ML15244A069
| ML15244A069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1985 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512310428 | |
| Download: ML15244A069 (3) | |
Text
December 16, 1985 Dockets Nos. 50-269, 50-270 DISTRIBUTION RWeller and 50-287 Docket File RIngram NRC PDR JZwolinsky L PDR RIngram PBD-6 Rdg ACRS-10 Mr. Hal B. Tucker FMiraglia Gray File Vice President - Nuclear Production OELD EBrach Duke Power Company EJordan HOrnstein P. 0. Box 33189 BGrimes 422 South Church Street JPartlow Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 HNicolaras
Dear Mr. Tucker:
SUBJECT:
POST-ACCREDITATION TRAINING REVIEW Re:
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 Starting on December 16, 1985, we will be conducting a post-accreditation review of the Oconee Training Programs. This review is in keeping with NRC policy as stated in SECY-85-1, "Policy Statement on Training and Qualifica tions of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," which states that the NRC will continue to closely monitor the accreditation process and its results.
We will conduct this review at the Oconee Training Center from December 16 to December 18, 1985. We will hold an exit briefing at Oconee in the afternoon of December 18. The NRC staff will include W. Russell, J. Persensky, R. Eaton and D. Morisseau from the Division of Human Factors; J. Zwolinsky, R.
Weller, and H. Nicolaras from the Division of BWR and PWR-B respectively; and D. Falconer and D. Stadler from Region II.
The staff will select tasks for review from your accredited programs, i.e.,
the non-licensed and licensed operator training programs and the STA training program. The review will focus on 1) how the tasks were analyzed, 2) how training objectives were derived from the tasks, 3) how training for the tasks was designed, developed, and implemented, 4) how trainees were observed and evaluated during training to determine their level of task mastery, and 5) how feedback on training, trainee evaluations, and on-the-job performance indicators are incorporated into revision and evaluation of the training programs.
The following is a general list of the types of documentation we will expect to use to answer questions about the licensee's training programs:
o Instructions/Procedures related to:
Systematic methods used to analyze jobs, Training organization goals, objectives, and plans, Responsibilities/authority of training organization personnel, Methods for evaluating/selecting instructional materials, methods, and media, 8512310428 951216 7
PDR ADOCK 05000269 V
Mr. H. B. Tucker Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Power Company Units Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cc:
Mr. William L. Porter Mr. Paul F. Guill Duke Power Company Duke Power Company P. 0. Box 33189 Post Office Box 33189 422 South Church Street 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 220, 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Manager, LIS NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 610 Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Honorable James M. Phinney County Supervisor of Oconee County Walhalla, South Carolina 29621
Mr. Tucker
-2 Methods for organizing/sequencing of training, Methods for keeping training programs current, Maintenance of training records, Selection of candidates for training and the granting of waivers/exemptions from training, Evaluation of training programs, and Training, qualification, and evaluation of instructors a
Task lists for the job(s) being reviewed o
Documentation related to:
Development/validation of task lists, Selection of tasks for formal training, Analysis of on-the-job performance problems and industry events, and Evaluation/audits of the training programs(s) o Roster/organization chart for the training organization a
Training schedule for the past six months and the next six months o
Final accreditation team report o
Biennial status report on accreditation To assist the review team, the person who coordinated the licensee's efforts toward accreditation should be available. In addition, any other cognizant training personnel involved with the accredited programs should be available to answer questions or clarify issues that are not readily apparent through document review.
It should be emphasized that this is not a compliance review but rather a review to monitor the effectiveness of the INPO accreditation program. As previously mentioned, this type of review is consistent with the provisions of NRC's policy statement on training and qualifications of power plant personnel.
Sincerely, John F. Stolz, Director PWR Project Directorate #6 Division of PWR Licensing-B cc:
See next page PBD PBD-6ea; PBD-6 A\\4 DPL:PD1 H
e ras;cr RWeller JStol JZwolinsk,e 12/A1/85 12//3/85 12/1)/85 12/,%,/85