ML20132C421

Discusses Potential Schedule Slippage for Final Ser. Problems Encountered Re Applicant Lack of Response to Plant Personnel Training Program Deficiencies

ML20132C421
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	10/10/1984
From:	Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19283C868	List: IA-85-926, Forwards Rept of 840726-27 in-progress Audit Re Detailed Control Room Design Review (Dcrdr).Dcrdr Proceeding Satisfactorily.Concern Expressed Re Differences Between Unit 1 & 2 Control Rooms & Role of Human Factors Specialist ML20132B767 ML20132B791 ML20132C010 ML20132C076 ML20132C105 ML20132C131 ML20132C209 ML20132C245 ML20132C247 ML20132C253 ML20132C285 ML20132C290 ML20132C295 ML20132C301 ML20132C310 ML20132C323 ML20132C334 ML20132C338 ML20132C344 ML20132C365 ML20132C379 ML20132C383 ML20132C389 ML20132C394 ML20132C421 ML20132C427 ML20132C433 ML20132C442 ML20132C453 ML20132C459 ML20132C464 ML20132C468 ML20132C474 ML20132C479 ML20132C484 ML20132C487 ML20132C493 ML20132C499 ML20132C512 ML20132C518 ML20132C536 ML20132C542 ML20132C559 ML20132C569 ML20132C575 ML20132C633 ML20133M691 ML20133P834
References
FOIA-84-926, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-1.A.2.1, TASK-1.A.2.3, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8410180502
Download: ML20132C421 (2)

Text

'

^* *

( .n .

DISTRIBUTION:

OCT 101984

( Central Files ?

lab Rea' ding DHFS Reading - 2 H. Booher J. Persensky I-lEf*0RANDUll FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director D. Shum for Licensing Division of Licensing FR0!i: William T. Russell, Deputy Director Division of Human Factors Safety

SUBJECT:

P0TENTIAL SCHEDULE SLIPPAGE FOR THE FINAL SER OF BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2, PLANT PERSONNEL TRAINING

Reference:

Memorandum from W. Russell to T. Novak, " Draft SER for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, Plant Personnel Training," dated February 8,1984.

By the above referenced memorandum, we forwarded the LQB draft SER -input regarding plant personnel training programs for Beaver Valley Power Station,  ;

Unit 2. In our draft SER, we stated that:  ;

(1) With regard to the initial training program, the applicant had not provided: (a) a program in accordance with the guidelines outlined in Enclosure 2 of H. R. Denton's March 28, 1980, letter for instruction in fluid flow, thermodynamics and heat transfer, and (b) the content details of simulator training programs for us to review. Therefore, we were not able to conclude that the applicant's initial training program for reactor operators and senior reactor operators was acceptable.

(2) We found that the applicant's requalification training program for l licensed reactor operators and senior reactor operators did not fully satisfy the requirenents as specified in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 55 j and in the letter from H. P., Denton to all oower reactor applicants and i licensees dated liarch 28, 1980. Therefore, we were not able to conclude that the applicant's requalification training program was acceptable.

(3) We found the applicant had not fully committed to the requirements of l the Tit! Action Plan, Items I.A.2.1 and I.A.2.3. i l

(4f 'The applicant had provided a cross-training program designed to prepare ,

operators licensed on both BVPS-1 and BVPS-2. However, the applicant  !

had not provided for our review the details of the program. Therefore,  !

we were not able to conclude that the applicant's BVPS operator ._

l cross-training progran was acceptable. l (5) We had reviewed the applicant's training program for Shift Technical Advisors (STAS) and found that it was not comparable in scope and depth of training in various subjects to the STA training program as outlined g^g

- i . h"ZC C737, @di, C.

omc4 "-

y'/h i3 841018050L r-41010 g

" "'I .... nuum 05000412 CF i cas)

..................l.....................l......................................................................................................I

v. - r,- g, ,

a, q ,. y a-Thomas M. Novak OCT 101984 (6) With regard to the fire protection training program, we found at the applicant had established a fire protection training program to ensure that the capability to fight potential fires was maintained. However, the applicant had not provided the details of the program for us to review.

Since the draft SER was issued, we had a meeting with the applicant's training staff at the applicant's training center and several conference calls with the applicant to resolve the open issues as identified in the draft SEP.. To date, we have not received from the applicant any fomal responses to the above cited open issues. In view of the significant amount

. of effort to be required to review the applicant's responses when they are submitted (we have no idea when they will be submitted), it may not be possible for LQB to meet the current DL schedule which requires LQB to provide DL with the final SER on October 20, 1984. From time to time, we have discussed the above concerns with the Project Manager.

If it is necessary, we will be happy to meet with the applicant again to discuss our concerns.

Om tL William T. Russell, Deputy Director l

Division of Human Factors Safety cc: G. Knighton H. Ley m.

DW/DHSl/ MEMO FOR NOVAK

, #1; s

"'a > . .LQB, ,/,p,11FS,,,,,

,,L,Ql}hj,S,,,, , ,,@Bh,'ph5 , , , , , , , , p,Q /,p,H F,d , ,

...c> JPhi'.sensky HBocher WRussell

..DShun/bri.s...

............. ...... ............. ... . ............... ..... ... .. .. . .. ........ .... .... .. ..................... ...................c car:) 10/ 2 /84

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10/

. . . 3. . ./. 8 .4.10

. ... ../.0.

. . .. .. .8.. 4. . . .. .10.

. . ./. .[ p/.8.

. . 4. . . . . ........................................................e