ML20054F875
| ML20054F875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/11/1982 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8206180073 | |
| Download: ML20054F875 (43) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:* NUC R P.EGUI.ATORY CCESSICN - (~
- D ^ T V 'O f
_d_ N b M h COMMISSION MEETING In de Mattar ef: PUBLIC MEETING CONTINUED BRIEFING ON REACTOR OPERATDR QUALIFICATIONS ( DATE: June 11, 1982 PAGES: 1 - 42 AT: Washincton, D. C. T- (REPORTING ALD R %X C 40 0 Virginia Ave., S.W. Wash d ng==, D. C. 20024 Telachc=e: (202) 554-2245 8206180073 820611 PDR 10CFR l PT9.7 PDR I
1 ^, _ e 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r 3 4 CONTINUED PRIEFING ON REACTOR OPERATOR QUALIFICATIONS 5 6 PUBLIC M EETING 7 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 9 1717 H Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 10 Friday, June 11, 1982 11 12 The Commission convened, pursuan t to notice, at 13 10s02 a.m. 14 BEFORE: 15 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 16 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner 17 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner i 18 I STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLES l 19 l J. H0YLE 20 J. NORBERG K. GOLLER 21 E. CASE H. THOMPSON 22 J. PERSENSKY F. REMICK 23 R. LEVI 24 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS: 25 E. MER5CHOFF ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
e (~ ( / DISCLAIMER' This is an unofficial' transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission-held on, June 11, 1982 in the Cocaission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Kashington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript - has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. The transcript is intended solely for general infomational purcoses. As provided by 10 CFR g.103,. it is not part of the farinal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this. transcript do not necessarily reflect final detenninations or
- p jbeliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Comission in any-proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument ,'/ contained hereirr, except as the Comission may auth'orize. l l 9 M 9~*s ' ;.s l l l
i 6 7 +1 1 EEOEEEDIEEs 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. '/ 4 The Commission meets this morning to hear from 5 the staff about reactor operator qualifications. This G is a continuation of the meeting held yesterday when we ? were briefed by the industry representatives on this 8 subject. 9 The staff is here to provide us with a 10 discussion of its relationship with the Institute for 11 Nuclear Power Operations on these and similar matters, s 12 also to hear about the task analysis research work 13 proposed by the staff and to describe the next steps 14 that are proposed to be taken in the area of operator 15 qualifications. ~ 16 Unless the Commissioners have any other 17 opening remarks, I will turn the meeting over to 18 Mr. Goller. 19 MR. 00LLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 20 Jim Norberg, the Branch Chief of our Human 21 Factors Branch in the Office of Research will describe 22 th e task analysis research work that we have underway, 23 its status and how the results will be used by the ,24 aggncy. 25 Jim. / ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINtA AVE S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
3 1 (Slide presentation) 2 MR. NORBERGs I will present a brief overview 3 of the NRC INPO task analysis research efforts, and in 4 particular how they relate and what the current status 5 is. 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Let me ask you, why do 7 we need a task analysis? 8 HR. NORBERGs I sort of anticipated this might 9 be a question from you. Yesterday you asked basically 10 th ree questions, if I understood thems wha t is a task 11 analysis, first; when you did a task analysis what do 12 you get, what does this look like; and after you have 13 got this thing what are you going to do with it. 14 Why do we need a task analysis? Well, a task 15 analysis is really the front end effort that one does 16 when they determino how man and the machines interface. 17 What we are doing with the task analysis is to provide a 18 very detailed record of what the control room crews do i 19 when they respond or interf ace with the reactor plant. 20 In the case of our task analysis we are going 21 to do this on a operating sequence basis. In other 22 words, we are going to be looking at specific operating 23 sequences and get a detailed record of how the operating 24 crew in the control room interf aces with the plant under 25 these sequences. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
u 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But ultimately, I 2 gather, you have already come to some conclusion about 3 what it is that this man or woman needs to know or have 4 in their background. 5 MR. NORBERG: Right-6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now are you going to 7 end up with a different result than you get if you sat 8 down with some experienced people and asked them to 9 spend a couple of days laying down what they think that 10 ought to be? 11 MR. NORBERGa Yes, I think we will, beca use my 12 understanding is that this more or less is the kind of 13 the approach that INPO is taking in terms of a t least 14 one phase of their task analysis. 15 Now our task analysis is performed in two 16 phases. We do what we call a desk-top analysis, first, 17 where we take all of the information from a particular 18 power plant and go th rough the particular sequences in 19 terms of looking at the procedures that are involved and 20 what the operators are supposed to be doing. Then we go 21 to the power plant and actually do walk-through, 22 talk-through 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I realire you do all 24 that. Let me put it this way. I am a little bit 25 concerned that instead of taking expe rienced people who l l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE..,S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
S 5 } 1 have worked at these sorts of things for a long time and 2 sitting them down and saying what is your judgment or 3 what is required here, instead of that we are taking 4 sort of a micro-look and writing out taxonomies and 5 using computers snd then we are going to reassemble all 6 this da ta. 7 ER. GOLLER: I don't think that is the case, 8 Commissioner. I think perhaps if we could describe to 9 you what the program is, and I hope that we can make it to clear that this is really a tool that we are developing 11 which will be used by people and including people such 12 as you have described to determine what, if anything 13 else, could or should be done to improve the situation. 14 That tool can be applied to a great number of things 15 that we are interested in, including the design of the 16 control room, a se,lection of the people that are 17 operators, the training of the people who are operators, 18 their requalification and so on. 19 It will be used by people who are experienced, 20 and the data that is collected, the tool that is 21 developed will to a great extent be based on input from 22 people that are experienced as you have de scribed. 23 I think if you will let Jim descr'ibe the 24 effort th a t we have underway and how we intend to use 25 it, I think it might clear up some of these questions ALDERSON AEPoRTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345. j
6 1 that are apparently in your mind. 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY's Let's try and do that. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Why don't we let him 4 proceed. They indicated they only needed five minutes 5 on the point and then we can come back to the questions. 6 Is that right? 7 ER. GOLLER: Yes, sir. 8 MR. NOBBERGs Ye s, sir. 9 MR. NORBERGs I also briefly comment a little 10 bit on the coordination of this research with the INPO 11 folks. t. 12 The objectives of the NRC research program a re 13 directed toward obtaining generic task analysis data 14 and, like I said before, on the man / machine interface in 15 nuclear power plants. We are addressing this in three 16 general areas. 17 The first concerns the control room crews 18 where we will obtain task analysis data for transient 19 and accident conditions in order to evaluate and 20 regulate human engineering design of the control room, 21 the numbers and types of operators needed, their 22 training requirements and qualifications, normal, 23 off-normal and emergency operating procedures, job 24 performance aids and communications. 25 So our objectives are somewhat broader than ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7 l = i 1 what you heard from the INPO folks where they are 2 concentrating, at least at this time, in the training 3 and qualifications area. 4 The second concerns the maintenance personnel 5 where we will obtain task analysis data as part of an 6 overall effort to develop a human 7 performance / maintenance model. 8 The third area concerns the management and 9 support personnel whose functions relate to safe plant 10 design, construction and operations. 11 So we are working in three areas. The area 12 that is of direct concern today I believe is on the 13 control room crew task analysis which is our contract 14 with the General Physics Corporation. i l 15 The objectives of the INPO task analysis .16 research, as I understand it, are to obtain job task 17 analysis data to better determine the skills and 18 knowledge requirements of roughtly 10 operational 19 positions, for example, the reactor operator, the senior 20 reactor operator, the shift supervisor, the shift 21 technical adviser and various maintenance support 22 personnel. 23 I couldn't hear yesterday what INPO was saying 24 so I don't know if I caught their discussion completely 25 or not. ~ ' ~ - ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
8 1 ( Laugh ter. ) 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: We have to read the 3 transcript. 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa What is it going to 5 cost per position? 6 MR. NOREERG4 What is it going to cost INPO 7 per position? 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Us. 9 MR. NORBERG: Well, we are looking at, like I 10 say, a broad range of things. The total cost of this 11 program right now is $770,000. 12 CHAIRMA N PALLADINO: I am not quite sure what 13 you are going to get out of the program. Could you s 14 repeat that a gain? 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Let me just jump in and 16 just give one quick unfair biased comment. 17 (Laughter.) 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 I think everybody 19 involved in this, and it is just as Vic said, he said 20 all experienced have done tha t. They have sat down and 21 reached a conclusion. Now the difference is that nov 22 these two conclusions are separate and various people 23 are trying to build a case for their position. 24 Now in the case of INPO we heard, and I think 25 it didn 't take too much probing to understand that INPO ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-;345
9 1 believes that righ t now the operators know enough and 2 that all of this cther set of efforts to try to increase 3 their knowledge is unjustified. So they are doing a set 4 of detailed task analyses to verify that the NRC has 5 been pushing too far. 6 On our side we have some people who suspect 7 tha t the experienced people who have built up the 8 industry requiements over the last 10 or 20 years didn't 9 build enough knowledge into it and we are doing sets of to task analyses to see whether or not our suspicions are 11 correct. 12 Now, as I said, that is an unbiased, unf air 13 description, but as a rule of thumb a pproa ch I think --- 14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No, a biased. You said 15 unbiased. 16 (Laughter.). 17 CHAIR 5AN PALLADINO: Biased and unfair. 18 (Laughter.) 19 COMBISSIONER GILINSKY That makes me feel a 20 little better. 21 (Laughter.) 22 COM5ISSIONER AHEARNE: Carl is pained by that 23 description, but nevertheless I think it is still about 24 right. 25 (Laughter.) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400_ VIRGINIA AV@ @.W., WS@MGM@T@M. @.R 26Wlo (2m mM
10 4 1 MR. COLLER: No, I am not pained. I think 2 there is a lot of truth to it. I would like to point 3 out a few things where there is some jargon taking place 4 so that we are all working from the same base. Task l l 5 analyses are analyses of generally a group effort, of an 6 objective to accomplish some function. Whereas a job l 7 analysis is an analysis of an individual's efforts or 8 activities which may well follow on a task analysis when 9 you then look in to see what is an individual doing. 10 Just to give you a very gross, oversimplified 11 example of the type of use that you can make out of 12 this, you may find that after doing this kind of a task 13 analysis and then the job analysis that the procedures i 14 as written would require an individual to be at two 15 places at the same time, and you will never find that 16 out until you get into a dira circumstances where it may 17 be a bit too lat?. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, unless you 19 review the procedures. l 20 MR. GOLLER: Unless someone has found it 21 before. 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Which appears to be 23 what you are doing. 24 MR. GOLLER: What we are proposing to do here 25 and what we are doing is doing a very careful ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 4;MINTA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
11 1 disciplined analysis of various situations which could 2 come about to determine what would be required of the 3 group, of the team and of individuals in it to do their 4 thing. Now that will enable you to determine as planned 5 whether it can even be done. 6 But more importantly, it will provide you with 7 a tool to hopefully improve the situation, to improve 8 the environment, the circumstances within which these 9 people have to do their thing and perhaps to improve the 10 instructions to them, the procedures and the other list 11 of things that we have already gone through. 12 Now the task analysis itself is a way of doing 13 this. It is a very disciplined, careful way of looking 14 into those requirements, and furthermore of recording 15 them on paper so that people can communicste with one 16 another on this. 17 There are af forts underwa y by INPO and by 18 ourselves, as you have already been told, and we are 19 fully coordinating with them to try to minimize the 20 duplication 'so that one effort can help the other. 21 But, as Commissioner Ahearne has already 22 indicated, there are different motives of the two groups 23 and tha t is perhaps a good thing and they are going to 24 serve as a check on one another. 25 Why don't you go ahead, Jim. ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
12 1 MR. NORBERG Mr. Chairman, did you get an 2 answer to what you were asking? I am not sure. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, why don't we listen 4 a little more and then we can come back. 5 MR. NORBERG Again, as we understand it, the 6 thrust of the INPO is directed towards training program 7 development, assessment and accreditation of the utility 8 training programs and for a central data bank of 9 occupational analaysis information. 10 The schedule for the NRC and INPO research 11 programs are show on this viewgraph. Early in 1981 the 12 NRC initia ted 4 pilot task analysis which used the 13 Sequoyah nuclear power plant simul'ator and provided ( 14 valuable information that has been used in the 15 development of the ongoing NRC task analysis that we 16 have with the General Physics people on control room 17 crews. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Let me ask you, are 19 the people who are doing this people with opera ting 20 experience, or are they personnel type people? 21 MR. GOLLER: They may be, but if they are it 22 is probably more of a coincidence because there is 23 really no reason why they have to be, the people who are 24 doing the task analysis, because they are talking to 25 people who are. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
13 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I disagree. 2 You know, I just don't think th'is is the sort of thing 3 where you bring in a time and motion man and he is going 4 to stand there with his watch and write down what the 5 various moves are that operator makes and then come up 6 with what the man needs to know. 7 MR. GOLLER: That isn't all he does. That is 8 not the only way it is done. It may be a part of it, 9 but only a part of it. 10 MR. NORBERG4 That is a very small part of it 11 actually. In the approach that is being taken by our 12 task analysis, like I said before, this work is being 13 done by a team of human factors experts basically from 14 the General Physics Corporation in conjunction with 15 Biotechnology. These people are the people that run the 16 cimulators in some of the plants and they are very 17 - expert on the plant operations. 18 They will be the crew that goes out and they 19 will first do what 2 hey call a desk-top study which to 20 me means that they are going to bring in all the 21 information they can on the plant and then go through 22 all the sort of things you are talking about and lay 23 down the kinds of information that they think they are 24 going to need. Then they will actually go out and talk 25 to the operators in the power plants. We are talking ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
14 I about doing this in eight power plants. 2 They will talk to the operators. They will go 3 through walk-through and talk-through procedures for the 4 sequences we are going to study. They will then observe 5 their actionc on a simulator where it is appropria te. 6 From this s candpoing they are talking to the real 3 7 experts on operations who are the people who are 8 operating the plants. So it is not being done in 9 isolation by people who don't know anything about 10 nuclear power plants. 11 MR. GOLLER: Furthermore, although Jim touched 12 on it, although the individual that is actually applying 13 the pencil to the paper in conducting these task I 14 analyses is very likely not a trained reactor operator 15 or have any direct experience in that regard, some of 16 the people in that organization, General Physics 17 Co rpora tion, which. ve carefully selected to do this 18 work, are and have been intimately involved in nuclear 19 power plants' operations and providing services 20 thereto. They provide training services in the nuclea r 21 power business, as Jim indicated, and we have a 22 representative here. 23 MB. NORBERG: Yes, I think Ms. Barbara 24 Paramore. She is the subcontractor to General Physics 25 with Biotechnology and she is in charge of the data ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
U s 15 1 collection effort. I was going to go on to say she 2 spent four weeks at INPO studying and working with INPO 3 on their task a'nalysis efforts. 4 So that we are carefully factoring in what 5 INPO is doing into out task analysis program. We don't 6 vant to overly duplicate what they are doing, but we 7 vant to make sure they are compatible. That is very 8 important to both of us, that this data base that we are 9 gsthering, both INPO and the NRC, that it is a 10 compatible data base. 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa. Well, it sounds 12 terribly scientific. 13 (Laughter.) i 14 MR. NORBERG: Well, to go on. As I was saying 15 earlier, this is a report that we had from the pilot 16 task analysis that was performed by Oak Ridge with 17 General Physics and it has been used as input for the 18 development of the program we have ongoing now. This is 19 a small effort compared to the work that we are working 20 on now and I have a copy f or each of you of this. 21 Going on, the current status of the control 22 room task analysis is that we have developed the program 23 plan, and I showed you this yesterday and, like I said, 24 I brought copies for each of the Commissioners down on 25 th is. In this program plan lays out pretty much what we ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
16 1 are going to do and how we are going to do it and what 2 kind of data we are going to obtain and what we are 3 going to do with this data, and the whole tit. 4 It also discusses what task analysis is all 5 about. So it is a rather interesting report to read and 6 I think it will give you some insight as to what this is 7 all ab out. 8 It also identifies the power plants that we 9 are selecting to work with and the rationale for why we 10 selected these. If we have problems getting into these 11 particular power plants for some reason or another, it 12 lays out alternatives and this sort of thing. 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Is this a voluntary 14 arrangement; that is, did we ask for a selected set or 15 did we lay this on as a requirement that you must 16 cooperate with us? 17 MR. NORBERO: No, this is voluntary. It is l 18 strictly voluntary with the power plants. As I was 19 going on to say, we have identified the eight plants we l 20 vant to look at, six PWRs and two BWRs to be i 21 representative more or less of the vintage and type of 22 power plants that we have now. Not all, o f course, 23 because we have a lot more than that, but it is l l 24 representative generically. 25 HR. GOLLER: And I am happy to say that so far ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
= 17 1 there seems to be every indication that we will get 2 complete cooperation on a voluntary basis. 3 MB. NORBEEG4 It is certainly voluntary. I 4 was going on to say that a t this time we have lined up 5 one power plant to do this task analysis with and we 6 plant and we plant to start collecting data either in 7 late July or early August with this power plant. 8 We are also very close to getting agreements 9 with two others. All of the power plants involved have 10 been contacted by the General Physics Corporation and 11 and we have discussed what we wanted, and there has been 12 no indication tha t anyone is going to turn us off at 13 this point in time with the information. 14 They can see a usefulness and they can gain 15 something out of this, too. They can learn in this 16 process on how to do their own task analysis for their 17 own reasons for their own control room design reviews, 18 et cetera. So it is not going to be a completely I i 19 one-way street, and this of course is attractive to the 20 utilities. 21 MR. GOLLER4 We have gone out of our way in 22 this case to assure that we will provide minimum 23 disruption to their activities. We will coordinate this 24 with their needs and also point out the benefits that 25 they might get out of this and there are some real ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400_VIRGINI A AVE., S.W.. WASHlNGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
E 18 / 1 possible benefits to them. 2 MR. NORBERG: Going on with the schedule then, 3 the maintenance personnel task was started last year on 4 a very small basis. We did two generic preliminary 5 survey type job task analysis. One for an electrician 6 and one for a mechanic. 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can I just stop you. 8 Is anything in the way of new requirements or other such 9 activities avalting the conclusion of this study? 10 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, there are a number of 11 requirements related to training, related to eductional 12 qualifications --- 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Which are awaiting the 4 14 conclusion of this study. 15 MR. THOMPSON: The maintenance area.we have 16 not really established any requirements. 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The control room 18 group, for example. 19 MR. THOMPSON: The control room group itself 20 is not awaiting the results, though the results will be 21 useful to those control room reviews that are done, the l 22 de tailed control room design reviews that are done in a 23 number of years from now. 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Well, what about 25 requirements for operators? i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
19 1 MR. THOMPSON: I will address that when my 2 turn comes. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Is the objective of this 4 whole program the same as the objective of INPO, and 5 that is to develop training programs and the 8 accreditation of training programs? 7 MR.'N3RBERG: I think the objective of our 8 task analysis is broader than INPO's. INPO's is 9 narrowly addressing that ares. We are looking at, like 10 I said, much broader objectives. 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Could you restate them? 12 That is what I am having a little dif ficulty 13 understanding. You gave a nice, simple, concise ( 14 statement of the INP0/AIF effort, and I thought a 15 pa rallel statement might help with regard to your 18 program. 17 NR. NORBERGs For our particular control room 18 task analysis we have several objectives. 19 First, we want to evaluate and regulate, and l 20 you have to recognize that we are coming from the 21 regulations side of the house where INPO is doing theirs 22 for a somewha t dif f erent purpose, although the end 23 product is all the say, and that is to enhance the 24 safety of the plan'ts through better training and through l 25 better operators. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
= 20 i 1 CO MISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, to be frank 2 about it, INFO wants to keep us from coming out with 3 requirements on operator qualifications which they 4 regard as excessive for one reason or another. 5 MR. GOLLERs Exactly, and this effort will 6 provide us with s scientific basis and a good documented 7 basis for making a better decision. 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Ycu might leave out the 9 scientific and use only documented. 10 MR. GOLLER: Excuse me? 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: He suggested you leave 12 out the word " scientific." 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And use documented. ( 14 MR. GOLLER4 W'e l l, I used the word 15 " scientific" because Commissioner Gilinsky used it 16 before. 17 (Laughter.) 18' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I wonder if I could go 19 back. I am sincerely interested and I would like to 20 hear the objectives of the program. How about letting 21 them go through it. 22 MR. NCRBERG All right. The objectives again 23 are to obtain this data for use in the evaluation of the 24 engineering design of the control room. So we are going 25 to be using this in control room design reviews. We are ~ - ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4 21 1 going to be looking at the numbers and types of 2 operators needed. In other words, what size crews 3 should you have and what kind of people should they be. 4 This thing will point out where you are either 5 overloading or underloiding people. You may find out 6 that on some of these sequences that you have got too 7 auch work for the size of the crew you have and you have 8 got people that have to be at two places at the same 9 time or whatever. 10 MR. GOLLER: Perhaps it is worth mentioning 11 that this will be done for a variety of scenarios. We 12 are not of course just talking about normal operation. 13 We are talking about a whole list of possible situations i 14 th at they could find themselves in and the results may 15 be very different from one to the other, but you have to 16 be prepared for any and all of them. 17 COMMISSIONER AHEASNE: I guess I would like to 18 also comment that I think this kind of work is long 19 overdue for the AEC and NBC. If you look back over the 20 many years in which AEC, ERDA, NRC, various 21 organizations, the Energy Department and such have done 22 studies, research and safety review work, almost all of 23 that is focused upon the hardware and the plant design. 24 Very, very little of it has aver been trying to build a 25 basic understanding of the people who are opera ting the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHlfJGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
s 22 1 plant or maintaining it. 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINC: That is why I was anxious 3 to get the objectives. 4 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE: One might say that this 5 work is going to imaediately salve all those question. 6 There are 20 years of research that went into doing a 7 lot of work on the hardware and a lot of those questions 8 still aren 't answered, and this is trying to build some 9 base and trying to at least finally get some 10 quantitative base put together to begin to build an 11 understanding of what kind of requirements ought to be 12 on the pe rson nel. 13 As wa 111 know, we ha ve been struggling with 14 that over the last several years, and I don't think any 15 of us are particularly satisfitd with where we are. We 16 recognize it is still a long struggle, but this is an 17 essential I think integral piece. 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s That is why I wanted to 19 get an understanding of the objectives because I do 20 think getting data that will help in establishing the 21 size and the nature of the crews is very important. I 22 could see where this task analysis could be helpful in 23 control room design. 24 Could you continue on the other objectives. 25 MR. NORBEBGa Yes. There were basically six ~ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W W ASHINGTCN. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 y
s 23 I 1 areas: the control room design; the numbers and types 2 of operators; their training and qualification 3 requirements; we are going to be looking a t the no rmal, 4 off-normal and emergency operating procedures.and so we 5 will get the information on that; we will be looking at 6 the performance aids that are involved in the 7 performance of these ta sk s; and also at the 8 communications which is a very important a rea, how the 9 communcations work within the control room crew and in 10 the rest of the plant. So it is those six areas that we 11 are looking at where again INPO is more narrowly focused. 12 NR. G3LLER: Also, I would like to point out 13 that we have been talking primarily about the control 14 room operators. And I think I have to agree with 15 Commissioner Ahearne that there hasn't been enough done 16 in the past, but what little has been done has always 17 been focused on the control room operators. There are 18 quite a number of other important positions that go in to 19 the operating group, some of which are indicated on the l l 20 slide, the maintenance and other support technicians 21 which practically no effort has gone into by way of 22 regulatory concern and requirements and effort. We are 23 going to take a look at those, too, and see what should 24 be done in those areas. 25 MR. NORBERG: The viewgra ph more or less ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
24 1 points out where we are in our various status in these. 2 In the maintenance personnel area only a small effort 3 has been started so far on the task analysis aspects of 4 it, but it is in the context of a more overall program 5 to develop a human performance maintenance model. 6 Now in 'oing this we are going to be doing d 7 task analyses for the various maintenance positions that 8 are involved. And so far, like I said before, we have 9 only done a very preliminary survey of task job analysis 10 for two positions, but this program is continuing on and 11 we hope to have the maintenance model developed by the 12 end of '83. 13 Then we hope to initiate late this year and up i 14 through about 1984 a task analysis effort to look at the 15 remaining support personnel in the power plant which 16 would include things like the engineering division and 17 their efforts, what is the engineering staff and how do 18 they function in this thing and the management. This 19 would be looking at it from the broader standpoint and 20 looking st it from the design, construction and 21 operation standpoint. This is a top down kind of a task 22 analysis in that whole area, but it would pick up the 23 other functions sud positions in the power plant that 24 have an impact in some way or another on the safe 25 operation of that plant and that is starting later on. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25 1 So that is kind of where we stand right, but 2 we are concentrating t od a y I think on the General 3 Physics control room task analysis effort. 4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Does your contract work 5 extend through '84 then? 6 MR. NOREERGs We are planning to extend it 7 through '84 for the support personnel and management. 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You said you had le t a 9 contract for work amounting to $700,000. 10 MR. NORBERG4 No, that is the first one that 11 goes through 6/83. That is a 17-month contract with 12 General Physics Corporation. 13 CHAIBMAN PALLADIN0s That is only with the 14 control room group? 15 MR. NORBERG: Yes. 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: These others are t 17 follow-ons that you expect to undertake. 18 MR. NORBERG Well, some are ongoing. The l 19 maintenance personnel effort is ongoing but it is a part 20 of a program to develop the maintenance model. So we 21 vill do task analysis in that effort and tha t is ongoing. ( 22 The ef f ort in the support and management 23 personnel has not started yet. We have not funded that 24 program. That sthrts basically in fiscal year '83. 25 Begarding the schedules, and again I couldn't ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
26 1 hear what was said by the INPO people, but our 2 understanding is that INPO will complete their task 3 analysis for, and I thought they said PWR plants. Was 4 that correct? 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. 6 MR. KORBERG: For the reactor operator, senior 7 operator and shift supervisor, for thre,e positions, and 8 this is due to be finished like in September I 9 understand. 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think they said 11 October. 12 MR. NORBERGs October, okay. We don 't know 13 what the schedule for the remaining positions are and I ( 14 didn't catch whether INPO discussed that or not 15 yesterday. 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: They just said that ~ 17 th ey would then so ve on --- 18 MR. NORBERG: Yes, that was kind of what I 19 thought. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you have a copy of the l 21 handouts? 22 MR. NORBERG: Yes, I do. I have read through 23 th e handouts, but I didn't find that sort of thing in 24 there. 25 Now with regard to our coordination of these I a l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 CO2) 554 2345
7 27 1 research programs, it is very important both to the NFC 2 and to INPO that we don't duplicate very much. In other 3 words, we try to minimize the duplication of efforts and 4 we try to maximize the utilization of the data. 5 So since these procrams have gotten underway 6 technical members of*NRC and INPO have met several times 7 to discuss the respective task analysis ef forts and 8 their progress. 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see, if they are to not overlapping then how can you say you are looking at 11 the this subject from different points od view? 12 MB. NORBERG: I didn't say they were not 13 overlapping. I said we were trying to minimize the i 14 duplication. There is some overlap in the area of 15 training requirements. But we are trying to utilize as 16 much of the INPO data as possible without duplicating 1 17 it, but recognize we are taking somewhat different 18 approaches on how we are doing our task analyses. So 19 there is going to be obviously some overla p and possibly 20 duplication. We are working very closely with them so 21 we minimize the amount of duplication in particular, not 22 so much the overlap. 23 HR. GOLLER: Well that duplication we think is 24 completely appropriate to provide a check on each 25 other. I know this may sound a little like double-talk, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
28 1 it did to me at first ~ 2 (laughter.) 3 MR. GOLLER: ---but let me say a word or two o 4 what I learned and it helped explain it to me. There is 5 a lot more than one way of doing a task ar,alysis. You 6 can collect the data from different sources and you can 7 collect it in different ways. .As has already been 8 indicated, you can collect'it by wa' tching people do 9 this, watching them do it in a simula tor and watching 10 then do it in a reactor. 11 You can collect data b'y sending out surveys 12 and questionnaires and getting answers. You could do it 13 by reviewing the procedures and imagining what people ( 14 will do. You can do it by combinations of these things 15 and probably one or two others that don't come to mind. a 16 You can then analyze those different ways and 17 you can present the data in different ways. You can 18 present them in the form of graphs, in the form of 19 textual writeups and in the f orm of computer printouts. 20 How you present them would be heavily determined by what 21 you intend to do with the data, with the results of this. 22 We definitely intend to use these in a 23 differnt wa y, as we havN already discussed. So the 24 results will be presented in different ways by INPO and 25 ourselves. But all through this we are coordinating and l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
\\ ~ 1' 1 3 5 ) s~ 29 .,'}- f 1 Checking wi th one another to be sure that what we are 2 doing is at least consistent. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY It really sounds like 4 one study. 5 MR. GOLLER: To a great extent it is one study 6 which h s been dovetailed to com'hlement each other. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I think it is 8 appropriate to try to take advantage of anything that 9 INPO is doing and making sure that we do minimize i 10 duplicative effort. 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. 12 CHAIRMAN PALI We have been actually s 13 encouraging the staff tv do that as much as possible. ( 14 MR. NORBERG: If I can go just a minute maybe 1-15 'I cani,tell' a little bit more about what we have been 16 doing'in'the coordination area. t 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: 'How much do you have more i 18 on the research end? 19 MR. NORBERG Not much. 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It has been a long five 21 minutes. 22 ( La u g h t e r. ) 23 MR. NORBERG We have been workihg very 24 extensively with INPO. In f a c t, we are going down next 25 week, myself and my senior project manager who, ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4 t 30 1 unfortunately, isn' t here today. He is of f working with 2 the folks at NRR in developing a human factors program 3 plan for the NRC. So he couldn't make it. But, anyway, 4 we are planning to go down next Friday to discuss this 5 very thing with INPO. This has been an ongoing effort. 6 It isn't the first time and it won ' t be the last. 7 We have made commitments to establish a data 8 bank that can be accessed by either user in the computer 9 area. 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSK!: What is in the data 11 bank? 12 HR. NORBERGa All of the information that we 13 are going to gather up from this task analysis. 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa What would be a 15 question that you would ask the data bank? 16 MR. NORBERGa Well, you could interrogate the 17 data bank I guess in any way you might want to. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Give one example. l 19 MR. NOREERGs Well, if you would interroga te l 20 it in terms of asking, sa y, wha t did the senior reactor 21 operator do under a particular scenario in bringing the 22 plant up to power. You could interrogate and find out 23 what that operator did and what was his role in doing 24 this activity. 25 MR. MERSCH0FFa Ellis Merschoff, NRC sta f f. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
31 1 One specific example might be a link analysis where you 2 interrogate the computer to determine at what control 3 panel each operator goes and at what sequence. You 4 might learn from this that the reactor operator goes 5 from the panel on one side of the room to a panel on the 6 other side of the room continuously and you would learn 7 from that that instrumentation should be moved or 8 another operator should be stationed at one of those 9 panels as one specific example. 10 MR. NORBERG: Thank you. 11 That is a better answer than I gave, more 12 specific. 13 Now, in addition, INPO has been invited to 14 have technical experts review'and comment on our 15 research when this is appropriate. 1e In order to really get a good feel for the 17 INPO work, and this was af ter INPO's recommendation, by 18 the way, we had our contractor, General Physics 19 Corporation and their subcontractor, Biotechnology, stay 20 as a group team down there for four weeks learning in 21 de tail INPO 's methodology and to take advantage not only 22 to maka sure that we are compatible with our work but 23 also to take advantage of some of the lessons that they 24 learned in doing their task analysis to date. 25 One of the things that came out of this was ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VtAGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
32 r t I the f act that we should put some kind of a OA control 2 into this research program, and we added on to our 3 contract to do just that. So we have a OA control 4 function now on this whole program. INPO found tha t 5 this was a very important aspect of their task 6 analysis. They were getting different teams of people 7 getting different data and it was not being done 8 necessarily exactly in the same way. So there was a QA 9 problem here as to how to use this information. So we 10 have added onto our contract since the initial contract 11 to take that into account. 12 The other thing that we hope we are going to 13 get out of this four weeks is we are going to get a i 14 detailed report so that the NRC has a detailed 15 understanding of INFO's task analysis and how it is done 16 and we ourselves will know a lot more about it when this 17 is over with because their documention is not that good 18 from what I have seen. I haven't seen a whole lot of 19 documenta tion on their stuff yet. This was at INPO's 20 suggestion, by the way. 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I will tell you what 22 else concerns me, if I may interject once more. John 23 was talking about 20 years of hardware studies and other \\ 24 studies and we have got a long way to catch up and I 25 think that is true in this area. But a lot of what is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
33 1 done in researth over the past many years has not been 2 to help us confront problems, it has been a substitute 3 for confronting problems and I hope that is not going to 4 be the case here as extended research and more study is 5 needed and so on. 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is why I am anxious 7 to get to the other half of the presentation. We still 8 have Mr. Thompson to tell us how this rela tes to the 9 activities they are carrying on and I think that is 10 important. 11 MR. GOLLER: I think that completes what we 12 had intended to review if you want to switch to the 13 other side. 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Have we covered the 15 essential points on this? 16 MR. NORBERG: Yes. 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We may be getting into 18 more detail on the need to coordinate than we need to at 19 this point. 20 MR. NORBER0s The essential point is that we 21 intend to continue our extensive coordination, and that 22 completes my presentation. 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Thank you. 24 Can we turn to Mr. Thompson. l 25 MB. THOMPSON: Continuing on tha t vein we have ALDERSON REPORLNG COMPANY,INC. &# YMKilC00 QYAL 2.9 WO2E927@E D.@. KCoM3 M5Fa EP13-2YM
34 I 1 been working with Research, and in fact we are working 2 closely with both Research and INFO in this area to 3 ensure that we do have products, that we do develop the 4 use of the knowledge, skills and abilities that are 5 developed as a result of this job task analysis and 6 apply it in a reculatory viewpoint. 7 (Slide presentation.) 8 HR. THOMPSON: Can I have the first slide, 9 please. 10 In fact, this is consistent with what Jim wa s 11 just stating there with respect to the areas that we 12 in tend to apply the results of the job task analysis 13 that is going on. ( 14 Now note, since it is duplicative, only the 15 one area which he did not mention that we intend to use 16 right now, the license examination improvement, the 17 verification that the existing exams do test the right l 18 areas as well as a verification of the process itself, i 19 you know, should we use multiple-choice examinations for 20 certain portions and can we improve the examinations. 21 There are a number of ways that we use and identify that l 22 the knowladges and skills of the operators are covered 23 on the exams. l 24 HR. CASE: This is one input to these iss,ues 25 and not the only input. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
35 1 MR. THOMFSON: That is correct, but it is 2 clearly one which I think is important to ensure that we 3 move away from the theory or a t least the allegations 4 that people are trained to pass the NRC examination and 5 then they a re trained to operate the plant safely. I 6 think our efforts are to ensure that their training 7 program is consistent with what the operators do need to 8 know to safely operate the plant. 9 I would note that all of these areas will be to covered in the human factors program plan which my staff 11 and Carl's are preparing to integrate these in the 12 systematic approach that the Human Factors Society 13 recommended and called for and we intend to follow tha t ( 14 effort. I know it will give us a sounder basis, maybe 15 not scientific, but it will be systematic to make 16 recommendations to the Commission for regulations as ( 17 well as for policy. 18 COMMISSIONEB AHEARNE: Just as an aside, isn't 19 that human factors plan what the Congr.ess had required 20 us to develop? 21 MR. THOMPSON: I am not aware of it, but if it 22 is we will certainly make sure it does meet their 23' requirements. 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY (Inaudible) 25 MR. THOMPSON: If' Congress wants it done, we l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
36 ~ 1 Will get that done. 2 MR. GOLLER I think the Commissioner is 3 right, that was in one of the Congressional 4 communications, but it is also in the Commission's --- 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. Since Hugh was 6 pointing out the Human Factorr Society recommendations I 7 just thought I would throw in there is another body that 8 has --- 9 MR. THOMPSON: I was throwing in the Human 10 Factors Society's recommendation for a systematic 11 approach, a systems approach. 12 Could I have the next slide. 13 Since the focus is directed to the operator 14 qualifications, I would like to present kind of a flow 15 path which is wha t we intend to do. 16 We have the Peer Panel recommendations, which 17 has been presented to the Commission. 18 Staff recommendations have been before the 19 Commission in the SECY 79-330 series, the 81-84 series, 20 and we are obviously taking those into account with the 21 la ter briefing today on the shift manning decisions. 22 We will come back to the Commission a7 23 directed in July with the implementation program for 24 this effort. What we anticipate at this time would be a 25 Commission policy statement sometime around October that ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPA14Y,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
37 O 1 would implementing all of these areas in a policy 2 approach as opposed to a formal rulemaking approach. 3 The rulemakinc itself would follow the completion of (' 4 some of the safety technology work tha t we have underway 5 and the research job task analysis tha t is underway. 6 COMFISSIGNER GILINSKY: Let's see, the rule 7 would be on operstor qualifications? ( 8 MR. THOMPSOhs Well, for this particular 9 ' area. There will be number of rules that will be to following from the job task analysis effort. This one 11 happens to be related to the operator qualifications, 12 training experience and educational requirements. 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY You are projecting a ( 14 final rule in fiscal '847 15 MR. THOMPSON: Correct. 16 MR. CASE: But more importantly a policy 17 statement. 18 MR. THOMPSON: A policy statement will be 19 issued this year providing I think, as we discussed 20 yesterday, the functional requirements we expect the 21 shifts to have available. But before we place that in a 22 formal rulemaking process without flexibility, we do 23 anticipate, as we change from a system that has been 24 fairly loose with respect to reactor qualifications to 25 one that is a fairly formalized requirement ebforceable ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
s 38 .'~ ; 1 to the extent that we would issue civil penalties on 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The policy statement th e n 3 I gather would be an indication of where we want to go, 4 but it would allow us to ao through a trial period 5 before we make it a rule? 6 MR. THOMPSON: As well as to allow us to have 7 the opportunity to input the results of the job task 8 analysis both from the research effort as well as the 9 INPO effort. 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE Are you saying there, 11 Hugh, that if that lower block, or those lower two 12 blocks were ready earlier, that you would have gone from 13 a rule to a policy statement? 14 MR. THOMPSONs That is correct. \\ 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Hugh, are you going to 16 cover any reaction of the staff on the Peer Panel's 17 recommendations? 18 MR. THOMPSON: That will be covered in our 19 program plan and we are prepared to give the initial 20 staff reactions. 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO4 When you are through 22 ma ybe a couple of sentences on your reaction would be 23 interesting. 24 MR. THOMPSONs Okay. In essence that is the 25 chart. We have a milestone as we plan to integrate l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 39 1 which would call for the integrated plan to be submitted 2 in July. We would anticipate in that effort we would be 3 able to have shortly before the Commission the policy 4 statement in a draft form for your guidance. 5 MR. CASE: Is it 10/82 we submit it or when we 6 expect it to be approved? 7 MR. THOMPSON That would be the final policy 8 statement issued out for implementation. 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: On the basis of your 10 July submission? 11 MR. THOMPSON: Correct. 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The July submission? 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Recommendation. ~ 14 MR. THOMPSON: R ecommenation. And it would 15 also allow for an opportunity for public comment on the 16 proposed policy statement. 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The integrated plan 18 covers all of the human f actors area; is that correct? 19 ER. THOMPSON: The integrated plan in fact 20 will cover all human factors. This will be a specific 21 portion of that and it will probably come down to the 22 Commission as a separate item as well as being in more 23 detail than in an integrated plan. 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you see the policy 25 statement focused solely on operators or on shift i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
40 I 1 manning and o pe ra to rs ? 2 MR. THO PSON: I believe at this time I see it 3 focused only on operator qualifications, experience and 4 training. 5 Since five minutes is moving close to being 6 up, I would like to address one other area tha t INPO 7 program addressed and that is their training and 8 accreditation program. We have been working closely 9 with INPO in the accreditation program and wo uld 10 anticipate coming down to the Commission once that is 11 avsilable and providing the Commission with a copy of 12 their accreditation program. 13 We are planning to nominate individuals on the 14 Accreditation Board and the 3C f ollow it closely, but 15 NRC individuals would not be individual voting members 16 of the Board other than to see how the process works and 17 to see whether or not it produces the type of training 18 programs that we would feel meet our expectations for 19 accreditation before making any formal commitment to 20 that program. 21 CHAIRM AN PALL ADINO: I gather their training 22 program thouah is going to he ve to be rela ted to the 23 level of proficiency that is desired. Tha t is why I was 24 interested if you had any general reaction to the Peer 25 Panel recommenations. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
s 41 1 MR. THOMPSON We do have a gene ral reaction 2 to the Peer Panel recommendations, and that is we 3 support them. We find tha t the requiremen t for a 4 college degree at this time as a minimum requirement is 5 generally where we feel this is an adequate position to 6 start from, pending the job task analysis, and 7 recognizing that as a policy that the Commission may 8 elect to establish higher requirements. But from a 9 regulatory health and safety basis we don't see that 10 until we complete the job task analysis. 11 With respect to engineering expertise on 12 shift, we do find that that is a desirable approach to 13 take. Our~ ongoing safety technology program indicates ( t 14 that those utilities who have integrated the shift 15 technical adviser as a member of.the opera ting crew, 18 that they are able to have him as a much more valuable 17 individual as opposed to him being in the trailer 18 sleeping outside the site boundary. So we support those 19 efforts and generally are very pleased by that effort. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Okay. Thank you. 21 Any other questions at this time? 22 (No response.) 23 CHAIBMAN PALLADINO: Well, we thank you and we 24 would like to be kept posted f rom time to time on the 25 progress in this area. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
42 4 ~ 1 MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: At this time we will 3 adjourn this meeting. 4 (Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the meeting 5 adjourned.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 25 l i t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 .~. _ _ _ _. _ _.. - - - __.. _._ -..., _ _ _ _.,. _ _ _ _ _,.
m UUCLZAR n w A9 E CD F 93ICN This is Oc certif7 that the attached ;receeding: 'cefers the COMMISSION MEETING in the 32C04.* cf:. Public Meeting - Continued Briefing on Reactor Operator Qualifications USC4 cf ?receecia.g: _ June 11, 1982 U C C k S C litr E h e r : ? lace cf PPCCeeding: Washington, D. C. held as hereis appears, and Cha'U. this is the cri41:21
- Ensc?
WCet therecf fcr the file of the Cuissicc. Mary C. Simons Official Espertar (T7:ed) 1~ f ,- r r i M g Official Recertar (514:scure) h e Os " 6
,7 f 95:2 .g% / R' TRANSMITTAL TO / Document Centrol Dask P %'Q,'t D 016 Phillies 2 6@ 0 2 2-ADVANCED COPY TO: C The Public Document Ro ' gp DATE: 4[/ 82 cc: OPS 4 e -: 5:' From: SECY OPS Branch / '/ g '. C&R (Natali.e-) p s=> 'g-Attached -are
- copies of a dor: mission meeting
? ' anscript/s/ and related meeting documen't/s/. They 2 are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession D List and placement in the Public Document Room. No 5:> other distribution is requested or required. Existing ? -[4 DCS identification numbers are _ listed oI} the indiv.idual documents wherever known. - <=> p Meeting
Title:
[cyrf g/
- W jt t
dpen [ TING DATE: [o !//!)72 Closed DOS COPIES: "g / Copies (1 of each Checked) ~d ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advanced May be Duplicate a r To PDR: 1. .
- Original
- Docu:nent Duo
- Cocy* $
-{ V j 52 ~A 5= s 5= 2.- 'iS 19 pQ b 3. M 4. 5. 5= 'S p ?
- Verify if in DCS, and g
ch'ange to "PDR b (PDR is advanced one of each docu:nent, two available." of each SECY paper.) y ~ G h O}}