ML20140E617

Mgt Meeting Rept 84-444 on 841107.Major Areas Discussed: Implementation of NRC Operator Licensing Requalification Progran

ML20140E617
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	12/20/1984
From:	Ferlic K, Keller R, Wenzinger E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20140E609	List: ML20140E605 ML20140E617
References
84-444, NUDOCS 8501110169
Download: ML20140E617 (3)

Text

r a o  ?

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I Meeting No.84-444 Docket No. 50-29 License No. DPR-3 Licensee: Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Facility Name: Yankee Nuclear Power Station Meeting At: Yankee Nuclear Power Station Rowe, Massachusetts Meeting Conducted: November 7, 1984 NRC Personnel: # Add /z// t//f K. Ferlic, Pro ct Engineer Date Projects Se 3C Qat R. Keller Chief 12//#/rf

' Date Pro'6- dectionID fl~/$W / DhS fr We'nzingyr) [/iief Dat( /

Projects rg ch No. 3 Approved By: G7 b 1!<Wenzing r ief

/2/2e Datd '

Projects B No. 3 Summary Special announced meeting to discuss the implementation of the NRC Operator Licensing Requalification Program. The subject was discussed with a frank and mutually beneficial exchange of ideas.

8501110169 841220 PDR ADOCK 05000029 i G PDR I

m DETAILS

1. Licensee Attendees L. Heider, Vice President of Operations N. St. Laurent, Plant Manager E. Chatfield, Training Manager D. Vassar, Operations Manager K. Jurentkuff, Assistant Operations Manager

2. NRC Attendees E. Wenzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No. 3 R. Keller, Chief, Projects Section ID H. Eichenholz, Senior Resident Inspector K. Ferlic, Project Engineer, Projects Section 3C

3. Background

During the presentation of operator license certificates to licensed personnel of Yankee Nuclear Power Station on October 15, 1984, several operators com-mented to the Region I Administrator on the NRC required Requalification Pro-gram. Dr. Murley committed to having his staff review these comments and address potential problem areas. On November 6 and 7, members of the NRC Region I staff reviewed several aspects of the implementation of the Yankee Requalification Program, discussed the program with NRC licensed Yankee-operators, reviewed. licensed operator requalification with the facility man-agement, and exchanged views concerning implementation of the requalification program with the facility management.

4. Results and Meeting Summary After review of the current requalification program and discussions with lic-ensed operators, a frank'and beneficial exchange of ideas was held between licensee management personnel and NRC staff members. The licensee's manage-ment welcomed the opportunity for this discussion and encouraged discussions with licensed operators.

A review of the licensee program indicated a good program is in place at Yan-kee. In particular', the NRC staff considered the licensee's use of an inde -

pendent auditor to evaluate the requalification candidates was a good idea and beneficial to-the Yankee requalification effort. The staff was interested in how Yankee handles licensed operators with recurring problems and if their methods would get to the root cause of the problems. For example, as a result of Yankee having operated for over 20 years several long-term Itcense holders are being-required to attend requalification lectures in' areas that were not emphasized during their initial licensing exam (pre-TMI licenses). In gene-ral, most of these operators were doing well and instructors are sensitive i

s

..e 2

to the fact some material such as thermodynamics, for the long-term license holders, is being taught for the first time in the requalification program rather than being reviewed.

The licensee did feel there were still some problems in being required to teach more theoretical subjects, particularly where the theory is not related to practice. The NRC stated they were aware of the problem and have increased their efforts to ensure examinations are operationally oriented. Discussion on whether or not improvements have been seen indicated.the situation was im-proving. In addition, the NRC offered to provide a recent requalification examination to demonstrate to the Yankee Atomic staff and licensed operators that the NRC is effectively progressing to 1) make the exams more operational,

2) tie the theory portions to operational concerns, and 3) make the exams, both requalification and initial license exams, more plant specific.

Concern among licensed operators that the NRC would require an NRC admint-stered requalification exam and would then revoke licenses if poor performance was observed was addressed. The NRC staff briefed the licensee on how it participated in requalification. It was stressed that participation by the NRC in the requalification program was not aimed at revocation of licenses but to assess the effectiveness of the licensee's overall requalification program. In the event operators do fail an NRC administered requalification exam (as in any requalification exam), the operator (s) at the discretions of the licensee may be removed from licensed duties or prevented from returning to licensed duties to be retrained as needed. The training department, in such cases, would have to address why the operator's performance was poor in the areas identified in the examination and to identify if any changes would be required in the requalification program. The licensee suggested that the NRC provide for the anonymity of the_ operators examined by the NRC during requalification. According to the licensee, anonymity of the participants would greatly reduce the anxiety that the NRC was there to revoke licenses.

The NRC said they would evaluate the feasibility of the suggestion.

Stress among the. operators as a result of extensive overtime due to plant licensing commitments was noted by the licensee. In addition, the licensee believes that implementation of the requalification program has added to this problem. The licensee has been trying to slowly implement 6 shifts to help alleviate the situation. Unfortunately, the postponing by the NRC of license-exams in November [due to NRC personnel constraints] did not aid the licensee in _its goal of reducing stress among operators and operator license appli--

cants. Consequently, the licensee requested a relatively quick turnaround on grading of the January 1985 exams (2 weeks vice 6 weeks). The NRC staff ~

said they would try to honor their request.

In conclusion the NRC staff encouraged the licensee to comment on the problems encountered in both the initial licensing and requalification program._ Lic-ensee supplied facility specific questions are most welcome as are written comments on the-NRC exams given at the site.

[