ML20235F275
| ML20235F275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1987 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235F277 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707130309 | |
| Download: ML20235F275 (3) | |
Text
IMd JUL 1 1987 Docket No. 50-295 Docket No. 50-304 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed
.Vice President Post Office Box 767-Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:
Thank you for ycm letter dated May 18, 1987, in response to our January 26, 1987' letter, which concerned the receipt of allegations pertaining to the adequacy of training provided by. Westinghouse to your Zion Nuclear Generating l
Station.
In our letter, we requested that you investigate the facts concerning an allegation that Region III received which pertained to the adequacy of student records and the requalification program set up by Westinghouse to maintain instructor certification (Allegation RIII-86-A-0092). The allegation was in two parts: (1) records of students are inadequate; and (2) the requalification program set up by Westinghouse is ill-defined and varies according to time allotted by Westinghouse, for example, in February 1986, several people were requalified by taking a one week class and a simulator exam, but no written exam.
Your letter described the results of your investigation into the facts of the allegation. You reached the following conclusions:
l (1) The instructor files maintained by Westinghouse were found to
.contain documentation to support acceptable levels of qualification; however, discrepar:cies were noted in the area' of i
document control (e.g., some files were located in "pending" rather I
than being maintained current).
The files contained the proficiency of each instructor and examination grade percentages were clearly identified for each person.
Therefore, this portion of the allegation was not substantiated.
(2) Your audit found that instructor training had been conducted in accordance with Westinghouse Nuclear Training Center procedures, that each instructor received the correct number of hours on the simulator, and that score tests and evaluations were acceptable.
The records reviewed disclosed the proficiency of each instructor, and examination grade percentages were clearly identified for each person.
Each instructor's lecture style was also critiqued and documented and a performance evaluation for each phase completed i
8707130309 a70701 PDR ADDCK 05000295 gp/
I 1it PDR
\\l
Commonwealth' Edison Company 2
JUL 11987 was found in their files.
In addition, you concluded that the
' training programs presented by Westinghouse were in accordance with Zion's Training Instruction TI-904, " Contracted Training," to insure j
the quality of the contracted training purchased, and that you did
)
not identify any deficient training that had been received by_ Zion station personnel.
Therefore, you concluded that this portion of the allegation was not substantiated.
i We agree with your conclusion.that the first portion of this allegation was not substantiated; however, your audit did not specifically address the i
second portion of the allegation, namely, whether instructor certification maintenance was ill-defined and varied according to the time allotted by Westinghouse.
Therefore, we conclude that this portion of the allegation could not be substantiated based on your audit.
However, we do conclude that this issue is moot based on the following:
1.
Your audit was able to ascertain that the quality of the instruction provided by Westinghouse to Zion was acceptable, that the instructor certification maintenance was implemented by specific Westinghouse Nuclear Training Center procedures, and that these' procedures were followed for maintaining instructor certifications.
2.
The purchased services provided by Westinghouse were in accordance with Zion Procedures governing contracted training.
3.
No specific regulatory requirements exist for the certification of instructors, but rather, deal with the quality of the training provided to station personnel. As noted above, that quality of instruction provided.to Zion was acceptable.
Therefore, we conclude that your audit verified that the instruction provided to Zion personnel was acceptable based on the current quality of the procedures used by Westinghouse to maintain instructor certifications, and that the second portion of this allegation was immaterial in that the qualifications of the instructors were adequate, and that no regulatory requirements were violated.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely, "Origfr.a1 sign 0d by L J. Chrftteti m "
H. J. Miller, Acting Directo Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure:
Ltr dtd 5/18/87 LeBlond to Davis See Attached Distribution t&
R I I
rig RI R
Q P
lips / jaw hl Hi eil Cb.__-
Y W nd h/
O
(
Maler it
v Commonwealth Edison Company 3
][J[
1,ru d t e,
Distribution cc w/ enclosure:
D. L. Farrar, Director of Nuclear Licensing G. J. Plim1, Station Manager J. Scholan, Manager, Westinghouse Nuclear Training Center Jan Norris, Project Manager, NRR DCS/RSB (RIDS)
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environmental Control Division Mayor, City of Zion
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _