ML20136E649
| ML20136E649 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1983 |
| From: | Bender L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Booher H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312190308 | |
| Download: ML20136E649 (5) | |
Text
-
/
Y
[.M 9: '
l l
.%7
~ C"HED CRIGlliC 00, *>28
~
c:rtu-IJ7 DEC O 11983 TDE fiC:10PANDUf1 FOR: Harold R. Bocher, Chief Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factors Safety THRU:
J. J. Persensky, Section Leader Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factors Safety FROM:
Louis S. Bender Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Hunan Factors Safety SUCJECT:
INP0 ACCREDITATION TENI VISIT - NOVEttBER 7-11, 1983 During the week of November 7-11, I observed a team cenposed of nine INP0 staff nenbers and four industry peer evaluators (Enclosure A) conduct an evaluation of five training programs at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. The following training prograns were evaluated:
(1) Licensed Operator Training (2) Nonlicensed Operator Training (3) Licensed Operator Requalification Training (4) Shift Technical Advisor Training (5) Management / Engineering Training The purpose of this visit was to examine these programs and evaluate'how well they neet the related INP0 accreditation criteria. This process also aids the utility in assessing its strengths and weaknesses in training.
From the data collected during this evaluation, a report will be formulated which will detail the team's conclusions and recommendations. This report will then be submitted to the utility for their response. The utility will then submit a written response to this report. The report and the utility's response will finally be submitted to the INP0 Accrediting Board.
The remainder of my report is divided into fnur sections:
- Daily overview of the process
- Strengths of the process
- Weaknesses of the process
- Conclusions DAILY OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS g 3 g 7 g q o 3 o g'g ilonday, November 7 An introductory meeting between the INP0 tean and Seounyah personnel war held.
Thc accreditaticn tean, subdi vided into ei ght smaller d eans, with I"PO OFFICE)
...............~...u
... u. a... o n.unn an n o
on.
..onn. on..."
"..."annaa tua m e>
our)
...........~
. ~.............
uv c=cvau.u J=uwar6v-uoucram
.. ~c-
i l
' i l
and industry individuals assigned with either process or content duties, then r.et with the respective Sequoyah progran personnel for the remainder of the day. The purpose of these meetings was to gain an overview of the respective Sequoyah traiding prograns. At the end of the day, the process group and the centent group each net separately to discuss strengths, weaknesses and areas of concern evolving from the day's meetings. Then at a general meeting, each person was allotted five minutes to share his/her findings of the day.
Tuesday, November 8 To begin the norning, each team met with respective Sequoyah progran personnel to discuss the findings of the previous day.
The remainder of thes day consisted of activities such as:
interviews with instructors, review of j
lesson plans and tests, observation of classroon and simulator sessions, and review of training records. At the end of the day, the same procedure was followed - the two groups met separately and discussed the findings of the day. Then at a general meeting, each individual was given time (the five minute time allotment was relaxed) to share his/her findings.
Wednesday, November 9 As before, the day was begun with eaeh team neeting with respective Sequoyah personnel to discuss findings of the previous day.
The remainder of the day consisted of review activities perforned at the Sequoyah nuclear power plant.
These activities included:
interviews with personnel (e.g., STAS, shif t supervisors, operators, instructors, administrative personnel), review of training records, and a review of the academic progran.
At the end of the day, the same process of the tean and general meetings was followed.
Thursday, November 10 Like previous nornings, each team met with respective Sequoyah personnel to discuss the findings of the previous day. The renainder of the day included:
follow up interviews, continued review of lesson plans, tests, and the initial writing of individual sunmaries (due to Team Hanager by Friday noon).
The same process of the team and general neetings was followed. The general meeting focused on the final areas of concern and recommendations which were not resolved and would be included in the individual summaries.
i i
Fridav, November 11 Once more, each team net in the morning with respective Sequoyah personnel to discuss the previous day's findings. Other activities included:, final interviews and data gathering, and the completion of individual sunnaries. A 1
l meeting was held between the INPO Team llanager, Assistant Manager and selected Sequoyah training personnel. The purpose of this meeting was to brief Sequoyah personnel about the strengths, weaknesses and reconnendations which would be made concerning the five training prograns. These remarks will form the basis of the Final Report.
oncey SUR NAAA,E h i
en y i
mwauu Fuarar=noumm
I t
. STRENGTHS OF THE PROCESS
- The process itself very thorough, in-depth look at all phases of a training progran,
" luxury" of looking at a single training progran for 4-1/2 days, early morning meetings with appropriate personnel to discuss strengths, weaknesses, areas of concerns determined from the previous day, end-of-the-day neetings which gave individuals a chance to share (and sometines defend) findings of the day.
constant communication between the INP0 team and utility personnel at all levels, good professional interaction between INP0 Team Manager, Assistant Tean Manager, process and centent leads and industry peer team nenbers.
- Commitment of INP0 to this process
- Expertise of INP0 personnel in this process
- Expertise, comnitment and involvenent of industry peers
- Effect of accreditation upon training in the nuclear industry (Note: There is no doubt in my mind the positive effect that this process will have upon the industry.
In nost cases, this upgrading of training would not be taking place if it were not for a utility desiring accreditation status.)
- Future aid to NRC training inspections (Note:
In the future, when NRC training inspections are " SAT-based," an accredited utility will be able to
" lay it all cut" when the NRC inspectors arrive.)
WEAYJiESSES OF THE PROCESS
- Criteria comnents were made that the criteria (especially the questions accompanying the criteria) were too general and/or too specific.
(Note:
Criteria are in the process of being revised - no date yet for revised Criteria.)
- Final Report currently peer nenbers write their individual summaries, submit them to INPO for formulation into the Final Report, but never recciWe a copy of this Report.
under the current systen, sone peer nenbers feel:
(1)
INPO doesn't trust then to see the Report, or (2)
INP0 doesn't respect their professional opinions enough for their sunmaries to be the Final Report, or omcep maae >
ene>
wanwxuu 3=v wwwu.m
s (3)
ItiP0 will rewrite the findings so nuch that they wouldn't recognize then.
(Note:
In an effort to correct this weakness, the It4P0 Team lianager announced Friday norning that they were strongly considering calling each peer teara nenber after the Draft Report was written and elicit coments concerning their individual section.
This would allow peer team members to have further knowledge about the contents of their particular section. The Final Report would then be written.)
- Self-Evaluation Report (SER) some members felt that the SER prepared by the utility could have been s l
nore specific and contained more in-depth infomation in accordance with the Criteria. One member blaned the lack of specificity upon the directions for preparation of the SER. Another blamed INPO for their acceptance of a weak SER.
(Note:
Self-Evaluation Report is in the process of being revised - no date yet for revised SER.)
- INPO Team Dominance
(
two members expressed that the team was comprised of too many INPO personnel as opposed to peer evarluators (Note:
INP0 acknowledged this situation and stated there were more INPO personnel involved on this visit because of the number of programs (5) to be evaluated and that they were using this visit as a training session for INP0 personnel.
In the future, the configuration of a team is hoped to be four industry peer evaluators and two INPO personnel. This will enable INPO to have three or four teans ready to go when needed.)
- Consistency of Accreditation since this is a dynamic process, and will continue to be, consistency of compliance with the criteria must be ensured. Will we look back and see that Oconee "had it easier" because it was the first plant with accredited programs? Are the Criteria being used the same in every case?
" Objectivity of INPO one peer nenber voiced concern about the objectivity of INPO. lie had serious problems with the adequacy of the program that he was evaluating. He expressed this concern based upon the information stated in the SER, the data that he was collecting as well as the gomitments nade by the utility.. His concern was that if he recomended withdrawal of the progran for accreditation, would his concern be seriously considered? ile felt that the highly political relationship of INPO with its members could possibly result in scme "conpromising" of the omes >
sunwave b can p
~ - -., -.... o e e n o n en ov_
g DISTRIBUTION:
f.
Central Files LQB Reading J. Persensky
- LQB Members Criteria. He also stated that since he would never see the Final Report, how could he be certain that his concerns would be properly stated.
I
'Prepa ration looking back upon the Accreditation Tean Training Workshop which all industry personnel attended, two peer menbers felt that the workshop contained "too much motherhood" and not enough specific infomation as to the level and depth of data now to be collected.
They felt that working with scoe simulated data (e.g., lesson plans, tests) and seeing examples of " acceptable answers" would have been beneficial.
CONCLUSIONS
'I am impressed with the accreditation tean visit phase.
It is a thorough, well-executed process following logically from the self-evaluation phase, providing valuable input into the accreditation decision.
"I suggest that NRC conduct future observations since this process is, and will continue to be, a dynamic one..We need to keep abreast of the changes nade in this process.
'I suggest that future NRC observations be conducted on a Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday basis. Monday is a good day to see the process unfold, while Tuesday and Wednesday are the prime days to observe the bulk of the evaluation work.
'There was constant usage of the Criteria (and accenpanying questions) and all programs were evaluated against these Criteria.
'The general attitude of the utility toward accreditation was very positive and all utility menbers were most helpful to the IUP0 team.
- The peer team members also expressed a positive attitude toward accreditation, and for the most part, agreed with the definition of their roles on the tean.
Original signed by:
Louis S. Bender Licensee Oualifications 3 ranch Division of Human Factors Safety cc:
H. Thompson ;
W. Aussell bF
........./..D.H IS LQB
..,L..Q..B../..D..H F S c,,,u,
--o
...LBs.n.ds.r!...r.....J P,g[,s,gn,s h,
......./.....'./.8 3 12
......./.../.../. 8 3 12 em>
(cNZS2WctRAJLSUM4EDoMN/
es m ini-22.,