ML18092A737

Submits Second Annual Licensed Operator Requalification Program,Per NRC 840504 Ltr.No Mods Made Affecting Scope,Time or Frequency of Program.Preplanned Lecture Series Schedule Met for All Shifts.Simulator Available 100% of Time

ML18092A737
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	08/20/1985
From:	Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8508280220
Download: ML18092A737 (4)

Text

SZJ-3 J (

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Corbin A. McNeill, Jr. Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box236, Han cocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Vice President -

Nuclear August 20, 1985 Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactor Branch 1 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Varga:

LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM

.Through a .series of letters beginning on August 9, 1983, Public Service Electric & Gas. Company (PSE&G) received approval for modifi-cations to our then existing Licensed Operator Requalif ication Program. The approved changes basically consisted of integrating the Salem Unit 2 Simulator into the program and administering one quarter of the annual written examination at the end of each of the 4 two-week training shifts.

Included in your approval letter (dated May 4, 1984) was a request to submit an annual report, each year for two years, on the effec-tiveness of the revised program. An attachment to that letter outlined the desired contents of the report. The second annual report follows and responds to each-of the four major topic areas individually.

TOPIC 1 Any modifications, including the reason for the modifications, made to the program within the conditions specified under Section 50.54(i-l) of 10CFR Part 50.

RESPONSE 1 No changes which affected the scope, time allotted for the program, or frequency in conducting different parts of the program were made.

The following changes were implemented during the 1984-85 Requali-fication Cycle:

( 8508280220 850820 I PDR : ADOCK 05000311 V . . PDR

Mr. S. A. Varga 8-20-85

1. The simulator was integrated into the entire cycle so that each trainee experienced a minimum of eight hours on the simu-lator each two-week segment. Because of Emergency Operating Procedure Training, each operator spent approximately 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> on the simulator during the annual cycle.

2. A time slot during each two-week segment was allotted for Operating Information and Industry Experiences. This allows timely discussion of current topics, such as design changes, LER's, SOER's, INPO Findings, etc.

3. The annual operational examination was conducted in the same basic manner as the NRC operator licensing simulator and plant walk-thru examinations. Written examinations continue to be administered at the end of each two-week segment.

4. The plant specific job analysis was utilized to develop lesson objectives. -

5. "Guest Expert" lecturers from the station and Company were utilized, as appropriate.

It is our intent to continue with future licensed operator requali-fication training in the same manner; without any major changes.

TOPIC 2 The licensee's evaluation of the revised program including=meeting commitments of the preplanned lecture series, annual requalification examination results, and any notable changes in on-the-job perform-ance.

RESPONSE 2 The preplanned lecture series schedule was met for all shifts.

For all intents and purposes, the simulator was available 100%

of the time.

Annual examination results were approximately the same. Our goal is fcir tcital performance-based training. Test questions are based on published instructional objectives. Instructional objectives were developed from the nuclear control operator (NCO) and shift supervisor (SS) task lists. The operators respond well to this type of examinatio~ and we are encouraged by both their performance and attitude. In addition to this performance-based testing and the agreed upon 33% change in questions each administration, we also:

1. Conducted a peer evaluation of each examination. An SRO li-censed or certified instructor performed this function.

Mr. S. A. Varga 8-20-85

2. Had an instructional technologist review each examination prior to administration. This was done to improve question clarity, grammar, and incorporate testing expertise into the program and staff.

No absolute correlation between on-the~job performance and the revised program can be drawn; howeve~ the shorter requal cycle allows for better feedback. In addition, the Unit 2 Simulator enhances operator capabilitiesi especially during emergency con-ditions.

TOPIC 3 Voluntary comments on the revised program by training staff instruc-tors and licensed personnel.

RESPONSE 3 There is a very positive attitude among licensed personnel concern-ing the program. Scheduling the training throughout the year allows for better coverage of topics and does not take the operator away from the plant for eight continuous weeks as was the case before.

Students submit course evaluations at the end of each training shift; these comments have been generally supportive of the new format. Comments on substance are incorporated into the program whenever possible. The cycle curriculum and schedule is developed by a Training Review Group that consists of Operations and Training personnel.

Staff instructors are enthusiastic about the program as well.

The shorter turnover of students provides better feedback and keeps the instructors better attuned to the needs of the students.

TOPIC 4 A summary of written, oral, and simulator examination results including any additional retraining required by the program.

RESPONSE 4 As previously stated, the annual examination results were excellent.

Two SRO's failed the simulator examination based on our observation that they were using poor management techniques during accident and transient plant conditions. One SRO averaged less than 80%

on his written examinations. They are all presently undergoing appropriate remedial training in accordance with our approved Requalification Procedure.

Mr. S. A. Varga 8-20-85 Overall, we feel that the program continues to improve and is effective. Our goal is to provide sound, performance-based training for all personnel. In March, 1985, all Salem Licensed Operator Programs were accredited by INPO.

Sincerely, C Mr. Donald C. Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. Thomas Kenney Senior Resident Inspector