hpril 5, 1984 vas in effect at the tiae of the audit.
In accordance vith this procedure, the Shift hdvisor, vhile on duty, reports to the Shift Foreman.
Ken not on shiit duty, Shift hdvisors rcport to the Senior Pover Production Engineer (Operations).
The procedure vas found to describe the duties of the Shift hdvisor adequately aad detail his lines of cmunicatioa
~fith the operating crcv
I "Pl P))
'I,f lq,
'i'l
5.
Shift Advisor
,ication
~ 040 ~
~ r.
\\ eh J'he evaluation team rcvicved the res~s of the Shift Advisors.
All of
%he advisors had considerably sore pover plant and nuclear plant experience than the ainiaum proposed by the industry.
ia addition, three of the advisors had previous Navy Nuclear experience iiid tvo hold agrees ia Xugiaeeriag.
All but one of the advisors had previous Licensed operating experience at the RO or SRO level, or %eth, at eomcrcial nuclear pover plants using a Vestinghouse Nuclear Steam Supply Systole similar to that utilized at Diablo Canyon.
One advisor candidate Lad previous liceased experience as an RO at a facility using a Coebustfoa Iawgimceriag Purlcar Stcam Supply System (also M).
This advisor vas attending simulator training at the Zion simulator to supplement thc ataadard Shift Advisor training.
hl1 Shift Advisors and Shift Advisor caadidstes vere deemed to have adequate comercia1 nuclear pover plant experience to serve as Shift hdvi aors.
6.
Trainin Pro ram Thc training program admiaistered to the Shiit Advisor candidates consisted of a four-veek course covering plant procedures, technical specifications and plant systems.
The training aodules are dram from the regular plant training program and each aodule is accompanied by a "Need-to-knov" descriptioa of the learning objectives for that portion of the training.
The training program vas deemed to be adequate to provide the Shift hdvisor vith detailed information of systems and procedures specific to the Diablo Canyon facility.
7.
Veekl izzes and Vritten Examination Quizzes vere administered at the end of the second and third veeks of the training program.
h final vritten examination, administered at the completion of the four-veck course concluded the vrittcn evaluation of the Shift Advisor candidates ability.
The evaluation teams revieved the quizzes and the final examination to determine their adequacy.
The vritten examination given to the first group of Shift hdvisors consisted of about 60~ questions appropriate to SRO/RO level candidates and 4g appropriate to SRO level candidates.
The vritten exsmiaation given to the second group of Shift Advisor Candidates consisted of 2g RO level questions 5+ SRO/RO level questions and 20~
SRO level questions.
On this examination, about 22$ oi the questions vere Techaical Specification related and 64$ of the questions vere
.specific to the Diablo Canyon facility.
The final vritten examination administered to the second group of Shift Advisor candidates vas aonitored by the second NRC evaluation team.
ht the conclusion of this examination, prior to grading, a copy of the xcspoases of tvo of the five candidates vas provided to the evaluation team for independent grading.
After the facility had coaplcted grading of thc candidates'esponse, the resulting grades wre coepared.
The facility grades proved to be vithin 1$ of the grade arrived at by the evaluation team in oae case and the same grade vas assigned in the other.
-I l.lt x'i II J
5oth evaluation teams concludtd that the vrittea examinations vere an
< adequate aad appropriate aeasure of the candidatt'a knovledgt of plant specific aaterial as prestated during the trainiag program.
Nditioaally, the rec~ndations of the training dtpartatat as to the capability of the candidate eteaed appropriate.
Oral Examinations
+)-.~'i: l. Xn additioa to the final <<rittea examination, each candidate vas i...~
examined orally by ~ board of three aesbers of'he facility training and operatioui staff, each of vhoe holds an SRO Recast at the Diablo Canyon facility.
The Oral Examinations stre coaducted ia the coatrol room and consisted of a ralkthrough of systems, procedures, and Technical Specification requirements similar to that given on NRC license examinations.
The first evaluation team intcrvieved three of the five oral board ambtrs for the initial group of Shift Advisor candidates, and rtvitvtd the vritten records of the oral board examinations given to the first group of Shiit advisor candidates.
Sastd upon these interviews and
'record rcvievs, the audit team concluded that the oral examinaiton provided a valid check of the Advisor's knovledgt oi the facility at the SRD level, and the Advisor's duties and responsibilities vhile on shift.
The second evaluation team observed thc oral examinations of three of the five atmbers of the second group of Shift Advisor candidates.
The questions used vtre varied over the tvo days of the oral examinations and appropriate care vas taken to assure that the candidate did aot have access to the previously used oral questions.
The examinations appeared consistent in scope and depth and provided an adequate evaluation of the candidate's abilities.
The evaluation team agreed vith the recoancndations of the oral board.
9.
Interview of Shiit Advisors J ~4%
~
The initial evaluation team intervieved three of the four Shift Advisors vho had been previously certified by the licensee and all five of the Shift Advisor candidates vho vere in a training status at the time of the iaitial visit.
One Shift Advisor vas attending simulator training as aoted previously.
Bach of the Shiit Advisors interviewed adequately understood his duties and responsibilities as Shift Advisor
~nd felt that the traiaiag that ht had received vas adequatt as a
result of intensive training on thc facility.
The advisors generally felt that the instructors vho had conducted the course vere very good.
Several Advisors stationed that the training provided, though intense,
<<as among the best that they had received at a facility.
Jll of the Shift Advisors reported a good vorking relationship vith the licensee'a shift crevs aad expected that this vorkiag telationship vould improve vhen the Shift Advisors vere assigned to a apti.'kfic shiit crew rather than the ovtrlappiag vatch organixation dictated by the Rack oi certified Shift hdvisors.
p'
1Q.
Interview of Selected Shift Crew personnel Several aeabers of the initial evaluation team interviewed selected ihift persoanel.
foraal traiaing on the role of the Shift Advisors had Not been presented to the shift cree; however, the creva <<eze briefed by
.~., the Shift Foreasn on each crew as to the duties and responsibilities of
,,'- %he Shift Advisor. All shift eeabers had not received or achnovledged i,'We briefing at W thee of the initial visit, since all of the crews lad not been ea tet@ aiace ghe advisors censed shift operations.
This
,z..-
'briefing of operatiag ~racenel had been completed by the tijse of the
'econd visit.
11.
Conclusions The evaluation teams coacluded that:
a.
hll Shift hdvisors act the ainiaum experience recoanended by the nuclear iadustry.
b.
The facility procedures adequately define the Shift Advisor's duties and responsibilities.
The training program, including written and oral examinations was adequate to ensure that the advisors vill have sufficient knowledge of the Diablo Canyon procedures, technical specifications, and systems to adequately perform there duties.
d.
The training program adequately covers the areas of responsibility of the Shift hdvisor.
l2.
Recoaeendations a.
h formal evaluation system should be established to ensure continuing assessment of Shift hdvisor performance.
b.
Shift Advisors should sect the same aedical requirements as licensed operators.
13.
Exit Interview ht the conclusion of the team evaluations on April 11 and April 25,
- 1984, the evaluation teams set with the licensee representatives, as detailed ia paragraph l, and discussed the evaluation findings as detailed above.
J P
Enclosure (6)
ITEMS RE UIRING LICENSEE ACTION PRIOR TO EXCEEDING 5X POWER Based on a recent inspection at Diablo Canyon (50-275/84-18; in preparation),
the Region V staff identified five issues related to the Post hccident Sampling System (PASS) which should be resolved prior to exceeding 5X power.
(1)
The licensee needs to verify that the sample lines can be purged and samples collected within 'the three hour time limit at pressures below normal operating pressure.
(2)
The Interim Post Loca Sample System (IPLSS) uses diluter valves which have demonstrated different dilution rates for different pressures and samples.
The licensee must determine the dilution rates that occur for different sample locations and pressures.
(3}
The licensee must define what constitutes PASS operability since it is not defined in the Technical Specifications.
(4)
The licensee must evaluate the possible radiation dose to IPLSS operators from a ventilation duct where the IPLSS pannel.
(5)
The licensee's PASS which is currently operable includes the IPLSS and a
portions of the Sentry System.
This equipment does not have the ability to sample for dissolved oxygen, ph, or conductivity, nor can it sample from the pressuriter, letdown line or containment sump under all conditions.
This is contrary to SSER 14.
These matters were discussed with Mr. B. Buckly on June 27, 1984 and require resolution prior to operation above 5Z power.
l'p,g gesw I
"C 4
7 4
J4