ML20137D476

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of Observation of INPO Accreditation Team Visit During Wk of 850930-1004 of Util Power Plant Training Programs.List of INPO Evaluation Team Members Encl
ML20137D476
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy 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 -- -

i

'

W .

wzel t

-

V DISTRIBUTION: F

b[ W d '

$-d ceGre1LFj1e_s, *

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

STA(SE)TrainingProgram -

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 > ...................... ..................... ........................ .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- .>

-ons>

.

.. P

pgug pu p

,

. . . . . . .

.......

......................

...................

.......................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.....................

.......................

,

g anc ronu sis oow nncu eno O'FFICIAL R ECOR D COPY uscro. m w,w

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

........................ ..........~.......... . . . . ~ . . . ~ . . . . - . . . - . ~ . - ~ . . . . - . . - . . - . . . . - - . . ~ .

m> ..1L].86.. ..... ...%.1.B6........ ....................... ..............-...~. - . . . - - . . . - . . . . . - - . . . . - . . - - . . . . . . ~ . - - - -

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 ,,-