ML20128E935
| ML20128E935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/10/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8507080055 | |
| Download: ML20128E935 (152) | |
Text
ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Briefing by Representatives of INPO Accrediting Board (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
Location: Washington, D.C.
Date: Monday, June 10, 1985 Pages:
1 - 72 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 0507000055 850610 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
=
s 1
D I SCLA 1 M ER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Monday, 3
June 10, 1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracles.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of epinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No l
l 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22 23 24 25 f
1 0
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
4 BRIEFING BY REPRESENTATIVES OF INPO ACCREDITING BOARD 5
PUBLIC MEETING 6
7 Room 1180 8
1717 H Street, N.W.
9 Washington, D.C.
10 Monday, June 10, 1985 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m.,
12 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
13 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 14 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 15 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner 16 FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner 17 LANDO ZECH, Commissioner 18 PRESENTERS AND STAFF SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
19 CORDELL REED 20 ZACK PATE 21 ED CARROLL 22 RUSSELL O'NEILL 23 FORREST REMICK i
24 JOHN HOYLE I
25 RICHARD LEV 1 L_
2 1
p ROC EED 1 NOS 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good morning ladies and S
gentlemen.
We are pleased to have with us this morning 4
representatives from the institute of Nuclear power 5
Operations, INpO, Accrediting Board, for briefing the 6
Commission on the status of training accreditation.
7 Since its formation in 1979, INp0 has been 8
developing programs aimed at providing excellence in the 9
construction and operation of nuclear power plants, in an 10 effort to improve the safety and reliability of operations.
11 As a result of meetings with INpO, the NRC published 12 on March 20th, 1985, the Final policy Statement on Training 18 and Qualification of Nuclear power plant personnel. Th!s 14 policy statement endorsed the INp0 training accreditation 15 initiative.
The policy also acknowledgud NRC's continuing 16 responsibility to evaluate applicants' and licensees' 17 Implementation of training improvement programs.
Therefore, 18 the policy statement also indicated the Commission's intention 19 to monitor industry's progress over the allotted two-year time 20 period.
21 Today's meeting is the first progress report 22 meeting on training accreditation since issuance of the final 23 policy statement.
The objective of today's meeting is to 24 discuss the effectiveness to date of the industry's commitment 25 to improve training without additional regulations.
3 1
Before i turn today's meeting over to Mr Zack pato, 2
do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening remarks 3
they wish to make?
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I would just say that 5
this is a real good opportunity, All of us are very interested 6
in the training programs, the efforts that the INp0 7
Accreditation Program has put in, and I think we all really 8
welcome the chance to hear directly from you all that have 9
been working on the accreditation boards on how well that 10 effort is going, what progress is being made, and where the 11 areas are that perhaps greater effort is still needed.
So, it 12 should be a good session, 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other comments?
14 (No responsa) 15 MR. pATE:
Godd morning gentlemen, I am Zack pago, 16 president of INpO.
After a brief introduction I will turn 17 this discussion over to the INp0 Accrediting Board.
18 We are pleased to have an opportunity for the board 19 to brief you this morning.
We appreciate your interest and 20 your willingness to meet with us.
21 With me are four members of the accrediting board, 22 one from each category of board membership:
23 Cordell Reed is Ulce president of Commonwealth 24 Edison Company, and is Chairman of the Accrediting Board, 25 Ed Carroll la a Retired Ulce president of Training
4 1
for United Airlines.
2 Dr. Russ O'Neill is Dean Emeritus. Engineering and 3
Applied Sciences at UCLA.
4 And next to me, Dr. Forrest Remick, Associate Vice 5
president of Research at penn State.
6 On March 14th, 1985 as the Chairman indicated, the 7
commission approved a policy Statement on Training and 8
Qualification of Nuclear power plant personnel. This NRC 9
policy statement recognizes and encourages the INpO-managed 10 accreditation program, and we appreciate your support in that 11 policy statement.
12 The accrediting board is a vitally important part of 13 the accreditation program and of INDO's and the industry's 14 efforts to promote high-quality performance-based training.
15 The board is established by INp0 and is provided 16 staff support by INpO, but it is totally independent in its 17 deliberations and decisionmaking process, it is, therefore, 18 fair and correct to say that the accreditation process 19 includes a final review by an independent accrediting board.
20 Before the board members begin, let me briefly 21 review the major steps in the accreditation processi 22 The first step, the process begins by the utility 23 performing a self evaluation of its training programs, then 24 taking action to correct identified weaknesses, and then 25 forwarding a self-evaluation report to INpO. As we all know,
5 1
in some cases, of course, the utility has to develop a 2
training program before it can do the self evaluation.
3 A self-evaluation report is a comprehensive report 4
with rigorous detail for each individual training program.
5 That is step one, but it is a major step.
6 When the utility has corrected the bulk of the 7
deficiencies identified through its own self evaluation, an 8
INp0 accreditation team visits the site to independently 9
evaluate the training program.
The INp0 accreditation team 10 writes a detailed report describing the training programs and 11 recommending improvements as needed.
12 The next step then is to present this accreditation 13 report to the accrediting board.
A copy of the INpO's report 14 and the ut i l i ty's resporsses are provided to all of the board 15 members.
16 The accreditation board meets to decide on the 17 accreditation request.
And I will let the board members 18 describe that process.
19 To date we have in house at INp0 148 self-evaluation 20 reports.
By the end of 1986, we are scheduled to have 610 to 21 meet our mutual objectives.
Out of that 148 self-evaluation 22 reports on individual training programs, the accrediting board 23 has accredited, or awarded accreditation to 60 individual 24 programs at 16 plants around the country, 25 The accrediting board is a key part of the process.
6 1
The board has a responsibility to INPO, to the NRC, to the 2
Industry and indeed, to the public, to help ensure that S
nuclear plant training programs meet high standards.
4 To meet the commitment of reviewing and accrediting 5
610 programs over the coming years, we have now 19 individuals 6
on the full accrediting board.
Let me just quickly name them 7
for you.
8 From utilities we have:
O Cordell Reed.
10 Dr. Sam Tuthlli, Senior Ulce president in Iowa 11 Electric.
12 Dennis Gilberts, Senior Ulce President Northern 13 State.
14 Billy Clements, the Ulce President of Operations, 15 Texas Utilities.
16 C.
O.
Woody, Ulce President of Operations, Florida 17 Power and Light.
18 Dr. Wayne Jens, Ulce President, Detro Cfison.
19 John Griffin, Senior Ulce President at Arkansas 20 Power and Light.
21 From the non-nuclear training activities we havet 22 Ed Carroll, who is with us.
23 We have Chuck Sener, Retired Ulce president at Bell 24 Communications Research and Training Center outside Chicago.
25 We have a new member, George Moore, who is a retired
7 1
Director of the Educat6on Systems at Westinghouse.
2 We have Dr. Ed Jones, who is the Chief Human Factors 3
Engineer at McDonnell Douglas Aircraft.
4 Representing the educational community, we have:
5 Dr. Russ O'Neill, who is with us.
6 Dr. Bill Kimal, Dean, College of Engineering, 7
University of Missourl 8
Dr. John palms, Vice president for Academic Affairs 9
at Emory University in Atlanta.
10 Dr. Bob Seale, the head of the Department of Nuclear 11 and Energy Engineering, University of Arizona.
12 We have four members of the accrediting board 13 nominating by the NRC:
14 Dr. Forrest Remick, who is with us.
15 Dr. Gordon Robinson, professor of Nuclear 10 Engineering at penn State.
17 Mr. Lincoln Clark, #4ssoc i a t e Director of Nuclear 18 Reactor Laboratory, and the Director of Reactor Operations at 19 MIT.
20 Frank Fogarty, Associate General Manager, 21 Experimental programs at the Idaho National Engineering Lab.
22 This group has extensive unpurlance in the training 23 and education field, and each member is a proven performer.
24 it is indeed, in our view, a prestigious and well-qualified 25 board.
8 1
Four members of the board representing the four 2
categories of membership, will now discuss accreditation from 8
their perspective.
We want to make this an accrediting board 4
briefing, and not an INp0 briefing, so let me now, with that 5
in mind, turn the discussion over to Cordell Reed, Chairman of 6
the Board, accrediting board.
7 MR. REEDt Thank you Zack.
8 1 am here as Chairman of the Accrediting Board, and 9
also as the utility executive with responsibility for having 10 the training programs of six plants accredited.
11 I would like to first give you a few thoughts from 12 the standpoint of Commonwealth Edison.
I can tell you that 13 achieving accreditation is not easy.
We have been working on 14 this for nearly three tears now in our operating programs, 15 and we finally brought them to the point where we feel they 16 moet INpO's standards of excellence.
17 We have formalized our programs, we are satisfied 18 that they are performance based and we have an effective 19 feedback system for correcting deficiencies.
We have nearly 20 doubled the training staffs at our stations since we started 21 in this effort, and for the first time we have maintenance 22 instructors on the training staffs at each of our stations.
23 Two years ago we had none at LaSalle, now we have five.
24 Some of you have seen our central training facility 25 which is a $21 million e,ndeavor with over 100 professionals.
9 1
I am happy to say that our Dresden operating 2
programs were accredited last month.
I attended a very 3
encouraging exit of the accreditation team at Zion three weeks 4
ago. And the INp0 team will visit our Quad Cities plant next 5
week.
6 The most profound impact on our operations will be 7
bringing our maintenance programs up to INp0 standards.
8 Although we have been training our maintenance people in 9
welding and machining and other activities for years, now for 10 the first time we will administer exams for competency to our 11 maintenance people. We are having some interesting discussions 12 with our union, because if people don *t pass, they cannot be 13 in the program.
14 We have full-time maintenance instructors at our 15 stations, and for the first time we will put our maintenance 16 people into requalification training.
We will take them off 17 of the line operation and bring them back into the classroom, le give them Instructions and again they will have to prove their 19 competency.
20 And, for the first time, our training activities 21 in maintenance will be performed in space.
22 We will submit these programs for accreditation 23 early next year.
24 Training has the full support of corporate and 25 station management.
We are putting some of our top personnel
10 1
into the training staffs, and spending in this area has top 2
priority.
8 Now, we thought we had a pretty good program before 4
accreditation.
I believe we did.
However, what we are doing 5
now is lifting ourselves to another plateau.
6 Has it been worth it?
I think so.
I think this is 7
the place where we ought to make the investment.
8 Now, let me discuss our role on the accrediting 9
- board, The bottom line is that it is very hard work and wo 10 take our jobs very seriously.
11 First, we are informed of accreditation team 12 visits.
And normally, one of our board members will attend 13 part of a site visit.
All of us have been on site visits.
I 14 visited TVA's Sequoyah plant last year, and in July I will be 15 going to Northern States power's prairie Island plant.
16 Based upon the progress of utilities, INp0 schedules 17 an accrediting board meeting.
Now, we have two-day meetings 18 scheduled for each month. We started with ten members of the 19 board, and all ten attended the first several sessions, so 20 that they can kind of get trained, although only five actually 21 participated in the final deliberations.
We now have 19 22 members, and if needed, we could have several board meetings 23 each month, several board sittings for each month.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I didn*t follow that ten and 25 only five have participated in the decialon.
11 1
MR. REED:
Well, when we bring a utility in, we 2
would have all ten of our members present, and they could ask 3
questions of the utility representative.
However, up front we 4
designate the five members who will actually make the 5
decision.
6 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
A different five members for 7
each utility?
8 MR. REED:
Well, yes. We will give each guy kind of 9
a training.
Out of the ten members, one may be sitting on the 10 sideline for one utility while the other five are the actual 11 ones to deliberate.
12 Everyone can ask questions, but when you get into 13 the final determination and vote, five of the ten would be 14 designated as the board.
15 COMM I SS IONER ASSIILST I NE :
Are you still doing that, 16 still using the full ten?
17 MR. REED:
Wo have slacked off of that.
I think at 18 our last meeting we had seven or eight members present.
19 How that we have brought a number of new members on 20 board on the board, we will want them to sit and listen as to 21 the kinds of questions we asked. As a matter of fact, on June 23 19th we are having a meeting of all board members where we can 23 sit down and talk a little bit about the philosophy and to 24 talk about the experiences that we have had.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Do you have five board members k
12 1
still voting each time?
2 MR. REED:
Each time five members vote.
S COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Each of your communities 4
represented, each of the four communities 5
MR. REED:
Right.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
In other words, five board 7
members, but all of your disciplines here are represented?
8 MR. REED:
Indeed.
Each time there must be a 9
combination of two utilities, one nuclear training 10 organization, one post-secondary and one member that is 11 recommended by the NRC.
12 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Fine.
Thank you.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Unce you get everybody 14 trained and up to speed, I assume you would operate like our 15 Licensing Boards do, where you would have a panel of five, 16 those people would be assignud to that particular case?
17 MR. REED:
That is correct.
IS Although I am Chairman of the overall board, a 19 chairman is designated for each board that is convened.
- Now, 20 several weeks prior to the scheduled meeting, INp0 sends each 21 dusignated board member the accreditation team's report with 22 the utility's responsa 23 to the team's recommendations.
And, we also receive a copy of 24 the utility's self-evaluation report.
25 When we get this material, we study them carefully,
13 1
develop questions that we would like to have answered in order 2
to make a decision.
We want to determine if the criteria and 3
objectives have been met, if there is a management commitment 4
to training, if there is a system for maintaining a good 5
program.
6 Now, at the meetings we spend about a half a day on 7
the utility's programs.
We start off with a general briefing 8
by the accreditation team leader, who generally respond to O
questions on how the INPO staff have reached certain 10 conclusions, and questions relating to the site visit.
11 However, we save the hard questions for the utility 12 representatives.
And we require that a utility be well 13 represented.
At Alabama Power, Pat Mcdonald came with his 14 plant manager and also his training manager and other plant 15 staff.
16 John Griffin came from Arkansas with, again, his 17 manager and his training people.
And we want this kind of 10 representation, so that utilities can make commitments and we 19 know that we are getting the right answer, 20 Now I have been impressed, really, with the depth of 21 questioning from the board members, and also the knowledge of 22 the utility executives.
They really do their homework before 23 they come in.
Our questions tend to focus on how actual job l
24 performance is factored into the training program.
Our 25 questions go beyond just the programmatic aspects of the
14 1
training program to explore how the plant and the training and 2
the corporate personnel interface.
3 And after our questions are answered, we go into 4
closed deliberations. We have everyone leave the room except 5
the board members. We do not even let the president of INp0 6
sit in in our deliberations.
7 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
When you say the board members, 8
all of the board members sit in on the deliberations?
9 MR. REED:
Right.
And, for the initial part of the 10 deliberations, they can contribute, give their thoughts. We 11 reach a point in the meeting where only the five that will 12 make the decision can then discuss and then make a decision.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I take it the first part, 14 the presentations, the questions and answers, that is all 15 open?
16 MR. REED:
That is all open, right 17 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Open to whom?
18 MR. REED:
To the INPO staff, the utility 19 representatives, and also for any NRC representatives that 20 might be there.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
So, if we wanted to come 22 listen to one of those, we could do that?
23 MR. REED:
Indeed, you can. We would welcome you 24 there.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
i 15 1
MR. REED:
I can assure you that in our 2
deliberations, it is a no-holds-barred discussion of the pros 8
and cons of the utility's training program.
4 I can also assure you that the board would have no 5
problem in deferring a utility's program if they felt it was 6
inadequate.
I am sure of that.
9 7
in some of our deliberations, we have decided that i
8 certain aspects of the utility's efforts t o comp l e t e 9
implementation of training enhancements, merit special 10 attention.
And in those cases we have specified that the INp0 11 staff follow up on those matters and report to us on the 12 utility's progress.
13 Thu continuing accreditation of those programs 14 depend upon the utility's living up to its ccmmitments.
15 At most of our meetings thus far, we have had Harold Denton, Hugh Thompson, 16 observers from the NRC Staff 3 17 Bill Russell, Dan Jones, Jay persinsky, have attended one or 18 more meetings.
19 Now, you have heard enough from me and I would like 20 for other board members to give you some of their thoughts 21 about the accrediting process.
22 You know, it always makes me feel good at an NRC 23 meeting to ask you to hold your questions until the end of the 24 direct presentations.
It has never happened, but it always 25 makes me feel good to ask you that.
le i
O t
f.
+
,e 16 j
p, 1
[
'(Laughter) 2 /
So, I feel g oca d, I am asking you that, p
3 J
Therefore, I would like to t h r,o w the ball, or the 4
potato, over to Forrest
- emick, 5
MR. REMICK:
Thank you, Cordell 6
There are a couple of introductory comments I would 7
like to make.
But, before making them I would like to 8
indicate where i come from in making those comments.
9 I received a reactor operator license approximately 10 29 years ago, and I received the fourth senior reactor t ',-
11 operator license that was issued in the country.
\\
t 12 I began training operators in 1956.s
.I
- /
consujtant license examiner for both 13 i served as a f
14 the AEC and the NRC for fourteen years, primarily on boiling 15 water reactors.
And as a consultant I have conducted QA 16 audits of control room operations of power reactors.
17 Reactor operations and training has been a very 7
18 important part of my professional life.
h 1
19 About ten years ago'I was invited to provide the 20 keynote address at a National Symposium on Training for 21 Nuclear Facility personnel And i entitled that talk, Training 22 of Nuclear Facility personndi, Boon or Boondoggle.
And in 23 that talk I was quite critical of a number of things 3 I was 24 critical of the industry, I was c-itical of the AEC, of f
25
, universities, trainers, et cetera.'
5 s
T
17 1
One of the things that I was critical of was, the 2
training staff at that time at many utilities was one person, 3
called the training coordinator. And that person was not 4
necessarily selected because he knew much about training, and 5
not that he necessarily knew a lot about reactor o'perations.
6 Although in many cases he was licensed.
But many times he was 7
selected because he was the person available, not needed for 8
other duties.
O The sad part about it was that many utilities 10 expected that one lone individual to conduct the training, and 11 many times that person didn't realize that it was impossible 12 for him to do it by himself.
18 in that talk I was critical that reactor operations 14 was not treated as a profession, that reactor operators were 15 not treated as professionals.
I was critical about lack of 16 proper tools for operators to use, particularly at a time of 17 crisis.
And that there were various human engineering 10 considerations absent in the control room in the plant.
19 If I recall that meeting, there were about 125 20 people in attendance.
21 Well, Commissioner Asselstine and I participated in 22 the Sixth National Symposium about two months ago in 23 Nashville. And at that one there were in excess of 500 people 24 in attendance, mostly training personnel 25 Back when accreditation was first recommended, I was
18 1
not a strong proponent of it The reason being because 1 2
could not see how accreditation itself could make the major 8
impact on training programs that I thought were necessary.
I 4
wasn't against it, but I was not a proponent.
5 I think the reason I serve on the accrediting board 6
is your staff, knowing my background, thought that I would 7
make a good recommendee, ought to serve.
And those people who 8
contacted me at that time were Hugh Thompson, Harold Denton 9
and Bill Dircks.
10 I want you to know that participating in this 11 process for a little over two years, that I have learned a 12 tremendous amount from the process, and I say that sincerely.
13 And I have become a strong advocate for the systematic 14 approach to training, to assure that training is performance 15 based.
- And, I wished l i look at my former dean over there 16
-- I wished I had known more about it 25 or 30 years ago, 17 because I think it would have made me a much better university 18 professor if I had known some of the systematic approach to 19 training techniques.
20 if somebody would have suggested to me then, I am 21 sure that I would have said what many of my colleagues would 22 say today, that at a university we educate people, we don't 23 train them. And that is certainly true.
But, I will say that 24 much of what is in a systematic approach could be used in the 25 university setting.
19 1
1 have been particularly impressed with the changes 2
that have been made in the last several years at utilities.
S in the area of personnel it i s no longer one or two people 4
doing the training.
We typically see 15 to 40 some people 5
constituting the training staff depending on the number of 6
units.
There are people who are instructional specialists, 7
curriculum developers and so f r -th.
8 Facilities, it is just unbelievable the changes 9
that have occurred there.
They are spacious, they have 10 classrooms, offices, libraries, librarians, simulators, all 11 kinds of instructional services available that I wish we had 12 more readily available at some of our universities and 13 laboratories for teaching health pnysics or teaching l&C 14 technicians, or mechanical maintenance, electrical 15 maintenance, things that did not exist, as Cordell mentioned, 16 people who are trainers in those areas and so forth. This is 17 really new.
18 In the last year or so, I have been invited on about 19 a half dozen different occasions to talk at national meetings 20 on the accreditation process.
And in those I continued to 21 stress the importance of excellence in training and how 22 accreditation could be used and can be used in achieving 23 excellence in those training programs.
24 As part of that, I have talked to plant personnel, 25 I have talked to trainers, I have talked to plant managers, I i
20 1
have talked to BP nuclear and chief executive officers, and i 2
have been really greatly impressed by the commitment that they 8
are making in the resources that are being made available to 4
accomplish improvements in t r a i n i n,g.
5 in the last, I would say three to four months, l 6
have had three invitations that I can recall by utilities who 7
remembered my " boon or boondoggle" talk, to come and see their 8
facilities and see their programs, because they are extremely 9
proud of what they are doing and what they are 10 accomplishing. And I am extremely proud to be professionally 11 involved in it.
12 And I trust that you gentlemen know that I am a 13 supporter of the process you are about.
I have been involved 14 in it and continue to be involved in it.
But i say sincerely, 15 1 don't think that one could accomplish, with the mandate of 16 regulations, what is being accomplished now by individual 17 commitment, personal pride and the peer pressure and 18 assistance that is going on amongst the utilities.
19 MR. O'NEILL:
Since the close of World War 11, i
20 have devoted my full time to engineering education.
And in 21 engineering education, accreditation is a way of life.
So, i
22 thought I would take my few minutes to just make a comparison 23 as I see it, between the accreditation of engineering programs 24 bey ABET -- that is the Accreditation Board for Engineering and the accreditation by INPO.
25 and Technology
21 1
First, both have the same purpose. And that is 2
really to protect the public in one way or another.
In the a
case of ABET, it is to identify to the public, to prospective 4
students, educational institutions, professional societies, 5
potential employers, government agencies and state boards of 6
examiners, that the institutions and specific programs meet 7
minimum requirements.
8 Also, ABET is set up to provide guidance for the 9
improvement of existing educational programs and for the 10 development of future programs, and to stimulate the 11 improvement of engineering education in the United States.
12 And I think you will see that there are some 13 similarities, some strong similarities with the INpO 14 accreditation which is to assist the member utilities in 15 developing training programs that will produce well qualified, 16 competent personnel to operate the nation's power plants 17 safely.
So, both have the same purpose to protect the 18 public.
Both have criteria, which establish the quality to 19 provide the quality assurance.
20 in the case of ABET, the critoria are established by 21 their participating bodies, which are the professional 22 societies the chemical engineers, the civil, the electrical 23 engineers and so forth, and the engineering accrediting 24 council 25
- Now, in the case of the ABET criteria, they are
22 o
1 intended to assure that there is an adequate foundation in 2
science, the humanities and social sciences, engineering 3
sciences, engineering design methods, as well as preparation 4
in the higher engineering specialization appropriate to the 5
challenges of today and tomorrow.
6 Now, the criteria are purposely made very flexible, 7
because they want to encourage universities to develop new 8
programs. And the way in which the criteria are defined is 9
such things as one year of mathematics and science, one half 10 year of engineering design 3 one year of engineering science; 11 one half year of humanities and social science; appropriate 12 laboratory courses; appropriate computer-based experience. As 13 you recognize, really quite flexible as they are telling us 14 what courses we have to offer, but we do have to have the 15 same framework, so that if an engineer graduates from the 16 university he does have something in, say, humanities and 17 social sciences.
18 Now, in INp0 the training standards are established 19 and maintained by INp0 and they are intended -- the standards 20 are intended to prepare individuals to fill specific 21 positions.
The training programs are performance based; the 22 information is provided by the utilities and using the best 23 industry practices.
And in each case the focus is on the 24 learning objectives and the systematic method of evaluating 25 and documenting the individual's level of competence.
23 1
So, there is a little difference.
Although both 2
sets of criteria are to establ ist quality and excellence, 1 8
have found that they go about it a little differently between 4
the two.
5 Next is the faculty.
In ABET lt is recognized that 6
the heart of any educational program is the faculty.
So, much 7
attention is devoted to the qualifications of the faculty, of 8
what their backgrounds are, what kind of research they engage 9
in, what sort of professional activities they have and so 10 forth. They look at the faculty, and a lot of information is 11 provided.
12 Now INpO also recognizes the importance of the 13 faculty, but it seems to me the emphasis is more on 14 consistency.
They wanted to make absolutely sure that as the 15 students go through, ev4n if the instructors change, that they 16 are getting the same material So, there is an emphasis on 17 lesson plans and uniformity of evaluation, and that sort, 18 which is a little different than i found in a university.
19 Cordell has already mentioned something about the 20 process. Both processes begin with preparation.
That is, the 21 university has to fill out a questionnaire and provide a lot 22 of information.
INPO requires the self-evaluation report.
23 What this does is cause the generation of excellence 24 from within, rather than having it imposed on them. Both 25 groups have to look very hard at what they are doing and
=
24 1
seeing whether or not they measure up to the published 2
criteria.
3 Then there is the site visit, where the purposes are 4
to validate the information that has been presented, and then 5
to assess the intangibles. There are a lot of things you can't 6
get off a piece of paper or a form.
And also, to help in 7
both cases, AGET and INPO tries to help the institution, in 8
both cases, the visiting teams are drawn from essaitially a 9
peer group.
4 10 in the case of ABET, a list of possible visitors 11 is drawn up each year that represents the participating 12 bodies, and includes both university and industry type 13 people.
and I have visited 14 in the case of the INPO teams 15 two myself -- I found that there are the INPO staff members 16 who are there, and some of them are on loan from utilities, 17 some are career, I guess, with INPO.
18 And then people from the utilities that are drawn 19 particularly for the visit. And often they are coming to the 20 visits because they are next on the list and they want to see O
21 how this goes, see what kind of questions.
22 in the case of ABET, visit is two days long.
I 23 think the average for INPO is three or more days.
24 I feel that the -- the observations I have made is 25 that the INPO team is a little more concerned with detail than
25 1
the ABET team. They spend a lot of time really digging into a 2
lot of detail Of course the ABET team looks pretty hard at 3
- things, particularly if they think something is wrong, then 4
they will dig, Otherwise they are ksnd of counting on their 5
sort of gut feel as to just how everything sounds.
You can 6
pick it up.
If you talk to students, you can sometimes tell 7
something is wrong, or faculty.
8 So, I think that the INp0 team, a little bit longer, 9
is kind of digging a little deeper and sort of mentally going 10 off on a check list that is in their mind, the things they 11 want to check off.
12 In both cases they kind of tell the institution what 13 they found, and there is an exit report from the ABET team 14 that goes to the chancellor, to the president, and it tells 15 them how we are doing.
And it providos the institution with a 16 written report that you can correct if there is something 17 factual wrong.
You can't change their opinion.
18 And I found that INp0 does the same thing.
They use 19 the word " concerns," and if they find concerns there is a 20 great deal of effort to kind of clarify what these concerns 21 are and what the response will be from the utilities.
22 And then finally, there is the action.
in the one 23 case it is the Engineering Accreditation Council And the 24 report is made by the visiting team.
The universities do not 25 have a chance to go to the meeting.
26 1
In INp0 the utilities is invited to attend, and the 2
top people responsible for the program do sit in and hear the 8
discussion and answer the questions.
4 In both cases it is a confidential matter and 5
treated very, very confidentially.
6 in the case of engineering accreditation, they 7
accredit for a fixed period. The maximum is six years.
If 8
there is some concern, they will chop it down to three years.
9 Or, they can decide not to accredit.
And if that sticks, 10 there is an opportunity to appeal Then it is up to the 11 institution to notify the faculty and to the students.
- See, 12 the university doesn't have to have their engineering program 18 accredited.
You can still grant the degrees.
However, that 14 is not -- I am not advising it.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Your profession is like 16 mine.
It makes it pretty tough later on.
17 (Laughter) 18 MR. O'NEILL:
So, if the Chancellor, for example, 19 thinks there is some possibility that we will get a limitation 20 on our accreditation, why he is pretty concerned about that.
21 And, in the case of INpO, why the decision is to accredit or 22 to defer.
That is actually, the utility doesn't have the 23 option, but they do have to take a second run at it.
24 So, that is kind of an overview and the way it 25 appears to me, i-
27 1
MR. CARROLL:
I'm Ed Carroll, and I retired in 1982 2
after 36 years with United Airlines.
At the time of my 3
retirement I was a qualified 747 Captain, and held the 4
position of Ulce president of Flight Standards and Training, 5
and had held that position for the last five years of my 6
activity with United.
7 in addition, my background included 'O years of 8
participation between the active and the military reserve in 9
the Air Force, ano the majority of that particular time was 10 spen
- In training and checking activities as well 11 The final assignment I had was as the director of 12 training and operations for the unit to which I was assigned.
13 in spite of that broad background and training, when 14 I was approached by INPO in late 1982, just subsequent to my 15 retirement from United, and asked if I would participate as a 16 member from outside of the industry representing training 17 organizations that were not nuclear based, I accepted with 18 some hesitancy, primarily because of my lack of awareness and 19 knowledge of the nuclear industry itself 20 1 did not like to feel I was going to be iuss than 21 prepared to address the assignment.
22 However, one of the things that enabled me to allay 23 that fear was my participation early in 1983 with the ifdPO 24 team st a plant visit.
And I immediately became award of the 25 similarities in the approach to training and the content of
26 1
training between the two industries.
Both approach training 2
on a systems approach to training basis.
We are both 3
concerned with the eventual licensing of our people, training 4
them to be prepared to pass those tests.
5 The frequency and the types of evaluations between 6
the two industries were very similar, especially in the way of 7
timing.
8 And, one of the primary things I recognized was that 9
the use of simulators was a basis for training in both 10 industries; both in the initial training and in the subsequent 11 requalification or recurrent training and checking.
12 An additional recognition I had early on because of 18 a personal interest was that team training, as it is called in 14 the nuclear industry, and cockpit resource management training 15 as we call it in the aviation industry, were very closely in 16 parallel as well The need to work together and effectively 17 accomplish the task is inherent in both disciplines.
18 And I had that particular interest because I was 19 responsible for implementing that kind of a program on our 20 airline which was the first fully integrated approach to this 21 kind of training that had been approached in the industry.
22 And with that recognition and watching some of this 23 training, I recognized that probably in the future, as it is 24 now becoming apparent, that the interest will heighten in this 25 area.
29 1
So those recognitions allayed some of my concerns.
2 However, again on a personal basis, I also in a prideful way, 8
did jot want to be looked upon as a rubberstamp for these 4
programs, just because I had a lack of background or awareness 5
in a particular industry.
So, since I recognized I would be 6
dependent upon information that would be brought to me, 1
7 wanted to be able to recognize that that information was 8
reliable and thorough.
9 Again, going back to the team visits, I was able 10 to recognize that this was the case, that it was thorough, it 11 was objective in its approach. And some of the areas that 12 pointed that out to me were that the organization and 13 management of the programs were based upon what needed to be 14 done to ensure graduating, if you will, professionals.
That 15 the development, selection and qualifications of the staff 16 were addressed in the same way in which I would like to see it 17 done in the past in the aviation industry.
That the support 18 given to the people of the training facilities and the 19 material and the equipment would be conducive to ensuring 20 proper training prograns.
21 This was especially apparent to me again in the 22 simulation area.
64nd that I was able to observe training 28 scenarios being conducted.
And at that time again I had it 24 reinforced that ultimately team training would probably become 25 part of the curriculum in programs, because as the tempo of
l i
30 1
activity picked up during the scenarios when the regular 2
procedures were introduced, it was recognized again that it 3
was necessary to work together if it were going to be 4
effective.
5 Other areas on those team visits which enabled me to 6
become a little bit more confident and secure in the belief 7
of the information that would be presented t o me, was the way 8
they conducted evaluations in each stage of training, whether 9
it was in the classroom or the laboratory, which are fairly 10 basic and easy to assess, or in the simulator during initial 11 and recurrent training, or OJT.
12 I was pleased to recognize that that was delved into IS very thoroughly, to assure that the product that was being put 14 into the control rooms was going to be effective. And that 15 last point was assured through the feedback process that 1 16 because aware of both from the individual trainees and from 17 the supervisors that they went to work for.
18 The process that the supervisors indulged in was to 19 assess the product overall that was being delivered to them 20 and to indicate to the training group where changes should, 21 perhaps, be implemented to assure even better products in the 22 future.
And the individual trainees were able to assess their 23 capability to do the job and to get feedback on the efficacy 24 of the training program itself.
25 The final thing that helped me become more confident
f 31 1
in the material that I was going to be given to assess and 2
determine whether I would vote for accreditation, came from 8
the recognition of the meetings that the team held on each 4
evening after their intense eight to ten-hour day of looking 5
into all of these areas, at which time they reviewed their 6
concerns and reprioritized their activities for the next day
?
to know the areas which to address and put more intense focus 8
on.
was unique to me 9
This is a rather unique process 10
-- and I think it is one that is very, very beneficial and 11 would be beneficial even in the aviation industry if it could 12 be addressed to where an industry group was able to look at 18 each airlines industry as an example, and assess whether their 14 programs came up to a good overall standard.
15 I believe as a member of the accreditation board 16 that participation in these team visits has been very 17 beneficial. As as been pointed out before, many of us attend i
l 18 one or more visits a year, and that gives us the opportunity 1
t 19 then during the deliberations on accreditation for a 20 particular utility, to have the first-hand recognition and 21 some awareness of what should be delved into, perhaps, in 22 even greater depth.
28 Even with my background in the military and aviation 24 communities in training, I have been very impressed with the 25 thoroughness and professionalism of the approach to training b
32 1
in this industry, and I am confident overall without question 2
that professional standards are being applied and attribute 3
it, I think, in part to INPO, but also to the utility's 4
commitment to these high standards of excellence.
5 MR. REED:
I will conclude with just a very brief 6
summary.
7 lt takes a tremendous amount of effort and resources O
for a utility to meet the INPO objectives and criteria.
9 Tremendous.
However, the product is a formalized program 10 that is performance based with feedback mechanisms.
INPO has 11 established a professional staff that does an in-depth 12 review of these utility programs, and they document that 13 review with objective evidence that the utility has met the 14 criteria.
15 Then, the accrediting board is a diverse group of 16 professionals who make an independent determination of the 17 adequacy of the programs.
18 Board members bring a broad experience to this 19 judgment and I am confident they are doing a good job, I am 20 very proud, very proud to be part of this board.
21 Now, we are very proud of you, we are open for 22 questions.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
We did pretty good.
24 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Thank you, gentlemen. That was 25 a very good report, both in form and in substance, to hear the L
33 1
progress that is being made and has been made.
And I do 2
believe the members of the accrediting board need to be 3
commended, or deserve to be commended for the commitmeret they 4
made to this undertaking.
Having participated in 5
accreditation of engineering programs, I can attest to the 6
amount of time it takes just to handle one visit 7
If I may, I would like to ask a couple of 8
questions.
One has to do with whether or not the 9
accreditation group gives approval on the basis of programs in 10 place, or programs that are planned?
11 I had occasion last week to meet with some of my 12 staff, and that was a question that arose. And we weren't la quite sure whether in every case it was based on a program 14 that was in place, or whether it was based on a program that 15 still was under developnent or being planned.
16 MR. REED:
Maybe I can respond to that, it is based 17 upon programs that are in place.
However, on occasions we for instance, I can think of an example where we 18 will 19 require lesson plans so we can have a consistency.
20 A utility had lesson plans that were developed 21 several years ago. And the team that visited the site found 22 some site deficiencies in that plan.
It did not stipulate the 23 visual aids that would be used in that class. They were so 24 alight, that the board was willing to accept a cmwmitment from 25 the utility to upgrade that lesson plan over a period of time.
F' 34 1
because we had the insurance that what was in place was 2
satisfactory.
8 This board has gotten even tighter.
Oft times we 4
will accept a promise, a commitment from a utility, that 5
they will finish a procedure or a certain item before the next 6
class goes through.
And then we will take that as a 7
commitment.
8 Sometimes we don't agree with the staff, the INp0 9
staff.
And at the time the utility is there, we put upon them 10 a requirement that no, this must be done before the next 11 class.
12 So, to answer the question, if I utility doesn't 13 have something that we feel is adequate for our operations, we 14 won't accredit that program, but we will only in the cases of 15 enhancement, accept something for the future.
16 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Okay.
So it is basically a 17 programs in place with the possibility of some at some 18 point it has to be completed.
19 MR. REMICK:
In the case that Cordell mentioned, we 20 would require those to be completed by the next time they are 21
- used, 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is there follow up?
23 MR. REMICK:
Then we will ask the INp0 staff to 24 check that and report back to see if that commitment was met.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me ask another question.
I
35 1
think you said there were 610 programs to be developed and 2
accredited, is that the totality, the number of programs you 3
expected?
4 MR. REED:
Yes.
There are 61 plant sites and there 5
are ten programs to be accredited at each plant site.
Unless 6
there is a new utility that comes along to build a new plant, 7
that is what we envision.
8 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I did a little arithmetic while 9
you were speaking.
That comes out to roughly 25 10 accreditations a month.
Is the board really set up is that 1
i 11 too ambitious a program, I guess, is what I am asking?
Can 12 you do a good job in the next 18 months with that kind of a la workload?
14 MR. REED:
Zack, I don't know if your chart would 15 give an overview.
Let me just say to date to date we 16 haven't had enough business.
There have been months in which I
17 we have skipped.
I must say two weeks ago we looked at four l
18 utilities, 20 programs in a two-day period.
l 19 The reason for expanding this board, so that there i
20 could be as many as three independent groups of five looking I
21 at a couple of utilities a month, is anticipation that the 22 workload will get too great for just us five or ten members.
23 So, I think we are bringing these additional people on board 24 early enough so they can see the process, so that we can keep 25 up with them.
36 1
Zack, you had a chart that I think might be 2
instructive.
3 MR. pATE:
Okay.
Let me also address part of the 4
Chairman's question and the arithmetic.
The 610 programs is 5
61 nuclear stations that were operating by the end of 1984.
6 Those plants coming into operation now have stations that'are 7
due two years from now.
So the initial group is 610 8
programs. And then there were others that will follow that.
9 Then we will get into the real accreditations, so we will need 10 the 19 members of the other four boards or five, that can 11 meet to look at an individual group of programs.
12 And the arithmetic, Mr. Chairman, we are obligated 13 to have a self-evaluation report of all 610 programs by the 14 end of 1986.
That certifies to INPO that the program 6s up 15 and running, and in place. But, we won't have them all 16 accredited by the end of 1996. There will be some that move 17 over into the next year.
18 When I briefed the Commission in January, I talked 19 about the schedule of self-evaluation reports.
As I mentionod 20 a moment ago, that is step one.
That is the key step, because 21 that is when a utility says to INPO and says to this board 22 that our program for 1&C technicians, or whatever it is, is 23 ready.
24 In January, this was the status of the schedule of 25 self-evaluation reports. As I said earlier in this meeting, we L
37 1
have 148 in hand.
That is those that came in in 1984 and 2
earlier, plus those that have come in so far in 1985.
3 (Indicating on chart) 4 But, to finish the commitment to you, to the 5
accrediting board and to ourselves, we need to get the 6
remaining 610 by the end of 1986.
7 And, you are concerned about that and so are we, 8
that with a lot of programs due in the last quarter of 1986.
9 As a result of that worry to us and to you, we have written 10 to each utility, each CEO in specific, and I have personally 11 talked to all of them except one or two that Ken Strom did for 12 me in my absence.
And, as a result of that letter since 13 January, and those phonecalls, it has been not a small task to 14 reach every CEO in this industry on the phone, as you can 15 imagine, we have managed to move the schedule back in time so 16 that the bottom graph is now the distribution of due dates 17 for self-evaluation reports.
18 That is not ideal because it still moves a little 19 bit towards the end, but it is still a whole lot better than 20 we were back a few months ago.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
it has been improved.
22 Take that next-to-the-last block and move that one step over 23 to the left, it will be better yet.
24 MR. pATE:
That's right.
Our commitment is not just i
25 to have the self-evaluation reports in hand, but to be able to
SS 1
say to you and say to ourselves that each of those 2
self-evaluation reports represents a sound program.
So that 3
is how the arithmetic kind of plays out.
4 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I forgot that you said by the 5
and of 1986 you expected to have self evaluation in.
But 6
still, there is a challenge in getting them all accredited.
7 MR. pATE:
And your arithmetic is still 8
approximately correct, because we think from now through the 9
end of 1987 we need to accredit about 20 a month.
10 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
What is the accreditation 11 period? If a utility gets accredited, how soon will they be 12 revisited?
13 MR. REED:
It is a four year period.
However, after 14 two years a utility must submit to the board a status report 15 of how their program is*doing.
16 Wo will get our first one when, Ed?
17 MR. CARROLL:
This summer.
18 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Two more questions.
One for 19 Russ O'Neill Help me refresh my memory with regard to the 20 question of public participation in the accrediting program 21 process for engineering education.
22 As I recall, there generally was an observer from 23 the State Registration Board for professional Engineering, and 24 there may have been in the deliberations some other 25 observers.
But I don't recall public participation being a
39 1
very important component of that.
By that I mean letting the 2
people know that it was done, how it was done and what the 3
results were.
4 Could you refresh my memory?
5 MR. O'NEILL:
That's correct.
There is no public 6
participation.
As a matter of fact 7
CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Or even public information?
8 MR. O'NEILL:
As a matter of fact, it is O
confidential And the only report then is the action taken at 10 the very and to be accredited.
Doesn't even say how long the 11 accreditation.
12 incidentally, the state boards and all, have not 13 been sending observers the last few years.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They neod some armtwistintg.
15 (Laughter) 16 I wanted to bring that up because we have a parallel 17
- problem, I'm sure, in this situation.
But, universities did 18 make announcements when they got accredited. They very seldom 19 made announcements when they didn't get accredited. But, i 20 gather ABET doesn't put out any announcement that university X 21 has been given a show cause order.
22 MR. O'NEILL:
The closest thing would be the 23 students, and the students are involved. And they are an 24 important part of the public, because they are getting a 25 degree, and they are deeply involved.
i 40 1
CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
That's why I am a little 2
uncertain, because I thought that announcements were made when 3
the university didn't make the grade, or when there was a show 4
cause to revoke their accreditation.
5 MR. O'NEILL:
Yes, if the university does not make 6
the grade, it is up to the university to advise the students 7
and the faculty, B
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
ABET doesn't do it?
9 MR. O'NEILL:
No, it is the institution that does 10 that.
11 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
One other question, 12 After all the other Commissioners have had a chance 13 to ask their questions, would you care to comment on the 14 Moynihan bill for a training academy.
I would like those 15 comments after i give my colleagues a chance to question.
10 COMMISEIONER ROBERTS:
I have no questions.
Just 17 an observation, it is obvious you take this with great 18 seriousness.
I assure you we do.
It sounds to me like you 19 are making an outstanding effort, and I encourage you.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I would start with a 21 comment now, and just a few questions.
22 First of all, I would agree very much with some of 23 the comments that Forrey made and Mr. Carroll too, about what 24 is going on in the industry.
Having seen a number of 25 programs, and going around to the plants, I am very impressed
41 1
with the Applicants' training area.
2 I think what Cordell said, I don't think there is 8
anybody prouder of what is going on than training people and 4
the record of the trainees at these sites.
Nothing moves them 5
closer to tears than the possibility that visitors are not 6
going to get to see their new facilities and their departments 7
and the people that they have brought on board during the 8
past couple of years.
9 I am encouraged by what-is going on.
I think it is 10 a fairly exciting time in the industry in bringing about 11 improvement.
And, Cordell I was very pleased to hear what you 12 had to say on maintenance and the efforts that were going into 13 maintenance training.
I think that is a real tough one, 14 because the sense I get is now there is a great deal more 15 attention being paid to maintenance from within the industry.
16 A natural consequence of that seems to be they are 17 turning up more work for maintenance crews to do, backloads 18 are getting longer and longer.
It is going.to be a real 19 challenge to make sure those people not only keep up with the 20 workload that seems to be growing, but also get the kind of 21 training you described to improve their capabilities to do 22 that job.
23 I think that is a very challenging area that you are 24 all going to be facing, we will be facing too, in the next few 25 years.
42 1
Let me start with a couple of questions on your 2
chart on the status of training accreditation programs, Zack.
8 You mentioned there were 148 self-evaluation reports submitted 4
so far.
Are there any utilities that have not submitted at 5
least one self-evaluation report?
6 MR. pATE:
I'm sure there are several, 7
Commissioner.
But, I might ask Ken Strom or Walt Coakley to O
elaborate on that.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I would exclude the NTOLs, 10 another two year period.
But, at least for the plants that 11 have the commitment to submit all of their self-accreditation 12 programs by the end of 1986, I would be interested to know if 13 there are any that haven't gotten at least one in.
14 MR. COAKLEY:
I am Walt Coakley, manager of the 15 Accreditation Department, Secretary of the Accrediting Board.
16 As I look down my sheet, it looks like there are 17 around 20 of the 61 plants that we are keeping track of, that 18 have not yet submitted an official self-evaluation report. We 19 do have drafts from some of them.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Would it be possible to 21 gut a list of those.
I am curious to see which ones haven't 22 at least gotten one in.
23 MR. pATE:
We, in our previous discussions, agreed 24 to brief the NRC Staff on the details of this program. We 25 would be pleased to show representatives of the NRC the L
43 1
details of this status. But we would prefer not to, so to 2
speak, give away our data.
And perhaps a member of the Staff 3
could be briefed in detail, and then brief you, Commissioner.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fair enough.
5 The other problem I think you alluded to when you 6
talked about your chart, Zack, was things slipping to the end 7
of the program.
I might add, having looked at the chart, i 8
think Susquehanna deserves a gold star, a blue ribbon or 9
something.
10 All of their programs have been accredited so far.
11 It looks like they are at least twice as good as the next 12 one.
Some of them have five, but they are one with everything 18 accredited.
14 My concern is on the other end of the spectrum, and 15 that is people coming in towards the tail end of the process 16 with very large numbers of self-evaluation reports all in a 17 chunk.
I gather from the chart that you showed us, the bar 18 graph, you have made an effort to try and move things forward 19 a bit.
But, have you looked at that particular problem, 20 people that may be in this category of the 20, haven't gotten 21.
one self evaluation in yet, and.they are going to have a bunch l
22 of them come in or be due towards the tail end of this process l
l 23 which would raise questions at least in my mind of the quality I
l 24 of the job they are going to be able to do if they are t
25 bunching their work all at once.
n-
+v7, c.
4 5
44
/
1 MR. PATE:
That is a good question and a valid.
t 2
concern.
That is one of the things that tie addressed when we 3
wrote the letter and made the calls to'the CEOs.
I personally and I know Ken,and Walt have too with many 4
discussed
^
5 executives in the industry, that a better approach than trying 6
to give us all self-evaluation reports in, say, September of 7
1986, is to get three or fourJoe five of those programs ready J
8 early and test the water and learn this process and learn how
(
9 to deal with this board, and then come back with the other 10 five or six programs later.
11*
We have been able to get just about all utilities to 12 split that up so they are not giving us all at once. But 13 there are a few that still need some work on that, and we will 14 continue to push the,
s.
15 I appreciate your interest.
That wilI give us
,~.
- g 16 mo t i va t i on to give it additional emphasis at INPO.
54 7
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I would really hope that yf 18 maybe by the beginning of next year we would focus in a bit i
t v
19 more on any problem cases that might exist at that time.
20 Again, people.that haven't gotten at least a few of those 21 through the process, so that they really have a sense of what 22 the board it s looking for, and across that first hurdle.
) 23
,Nhat is the secret for PPSL7 How have they done so fr 24 good?
25 MR. REED:
Let me tell you the secret why Edison
- l-
45 1
(Laughter)
I thin'k we have done real well We made a philosophical 2
3 decision not to bring our poor programs to the board until we 4
had cured the deficiencies.
But, we have at Commonwealth, at 5
Dresden Station, 25 years of history with our maintenance 6
people and with our union.
And it is quite a task to develop 7
new systems and to get the people to understand them and to S
recognize it, now, after 25 years, that we are operating in a 9
different manner.
10 So, I think they have part of the benefits of being 11 a brand new station with no precedences to deal with.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
IS Cordell, you said earlier that you look at actual 14 job performance and you factor that into the training program.
15 I would like to turn that around and look at sort of 16 the back and of the process and ask, after you have accredited 17 the program, after you are comfortable with the program, you l:
18 think it is going to achieve the results that you have in mind i
l 19 for it, that your criteria called for, how do you go back then 20 and double check to make sure that it is achieving those 21 results, that in fact the product, the people that are coming l
22 out of the training programs, have the kinds of knowledge and 23 skills that the performance demonstrates that in fact your 24 judgments were right, that the training programs were adequate 25 and effective that you have accredited?
l
. -. ~
l i
46 1
Do you have a way to close the loop to look at the 2
outcome look at the product, make sure that the product 8
you are getting is what you expected to get?
4 MR. REED:
Yes.
5 MR. CARROLL:
I think from the standpoint of 6
recognition of a feedback process, that again is analogous to 7
what I have been used to in the aviation industry, the one 8
thing that is beneficial in the nuclear industry is that after 9
two years they must come back and'have everything reviewed in 10 order to maintain that accreditation for the balance in four 11 years.
12 And at that t ilm e, I think any evidence that we were 18 to have brought to us of what we might look upon as areas of 14 concern would be addressed at that time to make sure that the 15 feedback process, which is an inherent part of the original 16 program, was being effectively used.
And that information 17 from that feedback process was being cranked back in to 18 obviate those things happening in the future.
19 That closed loop of the feedback process, as we have 20 required it to be, should obviate that from taking place. But 21 if it does not, we would reassess that at the end of the two 22 years.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And I take it as part of 24 that, what you will do is look at the performance of the 25 people, look at the maintenance people, look at the operators,
s.
47 1
Aee how well they performed on the job.
2 MR. CARROLL:
That's correct.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That two year review, is that a 4
formal part of the accrediting process?
5 MR. REED:
Indeed it is.
Yes.
6 And I might say too, Jim, when INpO make their plant 7
evaluations, they look in great detail in these areas.
Now we 8
have the two SRO peer evaluators who look at simulator s
9 training and the peers are really.quite tough.
I think wo 10 have all remarked in the site visits, that no one is tougher 11 than that guy from the other utility.
12 So, I think there are several checks on it. But we 13 are very cognizant on trying to make sure the systems are in 14 place.
There could be a terrific training manager at a 15 plant.
But we don't know if he is going to be transferred the 16 next month or the next year. So, we are trying to assess that 17 there is enough systems and formality and commitment by the 18 management that it would be perpetuated.
Ig MR. pATE:
I would second what Cordell said.
20 Through the evaluation, the ongoing operating plant evaluation 21 program, we do take a look at training every 15 or 16 months 22 at each operating station.
And that is a performance-based 23 look:
What are the people doing in the simulator, what are 24 they doing in l&C surveillance tests and running the diesel 25 and control room and so on.
And we try and tie that back and m
o 48 1
make it complimentary to the training program assessment 2
through. accreditation and make those programs serve each 8
other.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I had two other, maybe 5
broader, philosophical questions that go beyond just 6
accreditation.
7 One had to do with the -- a couple of questions had 8
to do with the role of the operator, and the second one had 9
to do with the knowledge of theory, knowledge of science that 10 these people neen, particularly the reactor operators.
11 Let me start with the role of the operator first.
I 12 have been to a number of sites now and I am finding, as 13 Cordell knows, an increasing interesting part of the site 14 visits is chatting with some of the shift supervisors on 15 shift.
I had a chat with one who had been a shift sJpervisor 16 for about 15 years at a plant fairly recently.
It was kind of 17 an interesting discussion.
i l
18 Basically it went along the lines of, you know, r
19 someone ought to think about what it is that you are asking us 20 to do, because in essence you are asking us to be managers, 21 managers operating a shift And supervising other employees.
22 You are asking us to be experts at paperwork and knowledge of i
23 regulation and, compliance.
You are asking us to be 24 instrumentation and control people.
You are asking us to be l
l 25 maintenance people because we are, in essence, in charge of l
49 1
everything that is going on.
You are asking us to be the 2
operators, know about plant operations and be knowledgeable 8
about our plant.
And finally, you are asking us to know 4
theory, being able to deal with accidents.
5 And I guess one question I had particularly to you, 6
Ed, is based upon you experience with the accrediting board, 7
what do you think the burden is on somebody like a shift 8
supervisor, and how would you compare it, say, to a pilot for 9
a commercial airline?
10 Are we loading these guys up with really too much, 11 asking them to do too much?
12 MR. CARROLL:
Let me draw what I can in a better 18 light from my own aviation experience, and then i think you 14 will see the direct comparison that I think exists.
15 Traditionally, in either industry -- but in the 16 aviation industry, we have always concentrated on the 17 cognitive and psychomotor skills.
Our selection process, we
.18 felt, gave us a product to start with, that if we were to 19 address those two areas with them, than we could be confident 20 they could handle anything we gave them in their area of 21 responsibility.
22 in this area of team training, it has become 28 apparent in our industry, the aviation industry, that that is 24 not enough any longer, just to concentrate in those areas 25 because they are becoming more managers and monitors of their
4 50
,e 1
environment rather than just operators in their environment.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
right.
3 MR. CARROLL:
The same thing i think is analogous to
-4 what you just raised as a question about the shift 5
supervisors, or SROs.
Traditionally, that is where the
.6 training has been emphasized.
The theory area, the cognitive 7
skills area, and their ability to operate in the control room 8
to perform the tasks as they must.
Now, as you put them into 9
this environment, and as things become even more 10 technologically advanced, you have to give them training in 11 another area which is to enable them to bring all that 12 together and to recognize that they are not the only one who 13 has the information.
And, while they-may have a certain level 14 of expertise, if they can encourage an environment of the rest 15 of the team that they are working with, to make the 16 contribution of what they have as an awareness in the areas of 17 inquiry or advocacy or some conflict of interpretation of 18 information, that that atmosphere is such that the others are 19 willing to share it and bring it to their attention, and then 20 the supervisor can operate at a higher level than he could 21 have on his own with his own basic talents and awareness.
22 So, that is why I am very sensitive to the 23 recognition that this kind of training is going to become an 24 integral part of the curriculums in time to come.
25 Your development in this particular part of the
51 1
Industry is perhaps not very far behind where we are in the 2
avlation industry because it has only been since the early 3
1980s that we started it in that discipline.
4 So I think yes, you are going to have to give them 5
more opportunity to train in certain areas, but they don't 6
have to be any better qualified in the two basic areas of.
7 cognitive or psychemotor skills areas than they have been 8
before.
Just enhance their training in a team training 9
environment.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Does anybody else have 11 anything they want to add on that?
12 MR. REMICK:
The only thing i might add, I do think 18 what' you have heard from operators, certainly I have heard 14 from operators, and it is true.
I think utilities have to 15 become aware of the fact that these people do need help, 16 sometimes just administrative help so that they don't have all 17 that paperwork they personally have to do.
18 The other is training in such things as supervision, 19 management, so that they have some skills that they might not 20 have otherwise had.
I think these things can help.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The sense I got is the 22 accreditation program has basically taken the role and the job 23 of operators as it was given at the timo these programs really 24 got going.
That one looked at the job that these people were 25 doing, and then one thought, "what did they need to do that
52 1
job and how can we make sure that they have a training 2
program to give it to them?"
I think that made a lot of 3
sense 4
I guess what I am wondering is, given the kind of 5
workload that these people have, and given what we are 6
expecting of them, is it worthwhile at some point, now perhaps 7
after we have gotten over this first hurdle or well on our way 8
to solving it, to think, is this what we want these people to 9
do?
Is their present role the role that is the right one?
10 Are we asking them to do too much?
Are we asking them to do 11 the wrong things?
12 What is it that we really want those guys to do, the 13 shift supervisors and particularly of the licensed control 14 room operators?
15 Cordell, you may have a better sence for that than 16 17 MR. REED:
I think I can say pretty clearly that 18 this board is not addressing that overall question.
It is 19 probably a question that is better addressed by someone like 20 Newmark.
As we have talked about engineering expertise on 21 shifts, we have done a lot of talking on just that very same 22 subject, Jim.
23
- But, it is not something that we are addressing.
i 24 And I think we ought to flat out just answer it in that 25 manner.
53 1
MR. CARROLL:
I think one thing that is interesting 2
though, is as a result of the attention that is being paid to 3
training programs today, the initiative is being taken by the 4
utilities themselves to where they are starting to use 5
enhancements in this regard, such as cameras within the 6
control room simulator environment, and wireless microphones 7
to enhance their ability to communicate and so on.
So they 8
are addressing this kind of recognition even on their own 9
without some stimulus beyond their own desire to have a good 10 program.
11 MR. REED:
And we are seeing SRO training where 12 people are being given decision analysis stress management and 18 things like that.
14 MR. pATE:
We have been through one iteration that 15 recognizes the concern you raised, and that is initially we 16 set out to develop training programs for all our licensed 17 operators, and accredit the licensed operator training as a Ken, how about 18 group.
And we shifted that approach 19 elaborating on that.
I 20 When did we shift splitting the shift supervisor 21 from the control room operator?
22 Ken Strom?
23 MR. STROM:
Ken Strom from INPO.
24 On the new criteria book that is out which really 25 becomes effective on 1 July this year, we shifted to where we
54 1
are handling the reactor operator program as a program, and 2
then the SRO shift supervisor as a different program in 8
recognition of these added things, cognitive things that they 4
have to be able to handle.
5 MR. pATE:
And there is probably room for another 6
iteration as we go along in that, for the reasons you said.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Let me ask one other 8
question, and then I will let some of my colleagues who 9
haven't had a chance get in.
10 As Forrey mentioned, he and I participated in this 11 symposium on nuclear power plant training a couple of months 12 ago, and during the question and answer session of the session 13 that I was involved in with Fred Sears, the head of the 14 training program, a utility, got up and he made an interesting 15 comment, and I would be real intorested in your reaction to 10 it, particularly you, Dr. O'Nolil, I think.
17 He said that he was responsible for training both 18 nuclear people and nonnuclear' people.
And he said one of 19 the things that troubles him a great deal is that his nuclear 20 people are forgetting how to think.
That in the wake of TMI 21 with the symptom-oriented procedures, that there is much more 22 of a tendency on the part of the nuclear people simply to 23 grab ahold of those procedures and just follow them on a rote 24 basis and not to think about what is going on.
25 in fact, Fred Sears made a s i rn i l a r comment about the
55 1
need to make sure that the operators think about what is going 2
on.
Think not just about is this valve in this position or 3
that posl2 ion, but what is happening in the system?
Is 4
water getting in the way it should, is everything working?
5 I would be real interested to get your perception on 6
whether that problem -- is it a problem, and how do you look 7
at these training programs to make sure that they are still 8
teaching these guys to think about what is going on, to 9
understand what is happening in the system and not just to 10 check boxes on a nice set of symptom-oriented procedures.
11 I have to say that I have had more than one operator 12 say to me that they think these emergency procedures are very 13 good, they are a significant improvement over what we have 14 had in the past, but they also say to me, that they have been 15 trying to understand what is going on in those systems for 16 ten or fifteen years, and they are not entirely convinced that 17 a group of engineers in a year are going to be able to come up 1
18 with an absolutely foolproof system that anticipates t
19 everything.
20 So, I would be real interested in your thoughts on i
i 21 that problem.
Or, is it a problem?
Or, how do you look at 22 these training programs to make sure they are adequately 23 dealing with that concern?
24 MR. O'NEILL:
Well, I was not aware of that as a 25 problem.
It sounds kind of alarming to me from that L
56 1
observation.
Because i think certainly, we would want them to 2
be able to think, 8
I would say that is a concern, 4
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I don't want to 5
overdramatize it, but it struck me as something that, well, 6
gee, maybe we ought to think about this and make sure that at 7
least this is something that is being considered.
8 MR. REED:
I don't know if 1 totally agree with 9
that. You know, when something happens, reactor SCRAMS, there 10 are certain immediate things you need to do.
It is rather 11 instinctive.
And the operators were always better than the 12 engineers because they knew just what to do and how to tweak 13 it But that concern, we do, we slap the operators on the 14 hand more and more when they don't follow procedures.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Right.
16 MR. REED:
But, I think the answer to that is the 17 engineering -- well, it is not that the guy is an engineer.
18 An engineer has a greater capacity to understand the transient 19 analysis and to do the diagnostics.
And I think whether it is 20 an STA, whether it is a combined STA/SRO, the important thing 21 to me is that on an emergency there is someone who can stand 22 back without having line responsibility, t o do the kind of 23 analysis, to do the kind of thinking that you are talking I have confidence with those people 24
- about, And to me, that 25 now on our shift.
t i
57 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Forrey, you were there, 1 2
think, on our discussion --
8 MR. REMICK:
The comment I would make to you, I ran 4
into a debate that has gone on for at least 30 years on the 5
question of, should operators think or should they just 6
respond.
7 I have always been one of those that felt that 8
operators should think i they should be trained to think and 9
question and ask why we do this. That is why I am in favor of 10 some movement of people through operations, not be there for a 11 lifetime and so forth.
12 But, there are people who argue very strongly that 13 no, you want an operator that just responds to procedures.
A 14 good example, Savannah River.
You can't knock them, they have 15 had great success in having people who claim they can write a
- 6 procedure for any case and the operators respond to that.
And 17 they have been highly successful, so I respect them. But you 18 are into an area in which poople disagree.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Ed, I don't know how the 20 airline industry deals with that kind of a problem.
21 MR. CARROLL:
I smiled when you said that, because 22 it is not something that is new to us. And I don't know 23 whether it is directly comparable or not But, we put into 24 the area of nice to know and need to know information. And, 25 for a period of time we had career engineers on our L
58 1
airplanes.
Now we have a progression from the engineer's seat 2
through the others.
3 The career engineers always wanted to know more 4
about the equipment But there is no sharp demarcation that 5
-you have whether an operator or a thinker.
There is some 6
overlap, I would like to believe.
I don't think they stop 7
thinking just because they operate.
8 (Laughter) 9 So, as a result, you want them to take a proper 10 action at the time.
If there is an indication that such and 11 such a step should be taken, take it.
Don't reason why, what 12 is causing that particular indication.
Take it, get into the 13 safe position, and then do your diagnostic work.
14 So, again we have gone almost strictly to the point 15 of working from the cockpit out, not the system in.
To know 16 what is taking place in an engine or a system and so on, you 17 take the action that is necessary. And in our case when you 18 get on the ground, some engineer will take care of it.
In the 19 nuclear industry, if you have got somebody back there who can 20 diagnose at the same time, at least you are in a safe position 21 to make that diagnosis at that time without wondering whether 22 he took the proper steps to put you in the safe position.
23 So, I would question that sharp demarcation that 24 they are only operators and not thinkers.
And it is a nice to' 25 know and a need to know demarcation.
59 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay. Fred?
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, let's see.
I don't 3
think we want to go on too much longer here.
I have to leave
\\
4
.v t*.a quarter of twelve.
I am sorry.
5 1 just want to join my colleagues in thanking you 6
for the kind of effort that you have launched here.
7 1 needn't remind you because we are constantly 8
reminded, Congress directed this Commission in lieu of 9
regulations and promulgations of regulations, to give 10 regulatory guidance.
11 This is one of those areas where we have given very, 12 very broad regulatory guidance in lieu of writing cookbook 13 regulations, as we are sometimes wont to do.
But that means 14 that we all have to exercise a great deal of good judgment and 15 common sense and it puts our staff, frankly, in a difficult 16 position where they don't have a cookbook either.
So, it is 17 good to see and hear the kind of progress that is being made 18 that clearly is needed here.
19 i especially want to thank you, Mr. Carroll, for 20 overcoming some of your initial personal concerns and joining 21 this effort I can't think of any higher calling, frankly, to 22 make use of your talents and experience and skills in this 23 country right now than that associated with nuclear power 24 enterprise.
25 I would also hope that in two areas, one of which
~ -
a 60 1
was raised earlier either by you or someone else at the table 2
here, the area of maintenance, you and perhaps others like 3
you, if we are able to find some from other areas of industry, 4
might have special insights. And the other occurs to me in the 5
light of discussion that we just had bere, as to whether you 6
have thinkers or operators.
7 it strikes me that part of that argument must 8
revolve around the subject of how much you automate in plants?
9 And the aircraft industry is going through exactly the same 10 argument right now.
I have been a long time believer that 11 when a fixed set of circumstances as these plants get more and 12 complex, always or nearly always need a fixed response, that 13 then it is time to get one or more onboard computers, so to 14 speak, to do the roadwork and allow the operator to be free to 15 do a bit more thinking, perhaps.
16 1 don't have any specific questions except one, if 17 you wouldn't mind answering briefly.
I am curious to know what the relationship, 18 and I hope you will speak freely 19 working relationship has been, the interaction has been with 20 the NRC Staff at this point 21 Has that been adequate?
Has there been good 22
" regulatory guidance," or where are we?
Do things seem to be 23 working well in that respect?
24 1 probably need to ask our staff at some point, 25 too.
But would you care to comment on that?
i 61 1
MR. pATE:
From INPO's perspective, I think for the 2
past several months we have had a number of NRC Staff members 3
accompany accreditation teams; we have had a visit at the 4
accrediting board to listen to the proceedings by a number of 5
members of your staff.
As Cordell indicated, I think later 6
this week we have an 8nformation exchange briefing at NRC 7
Headquarters.
1 8
it seems to me that the process is working quite 9
well on all counts at the present time.
10 Ken, do you have any additional comments or worries 11 you want to express?
12 MR. GTROM:
The only worry I have is you said 18 speak freely -- is that the regions, not all the same have 14 taken it on themselves to go out and look. And one particular 15 region went and spent a week at each of the sites in their 16 utility. And so the utilities of course are saying, hey, we 17 have committed to accreditation, we want to spend our time 18 doing that, but we spend all our t i nue w i t h the NRC teams, 19 region teams coming in.
And that is really the only worry 1 20 have, and that is what we are going to take up on Wednesday.
21 in fact, Bill knows that is a problem also, and we 22 are going to take that up, what to do about it.
Other than 23 that, with the Staff hore in Washington and ourselves, we 24 haven't had any problem. We have had a good relationship, 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay, thank you.
That is
62 I
all I had.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Lando?
3 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Yes, sir.
I had a number of 4
questions, but with the hour i am going to try to turn my 5
questions into comments if I can, and maybe have one question 6
at the end for Mr. pate.
7 First of all, let me just say 1,
too, have a great 8
empathy with Dr. Forrest Remick, because I have been involved 9
with training as well as operations a good deal of my life, in 1956 I think you qualified 10 and I didn't qualify, I guess well, I qualified in 1959 as a nuclear operator in the Navy 11 12 program.
So, you have got seniority on me there.
and I have boon involved in 13 But, I do have 14 training in many different activities in my professional life, 15 too.
I was privileged to be the Chief of Naval Technical to Training at one point as well as later on becomo the 17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Would you identify where that 18 was, too?
19 MR. PATE:
That was in Memphis, Tennessee.
20 (Laughter) 21 And also then later on I was privilegud to be the 22 Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Manpower, personnel and 23 Training.
So, training has been a very important part of my 24 life.
25 Also, I think I sensed a little bit of frustration
63 1
in your efforts in training, Forrest, and I,
too, have sensed 2
it is very difficult, sometimes to bring training to the 3
forefront when we are dealing with resources, people as well 4
as dollars. Sometimes the training money is very hard to come 5
by.
6 On the other hand, I think the Navy has made great 7
progress in training in recent years, and I think I was 8
very pleased to hear your comments, particularly your long 9
involvement in training, which I am well aware of, too.
10 Because I do think in the nuclear industry we have -- at least 11 in very recent times, made rather significant strides to 12 improve training.
And this particular accreditation effort is 13 certainly one of those.
14 i do feel that there is a long way to go.
In my 15 view,in visiting all the plants I have visited recently and 10 talked to the operators and spending some time in the olant 17 and talking to people in the training ticilities, too, I have 18 been impressed with what has been happuning recontly. But i 19 must say i think it is long overdue, because I still see 20 places where the training is not perhaps as emphasized as much 21 as I would emphasize it if I were a utility CEO or presidunt 22 or vice president 23 So, although I do think we are making progress, and 24 I am encouraged by the commitment almost all the utilities are" 25 making to a simulator, so there is a lot of encouraging
64 1
signs.
But, i do think there is a large task ahead of us, it 2
is not completed, in fact, it just started in my view.
It 3
should have been started a long time ago. But, at least it has 4
started now.
And I don't think we should be too complacent 5
about the fact that we have solved all the problems in 6
training in this industry because i don't think we have.
In 7
fact, I think we have just scratched the surface.
8 There is an awful long way to go in my judgment O
But again, we are on the right track and I think that is 10 important to recognize that.
But, it is still going to need 11 resources from the utilities, and effort if you are really 12 going to carry through on this commitment that you have given 13 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for accreditation.
14 It is a challenge you still have, and you haven't 15 met it yet as far as I am concerned.
You are meeting it very 16 well, and I am encouraged by what you are telling us, but you 17 have got a real challengo if you are really going to make 18 training a real priority in this industry which I think it 19 should be.
It is coming in the right direction, and I am 20 pleased to hear that.
But, I do think wo have got a long ways 21 to go.
22 Cordell mentioned the maintenance training it has I think i visited 24 nuclear plants 23 been my impression 24 since last July now.
Maintenance training and l&C training is 25 still not the priority that i think it should be, in most of
a 65 1
your programs I think you will find maintenance training is 2
kind of last on the list of accreditation.
That has been my 3
perception.
it doesn't surprise me at 4
I view that as not very 5
all, but it disappoints me just a little bit. But at least now 6
we are talking about maintenance, and we are talking about l&C 7
training, and that is important.
8 So, I would ask that you consider maintenance and 9
l&C training and you look at it yourself, and see if you would 10 agree in general that it is put off towards the end.
It still 11 isn't the most exciting thing to do. And in my view, that 12 still needs attention.
18 lt is getting it At least we are talking abcut it 14 now, and that is important 15 1,
too, would like to command Mr. Carroll for his 16 valuable contribution and your background and training.
It is 17 different in this industry, of course, but I think you can 18 bring a valuable perspective to our efforts.
And I think you 19 can bring an objective evaluation from your perspective and 20 your experience that is also very valuable.
21 You, too, have boon dealing with public hualth and 22 safety all your life, as we have, and that really is our 23 ultimate responsibility and has been yours.
So, from your 24 standpoint, I think it is important to step back and look at i
25 what we are really doing, as well as getting into the nuts and
66 1
bolts.
2 You have lots of people who are going to tell you 3
explain those things to you.
But if you look at it as far as 4
1 am concerned from a public health and safety standpoint, 5
that will be as valuable a contribution as you can make. And 1 6
kr.ow you are doing that.
7 Dr. O'Neill mentioned the importance of a faculty.
O l won't elaborate, go into any length at this meeting any 9
more.
I hope you didn't mean our instructors and our trainers 10 that were not giving the effort there.
11 If I understood you, I think you said we used 12 lesson plans and structural material, and focus on that 13 perhaps more than the faculty.
And I think that is perhaps a 14 valid comment. At least it has buon my experience in the past.
-- as Forrest mentioned, our trainers 15 We have had and I think your speech probably a few 16 have not always been our trainers have not always been 17 years ago was right on 18 our number one people, and I think they should be.
In my 19 view, you should take your best chief operator, your best 20 senior reactor operator, your best shift supervisor, and make 21 him your trainer.
Everybody knows who he is, everybody knows 22 he is the best of your operators, he is the one who ought to 23 run your training activity or be involved in it.
Your best 24 people should be your trainers in my view. That is the only 25 way you upgrade the whole system. You don't make somebody who
67 1
is just not very important, or somebody that happens to have a 2
broken arm or something, and make him the trainer.
That is 3
not the way you run a training activity.
4 The only people who deserve and should go into 5
training are your very best. That has been my theme for many 6
years, and I tried to do the same thing in the Navy, to make 7
only our best instructors in the Navy, aircraft, submarines 8
and on the surface, only your best should go to training.
9 That is my view and always has been. And I am 10 convinced more and more every day that it is the right thing 11 to do. And in this industry it applies, too.
12 So, all I am saying is, it is a challenge for the 13 utilities, in my view, to continue to put their best people in 14 training.
I think we are starting to do that.
I commend that 15 effort I am hopeful that it will continuo. We need more 10 formality in our training programs, and I think that is what 17 you are bringing to it, too. You are bringing more discipline, 18 that is very important And you are upgrading it.
19 Our goal of operational excellence, that should not 20 be just words. That is deeds, actions.
How are we getting 21 operational excellence.
You know, we need to measure 22 knowledge.
That is what you are doing.
You are measuring 23 ability, you are measuring capability.
Those are very 24 important measures we are trying to make.
25 So, you are about a very important business.
You
68 1
are trying to upgrade our excellence, upgrade safety, upgrade 2
reliability of all plants, and all contributing to a safer 3
industry.
4 So, these are measures that you are looking at in my 5
view of competence and excellence, that are very real Very 6
hard to come by, perhaps, but it is an effort that deserves 7
all of our attention and support.
8 I would just like to ask Mr. pate, I believe, or 9
maybe Cordell, have there been any problems or criticisms in 10 this accrediting program that you see.
We mentioned here 11 just a moment ago, what the Staff is working on -- have there 12 been any other criticisms or problems that we should be aware 13 of?
14 Hnd then I am finished.
15 MR. REED:
Can I,
Zack?
16 MR. pATE Yes.
17 MR. REED:
Thore has been one that has disturbed me 18 particularly.
I have been reading in the trado press, 19 comments by the TMI ASLB it was very disturbing to me 20 MR. LEUl Excuse me, let me intorject here. We 21 really should not discuss that decision at this meeting.
22 COMMISSIONER BEHNTHAL:
You have been sitting there 23 waiting --
24 ILaughter) 25 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I guess there are no other
69 1
criticisms or problems worthy of our attention.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
At some point we ought to 3
discuss that, but after the Commission has finished its review 4
of the merits of that decision, it is a good one to put 5
before us.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We might consider the generic 7
nature of whatever was discussed, and maybe it can be brought 8
up outside the context of any particular proceeding.
O COMMISSIONER ZECH:
That's all I have.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLAOINO:
I think you would want to think 11 about it.
12 MR. REED:
Sorry, I didn't mean to jump in there so la quickly.
14 MR. PATE:
I don't think there are any others. A 15 moment ago, in response to Commissioner Bernthal's question 16 about our interface and coordination with the Staff, i 17 indicated that that is going quite well 18 Ken raised a concern a about some of the region l
19 guess one region action that will be discussed with your Staff 20 later this week.
21 I want to make a point of backing Ken up on that.
I 22 was focusing my answer on the interactions with the Commission 23 and the Headquarters Staff.
But that is a valid concern.
I 24 think we have the mechanism for addressing it.
I think it is 25 worthwhile that Ken brought it to your attention.
70 1
in an overall sense, I think the support of this 2
effort and the cooperation from the NRC has been superb, and i 3
think we are all seeing the benefit of that.
4 Commissioner, I don't know of any other problems 5
with the process, or particularly with the accrediting board 6
worthy of mentioning.
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Thank you very much.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I would just comment that i 9
hope you all are appreciative of the fact that because we are one without 10 in a rather different regulatory regime here you will also have to be 11 cookbools, I would say again 12 and the utilities will have to be somewhat more tolerant 13 perhaps, of the kind of subjective judgments and the 14 differences you are going to see in subjective judgments as 15 our Staffs seek to carry out their regulatory responsibility.
16 17 The thing we should do, however, is at least 18 in the activities maintain uniformity from region to region, 19 and I trust we will be able to do that.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I would think so too.
21 Again, recognizing that the Commission did say in its policy 22 statement that we want to do two things on an ongoing basis; 23 first, continue to track the progress that you are making in 24 this part of the accrediting effort, and second, look at how 25 the utilities were doing on an individual plant-by-plant basis
71 1
to make sure that adequate progress was being made in pursuit 2
of accreditation.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me make one other conmen t.
4 I had indicated earlier I would be i nterested i n any 5
comments you had on the Moynthan bill But maybe that i s 6
better left to a different forum.
Unless you feel compelled 7
to say anything, Zack.
8 MR. pATE:
No, sir I will take that up in another 9
forum.
10 l would like to add that I certainly agree with 11 Commissioner Zech's conclusion that we have a long ways to 12 go.
I think we are moving in the right direction and seeing 13 solid progress.
14 When I think of all the parties involved, the 15 utility industry and the INPO, the only group that can claim a 16 solid performance at the present time is this accrediting 17 board.
And I hope the Commission appreciates the quality of 18 people and the quality of that effort.
We at INPO certainly 19 do, and I would like to publicly thank this board for their 20 support of the whole process.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I appreciate it very much.
I 22 appreciate not only the members that are here, but all the i
23 others on the list that you went over earlier.
I think i t is 24 a very important endeavor, and I commend all of you for your l
25 efforts in this regard.
q-y
-+-r
+,y-y ew-
,e1e m
wy
t
- )
s l
l l
72 l
l 1
COMMI'S$10NER BERNTHAL:
That's right.
It is an 2
impressive lineup, and it looks like you are making a very 3
serious effort when you can line up people like that to carry 0
1 4
forward.
I s
5 CHAIRMAN pALLADINOV.You are engaged in a very
/
plea /sed to,see the seriousness with 6
important activity.
I am
/
7 whIch you have approachad It, and the dedication of the A t 8r individuals that are involved.
9 On behd f of all my fellow Commissioners, I would 7
10 like to thank you for appearing with us today.
We encourage 4
11 you to keep up the good work, 12 (Je look forward to perlodic r eport t s of this nature
[
13 from time to time, ed 14 Anything more?
f (No response)*
15 16 Thank you very much. We will stand adjourned.
17 (lJ h e r e u p o n, at 11:50 a.m.,
the hearing was 18 adjourned.)
f g
19
,.-r a
20 21 22 23 24 25 e
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7
matter of' Commission Meeting (Public Meeting)
S 9
Name of Proceeding:
Briefing by Representatives of INPO Accrediting Board 11 Docket No.,
12 P ' *** ' Washington, D. C.
la Date: Monday, June 10, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.
13
' 's F
hy [
j' (Signature) g (Typed Name of Reporter)
Mimie Meldzer 20 21 22 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.
24 25
SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
BRIEFING BY' REPRESENTATIVES OF INP0 ACCREDITING BOARD SCHEDULED-10:00 A.M.,
MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1985 (OPEN)
DURATION:
APPRDX 1-1/2 HRS SPEAKERS:
MR. CORDELL REED, VICE PRESIDENT COMMONWEALTH EDISON, AND ACCREDITING BOARD CHAIRMAN MR. ED CARROLL, VICE PRESIDENT UNITED AIRLINES.(RETIRED)
DR. RUSSELL 0'NEILL DEAN OF ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCE, EMERITUS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES DR FORREST REMICK ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH 8 GRADUATE STUDIES PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY tvg og.
- 2. n c e t'A T G,
t' d G.S e b 6 N T i n) P c i
m L
1 Institute of Nuclear Pcwer Operatims ACCREDITING BOMB May 1985 INPO MMERSHIP Billy R. Clements Vice President, Nuclear Operations Texas Utilities Generating Conpany Dennis E. Gilberts Senior Vice President, Power Supply Northern States Power Conpany John M. Griffin Senior Vice President, Energy Supply Arkansas Power & Light Conpany Wayne H. Jens, Ph.D Vice President, Nuclear Operations he Detroit Edison Cmpany Cordell Reed Vice President Cmmonwealth Edison Capany Samuel J. hthill, Ph.D Senior Vice President, Energy Production Iowa Electric Light and Power Conpany C. O. Woody Vice President, Nuclear Operaticns Florida Power & Light Conpany PCSF-SEKDEARY RrwMrICM William R. Kimel, Ph.D Dean, College of Engineering University of Missouri - Columbia Russell R. O'Neill, Ph.D Dean Dneritus, Engineering & Applied Science University of California, Ios Angeles John M. Palms, Ph.D Vice President for Academic Affairs Dnory University Robert L. Seale, Ph.D Head, Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering University of Arizona
a i
Accrediting Board Page 2 10N-NNN DEDSTRIAL TRAINING John E. Carroll Vice President, Training (Retired)
United Airlines Edward R. Jones, Ph.D Chief Human Factors Engineer McDoraell Douglas George E. Moore Director, Educaticn Department (Retired)
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Charles J. Sener Assistant Vice President (Retired)
Bell Communications Research, Inc.
10GNMED BY 'IHE NMN RIKKEATGtY CDMIfEIDN Lincoln Clark, Jr.
Associate Director of Nuclear Reactor Laboratory ard Director of Reactor Operations Massachumtts Institute of Technology Frank C. Fogarty Associate General Manager, Experimental Program EE&G Idaho, Incorporated Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Forrest J. Remick, Ph.D Associate Vice President for Research Pennsylvania State University Gordon E. Robinson, Ph.D Professor, Nuclear Engineering Pennsylvania State University
i k
THE ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING IN THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
THE INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS L
JANUARY, 1985 l
o INPO ACCREDITATION OF NUCLEAR UTILITY TRAINING OVERVIEW The purpose of the accreditation program is to assist INPO member utilities in developing training programs that will produce well-qualified, competent personnel to operate the nation's power plants.
Commencing the accreditation process constitutes a com-mitment to developing high-quality, performance-based training, with a well-functioning management system.
INPO has been charged by, and is responsible to its members for establishing training standards and assisting its members in achieving these standards.
INPO's accrediting authority is derived from its members.
The accreditation of individual training programs provides the following advantages to the nuclear power industry as a whole:
o the establishment of a set of industrywide standards with which utilities can evaluate their training system and i
develop a plan of action o
the systematic evaluation of industry training programs by qualified peers resulting in a subsequent improvement of industry training as required to meet the standards o
the assurance and recognition that individual utility training programs, when accredited, meet prescribed stan-dards established by INPO with significant industry input and review Accreditation is granted to a utility for on-site, off-site, and contracted training for personnel at a specific plant site.
The accreditation process encompasses all aspects of training (in or out of the plant) by all organizational units with some responsi-bility for training and qualification.
The INPO Accreditation Objectives and Criteria address all of the aspects of a typical performance based training system.
Accreditation formally recog-nizes nuclear utility training as meeting the INPO Accreditation Objectives and Criteria for the following training programs:
o operations area non-licensed operator training reactor operator training senior reactor operator / shift supervisor training
o maintenance and technical support area shift technical advisor training instrument and control technician training l
electrical maintenance personnel training
)
machanical maintenance personnel training l
chemistry technician training i
radiological protection technician training technical training for technical staff and managers ACCREDITATION PROCESS Members apply for accreditation of a program by submitting a self-evaluation report to INPO.
The current utility commitment for operating plants or plants that loaded fuel prior to the end of 1984 is to have all programs ready for accreditation by.the end of 1986.
The goal for plants that load fuel in 1985 or later is to have all programs ready for accreditation within two years of fuel load.
Throughout the accreditation process, INPO offers information and assistance to each utility through an INPO staff coordinator.
g Key utility and plant personnel should attend one of the INPO accreditation work sessions which focus on the practical aspects of conducting self-evaluations.
During the self-evaluation pro-cess, site assistance visits are made by INPO staff, if requested.
At least three programs should be submitted for accreditation at any one time.
Normally, accreditation will be awarded only after the utility has conducted the training program; however, new training programs not yet fully conducted may be considered.
Both the initial and continuing training programs are evaluated for accreditation.
As the first round of accreditation nears completion, INPO will review additional plant positions for pos-sible future inclusion in accreditation.
In addition, the proce-dures and objectives or criteria will be refined to reflect accreditation experience and industry practice.
The accreditation process consists of the following major activi-ties:
o Utility accreditation self-evaluation The utility conducts the self-evaluation process by measuring its training system and programs against the INPO Accreditation Objectives and Criteria, making necessary improvements, and preparing a report that will be used by the accreditation team. -
E o
INPO accreditation team evaluation When the self-evaluation phase is completed, an accredita-tion team is appointed by INPO.
The accreditation team consists of.both INPO and utility personnel with collective expertise in nuclear power plant operations, nuclear utili-ty train'ing, instructional processes, and training evalua-tion.
The team visits training sites and evaluates how well the training programs meet each criterion.
The-team makes recommendations which are forwarded to the utility in an INPO report.
o INPO Accrediting 9oard decision The final decision to award or defer accreditation is made by the Accrediting Board.
This decision is based on the accreditation team's report, the utility's response and the INPO staff recommendation.
The utility's representatives are present to answer questions and describe the current status of the programs to the Accrediting Board.
When accreditation is awarded, it will normally remain in effect for four years at which time the accreditation process is repeated.
o Maintainina Accreditation j
Accreditation is maintained during the accreditation period by the utility submitting a status report to INPO for review by the Accrediting Board at the end of two years.
This biennial report describes changes in the accredited training programs since the last accreditation review and discusses the utility's status with respect to possible ongoing actions committed to in response to the INPO Accred-iting Board.
JOINT ROLE OF ACCREDITATION AND EVALUATION INPO's evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of industry training programs involves plant evaluations as well as accredita-tion.
In the accreditation process, INPO examines the training l
-systems in. detail to determine their ability to produce personnel qualified to perform assigned job functions.
As part of the plant evaluation program, INPO examines the implementation and effec-tiveness of utility training programs and the performance of plant personnel.
In combination, these processes are intended to ensure that nuclear power plant personnel are well trained and properly i
qualified for their jobs.
l l
1.
l l
l l,
r STATUS OF TRAINING ACCREDITAT[ON, M AY 1985 Accreditaticn Self-Evaluatial Repsts covering 141 pograms have been submitted.
One at more Accreditation Team Visits have been completed at 23 sites covering 88 programs.
68 training programs at 18 sites have been accredited, they are:
Oconee (W17/83)
(4)
NLO, LO, Requal, STA ANO (1/11/84)
(3)
NL0, LO, Requal Sequoyah (1/11/84)
(5)
NLO, LO, Requal, STA, Mgts and Tech Segtcyah (1/11/ 84)
(3)
Radininginal Protection, Chemistry, I&C Calvert Cliffs (5/16/84)
(3)
NLO, LO, Requal Calvert Cliffs (12/19/84)
(2)
Chemistry, Radialneribal Protection Robiamn (5/16/84)
(3)
NLO, RO, Requal Sum mer (9/26/84)
(4)
NLO, LO, Requal, STA Farley (12/20/84)
(4)
NLO, LO, Requal, STA TMI-l (2/28/85)
(5)
NLO, LO, Requal, STA, Radin1nmfcal Protection Salem (3/26/85)
(5)
NLO, LO, Requal, STA,I& C Peach Bottom (5/23/85)
(5)
NLO, LO, Requal, Chemistry, Radin1nainal Prr*ar+4nr1 Dresden (5/23/85)
(3)
NLO, LO, Requal Brunswick (5/29/85)
(3)
~
Susquehanna (5/29/85)
(10)
NLO, LO, Requal, STA Electrical, Mechanical, I& C, Radininmfca1 Protection, Mgrs and Tech McGuire (5/30/85)
(4)
NLO, LO, Requal, STA Browns Ferry (V30/85)
(1)
I& C Watts Bat (5/30/85)
(1)
IE C LO - Licensed Operator NLO - Non-licensed Operator 5/31/85 l
I&C - Instrument & Control Technician STA - Shift Technical Advisor i
Extract From INPO 85-002 INPO ACCREDITATION OBJECTIVES 1.
The utility is organized, staffed and managed to facilitate planning,' directing, evaluating, and controlling a systemati'c training process that fulfills job-related training needs.
2..
Training staff (utility and contracted, if used) possess the technical knowledge, the experience, and the developmental and instructional skills required to fulfill their assigned
- duties.
3.
The training facilities, equipment, and materials adequately support training activities.
4.
. The tasks required for competent job performance are identified, documented and included in the training programs, as appropriate.
5.
Training program content provides the trainee with the knowledge and skills needed to satisfactorily perform functions associated with the position for which training is being conducted.
The content of initial training prepares the trainee to perform the job for which he is being trained.
The content of continuing training maintains and improves incumbent job performance.
6.
Learning objectives that identify training content and define satisfactory trainee performance are derived from job performance requirements.
7.
Lesson plans or other training guides provide guidance and structure to ensure the consistent conduct of training activities.
8.
Classroom and individualized instruction is effectively presented, and trainee performance is routinely and consistently evaluated.
9.
In-plant training or on-the-job training (OJT) is effectively presented, and trainee performance is evaluated consistently.
10.
Simulator training is effectively presented, and trainee
^
performance is evaluated consistently.
i 11.
Laboratory training is effectively presented, and trainee performance is evaluated consistently.
12.
A systematic evaluation of training effectiveness and its relation to on-the-job performance is used to ensure that the training program conveys all required skills and knowledges.
4
.._...____.-____._.._.,...,.___,.,-____..m
a a
a As.L,.
w.--6.-A a
,,4 s.
ya h
l.
l Iraining:
A National Accomplishment i
4
U.S. Nuclear Training facilities are on the rise Programs are meeting plant a,ound tse indust,y
- man,
,needs g
A decade ago, training facilities in 1983, more than 4,500 people UtlljleQ at nuclear plants did not always completed formal, initial training pro-e receive the attention they needed.
grams for 10 nuclear plant job cate-ffdlQl Today, separate facilities and special gories. This represents more than a instructional areas have been estab-43 percent increase over the number lished or expanded to enhance train-completing similar training programs ing. Utilities have almost 1.6 million in 1982.
square feet of space dedicated exclu-sively to training nuclear plant Additional shifts mean ongoing uclear utilities have long personnel-more than three times training for operating personnel been aware of the special the amount in use five years ago.
Four years ago, most nuclear role of training in their plants.
Specially designed, state-of-the-art plants in the country were operating This awareness has grown into a training centers, located conveniently with four shifts. This left little time unified, industrywide effort to to the plant, are becoming the norm for ongoing training or requalifica-improve the performance of all across the industry. Classrooms and tion. Today, virtually all plants have utilities.
laboratory training facilities include five or six operating shifts, which in 1979, the Three Mile Island sophisticated training aids, such as allows one shift to be in training at accident spurred the industry to scale models and duplicates of plant-all times at the plant's training facility.
move collectively on training. The specific components and equipment.
accident underscored the fact that Industry uses the latest in instruc-the knowledge, skill and ability of Multi-million-dollar control room tional technology people are crucial to the safe and training simulators meet a need Each nuclear utility has adopted reliable operation of nuclear power More and more nuclear utilities a performance-based, systems plants. As part of this initiative, the are buying computer. driven control approach to training. Modern pro-industry formed the Institute of room training simulators, an invest.
gram and curriculum development is Nuclear Pbwer Operations, INPO, in ment of around $10 million apiece.
incorporated into a Training System late 1979 to work for improvements They duplicate individual nuclear Development model. This model is in nuclear plant safety and reliability.
plant control rooms and allow opera-adapted to the unique needs of the tors to hone their skills in dealing nuclear utility industry and consists INPO is a whicle for industrywide with normal plant operations, abnor-of fiw steps that produce performance-imprmement mal events and simulated accidents.
based training: analysis, design, One of INPO's missions is to Utilities are finding that these development, implementation and assist the industry in upgrading train-simulators provide an invaluable evaluation.
ing. Today, INPO has a number of return in better training and safer training assistance activities in place.
operations.
INPO also manages an industrywide Six years ago, there were 10 program for the accreditation of training simulators in the industry.
training programs for key operations, Currently,44 training simulators are maintenance and technical support in operation, and when those that personnel in nuclear plants. Every are planned or under construction nuclear utility in the United States are completed, 70 will be in has accepted this accreditation pro-operation.
gram by making a commitment to have.its plant training programs Training staffs grow as utilities accredited by the independent accelerate imprmements National Nuclear Accrediting Board.
Ten years ago, a typical nuclear And the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory plant training staff consisted of one Commission (NRC) has formally coordinator and a handful of instruc-endorsed this accreditation process.
tors. Today, there is an average of 24 Accreditation is the formal instructors and five other training recognition of industrywide training professionals for each nuclear plant l
improvement. Nuclear utilities are in the country-four times as many building, buying, hiring, organizing as there were just five years ago.
l and working to ensure their training and qualification programs produce talented, competent and motivated people to run the nation's nuclear power plants.
p-c-
l f.
I s
Institute of Nuclear Pbwer Operations in cooperation with the U.S. Nuclear Industry and the National Nuclear Accrediting Board, Suite 1500,1100 Grcle 75 Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 30339-3064, Telephone (404) 953-3600 t
National Board makes final accreditation TY
-f~'
l deosion NUCIear The National Nuclear Accrediting f'
eoa,e,, compo,.e of n,o, u,,,ity e
representatives, nonnuclear industrial A.
Accred.t.mg treieins exnens,regreseetetive,fe m o
s i
the post-secondary educational com-
~
Board the NRC."a imaiv** memi" tea s me"'tv >
v Because of the large number F '
?
i of training programs involved in the o
s part of the accreditation accreditation effort, the board A verifies the effectiveness of process, which evaluates and includes enough members to ensure representation from each of the y
utility training, the independent classifications at any given meeting.
g T.
National Nuclear Accrediting Board When training programs come y
determines whether a utility's training before the board, members examine V+-
programs meet accreditation standards.
the report of the accreditation team i
This accreditation process is a and the utility's responses, as well as E
self-initiated program undertaken by the utility self-evaluation report. They i'~
the nuclear utility industry. Every question representatives of utility l
nuclear utility is committed to senior management, plant manage-p"'
~
l achieving accreditation of its initial ment and training management, and o
and continuing training programs for they determine whether the training L
the 10 key positions necessary for meets accreditation objectives and nuclear plant operations?
criteria.
n
- c INPO, which manages the To achieve accreditation, a util-accreditation program, developed ity's training system must include an j
stringent accreditation objectives and effective, ongoing process to identify
?
criteria, These must be met before a and implement changes as they are utility's programs can be accredited.
needed. By requiring reaccreditation y-There are two steps in the process every four years, the program ensures before the training programs are pre-this process is working to maintain
.J.
sented to the Accrediting Board:
training quality.
- Using the accreditation objectises and criteria, the utility performs a f
self-evaluation to identify and cor-
[
rect weaknesses in its training 5
1 programs.
oAn accreditation team, made up of
(
training experts from INPO and utilities, visits the plant and assesses k.
the training programs. The team's K
recommendations, along with the C
i utility's responses, are written in a i
i formal report that is presented to I
~
i the Accrediting Board.
D 8
1 l
l.
1 p.
Nv.
i
'The key nuclear plant positons ivwolved in the y
accreditaten program are as follows:
P' nonirensed operator
(.'
j feactor operator g-t senior reactor operator /shdt supervisor y '. ::1. ;(:"i
)
shdt technical advisor
(...
instrument and control technician Accrediting Board I.egend han a enanc penonnel (1) utility representatise by3 - c -.-
.J il chemistry technician (2) nonnuclear industrial training representarne O C. ',
radiological protecten technician O) post-secondary education representative p
m.
technical staff and managers (4) NRC nominee
/,.
- u.w.-
~-
.c I
InSi.tute of
-~ ' m,~ 7' 1,.i.i.si,,,,,e,,se
~.
l indu,try', ewrall effert te NUCIear Power
, s.a' i,,e e,i.., e,e,1ie.,
~
s individual nuclear utilities are Operat*ons i
g dediceting substentiei emeents of manpower and other resources to y
p-upgrade training. And the industry, 4-as a whole, has embarked on a self-
" ;p initiated, self-improvement program.
'y Training is essential to achieving high 1
he nuclear utility industry, standards of nuclear plant safety and
~'
T through INPO, has dedicated reliability.
resources and expertise to assist 4.
Ms;F These efforts in training are part individual utilities with improving r
"l:4 of the nuclear utility industry's overall their training. INPO assists its pdag e
goal of excellence in the operation
+
member utilities in developing, g'
of its nuclear plants.
implementing and maintaining their i
.j training activities.
yQ Training assistance: INPO pro-S vides assistance to any nuclear utility
'r requesting guidance, help or advice
- p on a wide range of plant training areas.,
y Training and qualification z
W guidelines: Using input from the W
and tasks in key nuclear plant posi-I[i
&[;
industry, as well as analysis of jobs b;g.,
- j. h" hg7 ' Y'*7 ' i ' f 7.g* -
c k
^'
I tions, INPO has developed 17 guide-
'g' r
lines. These guidelines describe the
.,.g3 P*
M spcific components needed for the training and qualification of person-
"- 913 TH-2
~7-
-8 nel in nuclear power plant positions.
[
{'((
]
g
$f P Y W " P'U;< I. 3 job and task analysis: Using
- /.
'. * ' V industry expertise and experience, INPO has conducted analyses of key
'((Q
[,'g?Ef nuclear plant positions. These analy-3,g.f,4j.
&_,,ypq ses identify tasks performed in each y., 4 4 g
3,
.g job and set forth the knowledge and g,.4.4.gf
(;,Q,Q{4(.g. A.ggy l
skills needed for these jobs. A com-puter data base contains this infor-
,g mation, and utilities use it to help g g g g*q.y,,,4 cg
- 3, ensure that their curricula cover the er
[
[
Qgj[:d A)h;kiM%$g[M,7 M
necessary topics.
f?d b,; k%Q l
Workshops and seminars: INPO n
l sponsors special workshops and y[d y
L S
2Ap I
i seminars for utility training personnel to assist them in developing their
-u w ^
mu " -
1 own training systems.
Nuclear plant evaluations: INPO evaluates each nuclear plant in the United States on a regular basis. On every INPO plant evaluation, both the conduct of training and the l
results of training-how personnel prform their jobs-are examined thoroughly.
l
Iraining:
It can mean the difference between satisfactory and superior performance.
The 55 electric utilities that make up the nuclear utility industry in the United States have embarked on a collective program to upgrade the training and qualification of the people who run its nuclear power plants. Why? Because training plays a pivotal role in nuclear, plant safety and reliability.
January 1985 Criteria INPO 85-002 The Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry 1'7,T
-''{
,'*M'
"'{
Y l;@t N
% n ci
-t a, h'q:
brp ;l'
- n :
' d[g '
k
- ~ J'[ $ s$dh -swp, +,,
g s'....s.
.r' 'c'. i..
_,.g m, m. ' Y+g,;
' f.f I ;
lhk Y
s-
- gg,
{,W a&c&~
i
,w,Q
^
> +D, % : 10
':n.
n,a p =;j[.y' ; ['
y._
l 3
5:lx J
3% ',,%,.
9BefyFV."'
%,j7
'?qqf G R 2
' ~
z r
- w. m f
ty fg,..h rf:'?h,
~ d;_
-l'
~ '
NI; d_
l tsn a :..
[:\\,.k(?
- ,[h 2Mc
~
6k 7
.E j.
g.g$@d[U
- n.
x-w vy; y
.y..
MI;.8f.)$
j?
. Ify y% 3,L32;.:.;7 ag; i
y n
c
- r. ; c-
. ;g w~
, y "e Qg _ 'if,g.
a v
s us
. A-v; y.
e i
^'
~
w gp -
ar
- ~. - -.
f kN' SM M-
-E--
u.
gg
_--lj. s.
THE ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING IN THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA INP0 85-002 January 1985 THE INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS 4
Plant Area: Training
-Key Words:
' Accreditation, Criteria l
Copynght 1985 by Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. M rights reserved. Not for sale. Unauthorized l
reproduction is a violation of applicable law. Reproducts of not more than ten copies by each recipient for its internal use only is permitted.
FOREWORD The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) was established by the nuclear power industry to assist in achieving excellence in the safety of nuclear power operations. The industry receives assistance from INP0 in developing an adequate number of highly qualified, well-trained professionals to operate the nation's nuclear power plants.
In the area of training, INP0 develops training guidelines, evaluates the quality and effectiveness of utility training, and assists member utilities in developing performance-based training programs.
The evaluation of utility training involves accreditation and plant eval-uations. The Accreditation Program is intended to systematically evaluate and subsequently improve the training process used in individual utility training programs. The Accreditation Program is complemented by INP0 plant eval-uations, which focus more directly on the performance of personnel in the plant, to ensure that training is producing the desired results and that plants are being safely operated. As programs are accredited, the thrust of the plant evaluations will shift even more toward evaluating the " product" of the accredited training programs.
INP0 welcomes suggestions for changes to improve the accreditation process.
It is anticipated that this document will be revised as INP0 and member utilities gain experience in using these accreditation procedures and criteria.
This revision of the document, The Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry includes minor changes in procedures and a restructuring and elaboration of the objectives and criteria reflecting lessons learned in the first two years of the program. It is effective immediately for planning, and on July 1, 1985, it formally supersedes the 1982 version of The Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry (INP0 82-011).
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Foreword..................................................................
1 THE ACCREDITATION PROGRAM Genera 1...............................................................
1 Uti l i ty Acc redi t ati on S el f-Eval u ati on................................. 3 INP0 Accreditation Team Evaluation....................................
3 INP0 Accrediting Board Decision.......................................
4 Maintaining Accreditation.............................................
5 APPENDIX A: OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION APPENDIX B: ACCREDITATION SELF-EVALUATION PROCESS AND REPORT GUIDELINE APPENDIX C: DEFINITIONS i
3 4
I 111
1 THE ACCREDITATION PROGRAM General The procedures, objectives, and criteria for the nuclear industry's Accredita-tion Program are described in this document. The purpose of the Accreditation Program is to assist INP0 member utilities in developing training programs that will produce well-qualified, competent personnel to operate the nation's nuclear power plants.
INP0 has been charged by and is responsible to its members for establishing training standards and assisting its members in achieving these standards.
INP0's accrediting authority is derived from its members.
The accreditation of individual training programs provides the following advantages to the nuclear power industry as a whole:
o the establishment of a set of industrywide standards with which utilities can evaluate their training system and develop a plan of action o the systematic evaluation of industry training programs by qualified peers resulting in subsequent improvement of industry training, as required, to meet the standards, o the assurance and recognition that individual utility training programs, when accredited, meet prescribed standards established by INP0 after significant industry input and review Accreditation is granted to a utility for on-site, off-site, and contracted training for personnel at a specific plant site. The accreditation process encompasses all aspects of training (in or out of the plant) by all organi-zational units with some responsibility for training and qualification.
Accreditation formally recognizes nuclear utility training as meeting the INP0 accreditation objectives and criteria (See Appendix A) for the following training programs:
7
! 1
o operations area non-licensed operator training reactor operator training senior reactor operator / shift supervisor training o maintenance and technical support area shift technical advisor training instrument and control technician training electrical maintenance personnel training mechanical maintenance personnel training chemistry technician training radiological protection technician training technical training for technical staff and managers In the above listing, reactor operator training and senior reactor operator /
shift supervisor training are treated as separate programs.
In the earlier version of the document, they were combined as licensed operator training.
Requalification training is no longer listed as a separate program but is considered to be the continuing training for the reactor operator and senior reactor operator. programs.
Normally, accreditation will be awarded only after the utility has conducted the training program; however, new training programs not yet conducted may be considered. Both initial and continuing training programs are evaluated for l
accreditation. As the first round of accreditation nears completion, INP0 will review additional plant positions for possible future inclusion in i
accreditation, i
The current utility commitment for operating plants or plants that loaded fuel prior to the end of 1984 is to have all programs ready for accreditation by j
the end of 1986. The goal for plants that load fuel in 1985 or later is to l
have all programs ready for accreditation within two years of fuel load.
If additional training programs are added to the scope of accreditation, utili-ties will be expected to have these new programs ready for accreditation l
within two years after they are added. Operations area programs normally will l
be submitted first, but additional programs from the maintenance and technical -
support area may be included in the initial self-evaluation at the discretion of the utility. Normally, at least three programs must be submitted for accreditation at any one time.
The process for accreditation of training consists of the following major activities:
o self-evaluation conducted by the utility o team evaluation o decision by the INP0 Accrediting Board o maintenance of accreditation Utility Accreditation Self-Evaluation The utility conducts the self-evaluation process by measuring its training system and programs against the INP0 accreditation objectives and criteria, making necessary improvements, and preparing a report that will be used by the accreditation team. Throughout the accreditation process, an INP0 accredi-tation staff member is assigned to assist the utility. The accreditation self-evaluation report is reviewed by INP0 personnel, and if additional data are required, they are requested from the utility.
If conditions are noted that would affect the accreditation schedule, they are identified to th! util-ity. The self-evaluation phase ends when the formal self-evaluation report is sent to INP0 (reporting that the program (s) are ready for accreditation).
Normally, receipt of the accreditation self-evaluation report triggers the scheduling of a team visit. Further information concerning the self-evaluation process is found in Appendix B.
INP0 Accreditation Team Evaluation When the self-evaluation phase is completed, an accreditation team is appointed by INP0 to visit the training site (s), including the plant site and contractor simulator training site when appropriate. The accreditation team consists of both INP0 and utility personnel with collective expertise in nuclear power plant operating, nuclear utility training, in>tructional pro-cesses, and training evaluation. The team will include individuals who are technically competent in the positions corresponding to the training programs being evaluated and others.who are expert in training processes. This team spends approximately five days on site. During the visit, members of the team i.
interview training and other plant personnel who are involved in training; observe training activities; examine facilities, equipment, and training mate-rials; review instructor qualifications and procedures; and examine training program content and training records. The team evaluates how well the train-ing programs meet each accreditation criterion.
Its observations and concerns are discussed with plant and training management daily.
The team writes a report for the utility that describes training activities and contains conclusions and recommendations for improvement.
If appropriate, a conference is scheduled to present and discuss the report prior to formal transmission of the report by INP0. The utility submits a written response to the report providing clarification or describing corrective actions taken.
The response should be forwarded no later than three months after receipt of the team report. The accreditation team report and the utility's response are merged and submitted to the INP0 Accrediting Board.
INP0 Accrediting Board Decision The final decision to award or defer accreditation is made by the INP0 Accrediting Board. This decision is based on the accreditation team's report, the utility's response, and the INP0 staff recommendation. The utility's representatives are present to answer questions and describe the current status of programs to the Accrediting Board prior to the Board's delibera-tions. When accreditation is awarded, it will normally remain in effect for four years, at which time the accreditation process is repeated.
If accredi-tation is deferred, the affected training program (s) will be considered deferred until the Board can meet to raview the program (s) and the additional actions taken by the utility.
The INP0 Accrediting Board consists of five members:
two persons from INP0 member utilities, one person from a non-nuclear industrial training organi-zation, one person from the post-secondary education community, and one person recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Alternate members are selected to facilitate the scheduling of meetings.
Maintaining Accreditation Accreditation is maintained during the accreditation period by the utility submitting a status report to INP0 for review by the Accrediting Board at the
'end of two years. This biennial report describes changes in the accredited training programs since the last accreditation review and discusses the utility's status with respect.to possible ongoing actions committed to and in response to the INP0 Accrediting Board.
The report should provide specific information with appropriate documentation regarding actions taken during the two-year period. The reports should be brief but should include the following:
o the status of any open actions related to an earlier accreditation report o a description of any major changes in training since the last accreditation review
~
-o a description of any other activities that have had a bearing on the effectiveness of the accredited training programs o a report on organizational changes that may affect the training programs (include an updated training staff roster) o_ a status report on those programs not yet accredited indicating any change to anticipated schedule o a description of the principal strengths and weaknesses of training determined through program evaluations o an assessment of the benefits and/or disadvantages derived from training modifications made in connection with accreditation, including any dis-cernable impact on licensing examination results o recommendations for changes in the accreditation process I,
y i
J h
?
f 1
i 6-
APPENDIX A OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION i
i 1
.(
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. i Section /
Page INTRODUCTION.........................................................
A-3 s
(
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TRAINING SYSTEM...................
A-5
's.
-DEVELOPMENT AND QUALIFICATION OF STAFF FOR TRAINING DUTIES...........
A-7
.+
SUPPORT OF TRAINING WITH FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS........
A-9
. CONDUCT OF JOB ANALYSIS AND IDENTIFICATION OF TASKS FOR TRAINING...........................................................
A-11 ESTABLISHMENTOFTRAININGPROGdAMC0NTENT............................
A-13 DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES AS THE BASIS FOR TRAINING.........
A-15 ORGANIZATION OF INSTRUCTION USING LESSON PLANS AND OTHER TRAINING GUIDES....................................................
A-17
/
1 CONDUCT OF CLASSR0OM AND INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION AND TRAINEE EVALUATION.................................................
A-19
/
CONDUCT OF IN-PLANT TRAINING AND TRAINEE EVALUATION..................
A-21 o
CONDUCTOFSIMULATORTRAININGANDTRAINEEEVALUATION................. A-23 CONDUCT OF LABOR ATORY TRAINING AND TRAINEE EVALUATION................ A-25 9
L d,
a SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS..................... A-27 f
1 A-1 t,
'l'
\\
A-2
INTRODUCTION INP0 establishes the accreditation objectives and criteria against which nuclear utility training is evaluated to determine its readiness for accreditation. Training programs are evaluated against the accreditation objectives and criteria by utility personnel during the self-evaluation process, by accreditation team members while performing their on-site evaluations, and by the Accrediting Board during its review. To obtain accreditation, a utility must demonstrate that its training meets the accreditation objectives and criteria.
The accreditation objectives describe the expected end results of an effec-tive, well-managed training program. The criteria are principles or methods that support the accreditation objectives and are to be applied with judg-ment. The expectation is that all criteria will be met; however, if the objective is met, it is not essential that all criteria be fully met. Also, some objectives and criteria will not be applicable to some programs. This situation would prevail when, for example, a particular instructional method such as laboratory training is not used.
This version of the objectives and criteria is primarily an elaboration and restructuring of those previously published. They reflect, however, the same criteria that were applied in awarding accreditation to all accredited pro-grams to date. Extensive industry input into the development of this revision has been obtained.
A-3
9 A-4
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TRAINING SYSTEM Objective 1.
The utility is organized, staffed, and managed to facilitate plan-ning, directing, evaluating, and controlling a systematic training process that fulfills job-related training needs.
Criteria 1.1 The actions needed to achieve high quality, job-related, performance-based training programs eligible for accreditation have been identified through a systematic evaluation of existing programs.
1.2 Written corporate and plant goals establish the required character and quality of key aspects of the training system. Supporting objectives are implemented at each organizational level.
1.3 The responsibilities and authority of personnel involved in managing, supervising, and implementing training are clearly defined in writing and permit effective control of the training process.
1.4 A training system is implemented as the primary management tool for developing, conducting, and evaluating training.
1.5 Procedures are implemented to ensure that instructional activities can be conducted reliably and consistently.
1.6 Training to be completed prior to qualification is clearly defined.
Exemptions from training may be granted when justified and supported by a documented assessment of prior training and experience.
1.7 Training records are maintained to support management information needs and provide required historical data.
A-5
1.8 Programs offered under contract remain under the control of the sponsoring utility and are evaluated by it to ensure that the INP0 accreditation objectives and criteria are met.
1.9 The work load of the training staff indicates that there are suffi-cient qualified personnel to accomplish assigned duties and responsibilities.
t D.
A-6
DEVELOPMENT AND QUALIFICATION OF STAFF FOR TRAINING DUTIES Objective 2.
Training staff (utility and contracted, if used) possess the tech-nical knowledge, the experience, and th'e developmental and instructional skills required to fulfill their assigned duties.
Criteria 2.1-Training staff responsible for program management, supervision, and development have and maintain the education, experience, and technical qualifications required for their jobs.
2.2 Instructor technical qualifications are appropriate for the subject matter that they are assigned to teach.
2.3 Developmental and instructional qualifications of instructors include theory, practical knowledge, and work experience.in developing, conducting, and evaluating training, as appropriate to their job assignments.
2.4 Methods are implemented to ensure that individual instructors meet and maintain position qualification requirements.
2.5 When instructors have not yet attained the required instructional qualifications or only instruct occasionally, training quality is maintained through appropriate additional assistance and supervision.
2.6. The instructional skills training program develops the necessary
' instructor capabilities to fulfill training program requirements.
2.7 Instructor performance is evaluated regularly, and the results are used to improve performance.
A-7
2.8 Continuing instructor development efforts maintain, improve, and advance required knowledge and skills and are based, in part, on evaluations of instructor performance.
i A-8
SUPPORT OF TRAINING WITH FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIALS Objective 3.
The training facilities, equipment, and materials adequately support training activities.
Criteria
~
3.1 Instructional facilities meet training needs.
3.2 The training staff has necessary instructional aids and equipment.
3.3 Technical reference materials, including current plant procedures and drawings, are readily available to the trainees and instructors.
s.
A-9
l A-10
CONDUCT OF JOB ANALYSIS AND IDENTIFICATION OF TASKS FOR TRAINING Objective 4.
The tasks required for competent job performance are identified, documented, and included in the training programs, as appropriate.
Criteria 4.1 Plant personnel, training staff, and other subject matter experts, as appropriate and as needed, have conducted a job analysis to develop a valid plant-specific task list.
4.2 Subject matter experts (appropriate plant technical personnel, train-ing staff personnel, or knowledgeable outside personnel) assist in the selection of tasks for training.
4.3 Each task selected for training from the plant-specific task list is compared with existing training materials in sufficient depth to determine if existing training adequately supports task performance.
4.4 The plant-specific list of tasks selected for training and the com-parison to training materials is reviewed periodically and updated, as necessary.
A-11
.E.L.a s e
.m.
+a.-.
A
---.s.aaa
-a-a. us.n-. -=
w-ma.
--se.-:--
.-...~.,
--a e
2.
t.
j..
L i
4 I
?
l i
i t
i 6
i t
t l.
i 4
h.
I L
t W
3 i
f 1
j 1
4 a
j 1
4
}.
\\
A-12
.. - -- ~...
ESTABLISHMENT OF TRAINING PROGRAM CONTEMI Objective 5.
Training program content provides the trainee with the knowledge and skills needed to perform functions associated with the position for which training is being conducted. The content of initial training prepares the trainee to perform the job for which he is being trained. The content of continuing training maintains and improves incumbent job performance.
Criteria 5.1 INP0 training guidelines are used as a guide for selecting, sequent-ing, and verifying training program structure and content.
5.2 Tasks are analyzed, as necessary, to determine the task's supporting skills and knowledge to be included in training programs.
5.3 Personnel qualified in the position for which training is being conducted help determine training content and confirm its completeness.
5.4 Current plant procedures and other technical and professional references are used to identify training content and plant-specific information for use in developing training materials.
5.5 Initial training program content is modified to reflect the results of program review and evaluation by plant and train'ing staff personnel.
5.6 The results of trainee and program evaluations are used to help determine the content of continuing training.
A-13
y -,-
4 I
i l
l A-14
DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES AS THE BASIS FOR TRAINING
-Objective 6.
Learning objectives that identify training content and define satis-factory trainee performance are derived from job performance require-ments.
' Criteria 6.1 Expected entry-level skill, knowledge. and experience are considered when developing learning objectives.
6.2 Learning objectives are derived from an analysis of job performance requirements and are the basis for trainee evaluation.
6.3 Learning objectives state the action (s) the trainee must demonstrate, the conditions under which the action will take place, and the stan-dards of performance the trainee should achieve upon completion of the training activity.
6.4 Learning objectives are grouped by similar training setting (for example, classroom and simulator).
6.5 Learning objectives are sequenced based on their relationship to one another and help trainees move from one level of skill and knowledge to another.
i A-15 L.
I 1
i l
I 4
4 A-16 j
f
- - _ _. _ _. _.. _ _ _ _. - ~, _ - _ _ - -... - _._.
ORGANIZATION OF INSTRUCTION USING LESSON PLANS AND OTHER TRAINING GUIDES Objective 7.
Lesson plans or other training guides provide guidance and structure to ensure the consistent conduct of training activities.
Criteria 7.1 -
Lesson plans for classroom instruction provide for effective, consistent class presentations.
- 7.2 Lesson plans or equivalent training guides are used for laboratory training, on-the-job training (0JT), and simulator training and include criteria for evaluating proper trainee performance.
7.3 Lesson plans and other training materials are developed or modified using learning objectives derived from job performance requirements.
A-17
I I
l I
I l
l l
1 I
e s
S I
J l
1 4
i I
f I
i 4
f l
A-18
CONDUCT OF CLASSR0OM AND INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION AND TRAINEE EVALUATION 05_iective 8.
Classroom and individualized instruction is effectively presented, and trainee performance is routinely and consistently evaluated.
Criteria 8.1 Train-lng is implemented as outlined by approved training materials and is well-organized and current.
8.2 Training activities encourage direct trainee participation in the learning process.
8.3 Instructors prepare. adequately to ensure effective and consistent delivery.
8.4 The instructor uses instructional techniques appropriate to the lesson content and learning objectives.
8.5 When individualized instruction is used, either the training mate-rials contain the information to be learned or referenced texts are readily available.
8.6 Trainee mastery of learning objectives is evaluated regularly using written and/or oral examinations and quizzes.
8.7 Written and oral examinations and quizzes are administered and graded in a consistent manner.
8.8 Acceptance criteria to be used during the administration of oral examinations are defined in advance of the examination.
A-19
8.9 Contracted training is evaluated to ensure that trainees are achiev-ing the specified learning objectives as measured by appropriate
-written and oral examinations and quizzes.
i i
i A-20 L _-
CONDUCT OF IN-PLANT TRAINING AND TRAINEE EVALUATION Objective 9.
In-plant training or on-the-job training (0JT) is effectively pre-sented, and trainee performance is evaluated consistently.
Criteria 9.1 In-plant training is delivered using well-organized and current training materials.
9.2 Designated personnel who are instructed in program standards and methods conduct in-plant training.
t 9.3 When the actual task cannot be performed but is simulated or walked-through, the conditions of task performance, references, tools, and equipment reflect the actual task to the extent possible.
l 9.4 Performance evaluations use established criteria.
9.5 Acceptance criteria to be used during the administration of oral examinations are defined in advance of the examination.
i i
i
\\
A-21 i
., -. - -. ~ -
k 4
A-22
CONDUCT OF SIMULATOR TRAINING AND TRAINEE EVALUATION Objective 10.
Simulator training is effectively presented, and trainee performance is evaluated consistently.
Criteria 10.1 An appropriate simulator is used for hands-on training, to demon-strate operational characteristics, and for recognition and control of normal, abnormal, and emergency plant conditions. Differences between the simulator and the plant are accommodated in the training sessions.
10.2 The training program content is implemented as outlined by approved training materials and is well-organized and current. Requests for contracted training should specify the required objectives and content.
10.3 Instructors prepare adequately for simulator sessions to ensure effective and consistent training. Requests for contracted training should require vendor instructors to be familiar with differences between the referenced plant and trainees' home plant.
10.4 The instructor uses instructional techniques appropriate to the situation.
10.5 Individual trainee and team performance are evaluated regularly against established learning objectives using appropriate evaluation methods and performance criteria.
10.6 Contracted training is evaluated to ensure that trainees are achieving the specified learning objectives, as measured by appropriate evaluation methods and performance criteria.
A-23
l i
l t
i l.
I A-24
I CONDUCT OF LABORATORY TRAINING AND TRAINEE EVALUATION i
Objective 11.
Laboratory training is effectively presented, and trainee performance is evaluated consistently.
Criteria 11.1 The training program content is implemented as outlined by approved training materials and is well-organized, current, and structured to provide practical experience.
11.2 Conditions of task performance, references, tools, and equipment reflect the actual job to the extent possible.
11.3 Training activities encourage direct trainee participation in the learning process.
11.4 Instructors prepare adequately to ensure effective and consistent delivery of the material.
11.5 The instructor uses instructional techniques appropriate to the situation.
11.6 Trainee performance is evaluated regularly against established learn-ing objectives using appropriate evaluation methods and performance criteria.
11.7 Contracted training is evaluated to ensure that trainees are achiev-ing the specified learning objectives, as measured by appropriate evaluation methods and performance criteria.
A-25
l i
i e
l I
f a
l l
l 4
i l
I I
I I
i i
i A-26 1
1 i
1
SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION OF TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS Objective 12.
A systematic evaluation of training effectiveness and its relation to on-the-job performance is used to ensure that the training program conveys all required skills and knowledges.
Criteria 12.1 Program evaluations are conducted on a regular basis by qualified individuals.
12.2 Training delivery is monitored and evaluated with regard to instruc-tion, materials, and instructor performance.
12.3 Feedback from trainee performance during training is used to evaluate and refine the training program.
12.4 Feedback from trainee performance, after the trainee has assumed the duties for which he was trained, is used to evaluate and refine the training program.
12.5 Change actions (e.g., procedure changes, industry events, equipment changes) are monitored and evaluated for their applicability to the development or modification of tr3 ning programs and are incorporated 1
in a timely manner.
12.6 Improve 7entsandr.hangestotrainiagareinitiateaandtrackedto correct training deficiencies and perro,rmance problems.
/
l 12.7 Contracted training is evaluated for its contribution 'to meeting job c
performance requirements and to ensure that its quality is consistent with utility training standards.
i
/
A-27 L.
ps 4
'f I 4a; I
[
b.' \\ \\
l
'i 9
i Y
i I
i i
l 1
A-28
f l
4 APPENDIX B e
ACCREDITATION SELF-EVALUATION PROCESS AND REPORT GUIDELINE
ACCREDITATION SELF-EVALUATION PROCESS AND REPORT GUIDELINE The accreditation self-evaluation process is used by a utility to measure its training against INP0 accreditation objectives and criteria.
The purposes of the seif-evaluation are as follows:
0 to permit the utility to evaluate its training against accreditation standards and identify and carry out needed action to correct any weaknesses o to provide a framework for action plans and resource requirement estimates o to serve as a basis for an accreditation self-evaluation report that is I
used in conjunction with accreditation team visits Ccnducting The Accreditation Self-Evaluation Conducting the self-evaluation is a team effort requiring proper planning and preparation. Before beginning the self-evaluation, all participants in the training process should be informed of the INP0 accreditation process and briefed on their roles in the self-evaluation. INP0 conducts workshops on self-evaluation and provides assistance in initiating the process.
It is important at this stage that a utility and its plant (s) comit to a thorough and very critical self-evaluation. When conducting the self-evaluation, current training programs and activities should be compared to the INP0 accreditation objectives and criteria using Appendix A.
Training conducted by the utility (on-site and off-site), as well as that conducted by contractors, should be reviewed. The in-plant training conducted by func-tional units is usually a major part of a training program and should be reviewed as thoroughly as the training unit's activities. While conducting the self-evaluation, the strengths and weaknesses of the utility's training should be identified and documented for internal planning purposes. Solutions and action plans should be developed for the problems that are identified.
B-1
Some problems may be significant enough to preclude the effective accomplish-ment of job performance-based training. These should be corrected prior to forwarding a formal accreditation self-evaluation report to INP0.
In some cases, an identified problem may mean that an objective or essential criterion is not fully met and improvement is needed. This improvement action should be identified under the appropriate criterion in the accreditation self-evaluation report. Questions about the category in which a problem falls should be addressed to the INPO accreditation staff. Once INPO receives the formal accreditation self-evaluation report, a team visit may be scheduled within a few weeks.
Preparing The Accreditation Self-Evaluation Report The recommended format for the accreditation self-evaluation report has been revised from the previous document to match the accreditation objectives and criteria. The accreditation self-evaluation report, using the new format, should address each program separately and completely. Each program report should be bound separately.
In preparing the accreditation self-evaluation report for each program, the utility should address each pertinent objective and each supporting criterion with statements and with documentation, where appropriate.
Two copies of each accreditation self-evaluation report are to be sent by the utility to INPO addressed to the Vice President and Director, Training and Education Division.
Self-Evaluation Report Format The following guidance is offered for preparation of the accreditation self-evaluation report:
Complete a cover page for each program report using the suggested cover o
page format on Page B-5 as a guide.
The cover page should be followed by a table of contents.
.o B-2 w...
o The body of the report should begin with an " Introduction" that addresses the following points, as appropriate:
Briefly describe the training program covered by this report. Use a time-line, bar chart, or curriculum sequence to describe the program phases and time spent in each phase.
Describe the organizational elements responsible for various training phases and for qualification.
If applicable, describe any special or unique arrangements or circum-stances that are not covered elsewhere in this report.
o Following the " Introduction," the organization of the report should follow the numbering system of the objectives and criteria. A narrative response should be written for each criterion in sufficient detail to permit the reader to understand how each criterion is met. The narrative should be supplemented with references to appended materials, as appro-priate. A general report format and key points to consider when responding to the first objective, " Organization and Management of the Training System" and each supporting criterion, are presented on pages B-7 through B-9 as examples. These examples should be used as guides for report formatting and for estimating the depth to which responses should go for this and for other objectives.
o When one section of the accreditation self-evaluation report is equally applicable to more than one program, it should be written once, titled to show all programs to which it applies, and pages should be numbered and reproduced for all of the reports. Page ncabers should consist of the single letter designation for the program (listed below), the objective number, and the page number within that objective (e.g., N-1-1).
When a page or a section of a report is applicable to more than one program, the page number should begin with the letter designation for each program (e.g.,NRS-1-1). Single letter designations for the various programs are as follows:
A - shift technical advisor training C - chemistry technician training B-3
E - electrical maintenance personnel training H - radiological protection technician training I - instrument and control technician training M - mechanical maintenance personnel training N - non-licensed operator training R - reactor operator training S - senior reactor operator / shift supervisor training T - technical training for technical staff and managers Using the directions and " Roster of Trair.ing Staff" found on pages B-10 o
through B-11, complete a roster for all training staff that directly support the training program covered by this report.
B-4
(SUGGESTED C0VER PAGE)
ACCREDITATION SELF-EVALUATION REPORT (Program)
Utility:
Plant:
Location:
Person at utility to be contacted if questions arise concerning this questionnaire:
Name and title:
Address:
U Telephone:
(
)
y Date of report:
l l
l l
B-5
P l
l B-6
(EXAMPLE)
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TRAINING SYSTEM Objective 1.
The utility is organized, staffed, and managed to facilitate planning, directing, evaluating, and controlling a systematic training process that fulfills job-related training needs.
Criteria 1.1 The actions needed to achieve high quality, job-related, performance-based training programs eligible for accreditation have been identi-fled through a systematic evaluation of existing programs.
Suggested Response Provide a brief description of the evaluation process used to deter-mine systematically the status of existing training programs when compared to the INPO accreditation objectives and criteria.
Criteria 1.2 Written corporate and plant goals establish the required character and quality of key aspects of the training system. Supporting objec-tives are implemented at each organizational level.
Suggested Response Attach a copy of current corporate and plant goals and supporting objectives that pertain to training. Describe how the goals and objectives are implemented and how accomplishment is measured.
Criteria 1.3 The responsibilities and authority of personnel involved in managing, supervising, and implementing training are clearly defined in writing and permit effective control of the training process.
B-7
Suggested Response Attach a copy of organization charts that show how the training organization (s) fit (s) into the utility's organizational structure and a copy of position descriptions / guides and/or other documents that describe the responsibilities and authority of all site person-nel involved in managing, supervising, and implementing training. If necessary, provide a narrative to amplify the attachments.
Criteria 1.4 A training system is implemented as the primary management tool for developing, conducting, and evaluating training.
Suggested Response Provide a description of the training system nodel that is imple-mented as the primary management tool for developing, conducting, and evaluating all training functions.
Criteria 1.5 Procedures are implemented to ensure that instructional activities l
can be conducted reliably and consistently.
l Suggested Response Attach a copy of current training procedures pertinent to this report. If necessary, provide a narrative to amplify the attachments.
Criteria 1.6 Training to be completed prior to qualification is clearly defined.
Exemptions from training may be granted when justified and supported by a documented assessment of prior training and experience.
f Suggested Response Provide a brief description of the training that is to be completed prior to qualification for the position for which the trainee is being prepared, as well as a description of the criteria and proce-dures used to grant exemptions from training.
B-8
Criteria 1.7 Training records are maintained to support management information needs and provide required historical data.
Suggested Response Attach a sample training program and trainee record. If necessary, provide a narrative to amplify the attachments.
Criteria 1.8 Programs offered under contract remain under the control of the sponsoring utility and are evaluated by it to ensure thf. the INPO accreditation objectives and criteria are met.
Suggested Response Provide a brief description of the methods / procedures for approving, monitoring, and controlling contracted training. Attach forms, reports, and responses that illustrate control and monitoring of contracted training.
Criteria 1.9 The work load of the training staff indicates that there are suff t-cient qualified personnel to accomplish assigned duties and responsibilities.
Suggested Response Provide a brief description of the method or procedure used to deter-mine training staff size and to establish work load standards. Iden-tify any authorized positions that are vacant.
B-9
R0 STER OF TRAINING STAFF Directions: Complete the attached roster for all training personnel. Each utility training site should have a separate roster.
In com-pleting the roster, refer to the following:
o Name and position title - Use titles descriptive of the individual's primary function (example, " instrument technician instructor" rather than
" training specialist").
o Program subjects - List the training programs or portions of programs that the individual is qualified to teach.
o Hours per week conducting training - Report the approximate average number of hours per week over the past 12 months-during which the individual presented instruction or worked directly with trainees.
o Years of education and fields of study - Report the number of years of formal education (i.e., high school, technical school, and college). For any part-time college study, report equivalent academic years. Report the areas of specialization for any post-secondary education.
o Related technical training - Report formal training programs completed.
o Instructional skills training - Report formal training programs com-pleted.
o Years of instructional experience - Report work experience as an instructor, o Years of work experience related to training areas - Report work experi-ence in a technical field closely related to the area (s) in which the individual provides training, not including time as a trainer, and date of most recent industry experience.
o Other qualifications - Report other technical' qualifications related to the area (s) in which the individual provides training.
Include NRC licenses and utility certifications.
B-10
ROSTER OF TRAINING STAFF l
Programs / subjects Average Years of I
.Name and position in which hours / week education /
title (indicate qualified to conducting fields if part-time) provide training training of study l
Years of work Related Instructional experience Other technical skills related to qualifi-training training training areas cations B-11
B-12
b 4
APPENDIX C I
DEFINITIONS e
4 4
r DEFINITIONS The definitions given below are for the purpose of this document.
Accreditation - A process to recognize formally and approve nuciear utility training as meeting established criteria.
Accreditation Team - A group of individuals representing INP0 with collective expertise in nuclear power plant operations, nuclear utility training, instructional processes, and training evaluation. This team reviews the utility's self-evaluation report, visits training sites, evaluates training, and prepares a report of its conclusions and recommendations.
Accreditation Self-Evaluation - An evaluation of utility training programs measured against the accreditation criteria, conducted by the utility, and described in a written report.
Accrediting Board - A group of individuals collectively having expertise in nuclear power plant operations, nuclear and non-nuclear industrial training, instructional processes, and educational accreditation. This board is responsible for making the decision to award or defer accreditation.
Individualized Instruction - A method of instruction in which the pace of training is controlled by the trainee and guided by the program materials.
Job Analysis - A method used in obtaining a detailed listing of the duties and tasks of a specific job.
Learning Objective - A statement that specifies measurable behavior that a trainee should exhibit after instruction, including the conditions and stan-dards for performance.
Lesson Plan - An instructor's primary training document that outlines instruc-tor and trainee activities, the learning objectives, and the resources neces-sary for the conduct of training.
C-1
On-the-Job Training (0JT) or In-Plant Training - A training setting in which trainees achieve learning objectives through structured training conducted in the job environment.
Performance-Based Instruction - A systematic program of instruction designed around tasks and the related knowledge and skills required for competent job performance.
Qualifications - The combination of an individual's physical attributes and technical, academic, and supervisory knowledge and skills developed through training, education, and demonstrated on-the-job performance.
Task - A well-defined unit of work having an identifiable beginning and end and two or more elements.
Task Analysis - The systematic process of examining a task to identify required skills or knowledge.
Training - Instruction designed to develop or improve on-the-job performance of a trainee or worker.
Training Organization - A utility organizational unit that provides technical training and/or is responsible for ensuring the quality of the training.
Training Program - A planned, organized sequence of activities designed to prepare individuals to perform their jobs and meet a specific position or classi.fication need.
Training Setting - The environment in which training is conducted and learning occurs. Training settings include classroom, laboratory and workshop, formal on-the-job training, simulator, and individualized instruction.
Training Site - The location at which training programs are conducted for nuclear utility personnel.
C-2 l
Training System - A set of interrelated activities used to methodically estab-lish and maintain performance-based training (for example, Training System Development, Instructional System Development, and Systematic Approach to Training).
?
C-3
ke NN N
~,
..M 6 %-
estbeeerums9ebeneansof abeomweesmeieceedto ^
__ _ wuser sesgeoyam ByoutestyouhavebeenWhease.
stdomedtohonentsW orcIherweeahID.'. _
undsfue ForemenWemaf mass teks ermesget youeryaw __
_. have top to he a enessecompaws esih nie act hear mem NPdere sono medayof measeged _ _ _ _ _ _ The comptees showd es ears to Tennessee Vasey W N 88E988E -. - Opponway. 400 Commerce Aveste. EPS 14. Ikuenses. Tenresesse 37902 The em TM --
. appear e Part 1302 of Tee te or toCode at Feders ga am A copy of to.
may be chiamed en asesosi ny erem0TM al me edeces yven above Ptened m U S A
F-0 NOG
'"stit"te f r
I w
Nudear Power sn Operations 1100 Circle 75 Parkway Suite 1500 m
Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Telephone 404 953-3600 C
(f.).
"1 N
E UO coY 8
m
. TP. M 3..,.
4,.;
' [
,4
-.S'
-^
(
. e' -
- i c
q.,.g.g m qq:.q % V,:'
w;r.A.
n p:gf;g. e
.-.m es s
a,,.e.-
y r..w.. m.
y wyn,,
c gr, g-c
[
.b A.(.
fN:
'}.
. my f;fQ'.:.
g *;.y
~,
.ih
+
,+
~g+k t
. ~ _
3:;y[a,j,;gs..: ly;i ;.4.
J ':,
w.
s mg %m..;
~.,
- .36
- .
6g;.
.e x
a.y3
~
. ~:
m h,h
- .'N' -
l
,~
+lk j ghh-fES;d
[ M R$.b.
~y. wjpg.
[$.,
g..,
{R~. :.
4,
- 4. 4,.,
,~:..,..
g v6.. ^ ;yp.: g..4 3#...;x... p.+.hy e
r s
- r.,
m-4 p
,.U 4
s..,.
2
+
,I...
lp.. -,,
. pig *e 7 4 C y g;.j,,wlM;l y
, y qn
..en m+
g e
' n S 7li):[-
3,
. q%
,M s
"~'e~vy dy
- 4tt c
- ul fr:r.
^*
yy N:.'[
m a,,s r
5--
N,
.g,..
M e
f%,
{
.) rt N [
h'k
(
D'
- fN.
M
'I
[d.-
h
'"f
- 'N'@
M 5'M h 8 ".'g'%
.hi.,,.O
- Q.
g
Ghthphph{hphphghfhph[hphphph k
i iG ff
(
12/82 TRANSMITIAL 70:
Document (bntrol Desk, 016 Phillips
'v ADVANCED COPY TO: /
/
The Public Document RxIn j
IP
[//7/k/
h:
DATE:
cc: OPS File 3
f 4
jp f
C&R (Natalie)
Attached are copies of a Ominission meeting transcript (s) and related neeting doctanent(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placanent in the Public Document BocIn. No other distribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual doctanents wherever known.
Meeting
Title:
/ h r h,. M, / h 4 A._c. o A b o b g y 2
f _-o l
kmlU Meeting Date:
// o /fJ '
Open X Closed 3
DCS Copies (1 of each checked)
Iten
Description:
(bpies 3
Advanced Original May Duplicate j
To PDR Document be Dtp*
Copy
- E!
- (l 1.
TRANSCRIPT 1
1 Nhen checked, DCS should send a y
copy of this transcript to the LPDR for:
4)lAb nn /hA]
f h
2.
/Ltx.. M sJ Ok
~:
5 3
f 3.
I 5
E l
M 4.
3 bN' (PDR is advanced one copy of each document,
- Verify if in DCS, and two of each SECY paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
p-P.
memwnwawawnwnwnwnwawmwnwenwnwnwawd
6/10/85 - Briefing by Representatives of INPO Accrediting Board Attachments:
1.
Accrediting Board Membership
. 2.
Executive Summary, January, 1985 3.
Status of Training Accreditation, May 1985 4.
INPO Accreditation Objectives 5.
. Training:
A National Accomplishment
- 6..._The Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry I
l l
L 1
4 i
.. -