ML20132C171
Text
-
q
/
,@,'t 2 3 ISE4
-s
!:EMORAfiDUM FOR:
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Division of Human Factors Safety, t:RR THRU:
Harold R. Gooher, Chief Licensee Qualifications Sranch Division of Human Factors Safety, NRR FROM:
Lawrence P. Crocker, Section Leader Management Technology Section Licensee Qualificaticos Cranch Division of Human Factors Safety, URR SUSJECT:
EVALUATION OF GRAND GULF SHIFT ADVISORS Enclosed is the staff evaluation of the Shift Advisor qualifications at the Grand Guif Nuclear Station, Unit ;.
This evaluation is based ucsn a revine of documents submitted by Mississippi Pcwer and Lignt Comeany and on documents furnished by the NRC, Region-II office.
i ". We conclude that the Grand Gulf Shift Advisors are adecuately qua71fied and trained to perfom their assigned advisory duties.
0;',g.Il. 4.f -
Lawrence P. Ceccker, Section Leader Management Technology Section Licansee Qualificatians G nrcn Division of Wuran Factors Safet.", '?2
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
Central Files LGB Reading W. Russell H
annsa-I' g,
jg}O L. Sender fgy J. Bu:y
,} f,V: e-C p'.1/LRC1/GRA.'1D GULF /in Yf J
.., A.hB/DHFS L}B, w S.
LOS/0HFS LOS/DHFS
!* LCroc.ker/br..:1Euf' L5enge.r,,,
HBooner 4y I'S/g/8a
,5 d J.,,'.8 4
,',5/ Af/,3a 5/2/3.4
ENCLOSURE
~.
Evaluation of Shift Advisors i
Grand Gulf fluclear Station, Unit 1 1.0 Introduction
'An evaluation team comprised of three members of the NRR staff (Enclosure 1) has conducted an evaluation of the Shift Advisors at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS), Unit 1.
In performing this i
evaluation, we have relied heavily on input from the Region II office.
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine whether t,he GGNS Shift Advisors are properly cualified and trained so as to provide adequate advice to the GGNS operating shifts.
2.0 Background
License Condition No. 37 of the. operating license for Grand Gulf Nuclear
{'g Station (GGNS), Unit 1, requitet that one individual on each operating shift have " substantive previous BWR operating experience,[ including startup and shutdown of a BWR aiid under conditions that one might expect to encounter during the initial startup and power escalation at the Grand Gulf plant."
To meet this recuirement, Mississicci Pcwer anc Lignt (f1P&L) has employed Shift Advisors.
Shift Advisors have been in place at GGils for accroximately eighteen montns.
During the past six months, in response to various staff recuests, MP&L has previded the NRC with a number of submittals certaining to this Shift Advisor position.
An Octooer 26, 1983 letter providea a listing of principal caragerent and sucervisory positions, organizational charts te reflect recent personnel changes, and resumes for those newly hirec :ersorms'.
Information related to the qualifications and e.v:erience of t e ih4'-
/ ~
Advisers was also included in this suomittai.
t
=,-
n
2 f
['
A Novemoer 7,.l.9C< letter crovideo resumes Of indivicuals filling tne Shift Advisor positions.
A February 20, 1984 letter provided background information on the Shift Advisor function as well as a job description stating the duties of this position.
It also provided a brief description of the training that had been provided to the Shift Advisors, a commitment to conduct additional j
simulator training, and a description of the method to be used to
,j certify the advisors.
'i
~
A March 30, 1984 letter provided updated information on the Shift Advisors and their qualifications.
This letter included information on the training given to Shift Advisors and the evaluations conducted by MP&L to determine the adequacy of the Shif t Advisor training anc experience.
The letter also stated that the Shift Advisors at GGNS meet the experience requirements for-Shift Advisors as proposed by the industry at the February 24,S984 meeting with the Commissjon.
j s
3.0 NRC Evaluation 3.1 Evaluation Activities An Apri! 3,1984 memorandum to J. 01shinski, Region !!, frem H. L. Thompson, CHFS, requested a description of the Regien !I j
audit of the Grand Gulf Operator Training Evaluation Committee I
(OTEC) Board examination of Shift Advisors.
. legion :' was acvisec f
that DHFS would review the Shift Advf sor training or: gram, t,e written examinations administered to tne Acvisors and the qualifications of the Advisors using the February 24, 1984, industry proposal, i
On April 10, '984, J. 01sninski reclied :: tne Acri; 3, *93*
(
request (Enclosure 2) and enclosec a eemorsndum ' Om Seuce atisen,
O'
-3 Region II, which described the results of Wilson's auci: of a Soard-examination of one of the GGNS Shift Advisors.
The memorandum also advised that Region II was conducting a special inspection at GGNS to determine if the licensee had met the commitments contained in the March 30, 1984 letter to the Commission.
A report of the t
results of this special inspection, Inspection Report 50-416/84-12, conducted at GGNS during the period of April 9-13, 1984, is provided as Enclosure 3.
The evaluation team members reviewed the background information on the Shift Advisors and the job description of the Shift Aavisor position.
They also reviewed descriptions of the three training programs given to the Shift Advisors; an examination administered at the end of the Emergency Assessment training; a course outline and a typical examination administered at the end of the safety systems course; a course outline and example examinations 4
administered at the end 4f the simulator, administratt,ve procedures, technical speci.ffcations, and mitigation [f core damage course; a course outline and examples of performance examinations administered at the end of'the two week simulator training; and an example of the OTEC oral examination administered at the ::nclusice of tne training program.
3.2 Shift Advisor Procram Status At the time of this review, five Shif t Advisors had ccmoleted tne training program.
These acvisors have been in place at 3 rind Gu
for approximately eignteen montns.
At least one of these Skiet Advisors is present on each operating shif t, serving in an acviscry role, specifically excluded fecm ocerating reactor controis.
ee.
=.
.a-3.3 Shift Advisor Job Descriotion The February 20, 1984 letter from MP&L presented a job description for the Shift Advisor position which states the duties and qualifications of the Shift Advisor.
This job description also contains the role of the Advisor and activities performed during the shift and a method of resolving unacceptable operating practices or plant conditions.
We find the subject matter of the job description to be adequate, but since it pertains to on-shift duties and interfaces with other personnel, we feel that it should be converted to a plant administrative procedure.
3.4 Shif t Advisor Qualifications Resumes of the GGNS Shift Advisors were provided in the Mpal letter of November 7, 1983.
We have reviewed these resumes and we find
(
thattheGGNSshiftadvihorsmeettheexperiencerequfrementsas specified by the industry jn the February 24, 1984 prdposal to the Commission.
A chart summarizing the experience levels of the Shift Advisors is presented at Enclosure 4 We note that the licensee has mace ne mention cf the medical qualifications of the Shift Aavisors.
'While there are n kncwn requirements in this area, we believe that Shift Acvisors shoulc meet the same medical standards as the licensed clant cperators.
3.5 Shift Advisor Trainine Procram The Shift Advisors ccmoleted general encicyee and raciation werker training, and training in emergency assessment.
An examination fellowed this training.
Shift Adviscrs were a sc recuirec ::
ccmolete three separate formal training.crogrars directed :: war:
I I
I l
t
_l 5-achieving plant specific knowledge of plant safety systems, procedures and technical specifications sufficient for then to adequately perform their duties as advisors.
The first of these plant specific programs consisted of a three week self-study course emphasizing GGNS safety systems and the differences between a BWR-4 and a BWR-6.
An examination was administered at the end of each week.
The second training program consisted of a seven day course covering the simulator, administrative procedures, technical specifications, and mitigation of core damage.
Examinations were given 'e each of the above areas except the simulator.
Since the purpose of tnis simulator traininc was to familiarize the Advisors with the layout of the control room and the plant's responsh to certain manipulations and malfunctions, simulator performance examinations were not given.
The third training program consiste':of two weeks of hands-on simulator d
l training.
The first week was devoted to covering the,' reas of a
power ascension procedure _ training and the second to identification of, response to, and recovery from plant transients.
After each week of training, a simula' tor performance examination was conducted.
In addition to the training and examinations ciscussec above, eacn Sh'ift Advisor was required to pass an OTEC oral examination.
The purpose of this oral examination was to certify each Advisor's competency and ability to perform the required aavisory function.
Our review of the training program, including the examinations, indicated that it was adequate to ensure that the GGNS Shif t Advisors have sufficient knowledge of the plant safety syste.'s, procedures and technical s::ecificaticns to adecuately ::er#ce the+ -
cuties.
~
. 3.6 Recion II Evaluaticn Activities 3.6.1 Observation of Shift Advisor Evaluation On February 23, 1984, B. Wilson of Region II observed a Board evaluation of a Shift Advisor conducted by the MP&L Operator Training Evaluation Committee (OTEC).
The OTEC Board had been developed to verify licensed personnel at GGNS.
The Board consisted of three members, two of whom were licensed or previously licenseo at a SWR.
In addition to a review of the advisors experience, the Board also reviewed training records and grades of written examinations.
Mr. Wilson found the OTEC evaluation was conducted in a competent and conscientious manner and that the MP&L oracess of certifying Shift-Advisors was entirely adeg ate to ensure that the Advisors are capable of fulfilling their intended function.
Details of his evaluation is contained in.
3.6.2 Inscection Recor: 50-416/84-12 An inspection of Shift Advisor training was concucted by twc Region II Inspectors during the peried of April 9-13, '984 The inspectors evaluated the following:
Shift Advisor training records anc comoieted examinations to verify that tne Shif-Advisors hac successfully corpleted the orogram contained in :ne Maren 30,1984 'iPil letter.
a see o
e a
t OTEC evaluation cocuments and Shift Acvisor resumes to assure that the Shift Advisors met the minimum experience requirements.
Documentation to establish that each Advisor had successfully completed an OTEC evaluation and oral examination.
The Inspectors also conducted interviews with plant management, Shift Advisors, operating and training personnel.
Based on the record review and interviews, the j
Inspectors determined that, considering the experience cf the designated Shift Advisors, the training accears adecuate.
to support the envisioned acvisory roie.
Inspection Recort 50 416/84-12 is contained in Enclosure 3.
f
(
The Inspector's hbytew of the Shift Advisor tr(ining program identified two pote_ntial program deficiencies. ' These are:
1.
Shift Advisors were not recuired to participa:e in the licensed operator required reading progran.
This program informs licensed :erscree! cf syster design and procedure changes anc of signi#ican facility and industry events.
2.
Shift Advisors were not recuired to participate in the full "fifth week training" (recualifica:ica program) with their assignec snif;s.
Mcwever, :ney were required to take the simulator acrtion of :ne training.
The Inscectors believed tha: certicica:icr cnly in the simulator cortions of :he er:;rar wcuit severely restrict the arount anc scoce
- icviso-re'resher training and could acter.f a'iy escute me effectiveness of the Advisors.
.7 g.
The inspection report notes tnat tne licensee accepted both of these ' recommendations and that a station memorandum was issued on April 12, 1984, to include the Shift Advisors in the required reading program and in the full fifth week requalification training program.
4.0 Conclusions Based upon our review of the information submitted by the licensee and the results,of the Region II audit and inspection, the evaluation team concludes that:
1.
The training program, including the examinations, administered to the Shift Advisors is adequate to assure-that the Acvisors have sufficient knowledge of the Grand Gulf procedures, technical specifications and safety' systems to adequately perform their P
J duties.
~-
i~
~
2.
The Shift Advisor Training Program meets the standards as specified by the Industry Working Group's, " Industry Evaluation c' Ocerating Shift Experience Requirements," oroposed to the Cemmissicn on Februa ry 24, 1984 i
1
.3.
All Shift Advisors meet the minimum cualifications as recommenced by the industry.
5.0 Recommencations
-It is recommended that:
t 1.
The joo description for Shift Advisors shculd be 3 f:r ai acministrative procecure #or GGliS.
The acministrative :ro:scure shoulo contain a staterent which ifnits tne Snif t tcvisers'
+
s t
"~
activities anc =revents maniculations of centecis or
'rer action in any licensec'cacacity, i
- ~ ' " " ~ " " ~ ' ~ ~ ' '
w N
9 --
2.
All shift personnel shcule be trainec in the Shift Aavisors' duties and responsibilities.
3.
Although implied in the job description, the Shift Advisor role should explicitly include an independent review of planned and ongoing activities to identify possible conflicts with operation, testing and maintenance, and with particular attention paid to the limiting conditions contained in the technical specifications.
4 The Shift Advisor should be aware of changing plant conditions and, if he deems necessary, should provide reccmmendations for termination of activities or a plant shutdown.
5.
- A formal evaluation system should be established to assure continuing assessment of Shift Advisor performance during start-up.
Provisions also should be' made to obtain the views of the Shift Advisor on a periodic, formal basis.
.'l
~
6.
The Shift Advisors'should meet the same medical criteria as required for licensed plan't operators.
Enclosures:
1.
LQB Evaluation Team Members 2.
-April 10, 1984 Memorandum fecm J. Olshinski 3.
Region II Inspection Report 50-416/84-12 4
Shift Advisor Qualifications m_
e e
_=A4
ENCLOSURE 1 E'/ALUATION TEAM Lawrence P. Crocker - Section Leader, Management Technology Section Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factors Safety, NRR Joseph J. Buzy
- Senior Reactor Engineer Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factors Safety, NRR Louis S. Bender
- Training and Assessment Specialist Licensee Qualifications Branch Division off Human Facters Safety, NRR e
-..