ML20140A871
| 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: |
| 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
2[4[/ 6
Approved by:
4
Kister, Chief
.
date
Reactor Projects Branch No. 1
t
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
,
.
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,
systems and pr' cedure training provided by utility training instructors,
i
o
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.
.