IR 05000029/1986003

Insp Rept 50-029/86-03 on 860115-16.Major Areas Inspected: Licensed Operator Training Program.Program Does Not Define or Limit Body of Knowledge That Candidates Responsible for

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: ML20140A840 ML20140A871
References
50-029-86-03, 50-29-86-3, NUDOCS 8603210246
Download: ML20140A871 (5)

Text

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /86-03 Docket N License'N 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 Approved by: 2[4[/ 6 Kister, Chief date 4 t Reactor Projects Branch No. 1

.

Inspection Summary: A routine inspection was conducted of the licensed operator training program. It was found that'the training program does no _,

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 progra .

8603210246 860003

,

gDR ADOCK 05000029

.

PDR

,. . ,- .,. , - - - - - - - . ,, - _ ~. ,

.

.

.

.

?

DETAILS 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.

.

- Findings:

Licensed operator's training records are complete and provide a' recor of the training and evaluatio'ns received by each candidate. Licensing candidates were given foundation training provided by a consultant, i systems and pr' o cedure training provided by utility training instructors,

'

simulator training provided by Westinghouse at the Zion simulator, and three months of training on shift. A final evaluation was conducted by a consultant fir A two week simulator' session was _ held four. months prior to the comp'letion-of the training progra 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 candidate 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-

.- . - , . - . -- .. - -- . . - -

.

.

'

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 candidate Some candidates stated during interviews that intensive training was provided in the ~ areas they failed on the consultant evaluatio 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 Manua 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 analysi 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 responsibl 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

, . _ .

, . . _ . . - .-. . . .. . . - . . . . - - ..

.

.

.-.-

, - .

.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 incorporate '

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 shif 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 instructio In one case the SRO candidate spent a majority of his time on shift learning how to-operate equipment outside the main control roo 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 t complete training manuals and lesson plans, update present training material, and conduct AO,' .RO, SR0 and requalification trainin 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 trainee (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 progra e

,

.

.

. 5

.

D. Exit Interview:

NRC Personnel: N. Dudley, Lead Reactor Enginee 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 objective 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 condition 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 Procedure .