ML20140A871

Insp Rept 50-029/86-03 on 860115-16.Major Areas Inspected: Licensed Operator Training Program.Program Does Not Define or Limit Body of Knowledge That Candidates Responsible for

ML20140A871
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	02/20/1986
From:	Dudley N, Keller R, Kister H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20140A846	List: ML20140A840 ML20140A871
References
50-029-86-03, 50-29-86-3, NUDOCS 8603210246
Download: ML20140A871 (5)

See also: IR 05000029/1986003

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No.. 50-29/86-03

Docket No. 50-29

License'No. DRP-3

Licensee: Yankee At'omic Electric Company

1671 Worcester Road

Framingham, Massachusetts 01701

Facility Name: Yankee Nuclear Power Station

Inspection At: Rowe,-Massachusetts

Inspection Conducted: January 15-16, 1986

Inspector : ) f 2./ v. offf

. Dudley, Lead R tor Engineer date

Reviewed by: / h '2-/2.o /ff

R. Keller,-Chief date

Reactor Projects Section 1C

Approved by: 2[4[/ 6

Kister, Chief date

4 t Reactor Projects Branch No. 1

.

Inspection Summary: A routine inspection was conducted of the licensed

operator training program. It was found that'the training program does not. _,

define or limit the body of knowledge for which licensing candidates are

responsible. The training material, including system descriptions and lesson

plans, does not adequately cover the information a licensing candidate should

know to safely operate the facility. There is no documentation which indi-

cates that the training department analyzed the results of the evaluations of

licensing candidates or used the results of the evaluations to modify the

training program.

.

8603210246 860003

,

gDR ADOCK 05000029

.

PDR

1

,. . ,- .,. , - - - - - - - . ,, - _ ~. ,

.

.

.

.

?

DETAILS

A. Scope:

i -A review of the licensed operator training program was conducted and

included an audit of the training records of three Senior Reactor Operator

(SRO) candidates and four Reactor Operator (RO) candidates, a check of

available training material, an audit of.the. Training Slide Change Notices

program, an audit of the Training Manual Update program, and interviews

with five license candidates.

.

- B. Findings:

Licensed operator's training records are complete and provide a' record.

- of the training and evaluatio'ns received by each candidate. Licensing

candidates were given foundation training provided by a consultant,

i systems and pr' o cedure training provided by utility training instructors,

'

simulator training provided by Westinghouse at the Zion simulator, and

three months of training on shift. A final evaluation was conducted by a

consultant firm.

A two week simulator' session was _ held four. months prior to the comp'letion

-of the training program. Evaluations of candidates' performance on the

simulator included the following comments, "use procedures more, needs

practice answering written and oral questions which require him to tie

theory and operations together"; " trouble connecting unrelated facts";

,

" Operating experience neededs to relate facts 'and draw logical con-

clust'ons"; "not familiar with procedure but has a good " feel" for what

'

should be done"; "provides vague answers"; and "not as familiar with

Yankee's procedures as others. Needs'to thoroughly learn and review

Technical' Specifications."- There.is no indication that these comments

were used to modify future training received by the candidates.

'

A' utility evaluation was administered to the candidates prior to the con-

sultant evaluation. It identified Section 4 (Procedures - Normal,  !

Abnormal, Emergency and ~ Radiological Control) of the written examination

as the. weakest area for R0 candidates and Section 8 (Administrative Pro-

!

cedures) of the written examination as the weakest area for SRO candi-

dates. In Section 7 (Procedures - Normal, Abnormal, Emergency and-

Radiological Control) of the written examination for the SR0 candidates

there was a generic weakness on Questions 10 and 14 which examined in the

area of immediate actions of Emergency Procedures. There is no indication

that these weaknesses were identified by the licensee or used to modify

future training received by the candidates.

A consultant evaluation was conducted three weeks before the completion

of the training program. It identified Sections 4 and 8 of the written

,

examination as areas of weakness. In most cases the grades in Sections 4

and 8 were 10% to 30% below the highest section grade received by each-

.- . - , . - . -- .. - -- . . - -

.

.

'

3

candidate. Assuming that all sections were of equal difficulty, this

would indicate significant weakness in the areas of. procedures for the RO

candidates, and Administrative Procedures, Conditions and Limitations. for

the SRO candidates. There is no indication in the training records that

these weaknesses were used to modify future training received by the

candidates. Some candidates stated during interviews that intensive

training was provided in the ~ areas they failed on the consultant

evaluation.

The licensee does not have' system descriptions for all major plant

~

systems. There are 14 systems, including radiation monitoring, fire

protection, and emergency diesel generators, which have been identified as

requiring system descriptions to be written. The licensee is presently

working on three of these system descriptions and plans on completing all

14 by mid 1987. There are slide presentations and lesson plans only for

those systems which have system descriptions written. The licensee pro-

vides training on systems which do not have less.on plans by utilizing

individuals who are knowledgeable about the system and the Final Safety

Analysis Report and Auxiliary Operators' Training Manual.

There are no learning objectives for the systems which do not have pre-

pared lesson plans. The lesson plans that are written have objectives,

however, the learning objectives are very broad and are not based on a job

performance analysis.

There are no lesson plans written for integrated plant operations and

responses. Two documents exist which address integrated plant response;

Safety Analysis Assumptions and Steady-State and Transient Thermal-

Hydraulic Characteristics February 1985. Licensing candidates did not

know of the existence of either document. Over. thirty hours of instruc-

tion was provided on 52 Emergency Operating Procedures (EOP) using a two

page lesson plan which states the objective for each candidate is.to be

able to " Carry out' all immediate actions' for each emergency procedure. . .".

The candidates, however, had determined that they were not required to

know the. immediate actions for all E0P's. They had agreed.among

themselves which E0P.'s they should memorize. The Training Manager stated

that memorization of immediate actions for all E0P's was not required for

the candidates, but he was unable to provide a listing of the E0P's for

which the facility held the candidates responsible.

The Training Slide Notices program and the Training Manual Update program

are programs used to assure that plant modifications are reflected in the

training material'. The tracking programs are in place. Major plant modi-

fications made during the latest outage in. November have not been incor-

'porated into the program because the final revision of the Core XVIII Pre-

Startup Training Manual has not been completed. A check of index of the

Training Manual Update tracking book index indicated that 30 changes to

, . _ .

, . . _ . . - .-. . . .. . . - . . . . - - ..

.

.

4

.-.-

, - .

.the Systems Training Manual had been identified for-over_six months-but

had not been_ incorporated into the manual. Some changes that:had been

identified for over 2 years had not been incorporated.

'

On-_ shift training for the RO candidates was well structured and docu-

nented. -The weekly task sheets prepared by each candidate were.of. suffi-

'

cient detail'.to evaluate the training R0 candidates received on shift.

On-shift training for the SRO candidates was' structured.the same as the.R0

candidate program. The weekly task sheets prepared by the SR0 candidates

were not of sufficient detail to evaluate what training was received on

shift. The' shift- training for the SRO candidates was . conducted at the-

-beginning of their training program, prior to any classroom instruction.

In one case the SRO candidate spent a majority of his time on shift

learning how to-operate equipment outside the main control room.

The training staf.f consists of an SR0 licensed Training Manager and.five

SRO licensed Senior Instructors. There are additional. positions for six

instructors with only three of the positions presently filled. The. number

of licensed instructors is adequate to conduct an on going operator

licensing program. The total number of instructors may be insufficient to..

complete training manuals and lesson plans, update present training

material, and conduct AO,' .RO, SR0 and requalification training.

C.: Conclusions:

The-facility training material does not define, for all systems and pro-

cedures, the extent or depth of knowledge for which trainees are held

responsible. The on; shift training program, does not define the extent or

depth of information which the trainees should acquire during their time

on shift. -The facility should better define what the' learning objects are

for their trainees. (50-29/86-03-01)

There is no indication in.the. training material that integrated plant re-

sponses are taugh_t. _The System Training Manual deals with systems and

system components as discrete subjects and does not include discussions on

effects of the system on the overall plant. -There are no lesson plans

which addresses integrated plant responses. The facility should explain

how integrated plant response and transient plant responses are taught

~

.

during the training program. (50-29/86h03-02)

No documented action was taken in response to the.results of trainee eval-

uations. There is no-indication in individual training' records that an

analysis of evaluation results was conducted to identify individual or

generic. weaknesses, or that the results.of the evaluations were used to

redirect or restructure the individual or total training program.

i.

e

,

.

.

. 5

.

D. Exit Interview:

NRC Personnel: N. Dudley, Lead Reactor Engineer.

H.-Eichenholz, Senior Resident Inspector

Facility Personnel: N. St. Laurent, Plant Superintendent

B. Drawbridge, Assistant Plant-Superintendent

L. Lafford, Senior Instructor

F. Newton, Senior Instructor

The inspector noted the following deficiencies in the licensee licensing

training program. There are no performance based learning objectives.

There are fourteen systems for which no system description or lesson plan

have been written. There is no lesson plan which specifically addresses

integrated plant response during steady state and transient conditions.

There is no lesson. plan which specifically addresses the design basis for

the Final Safety Analysis Report or the basis for actions required by the

Emergency Operating Procedures.

.