ML17194A050
| ML17194A050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1981 |
| From: | Baker K, Holzmer M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17194A048 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-010-81-09, 50-10-81-9, 50-237-81-19, 50-249-81-13, NUDOCS 8108050192 | |
| Download: ML17194A050 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000010/1981009
Text
. .
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report Nos. 50-010/81-09; 50-237/81-19; 50-249/81-13
Docket Nos.50-010; 50-237; 50-249
License Nos. DPR-02; DPR-19; DPR-25
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
P. 0. Box 767
Chica$o, IL
60690
Facility Name:
Dresden Nuclear Power Stati~n, Units 1, 2, & 3
Inspection At:
Morris, Illinois
Inspection Conducted:
July 6-9, and July 13, 1981
Inspector:
M. M. Holzmer .,.,,,,;ft! 1/t;~
.. /1_7-~t~tJ~,,Lr-
Approved By:~
B. *er, Chief
f
Manage ' nt Programs Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection on July 6-9 and 13, 1981 (Report Nos. 50-010/81-09; 50-249/81-13;
50-237/81-19)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection of Units 1, 2, and 3
training and requalification training.
The inspection involved 24 inspector-
hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results:
Of the 2 areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or
deviations were identified in one area, and one item of noncompliance was
identified in one area (failure of licensed operators to keep thems~lves
cognizant of design changes, facility license changes and procedure
changes - Paragraph 2).
8108050192 810724
PDR ADOCK 05000010
Q
1.
DETAILS
Persons Contacted
- D. Scott, Station Superintendent
- E. Zeman, Personnel Administrator
- B. Zank, Training Supervisor
- E. Wilmere, QA Supervisor
- D. Farrar, Assistant Superintendent
C. Sargent, Station Operating Engineer
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees
including reactor operators, shift foremen, instructors, training
staff personnel, craftsmen, technicians and document control clerks.
"i'*Denotes those present at .the exit interview on July 9, 1981.
2.
Requalification Training
The inspector verified that any changes made to the requalif ication
program were in conformance with requirements and commitments;
verified that the licensee has a prepared schedule for conducting
required lectures, the licensee has prepared lesson plans or other
documentation which adequately describes the scope and depth of the
lectures, and the licensee has evaluated the results of the most
recent annual examinations and identified deficient areas to be
covered in the lecture series; and verified through record review of
three control room operators holding NRC Reactor Operator licenses,
four shift supervisors holding NRC Senior Reactor Operator licenses
the availability and adequacy of copies of the most recent annual
written examination and the individuals' response and documentation
of attendance at all required lectures, required control manipulations,
performance evaluations, additional training received in identified
deficient areas, required procedure reviews, and oral exams.
In
addition, the inspector attended 1-1/2 hours of requalification
lectures.
a.
Documentation Reviewed
DPP-5, Licensed Operator Retraining Program (Revision 3,
July 1980).
Topical Report - Requalification Program for Licensed
Operators, Senior Operators, and Senior Operators (Limited)
(August 1, 1980).
Commonwealth Edison Company letter dated September 8, 1980
from J. S. Abel to J. G. Keppler in response to IE Inspection
Reports No. 50-010/80-13, No. 50-237/80-14 and No. 50-249/80-18.
Required Reading Status Sheets.
- 2 -
b .
Findings
Noncompliance 50-010/81-09-01, 50-237/81-19-01, 50-249/81-13-01
10 CFR 55 Appendix A requires that licensed operators and Senior
operators be cognizant of design changes, procedure changes, and
facility license changes.
Dresden procedure DPP-5, Licensed Operator Retraining Program, re-
quires as a part of on-the-job training that each licensed operator
and senior operator complete the licensed operator required reading,
scheduled by the training supervisor which contains design, procedure
and facility license changes.
DPP-5 requires that required reading
be issued weekly.
In Commonwealth Edison letter dated September 8, 1980, which re-
sponded to IE Inspection Reports No. 50-10/80-13, No. 50-237/80-14
and No. 50-249/80-18, the licensee committed. to correct the problem
of operators being deficient in their required reading by removing *
any such operator from shift duties if he became "deficient in his
required reading by more than six. weeks".
Contrary to the above, thirteen of fifty operators sampled had one
or more weeks of required reading for ~hich they were over six weeks
delinquent.
Dis.cussion with one Station Operating Engineer revealed
that none of the thirteen operators had been removed from shift
duties for failure to read their required reading.
Discussion
Of approximately 100 licensed operating personnel, the first fifty
were sampled for completeness of required reading.
Thirteen of that
sample had failed to keep current in required reading by failing to
read at least one required.reading Book of the Week for a period of
over six weeks.
Examples are given below (the current week*due was
week #21):
Position
Training Assistant
Nuclear Station Operators
- 1
/12
113
114
ff5
116
Outage Planner
Shift Control Rm. Engineer
/fl
- 2
Shift Engineer
Shift Foreman
Tech. Staff Engineering
Assistant
- 3 -
Book of the Week Not Read
13' 17
13, 14, 15
14, 15
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16
11, 12
5' 12
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
8, 13, 14, 15
14
12
9, 10
9' 10
Discussion with one Station Operating Engineer revealed that to his
knowledge none of the persons listed above had been removed from
shift duties for required reading deficiencies.
Based on this
discussion, a detailed review of records was considered unnecessary,
since the Operating Engineer would have had knowledge of any such
removals.
The significance and repetitive nature of the noncom-
pliance was discussed with him and with the Plant Manager and
Training Supervisor.
Action to prevent future noncompliance was
also discussed.
The inspector discussed the corrective actions to prevent future
noncompliance from the previous year's inspection at length with
the Training Supervisor.
These actions seemed to be sufficient and
could have prevented future noncompliances, but the inspector
stressed that the phrase deficient in his required reading* by more
than six weeks" should be clarified to imply that no operator can
fail to read any Book of the Week for a period in excess of six
weeks.
The interpretation of that phrase that an operator is not
deficient until the total number of Books of the Week which he has
failed to read exceeds six is not acceptable.
3.
Training
The inspector attended two hours of the licensee's General Employee
Training and verified that lesson plan objectives were met and that
training was in accordance with the objectives of the General imployee
Training Program (DPP-17, Rev. 1, 2/81).
The inspector ve~if ied by direct questioning and record review of two new
and .two existing employees and one contractor employee that administra-
tive controls and procedures, radiological health and safety, industrial
safety, controlled access and security procedures, emergency plan, and
quality assurance training were provided as required by the licensee's
technical specifications; verified by direct questioning of 2 craftsmen
- and 2 technicians that on-the-job training, formal technical training
commensurate with job classification, and fire fighting training were
provided.
a.
Documentation Reviewed
DPP 1
New Dresden Employee Orientation Training
Rev. 2
DPP 2
Fundamantals Training
Rev. 1
DPP 3
Non-Licensed Operator Training
Rev. 2
DPP 4
Licensed Operator Initial Training
Rev. 2
DPP 6
Mechanical and Electrical Maintenance
Training
Rev. 2
DPP 7
Instrument Mechanic Training
Rev. 2
DPP 8
Non-Dresden Employee Training
Rev. 1
DPP 9
Technical Staff Personnel Training
Rev. 2
DPP 17
Nuclear-General Employee Training (N~GET)
Rev. 1
- 4 -
11/80
7/77
11/80
10/80
2/81
12/80
7/77
12/80
2/81
..
b.
Findings
No apparent items of noncompliance were identified.
c.
Discussion
Nuclear-General Employee Training (N-GET) was examined specifically
to ascertain if improvements in the program had been made, in
accordance with the Action Plan for Dresden contained in the
October 1980 Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
(SALP) Board results for Dresden, Quad Cities, and Zion Gen-
erating Stations.
The inspector noted that significant
improvement had taken place and that a different instructor was
giving the training.
The presentation appeared adequate.
Nevertheless, the licensee should be alert to degradations in
the quality of the presentation.
4.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)
at the conclusion of the inspection on July 9, 1981.
The inspector
summarized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
Additional information was gathered on July 13, 1981 which impacted
- on the findings of the July 9 exit interview.
The purpose, scope
and findings were then discussed with the Station Operating Engineer
and Training Supervisor listed in paragraph 1 with the cognizance of
the plant manager .
- 5 -