ML20099D047
| ML20099D047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1984 |
| From: | Regan J UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099D044 | List: |
| References | |
| SP, NUDOCS 8411200167 | |
| Download: ML20099D047 (46) | |
Text
- , -
- ygran fl{
~ - - ~
/ .
- ,+ r < _*, ._
J' _ :.; . .:. . .
- - l:Q, , .j [' t -1
,,v ;l, c -, ~ , . _r ,2o. sf1_x t
, ~
- T_,' ;
h -+ , ~
' C; .:
- t
'-,5
~~~-', , , , . x' ,
p.;"
_, J.s:) [z { -__.
3m. ,. ,-
. _;;-- t
- j.;;
" ' 'l l" >
')-
, _ ' g
, c s
- * + -
- g. , ',5..
1
_ i<.-
. s m )
r ,-l ua
- , ~ ux .
a.
~, <
y
+
< ' At tachmen t' -l' 4
.. t Testimony -of D. ' James - J. 'Regan f_ .
g .;
0 PDR T
)
4
j : e a m%yy , ,
- --
- 4;gj s t.
c .x
- ' - .Qk ' plt 9 istCtT y"urTnamO(Cnd budin';C:Flochtic:n r
- ll ,
4 > ,
iA'. ~My}name is James..J..Regan.
~
{ My; business"isflocated in Sani bq , ' '
yDiego, California. < -
V -
g
. s 4 k- Q. 'What is the' purposeiof ,your testimony?L
^
The purpose of my testimony is to assist the' Atomic Safetyj
~
2
- A.
fl and -Licen. sing Board Lby fdiscussing a number. of the important' p .-
s issues.-that must be~eyaminedjin evaluating =a training-program
' ~
'suchias one for a nuclear. power-plant.
Q. Please describe 1the ' work that you have. done in preparing to-
.present thisf testimony, ; including the documents that. you have reviewed.
A.- My work on -this_ testimony has primarily involved the review
~ of various documents related'to the Three' Mile Island licensed operator training program and to this proceeding'. A list of.the documents that I reviewed is attached to'this testimony. The remainder of my work involved the application of my expertise to the issues before the Licensing Board, and preparing the testimony itself. I have spent a total of approximately seven and one-half days in this effort.
Q. Please describe your education and experience.
A. I received my undergraduate and graduate degrees in p syc hology . My Ph.D. , granted by Fordham University in 1957, is 1
l l I
\ l w _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __ ... __ -___ _
y' s=m-
, m, m g ,
y x
w,
. = a, ; y,;, - -
x c ,
n
- M, , ' , _ . '
39 y'
N
,[
w:y h__. (f
' t - .
7, .-- -s
. L e ,. y '
_ y + - . ; m p - ;
- 4
- ~ l' 3 /
. '~
= n- -
y ^
W'
- W -
+
. inlpsychology.1fMy]thesissisiconcernedEwith7optimizingsthei
_ ,r 4@
w n < > .. . . ..
. .. - y. ..
.. . . - m. . .
relationships between , hardware systemsf and s the thuman : beings who1 foperate :NdI nAintainithem )(human.LensineeriNg) ~. SDuring my? years.
3m lat}Fordham',;I worked-forztheiUnivers'ity(in'some of4 the early JresearchonstheuseofLtelev'isionfforfeducationaltpurposesf.j In1the. years-.-since$ receiving myjdegrees, Jay-research '
.4 int'ere'sts andsexperiencelhave' focused onitraining issues,'withN H
- o. .
i '
c particular. emphasis?on'the;transferiof training ~in training -
device settings and L the ' design and ' measurement of . personnel 1 .
~
. systems.- TheLterm " transfer of1 training"irefersito:the degree 1 to-1 f
~
which ; training. facilitates the desired ~ on-the-job: performance. 'A
- personnel system" includes _a variet'y of'activitie's'suchras selection, . training, cand _ job design,:lwhich collectively <are .used -
to manage people in a work setting. -A training s'ystemLis a component'of a personnel' system. -
I was 'a civilian' employee . in the , Department of' the Navy for some 30 years from 1951 to 1982. My Navy experience began at the " S. Naval Training Device Center, where I worked from.
1951-1965, t.ltimately a.t the level of Head of the System's Psychology Division. I' served there as principal consultant'in-the area of training systems research and as the technical leader.
of a research and development effort in the area of training system development.. My research and consultation also. included such areas as human engineering, educational psychology, and training system analysis.
0
j7 , y _
~> 3
'{
h- .
- , . 2 . . .
From11966 to 1973, I-. worked at-the Naval Training; o Equipmen't ,Ce'nter- as . Chief Psychologist, ; Head L of 'theiHuman Factors . ,
-Laboratory, and Founding Director offthe Training Analysis and- =I Evaluation Group.; The program:-for-_which I-was responsible encompassed laboratory research,; consultation 'to engineers,
~
research'and development in adaptive't' raining and computer assisted instruction, a'nd experimental-fieldLevaluations of
~
training systems. AsfHea'd of the-Training Analysis and L,
I Evaluation-Group IJdirectedia! group of engineers, educators and-psychologists-whose: purpose wasLt ofdevelop and exple e'new.
- analytic -techniques _ for 'the design' and evaluation of . training
~
systems.
From 19h3 to.-1982 I served as the founding 1 Technical Director of the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.-
This center is the principal research and' development facility responsible for increasing the efficiency of the U.S.-Navy's military and civilian personnel systems.
In the course of my career with the Navy, I observed the practice of teaching in the Navy and elsewhere, either indirectly-or directly. I have reviewed a great deal of descriptive material about various kinds of instruction in various reports, journals, and documents. Much of my knowledge is based upon my own research, the research of others as reflected in these materials, and upon discussion with knowledgeable people in the field over the years.
i j
I f
9 u
u., _ . _. -- .- =- - -
4
/ ,
- p. ; _
+ -
+
f [ T e) en a
, :}A" ~4-j I' retired fromIthe Navy int 198'2 and have since then-
~ '
ji ,
served'asca' consultant to' industrial clients, as,a: lecturer.at
~
- , the1 University o'f San-Diego) and1as-Visiting,Scientistfwith the-L i . Battelle Human Af f airs ' Research! Centers. JAmong the' activities in f . which7I have been engagedL in theHabove' assignment's are t the.
E "
development of-technical plan's for personnel: system research1and development, t'echnicalfreview of~ simulator-employment and-
~
validity, and the. development ofta chapterlon; train'ing simulator T ~ design. '
F - A list of my publications, symposiac andeseminars, and professional societies, and a more detailed 1 discussion'. of my-experience;is contained in1the attached. resume.
Q. What is the scope of the Navy's. training' programs.~?. ,
A. The Navy has enormous and complex trainingjrequirements..
There are some 800,000 persons working'for_-the-Navy as civilians.
or military employees. Substantial numbers of thesespeople are; undergoing training- at any one time, and over 2000 training programs are typically underway to support this training.
Q. Have you ever provided advice or assistance to the NRC? -
- ( >
A.- Yes. In.1981-1982, I served as chairman'of a national *
-1.
advisory committea to the NRC which was asked to advise the .NRC 3
concerning'whether Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor - Operators- '
should be required to have college engineering degrees. In 1983, .
'D l
- I- servedias a member of a similar NRC advisory committee asked to ,-
l
- d. _ address the question of.whether each nuclear power pla'nt should E-' ' have a site-specific simulator. i
'+
4
+ - , .
, , - -a. < fV
m3_
, ,s ,
- m - ; , an ' ae, ' MrmW.b 3 -' ,
'y;, ,
' , h6; 'r .
e
_ '+5 -
,;~ 5
. ' . -'4~'ns l }4 ] ._y-
',, W ?, ' > a % jV
+ .
Y ;;p*'
,v 7l ,_;# , + [;;; ' t, eg.
- p
( +
wy .
- g. ; g , ,a <# % .s -
3 ,
, s
,s
- i M 4 , ~. n
..L
~
c '
,. y ~~
~
Nw- - .
..J.
ym , W '
+
' ;w
- -54 ,
', N , m
[, c M j.. ' , S '
e ' M
- 9L [
% [Q.. [W$at/areith'e essentdia13Nlemerit'st N hat:;mustibejaccomplishedlin% ,,'
q . , _
m . . -
a
+
Jorderito jdevelop;a_fsound! training programE1 ,
_, 9 f- N w .
y - ~
t .
J .
kl% +."n + -
,s- . _ .,,-
c
. ,m. . _ a , $ *- .t%
.; "iA./ X F'i r s t%i tMi,s, i e ssentiali to" unde rs tand y t ha t) any8 t rainin'g;
~ m n' l g y -
s .
- 1 prog ram (eMists 'as } only "onej componentioff a darger[personnelf
~
s - , ,
2 lt sh$tein. :
~
Theflargerisystemiindludes',;forfexample,fselectlon}
g ,=L .
p -.t' .- _ :. ..- *^=J -a _ *^,.
caeth'od'skjob;placementidecisio' ns', 'jobidesign~,;land man-machine $
1 ., . ,
. 6 7
m".
. ,- ~
m A
/
- equipment $ des'ign'.and ?allbcation, Jas
- well as the1 trainin_g ~ prograal s
~ -
3 .
Jitself.:H ThE ultimate 7goaijofEth'e pArsonnS1;syst'em*asla!whole:-and MfEthe(training Jsyst'emiitiseif Lis?to assure ef fective(job i-
- , a
_pedformance^. :Thelabilityi'to achieveRthis goal [ depends uponithe? -
~
~ ,
~
T interactions land trade-offslamongrthe!various;com'ponentsiof the'
..a O ~
~
personnel 7 system. - - Thus,' ?the; training program lcanno.tibe7desihned or evaluated ~'inDisolation fro'm the other~ co'mponentsiofith'e
, ; personnel systemt For example, if the.traineesihavelhigh' aptitudes,-training.
'will be different from what it would be if-'the population.were:.
~
^
theterogeneous_with respect-to mentalfabilitiles. Thus, selection influences training. If the job is reorganizediand made~ easier, training._will again change. The trick is to' balance these -
i components to get the task done, have an effective training-
[' system,- and ef ficiency through~out the personnel system.-.
Second,._ in order to determine how to design the training p, . ,.-
, .e '
f prog ram ,; >i t is necessary to diagnose the skill andsknowledge_-
W
- & R
levelt of; incoming studen'ts .so that -instruction can be tailored to-y-
y :theiristre'ngths and~ weaknesses. This is also..nece'ssary in. order-y ftoidetdrmine , the fextentG t'ofwhich examinations and other - -
V Wasse"ssmentsigiven duringiand'attthe.end ofLtraining reveal what_. ,
t; 4: .J M: .
7-7;_!
h- Q\f ,
1
' ]l, _
v Jc e;g wL w , ,-
J "
%, t ._.
Ju. -
-f_ _
~, _ _
' 'b x ,.
Pi .
( /* ^
[-C
- -6 .
3
~--
h: s the :ti rai~n'ees(h' ave . learned' in the . training program, as o~pposed3to
(:
o
'_ ~
what"they already; knew.: ;In this connection, particularly withJ <
L ths < limited numb'er of " trainees ~ involved at: Three Nile Island, I:
'believe that much cif ther training should be'Eindividual'ized to
' address Lstrengths and weaknesses o'f particular' stu' dents. : Much of Ithis individualized _-training can beidone with. computers,.using
. programs thatntailor^the trainingito the?specificfanswers given
- by the : stu' dents and"to- the i studr nts' particular: level:and speed, e
~
of- learning .'
' Third, Lin ord'er to design soun'd; instruction, ;it is
~
~
necessary,to establish job performance-requirements or_ standards-of :per formance. :That . is, the jobs andLtasks must1be-defined-either as they are actually performed or,_in the case'of: jobs that have not yet been. performed,cas they are: idealized.
There is a tendency for such' job ori task definitions:to be simply descriptions of the actual operations done by the incumbent. This is not enough. In. order to make job analy'ses useful for the design of training systems and the measurement of, the effectiveness of training, tasks must be analyzed in terms of
.the behaviors required of the incumbent, rather' than simply the actions themselves. Thus, it is necessary to determine-analytically whether-the tasks involve, for example, following
-procedures, perceptual-mo .or, or cognitive behavior.
f The type-of
- behavior. involved in performing the task _is then-used to determine-the nature, extent and f requency of training.
d
, _ , -, , wwwre -
- - - ,-- a , 3
- ' ~
a, ,
s_., ,
c
$y: => ,
kf ,
t h,
t I Theltask ? analysis' mus t* address _ , c for : e xample[ thei
' ~
$7 following:!' _
jf ' ,
"(1)'~7A; description of the; job'... .
~
y n: . - -
t (2). Re'ductionLof the '.jobiinto t' asks.
kp '(3);=The' difficulty'ofLtheitask:!(behavior)1shouldtbe
.! established - (e'.g.: by measurin'g} the ilength 'of ; time lit- takes,
'to learnLthe? task,."and by establishing.the. effects of" i
.f
- .aptitudeEdifferences?on the
- learning-~ time).
- (4) The standards /to1which the job-must be done:(speed;. -
J.- precision)..
1 _
~
-(5) The cir~cumstan'ces'under whichlthe= task must b'e performedj1 including particularly;the worst- circumstances:
s under which it'may have to be-performed. .This is.
- t ?.
particularly important for-a. task whose most.likely setting is.the response to potential.orl actual-emergencies,asisthe-casehithr'actoroperators. e (6) The importance of theLtask. That is))in particular,.
what-are the consequences of failure? ~Arecthey financial or life-threatening, immediate or remote, independent, team, or contingent?
(7) Identification of the stimuli that. initiate the-task and the response that-is required.
After the task analysis is completed, the procedure that.
was followed should be documented, with a range of examples, to i..
support ~ this; phase of the development of the_ training program.
, When'these analyses are complete, an array of tasksx(along-3 h a1 time'line)-of each member of;the crew should be made to 4-k, e
I l
!! _ 1l
- - g .-p, w P r g 7 T
- + v .y_ -
,, = ;v 4 ;w
,. s s
cl
.r
' ~
--8=
f L ,
'eva'luateJwhich are team tasks'and.which ares indiv'idual tasks..
i
- Theftraining program mustLthen takelthis-in'to account,1and
~
l, 'y .
I a'ssessment tools .usediiny t,he _ training program :must dif ferentiate n .
{.g + lbetween/individuallandLteamTperformance.
?The standards >of' performance-for;.each, task can be thosefof 1 s ta model? performers (called behavior to: mastery), Lor thatErequiredi
^
I by=the-system (systems analysistisfrequired).. Thatais, one'cani set performance based on.one of!the.best? operators orsteams,. .
which can produce-.a very? high,Jand sometimes; unrealistic,- ,
' expectation. .Underc theJ systems cr'iterioncapproach,.t6e standard
~
is set by;the1 job 1 requirements. For example, if:a system is capable $ of processing only five. targetsfons a radar ' screen,, that; may e'stablish the job' performance standard.
The ' standards ' of:
performance can also be. established ststisticallyiby1 observing.
- many performers of the same job.'
Before training is set, the job itself should be; inspected
, to see-if it can be simplified or otherwis,e improved 'to) enhance performance. For example, if job performance is marked by'long periods of inactivity, with little or no stimulus' calling for action, some technique should be devised to counteract
[ inattention.- Also, job design should be investigated to r
p determine-that jobs in a group have properly distributed
' functions and whether individual jobs have periods of overloads beyond the capacity of the operator (trained or not) . That is, b onejshould; deal with unequal team member tasking and non-linear
. work loads.
I Once the-nature of the job performance and the performance
- 1. : standards for the Ljob: have. been determined and w.. m _.. ._
y.
- e
- -m - -
~
n - .
~ ; -
4
- optimized,S-a system for: rel'iabl' y' measuring sjob performance must; ,
~be. devise'dibecause eventually the? training ^ program must"be F
I assessed against operational performance of indiv'iduals, teams, y .
y~
cand systems.- This- measur~ement if s' thelo'nly. reliable means 'of
~
[:'
t
. measuring 'the. ef fectiveness of (training. .
V J
~
p -
Job; performance _can- be dif ficult to measure. It;isl easy-t :to. measure the: performance:of.a key punch operator, 'for example,-
[
by. measuring the'. number ofskeypunches per unit of-timek It;isi
)y k more. difficult'to' develop. job performance measures:for other
?
r positions, such as a scientist.. Some of the most-difficult-5 .. . .. -
g: performance to evaluate isLthat of people-wh~ose skills ~are.not-r - -
C e lic i t.e'd fully except in an -emergency _(power _ plant operator, an 6
airline captain) or in 'wa r ~ (a tactical - commande r') '. Despite these difficulties,.however,.the developmentJof job performance measures is necessary in order to assure that t'he job itself is-properly des'igned and'that the related training is both properly designed and ef fective.
The measurement of performance on the job can be undertaken by using one or more of the following:
- 1. dir'ect recording of output, - such as the number of - '
radios completed in a day,
- 2. simulation of the task using a simulated performer and comparing this with,an incumbent actually performing on a simulator, 3.- job knowledge tests, s
.a . , - - . ,, . - - -
g~x "
s,
', ~ -
~ y- -
^~ ^
f}
e .w
~
.l f) e . . x, .
/s -
_ -10 >
4e ,
g [4. suse.. ofispecially; designed ~ ratings ' (e.'g . , Jusing :
e :_ _
behaviorally' anchored ratiing;sc' ales), althoughDthis is'an
-undesirable ' measure,E particularlyb if' used alone:.or;if. lit 6 :is~ given 'significant~ weight,l V' .
' use ofLvideo . tape's off segmentsHof: job performance,
~
^
5.
p _
Lwithl evaluations-bylan independentipanel,-
{
l -6. measurement of attitude'sJofh workers. about' their >
t F training.(what'is. missing, unn'ece'ssary, etc.) overfseveral s
points in time.
n.
-Armed.with' requirements?and standards of the~ job,1 it-is-L then possible to write the1 training objectives. Since the training' objectives have now been established, it is now possible; to design.the training program'.
Q. Please' describe the principl'es that.must be adhered to in-order to assure a sound training program for' personnel'such as the operators of nuclear power. plants.
A. The overriding . consideration for any such training' program is the question of whether it adequately prepares the1 trainees to perform the jobs for which they.are being trained. For that reason,- it is essential that a sound training program include
.; objective measures of performance at each point at which performance is to be assessed. Thus, the jobs and tasks must be thoroug hly. analyzed, -as discussed above, and the measures of job performance-must'be reasonably objective so that reliance upon
--individual judgment is minimized. Only in this way is it' L .possible to achieve a' reasonably objective correlation between V
[ . performance in training and performance on the job.
b
b h$m - ((.
~
'N s
M
- # m, ,
'*{i g': %',' t i ^'
,}S; .
W :n ~ '
8 l '
'Ou
- G, Q:I ~.l , ,
s -j g .[![-
uy
< ~ ii Y -
l h. ,-
, T + s .
,s w g w
- .11-; ,m '
me
%. , .m~ . . .
~ .. .
+ :,
I '
j Second[l/the;perfdrmance7 measures use'dfi$7 the:: traininp' I
g , ,y .,- <
- - a -
}-, jf program',7 suchias examindtions',imu'st b'e L properlyfl constructed (andt u
- _
- 4. '
+
, . . p. '
^
- ~ .
cadministered k: qTheyj m'usti $1so belval'idAted , (by; which Icmean'thate o,
b,Z fone ' must5et$rmine whether LthejperformanceJm'
,~
~
e asuresl actually itest!
~
wh'a't/theyfar
^
intendedttoitesti 1Ultinia tely', of L c~ourss,L theyf uust " - .
~
- ' - ' ^
e .
.- t. .
e .
t'est i. job). performance. f Onlyrif L they . doltha't- canL they be- relied *
, . . ~
- . . 1 .
upon :asJreasonablyiaccurate predictorsfo'f fjoblperforman'ce~,. which..
~
s c g .
.:is1 tihiiritiue(purpose. -
l
~
1 -
'ThirdiLthe methods ofkinstruction;shoul'dibelappropria'teLto;.
c
. the'- content iof sthe ? course.:
~
.t
- What: methods should:be'used.to? judge the. effectiveness of?a;
~
.Q.
train'ing[ program rfor nuclear powert plant -operators 1to idetermine-
~
waether.-it prepares operators..to safely operaie the plant?' -
. The overriding criterion!:for' determining the success of; a' A.
training program is the performance (of.the train.e'esz-on-theLjob.
In order to correlate success'in the training program 1with'. .
suc' cess in the-job, it is necessary to know1 a) what.the job-
. performance-measures are 'b) . what the standards'for performance 3 of an operator are and c)-what the actual performance' levels ~are -
,y offthose-who receive-the. training.
~
~In order to establish ~ performance standards, it is.
1 . . . .
.,. -necessary to go -beyond general job descriptions'. - In . o rde r -. to -
develop.performanceistandards, the behavioral: content of the 1
L
~
.elementsiof;.the job'must be identified in substantial detail, A
{
placed Lin' a set of' behavorial categories, and ranked ..by U .-importance:and difficulty.
it . .
, +
l
' i_ 1 N -
I
& _ m - ._- -
~
l , .
9x ; . -
U . n , e ,
~2
. m
- I'ntorderEtojestablish performance standards ~,1 one?needs-measure's of jo'b" performance' that are rel'iable : and Evalid'. JAs'I
~
-mentionedJearlier,'there' areiainumber of-ways in whichlto. attempt-Eto obtainiactual' performance levels. The first, and probably1thei least! reliable,i are' ratings or ; personal = evaluations -of job .
performance : by 'a ; superior or peers'.' Ratersitend to' focus'on irrelevant'or11ess relevantLaspects'.'ofLperformance such'as; loyalty, respectfulness andt af f ability 1and; tend, to give higher
. job' performance-ratings;to people'whom they.like:andywho$ exhibit these' personality. characteristics.than=.to persons.theyidon't like, -even though the latter may 'be doing the job 1better.
The.reliabil'ityfof' ratings can.be_ improved bynusing ,
behaviorally-anchored rating. scales-- ~i.e. determining a rating based on a scale, s points on which . (e.g . ,0,3,9) are " anchored" by examples ~of performance appropriate to these numbers.- Behavioral 1 rating forms' of this sort are superior. to the factor rating form presently in use by licensee _(such as those used to rate Mr.
Olive ~on-10/25/82, 10/19/83, and 9/7/84). It is difficult to-rate f actors such as teamwork and leadership without some behavioral anchor. Without a behavioral. anchor and standards, ratings are likely to be unreliable because it becomes very difficult to determine what the ratings actually means either as assessments of performance per se or as comparisons of performance, particularly if the raters are dif ferent people.
However, in whatever. form, ratings are not satisfactory.as the only way of measuring job performince or as a primary means of doing-so. In particular, they are of little m
1 4 < 4 pe ur . _ w- -
- +-. -2 .
j' yin , ? '+' , . , .
3 <-
.g
~
4 .
, 4 y '
?
.a u
' s h, r use j In. at tempting f tof makei a-- correlation - be tweenE training , .
~ '
_c ..
~ .
~'
!ex' amination.resultskand on-the-job performance.: _
, 10ther 4.w'ays . of- measur ing . actual? job L per formance . include <
' outputs inherent in the : jobl(e.g .f f of f g51'f 51ubd, prdduced) , !jobi
' ~
2 x knowl Adge s testing, iwalk-throughs, and videotaping th'e 1 trainee' and .-
~
exposing his- performance- to? the, view ofia number of . raters.= .
~
Shortlof reliably measuring: job performancecagainst-objective ~ performance' standards,lthere:arelsome:Eintermediate criteria that;can be-used aslindications of the' ultimate .
~
l criterion,: job' performance.- Measures of end-of-course achievement-through-written and oral < examinations:can' provide;
'some indication, but only if they are properly designed and-administered.
Another intermediate indication of 'the' effectiveness of training can be gained through the' process of formative evaluation (some of the above described intermediate steps can 'be thought'of as " formative"). This process is a way to fine-tune l an training program before there is an opportunity to apply the ultimate criterion of on-the-job performance. It involves a series of specific and systematic steps which permit instructors to form the training. (See, for example,~Montaque, Ellis and' Wulfeck, "The Instructional Quality Inventory _(IQI): A Formative
-Evaluation Tool For Instructional Systems Development, " Navy Personnel'ResearchTand Development Center, August 1983.
Another. intermediate step involves comparing the instructional techniques'and methods used'with the state-of the'
- Sg - - '
=, ^ ~ -
,"_ '!{;:
- ly M ' -
g
,s. ;n '
5 ,
^
b = =- '1 ,-
F ~%
, ;g ,
n < >
a '
-, : h
(
[
' Research!also; shows1 thhtll a)Cthe-fju' d gment(of thel ' =
P - s
~
, . . . . - - . , . . . F z-f ,.
- examiner /interviewerjisiinfluenced:byithef; performance ofithe
> _ r h
, 5
' pre'ce' din'g aindividual,: j b)L. examiner's ican be ' misle'dl by' persons Lwho!
t .
b,a - Jare?fa'cileFor[very.goodiat?beingfin'terviewed, fc)- ,
t , ,
k ~
fe~xaminers/interviewersitend :to do too much talking, fd ) . .' neg a t iv.e w- - +
k:I 2 evidence [is : unduly. weighted, L and' e) ja.f"halojef f ect"; can { occur fi n' V .
- . . .; . o h
Einterviews, meaning that :the ; evaluator tends,-? for; example, :if one:~
~
. trait' Lis? highly : rated Dto rate 1 thelothers' high alsot Itdis
( '
especially ' dif ficul t :for' peers or. co-workers to conduc t ' oral
}.; ~ examinations',, particularlylif untrained in. administering Jand'
, : evaluating them.; '
,, Oral? interviews are not predictive of job ' performance.
unless they are very-specific and standardized,--ir. which case
_ some.of'the-presumed. benefits of orals are lost.- 2nLaddition-to-the generic problems.with oral-exams,.the oral examinations used a-in the TMI. training program' appear to have no clear criterion for-the pass-f ail cut-of f and .do not require that - the ; same questions be asked of examinees with equivalent skills. In?mytopinion, the predictive value of the orals is limited, i.e., they don'tLtell.
management much about how the candi'date will do on the: job in the-future. As with written examinations, this.is an empirical-
. question that could be-answered by' comparing oral examination results with ' measures of on-the-job performance. The results of~ !
such an' exercise are problematic, however, unless the comple' size is large.enough, and'both the exam'ination-and; job performance measures sufficiently, varied to permit.'the-analysis:to reveal
< gross-differences.
b i
n
- ~ -
. _ , , . . -. .+.
g gg ,y g; s / m
'a ,. , ,
', l.
3 -
- ?%
Q Tr : ~ .
- gM
? a.u .' .
~
d 1 . ,37 . = ,
. .ag , ~ ,
u
~
~ , m -
+
Y
' ~ '
r+- ., >
Qy F. ..#1 ,
is 4
Ny- 15 3 w
~~
@jn ;4Va, ,[Q'. [Pleasefc'ommentronlthh role .of ie'xaminationsc a's i theylare . u' sed: ~
- > , y _
m -
' 1
[ } '
g 71
, > inSa1trainihg sprogram.:suchlas ith'eione f atjThree MileiIslands' ,
j% . . . f . i
.. r - ..
f ^ JA. 'Oneuof Ethe) prim'aryl purposes .of examinations?is c tol determine: .
- n , .
m .
- whetherdtrain'ees arelquall'fied toLperformTtheijobs'ffor which]they/
_~: ; -
4 Ja areib"eingitrained.= Mosts training _ program's ;uselach~ievement!.
1- . g / ] i ~
~
Texamina tions c which5are r;ri terionH re f e renced z . ( sbored l ag ains t, a'-
h critieriod).~. - hNu'skitestStakers areinot'; competing' as :much with
~
~
g_
/ ;
. ~
k,,, leach:Lother J as Mhen Tscore's L are arrayed :aboutf aa mean;' . .y
[t 3 -
rTheffact.that:the purpose of thesetexaminationsiisito
~
' n e
-c> . . . ..
' determine whethervtrainees arencapable.'of1 performing?their~
[ intended' jobs adequately places;a"; premium on the?validityLof the .
exam ina t ion'. . That'is, :it is . extremely Jimportiantf for ' criterion 1 re f erenced ; exa'm'inatio'ns such ,as those given' ~ati Three' Mile 'Islan'd
<to be accurate pred'ictors of how!well those . takingit he -
~
examinations will do'.in the job.
l-Q. What are the pitf alls of the use of oral examinations .to measure competence?
A. The - pitfalls of oral examinations closely ' parallel the problemsLwith the use of personal interviews j and my answer? covers
~
r
[.- both. Oral examinations can be viewed as ' a . special case' of' job -
- interview. . As with -
L job ratings, which I discussed earlier, interviews lack both reliability and1 validity for a variety'of reasons. The first' shortcoming is the lack of standardization.
- In other words, i t is impossible to know whether the same 1 questions were asked of all candidates with similar knowledge
'fprofiles.-
p1 l
'T
g% >
w : - ,
[
- ! : ^ , ,,
. g-14 .
7, c 7
1 -
[ .
art. .
- Forfexample,fthe_use of compute'rs'forLindividualized ~
. . . , J?
? instruc tion 'is state-of-the -art, v as 'isi the use of . computers ~ 1toi
. i P
j Lteachsprocsdures andLto prEvide :an understanding ~ of :" mental.
O s .
. . . . . . . -~ . .
1: --models" of the underlying system l(e.'g .iplant) . :- .
This:later= system Tknowledge: approach Will greatlyffacilitatesprocedure learning and
~
Lj' faultfrecognition[anddiagnosis.7 ? Th is . .i si pa r t icul a r lyj impo r tan t .
~
i . . . . . . . .
- - with irespect sto _'a' highly, complex'. system'.where Tit -is dif ficult : to ,
. grasp the system as a whole and.-the way that the components are integrated into.thessystem. -
'A final intermediate measuring tool-Jis the. measurement of-trainee- attitudes. - Here one asks 'those wh'o have beenLthrough ! th'e -
training to state <what aspects of thefcourses helped them to.do their jobs, which hindered them, which seem irrelevant,Jandnthose that they believe they could have 'used- but . that they did not -
get. The importance of these measures. is not so much the answers:
at any one. time, but the trends ~in the answers.' If the changes in the answers can be correlated with changes'in the training program such as dif ferences in curriculum or instructors, .am indirect evaluation of the changes can be made.
4 As in all such attitude surveys, the ' questions should be carefully designed and the answers given anonymously. Management.
should not be present at interviews nor know who the respondents
.are. If these conditions are not present', the answers'will be .,
affected.
?
t 9
a
[
..l^' _;. ,, . >
- n 1' N ~
q;
,e
- , ~_17_
[ .g ~
~
Q. -Please describe-th'e' effort:thatLwould-have*to be'usdertaken.
~
h'/ .to eviluate the TMI-l' training program *in: order:- to answe r; the Jt .
Vguestions'a'ndEissu'es-posed'by the(AppealtBoard in ALAB-772,and to
~
3 f
- t ;
2.. ~reachLconclusions -of -.the sort reached by' th~e ? Reconstituted ' OARP g7
- f. # Committee sin' its: Special Report of June - 12 ~, .19 8.4. -
b .
The-~ Appeal Board's decision' discusses a: number 'of ) issues and y ..A.
, ~
4
. questions, all. of which relate cto the ' fundamentaliquestio'n ~of.
- whether the training' program adequately. prepares reactor l
' operators to' operate _the--plant safely.- Among the most significant questions are' those relating to whetherithe -
licensee's; examinations are an effective way to measure-the operator's' ability.to operate.the-plant'and relating to whether or not the' simulators are properly used. Cheating 71s, of: course,-
an extremely troubling and significant issue. My . testimony will not address such cheating-related issues as exam security. I do j
n address' cheating indirectly, however, in that' cheating may be related to the quality'of the overall training. program, and particularly to the' trainees' perceptions of whether.they are being well trained to take the various examinations.
I have read the Special Report, and I am struck by the l ' fact-that the conclusions at pages 82 to 83 are quite unequivocal. The Committee concluded, for example, that, "The
' bottom.line' as far as the Committee is concerned is that.the p~
GPU Nuclear : training 1 program produces qualified operators and is adequate to support the restart of TMI-1." This is quite a strong conclusion, particularly because it is not qualified or 4
limited in any way.
u_ -
- n ca . , , .
Q[ :::, p p L .
'. ,L y -
2 ,
- m.
. ~' :
,#. l!\ - ; .. .
hl
[ t
. c ; ~ ,
U '[ ,J -.
e -
a -"
.. .. .. :c, .. ..
i IjshouldMadd,$ith(respect to.f the Special RehortD thatiLit:--
[r.if w ',
3 .t
.. . . .. . ~
y' c
jis? difficult, , based solely;on' thel generalizedfinformation ,
p s , ., . .. , ~> .
. presented;inTthe) report,ifohme'.toihave'-anjappreciationiof?the t -
)\ L
,v L. .
y
< detailed characteristics of?the-training? program,cand thereforeD - -
m
~ ~ ~
g, s 'what<the-lbasisiforitheir;generallygfavorable; review;is,~and-o s
s e
~
l s im ila r ly , f f o r ( the [s e le c tion ; pr og r am ,1. the[j ob :' d e s ig n . pr og ram , Jand -
f other aspects of ' tile' personrielfsystem. . m
. In' ! order toi undertake -an - evaluation of.' the sTMI-14 training -
~
^ program / that would Tallow- me}.toianswer.:. the 2qu'estions raised Lby thel 0
s p l AppealjB'oard 'an'd;c reach. the.-type ofy f undamental' conclusions : stated J ,
j f
Lin1 th'e JSpecial. Report; JIuwould havel tio;: perform .'aidet ailed ' study. ,
E .:I would E useTa$ team of; personnel! with; both J training 5and < nuclear:
lexpertise', a'ndlI would follow the'-evaluation method .that ;IL
. s.
h- describ'ed . earlier iri this testimony.
t The first aspect of any such- ef fort would'be to' gather- -
4 L
basic information'and. develop a plan <of. action. :I. expect that the. initial information.would come from the company's managerial h personnel 'throughibriefings and documents. Beyond'that initial.
information, however, I would review primary ; materials :such as
' examinations, program documents,'and interviews;with appropriate personnel.
~
Rather than repeat what I have already said about how to
- -evaluate a training program, I will focus'here on some of'the-imost important elements of the effort:
- 1. - A sample. of : the task analyses and . learning objectives
~
would be reviewed to determine whether they are- ,
1 l-V '
,na ., , . - - - ,M,, :., - r < w ,, , . , - .- , , . , - .. y , w.,.,'.-- ,,,...,, ., . , , - . <
^
3 .x _
c -
. . s 1; - ,
c _, .
~ -
. 1
,..-- I -
' +
y ; *[ ,( ,
s '
<_19
~
' ~
{l
- s. l technically accurate tand : whether (thley ninclude Sh'ei.
e' ' . . ,-
m .
'information'that:Ifidentified i earlier. ::I f the rel se re a ~
4 l question ~of wh' ether 7 the (training' materials. reflecte'd .
~
t
_ y
~
a
~ actual [ plant design,(thel revidw 'would Einclude an . A
~
_. . , . . , - . .c .- $
bd examinatio'n iofI the' . question-;of whethe r' the . job qC l '.
3 I f -
.descriptio'ns' and! other! 'informatio'n' on twh'ichE the -(task
~
L -
analyse's were. based were,nin' fact, consihterit with the:;
~
1[ -
I o.
I
- current idesign. -
. e R[;.
- 2. - We' would review. ther traihing: materials l and.. instruction, f
to' determine whether they were technically _ correct and
~
~
whether they were correctly administered.- This'would include a detailed review of instructors' training:and-
~
evaluation, as well as a review .of 'the ~~ evaluations of '
instructors -the evaluations of.' simulator performance done by. instructors.
- 3. We would review simulator instruction ' through observation of the instruction itself.
- 4. We would analyze the degree' to which any simulators-replicate the plant itself. To the extent that there'are any dif ferences, and particularly to the extent. that the J
differences are minor or. subtle, we would undertake two separate efforts. First, we would review what the company had done to assure that the differences would not interfere with the operator's ability to operate TMI-1.
Second, we would conduct-tests appropriate to reveal whether the operators' use of the simulators had created -
any such interference.
r h.
b-
gf , 4 7 w ,z =-- . --
, ~
v - -
m
- w. , .
u , v: rx -
i .
.,.F
" ' )
- _,4 y. ./ g '-
Eh5 uj, 'l % ~ < *h l c:aR&-s" yy s .
y l . ? ,y
?. ~. .. -
a 7 ;g -
{fy - w; :N '. ~
.....,v e.
-l-
.- .~ ' " '
i-20-a
~
4
- . / ,m
, n .
4 o
' x y: ,
t + . . , . . . . . m. . . . - ._, , ..
<. e -.
- 5. ..Wh'ere,: a's aETMIWjobtincumbents randfitrainees .aret
" 4 f
3:
_y W
~ ' ~
$s; y n , .
h>i. ,& s s0bjecthtol fregtint. changes li~n procedures}and;
~
-' 3 n.
~
f.i ' s, ; r e qu'i r eme nt s h.I Muld[ be ) conce r nedj ab'ou't ile a r n ing : '
-:u f D ,ol < , _,
~
dnterference(problems. !TheseEproblemsMariserfrom dheffact! t y , u r: .
~
. = . .. . . . , . 1 . _, _
y - that, -foriexample, ' anfindividual originally trained oni - 5 I 7 g , , , " s
., , 3 $. - . * , -+ .
Lone dprocedure:; operates]underithat:'procedureifor La speriod' - - ; . L ^
- ofltime .untilf a ?;new procedureNisiimplem'ented[ LDependingl ,
i iuponithei t'y'pe and [exteht co'f the1 chang'e',fthef pr'ior ilearning'- c' , and le xp e r ie cn' e ' can ? s ig n i f ican t l'y i i nh'i b i t tio t hi iEi t ial '
. learning iand -- retention: of.;theI new ;mathr'ia1., Thef problem ;
7 ~
- cani become- particularly: acute- -in; emergencylsituations,.,
~
~
when an ' operator may itenditolrevert : to. previous: - procedures. ;A reviewfofD th'is ' issue would; be'; e'ssentially-
~
a v-).I the same as : the review' of .the' problem . of 'alsimulator ?that"
~
4 does not replicate--the actual reactor.-
- 6. We would -review examinations and-~ other ? assessment devices.for several purposes. First, do tihe assessment devices rely upon objective and standardized measur'es. of-performance? Second,' are.the questions used in the
assessments properly constructed, and are the assessments as:a whole properly constructed, particularly-~with respect to'the behavior thati they test and the mental processes that are required to answer them? Third, to : the ' extent-
'that oral assessments'are used, are they controlled by the
~ use of. standardized procedures, - and' are complete notes of the; answers'kept to.that they can be' reviewed impartially?
~
E <
=. .- _.
pTy ; 4
'& m, ~ M T1~ JX X T l'" '
. < E -
g x, s w'c- '
,' w.
mey t , jq i M _ 3-
- m :
yy
.y . . . c , .
. n
( c,,
~c ' s -
4 '
.a -4 _ s .,
[' i *_
?j.- ' ^,
s, '4 v_%- .. deihaps, most importanti"how ;do6theiresults;of. thez
^ _
.. r .
# e s
~ - _
e
] - -
."a s s'e s sm'e n tYd'ev ice s 'co r r 51a te t wi t hl j obt perforiinanc'e?I <In-
~
*~ ' ji a
~
>m . . . . m -sa ,- - .- . ,.
c < = - i
- order: to addressi this tissue,,11t'lis1ne. . cessary:to; review!the)
~
4 _ _e r , _ . . t
- ' ~
y types; of job perf6rmance: evalu' ationsi that-?.areidone: by.;the -
, ' company, the,extentftofwhich theieva'luations use lobjective?
e , , b . Mea ~sures, ..'and (the . extentito wNich:;the? 'objec$ive' measures 1 -
~ ~ ^
z . a're. consistentMithf performance 'on(Sheiasse'ssment'l . devices.; Thi's~is^a fundame'ntah step [that;must i be,
+
~
_, .un'dertakentL oihavelanyl[$ourid basis forfanlopididn asNo'
~
whetherithe . training s programe is producing l operators = who
~
- cancoperate.-theLplant safely;
~
p
.-7. Welwotild ; review - howl the company Cuse's theire'sults ofi .7E its training and-the res'ults of-job performance ji j
evaluations to' feed-back-into the train'ing.programe
-If-- p this ' is not done, the program will continue-tolexhibitL- y i
y p whatever inadequacies.:it may have'.-
~
p
- 8. Finally, . we would systematically examine the - ;[
b attitudes :of the trainees toward' the training and: toward " the jobs'themselves. This would be done. through an t: anonymous random sampling technique, with a. standardized ~ L} . set of_ questions. carefully developed by' survey research: + experta to reveal actual attitudes.
~
This: survey would'be useful'in conjunction with the other assessments since n 3 r. behavior is sometimes modified . by attitudes. .[ l1l I t- summary, we would review the program irt the~ light.of .l
. suggestions-(e.g., the use of tailored training) made elsewhere
- u. l i
i 1.j
.i
x . - - . t ., ~'-
.j g; < . . i
+.- -
o m .. . . . - _ - %yE . .
~
t .in thisitestimony not:.only'for.Lthe. purpose of. identifying-o , .. .
~
weaknesses', ; butlto suggest-; courses ofiaction. ' This is 'a-
- i. ' substantial' undertaking',. but- itLwould ; be. necessary. to Lanswer; the '
b ,. .. .. .a y -' Appeal Board's' questions with;aLreasonable: degree-of certainty. I-?estima'te :that 1it would ~.take ra team of' five; qualified p.eople--
~
three ' months' '.to complete ' the 'ef fort, n'ot - incl'ud ing the timel to
~
~
[ c [ write whatever.re' port the' team may produce. - f k i b
+
i
+
m
?
i 'k . a 1 .a I'
}. '
i A f
.L s
e aC
pw.c g : . M
~
% ' ' s n % % -
~ "
"Tf;;y < ' f ; ( YW w: M, y
Q y(t'-%m.
]{E
~
s
-m
{,C' m
5].fP.-u e 3 . Q','y , m n* ph ' g . l =- - f fi m g % y7 g. " - 3 I
- gn 4 s m s;, eu.
gs - _Qy '
. . n m s , . . _
y&, O ?) List sfB iRef erencEs Reviewe'dr by 1Dr.c Regan?In6 PreparaEion' For; w
, +
s
4 , iWritten-Testimony 4 2 - - .. . m - +m -
._ m 4 V m , , . - : ,.
J:qh - - ' y .
- n. . ~;
i
, , :- 1,
^
l _.
~
r .-
- .- 2;. am t ~ ; ,.. ; Wr i $ ten {Te s t y'imon.' .
, , , -.a .,
?A E. *. . - ,
E m' , -' s, . 3w
~.
,r 4
-n f,. 'w' %
2 TestiimonyJofithef Rec'onstitute(OARPlCommitt'eefo'n1 theiTMIl^ l5 i ~4 .5 2n*
- ;, = ,
'SLicense_d:;Operat'r"TrainingqProgram.P c -
o m m W y-
~
,- m ... _ . , . n -. . ;c "
m ,p + _OLicens.~s
. . . ~ .
J_ , ee ' s :,Te s timony.c o f Mr '..::Samuelt L'.V Newton ,i Mr .~ Br uc e h P. /D Qg ~ c ; Leonard;and)Mr.; Michael?J.3 Rossi,on? thefl Issue fdf Licensed (Operator: [
, 7j{ TrainingLatiTMI-lb ,_ + ~
,y t .
, , t
- r. , .M * -
- r :~ ~ , . , . . . ., ,. .y h, 'r q Lice n se e '. s1Te s t imony ;o f ' Dr . r Robe r ti L. 0 Longfand i Dr . 3: Richard?P.LCoei ^
l; 94 fon Lthe ; Issue? ofiLicen'sedf0peratorkTraining]at TMI-ll ' g ..
. . .- . . , . . ~ . . . .
c .
- Special[ Repo rt (of ? the Reco'nstituted ? OARP1 Review!Commi tteef dateda
" s' }
L6/12/84L.
<c D g
'n.
~
s .
; fTraining IJ Documents.
~
[ w; _ q
. . , .- . , +
' Me'morandum i f rom: $".P.1 Leonard ,10p'eratorf Training : Ma' nager, o to .,
f Op;erator /Section', January, 27,'-1984 9 -
- i. , ~ _" .
m "Operatior ~ Training ;Instiructor -Indoctrination f Qualifibatkon: l? Training Program," Rev.17 -' April .26,H1983. x . .
. . ..: , a
~ "GPUN Instructor; Development Program j" ;Draf t May- 15, 1984.-
"TMI Trainin'g Department InstructorDEvaluation Procedure,"1Rev.11
-e h Aug u's t' 9, ' 19 8 3. L
" Replacement Operator Training Program Description" 'TMI-1,JRev.
1, August' 31, 1981.
"TMI-l Senior . Reactor . Operator Replacemant Training -Program,"1 Rev. 1, March.21, 1983 6211-ADM-2622.04. .
" Licensed . operator Requalification Program Description J(Unit- 1)",-
Rev. 1, J une. 12, 198 4 6 211-ADM-2 611. 01. .. P' . . July 16, 1984,-Final Certification Statement for-E. Frederick-
. 3210-84-0303. -;
'-~ . Employee Performance Reviews of H.K. Olive datin'g f rom 1982 to i U p 1984. listed as Exhibitse l-2.in the Deposition of. Henry Hukill, [i cJr. on'NovemberL7, 1984. 1 g is F ' r
Background:
' Summary Reports and Board' Decisions F .ALAB..Decisionk May 24,:1984, pp. 3-19,=62-72.
'^
JM. ..
.{
; ASLB E - Report of. the .Special Master, April 28, 1982. .
j
.m, ,
rse gyr.-- i ASLB PID 6 (Reopened s Proceeding) , July 27f,1982. . Q"> e W)Ahsessment of. Selected TMI) Training' Programs: Da ta ' Desig n . Laboratories; Report J SummaryM September. 10,;1982. W
~
. _ , ,-._u a. s-4 %au-_a- .;----
, , .~ - - - -
-= - , ,
jp .- - e
- a. _ .'-' ,
t. L- ~ c
^
1 b .
~
tRHR.;Consbltation withlGPU; Nucle'ariManagement:-Pridrity Concerns! - .F Jof Licensed : Operator's( at ;TMI-l and Oyster Creek 1 and ' Suggested [ : Action' Steps "-- Final . Report. ; Paul F._ D'Arcy, Ph.D'~andTJohn R.
~
9 . Sauer, Ph.D, March'15,'1983., ..e i {. ? Depositions. It . Deposition of" Bruce-P. Leonard, October' 23,. 1984.- r[ 1
-Depositioniof Eric Gardner, October.-25,.1984. .
1!
~
.-Deposition-of'Dr. Richard P. Coe, October.. 24,11984. i
[ Deposition'.of Samuel L.-Newton,~ T October: 24,11984.. { ' Deposition ofERob'ert L. Long', October 24,=1984. _ [ Deposi tion , of Dr. . Robert:E. Uhrig , L octobe r . 23, 1984. c - Published References
". Ins tructional- Quality Inventorj," Willaim J E. Montague , _ ~ John; A.
Ellis-and Wallace H. Wulfe'ck II., Performance'and; Instruction
' Journal, June 1983j-Volume 22.
The Instructional Quality Inventory .(IQI)~: A Formative' Evaluation
. Tool for Instructional Systems Development, Navy Personnel Research and Development Center August 1983, : William E. Montague, John A. Ellis, and Wallace H. Wulfeck II.
John'Joyner et.-al. Handbook for Individual In s truc t ion, -- Human Resources Research Organization, Carmel, Ca. , July 1983.
" Criterion - Referenced Measurement in' Military Technical.
Training," John A. Ellis and Wallace H. Wulfeck - in The Role of Training in Military Personnel Systems (tentative title), Praeger Press -(in press) ,1985. L
, .~ . - - . -. ,- ~ . , - .- - .-. -n -. , ,_,
, , :x .w r w%-
.- > - . w, -
m, u n% ' a 13 %. cm - s G"WW r.2p W.W,,,' L
~
s W M 45.4.gs, 9 W % m:1% - w W t- F-2 : J,
. m - s , ,
, .i w w_, - - c 3;, as v, . . . , n,
.1:m
,- ,- ~
_.o , m ' x4 + - av w.m ~ - -i
~-4 s - - <
>9
, c, as^., fs-.,nm~ %g '. < '1
- , - , ~
t -
-_ _, yc.,
> , m Agp; v.. , - ,
s- %. 3 , , m
- s, < ,
. c , . ,
- + pfy ,_,'
a .. , - - ,
- O M '7' "s .,,..,.g
;; .g ,
+
1 .
;c.'*
s *#,. ; 4
- a.. 4s ,
~
, 1 v -
c s - 4 ., 1
; f ,
- m. a . sl e.
- 1. ...m% ._ U,y g _ s .
' ;n' -'
t
- ,.-~ i') 7 . '
b, a , ,
. y, -
o. n Y i W. -2; - s at - - , , - .- , - , , aut
,w 3
~
(-h' ,
' c
./
's pn . s ,
~
;, . & e' . -
w _ ; : n ;3 >; . .
- u. ,-
, - - , +
- s. .
u. s, ~ , . - . .- , .
~
u,
+-
p . .m= ,, e m
~
," ~~ .
y,e s ,
, ~
4 - -
#~..s-m-w
- x: .g . w .. .
~ ' '
p . _
+- ,
~ ' ;;
JF +
< > , c-g-b s 1
q-
+ - ,,
- s.
N ( [y._. = - .
,4M <
jf 7 RESCtEO = <
- g. b .
7 . j , e I ad . .
~
. .f- . .
3; f , ,
~-
~.,n
, 1 -,
g - _ 4 ;,. 4 .;-~ - . ~ y,
& ?
t . f ;'. : .,'n
-- [,'
# , ' e's i '- ~ ' " ' . . p Y
/ . 'O r'h ,
.m_
,a re ,
; 4
$^'
/
~
1 James J.._Regan -
~
9804; Bonnie NistsLDriver U
~
~
E
^ , La . "c s s ,1. Calif o rnia .. ' 9204 F.
4
,' Tel: -(619)1460-3681',
s . , - - A i .t L j._ h. s Date of Birth':. 27 August 19'24.' ,, l' s' "r F Ij
- ED'UCATION-Years Degree /Date Major: -Minor.
Institution 1942-48 Ph.3.'1948 Psychcilogy - _Engiish' < Universicy af Detroit .PhilosophyL, Forchs:n University 1948-57 MA _ 1951 Psychology None Ph.D. 1957- Psychology, None s [. 6 f
*u.',
.q* n ,, if , I "- D
- . s
' . 19 .. .
+ a. .
5, 6 Y V % - -
+ ;
k
- - - - - - - a ..q._._
n . _y
. ~. - .
; a
~
~ ~
{ .
#co
.s li t m ..:y --
s . . ~ . ,
, ;,.fL,
... Y=... . ..
- },~,; , yq , ;.c: ,
.p H.V,3 g e following chrenElogy.of experience-beginswith m[ present/ job and works.
- t'r back)
- m
'y % :t l EMPLOYER:
lllniversity of Can Diego 7 ,. ~ hit-cFT ITIG!! TITLE:'4 Lecturer' i 3 3 JOATE2:1 , Fallyeo2" ,
;L gl . L 3LTIE3: >
Teach course in personnel management in School of ~ Business j ' 3'
~
Adninistration.: ,
- e. .
f; : IMPLCYER:- -:Battelle Hunan Affairs Researcts Center .
- FCCITIO!! TITLE: Visitirg Scientist ^
s
. ATEC: 1/c)-to present
*.T!EC: Technical' consultation in personnel and management Sciences
.and 01:ulation. ,
e 1
' EM P'.C'EP i 2 elf 3:
P'rIT C*i T!'~LE: Cons'ultant-
- ATIC: 9/52 to present .
*.'"!E2 : Technical censultation with various industrial and acadenic
- crganisations in the areas of personnel selection, assign =ent, trainir.T. precuctivity, ap.craisal, job design, ano sinniation for personnel trainir4 an:1 perfor: ance measurement.
EMFLCYER: ::avy Fersonnel Researen and Oevelopnent Center, San 'Ciego, Ca. P m !TIO!! TIT E: Memcer cf Science Advisory Board
.agL ., iv~yw3 c CLT E2: Assist !!avy Persennel Research and Cevelopment Center en the fornulation and appraisal of its researen prcgram.
1 I a e f 'T k
~~~- --
Dh $
-7.f-^, }L
'- N.
3- :n-y; p - 3 , , n . O _._ l yh ~
~"',i.~
f
. ., , .p g .
&. 4
.-Navy Personnel' Research :and? Development - Center ,l San Diego,1 f- U LDtPLOYER:n
-California.
j77,
% n. ..+ . .. . ,
POSITION TITLE: Founding Technical; Director f,y ,
^
3: W DATES: ' 19/73 to 7/82E~ ~ ' w - q
' DUTIES: - Provide execudive technical direction Lin the planning.: con-7 f:#[ ,
' duct,;and _ coordination, of 'research and development activities 4,9 -
Edirected toward the advancement.-of1that Navy!s cechnologicali
'F base 11 niche social,; education,T psychological and' manadement('
? sc ience s'. - ,>
ik, ' T. * * . , , EMPLOYER: Naval- Training Equipment Center,(Orlando,~ Florida
" I=
POSITION TITLES (Chief Psychologist and Head,. Human Factors Laboratory: Founding t Director, , Training Analysis and ' Evaluation' Group DATES: 7/66~to 9/73 DUTIES: L'as fully responsible for' develop'ing -and managing. a program of psychological research, consultation and evaluation in
- the area of ' human f actors 'and human . learning. This program-included lacoratory research, consultation to engineers,. ~
research and development. in adaptive training and computer-
~
- assisted instruction and : experimental field evaluations of-traiaing systans. - The acaf f ' was made up of ~ experimental .
and engineering research psychologists. . Projects were
.acco=plisned both "in-nouse and under contract. Originated same projects, evaluated and soproved submissions f rom tne prof essional staff, sonitored progress and evaluates the -
final product. I represented the laboratory to the research couzaunity and agencies of government. .I functioned as prin-cipal consultant re hu=an f actors in training equipment to various agencies of the
- Army and Navy. As Head of.the-Training Analysis and Evaluation Group, organi=ediand direc-
~
ted a multidisciplinary (engineers, educators, and psychol-ogists):grcup.of 40 scientists whose purpose was co develop and' exploit new analytic techniques from various disciplines (e.g., systems engineering) in designing and evaluating major new training systems. These systems embodied what was. being learned in the area of modern educational ' technology and cost ef fectiveness techniques. , 1 i j j. 2 , 2 m,- lL+ y _.- :. - =
pp __
~
- p. 5~ _
5 * '
, .o +1! - Office'$fiNavalLResearch,- Navy (Departrent, SMhington, .D.Cs .
EMPLOYER: f'.y,
~
- ~-
v (Assistant. Head ,. Personnel and- Training L Branch - p%q .g c :. POSITION TITLE:
~
.4/65'to17/66 i'.h r; l. o.
. DATES:
DUTIES _: L The personnel andiTraining Branch of ONR., develops anbdirects
~
{.FL* - the. Navy's contractfprogram inipersonnel reseagch and-its-
~
~
jj[ > members. funct ionias principal l advisors - to the: Navy and ,other - jp agencies. ' My dut ies involved . part _icipation' with .the Branch J 1'<f. () ' Head in the . planning and L Lmptuacntation of ' the principal fundamental personnel research progrsa in the Navy. 'I-
~
Lp i 1 served as l principal ~ consultant , to -_various . government agenc es ' j Rin~ the -area of training systems research; .with the Branch' f y{
- sHead, selected research areas La-need of special~ emphasis .and -
j!: organized and conducted working conferences of specialists-ql'
* . and edited proceedings; prepared syntheses 'of- personnel
~
't.
research ~and wrote results' for publication;; managed major
cooperative operational research programs; .and joined .with -
' Branch Head in developing the major research program the DOD had' in the area of computer-aided ins t ruction. Functioned 1 as Scientific Of ficer for major programs tin; criterion research
[ and automated instructional research. ~ Served:4sJalternate-
- Study Director, Personnel Research Study f or the Assistant Secretary of Def ense(M)'s Consolidated Training. and ' Education
-Progran Review. This involved a D0D-wide : survey . of - evaluation -
of personnel research. II EMPLOYER: U.S. Naval Training Device Center , Port "Jashington, New York i POSITION TITLE: Psychologist to Head, Systems Psychology . Division 4 DATES: 10/51 to 4/65 DL* TIES : In addition to the duties.cf Systems Psychology Division Head described i= mediately below, I served as principal consultant to the Chief Psycholonist, Co=manding Of ficer and Director of the Naval Training Device Center, and other agencies in the area of tratning systems research. I functioned.as the tech-nical leader in a Center-wide methodological R&D er f ort in the area of training system development; functioned with the Chief Psychologist in for=ulating department-wide research goals. As Head of Syste=s Psychology Division, I was responsible for techntcal and administrative planning, development, asstan-ment, control and evaluation of research and consultatien programs. These programs were.in operating areas such as special weapons, guided missiles, tactical and team operations, and nuclear power. Research and consultation were in such 3 7 ee * *e,4+ e- _
, ;c-.
y- , 4 , 4
-~f ' 7
'.- s . .
} , .
s '". , x 1 w^
,c m
- ~ l
'j
- areasfas human engineering)(humaniccrvsyyntain),c educattonal .
[ 1
' psychology, x tra iningianalys is. systems ' analys is, hinf or: sat _Lon a R- -
theory, . decision-making,~.small group _ behavior, perceptual M:, - l skills, and ~ complex sensory motor- .skillsJ . iIn addition, vary-M ~ ling ' amounts of time were ' spent -lasIActing Chief Psychologist. - 3 Priorf j Ind {rectly. supervised (about_ 40_ contract _ psychologists. (( t to these duties,Jserved as? Project Manager. _ , . . t. {= g .s' [ g j-;' 3 ; : U : Dunlap; andf As'so'c Lates 429 Atlantic 1St. , Stamford,> Conn.
^
L ~ tEMPLOYER: >
'I$-
POSITION TITLE: - DJu'ntor _ Research" Associate (,. .y . .. .
~~
[ j[.p - -DATES: 3/13 to -10/5L -
- :( f Developed. experimental designs forjresearch projects in _ human
}j : DUTIES:
eng'ineering for. government .and industry, . implemented projects
~
*;P
- by conducting experiments.. field work' writing questionnaires; -
Sl'," .
. organized, analyzed and L reported ' psychological data, land wrote:
technical ; r eports. > EMPLOYER: .Fordhas University, ?ew York.j New York.
~ POSITION TITLE: 1 Junior Research' Associate DATES: 6/49 to 2/S1-
^
DUTIES: Duties included statistical analysis;of data. -construction of ~ systems for qualitative analysisL of kinescope recordings,- participation in conf erences en data analysis techniques,; tech - nital report writing and eciting.. _ Conducted te' sting and tele -
- vision sesstens at Kings Point Merchant Marine Academy, constructed, administered and analyzed. achievement tests .
obser ted and critiqued educational television sessions. E'!P LOYER: Fordham L*niversity, New York, New York POSIT:CN TITLE: Research Assistant DATES: 9/49 to 6/50 DUT:ES: This was an honorary appointment on the basis of scholastic-achievement. Duties included substitute teachina, organizing graduate school entrance exams, assisting in psychologtcal laboratory courses, and constructing college examinations. 4 m 4 s 9
'. .
- es* -
M4 Y ,, .
~- _
r,: .
-. w _.
( =. ..
~
J f]l;. , s _
=Tordham' Univers tty, N1w York,: Ntw; York I ** ;EMP!$YER:
e< m . ,.
' ~
a.
)Research dssiscanc. s
~
," - . POSITION TITLE:
.f:; ;, :V ~ *
;1/49.to.6/49'
~ '
. DATES:
h .l1 .,=-
- ~
n h ::;. ~ : DUTIES: ; Honorary ' appointment on basLs of ; scholastic achievement ~.
= Laboratory; assistant, examination proctor and grader;.
f reorganized test.. library. j f' ' 6 : ;e ; - P~.. z
.. 0: >*['(.
s~ ' Re e
-9.
e i I a 1 .O ' I 8';e 5 4 i 5 ! E .
)
-- . y ..
. me- m- . .
m.. l
% o- 3, ~
e _ . , , - _ (l,l. ^ Q{R [*g- e. f: 'x
- - ~ .a, .
~
, , , e?x ; ' :u ~ ~
.p
~ ~r ., - - i
%[; . w_ m-7 ,.
- . -yw, ;s. o
,y ', ,7 y, r
,e v+ .1 s
g . g; . , ,7 yy ~ x - y ,
- e. ,y+ + .
, N
^ * - 'rAC 'w t . '
y * - t PL'BLICATIONS ( 7w. r - ~:e;- . O a - ,- , x - 3, <. , g . - - 4
+
- m. _L g 3 $ b-
*' S-g j n
Cr is syf: W.J J. ( E. %Regan ,{ J WJk ; Ha lojin jhkes$p loymentliriterv iewg". IJournsLV E m:
' (]i
~
> i of " Appi ted' Psychology , ; 1951,7, _35 0:338-341.. x -
- w. .
,h.. , - .
.~.s..- . . . . . ~ ..
~.] ;In Of ficeiof ;
m .-
- Regan,yJ.S J.;,,Ely,OJ.xH. & Kelisy, EC_.R.7 ; Flying;the submarine ,
.g^ ^ - lMav.al' Research, A decade:of-. basic and ? applied - science in the 'Navv.- (Washinston:
r
~,,
+
r v , 4 ve
- 4. ' tONR,41957.. Ppf. - 535-539.-
3 , ,. x , _, . - .
~
4 T' < 1Regan[J.f J.[LTracking lperf6rmaisce relatEdi t o displa'yjcontrol c'onfigurati6ns;1 1957. , , ( Un pu b lished ' doc t'o ra lf d iss e r t a t ion , J Fo rdhan Univ ers it y ,7 s f-q;. f ' 'p', ' , =Regan,LJ.fJ..iTracking, performance related,to display: control' configurations.
' Navil7 Training' DevicelCenter.
Technical: Report 32221-2, January", loS9 F U.S t. iRegan,JJ fJ. 1 Tracking: performance relate'dE to d is play fcontro lj eon'f i g'u '
~
i Journal of A'pplied Psychology,19.60,S 44,f 310-3147 . Of fice- _ Regan,4J. ' J. ; "A i method l f or determining; training L dev ice l requirements. - ' n _P r of . Naval; Research: . Proceedin'gs' of Jtbe : Fif th1 Navy 1 Science Symposium, ' April <
~
~
1961'. -Vol. 2,sPp.t740-749.;
- Regan,;J. J. A Bishop,' C. L K. 3 Programmed $1nstruction?in tihe . Ar=ed. Forces--an :
overview. :In S. Mar:;ulies 's -L. -D. Ei. ten (Eds'.) ; L Appiled program =ed 'nstruc- - Wiley,'1962'.- Pp. 59-69.. tun. New York: , Regan,'J. J.- Automated Jnstructional hardware and jsof tvare: ' An Loverv tew. . . Proceedin4s of.tne American Institute of? Industrial Engineers, Inc.,fl964 .
. Pp. 325-330.
N Regan, J. J. Navy plans for computer-assisted ' instruction (CA1) . 1 National. Sequrity Industrial Association: Proceedings 1of the Engineering Systems.for Education and Training Conference, 1966. Pp. 145-147. Regan, J. J. .
. Ccaputer-assisted instructica (CAI): Some facts and fanciest Wasnington University, Schoo t 'of Continuing Education, Research Publication Number 11, 1967. ?p. 38 49.
o Manpower Research,. Regan, J. J. New outlooks in training: A: discussion. English University Press, Ltd.,11969.; Pp. N. A. S. Wilson (Ed.) London: . 364-375. 7 Special Editor, Special Issue: Adaptive Training, . Journal' of E Regan, J. J. tne Human Facters-Society, Dec. 1969, Vol. II, Numoer - 6. Blaiw'es, A. S. & Regan, J. J. An integrated approach to the study of learn ~
~ing, recenticn and transfer--a key issue.in1 training device research and-development. Technical Report IH-178, August- 1970, Naval Training Devtce
' Center.
Engineering systems in education and training. A' report on Regan, J. J.
. the 1970 (11th) Annual ~ IEEE , Man-Machine Systems Symposius, November 1970.
~
U ', ,- Applied Er::onomics, Loadon,_ June 1971.- l c- 6 l t,
. n e ,
M m-M? . -.H W ~
- y. ,- _ . -
r,_. s
-Regan,fJnJ. --A roundtable by mail.- Human' Factors: ; Theory /andPrrctico.-
=m l Dayid' Meister ;(Ed.-) .; ' New :Yor k:; Wilep-Interscience , ; 19 71
.. (-
' 2 Bryan,' Cf :Li & Regan, JJ. 'J. : : Training system design. , Human ennineering; l -
Tguide to equipment: design... Washington: .GPO.Ji972.
--Bla twes,1 A.lS. : Puig, J. A. . & 'Regan, J. J.- 'Transf er of training and. thel
- -. ,re.
~
41
-measurement of training effectiveness.: Human Factors,' December'1973.
,e .
design..
. Regan, J.i J.~ - Components' of fhuman' performan'ce and' training system
.[I- . Presentations and Technical Notes from the Applied Learning . Systems' Cur--
, i'
"= _ r tculum Requirements Symposium, Washington:-; American University,11-12 --
~:1 I
- ' March.1975.
. Progress and
{ ,
- -Blaiwes,JA. S. & Regan; J. J. . Military Training. Devices b'#
SIccues. ' Chapter;in The Role of Training in Military Personnel Systens
;(Tentative title). 'New York: PracBer Press:(in-press) 1985 p l ..
1 e l' p A f 9
) '
",'s ,. I'
}r -q) l 7.
L !<- - E* e m&- . . J 1 Wlr 3.-+ . [-
W 5, m > , 1 .-,m. . _
=,
' ' Aj ', _ ++ , - , ,
["~ : -
~
yff.n TQ.; - y k;}.,y--' gp ,
>u ,
e' NpD',..
- H_ g . d -7 i Ef
^ f y ..
t
- m:
JE 11' _ s;# , . .- ..
~ . _
PRESENTATIONS'
~
V ,,,.1 6 .uy .
'f" m
- - , c . g- ,
+
x , +
, c
' # * + , r.
,$' jn .
~
il96'OMTtielRole(of the MbnitorEin: Federal Research(iPaperfread-atfthef,' -'
- jc p&
k j'lf , ( s .w y American: Psycholo6t eal" Association Conventiori,1 Chicago, ?I114 # 1 3.._ _i
# (; r .m .
...:r . . . . . . .
11961 (Training : Analysis Metho.ds.; Paper read at: Anti-Submarine Warf 5rel
~
. S ympos ium, (NewYork,:N.Y.7
's '
i hq < 1196'21 Human Eng'ineeringLatittle; Navalf Training Device l Center. ._ IPaper;'s-read atL
,p .
the Human; Factors Society: meeting. :New York,jN.Y ' _ .
^ , ,
h s
.k .Qg
[1962- AjSctieme for: Training Spstems 7 Warf are Symposium,f Norfolk, VA.- T Analysis. /PaperLreadIat? Ant 1-Air y , n- > 519644 Methods forLTask' Anal'ysis.: Paper read at; Human Factors Society annualY s f*h~ ~ meeting,3 Washington, ; D.C. _r . t- . w; .
- L19661 ; Computer-Assisted . Instruction. ' Presentationi toL AAnerican Management. 7 Association's Continuing . Seminar 1 on ManagementiInformat ion - Systems, >
~
RU < l<' Boca Rato, n. ,( FL. .
~
s [1967 Computer-Assisted Ins't ruction.i : Presentation ' to NavailResearch Reserve
~
U - Unit, Oriando/FL.
~
1967 _ Computer-AssisteFInstruction.; Presentation made' to Industrials College : 4. of tihe Armed Forces /U;3.; Military Academy:CompuedrMorkshop sponsored : by the ICAF and1CSMA~and held at West Point. . t Remarks -videotaped for;
- subse'quent review byf i nterested- activities.
1967 1 Participated. in a Symposium at the North' Atlantic TreatynOrganizatton . Iondon.
- Conierence -on Manpower Research inL the 'Def erise Cantext'.'
England. 5 1967_ Educational Technology. Presentation to ' Data Processing Managements Association, Winter. Park,. FL. 1967 Changing World of Training Research. Invited lecture given acLNaval
' Academy..
'1968 - Cc=puter-Assisted Instruction--An Overview. Presentation to' State i
Conf erence, Joerican Society for Training and Development. Orlando, FL. 1968 ' Learning.Research and Training Practice. - Presentation to Central. Division, American Society for Training .and Deve'lopment, Orlando, FL. 1969 Wrkshop'on Programmed Instruction given at American Hospital Association Regional meeting, Miami, FL.
~
1969- Faculty member and lecturer, American Hospital Association -seminar on Leadership f or. Florida Hospital Auxiliary presidents.
~ .
8 y. 4 g f
+J t 3
.P I
i.... - : -e e _ _. . e 1.
- N aa.- ,.
__ , ..g.,.,_. m% .. .,
y: C , g;
~.
Pts cn-- 5 p' ; L970:.JMotivationl and LInterp'ersonal. Relations;in a Leaddechipl Contcxt... i) . .
-; tation to' American Ho' spital As'sociation' seminar,10l d o,' FL.
r an
~
7,;. ** 1970;f Learning and Transf er: Issues 'tn the ; Design of' Training ' Systems'.-- ;.Presen-tation to the-11ATO Advanced Study -Institute', fGreenwich, England.'
'I
!197.2! Organized and chaired. a- Sympos tu:n 'on Sp'ecial Skill Training at ?the._ . ,
. annual meeting of Lthe'Southeasteen Psychological Association,~ : Atlanta,'
CA. h(.. .
'1973 Learning' Theory and Training Practice. Invited addressiatlannual
~
. meeting of American Psychological Associst Lon;; Montreal, Canada.
y ' The
$ 19%/85' one-da'j seninars at University or. central ;~'
Florida. LTitics
-' Lesi6 n of Training Systems. ~
~
f .i [n.. 1-" t'.t'
*~ .
x e e e
~ t t .
4 4
' ' e _ ,mayg. ,
}_ - - - _ . _ _ -
4gn ,
- w. ;7. x -
. w l.h .-k i ..; z p.q
- w. -
gg .. < PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES =
? '+v ' . . .
lt)
- so
k.:{ . >.
.'American As ciation for the Advancementiof Scienc'e ,
y
- N , )Nes ! York. State "Psychologica17 Association -
c p-4 Eastern Psychological Association p.; [x .. . - 4 j ' JSenior: Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers z- _
- Human Factors: Society.-
4-y ,. ,.
- +. .
-l . ~ .
The American Educdtional Research ' Association ~~,
. :-- : Sigma Xi.
y , Fellow, American PsychologicEl Association" x ErgonomicsIResearch Society : , t 6 4 E E 10
@* .r.
f_s'. [.
^ - - -' Y Y M!' ;,
;; x -
QL_ JF
- 3. ' . ',
- , , n g '. .
v -
, ;;4 ,
c
, ,. ' 2 l.
W
~
' MISCELLANEOUS R'ECOGNITION le.g. ,i HonorsbAkards[kiC3mmihtee - Appointmsnt4
['
- "LC S
;1949-51 (Graduate Research; Assistant;, three appoints--Spring Ll949, L academic" f .- '~ .
[yeary1949-50,f academic : year 1950-51. - - P - f - Th:1962' . Chairman,iSymposium on Special Traiding Problems,lNew[Englandl *[ 4,
~
; Psychological: Assoc iation , ; Boston, . Mass .
n . . '
;1962-63" ? Membe'r . Program' Committee iof 1the.. Soc tety? of Engineering l Psychologist s 9E '
Jofl: thei American Psychological' Association, i -
~
~
[ Chairman: Program Committee %f Lthe Society of f Engineeringf Psychol-i
+
L1964: - iogists t of thel American-- Psychological 1 Association. dj7 _ 1968; Chairman of (Plenary, Session on. Adaptive Tral'ning, New Englandi
- Psychological Association annual: meeting.nBoston, Mass.
~
- e- ~ 19 69 ' [InvitedItoLaddees'#jo~intimeeting:of.IEEEL(CMMS)'andErgonomics s
i_ (Society held 7 acLCambridge University,l United JKingdom. , (declined);
. ~
- 1970: . General Chairman fl970 IEEE Man-Machine Systes' Annuait Symposium,
' Winter' . Park,.- FL.
197.1 'IEEE Engineer- of = the: Year , for Central Florida. ., Current, Registered Psychologist,;New York State 1966 Member, Computer . Assisted -Education Advisory Board , Naval Academy, . Annapolis, MD.
' 1968-71 Member, Administrative Committee of the Systems, Man and Cybernetics Group of the Ir.stitute of . Electrical and Electronic Engineers..
1970-73 Member, National' Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Ar=ed Forces - NRC Committee on Vision: Working Group on' Visual' Requirements for Cockpit Simulators. 1971 Member, The U.S. Army Armor School Advisory Ccc:mittee,: Fort Knox, KY. l971 Chairman, Session on the Roles _and Controls of Personnel Research and Development in the DOD at a Symposium /5eminar on Personnel Research and Development Planning and Management at Yemple~Cniversity in Philadelphia,~PA. , 1972 Session Chairman, Target Acquisition Symposium, Of fice of Naval ~ Research sponsored meeting, Orlando, FL. 1973-75 Member Membership Committee, Society of Engineering Psychologists, ' American Psychological Association. + 1974 Member, Advisory Co=mittee on Human Re's ources Research and Develop-
~
ment, Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, D.C.
.1 11
-l
! i 4 y
" ~_d_mm
$ry; ;y = = ,_..; njy;
.p s -
y:
, ~ ,
~ ~ ~
. ~. _
' United . States.RepresentativeEto -10th Applicd Military Pfychology.-
h _ 197(* \ - Sympos'ium, Westi Germany, t g:: , y.; ; y -
; Cha'irman';iof Sympos tua,j Evaluation - of 8'a'sicJ and SApplid-Research -
y T'
~
51975 ~ d v3
' JAmerid$n?Psychologica l- Association .uf( Eighty-Third / Annuali Convention, -
- c
, n; Chic a go , ' i t..J ~
tn, 1980 i ~ Chairman,( rellows 'Cdamittee, Society'of~ Engineering Psybh' ologists, 9i
; 4
* " Americant Psychological: Association.-.
g, , Sa.! p: - i O, 19811 Chairman,-. Membership Committee, ' Society of Engineering Psychologists, , '
' American. Psychological Association'.
1 . - , v: . Chairman of.. National.. Advisory Coenittee to : Nuclear Regulatory
- y. . ~-1981-82>
Commission-Committee advises on. persongpli qualifications matters.-
~
7)g .-
' 1983 j Member'of National / Advisory Cdamittee.ltolNuclear1 Regulatory ' Commission;;
U* Cocnittee addresses our' simulator requirements for nuclear pcwer plant t foperators.- e
$ *0 i
^
i. Current < Licensed Psycholc6 st, Californh.
, s 1
g_
,I 6 *}
t 5 4 9 i 4 12
-9 s
.a . -
*'
- e p- e
-' f*** .
;.7 g s. .- .. ".~
r
.m w; - ,
?
~
O -
- 110NORS , A'4ARDS IN Tile FEDERAL" SERVICE :
's.
gy
~
;3, jy .' .g. ..
}e n; : V'
- Federal' Service ' Outstanding .Perf ormance Rating:
. 11956. 1976- ~
W
- 1960- : 1977.
.1978 IT.V.1 I 196LL W .1962,'
i 1979-
' 1980 j [1; ,
19.75' . Sustained : Superior Perf ormance: h.-[ . . .
;-l ";-'
f
+
1974 -1979 c [' ;< _
-1960 -:NavaliTraining Device Center mon inee for' Federal-Business Association's.
t:. . .
<;.' ' Award:for Outstanding Federal Service =
1960 Naval Training Device Center; nominee - for William A. , Jump Memorial
< ' Award *
-1961_ Naval. Training : Device Center ' nominee f or' Federal Bus'iness Association's-
_: Award for.0utstanding Federal Servtce-
'4_
1961. - Naval Training Device Center Alternate nominee for. National. Civil . Se'rvice' League Career Service Award ' 1962 Naval Training Device Center and : Office of . Naval 'Research nominee for Arthur S. Fleming Award .
~
19.82 ' Navy Superior Civilian Service Award
-, 1 1
" 13 s
? ? l t.
j! !
~ :' -
w , ,, .n. . . : . .. ,
L pn , q,y- -r ~< ' n- T r, .. 3~ f , (i;% . .. ' ' s.P s @y ?' +
$ e ,"
.s
- s. g. -i ,
'4 w;; .-+.-; Y;g1 -
w., m
*_3
%%;; yn . M.,j@'w sv ..,' M . .
> -y
~.
9 '
, A @ ?M;y: , c ,;2 - - y -- T m&Wc 4 s _ _ . .
o m
-
- g p 76
; th 4* ?,..
m n:: w
,'
- R
- ~
- n > - ,
~
_ . . y.~~ " 4!ky&p, W L $, x xW y- < .
+
P~ ' a[r g,;
^
.~
- % .v,t W
- l y> l:p ' ,
.c .. ,-
n, .
- m. . .
,e -
, 4;
.w*
'"' ,l-r[ d j '.t z ; '
,. , _ _ ,, ,_ 3 - '
2
~
l ,,_ 4:g , 0
Attachment:
2 4 M ~
'~
yy N-: . ; g , s.p ";
') ; '
- a. > x
*m; .
- y. . +^ ' - <# * ' ' '
T. [hh[lk,$ [ , S -
$UCS'dExhibi~tiList .
_ ,' [f y i
, " ' ~ ~
g ,
& _ (UdS icur rentlyj intends jto jintroduce;ithe ff ollowing, documents 7 as) gg - ~ .Exhibi.tsL at Lthe hearingR qUCS , expects?t'o 4 attempt? to'limiti bothd M
!thelnumber: of : documents >andithe materialsf romiparticular i .
h , _ ,
' Cw ' , " documents toiless4: than appears 2below(toftheJextentypossible'.- % j
+
~
f4 . . . , , . . . , . . : - FinallCertification Statementfof E.!. Frededidk.:
,1. ; i July fil6,4198 4,/
~
. c ~_
;2.=; Employee #- Performance Reviews 1ofEH;K.folive"datedifrom!1982 ftoi "y
~
~
< '1984,4whichfapp;e~ aria'siExhibits 11and:2cto the!Depositionlof Henry l ~ "
, Hu k ill, ,/ J r .', s o n u Novembe r.H. 7,198 4.1 t.
m ,.
- W (
l3. + URHR 'Co'nsultatio.n ~ with .GPU: Nuclear' . Management:(Priorityd .
- Concerns = of, Licensed f 0perator's; atTTMI-l' and (Oyster;CreekEan'd t Sugge s tedfAc tionL S teps t-l Fin'alL Repor t , Pa ulIF . J D ' Ar cy ,) Ph .D [a'nd.
John 7 R.1. Saue r', Ph .D.., e Ma rchil5', L 198 3 L 'l
'4. Hemorandum l f rom PaulLh D.' Arcyl to)Bdb ArnoldTof f May 17,519 8 3, =.
'Re:.:GPU Nuclear?- TMI-l? Percentages, and1 accompanying? '
1 statistics.-
' ~
5._ Writte'nfquestions'and' answers:that' appear las: Exhibit 1'tohthe: .
- Deposition :of EJay Mo' ore.-
- 6. Wr itten , questions c and' answers ' that 1 appear as Exhibit 1 to the- '
Deposition of John Walsh. m 7.. Written questions and' answers that appear as Exhibit.lEtojthe- , Deposition of Ronald Maag. M
- 8. WrittenLquestions.and answe.rs that appear-as Exhibit'l tolthe Deposition'of: George J.fBixler.
- 9. Memoranda relating' to repayment of D.B. _ Mayhew, which _ appear.
as ExhibitsJ4 and 5 to the' Deposition of.Mr. Hukill. l
.l 10 . InterviewcEvaluation. Summary related to Richard P. Coer '
' r which appears _as Exhibit'6 to the' Deposition of Mr. Hukill.
~ .
.11. Oral Examination Evaluationisheets:for D. E.~ Smith for March- 'i 19,11984, which appear as Exhibit #3_-to the Deposition of;Mr.'
' Leonard.
4 1 .
,.12. fouestions that' appear as~ Exhibit 8 to the Deposition of Mr. ~ '
l Leonard.- q u
- i b
1 5 s s 3 m s < g'a. 2 .
,l. ,
4 4 1 s s
.,, ,,;,. _ : -..4, ii
.4,i . , - - -,,.,-,...,.<-..__..,m,~.., ~ - - , - . , < , , , ,- , , , , 3 iI
ge v n - pp U4 '
- 1 , ,
' j .
gc s w 4 . 4 , 3
- y.g ~
-g' . v: - -
jy - r
< s I . '
i f
~ .
J13';7 . Evaluations of Mr'.' Frederick,3.for'8-12-80,110-22-80, and -
- 3-8-83 ~, Ewhich appear ?as / Exhibits' 3-5 f to thel Deposition of LMr .
w , 1 Newton '. , f14..c ;Upgradej Program for1H.K.' Olive,JJuly 2 3 , 1 1 9 8 4 ,' - which ' appears. [y, as. Exhibit"6.itolthejDepositioniof:Mr.'NewtonJand Exhibit 6Mtoithe. LDepositionjof Mr.:Ross. [ 15. . Three MileiIsland Nuclear Station Unit No.- l Abnormal? { sTransient" Procedure 1210-5, OTSG Tube Leak / Rupture, > Revision 4,z y 9
~datedbO8/28/84.
(n u 16. LThree-Mile' Island Nuclear Station 1 Unit ~No. 1 Abnormal' E . Transient < Procedure 1210-1,(Reactor / Turbine Trip,; Revision 6, O
? .
dated (08/28/84. . L 17. iThree Mile Island Nuclear Station' Unit No.nl-Abnormal ~ k Transient Procedure 1202-2), Station Blackout,' Revision:14, dated 08/28/84.
- 18. Three Mile Island Nuclear Station UnitDNo. 1 Abnormal Transient Procedure 1102-11, Plant Cooldown, ' Revision 147, dated 08/29/84.
a
- 19. Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit'No. 1 Abncrmal.
Transient Procedure 1102-16, RCS Natural Circulation Cooling, Revision 10, dated 06/20/84.
- 20. UCS-Questions and Answer Key, November 7, 1984..
- 21. =Pages from RO-1 Answer Key, GPU Document Id. 0639D, created-02/22/84, from which questions and answers.used for the-UCS Questions and ' Answer Key, November 7, 1904, were drawn.
- 22. Pages from RO-2 Key, GPU Document Id. 0640D, created 02/22/84, from which questions and answers used for the UCS-Questions and Answe r Key, November 7, 1984, were drawn.
- 23. Pages from RO-3 Key, GPU Document Id. 0641D, created 02/22/84, from which questions and answers used.for the UCS Questions ;and Answe r Key, November 7, 1984, were drawn.
- 24. The complete answer keys for the previous three documents.
- 25. The complete answer keys for the SRO-1, SRO-2, and SRO-3 Annual Written Requalification Examinations given on 3-7-84, 3-8-84, and 3-9-84.
- 26. Mr. Kelly's handwritten notes, identified as. Exhibit 1-to b his Deposition.
U: h
~~ '
f,
~~
'["
' '~ ~
s+ h:.
~ '
~- ~
~
! lyl >,,. ,
' <s i, ' <
.;3-- '
'4
't i.
~
~ ~
27 4 2 P. ages-16; 218'of;thecNRC Staff's';First. Supplemental Respopse. 1 to L'Intervenor UnMn of Concerned Scient'ists' 2 First: Set. of - 4
'[ Interrogatories to ~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Staf f a: ..
~
j.
-~
_28. - - Examination- results forlWalsh, Moore,.'and - Olive, LExhibitsL3.
;5'to thelDeposition of6Mr'.fRoss. -
[' L29., ~ Replacement--' Operator _ Training Program Description,s TMI-1,-' 4 Esubmitte'd by:- S.L. [ . Newton on'- July 121,;. .198 4. 3 .
- 30. TMI-I; Senior-Reactor OperatortReplacement Training Program,-
l :' Effective Date March:21,fl984. p 31. _'. Licensed!' Operator:'Requalificationf Program Description (Un'iti
- 1) , ;.Ef f ective Da te: 06/12/84.
~
32.. -Oral 1 examination sheets 'for Jay Moore, ; dated 3-26-84, which. ~ appear as Exhibit'1 to the Depos'ition.of-Michael Ross.2
)
i
.l
^i I
t
't ' l l
-l 4
~ _ _ _
= r - - -
7- '
;3
;~ .
't3',.
~ ' - "~
,3~ -
4*"
'G. -_; ,
h
- j}. * -
Ic .
,. . At tachment1' 31 , ~
p1
- Persons -Whom' UCS Expects To Subpoena ' To' Appear At: The He'aring
~
h l~ a" P . lUCS) currently intends Lt'o -subpoena.;the following::iindividuals F. ;to' = appear - at - the. hearing for L various; purposes. . ; UCS. hopes to - k limit; both the ^ number of - individuals and the purposes ' for 'which h lparticular findividuals are ' called rif .possible. , V . . , i . l . ', Michael J.-Ross-- L 72.; Henry Hukill,'lJr.
~3... Edward Frederick' 4.. ; George!J. Bixler
- 5. Ronald Maag
- 6. ' John.Walsh
- 7. . Jay Moore
- 8. Paul D' Arcy or another representative of -Roher, .Hibler-.& -
Replogle, Inc.
- 9. Delores Morisseau 10.- S.L. Newton 11 '. Robert Long 12 . - Richard Coe
- 13. Bruce Leonard I
[ I
.gw . _ - .
n -: :- , y- ' . M3 , ^$- 3 3 , } 3__ .lt:1l%l
;,~' '
, , ,. . 9 F
ki " w. , _ _e p
+;.; -
r'
/ -
Lji ,
,' s-Ju. >- .,- -
- 1 3 ~ f cw- -
9m ,.
- 'c . ~ November '15, '1984 '
1 r. . < ty.g z.: s , : :. , 7
-.e- ~~
l6 , E - . Y ' UNITED STATES:OF? AMERICA" l' 1
- .- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
fst ' - i : ,
):
y In ' the ? Ma tter 'of ' ):
)~ .
')
~
. METROPOLITAN . EDISON COMPANYz: Li Docke t ' No . - : 5 0-28 9 <
g - .
;); (Restart? Remand one t !(Three Mile. Island Nuclear'. -
). : Ma n'ag eme nt)
Station,; Unit No'.01) .
-);.
.).
-CERTIFICATE 'OF ' SERVICE '
I. hereby certify that 'copiesio'f; the .UCS ' NOTICE 'OF. TESTIMONY,: -
.a EXHIBITS ' AND OTHER: EVIDENCE, wereiserved'on.those" indicated on; y the accompanying;. Service List. Service . wa's made ~ by : deposit _in..
Th'e United States mail, first class, postage ' prepaid, on . November.- - 15, 1984, except that counsel for ' licensee was served by. hand.
~-a.n ,
t Wi lli am ,s_S. - Jordan, III v i,) - t,
' ~
9
/ -
Eu m u_ ._ _ _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d' b In7the Matter of ) F .
)
! METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-289
) (Restart Romand on (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Management)
Station, Unit No.' 1) )
- . )
SERVICE LIST (1 Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
. Atom'ic Safety &. Licensing Appeal Bd. Office of the Executive Legal Dir. ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Wranington, g D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge
'Jonn H. Buck Ernest L. Blake. Jr. Esquire Atomic Saf ety & Licensing Appeal Bd. 'Shaw, Pittman, Potts & TrowDridge U.G. Nuclear Regulatory Commisston 1800 M Street, N.W.
Wasntngton, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036 i Ad,Tintstrative Judge h-Christine N. Kohl Ms. Louise Bradford I Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Bd. TMI Alert U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1011 Green Street , Wasnington, D.C. 20555 Harrisburg, PA 17102 Administrative Judge Ivcn W. Smith, Chairman Joanne Dorochaw, Esquire Atomic Saf ety & Licensing Board The Christic Institute U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1324 North Capitol Street nachington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20002 Administrative Judge Sneldon J. Wolfe Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Bd. R.D. 5
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 ;Wcshington, D.C. 20555
Administrative Judge Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
.Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Government Accountability Project Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1555 Connecticut Ave.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20009 Washington, D.C. 20555 .l Docketing and Service Section Michael F. McBride, Esq.
- {0fficaNuclear of the Secretary Regulatory Commission LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Ave, N.W. 41100
- 4 0 .S. 20036
!:W2shington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. i' r
- . ~ .
..n w m . . n. .. _ w 1. - -. -
yn .my: , % ^
>? hichlill Wu- M'~upin's Esq3 bj , y' ilb +- - .H Jnt::n ( & William 3f - ,
K *1707 EaCt Main? Street? :
'/
l' s ,
- P.O s '. Box - 15 3 5
; Richmond,iVA- 23212' ,
- Thoma s Y . - l Au ,- E sq . ,
Office:of' Chief Counse1~ p Department,of-Environmental 11tesources k 505< Executive' Houses ' 4.. P.O.~~-Box.2357. - v . ..
'Harrisburg, PA' .17120 ...
D::J ' ' .' H '
- k. .
g'
?
i s .. p +'
- S f
f
, i' k
i~ 1
,w _ _
-~.}}