ML20027D897
| ML20027D897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/05/1982 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1149, NUDOCS 8211100358 | |
| Download: ML20027D897 (79) | |
Text
'
I;
/j s j b-1 W ' M EEGTT*.A:0E7 CCtc'.**35:C3
~
O O
t I.n the Man-m cf:
ADVISORY COIG1ITTEC Oli REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 271ST GENERAL MEETING l
DATE: November 5, 1982 PAGIs: 274 thru 353 i
A;;
Washington, D.
C.
l l
- p 3,{
'IN
/.
Fc 1
I W R%X REPORT 1.TG O
r-Q 440 1st St.,
N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
O Telephone C29-9300 8211100358 821105 PDR ACRS T-1149 ppp
2Te 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 3
ADVISORY CCMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4
5 6
2Tist GENERAL MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Reguletory Commission 9
Room 1046 1T1T H Street, N.W.
10 Washington, D.C.
11 Friday, November 5, 1982 12 The 2Tist meeting of the Advisory Committee on 13 Reactor Safeguards was reconvened, pursuant to recess,
()
14 at 8:30 a.m.
15 PRESENT FCR THE ACRS:
16 PAUL G.
Sh!WMON, Chairman JEREMIAH J.
RAY, Vice Chairmen 17 J. CAPSON MARK, Member CHESTER P.
SIESS, Member 18 ROBERT C.
AXTMANN, Member DADE W.
MCELLER, Member 19 MYER SENDER, Member WILLIAM KERR, Member 20 HARCLD ETHERINGTCN, Member FORREST J.
REMICK, Member 21 D AVIO GKR ENT, Member CAVIO A.
WARD, veiber 22 JESSE J.
23ERSCLE, Member l
HAROLD W.
LEWIS, M2mber 23 ALSC PRESENT:
24 CAVID F I S C.1 E R, Dasignated Federal Employee
()
25
- ()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,lNC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
275 r
1 E _i_2_ C_ i_i_2_LL S_1
]
2 MR. SHEWMON:
Good mornin;.
This is tne 3
second day of tha 271st meeting of the Advisory O
4 Committee on Reactor 56 'eguards.
Todey we will hear 5
reports on and discuss human fcctors, inte;ratec pro; ram 6
plan, ACRS Subcomtittee reports, and future activities.
7 The meeting is being conducted in r e c o r e'e n c e 8
with the provisions of the Federal Aavisory Committee 9
Act end the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Pr.
D.
10 Fischer on my right is the designcted federcl employee.
11 A transcript is being kept, and it is would be 12 very helpful if you would say who you are and spark loud 13 enough so that the young lady can hear you.
We heve 14 received no written statements or requests to make cral 15 statements from members of the public regarding today's t
16 meeting.
17 We will probably be done by mid-afternoen.
I 18 don't think wa will be done too early in the afternoon.
19 I would much rather see you here until 3:30 or se 1
20 insterd of 2:00.
cut it won't be a long day, and if you 21 can do anything to help rearrango things you might try 22 that if you haven't already.
23 The first item on t o d ay 's schedule is the O
24 c =
r* '"- ac"5 5"*=
==1**
"* co" "2*>"*=
l 25 r e ;., r c i n g procosed human factors integrated progrem.
O 1
1 ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
2Ts 1
dr.
Ward.
{}
2 MR. WARC:
The human factors program plan is 3
cn effort to coordinate rll of the agency retivities end O
4 to some extent incustry cctivities in the area of the 5
imoset of human factors on reactor safety.
The plan 6
ccvers activities over the next few yezrs and incluces 7
bcth near-tern rction plans and longer-range rascaren.
8 The Human Factors Subcommittee first reviemso 9
the plan at the end of August of this year.
At the 10 September meeting we mcde a brief report to the full 11 Comnittes, and se expresseo a number of concerns and 12 reservations about the plan as written at that time.
13 These were summarized in a Fraley to Denton memo written 14 at the September meeting.
15 With those suggestions and the suggestions 16 from other sources, in the additional time c.vailable the 17 Staff has redrafted the plan.
The Subecmmittee met 18 again last week to consider the redraft, and me found it 19 very much improved.
In fact, our bottom line conclusion 20 is thet it is a good plan and it should os effective in 21 carrying out the human factors program.
22 Mr. Dircks has asked the Steff to have the 23 Committee review the redraft of the plan before it is
()
24 sent to the Commission for approval and issuin;.
So l
25 that is what wa are centinuing today.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V!RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 t
277 1
In tab 6 of your book ycu have a cocy of the 2
plan.
This is tctually a slightly updated derft from 3
the one which the Subcommittee formally reviewed.
We O
4 haven't gone over this very latest drtft in a lot of 5
detail, but we think it is substantially the same.
It 6
has some improvements over the draft that we did review 7
at the Subcommittee meeting last ceek.
8 You also heve in your book a fairly detriled 9
critique of the plan by Cave Fischer.
I think also in 10 there there is a memo by Jan Dreston which critiques the 11 new desft of the plan, rnd if you don't have it you will 12 be hanced a copy of a memo dated yesterday from Jerry 13 Rey with some comments he made as a result of the 14 Subcommittee last week.
t 15 Before going to the Staff to ask them for a l
1 16 summary description of the plan, I sould like to give 17 the other Subcommittee members a chance to say 18 something, to make any comments they would like to make, 19 especially Dade.
You weren't present at the 20 Subcommittee meeting last week.
Have you had a chance 21 to review the redraft of the plan?,Do you have any 22 comments?
23 MR. MCELLER:
Just in a quick sort of sense.
()
24 I found the wording and so forth much improved.
I 25 thought the comments that Jan Preston put together were l
O j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
273 1
1 very usaful.
2 MR. WAR :
Also et the Subcommittee were Mr.
3 temick end Mr. Rcy.
I would invite either of them to O
4 mrke any comments they sculd like to make.
5 MR. REMICK:
I fully agres with what Dade has 6
indicated.
I think the most recent version is a decided 1
7 improvement over the earlier version.
8 Two observations.
I haven't had a chance to 9
read Jerry's comments.
Maybe he already makes these.
10 One o'f the obvious things necessary for success of the 11 plan is coordination of the various branches, divisions 12 and offices that will be involved in the human factors 13 program.
That was one of the things that came out at 14 the Subecmmittee meeting.
15 A personal observation that I had at the 16 Subcom.ittee meeting scs, th6re is a lot of research 17 requiret in some areas, liks validation of licensing 18 examinations, the examining process end things like 19 that.
And I would urge that the Staff, to the best of 20 their ability to do it, consider national resources to 21 do tnis, rcther than ;oing the easiest route, which is 22 always te go to the national laboratories.
23 This is rot c criticism of the national
()
24 laboratories, but I think there is expertise cutside the 25 netional laboratories, especially in these areas.
And I w
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
279 1
urge the Staff to the extent oossible utilize those 2
resources for the resecech that will be necesscry.
3 MR. WARO:
Unless there are other comments, !
O 4
would ask Hugh Thompson of the Staff to lead off 5
discussion -- excuse me.
Jerry?
6 MR. RAY:
I endorse your report comoletely and 7
I am in agreement with Mr. Remick's remarks.
I thirk 8
the coercination of the various elements of activity in 9
this plent are very critical, and I think it would be to advisable for the Staff to consider the appointment of a I
11 project manager or a oroject director to drive this 12 thing, and not just rely on the various divisions or 13 branches and divisions to institute the coordination as 14 they see fit.
15 MR. WARC:
Thank you, Jerry.
16 All right, Mr. Thompson.
17 MR. THOMPSON:
I am Hugh Thompson, the 18 Director of the Civision of Human Factors Safety.
And 19 se have been rocking very hard on preparing the human 20 factors program plan.
It was primarily a joint effort 21 by the Office of Research end my staff in identifying 22 those technical assistance activities and research 23 activities that we have ongoing to provide the technical
()
24 brsis for making ce isions in a regulatory framework in 25 the human factors area.
O l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20324 (202) 554-2345
230 73 1
This is an area which, before the accicent at V
2 TMI, had not received the same emphasis we had placed on 3
hardwere, and this is an area which cas identified in O
4 almost every report as one needing a significant amount 5
of attantion.
6 I would like to again recognize
.h a t it is a 7
fairly significant effort on our part, en ambitious 8
effort, and it is one chich does require a great deal of 9
coordination and inte; ration, both within our own 10 respective offices and, in the face of regionali:ation 11 and cther activities, it requires an even greater degree 12 of cocedination and integration arith industry and the
~
13 regional offices than most progra,ms we have ongoing 14 right now.
15 The scoce of the document is, as I said 16 earlier, it provides the integration efforts, but it 17 really is addressed at resolution of the TMI action plan 18 items still in the imclementation phase.
Anc as you 19 know, we had requested the Human Factors Society to 20 provida some recommendations for a long-range research 21 orogram for the agency.
22 This is our initial response to the Human 23 Factors Society recommendations which you were briefed
()
24 on.
It also includes those items and activities which 25 se identified from tne initial implementation of the TMI i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
231 1
action plan trees cs ones chi:h deserve cdditional 2
emphasis rnd reseerch on the Staff's part to determine 3
shat the appropriata regulatory rols should be.
O 4
In tne program plan itself, we do identify 5
some special issues.
These are issues that don't fit 6
neatly into the civisions that we have, and it tends to 7
oe in human factors that everything is integerted in any 8
event, beccuse management oversees the overall process 9
and training gets involved in the examination and 10 feecwaters crea.
11 So it's one chere we have a large ovarsight.
12 Sut areas such as regionalization, maintenance ind 13 simulators, for example, are those that stand out as
()
14 special issues we must be aware of as we so through our 15 overall program.
16 MR. KERR:
I'm sorry, what were those special 17 issues again, slowly, plecse?
18 MR. THOMPSON:
The special issues I will cover 19 in another slios.
20 MR. KERR:
All right, I will cait.
21 MR. TH09.PSON:
Since I casn't planning to 22 focus on those, I probably won't have a slide addressing 23 all of them.
But I will identify each as we go 24 through.
25 The procerm cddresses the activities, as Mr.
(
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGlNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.i
232 1
Ward said, in two arees.
Cne is the short-term area, 2
thtt looking over the next two or three years, where for 3
a lot of lanning efforts is about as far as se can 4
plan.
5 In acdition, though, we have looked at those 6
activities we anticipate needing research for out beyond 7
FY
'SS.
These activities will be addressed later by Jim 8
Nerberg of the research staff.
But it does indicate 9
that there is a long-range effort with respect to human 10 factors, and most of these things won't actually be 11 resolved when we reach the initial dacision.
12 We have a period where we will need to be able 13 te obser.ve operator performance and get feedback on 14 those areas and a number of others.
This report also is 15 one, we feel, is a living report.
That is, as we learn, 16 as we go through the process each year of keeping this 17 updatec, we will have an annual update of this reoort 18 and we will certainly keep the Subcommittee and 19 Committee members informed of where we are in these 20 programs.
21 3ut it is one in which I think you will find 22 an interest as the years go on.
In addition, in future 23 versions we intend to exoand beyond the present focus, a
()
24 a major focus of power reactors to look at fuel cycle 25 facilities and other ectivitias in which human factors O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VIRGINI A AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024,202) 554-2345
233
[}
1 are also important.
2 The document itself is divided into four major 3
sections.
These are the introduction, special issues, O
4 the program elements, and the long-rrnge research 5
areas.
6 In the introduction, since it was the first 7
document that we put together in this area, se tried to 8
give some additional backgrounc, end of course cartly in 9
response to the comments of the ACRS Subcommittee, we 10 tried to enhance the discussion of the management 11 integration aspects, as well as to give some balance to 12 the overall resources that we feel are carried out in 13 this particular plan.
(
14 The special issues which you were interested 15 in discussing, one is regionalization.
Regionalization 16 is an issue where meny of the activities and results of 17 these programs will be partly applied to oportting 18 reactors.
In the system of regionalization, most of the 19 activities will be shifted.
20 The licensing activities will be shifted to 21 the regions, which requires some additional recognition 22 of treining of individuals in the regions before you 23 Ectually develop and implement a requirement, so that
()
24 these individuals, who tre not training soecialists do 25 have the background to review training programs in a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
234 1
menner in which training specialists, as wall as subject 2
mrtter experts, would be involved in.
3 Maintentnce is another area.
It's a broad O
4 application to the precedures, training, personnel 5
activities, and staffing.
It crosscuts many of the 6
activitiss.
7 Simulators is another area where me find it is 8
importent.
It crosses a couple of these program 9
elements.
For instance, simulators are used in 10 training.
Simulators are used as examination 11 techniques.
12 So the ability of the Staff to recognize both 13 of those and in fact have those two areas integrated as 14 we reach e. decision point is important for us to be 15 aware of.
And that is why, if you would like for me to 16
- c and read the others, tney are in the program plan.
17 But I would be more than happy to highlight those for 18 you now if you would like.
19 MR. KERR I will look them up.
Thrnk you.
20 MR. THOMPSON:
The six major areas of 21 responsibility in the program plans are staffing and 22 qualifications, training, licensing examinations, 23 procedures and testing, the man-mr. chine interface --
()
24 that is a broad term se use primarily for more of the 25 hardware area of the control -- and the management and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V!RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
I55 1
organization.
2 The next section is the long-range research, 3
chich provides the advanca clanning necessary to support
>Q V
4 the anticipated user needs in the post-FY 1985 period.
5 Finally, there are four appendices, which I guess every 6
geoc document should have as many appendices as 7
sections.
8 Two of those are fairly important.
The first 9
gives a current status report of where we are with 10 respect to the TMI action plan items.
There are those 11 in the developmental phase and there tre tnose in the 12 implementation phase.
This progrem focuses primarily on 13 those that are still in the developmental phase, as 14 opposed to those in the implementation phase.
aut I 15 could highlight those to you.
16 One aspect of those, as I will mention later 17 on, is that ws have made an attempt to be consistent 18 with the Division of Safety Technology's efforts to 19 prioritize all generic issues within the agency, not 20 just the human factors ones, and give a ranking with 21 respect to high, medium and low as to their overall 22 importance in our activities.
23 Thir I think is still an ongoing effort and 24 ene in which the human factors, the applicability of
()
25 risk reduction associated with human f ac tors, is more O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VtRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
235 1
difficult.
Not that it 's easy on any of them, but it 2
certainly has tended to be more cifficult to do than in 3
others.
O 4
I think in general we have a reasentble 5
feeling that the end results came out in an acceptable 6
wry.
I 'm not sure the exact methcdology is one we would 7
say is sufficiently well developed to have any clear 8
confidence that it couldn't be improved.
9 MR. KERR:
I'm not sure I understand that 10 statement.
Could you elaborate?
11 MR. THOMPSON:
I will try to.
12 MR. (ERE:
Are you sayin; you aren't quite 13 sure how you did it, but you like the result?
)
14 MR. THOMPSON:
We are generally comfortable 15 with the end result in the renkings of high, medium and 16 low with respect to the activities identified in the 17 table.
I am not so comfortable with the dollar cost and 18 risk reduction in the man-rem sense associated with a 19 number of tnose activities.
That is, it's difficult for 20 me to have confidence in a man-rem reduction of, l e t 's 21 scy, 2,000 men-rems for an accreditation program because 22 a board certifies a u tility 's training pro; ram as baing 23 accredited.
()
24 MR. KERR:
When you talk about risk reduction, l
25 do you think of it primarily in terms of man-rems?
l i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
237
()
1 MR. THOMDSON:
I personelly do not.
The 2
technique tha Staff uses, that is, not my staff, but the 3
staff in the Civision of Safety Technology, ecuates 4
things to dollars and man-rem, and that is the formula 5
that NUDEG-0933 uses to characterize and prioriti:s all 6
generic cctivities.
7 I agafa have some difficulty with that 8
methodology, and I certainly am not here to defend it or 9
to specifically attack it.
But I am certainly to uncomfortable with the details of its acclicability to a 11 number of these activities, although I don't necessarily 12
-disagree with the general prioritization, the ranking 13 that they received.
f}.
14 Finally, the other important appendix is the 15 appendix which provides our response to the Human 16 Factors Society recommendations.
There is a tabulation 17 of those and I will address those later on.
In general, l
18 we have under way or are planning to do the large 19 majority of those individual recommendations.
There are 20 a number of those which we do not agree with and I will 21 identify these later on in the briefing.
22 MR. MOELLER:
Excuse me.
This was NUREG-0933 23 that sets down how they establish priorities?
()
24 MR. THOMPSON:
That is correct.
That NUPEG I I
25 do not believe has been finalized.
We needed to have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
233 1
some degree of consistoney.
So I have aoplied thtt 2
technology and those individuals uno used or in drafting 3
that cocument did review this copendix to ensure we were O
4 consistent with whet we presently came out with.
That 5
document I think is in drrft form in NRR at the present 6
time.
7 MR. 3 ENDED:
Aside from the criticus you 8
received from the Human Factors Society, was there any 9
other incustrial commentary on the plan?
10 MR. THOMPSON:
On the human factors program 11 olan?
12 MR. SENDER:
Yes.
13 MR. THOMPSON:
We sent out -- I would hate to 14 guess which particular versions there were.
I think 15 this was one of those things where there are more 16 varsions than there are people in the world.
We had a 17 version sent out to each of the regional administrators, 18 to INPO, to EPRI, and to the members of the Human 19 Factors Society and to 00E, as an initial effort to get l
20 a coordinated review and response, because we were l
l 21 lookin; et a number of ectivities, as we will see later 22 on, certicularly from EPRI and INPC, and hopefully e 23 number from DCE that were ongoing in the same area.
()
24 Well, ce received probably more comments than 25 we ever assired.
But in general, they ranged all over ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
IS3
()
1 from, se think you ought not be doing this, to we think 2
this is a greet thing that you are doing.
3 MR. SENDER:
I didn 't have in mind so much the 4
early plan, but the plan as it now exists.
5 MR. T H O W.P S C N :
The clan as it nom exists has 6
besn sent to the Human Factors Society and I think has 7
been given to INPC and 005.
One of the things that es 8
are coing -- and generally I find that the pocole 9
reviewing it seem not to have any major problems with 10 it.
11 I was not as comfortable, though, with -- in 12 fret, I was dosn at INPC the day before yesterday 13 talking to the people doing the job task analysis.
It 14 still hadn't got down from the people who reviewed it to 15 the people who were doing the detailed work on the job 16 task analysis.
So I am not comfortable that everything 17 in this plan is perfect.
I will probably tell you it is 18 not with some degree of confidence.
19 The next step that we have -- and I have asked 20 and I will talk about that later on.
You will see that 21 this is a fairly broad overview approach.
That is, we 22 tried to give it a level that it doesn't take five days 23 to view it.
()
24 But for each of those major program elemen ts 25 and activities, in fact, we are developing a more I'%
l (s/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
29C 1
detailed implementation plan that will include the
{}
2 revisws that will have to be done by CRGR, the ELC, the 3
interface with the industry, public comments, going back
_s 4
to the ACRS for each of these major activities, because 5
the end product primarily on these are a change in our 6
current regulatory positicn or developing a nes 7
regulatory position, and that process is one which is 8
now a much more structured process, one which takes a 9
good deal more planning than we have done in the cast.
10 MR. SENDER:
I think the only point I was I
11 trying to make was, having got this random set of 12 comments from which you developed some integrated plan, 13 it might be worthwhile to have some outsiders take
()
14 another look at it now that it's near the finish and it 15 may be the finished product, just to make sure that you 16 have the right kind of weight in the evaluation.
The weight in the evaluation of 18 the priority?
l 19 MR. BENDER:
People will eventually receive 20 the product as a regulated industry, presumably.
21 MR. THOMFSGN:
Correct, correct.
I 22 MR. BENCER:
And while they commented in the
(
23 beginning, if the next time they comment is when you
()
24 send out the regulations there may be some --
1 i
25 MR. ThCMPSON:
I will guarantee you, I will l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG:N!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
231 I
have comments before we send out any proposed
{)
2 re;ulctions.
These nave been given, in fact, to some of 3
the major incustry leaders end ce intend to, once the O
4 Commission has given its general blessing, to move 5
forward to give it wida distribution throughout the 6
industry.
And in order to have a fairly ouick feedback, 7
because I rm not sure we are aware of everything -- for 8
instance, Wayne Jonas coun at Mamphis Stata has ongoing 9
a number of activities related to performance feedback 10 and operator data which could be particularly valucble 11 for us in developing the validity of our examination 12 efforts.
13 MR. WARD:
Let me comment.
If you are 14 concerned the industry be involved before regulations 15 come out the other end of this clan, I think Hugh was 16 addressing what he thought was your question, whether 17 industry would be involved before the plan came out.
18 MR. 3 ENDER:
What I had in mind was, having 19 finally got a plan to a point where he thinks it's a 20 pretty good one, a second feedback would be helpful to 21 mcke sure ne,hasn't missed some major points.
22 MR. WARD:
He does plan to have, I guess, 23 three times a year review of progress under the plan,
()
24 involving tne industry in those r e v i e u:s.
25 MR. THOMPSON:
Yes, I will address that.
I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
292 (N
1 hrve a slide on that particuler aspect.
I hava no V
2 question, probably, that I can get outside reviews 3
without much difficulty.
Cuite frankly, they are quite O
4 enthusiastic about having in opportunity to ce involved 5
in it at an earlier stage, as opposed to raviewing just 6
the eno product with t 30-day comment period.
As you 7
know, that is feiely lete.
8 As we were talking, that is one of the major 9
ascects, the coordination and integration efforts.
If 10 you were to lock at Fi;ure I-2 on page 6 of the program 11 itself, you wil1 see that the internal integration of 12 these cetivities are fairly significant and well 1
13 integrated from a subject matter aspect.
(
14 But what we have decided, even beyond the 15 activities that are importent there, is we talked about 16 the ACRS Subcommittee comments with the EDO and he 17 directed us to establish a human factors review group.
18 This would be similar to the uaste management review 19 group which presently is in existence, and I will 20 discuss the details on that in the next slide.
21 But se have now drafted the charter for the 22 human factors revie's group, and it is being reviewed by 23 the office directors who would be primarily responsible
()
24 for having some of their activities covered by that.
25 The branch chiefs then for each of the program O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
293 1
elements will be responsible.
That is, the branch
{}
2 chiefs both in Research ano NRR, the Research branen 3
chief being rasponsible for carrying out in ar effsetive O
4 acy the research retivities that era identified and the 5
NRR brench chief responsible for identifying his 6
reserrch neecs in a timely #ashion and in coordincting 7
fully the overall input from tha resorrch activities and 8
the industry activitias.
9 Even below that, we will have idantified the 10 scscific project managers for the individual activity 11 level.
As we said earlier, a detailed implementation 12 plan will be devalogad once the Commission has -- we are 13 in the process of developing those now, because we have 14 fairly well identified the major activities.
15 Sut we will include cll of those ectivities, 16 both internal and external activities, necessary to 17 ensure en adequate coordination and enhancament of the 18 integration of the clans.
Finelly, the overall 19 activities identified in this program will be reviewed 20 at laast three times a year by the human factors review 21 group, that is the initial plan:
once in the February 22 time frame to ensure se get raady for the budget cycle, 23 once arounc June to see where me are in planning for the 1 ()
24 next year's budget activities, anc finally a kind of end 25 of the fiscal year review in October, to make a report O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
194
(}
1 brck.to the 500 as to how successful we were in carrying 2
out and implementing the human factors program clan.
3 The human factors review group, as ne seid O
4 earlier, will be the focal point for tnese periodic 5
reviews and in fact will be reviewing not only the 6
contracting activities, but the overall program thrust 7
and areas we are planning to proceed in.
Obviously, one 8
of the mejor activities will be reviewing both the 9
technical assistence contract that my staff would be 10 preparing and proposing to submit, as well ts the 11 research activities to ensure that they are integrated 12 and coordinated.
13 It will provide the management overview 14 responsibility for the all-program coordination and 15 integration, and it will also provide an opportunity for 16 the industry to fully participate in these revies 17 periods.
18 Now, I do not anticipate at this time having 19 individual members of the industry as members of the 20 group, althou;n they would be there presenting 21 activities, the status of their activities, where they 22 ses their program going and how they saw those programs l
l l
23 being integreted into tha NRC effort.
l ()
24 MR. RAY:
Hu;h, are there any legtl obstacles 25 to having a representative of INPC, for instance, l
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i I9I l
1 knowledgeaole in their activities in this sphers, a 2
member of that grcup in the advisory ecoccity?
3 MR. THOMPSGN:
I don't think there is a 4
specific legal objection.
There are legal recuirements 5
that if you do have one you will get into the Federal 6
Advisory Committee Act and have transcripts and public 7
records and a number of those activities, which I think 8
aould --
9 MR. RAY:
Encumber the effort.
10 It might encumber tha effort.
Of course, then 11 again it depends on where you are as to how much it 12 encumbers it.
It has in the past tended to encumber 13 efforts of those natures.
(
14 MR. RAY:
Is this a possibility in your 15 thinking, or are you just mentioning it?
16 MR. THOMPSON:
My preference is to have them 17 there as a "non-voting" type individual, such that their 18 input is fully availeble to all of the people in the 19 agency making decisions and to the 500.
If it makes a 20 si;nificant difference to them in their participation, 21 that is we won't participete unless we are members, then 22 I would want to reconsider my present position.
23 MR. RAY:
Thank you.
()
24 MR. THOMPSON:
The organization uould consist 25 of myself as tne chairman, Carl Goller from the Division O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V!AGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- 36 1
of Pacility Coerations and Research, and then each
{}
2 office director could appoint some specific indivicual.
3 There sould ba one from NRR, which would be more of the O
4 program planning area.
There would be an additionel one 5
from Research in the program planning area, and 6
representatives from NMSS, the regional offices, and 7
resource managament, the controller's area.
8 I think one of the unique aspects of this 9
overall program is the fact that we are for the first 10 time making a significant effort to get the regional 11 representation en one of these type of review ;rcups.
12 MR. RAY:
Would you plan to invite 13 representatives of industry, specifically INPC and 14 possibly EPRI, to your meetings as a matter of regular 15 procedure or just as it occurs?
16 HR. THOPPSON:
As a matter of regular 17 procedure.
As we go through the program elements, you 18 mill see that INPD and EPRI have ongoing activities that 19 we are relyin; on and are an integrated part of this 20 effort in almost ecch of the program elements, and 21 becruse of that we would expect them to need to be there 22 to provide the status of chere they are as cell as to 23 provide their comments.
()
24 So it would be a matter of practice that they l
25 sould be always invited.
As you may know, we do have l
l
(
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 237
[}
1 ceriodic meetings nos, both NRR and Resaarch, with the 2
INFO staff, and sa invite the Department of Energy and 3
we invite EDRI and others to attend those meetings nc=,
O 4
to kaen i status update.
5 This would be a little bit more structured 6
format than that end we certainly would continue that 7
effort.
.8 MR. RAY:
One of the things of concern to me 9
in your overall effort was the real possibility thet 10 some of your research that you or your agents would ba 11 sconsoring might be duplicttive of equivalent efforts 12 under way by INPO.
And it would seem to me that in 13 order not to duplicate those efforts it would be 14 essential that coordination in that area would be 15 carefully seen to.
16 MR. THOMPSON:
We certainly agres.
That does 17 not mean there might not be cases where we would feel it 18 accropriate to have some duplication.
But primarily wo 19 would tend to avcid duplication.
For instance, now in 20 tha accreditation board process we are not making any 21 efforts along thosa lines to establish an ecereditation 22 program.
On the other hand, in the training program we i
23 are working to have at least a regulatory basis to be
()
24 able to evaluate training programs in a more effective
(
25 way for those utilities who may not elect to go te an O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
23:
(])
1
!NPO accreditation.
2 So I think we triec to reach a balance in our 3
progrrm where me would not unknowingly be duplicating O
4 efforts.
A good example of where we are being very 5
ctreful is the job task analysis type.
Research has a 6
job task analysis ongoing and they are in continual 7
contact with INPC to ensure that our programs are not 8
duplicating unless ws in fact intend to be duplicating.
9 MR. McELLER:
In your comments, I havs heerd 10 how you are going to obtain the input of many groups, 11 except thoss from foreign countries.
12 MR. THOMPSON:
The Office of Research has the 13 primsry lead and responsibility for the input in 14 following the foreign countries.
So I would rather turn 15 that over to Carl Goller to respond specifically to that 16 point.
~
17 MR. GOLLER:
.As a~ regular part of our 18 research, we try to stay informed of foreign activities 19 and to coordinate with them and enter into joint 20 efforts.
For example, we have as an ongoing effort in 21 Norway we are active perticipants in the human factors 22 area in that project.
23 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
So it will be well
()
24 coverec.
25 MR. GCLLER:
Yes.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
s s
239 1
MR. MCELLER:
The other thing, you mentioned
{
2 the outside group as the three times a year they were 3
going to meet and prssumably look not only at the O
4 implementation of your plan ard so forth, 'o u t r.t your 5
research.
Is that correct?
6 MR. THCMPSON:
Yes.
They would look at our 7
research activity, those proposed as well as those 8
ongoing.
s 9
MR. MCELLER:
How will that be coordinated 10 with the ACRS' review of your research?
11 MR. THCMPSON:
If that is a term of art you 12 are using, that is research as opposed to technical 13 assistance, you have an annual review, I believe, of 14 "the_research activities," and I guess I have not 15 focused on that specific.
16 MR. MCELLER:
Presumably, thcugh, when we meet 17 to review your research activities, I guess you would 18 give us as input to that review what this outside group 19 has seid.
20 MR. THCMPSON:
We would have no diffiquity in 21 providing you with that.
As I remember your schedule, i
22 it tends to be toward the end of the calendar year that 23 you do your reviews and your reports.
You precare your
()
24 report around December?
25 MR. MCELLER:
That is correct, one of them, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRG;NIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
300 1
yes.
[
2 MR. THOPPSON:
Our anticipation is we would 3
h ve an evaluetion of the past yeer's activities
("%
\\'
4 evailable at ebout that time.
So I think it would be 5
consistent, and to the extent we can Carl will be there 6
and certainly fully amare of what your plans and
(
7 schedules are, and I would say we would be able to be 8
consistent and give you what we heve available.
9 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
10 MR. ETHERINGTON:
There are some indications 11 that the Three Mile Island accident might have been 12 preventec if the utility had been made aware of findings 13 or studies of various other organizations.
This.
()
14 Indicates a lack of communication between the various 15 parties.
Are you looking into the question of 16 communication?
17 MR. THOMPSON:
Part of the TNI action plan, :
18 believe it is item 1.C.5, had a requirement for the 19 utilities to have a feedback mechanism of operating 20 events and an evaluation of these with safety 21 significance.
22 Anc we have as part of our ongoing program 23 evaluatec our existing Office of A500's efforts, and the
()
24 INPC CN effort, which is their evaluation and reporting l
25 aspects to the utilities and requiring evaluations.
We O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
231 1
heve not scoptad or have a special program outside of 2
that includec in here I am aware of.
3 I would look to anyone over thars who might U
4 know more about a sub-element on that particular cetail 5
than I do.
6 MR. ETHERINGTON:
Three Mile Island didn't 7
have some of the basic information which it might have 8
used in this case.
9 MR. THOMPSON:
The effort right now with the 10 1.C.5 or the CN program is that effort, which is to 11 allow those utilities to have made available to them in 12 an analyzed fashion that experience evaluation of 13 occurrences that happened at other plants.
If you are 14 talking about technical information and knowledge that 15 was not available to them --
16 MR. ETHERINGTON:
This is what I am talking 17 about.
18 MR. THCMPSCN:
I am not aware of anything that 19 specifically addresses that in this program.
20 MR. GCLLER:
I think the thrust of your 21 question addresses primarily hardware or incident events 22 and experiences.
There are certsinly efforts under way, 23 as you said, to try to improve communication on that.
()
24 Furthermore, insofar as human factors are concerned:
25 which I ^hink is the crimary concern here, we are also O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
32 1
trying tc significantly improve the reporting
)
2 requirements, the format and techniques to encompast 3
human factors considerations, so that human factors
}
4 exoeriences would also be disseminated to all 5
utilities.
6 MR. RAY:
You know, Nr. Etherington's point is 7
supportive of ansuring active participation in 8
deliberations of the human factors review group by a l
9 representative from INPO.
If the right man from INPC is 10 there, he will be apprised of oevelopments in a 11 progressive sense, and when something of significant i
12 value to industry practice, operations and so on repaars 13 he could be the channel of communication to get back
()
14 into industry on a timely basis.
15 MR. THCMPSON:
They do have, as you know, a 16 NOTEPAD network which allows almost instantaneous 17 communications throughout the nuclear industry of any 18 incident or any specific issue.
They are in fact 19 considering ri;ht now the advent of a training and 20 qualification channel for communications betwean the 21 staffs, between the utilities by the staffing and 22 training area, which will be one area, and also to 23 ansure that operators are aware of ongoing activities.
()
24 Carl I think maybe had something.
25 MR. GCLLER:
Hugh, I think you might want to 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
303
{}
1 peint cut that we have been meeting with INPC on a 2
regular besis aside from this committee.
3 MR. THCMPSCN:
Right.
4 MR. GOLLER:
Ano we intend to continue to co 5
that aside from this new effort, this new cooroination 6
committee thet will be organized.
7 MR. THOMPSON:
Rignt.
We heve, as Carl said, 8
and I think I mentioned earlier, we have been meeting on 9
a periodic basis, about six to eight weeks apert, to 10 discuss overall programs, both with the research staff 11 and the NRR staff, to review the status of ongoing 12 activities.
13 Jim?
(
14 MR. NOR3 ERG:
We have looked very much to INPO 15 and EPRI to transfer the research results to the utility 16 industry.
We anticipate we will go through them 17 orimarily, not to go out to each utility and try to l
18 infor., them soecifically what we are doing.
So this is 19 why we have very close coordination between the INPC and 20 EPRI groups.
21 MR. THOMPSON:
I think we hcve discussed the 22 external coordination and integration.
I will pass on 23 the next slide with one exception.
I do want to
()
24 emphasize there are a number of activities we have l
25 ongein; in the industry that are fundamental for i
! ()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
204
(}
1 astablishing tne technical basis of our activities.
2 That is, the INPC job task analysis is in essence a 3
fundemental part of improving the examinations, 4
esteolishing the training criteria, and looking to 5
staffing and cualifications.
So to the extent that 6
their cctivities are delayed or are acceleratec, tney 7
tend to have a one to one relationship cith ours.
8 MR. SENDER:
I guess I wasn't thinking clearly 9
when I heard the remark that we were relying on INPO and 10 EPRI to transfer information to the industry.
It seems 11 to me that is a kind of risky way to get the informction 12 out.
The utilities are uneven in the attentien they cay 13 to those channels and I would think there would be more i
14 advantage in trying to be sure that the regional 15 organizations being set up provide a channel of 16 information that is more direct fram the NRC, and to 17 make sure that each utility is really conscious of what i
I 18 is going on.
19 MR. ~MG.MPSON:
Basically, there is a dual 20 path, and unfortunetely I am probably not the individual
(
21 to describe the details of this.
And to the extent 1
22 there may be some inaccuracies, I apologize.
The 23 AEGO-IEE efforts to idantify generic issues is one path
()
24 monitorac by INPG.
INPC looks at all ongoing 25 activities, and for those which are not picked up by NRC O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
305
(}
1 through the regional aspects, the ones that they think 2
are important that we miss, they hcVe the part.llel 3
process through INPC, through the CM program.
And in O
4 fact that is one of the areas monitored by the plant 5
audits, the adequacy of people responding to that when 6
INPO does its planned evaluations.
7 We are entro there will alwrys be a difference 8
in cactbilities and in fact the attention paid to 9
those.
Eut it is one in which we intend to audit or at 10 least review the self-audits INPO has on how effective 11 their program is.
12 I met with Wilkinson last Wednesday and they 13 have Just finished their self-audit, which will be 14 submitted to us for review as to its adequacy and where 15 there are socknesses in that program and what they are l
16 planning to do about those.
17 MR. MOELLER:
I am not sure whers the right 18 place to bring the point up is --
19 MR. THOMPSON:
Right here.
20 MR. MOELLER:
Sut you have talked now about 21 human factors and you are talking about a plan end you 22 are talking about people now.
Do you include in your 23 plan methods or procedures to assure there are adequate
()
24 numbers of people with the proper training and 25 background to do the jobs that you see needing to be O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
305 1
done?
2 MR. THOMPSCN:
We certainly are evaluating the 3
numbers, defining the jobs, the task skills, and making O
4 an effort to define the shift crew size, tnat aspect.
5 MR. MOELLER:
That's great.
6 MR. THOMPSCN And if you go out to the next 7
one and say, am I looking at hew many people are in 8
college er hos many people are in the training crograms, 9
we feel that is being done adecuately by the industry 10 right now through soms of the efforts they have ongoing 11 at EPRI and INPO to look at the feed-in path.
And we 12 are not separately doing anything in that effort at this 13 time.
We are monitoring their efforts to ensure it is 14 being done in a systematic ~way, but we do not.have an 15 ongoing program to duplicate that.
16 MR. MOELLER:
And in your monitoring of 17 industry's efforts, you could assure me this morning 18 that there will be adecuato numbers or there are 39 adecuato numbers of people in the pipeline to meet the 20 needs you are defining, and you are comfortable?
21 I con 't need an answer.
It is just to me very 22 important that that aspect be included.
23 MR. THCMPSCN:
I assure you, we are aware of
()
24 the concerns.
We are aware of the timing aspects 25 associated witn establishing new requirements ano the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
327 1
imoact on inoustry.
I can assure you, befors we 2
estrblish nem regulations we will be evaluating the cost 3
impect, not only on the industry but on our own staff, O
4 cur ability to make inspections and the quality and 5
training of our own people.
6 I can't a.ssure right now that I know any of 7
those numbers.
I can give you some turnover numbers for 8
our SR3's rnd R O 's from where we are going, which 9
clearly indicates the industry still hes a significent 10 croblem with the turnovar level on the RO's and SRO's 11 and that they are considerably concerned on their 12 ability, with the experience requirement that me have, 13 to resupply the pipeline.
14 I cannot say all utilities are there.
I think 15 our recent information -- and 1 don't know who the --
16 Jry or Larry may be able to tell me, but most of the 17 utilities are now moving toward or have a commitment to 18 a six-shift rotation process, designed to provide both 19 an edequato number of individuals to have a proper 20 requalification and training program, as well as to be 21 able to allow people to have time off.
So you have some 22 of the disincentives operators have now to give some 23 stability to the steffing level at the utilities.
()
24 In addition, I think we have gone through a 25 fairly significant upgrading period in the last two O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3Ci 1
years, with a lot of new plants coming on line, who heve 2
a tendency to hire experience away from other 3
utilities.
And for those utilities who are committed to
\\
4 grow your own, that is a significant damage to their 5
programs.
6 I seem to be going slower than I anticipated.
7 I sill try to speed things up.
8 Generally, this is kind of a balanced program, 9
as we see it.
About half of our resources and efforts 10 are designed -- are looking at the man-machine interftce 11 and the procedures essociated with that, and others on 12 the more tracitional human areas of the management and 13 organization, the training, exams, staffing and O
14 aue11+1ce*1on-l 15 If one looked at where the emphasis was, you 16 would see that we heve'the man-machine interfree 17 receiving probably tne largest dollar amounts, but that 18 does not indicate that it is in essence the highest 19 priority of our efforts.
The higher priority efforts, 20 we have some on examination, procedures and testing for 21 actually being able to get payoffs.
8ut this is kind of 22 a breakdown showing how the overall program is 23 orlanced.
24 MR. KERR:
Why should one not concluce that 25 the one on which you ere spending the most money is the l
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
309
[}
1 highest priority?
2 MR. THOMPSON:
I can't answer that cuestion 3
exactly.
It does tend to be the highest priority from O
4 resource application.
I would say if you looked at the 5
program as to where I cut back or which ones I do not 6
say we have to move forward on immediately, then it's 7
those I would not hold fast to.
8 Part of the difficulty is in these man-machine 9
interfaces, they tend to be the longer lead items.
10 Looking to control rooms, it tends to be more hardware 11 and it tends to cost more than the other efforts.
- Also, 12 it is because the exam and training effort relies a bit 13 on industry.
Industry has spent millions of dollars on
()
14 it.
These Are just our resources on the job task 15 analysis and those efforts.
16 So if I were to put in the industry resources 17 in these efforts, you would see these percentages 18 significantly change.
l 19 MR. WARD:
! thought for sure we were going to 20 get the toothbrush and automobile response to your 21 question.
l 22 MR. THOMPSCN; All right, I will give you the 23 automobile and toothbrush response.
No, I will let Dave
()
24 give you that one.
l 25 I think we 'v e talked about day to day
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
31]
1 implementation.
That will be done for each incividual 2
effort, and I want to pass on to really address the 3
major program elements.
C 4
I would like to emphasize, our overall efforts 5
are aimed at establishing a technical basis for either 6
changing existing regulatory requirements or 7
establishing new ones.
So often we come before this 8
body or any other body and they want to know, what is 9
your technical basis for making these changes.
And I 10 think those are very valid cuestions, and we intene to 11 be able to address those in a more articulate fashion 12 than we have in the past.
13 In particular, in staffing and qualifications
()
14 we are looking both at the numbers and functions for the 15 nuclear power plant staffing, what the minimum staffing 16 aualifications would be, the limits and conditions for 17 the shift work, the overtime efforts, how long they can 18 stay on one shift, or whether there are some limits in 19 the rotational aspect, as well as the fitness for duty 20 area.
I 21 Obviously, we have some concerns we must be 22 aware of in this area.
You have to realize that as you l
23 make changes on here, if it's on the qualifications
()
24 level it has to be within an area where all of a sudden 25 you don't have a massive exodus of all of the existing l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 1
3'1 1
experisnce in the plant.
So we recognize that as a
[}
2 concern.
3 We also recognize that it is an area that is O
4 somewhat difficult to get a sound technical basis.
But 5
we certainly intend to do that.
6 Again, on integration and coordination, we are 7
relying on the INPO job task analysis ano their 8
occucational surveys.
We intend to find that those are 9
very important slements to be aware of.
Obviously, we 10 need to be working with the ANSI standard group on 3.1 11 and maintain an awareness of the EEI efforts on the 12 selection battery and the employment surveys.
Some 13 utilities are looking at shift rotations and se are O(s 14 following the efforts they are making in 15 counter-rotating and rotating shifts and having crews 16 versus non-crews and rotating backwards.
17 Internally, this has some major integration 18 with respect to the training and licensing examination 19 program elements.
Training, which turns out to be I 20 think in our view, and certainly with respect to the i
21 prioritization effort, the highest priority of the TMI 22 action or the one with the highest ranking of those.
We 23 are looking at estcolishing the minimum training l ()
24 requirements in the use of simulators, looking at the 25 accreditation approach in this area, and our products O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
312 1
would be the revisions to the standard review plans and 2
revisions to the inspection modules we would be using to 3
1cok at the utilities' training programs.
4 Looking at tne concerns we have here, one of 5
the things that has occurrad in the pcst, and probably 6
too often, is the tendency to resolve safety issues by 7
sayings well, we sill just train the operators, and all 8
of a sudcen they will go into a massive training prograt.
9 and impact their ongoing requalification program with 10 respect to safety issues.
11 So we think there needs to be more stability 4
12 in what a real training program can be expected to do to 13 ensure that the quality of training is what is intended
()
14 and appropriate for the operators.
We intend to use the l
l 15 systematic approach to the training.
Some people have 16 used in the field the IS3 approach, but it is a similar 17 approach to that, which is consistent with the efforts 18 INPO has under way and it is also consistent with the 19 aay they are looking at evaluating training with respect 20 to their accreditation crograms.
21 MR. KERR It also seems to me one must be a 22 bit concerned about the appropriate balance between 23 training and what se are training for.
I don't think 24 training is an end in itself, and what you want to do is
(
25 to produce an individual with a certain level of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
313 1
competance and cbility.
It is perhaps mora difficult to 2
astablish thzt than it is to ley out e pro; ram the 3
objective of which is to achieve it.
O 4
It's a little like the system me use that the 5
medical profession has developed, in which we pay 6
physicians not for making people well but for treating 7
people.
We probably ought to be paying them on the 8
basis of whether they improve our health.
9 I hope we can evoid treating programs as an 10 and in themselves.
I recognize you have to estrblish 11 some minimum levels, perhaps.
But what you really want 12 to try to do is to develop r. method of making certcin 13 that an individual or a group of people when they heve
()
14 gone through this have achieved some level of 15 competence, I think.
16 MR. THOMPSON.
That is certainly exactly what 17 ao intena to do.
I think in the past too often training 18 programs have been usea to, well, we have to base our 19 training program on what is required to pass the hRC 20 exam, as opposed to training them to do the job they 21 have to co and in fact have the NRC examination based 22 upon that detailed training program.
23 Tanzy, I don 't know if you have any comments
()
24 with respect to the tecining.
I certrinly see it 25 specifically addressing that aspect.
That is, training O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. - - ~ - - - - - -..
314 1
hrs to be gearad to the needs of ths individuals and
{}
2 that is the way our approach has taken.
3 MR. KERR;
!t also seems we need some cry of O
4 determining when a training program is set up whether it 5
accomplishes your objective, which I think is not just 6
to heva a training program.
7 MR. THOMPSGN; You might sant to speak to the 8
feedback program.
9 MS. SLUMER:
Yes.
I think everything you said 10 is what we are trying to deal,with.
For instance, the 11 IST aoproach, which is totrlly inte;rstad in the sense 12 that we look first at uhat the job requirements are.
13 For instance, the INPO task analysis will do e lot for
()'
14 us in that aspect.
15 And every requirement, every training 16 requirement and any training decision, would be based 17 upon what the job actually is and actually requires, and 18 any evaluations that occur, both during the training and 19 after the training, would look at what trainees are able 20 to do on the job.
And hopefully, the overall effect 21 wculd be to reduce tne. number of hours that go into 22 training and makir.g training orograms considerably 23 leaner.
24 MR. THO.woSON:
I think the effort is designed
()
25 both to look at the front end of training, what is it O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
315 1
for, as well as the feedback mechenism, to evaluate the
)
2 effectiveness of your training as opposed to, as Tanzie 3
said, well, you have to have 600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> of training on O
4 reacter theory.
We're trying to define what you neea to 5
know or have the utilities define what the operator 6
really needs to know in that area and ensure the 7
training is cirected at that, with good training, with 8
individuals knowledgeable in training, as well as good 9
instructors.
10 It is the overall system of training, as 11 opposed to a piecemeal approach.
As we indicated, there 12 are a number of -- particularly in.the training area, we 13 are relying on some of the industry activities.
IN P C 's
()
14 job task analysis was just discussed.
Also, INPO has 15 made a significant effort in the accreditation program l
16 and we are moving forward on that.
17 You may know that is a five-member body to 18 which NRC has nominated one individual as a voting 19 member.
We will have an individual who is a non-voting 20 member there primarily as an observer.
We anticipate l
21 evaluating the effectiveness of that program and in the 22 long term we would like to see NRC's efforts in 23 training, inspections, et cetera, be reduced as the INFO
/~%
24 inspection effort and accreditation effort maintains i
1
\\)
25 that high level of trcinirg.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
315 1
MR. KERR:
How does one go about evaluating 2
the effectivensss of the program?
Have you given thet 3
much thought?
O 4
MR. THOMPSCN:
I haven't given it a soecific 5
yrrdstick for measurement.
One of the methods we were 6
noping to use to evaluate was to look at the quality of 7
indivicuals who were initially doing the assist visits 8
to the utilities rnd showing how their programs were 9
evalutted against the accreditation standard set up by 10 INDO.
11 We obviously are looking at our own guidelines 12 in development.
As I said earlier, there wars some we 13 were kinc of developing in parallel.
We are kind of
()
14 developing our own measurement guidelines to evaluate 15 the effectiveness of training programs.
16 One of the things I am trying to avoid is 17 having a measurement of the training program being how l
18 many people pass the exam.
I know that tends to be the 19 measure a lot of people like to use.
I want to minimize 20 that as the measurement tool, as opposed to evaluating 21 the t.dequacy of traini,ng programs on, is it addressing 22 the right information, is it being taught to the 23 individuals properly, and if an incividual passes 24 because he was poorly selected that's not a problem with
}
25 the training program.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I i
317 1
Tanzie, do you have anything en the evaluation 2
of tne training programs?
t 3
l O l
4 l
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
313 1
MS. 3LUMER:
Cther than what?
[}
2 MR. THCMPSON:
We would anticipate having 3
tvailable to us guidslines.for doing an independent O
4 inspection for trtining programs, ones that would have 5
besn accradited by the utilities themselves, rnd so I 6
sould say that we would have skilled individuals, 7
subject matter experts, able to go out and look at 8
training programs based upon guidelines which we have 9
not developed as of this date, but we have some draft 10 guidelines.
11 MR. KERR It seems to me there era a couple 12 of ways of evaluating a training program.
Cna is to l
13 look -at the training progrrm itself, and the other is to
()
14 look at the product, and I really was trying to 15 determine whether you plan to look primarily -- or at 16 the training program.
l 17 MS. BLUMER:
We really are talking about two 18 aspects of the trainics evaluation.
One would be the 19 internal aspects, that is, the training program itself, l
20 the documents that go along with it, the guides, the 1
l 21 exercises and tests, and the way student performance is i
22 looked at during training, and what kind of feedback is l
l 23 there, et cetera.
All the documentation.
Also some 24 classroom documentation, simulator and classroom
()
25 observation.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
313 l
1 The harder thing to get as is tha external
{)
2 evaluation, which is once the trainees are back out in 3
the field.
That is something we have been crestling O
4 with and worrying about, because it has to do sith i
5 supervisor feeoback once the trainees are on the job.
6 Are they functioning up to a certain standard, and are 7
they doing the things the job really requires?
Anc has 8
the training gotten them there?
What kinds of errors
{
9 are they making?
10 This, of course, would be ANSI reports or l
l 11 performance indicators of that sort, and in addition, 12 the job observation from a kind of a non-involved 13 person.
Those are a little harder to get at, because 14 they become more time consuming, and the worry is who 15 can do those and how much time is involved.
l 16 MR. KERR:
I agres.
It is easier to evaluate 17 the training program than the trainee, but it seems to 18
.m e what we want is well-traineo people, and the training 19 program is aimed in that direction.
I don't pretend to 20 think the latter task is easy, but it seems to me it may 21 be the part of the thing to uhich we have given the 22 least attention.
l 23 MS. SLUMER:
That may be true.
I think that i ()
24 it is the harder thing to come up with a good plan for l
25 at this coint.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3;0 1
MR. (ERR:
- certainly agree.
{}
2 MR. THCMPSON:
The INPO effort also relates to 3
developin; industry training program devices which will O
4 be used to establish some best practices for the 5
training area.
We ara also using the following industry 6
efforts to have the simulator experiments developed, and 7
internally this element has a clear interface with the 8
staffing and qualifications license examination in the 9
mtnagement organization office.
10 MR. SENCER:
Excuse me.
Do we have anything 11 concrete that says where we are now?
12 MR. THOMPSON:
With respect to training?
13 MR. BENDER:
Training.
As an example, today's
()
14 assessment of how good what we are doing is.
15 MR. THOMPSON:
I don't have a document that 16 seys, here is my status report on the state of 17 training.
If I looked at the closest thing I have 18 today, it is how well people are doing on the l
19 examinations, what types of operator errors they are 20 making in the field, who is making the errors, licensed i
21 individuals versus maintenance individuals.
22 MR. BENDER:
I am not really trying to get a 23 report here.
I wonder if there is some plan to get
()
24 quickly a status of whers we are now, how good is what 25 we are doing with training, with management's practices, I
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i
321 1
those things which se are seeking to improve.
I guess 2
sithout knowing that there is some assessment of what 3
the present circumstance is, it is hard to make a O
4 judgment about how much and what kind of effort to put 5
into it.
6 MR. THCMPSON: I am not able to say we had an 7
assessment of whers we are todey.
We had an assessment 8
after TMI that said these are a number of areas thet 9
fell down.
10 MR. BENDER:
I am not asking you to give it to 11 me today.
I am just saying somewhere in this program, 12 and fairly short-term, that current assessments should 13 be developed, so you are not just doing a series of
()
14 activities without relating them to the situation as it 15 exists now.
16 MR. THOMPSON:
I know what you are asking, and 17 I am having difficulty with it, because if I were to say 18 what we are doing short-term, I would have to look at 19 what INPC is doing with their accreditation reviews.
20 That is, the self-evaluations of how far you have to go 21 to get up to shat one considers a sound integrateo level 22 of training, because chat we have found in the past is, 23 the regulatory position has been hours in the classroom
()
24 as opposed to what training ought to be.
25 MR. SENCER:
Let me just say that I didn't
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
322 1
expect you te give me a report on the current status.
I
{}
2 am saying that rather than just agree that this set of 3
programs is a good idea, I would be inclinad to say the O
4 principles are fine, but hoa fast the effort should 5
proceed and what progress should be exoected on it 6
should be a function of what the situation is today, and 7
I don't know the situation today, and I think you ought 8
to find out what it is and have some basis for judging.
9 MR. RAY 3 Hugh, I would like to suggest this 10 is not as impossible a task as it might appear on first 11 blush.
Mr. Sander's thought, if I read it right, is an 12 appraisal of where we are on an upcated basis might be a 13 good orientation item for you, and it would seem to me
()
14 to put people on their toes in the various plants under 15 their jurisdiction.
They have ideas how those 16 organizations stand today on their program.
And it 17 wouldn 't be a scientific survey, but it would certainly 18 be an opinion from someone close enough to be reliable 19 as to how he evaluates them.
20 MR. THOMPSON:
That is true.
We do go out and 21 look at tne training programs with respect to the recall 22 program, with respect to meeting those aspects of does 23 your training program -- how effective it it in meeting
(])
24 the regulatory requirements?
I know we were planning to 25 do in a broader sense an evaluation using, ! guess, the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
323 1
ISO approach of vendors at:d others who have training 2
programs.
In fact, we can certainly say that there are 3
some utilities whose training programs are pretty good O
4 noa, and there are others who are fairly marginal from a 5
systematic approach of where ths training is.
6 I know thrt you 're s aying, rnd I think we 7
could probably do that.
8 Jay, did you have something?
9 MR. PERSENSKY:
This is Jay Persensky, NRC 10 staff.
I 11 As part of the detailed implementation plen 12 you talked about earlier, we will be developing neu 13 guidelines over the next year or so, and in that
()
14 developmen't process we are actually going to be doing l
15 some oilot audits of a number of training programs, so 16 that as we are in this develoomental phase, we will also 17 be getting some measure of the quality of the training 18 programs as they exist now.
19 MR. THOMPSON:
I think you are asking for 20 something much quicker than that.
21 MR. BENDER:
There is a spectrum of programs.
22 I wouldn 't see anything wrong with having someone say 23 tFe best programs are these, and the ones that seem to
()
24 be least effective have these characteristics, so that 25 there is some direction to improving the poorer ones and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
314 1
accepting the practices of the good ones, instead of
)
2 upgrading all of them to something thet has no strndard 3
of measure.
O 4
MR. THOMPSON:
I hear what you are saying.
I 5
think we would have a standard of measurement to which 6
they are upgraded.
Whether or not that is better than a 7
" minimum requirement" which is from a regulatory 8
perpsective is a cifferent matter.
9 MR. 3ENGER:
You surely intend to have a 10 standard of measure, but my inference is, you don't have 11 it right now.
12 MR. THOMPSON:
We are developing it.
13 MR.. BENDER:
I have made my point, and I don't
()
14 want to develop it further.
l 15 MR. AXTMANN:
I have a suggestion for some l
16 slow but possibly valuable data.
The people who know 17 who is trained best are the supervisors of those oeople.
18 Is it conceivable on a pilot program you coulc ask shift 19 supervisors to rate their people anonymously by number 20 or something like that before and after a training this might last two or three years -- to see 21 program 22 whether it is discernible that the training program had 23 any effect on the individuals.
You don't need to know
()
24 their names.
Do you follow me?
25 MR. THOMPSON:
Yes, I think that is clearly a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
325 1
possibility, and we are looking at ways to get thrt-type 2
of evaluation from tha plant supervisor, from the 3
supervisory personnel in the plant.
Tan:y, do you want O
4 to address that aspect of the evaluation of the t e r.in in g i
5 programs?
6 MS. BLUM5R.
That is a little bit touchy.
Let 7
me backtrack just for a second, and that is, we have 8
been pilot testing some training review criter[athatwe 9
have developed that'we derived frcm the 150 process.
We 10 have covered the four training vendors now.
We got 11 ourselves invited to GE and W' e s ti n g h o u s e, et cetara, to 12 audit their training programs, and they were all very 13 helpful, and it was interesting to see that th e're wa s
()
14 quite a range of training expertise that we,found.
15 We laarned a lot of things from that orocess, 16 and one of the things, to get back on the item of 17 evaluation, that is always a very touchy area, and we 18 were reminded of that with training vendors, because we 19 asked a lot of questions about what happens to 20 evaluation information, how are they evaluated and how 21 frequently in the training, and we found out this was a 22 matter at the discretion of the utility sending the 23 trainees.
They actually were able to say to the
()
24 vendors, we don't want results of an evaluation sent 25 back to us.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
/
326 1
S o ', I am just wondering how much success we
- y 2
would have ir. asking for the participation of 3
supervisors in giving us evaluation feedback on O-4 trainees.
5 MR. THCMoSON:
But it clearly is an area wa 6
will be exploring, I think, and some of the utilities 7
presently have an evaluation feeoback mechanism through 8
Dr. Wayne Jones at Mamphis State as to how well the 9
individuals, and I guess he has a selection battery of 10 tests, and he puts those individuals and tracks them 11 through five and ten years of how oell they did in the 12 nuclear industry, and cer'tainly the utilities do have 13 some information and data available now on a non-name 14 specific basis on what performance measures they do.
15 They tend to be subjective and fed back, but one of the 16 areas we are exploring is developing some objective 17 performance standard systems and techniques to enable us
~
18 to better do that end have more confidence in those 19 indivdiuals as +o how that relates to a training program l
20 or how that relates to the initial NRC examination 21 process.
22 But we agree that is important information and 23 that is one which we see through research efforts will i
24 take a long term.
It is something we are planning for 25 on a long-term basis.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
307 1
MR. WARC:
Hugh, I think we should move 2
along.
3 MR. LEWI;;
Dave, could I ask one cuestion?
I
}
4 mill make it fast.
I am conscious of the fact that 5
people alseys telk about training evaluation and the 6
criteria for determining that an operator won't mrke a 7
mistake.
On the other hand, there is another side of 8
the coin.
There have been many accidents since Three 9
Mile Island, half a deren I can think of offhrnd, in 10 which the operators have performed reasonably well, and 11 we tend to lose sight of that.
12 And I wonder if in this system apart from the 13 emphasis on' making operators conform to minimal
()
14 standards, which we certainly want to upgrade, I think 15 se all went to do that, whether in fact thsre is 16 centemplated any mechanism for providing in c en tiv e s to 17 excel, that is, to go beycnd the minimum standards.
For 18 example, the operators who have behaved well in the 19 accidents since TMI, have they gotten rewards, chevrons 20 or carnations to put in their lapels, or anything like 21 that?
I believe in incentive.
22 MR. THOMPSON:
We do have one area where we 23 can look at incentive areas, and that tends to be in the
('
24 licensing examination area.
What we would be able to ao V) 25 is in fact monitor those individuals who have done well J
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 YlRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2746
323 1
either through a process of the requalification exams
/}
2 anc be able to give them a longer license, but when I 3
talk about the license and examination area, it will be O'
4 one where we have a short-term phase and a lon;-term 5
phase, and it would be more in the long-term phase where 8
we are able to identify those individuals sho have 7
demonstrated gooc competence.
They would have a longer 8
torm license made available to them rather thrn the 9
requalification program requiring them to submit for a 10 new license every two years.
11 MR. LEWIS:
So the incentive would not be to 12 be requalified quite so often.
That is the incentive 13 you have in mind?
()
14 MR. THCMPSON:
Carnations we hadn't thought 15 of, but i t 's an idea I will put in the --
18 MR. KERR:
I want to endorse Mr. Lewis's 17 sentiment.
We had a recent situation in which a utility 18 is being fined for en interpretation which said 19 operators did not recognize symptoms they should have, 20 end it seems to me therefore that the converse is not a 21 brd idea.
If operators do perform well, maybe they 22 shoulc be given a reward.
23 MR. WARO:
I guess I tend to think t h a t 's the
()
24 business of the utilities rather than the NRC.
25 MR. KERR:
One could also assume the fining is l
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
22?
I the business of the utilities, but this has turned out
{)
2 not to be.
3 MR. KERR:
I'm not sure that's a good O
4 argument.
5 MR. RAY:
Maybe we should follow the fining 6
policy in reverse, Bill.
7 MR. LEWIS:
I think it is partly the NRC znd 8
partly the. utilities.
Certainlys the source of great 9
rewards is obviously in the utilities who employ the 10 people involved.
On the other hand, one could think of 11 things which for some strange reason really do matter 12 for people.
Chevrons for getting an unusually high 13 grade on the exem, or a red stamp on your license.
14 People care about things like this.
15 MR. THOMPSON:
We are quite frankly looking.
16 I don't knou if you have seen the new license.
We have 17 gone from the flimsies with 28 carbon copias to a fairly 18 significant improvement, almost a diploma, but moving 19 right along 20 MR. WARC:
That is good.
21 MR. THOMPSON!
-- we would be looking at an 22 ability to recognize those who have demonstrated 23 particularly excellent and outstanding performance on an I ()
24 examination by issuing these individuals a more 25 distinguishec type license.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGl'UA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
330 1
MR. WARC:
I think it is important to
{}
2 recognize that the interface of the NRC with the 3
oosrator is in the licensing exam, so I think it is O
4 appropriate that if you are going to give any rewards, 5
it be in that aram rather than in his performrnce on the 6
job, chich is where he is responsible to his managet. ant, 7
not the NRC.
8 MR. THOMPSON:
I think that is right, but it.
9 is one way where we can recognize, like the star on the 10 license, where a guy has reached a level of proficiency 11 that indicates that he is -- and the other way to de 12 that is, looking at the long-term portion of the exam, 13 having an FAA-type check pilot, that is, an examinar who
(
14 is in fact used by the utility or other utilities to be 15 an examiner of recualification programs or participate 16 with the NRC in the initial exams of individuals.
17 So, I would see us being able to identify a 18 cadre of the bast operators probably through a 19 combination of the utilities identifying these 20 individuals as well as going through a program through 21
.NRC to have the chevrons on their sleeves, the 22 smashbuckle and sword in their cocket.
My carnation was 23 symbolic only.
24 MR. SHEWHON:
Do you think we ara going to
()
25 have time for a break before 10:307 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
\\
331 i
1 M. R. WARO:
We will have a break at 10:30, if 2
that is all right.
Can you cover the rest of your
(
3 slides in eight minutas?
)
4 MR. THOMPSON:
Proviced there aren't too many 5
questions.
6 MR. WARD; All right.
7 MR. THOMPSON:
The license exam.
We are 8
lo ok in g at a short-term and a long-term phase.
In the 9
short-term chase, there sould be no dramatic change to 10 the existing process of the writtens, the orals, and the 11 simulators for those where we have plant specific 12 simulators.
We do recognize there are some important l
13 aspects here.
i ()
14 Regionalization is coming.
We have a large l
15 number of contractors, and we are making efforts now t' o l
16 improve the internal process by which we administer 17 these examinations and develop these examinations and 18 grade them as well as to ensure that the exam questions 19 are better, the exams are more valid and more job 20 related.
\\
21 Again, this will be coordinated with the INPO 22 Job task analysis, and using a significant number of the 23 subject matter aspects from the industry, primarily
(])
24 their training programs, to assist us in developing 25 examination data banks.
We are trying to look at the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
332 1
possibility of having a computerized date bank of
{}
2 thousands of ouestions on the subjects, bPsed on both 3
Jcb task analysis and inputs from the. subject matter O
4 experts.
5 Procedures end testing.
As you know, through 6
the Commission 's actions on SECY-82-111, we have under 7
wry presently a major effort revising and upgreding the 8
emergency operating procedures.
The efforts in this 9
program element are looking at those other procedures 10 which are important.
They are the maintenance 11 procedures, abnormel procedures, as well as the normal 12 coeration procedures.
13 These particular -- a decision as to whether
()
14 and to what extent we have new regulatory requirements 15 in this area to be upgraded is the focus of this 16 particuler progrcm.
Again, we would see participation 17 along the same lines we did in the emergency operating 18 procedures using the owner's grouc to develop some of 19 the generic technical efforts using INPO particularly 20 with respect to the writer's guide and the industry, l
21 perticularly each individuel utility developing their 22 plant specific guidelines for reviewing the upgraded l
23 ones.
()
24 Man-machine intarface.
This is one of the 25 areas where se have looked at a number of areas where we
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
333 1
are considering the uograde and detailed control ecom 2
reviews with respect to SECY-82-Ill.
The focus of the 3
major part of this effort is looking at those advanced O
4 control rooms and having a regulatory besis to address 5
issues that come up beyond the ongoing effort in 6
32-111.
7 We would not see another major round of 8
control room modifications being dictated without some 9
other outside indicator that a problem exists with 10 control rocms.
We ars looking at areas of interest, 11 maintenance, local control stations, emergency response 12 facilities, and emergency preparedness.
This in 13 carticular relates to some of the fuel cycle areas,
()
14 annunciators to eliminate operator overload during off I
l 15 normal events.
16 We are looking at computers with respect to 17 what regulatory roles or reviews should occur on I
18 computers which are not safety-related functions, those 19 which primarily provide data and information to the 20 operators, advanced controls and displays for the future 21 plants, function allocation between what should be the 22 activities the operators carry out and which activities 23 should be carried out automatically.
()
24 And in the safety system status indication, a I
25 monitoring of which systems are precared to work.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VIRGINlA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 I
324 1
Cbviously, one of t.ke major concerns here for the
}
2 utilities and us as a regulatory body is, which items, 3
if any, are backfitted.
As I said earlier, trere are no O
4 present plans for a major backfit of these areas to 5
on going pla' ts.
The major backfit area now is under n
6 SECY-32-ll1.
7 As wa talked earlier about some of the foreign 8
work, this is one of the areas where forlagn work is 9
probably being monitored as closely as others.
ho have to done a survey on ope rator 's qualification and staffing, 11 out here with annunciators, computers, and advanced 12 control room displays, are areas where foreign work is 13 being monitored carefully.
()
14 And finally -- well, let's see.
I won't say 15 finally.
One area which everyone has recogrized as a 16 very importent area is management and.organi:stion.
17 Typically utility management has no problem with you 18 revieming every other part of their organization other 19 than themselves.
This is one where we have had a number 20 of efforts to try to provide some guidelines to
~
21 evaluating the effectiveness and ability of utilities to 22 safely operate anc manage their plants.
23 This is one which has not progressed as 24 quickly as we have canted to.
It is one where the
()
25 utilities seem less silling to invite you in to O
ALDFASON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
33?
1 scrutinize and develop guidelines. It is one in uhich I 2
thirk we have oeen particularly sensitive, and we have 3
also been criticized when we have someone who is not a O
4 chief executive officer making any comments cbout the 5
utilties.
6 Sut some of the areas of interest we have are 7
security, technicel reports.
Safety review committees 8
is one we are obviously looking at.
It is e major 9
progrrm.
We think it will be very valuable if we are 10 able to bring an innovative approec5.
Right now se are 11 looking more at defining the functional requirements and 12 allowing the utilities to justify their particular 13 organizational structure with respect to the functional O
u requirements th.y hav..
l 15 One particular ites I know some of the 16 subcommittee consultants were concerned about was the 17 plant manager training or prospective plant manager 18 training.
IN20 now has agreed to initiate the major i
l l
19 efforts in tnat area, so we will be monitoring those 20 efforts with respect to the prospective plant 21 superintendent or prospective plant manager training.
22 Again, this is an area where we have a number 23 of activities ongoing within NRC that require clear
(])
24 coordination.
The INPO PAT team SOP reviews are areas 25 where we get involved in looking at the management and (2)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
336 1
orgenization efforts.
2 I will crobebly skio now to the numan factors 3
recommencations.
That is about two slides for thosa uno O
4 are trying to keep up with this rapid eight-minute 5
response.
There were 51 principal recommendations.
Of 6
those, we have responded to 40 which are either ongoing 7
or essentially under way now.
Six wo still have under 8
consideration.
Three we disagree with, and two we 9
believe industry efforts under ucy are the apcropriate 10 way to be responsive to those efforts.
11 The three with which we disagree are to reduce 12 the current research level for risk assessment and humen 13 reliability.
There was concern by the Human Factors
()
14 Society that this effort was not a particularly useful 15 one.
It was a difficult one to get good data on.
I 16 think we have a commitment to probabilistic risk 17 assessment, rnd we are moving forward, I think, to 18 centinue to push the state of the art in this area to 19 where it can be useful in using the probabilistic risk 20 effort.
21 MR. KERR:
Excuse me.
Why did you say the 22 Human Factors Society thought that that should be 23 decreased?
()
24 MR. JCNES:
Dan Jones, NRC staff.
The Human 25 Frctors Society felt it would be a lot better to cut O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 ViRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
337 1
your time and effort into redesigning end improving the 2
human engineering of the control rooms rather than 3
trying to determine what the error rate of operators in O
4 current contr 31 rooms were.
5 We have a requirement to do both, ma believe.
6 MR. KERR Thank you.
/
MR. THOMPSON:
They recommended we shift 8
research emphasis from error modeling and risk 9
assessment to design analysis.
In that case we have 10 programs under way in both areas.
We feel both are 11 appropriate to maintain the error modeling for risk 12 assessment as well as the design analysis.
So, to that 13 extent, we would maintain.
()
14 MR. KERR:
What does design analysis mean in i
15 this context?
16 MR. THCMPSON:
I think it is the 17 mainteinability aspect, how you would design future 18 plants to be more maintenance ease type areas.
Is that 19 right, Voss?
20 MR. MOORE:
Yes, and the sorts of things we 1
21 have been doing in trying to improve control rooms, the 1
l 22 principles are pretty well known in the man-machine 23 interface, and I think the Human Factors Society felt l
24 that we should analyze the plants and improve those, and
()
25 that way we would get the most safety rather than O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
333 1
worrying about what the operator's error rate is in a 2
certain function.
3 MR. KERR:
Thenk you.
O 4
MR. THOMPSON:
And finally, they auestionoa 5
the need or recommended that systems analysis be 6
conducted to determins the need for an SPD as that 7
particular area has been ovartaken by the Comvission's 8
action on SECY-82-111, and that is an area in which we 9
are not expending resources.
10 MR. BENDER:
I am about half confused by the 11 previous discussion.
It looks to me like if you are 12 going to work on design improvements in the control 13 room, you have to start by finding out what errors have
()
14 occurred.
Is there something that says those two are 15 separate from each other?
l 16 MR. MOORE:
I think what the Human Factors 17 Society believes, and I think there is a strong element 18 of truth in this, is, over the years in defense and 19 aerospace there are some pretty good principles for i
l 20 man-machine interface, end I think what the Human l
21 Factors Society or the Committee believed was, if you 22 apply those principles to the control rooms, you will 1
23 reduce the error rate as low as we are able to do right l
24 nom, rather than just find out what the error rate is.
(}
25 MR. BENCER:
That is a truism.
I can hardly O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
333 1
argue.
But it doesn 't deal sith the matter of the
[}
2 existing plants and what to do with them.
If the issue 3
is to upgrade the existing plants, I certainly think you O
4 must start by saying, what problems do me have in the 5
existing plants, and somehow or another that issue 6
doesn't.seem to be eddressed.
7 MR. MOORE:
I think we tre agreeing with you
{
8 and disagreeing with the Muman Factors Society.
l 9
MR. THOMPSON:
Cuickly moving to the TMI l
10 action plan items I mentioned earlier to you, these were 11 prioritized in Table 1 with respect to the NUREG-0933 12 efforts for the developmentel ones.
13 On the first table, these.are the status of 14 the current ones that have been implemented.
The 15 requirements have been developed and implemented and are 16 operating with reactors.
Eleven have been completed, 17 two are long-term continuing items, and three are in 18 progress.
Mcst of those in progress are in fact in 19 progress in importance with SECY-82-111 with control 20 room review SPDS and the E0P revisions upgrade.
21 The training for mitigating core damage has 22 been completed.
It has been upgraded by the utilities, 23 and we are still in the process of reviewing responses
()
24 to that one.
l 25 And finally, with respect to the items still ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, o.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
340 1
under oevelopment, the prioritization associated with
(}
2 those ranked one es a high priority which is the 1A220 3
in training.
Five are the medium priorities.
- Actually, O
4 there zero two low priority items.
Cne we have already 5
dropped from the effort, and the other low priority item 6
will be dropped, rnd the portions which appear to be 7
good will be integrated in the overall long-term 8
training program.
9 So, with that as a quick overview, I would 10 suggest a break now, if there are no cuestions.
I 11 missed it by about five minutes.
12 MR. WARD:
I think'we ought to go ahead with 13 the rest of the presentation.
14 MR. THOMPSON:
All right.
The long-range l
l 15 research activity will be presented by Jim Norberg.
l 16 MR. NORSERG:
I am Jim Norberg, chief of the 17 Human Factors Branch, the Division of Facility i
18 Operations, in the Cffice of Research.
19 You have been hearing from Hugh this morning 20 about the human factors program, and he has included in 21 this the research that we have ongoing.
However, it has 22 not been identified specifically in terms of which 23 project addresses which issues, but he has encompassed t ()
24 our research program in addressing all of the various 25 issues and program elaments that he has baen l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
341 1
discussing.
2 I will discuss the longer term research which 3
is beyond 1985.
That is presanted in Chapter 4 of the O
4 program plan.
5 First, I would like to restate our overall 6
research objectives so that everyone is on tha same 7
wavelength and knows where we are coming feca, :nd 8
projecting to go in the human factors area.
The 9
objectives of the h u.m a n factors research by NRC are to 10 improve our basic understanding of the impact humans 11 hrve on nuclear srfety and the factors affseting human 12 performance, including the human contribution to risk 13 through PRA studies, to provide a technical drta base 14 for developing defensible regulatory positions related 15 to human factors.
16 And our bottom line objective, of course, is 17 to reduce the human contribution to risk to an 18 acceptable level.
19 MR. KERR:
Do you have some measure of that en 20 acceptably low level is, or is that also part of the 21 research program, to determine what is an acceptably low 22 level?
23 MR. NORSERG:
I think what is an acceptably O
24 1.w 1 eve 1 1s tied 1eto the era risk assessments, in 25 addition to doing the best job ce can, I guess, in terms O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I 342
(
1 of reducing tha human arror through not only our 2
research program but to try to instal the guidelines and l
3 regulations that we feel will reduce this to chat is O
4 considered an acceptably low level. I can't put a number 5
on what is an acceptably low level.
By numbers, ! don't 6
know.
7 MR. KERR:
If you don't know what an
~
how can that be a very 8
acceptably low level is, 9
important objactive?
10 HR. NCRSERG:
It is a general objective.
To 11 me, we have sean in the.past that there are too many 12 errors being made by tha humans in our plants, so we are 13 intent --
14 MR. KERR:
I am not trying to be facetious.
15 This is a research orogram.
And I assume it has an 16 end.
It seems to me one of the ways you can determine 17 shether you have achieved your objective is to determine 18 whether you have resched those bullets.
One of them 19 says, reduce human contributions to an acceptably los 20 level.
Co you plan in the course of your research to 21 try to determine what an ecceptably low level is?
22 MR. NORBERG:
Yes, I think we woulo plan to 23 try to determine whet an acceptably low level is.
I am 24 not certain myself right now what that number might be,
()
25 if it is a number, or whatever we are talking about O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
343 1
here.
I think we are aiming towards trying to recuce it 2
to what is considered to be an acceptably low level ey 3
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
O 4
MR. GCLLER:
I would like to add a little 5
something to that, if I could.
! would like to point 6
out this is the long-range aspect of our reserrch 7
program.
This would not be done in isolation as far as 8
human factors are concerned.
This is a part of the 9
Commission's overall probability risk assessment 10 offerts.
It would be done in conjunction with other considerations,'ecuipment failures and so on, and also 11 12 ties into the C ommis sion 's efforts to identify a goal, a 13 safety goel, and I think in the context of this research
()
14 program those pieces will all fall together and we will 15 as a fact of this long range research.
16 MR. KERR:
I am sorry.
I really do not 17 believe pieces fall together unless one has an l
l 18 accident.
It seems to me if that statement means 19 something, you either have a plan for determining what 20 an acceptably low level is -- I wouldn't know what it 21 was at this point -- or else someone has already reached 22 a conclusion as to what it is, and I was just trying to 23 find out whether it's the latter or chether it's a cart
()
24 of the research program to determine what an acceptably 25 low level is.
(
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
344 1
MR. GOLLER:
The acceptably low level in 2
general would be identified by the safety goal, anc the 3
probsbility risk analysis efforts will be applied, so O
4 that equipment, hardware, and other considerations in 5
conjunction with human factors will satisfy the safety 6
goal.
7 MR. WARD:
That is certainly an answer.
8 (General laughter.)
9 MR. WARC:
Hal Lewis, did you have a comment?
10 MR. LEWIS:
I wanted to support the spirit of 11 what Bill is asking.
There is no special reason to lay 12 into the human factors people in particular on this, 13 because the entire NRC program suffers from an inability
()
14 to define what the word " acceptable" is.
I don't really 15 believe you when you say that the definition of what is 16 "receptable" is a part of your research program, because 17 you won't find out within the context of a human 18 factors, human reliability program what the answer to 19 that is.
That is something the Commission must give to s
20 you.
l 21 And I also don't agree that the safety goals 22 are particularly helpful in that regard, although in the 23 context of the safety goals, you can certainly ask to
()
24 make the humsn factor contribution less than the 25 contribution from valves or something like that, and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
345 1
that is a completely reasonable objective in my view.
2 MR. GCLLER:
The safety goal sculd, of course, 3
be the ultimete, and it would be very quantitative.
O 4
until we reach that, probability risk analysis will 5
provide us at least relative considerations, and if 6
outliers are identified uhere there are certain human 7
factors considerations that are giving risks chich are 8
clearly out of ordce with the other range of risks, then 9
the research and the regulatory effort will be to reduce 10 those.
11 MR. LEWIS:
Can I make just one more comment?
12 I think that those peocle who love PRA most 13 are those who have tried least to do PRA.
I don't want
()
14 to appear to be agreeing with the anti-PRA buffs in our 15 crowd, beccuse I am a pro-PRA buff, but we seem to have 16 forgotten that probabilistic risk assessment is subject 17 to errors of factors of 10, 20, or 30, or whatever you 18 want to define.
19 MR. RAY:
Cr 1,000.
20 MR. BENCER:
Hal, are you applying your 21 criteria to yourself?,
22 MR. LEWIS:
My risk of error is extremely high 23 and quantifiable, because it can be greater than one.
()
24 MR. SHEWMCN:
Could we get back to the 25 sceaker, please?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
40o VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
346 1
MR. LEWIS:
No, I really am trying to make a
{}
2 substantive point, Paul, which is that one cannot really 3
deoend upon
.D R A. t o set these goals.
They hevo to be set O
4 internally within the program, and PRA is a means of 5
evaluating witn some level of accuracy which is not very 6
high how well you are doing.
7 I zm sorry.
8 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
9 MR. NORBERG:
Thess are the issues that we tre 10 addressing.
I think in Hugh's discussion today he went 11 over more specifically how they apply to each of the 12 program areas.
We feel that these issues need to be 13 resolved sufficiently to meet the objectives of the
(
14 research effort and the regulatory actions for which the 15 research is being performed.
16 We are addressing these issues in our current 17 program, and we expect we will be addressing them in our 18 longer range progrem.
They are primarily releted right 19 now to nuclear power plant issues and the man-machine 20 interface problems with the nuclear power plant.
In the 21 longar term, we expect to address human factors issues 22 for a fuel cycle and other licensed nuclear facilities, 23 and for these activities the human factors issues can be
()
24 expected to be somewhat different, particularly in tne 25 details of these issues.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
-347 1
The basic issues probably will be much tne
{}
2 seme.
The human factors research described in Section 3 3
of the plan was developed to be responsive to NRC O
4 short-term needs, and is aimed at developing d'a t e to 5
address current regulatory issues involving commercial 6
nuclear power plants.
7 In Section 4 of the plan, we have a very brief 8
general description of the RAS plans for longer-term 9
research needs in the human factors crea as we currently 10 ses them.
The longer-term human factors research will 11 focus on the areas shocn in this vu-graph (indicating).
12 This will include the application of task analytic data 13 on operations, maintenance, and management functions.
()
14 Specifically, this data will be used to 15 develop or support criteria and guidance for regulatory 16 actions on human factors engineering, staffing, 17 perscnnel qualifications, training, procedures, job 18 aids, and communications.
19 We have had validation of human performance 20 models and criteria and guidelines.
Specifically the 21 areas of reliability, maintenance, and cognitive process 22 will be addressed.
Additionally, validation data will 23 be develooed for the appropriate use of simulators in
()
24 training and examinations.
We sill oevelop the 25 technical basis or work towards the development of a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
345 1
technical basis for human factors regulatory actions for 2
advanced LW R 's.
3 And in particular here se are looking at O
4 advanced control room designs tssociated with computer 5
acclications and possible automation.
This is looking 6
down the road a little bit.
We will conduct human 7
factors research on non-LWR reactors and test reactors.
8 Specifically, we are looking here towards doing research 9
in ths LMFSR area, in the gas-cooled reactor aret, and 10 research recctors.
We will conduct human factors 11 research on fuel cycle facilities, including 12 frbrication, storage, reprocessing, and waste 13 management.
14 To date, little human factors research has 15 been performed in these areas, and we anticipated to see 16 increased activity in the longer term.
We also will 17 conduct research on unresolved human fcctors issues for 18 current LWR's.
It can be expected that. there will be i
I 19 unresolved or new issues icentified on current LWR's 20 that will recuire human factors research, and this area 21 then has been included in our longer-range plans.
22 We don't believe we have anticipated possibly 23 all of the problems that may arise in the future.
l ()
24 MR. SENDER:
Do you have any feeling for the 25 level of effort associated with this plan?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
349 1
MR. NORBERG:
In terms of dollars?
{)
2 MR. BENCER:
Dollars or man years, snatever.
3 MR. NCRBERG Yes, we are talking here about O
4 our total research plan, on the order of $9 million in 5
these out years, which includes about $2 million morth 6
of research directed towards human reliability, risk 7
assessment type.
8 MR. SHEWMON:
Where is most of that going?
9 Who is your largest contractor?
10 MR. NCREERG:
In the future or right now?
11 MR. SHEWMON:
Either one.
12 MR. NORSERG:
Right now we have it spread out 13 quite a bit, but our biggest contractors are with the
(
14 National Laboratories at Idano, at Oak Ridge, LASL --
15 not LASL, but Sandia --
l 16 MR. SHEWMON:
The three biggest is enough.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. KERR Why does one have that last 19 Dullet?
Is that just so you won't have left anything 20 out, or do you really have some money allocated that 21 says we think some things will come up we haven't 22 thought of and we want to save some money over for 23 that?
()
24 MR. NCRSERG:
No, I think primarily we are 25 anticipating that by tne time 1986 rolls around, we sill O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
350
(}
1 have seen some things come up that we mey want to 2
reallocate some of our funds into, and this might apply 3
to current reactors.
We have not specifically O
4 icertified a current issue that we don't know about, but 5
se felt to be complete this should be included as at 6
least anticipatory in our planning.
7 The research program elements are shown on 8
this vu-graph, and I will not discuss them since they 9
are discussed briefly in the program plan.
However, in 10 closing, I want to emphasize that we see the longer-term 11 human factors research addressing regulatory needs of 12 all of these program elements in three general areas.
13 These areas are, for non-LWR licensed 14 facilities, advanced technology systems, and most 15 importantly, the research program will strive to improve 16 the integration of human factors into an overall systems 17 approach.
The technology and methods developed on LkR 18 nuclear power plants would provice, we believe, a sound 19 basis for human factors research on other licensed
{
20 nuclear facilities.
Probabilistic risk assessment and 21 human performence models will be increasingly used to 22 help direct and focus the research efforts in the areas 23 most needed, and with the highest potential for payoff
()
24 relative to reducing human error and improving plant 25 operations.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
331
[}
1 That concludes my presentation.
2 MR. KERR:
In terms of your long-range 3
resecr h, are you looking at the question of how much O
4 increase, if any, there should be in efforte toward 5
automation?
There is some probably lower limit which 6
you are going to determine to human error that can be 7
expected, and presumably one might eliminate some of 8
this by giving the human less responsibility for some of 9
the things carriod on.
Is this part of your program?
I 10 can't identify it among those.
11 MR. NORSERG:
No, you can't see it ameng 12 these, but you are correct in that we are initiating a 13 program in this area in fiscal 1983 called function 14 allocation, so we are looking towards where the 15 man-machine interface function should be, what should be 16 the man's responsibility, what should be the na chin e 's 17 responsibility, and what the best mix might be for the 18 two.
19 So, we are looking into that area starting 20 earlier than the time period I am referring to here.
0.1 MR. KERR:
Thank you.
22 MR. MARK:
It seems to me -- a very general 23 comment going back to something Professor Kerr raised
()
24 earlier, " reduced to an acceptable level."
L e t 's 25 oratend that you know how to do that and what an O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
33 1
acceptable level is.
We heard that an accaptable level
[}
2 is perhaps to be understood in terms of the quantitative 3
safety goal to be established by the Commission.
O 4
Now, it is entirely possible that the present 5
plans meet the quantitative safety goal, in which case 6
ue could save $9 million a yaar, I guess, or should you 7
think about tha justification for this research so that 8
it can be phrased in other terms?
9 MR. NORBERG:
Well, I think what you are 10 saying is true, that if you could show that we could not 11 improve our plant ooerations --
12 MR. MARK 3 That is quite a different thing.
I 13 am sure you can improve them, but if you say the safety 14 goal is going to tell you when you are finished, and we 15 magically discover we are meeting the safety goal, then 16 you can stop, I don't think that's really what you want 17 to say, and I think that should be talked thecugh back 18 in your own shop.
19 MR. NCRBER3:
I agree with you.
That is, I 20 think, a coor choice of words.
Having had the question 21 asked the way it was, it is certainly one very difficult 22 for me to answer.
23 MR. LEWIS:
There are certainly all sorts of
()
24 visceral judgmsnts being made on this.
Earlier in your 25 presentation you said, we know operators are making too O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 40o VIRGINIA AVE., 3.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
353
()
1 many errors nosadays, and that is a judgment, just along 2
the lines Dr. Mark was talking about.
We are making 3
these judgments, but no one knows how we are making O
4 them.
5 MR. NORSERG:
Well, I think that --
6 MR. MARK:
Lock, it is not a question.
7 MR. WARD:
Was it an academic comment?
8 MR. MARK:
An academic comment.
9 MR. WARC:
Are there any other comments or 10 ouestions?
11 (No response.)
12 MR. WARD:
Then let's say,
.M r. Chairman, we 13 have five minutes.
We could take a break or we could 14 have the first reading of the letter.
15 MR. SHEWMON:
Whichever is your pleasure.
I 16 find I have a pretty pink letter here.
Is that what we 17 are talking about?
(
18 MR. WARD:
Yes.
Why don't we have a quick 19 once-through reading of the letter, and then we can take 20 a break?
This is a pink letter, draft number two.
We 21 will start with paragraph two.
There should be a title, 22 by the way.
This can be off the record, I believe.
23 (Whereupon, the recorded portion of the
()
24 meeting was concluced, and the meeting continued off the 25 record.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN This is to certify that the attached pecceedings before :he
.~
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS; 271ST GENERAL MEETING in the natter ef:
- Date of Proceeding:
November 5, 1982 Docket !! umber:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D.C.
sere held as herein appears, and. that this is the original transcript therecf for the file of the Com:sissic",
Sharon Filipour Official Reporter (Typed)
O an. A=as Official Reporter (Si& nature) t O
O i -
l
- n
-- --- -,+-