ML20137D476
| ML20137D476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1986 |
| From: | Goodman C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Booher H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8601160671 | |
| Download: ML20137D476 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000930/2010004
Text
py
--
-
W
.
wzel t
'
i
b[ W d
V
DISTRIBUTION:
F
$ ceGre1LFj1e_s,
-
-d
'
MTB R/F
CGoodman
."
JPersensky
ABlumer
o
.JAN 101985
JBuzy
JKoontz
DMorisseau
MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Booher, Chief
MRoe
Maintenance and Training Branch
PDR-
Division of Human Factors Technology
THRU:
J. J. Persensky,~Section Leader
Personnel Training Section
Haintenance and Training Branch
Division of Human Factors Technology
FROM:
Clare Goodman
Facilities Operations Branch
Division of Boiling Water Reactor Licensing
SUBJECT:
OBSERVATION OF INP0 ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT VERMONT
YANKEE _ NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
^
--
=
Introduction
During the week of September 30'- October 4, 1985,-I observed the INP0
Accreditation Team evaluation of the following Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Plant training programs:
Licensed R0 and SR0 Training Program
Nonlicensed Operator Training Program
-
This evaluation was conducted according to INP0 85-002, " Criteria for the
Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry," dated January 1985.
!:
A listing of the INP0_ Evaluation Team Members is enclosed with this report.
Phil McCullough served as the overall Team Manager. The INP3 Evaluation Team
Members were divided into two teams to address Process and Content, each with
a separate Team Leader.
The Accreditation Process
On Monday morning,'a training session was conducted by the Team Manager and
the Team Leaders for the peer evaluators from INPO member utilities.
Otherwise, the accreditation process was essentially the same as in prior team
visits as ob w ved by NRC staff members (see memorandum dated August 7, 1985,
from Moriss- ,a to Booher).
Observations
-I used the. Accreditation Team Observttion Protocol during this INPO Team
visit. The answer to all the questions on the checklist was "yes."
Some
items from the Observation Protocol w re completed in considerable detail
..
while'othe r items were only briefly addressed by the INP0 team .
omer >
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
pgug pu
- .>
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
,
P
p
-ons>
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
,
O'FFICIAL R ECOR D COPY
uscro. m
w,w
g anc ronu sis oow nncu eno
\\
\\
o
)
Harold R. Bocher
-2-
JAN 101985
i
I attended numerous meetings and interviews during my 5 day observation.
Monday afternoon, I attended a general introduction and overview of the INPO
Accreditation Team Visit process with the- Plant Manager. Tuesday through
Friday, I attended morning briefings between INP0 and utility staff. These
meetings reviewed the INPO concerns resulting from their findings of the
previous day. I also observed as many interviews with both training and
operations personnel as I could. At the end of each day, I attended either
the Content or the Process daily evaluation wrap-up meeting, and then I
attended the final wrap-up meeting conducted by the overall Team Manager. At
the final wrap-up meeting, presentations were made by both the Process and
Content Team Leaders, but all Team Members were present and could add their
viewpoints. On Friday, I attended the exit briefing for the utility staff.
The Team Manager summarized the findings from the week long visit and
discussed future steps toward Accreditation. The Team Leaders then presented
a summary of their group's findings. The Team Manager then stated that a
formal exit meeting with the Vermont Yankee findings would be hold in 3 or 4
weeks.
Results
The following were some of the Vermont Yankee concerns expressed by INP0
about the Vermont Yankee training program:
An overall training program description needs to be prepared for
Varmont Yankee.
The program description should be jointly endorsed by operations and
training.
Learning objectives need to be written for the nonlicensed operator
program.
The continuing training progra for nonlicensed operators needs to be
documented.
A tormal OJT program for operators needs to be developed.
Tasks from the JTA for SCR0s only need to be identified in the
/
instructor guides and the instructor guides should be based on those
tasks.
"
Job descriptions of operations personnel need to be updated to
include training tasks (i.e., Shift Supervisors).
Qualification Standards for Operators are necessary.
Short Term Instructors need to be evaluated formally,
ome >
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . - - - ~ ~ ~
~ ~ . - - . - -
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
sua m e>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l
omy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
me ronu sia ooao) mcu om
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
umm mi-m-em
y
(
.
g
,
)
Harold R. Bocher
-3-
The continuing training program for the Shift Engineer needs to be
formalized and documented.
I
- A Qualification Standard for the Shift Engineer is necessary.
A commitment that all future training candidates will participate in
an accredited training program is necessary.
Conclusions
Vermont Yankee
-
The INP0 Evaluation Team Members did a thorough job of reviewing
Vermont Yankee against the criteria for Accreditation.
The process appeared to be highly professional and labor intensive.
I noted a healthy emphasis on continuing training.
Vermont Yankee has an excellent plant-specific JTA.
General
-
It appears that while Vermont Yankee and the industry have made large
strides in training, the Accreditation process is moving too fast. A
slower pace may be more beneficial to all parties concerned.
I found that observing one INP0 Accreditation Team visit was
beneficial, but that more than two visits for one individual is
probably unnecessary.
Original signed by
Clare Goodman
Facilities Operations Branch
Division of Boiling Water Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated
DW/CG6/VY ACCREDITATION
-
oma> .9Bi
.A... ...P.T.4
T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . - - .
. . . - . . . . . - .
. . - . . ~ . . . - . . . . .
su-- > C.G99.d..e .l.b.r... 4.4.h...e.
. ... . ..n.s.kx
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ~ . . . ~ . . . . - . . .
- . ~ . - ~ . . . . - . .
- . . - . . . . - - . . ~ .
..1L].86.. .....
...%.1.B6........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . ~ .
- . . . - - . . . - . .
. . . - - . . . . - . . - -
. . . . . . ~ . - - - -
m>
nac ronu su po-soinncu cua
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
umm m-mm
-
a
..
.
Enclosure 1
INP0 EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS
Team Manager
Phil McCullough
Team Leader Process: Larry Durham
Team' Leader Content: Jerry Olson
t
Team Assignments for Evaluation
Objectives for
Organization & Staff
Evaluation
Rich Stickney (WNP)
1, 3
ChipFenton(GPU)
1, 2
NLO Program
SamNewton(INPO)
3, 4-10 Content Criteria
John Price (Callaway)
4-10 Process' Criteria
R0/SR0 Program
John Wyrick (WNP)
3, 4-10 Content Criteria
Bill Nevins (INP0)
3, 4-10 Content Critaria
STA Program
KenNorris(CommonwealthEdison)
3, 4-10 Content Criteria
Bill Nevins (INPO)
4-10 Process Criteria
Evaluation
,
SteveVolmer(RanchoSeco)
1-12
,,-