ML20136H374

Intervenor Exhibit I-TMIA-8,consisting of 840302 Interofc Memo Re Observation of Training Course at B&W Facility in Lynchburg,Va.Training Appeared Effective.Addl Simulator Training Will Be Requested

ML20136H374
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	01/02/1985
From:	Coe R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:	Bryan Leonard GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
References
SP-I-TMIA-008, SP-I-TMIA-8, NUDOCS 8508200280
Download: ML20136H374 (8)

Text

',

fun -tb g 4LAS W

- Nuclear ormcrcndum Subject ATOG MW Simulator Training Week of Oate: March 2. 1984 February 20 - 24, 1984 RPC-84-008 From: R. P. Coe, Director - Training & Location: Parsippany Education To: Bruce I.eonard, Operator Training Manager - TMI I want to' share several observations and concerns that I had during the several days I was at the MW facility in Lynchburg, Virginia. Overall I would say that the training observed from an instructional content and delivery perspec-tive was professionally well done and reasonably well coordinated between TMI and MW. The schedule for the week was well planned. As far as time use, I tended to find in several situations that the instructor ran out of time in both the simulator training and the classroom. I'll address some concerns later in this memo.

Evaluation Check List

1. Does the instructor have documented learning objectives for each exercise?

All instructors both in the classroom and simulator had documented learning objectives for each of the exercises. The learning objectives I reviewed were, for the most part, specific enough to clearly identify the activity.

There were a few objectives that were poorly written and did not clearly indicate measurable end results. Another concern I had was that some of the student handouts and lesson plans had objectives listed by letter while others had the objectives listed by number. This gave the appearance that the objectives were collected from different sources and were not put into a single format. We also received a reaction from the NRC saying that this practice was a little bit " sloppy."

2. How does the instructional staff ensure that trainees participate in the regulatory required transients?

I found that the MW staff did insure that trainees participated in the required transients as outlined by the AT0G committee. The instructional staff did allow time for the operators to ask questions during the freeze portion of the simulator scenarios, and at the end of each scenario I found that Mr. Shipman's debriefing of each exercise and how it related back to plant specific situations, was an excellent reinforcement of the lesson.

It is my opinion that Mr. Henry Shipman played a very valuable role in that part of the training cycle. -

3. Were the operators provided an opportunity to request particular transients or events be simulated?

This was not observed as far as operators requesting specific transients or events to be simulated. However, when specific questions were asked about a selected portion of the scenario, they were readily given the in-formation they needed.

Aooooe4s s.s3 8508200280 850102 PDR ADOCK 05000289 G PDR

6

&D

\

G 9 "n '

8

• f n, #9k w) t' kEg

%. "?

'.. s. '5 _ -

~s sw::l%5 %r

~ p' og ~v R x , ,

4 P 33 2 r March 2, 1984 i

4 l 4 Do the instructor nuides allow effective evaluation of trainee performance assinst some standard?

For the most part I found that there was effective evaluation techniques used to assess trainee performance against standards. I had a concern ,

that this was somewhat defused as a single feedback mechanism and that there is need of one central source to take all formal evaluations and #

coordinate their dissemination. I was unable to find out what the next

) step was after simulator training as to how these evaluations are fed j into the next scheduled series of simulator or classroom training activities.

5. What is the process used by instructors to evaluate individual and team

.l oerformance on plant operations and transient scenarios?

) This proved to be another area of concern. I found that as each simulator scenario was executed I did not hear a specific feedback mechanism citing I how "Zo3" o (individual or team) did related to that particular exercise.

During the entire time I observed the actual conduct of the simulator j scenarios, I found that very little use was made of the data being generated j by the trend recorder. When it was used, it proved to be a very offective i

feedback and reinforcement mechanism on how the team was conducting the scenario. In subsequent discussions on the evaluation of individual and team performance, Mr. Heilmeyer indicated that he would collect data from his instructors and would feed it back to Mike Ross at the end of the week,

! right after the examination. This appeared to be a loosely structured

! . process that was not formally documented either after each scenario or at the end of the simulator training day. It would appear that such a practice i would allow a lot of slippage in the accurate collection of key data that j could be used to feedback to TMI Operations and Training personnel.

6. Are the operatina team assianments clearly identified and does the aroup l communicate offectively?

l l The operating team I observed, on the simulator, did work well together i

and the shift foreman and the two console operators along with Mr. Kacinko conducted most of the exercises as if they were real in-olant situations.

There were times I observed the group shift supervisor and the B&W instruc-tor' conducting separate informational gsthering discussions. These dis-l cussions took valuable time from their direct observation of the group's l l

performance on the simulator. '

l 7. Are the trainees niven clear instructions on the difference between the simulator /olant and TMI control room / plant features?

l It appeared that clear instructions were given to the difforences between l the B&W Simulator and the TMI control room. Mr. Kacinko played an active ,

role as both an instructor,and a team member in the conduct of the panel manipulations.

8. Are TMI' procedures and technical specifications used. and are trainees reinforced in the importance of comoliance with procedures and operating limits? ,

During the conduct of the classroom segment of the training as well as the '

simulator scenarios, I found that for that' adequate coverage of TMI pro-cedures and technical specifications were used to reinforce the importance of compliance.

i l P:33 3 4

March 2, 1984

9. Are exercises conducted in a manner that requires the operator to diaanose )

and predict the response of the plant under specific considered or planned )

i actions or inactions? ,

The simulator exercises were structured to produce a realistic learning

situation reflective of the activities selected by the ATOG committee.

4 I had a concern as to the conduct of the simulator scenarios. It seemed that on several occasions a scenario was started with someone still looking

. for final instructions and there appeared to be no common starting point for ,

t everyone. When the scenario was underway and the entire team and the MW l l

instructor were actively involved, there was an apparent sense of realism that should be constantly reinforced by TMI Operations and Training manage-ment. Every simulator scenario should be approached.as if it were "the i real'thina." To do this requires a better organization on the part of

MW to

1. uniformally start an exercise, 2. freeze an exercise, 3. complete l and/or terminate an exercise in unison.

10. Did the instructor create a stressful environment to observe how the 1 operator performs under stress?

I did not observe the MW instructors create a stressful environment for the  !

i y/ operators to work in. Several of the scenarios tended to create their own stressful situation especially if it was a large enough LOCA or transient.

i l Here again, I felt that the MW instructors and the on-site TMI representa-l tives could have placed a greater emphasis on the attitude compliance to the i reality of'the scenario.

1

! 11. Were the trainees recuired to role-olay actions and/or communications with l out-of-control-room activities reauired durina similar evolutions at TMI?

i On two occasions I observed a scenario that had the group shift supervisor declare a site emergency. After his announcement the group did not appear

~

to act in a manner of seriousness proportionate to this being the real l thing. It was not until the scenario progressed in intensity that the team i' integrated into a single working unit. Here again this must be emphasized by the GPUN training and management representatives as well as MW. The "we" ,

' must treat each scenario as if it were real, t I

! 12. Are loss kept and used in oost-transient analysis discussions?

I did not observe any recording in logs and the post transient analysis

! discussions were the instructors just ger.erally summing up the scenario.

l

13. Durina simulated abnormal plant transients, are trainees reautred to identify any E-Plan responses and notifications durina any of the transients l

which exceed E-Plan action levels?

I observed two simulator scenarios that were required to comply with E-Plan '

responses and notifications. These appeared to be conducted in a timely and correct manner. I did not observe any conditions that exceeded E-Plan action levels.

..~--_-~-.,-,--..--.m_ -,_--~_ - r .- - , _ ~ - - .,.--,.,.r . . . - , -

Pcg3 5 o' March 2, 1984

20. .What mechanisms exist to evaluate and document the students' performance (both strennehs and weaknesses)? How is this information transmitted to GPUN?

There are established mechanisms for evaluating and documenting student performance. This is an area we could strengthen by having more frequent ,

documented evaluations, a common system that everyone including MW uses. -

to establish a track that automatically feeds these evaluations to all appropriate personnel. This mechanism should formally use this informa-tion in a post-simulator evaluation and in preparation for the next simu-lator cycle.

General Observations & Comments I must again compliment Mr. Henry Shipman's role in the simulator training  !

segment I observed. Working closely with the MW instructor, Mr. Shipman  !

offered a dimension of realise in the debriefing and feedback of performance on each simulator scenario to the operators. In a meeting with the NRC, it was discovered that a test question was not properly structured to assess a specific behavioral learning objective. Mr. Shipman assured that on-site follow-u'p would be conducted to be sure that all of the operators were aware t of the proper procedure. This included operators in previous sessions.

. STA in-traininn I observed Mr. Parsons who was an STA in-trainee with the simulator group. Mr. Parsons is a very bright and energic young man who appeared eager to learn and proved his understanding in many of the transient situations. I had a concern that questions generated from the STA  !

trainee were taking time away from the MW instructors actively inter-j facing with the operators. We'should be careful to realize that the -

simulator training is a priority for the operators and nothing should i detract from their scheduled time. This situation was resolved by Mr. Shipman. We should, as an on-going practice, have a clear under-standing of the different roles during simulator training.: ,

. Conduct of the simulator scenarios One of the concerns I had about the sense of " realism":during several of the scenarios was that different members of the group were conducting sideline conversations while a scenario was being conducted. Some of

, the. conversations were leginate in that they were requesting additional-l information needed to react properly. Other conversations were not j business related. There should be an emphasis by all concerned that

every simulator scenario conducted be as business-like and realistic .)

l as possible.. The shift-foreman, shift supervisor and MW instructor j should conduct necessary conversations as needed but at no time should-4 their focus of attention be taken away from directly observing the )

j operator's' performance. This situation could be better addressed if l l each simulater scenario were more tightly modularized with a clear l l starting point and a clear completion / termination point with the l l

! 1

P go 6 March 2, 1984 1, e,

! necessary freeze and feedback periods as appropriate. We cannot expect the operators to act serious if we as observers and instructors do not set the proper example.

. NRC Visit l

On Wednesday (February 22, 1984) we received a visit from three NRC

personnel and there was a very noticeable increase in the seriousness l of the simulator scenarios. I was pleased that the entire team became i

more formal and serious in the conduct of the simulator exercises after the NRC arrived. This should be the on-going attitude imparted by every-4 i

one concerned and not a reaction to "special observers."

1 Operator Panel Manipulations Durina Scenario

/ .

It should be emphasized that the operators and the shift foreman are to keep eye contact with the panel at all times, and they should not have to break this contact to secure appropriate informational support.

There were several instances of people visually leaving their station j

to secure additional information or instructions.

i . Runnina Out of Time for Classroom and/or Simulator Scenarios j On several occasions the instructors ran out of time in the conduct

, of classroom instruction and/or a simulator scenario. For the most part the instruct:rs, anticipating the time loss, pulled the group together and conducted an appropriate summary. There was one time during a classroom situation when an instructor literally termina,ted the instruction and said, "Let's go to lunch."

j j . Observations of B&W Instructors I '

The following observations were shared with Mr. HeiImeyer about his instructors. All of the B&W staff members appeared to be technically l

well prepared and knowledgeable about the subjects they were teaching.

There were some basic violations of sound instructional techniques j such as poor overhead illustrations and unreadable data when using j the chalkboard. Some instructors were not being sensitive to crooked l

slide alignment on the overheed projector and several poorly prepared l

slides. One instructor on occasions was a little too informal and tended l

to personalize some sideline comments. On another occasion one instructor i provided information that was not on the lesson plan'or in the objectives

! but this proved helpful in the completion of the lesson and reinforcing to the operators.

. Structure of Scenarios If possible the simulator scenarios should be tightly modularized and structured to maximize the use of learning time as well as better or-genire the efforts of all concerned. An example might be that in a 40 to 50 minute scenario the structure might reflect the following:

- Introduction - 5 minutes '

- Practice - 10+ ninutes

- Freeze and debriefing - 10 minutes

! - Completion of scenario - 10+ minutes -

i - Debriefing and summary - 5 to 10 minutes.

l l

,, - - , , . . - . , , . , , , - . , . ,, - - -- ,. v,-. ,. , .~.-~-m,. ,vm.,-e---n, .,,_,--,.--.,,n~ -.--..v,, , ,

o Pcg2 7 March 2, 1984 9

. Structure of Scenarios (Continued) ,

Scenarios should also be started promptly since some valuable time was lost in the startup of a few simulator exercises.

B&W Instructor - Donald McIntyre I observed Mr. McIntyre directing the GPUN group on several simulator scenarios and found him to be well organized, very clear in his direc-tions to the group, and insistent that certain parameters be discussed and understood during the conduct of the scenarios. Mr. McIntyre used the trend recorder data very effectively and I felt that this reinforced his feedback given to the operators. During the freeze of one scenario Mr. McIntyre called the total group together and insisted on everyone's attention. He then proceeded to debrief the status of the scenario so that all could hear. This process should be consistent during the entire phase of simulator training.

Summary and Conclusions In summary, my time spent at the B&W Simulator was personally very educatonal and very rewarding to see the commitment GPUN has made with B&W in the conduct of ATOG training. The above comments are intended to address concerns I had about isolated incidents but in no way should we minimize our attention to ,

them. The classroom and simulator training that I observed appeared to be effective and for the most part made good use of everyone's time in attendance.

Mr. Shipman enhanced the training sessions with his presence and input and we I should look to the use of functional specialists to compliment B&W and GPUN personnel when appropriate. It would also appear that a greater consistency of effort could be achieved if channeled through a single liaison contact with all outside vendors. We should be very insistent on following GPUN standards, ,

at all times, in the development of progam content, learning objectives, lesson plans, handouts, and construction of tests. I am aware that some of the short-comings in this area are related to manpower shortages, but as an ongoing prac-tice we should strive wherever possible to assure this consistency. I under- '

i stand that TMI Operations will be requesting additional simulator training somewhere in the March 26 time frame. We should try to tie up some of the loose ends identified and place a priority to address as many of these issues ,

as soon as possible.  !

(

r R chard P. Coe, Ph.D.

Director Training &

Education RPC:ek cc: T. G. Broughton, Director - Systems Engineering H. Hukill, Vice President & Director - TMI R. A. Knief Manager - Plant Training -1MI-2 R.' L. Long, Vice President, Nuclear Assurance S. L. Newton, Manager - Plant Training - TMI

. H. Shipman, Manager - Operations Engineering i l

'_.. __ -, . . - . _ . . - . , _ , _ . _ _ . . . . . . . ,,, . . _ . . , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __. ,._._ ,_, __