ML19262A523
| ML19262A523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1969 |
| From: | Bursey R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262A522 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911130527 | |
| Download: ML19262A523 (2) | |
Text
.
MEETING WITH METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY TO DISCUSS THEIR THREE-MILE ISLAND TRAINING PROGRAM Met with Mr. Jack L. Wise and Jim S. Bartman on Wednesday, July 15, to discuss their training program.
Mr. Wise made the following points:
1.
Wanted to know if we would conduct the cold licensing operations if fuel was on-site in containers.
I indicated to him that it made no difference to us if fuel was on-site and was in containers.
2.
Pursuing this point he wanted to know if B&W did not have enough con-tainers for fuel on-site and some of it had to be put into the storage basin would we want to conduct exams on personnel prior to doing this.
I indicated to him that in all proba'aility if fuel was to be moved from the containers that we would want to examinc their personnel for cold licensing.
3.
He wanted to know if there was a time limitation on personnel who had trained at Saxton and the cold examinations. Also he had a Saxton person whose Saxton license lapsed in July 1970. Would we consider this individual eligible for a cold license if the application for license was, say, in 1972.
I indicated to him that I would firm an answer on this and let him know that it was my judgment that if we were talking in the neighborhood of two or three years there would be no problem.
Beyond this possibly there would be a limitation.
4.
he wanted to know if we would reexamine their licensed personnel per their request.
Specifically, they have in their contract with the Union that their personnel will be reexamined and if found incapabla by the AEC they will be reduced in grade.
I indicated to him that we would not encourage this approach, however, on reapplication for renewal of license if the application indicated some deficiency we might elect to reexamine the individual.
5.
He wanted to know if there was a requirement that a supervisor in a nuclear plant had to have tuo years supervisory experience in a fc zil plant.
Said he had got this information from Frank Kelly in a meeting some years ago.
I told him that I was not sure that I would firm this up, however, I did not feel that a man had to be an operating supervisor for two years prior to assuming a nuclear power plant supervisor's job.
Mr. Wise indicated that T-M-I's schedule had slipped roughly a year and that their thinking now was that their ftsel loading could be possibly sometime in December 1971.
2210 074 7911180 f2 7
e He wanted to know our opinicn on the use of simulators as to both training and retraining tool.
I pointed out that we were not using the simulator at this point as a licensing tool but that we were impressed with the use of simulation as a training aid.
As for retraining again we thought that if the utility could stand the expense of this approach to retraining that it was very desirable.
He wanted to know timing rela-tive to simulation and how much time we felt a person should stay on the simulator on the original training program.
If I thought that a week would suffice.
I mentioned in my own experience with simulation that a week would not be sufficient and that I thought most of the vendor simu-lation programs should be at least a minimum of several months and this appeared to me to be desirable. As for retraining certainly the time interval of months would not apply possibly a week of refresher should suffice. Again I emphasized that it was my opinion and take if for what it was worth.
He wanted to know how much advance notice we would need for cold examina-tions.
I mentioned that we should have the operating procedures, abnormal procedures, emergency procedures, Tech Specs and HP Manual, at least two months, preferably three months, prior to the date of the examination.
He did not seem to feel that this would present a problem to them. Also mentioned that as procedures are revised if we would appreciate up-to-date revisions.
I pointed out to him some of the problems that we encounter with out-of-date operating procedures.
I also mentioned that they might consider sending me a copy of their training material.
It was pointed out that this material is helpful in exam preparation.
It allows ne to use the same language that their people were taught and gave me an understanding for the training material that had been covered with them.
In conclusion he wanted to know if we required five reactor startups for hot license. Told him it was preferable but realizing utility reactor availability we had licensed on applicants with only three starts.
-./ :.
'}
l /.u
^j
/
/
2213 075