ML20154B943
| ML20154B943 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1983 |
| From: | Edge W, Eiff W, Feith S MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154B909 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-419 MAR-83-0133, MAR-83-133, NUDOCS 8603040513 | |
| Download: ML20154B943 (4) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ __ _ .,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ._
Licensed.' .,pera tor Training '& Quali fica t ic.
1 s $;E JEC6 t'
i RIPORT S0.- MAR 83/0133, Unit 1 i i I
AUDIT DATES: October 21-24, 1983 l
- i
! ORC /AC..- training l 1
I i
AUDIT SCOPE: Verification of training and qualification of licensed ;
{j operator candidates to FSAR 13.2 requirceents; and the review of license applications submit ted to the NRC for correctness. i CRITERIA: 10CFR55, Operator's Licenses Final Safety Analysis Report (F5AR) Section 13.2, " Training" !
AECP.-S3/0651, frcm J. P. McGaughy, Jr. to SRC (Draft) j i
S U.?.ARY : This =enitoring audit was cenducted to verify that the inforcation subcitted on Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) and j Reactor Operator (RO) license applications is in co=pliance with !
f FS AR SRO and RO training cc==ittents. The overall audit results !
indi: ate that training and qualifica: ion of licensed operators is I being acco:plished and controlled, though not documnted adequately in all areas. Those areas are discussed in the Findings Section. During the audit, 14 RO's and 21 SR0's
! training files were reviewed. The files reviewed were as j follows: f
,, p '
SRO % l
- 1. 1.
l i.
- 2. 2.
!- 3. 3. ,
'l L. 4.
r J. .
> 6. 6. I
- 7. 7. i
- i S. E. l
- 9. 9. I
. 10. 10. -
l v'
- i 11. 11.
I
- 12. 12.
~
- 13. 13. ,
14 .
- 14. [
- 15. r
- 16. l
- 17. i
- 18. .
- 19. '
3603040513 831224 20.
PDR FOIA 21-REDEROS-419 PDR The portions of the applications docueenting training received by ,
the above lis ted personnel were utilized as checklists for Application entries vere verified, !
this audit.
where pos sible , agains t licensing records. Criteria used to verify completion of training was as follows (one or core of the criteria was required befcre sa:i factory cesp1c tion w:s 3g credited):
~(
'3 ,, '
- 1. :eccrds of ccurse a t t e r.d a n : t
- 7. v pr. si-- af final exam M.I 2. Satis f act:ry cc pleticn c: c c .1 < ; : <.cm
- 3. Satisfa: ory co;;'.etien of A e-;p ,u - ,
- t. C e r t . . i : .'. : i c e, of ut. :::' : -- ' :.-- - : i-i.; j
s ,
MOSITORING AUDIT RI? ORT SuR 83/0133 Page 2 of 4 St'r:ARY : (con't)
Where passible , actual grades were verified to assure a passing score was ob:ained or that the course va, passed if a pass / fail i criteria was used, such as in the case of oral exa=s.
FINDINCS: The following areas sere found to be satisfactory during the l course of this audit:
4 i'
Entries cade in the las 12-15 conths on Individual Trainia; i
' His:ory records have fewer errors and are generally nester than those prior to that tice.
- Credit by Exa:ina: ion and Credit by Previous E.perience are !
being appropriately applied to license candidates. (
i -
The cajority of ::aining records for each license l applicant are readily retreivable and clear as to ;
decusentation. (
l l
l The following areas were fcund to be unsatis f ae:ory during the ,
i, course of this audit: ,
Docu entation for sore FSAR Sectica 13.2 commitzents for ..
- licensed operators is not available; has not been obtained See CAR 2042 for "*"
, gN fro: training contractor (s) in all cases.
n c de: ails. -% ,
4L I
- ;rf::::: ton sub=i::ed on a n.:bar of li:ense applicatient pz:
l 10CFR35.10(a) has been inccrrec: and, in sene ins:ances, l l un s ub s :ar :# ted. See CAR 20;2 fc de: ails. ,., -.
Certain c.is crepancie s in license appli:ations haf been previous '.y id entifie d and d::ucinted by Plant Staff. During the ccurse of the audit the folloaing additional discre-pancies were found. See CAR 2Ci2 f or details. ca
- 1. Tuc appli:ations repor:ed :Vo weeks of F.equalifica:icn Tr.ining in the areas ci Pr::edures and 3ases, and Plan: ,
Operatiens and Casual:y Resp;nse; review of training
- l records indi:sted tha: :his training was actua.1v nine days in length. The applications were for M l be:h SRO's. t
- 2. One application reported a one-day Fire Brigade Training i course; training recceds docteented this course as a l four-hour course. The applicatica was forllllllllSR0.
- 3. One application reported an Introduction to t;uclear Povec course as being of five conths duratien; training [
records revealed the ac:ual length of this course to be four and one-half conths. Tne application was for SEO. I
- 4. Revtev c: training reccrds for one applicant revealed r that he failed Cycle 3 of Cold License Training in addi-tion to Cvcles 9, 11 and 12 as previnusl. identified by Plant Staff. The appi;:an: was M PC.
w I
..............no.. . - . . . .
- . n.;R S3/0133 Page 3 of 4 FINDINOS : (con't)
- 5. One application reported conpletion of a one-week i --Mitiga: ion of Core Dracpe course ccnducted by General Physics (CP). Review of training records indicated that applicant failed course. There was no evidence of a make-up exan to this course. Applican did take and pass a different one week course in Mitigation of Core Da= age. The applicant was RO.
- 6. The first application for one applicant indicated co=-
pletion of several courses; second application indicated
, that applicant received credit by examina:ica for these l courses in lieu of attendance in :hese courses. Review of training records revealed that the latter was the actual case. Applicant was SRO.
J All of the above discrepancies were added *o discrepancies documented in AECM S3/0651 (Draf:).
i In addition, two previously docu=ented discrepancies were resolved. Plant Sta f f had stated in draf t of AICM S3/0661 that no documentation could be found for nine weeks of Operator Upgrade Training (CUT) for two , applicants. Reccrds i for ten weeks OUT vere found.for each of the applicants.
Sore required entries in Individual Training His:ory recc.ds have been inconsistent, incerrec: cr c:itted. These dis-crepancies were corrected d:ria; :he course of :he audi:.
Qualifica:ica Cards as cc :i:ted to in FSAR Sectica 13.2 have not been cc=pleted, or cannot be located as indica:ed en the license applications. (Previously docu=ented on PQDR-007-23; no additional actica required by Plant Staff).
l OIS ERVA! IONS /COMMINTS :
- 1. A copy of applicant denial letters froc the NRC shculd be sought frc:
the applicant for all' cases for which the MP&L copy did not reach the training file. Application for re-exacinatio,n of candidates should not be sought based solely on oral descrip:icas by candidates without a copy of denial letter being available.
- 2. Review of self study courses used in applica:icas shculd either'be indicated as not being docu=ented on the applicatien or sone einical docu=entation should be caintained on the Individual Training History record. .
MM en-e
. s.
.4R S3/0133 Page 4 of 4 PERSONS COSTACIED: ,
NAv.E TITLE P RE-AUD IT DURISC POSI-AUDIT CONFERENCE CONFERENCE D. E. Hunt Training Supt. X X X J. W. Yelverton Assistant Plant Mgr. X X X CHECKLIST USED: MAR 83/0133-1 DOCUME';IED SONCONF0:C!ANCE: CAR 2012 i
A"DI! !I.C' .EMSER: if)/ I q . . . (* h . .,[
e t / >_ / C 3 W. C. Eiff #' Date AUD'T TEAM LEADER: t v qp U- A -93 Q W. E. pdge Date 4
N3 Qi "+ : 4 LL Yl //- A -E 3
- 5. M. Feit'j Date
\ :