ML20147A816

Discusses 861201-05 Observation of INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation of Six Training Programs at Plant.Strengths & Weaknesses Listed

ML20147A816
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim, 05000000
Issue date:	02/06/1987
From:	Oliveira W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Ebneter S, Gregory C NRC, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20147A821	List: ML20147A816 ML20149M831 ML20149M855 ML20149M861
References
FOIA-87-787 NUDOCS 8803010363
Download: ML20147A816 (6)

Text

...LL. . .... . ....,s . w ....... .. . - <% . . s.'s .... h s ..;'.a.s & ..u u ..o..o..... . W. . . . ~ ;.n . . ~ ,

j., r ,'

j .

/~paaeg uwers) srAres h ,a. p 3

$ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i h, f ' J,f g ,,,

a / neotON I e est aanM AvtNut g niNe or paymA peNNavLv ANtA te4ee February 6, 1987 4

MEMORANDUM FOR: Gregory C. Cwalina, Acting Chief

,  ; Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology I J

~

Stewart O. Ebneter Director 1 Division of Reactor Safety, Region I i

Lee H. Bettenhausen, Chief

~

THRU:

OperationsBranch,DivisionofReactorSafety, Region!yQ,p P.K. Eapen, Chief L Quality Assurance 5Fetion, OB MU '

Division of Reactor Safety, Region I

, FRCM: William Oliveira, Reactor Engineer Quality Assurance Section, OB

, Division of Reactor Safety, Region I 4 ,.

SUBJECT:

OBSFRVATION OF INPO ACCRE0!TATION TEAM VISIT AT THE BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, P!LGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION INTRODUCTION j During the week of December 1-5, 1986, I was an observer during the INPG Accreditation Team Evaluation of six training programs at Boston Edison Company (BECO), Ptigrim Nuclear Power Station. The programs that were evaluated in 1

accordance with Revision 1 of INPO Criteria 85-002 were

j Shift Technical Advisor (STA)

Chemistry Technician (Chestech)

-t

' '; Electrical Maintenance (Elec)

Instrument and Control (I&C) i Mechanical Maintenance (Mech)

Technical Staff and Managers (TS&M) i 3 The training and orientation session for Peer Evaluators was conducted on Monday morning. (See attached list of Accreditation Team members, including Peer Evaluators.) The Team Manager (TM) and TM (in training) reviewed the week's agenda. The team members were reminded that although BEco had submitted their SERs some time ago they would find new information to evaluate and the programs still had to meet the objectives and criteria for accreditation. The TM and his assistants reviewed interview and other data gathering techniques.

pea h 777

?ht 8803010363 000223 PDR FOIA BOLEYB7-787 PDR

- , w ., . .s e . s .:.%. - s. - % .**: ..s..a*x.aess.. m .. a

~

• =*r w'*%.* %

• e -rs"m?*shee* *=

. , j . *

)

i

,i 2

The formal entry meeting was held later on Monday morning. As in previous Evaluation Team visits, the TM introduced team members. He reminded utility persennel that the NRC observer was watching the accreditation process, not the utility. He also gave a brief outline of the role of the team members, the Accreditation Board, and the process for tracking open items. BECo management

' gave a candid synopsis of their problems associated with the public and the NRC, as well as being "off line" since April 1986, The Training Management

.; gave a status report of their accreditation effort.

1 THE ACCRE0!TATION PROCESS

1 The process was the same as that described in previous trip reports. The t process and program groups met with their respective leaders each afternoon j

prior to a combined group meeting. Open items, questions, and concerns discussed at these meetings were communicated to utility personnel each morning. The TM met with the Station Manager on Wednesday to brief him on the j accreditation effort and to discuss his views and plans for training.

During the visit the team exhibited flexibility and team work. For example the electrical and mechanical evaluators worked together since most of their i

questions and attributes from the check lists were stallar and addressed to the same individuals. Likewise the process and content evaluators worked together to minimize duplication of ef fort. These evaluators agreed they benefitted '

from the co:nbined ef fort. As expected the TM and Assistant TMs were working

. with the peer evaluators. This was especially helpful to new evaluators to i 2

assure that the req'utrements were adequately addressed. This assistance was

' evident when the I&C program peer evaluator found potential deficiencies early in the week and the TM worked with the evaluator to assure his concerns and j examples were presented to the Training Management as early as practictl.

4 The Senior INPO Management Representative met with each peer evaluator on Thursday afternoon to review their progress and present constructive criticisms. On Friday the Senior INPO Management Representative opened the

, exit critique by commending the licensee personnel for their cooperation and assistance. He then turned the meeting over to the TMs for their formal presentation of the conclusions drawn during the inspection. The Senior INPO

!: Management Representative closed the meeting by discussing the latest news and 3

policies regarding accreditation and training. He also initiated a discussion >

with BEco management regarding severe accidents such as Chernobyl. BEco  :

management rJ11ed that Ptigrim has been evaluating severe accidents. One example presented by BECo concerned their actions in modifying the containment.

INTERVIEVS I observed individual interviews both at the Training Center and at the

, Station. The evaluators conducted thorough interviews in accordance with INPO

, checklists. Most of the evaluators had craft experience and effectively communicated with the training instructors, management and station staff personnel. The evaluators were very cooperative in discussing their interview

.. . - .....l.r--.,a.............~:.-....:..a......ws........... ..

i . .

9 j .

3 results with me. In one interview a plant st'aff supervisor stated that though his personnel have been receiving excellent hands on training in the laboratories, he will still insist that they be qualified by performing on-the-job-training (0JT) using an actual work request and procedure. In another interview the evaluator was able to provide references to help a

. supervisor resolve a problem with a new system being installed. This was an

, example of the evaluator having a working knowledge of the discipline he was evaluating.

CLASS OBSERVATION

I observed a class in the "Principles of Level Transmitters" with the evaluator

,j as part of his examination of the contents of the I&C program. As the class  ;

progressed the evaluator used his copy of the lesson plan to assure it was l followed. At the conclusion the instructor gave a short test on the subject covered. While the test was in progress the instructor explained the mockups that were to be used for demonstrating the principles of the subject to the evaluator and me. Another class I attended was a combination of classroom and i laboratory exercises for disassembly and assembly of centrifugal pumps. In 3 this class the students were electrical and mechanical journeysen. The )

mechanical evaluator interviewed a student and the instructor separately in l accordance with his checklist. Both individuals interviewed thought the i a ,

tr.aining was excellent. ,1 A a 1 (V V h

'RESULTS j

1 s

P At the conclusion of the evaluation the INPO evaluation team communicated the l 'l 2

/ A following strengths and weaknesses to the licensee with respect to the programs l

i evaluated:

M j {& f STRENGTHS .

OJT modules and checklists in the electrical and mechanical areas

< were complete and noteworthy.

• 240 hour0.00278 days <br />0.0667 hours <br />3.968254e-4 weeks <br />9.132e-5 months <br /> continuing training for chestechs is customized for their i specific needs.

i

• Instructors observed in laboratory exercises did an excellent job.

k/

• Program Evaluation Committees have performed well.

l 1

j =

Station staff is supportive of training.

WEAKMESSES 4

A formal Training Organization is nat in place. Responsibilities

/ are not defined and delineated.

b' v'

......s,..a..........,

<.m . m ...............

. 1. .. >

1 4

• Program descriptions have not been processed for the Chemtech, !&C  ;

and TS&M training.

• The same examinations are used for successive classes for initial Elec, Mech and Chemtech training, and possibly in I&C since only one 1

{ [7 examination was available for inspection.

, (

• Past history was not considered in developing the STA and Chemtech

training programs.

• A training program task analysis does not include emergency and i: .

[ abnormal events, l

• A TS&M program has not been developed or implemented. The program J also lacks specific lesson plans and learning objectives, feedback i of the effectiveness of the lesson plans used and training for junior or entry level engineers.

• No task is designated as performance only in the qualification l e checklists for Chemtechs, Elec, Mech and I&C personnel. '

r

!

• Sequence of system training during the Level III (special training)

. phase is questioned for Elec, Mech and I&C training programs.

• I&C training program requires that:

f Lesson plans be developed.

l Learning objectives include knowledge requirements and their content j / be based on analysis, a

i CUT checklists be tested and implemented.

l Feedback evaluation be considered in continuing training, .,

l 1 f

What training is required to fully qualify personnel must be i j / defined.

i CONCLUSIONS

• The INPO team affectively achieved their objective of evaluating the i i licensee's training program in accordance with INp0 criteria 85-002, "The Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry (Procedures and Criteria) l

• The team and peer evaluators performed their evaluations in accordance l with the formal assigned responsibilities forwarded in advance of the j visit. The assigned responsibility contained guidelines, checklists and methods for reporting of the results to assure the evaluations are

. thorough, uniform and objective.

. .- . .. . . L . . . . . - . :. .. . ;'. l. -. , .: . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .L . . .w . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . - . a . n. it. . . . . .

' . {

! o l

1. ; o *  ;  !

t 5

l l I

• The team of professionals from different disciplines and with different  !

personalities, all were determined to help the licensee succeed. This is l 4 credit to the INPQ team concept and leadership. i

• The licensee also recognized and appreciated their help. t l

• The only suggestion I offered was that the evaluators visit the Station l; staff at their work site and observe them performing their tasks. When j the opportunity arrives, then interview them about their training, ,

i hh c:+

William Oliveira, Reactor Engineer i

Quality Assurance Section 08

, Division of Reactor Safety, Region I t

Enclosure:

Areas of Responsibility [

l l

I I

i

{

i i

'l

+1 1

I D

~ ~ ,  :. - . .....w..:-...<.......... .. . u.. -. .... .. .... v.: ...... . . . . . . . .

I t q '.

't

AREAS OF RESPO%51BILITY t Pilgrim Accreditati:n Team Visit  :

December 1-5, 1986 TEAM MEMBERS Assionmen* l.

Ashley Erwin Team Manager  ;

} r

Dan Garner Team Manager (In Training)

R IEAM !

4 Geoff Edelman TMA - Systees Review 2

! Del Benzaquin Organization & Management / Resources and Facilities (Peer / Evaluator - Carolina Power and Light Company) 4- Al Hickman Training Staff and Training Program Effectivetess (Peer Evaluator - Detroit 1

Edison Conpany)

II Ed O'Neil  !&C, Mechanical & Electrical Maintenance Process (Peer Evaluator - Florida Power &

Light Comcany)

TEAM I! e George Hutcherson TMA - Program Review & Chemistry Process f 1; i Dave Stump TMA - Pro; ram Review (In Training)

,- Eric Shatz Mechanical Maintenance content (Peer

! Evaluator - Tennessee Valley Authority)  !

- i Ted Gray  !&C Contest (Peer Evaluator - Iacific Gas &

,i Electric Company)

MorrisonJackson(E&A) Chemissey Ce tent

[' Ron Thurow STA Contest & Process Rick 0'Arezzo Technical Staff and Manager Program l 4

085ERVEft Walter Coakley INPO Accreditation Olvision Otrector j i

(Thursday noon to Friday, 10:30) '

1' (

)- W111tas Oliveira NRC Reactor Engineer, QA Section, Operations '

, Branch Division of Reactor Safety. RI (All week) 1- ,

i I

___ - _-____-_ _ - ---.____.____ --- - - . - - .