ML20138B793
| ML20138B793 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/09/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2330, NUDOCS 8510220023 | |
| Download: ML20138B793 (25) | |
Text
-
- ' CERTIFIED COPY
'DATE ISSUED-October 9, 685 t.
i :3 ,
A d RS- A330 h Ob d 4
SUMMARY
AND MINUTES OF THE JUNE 20, 1985 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMIllEE ON HUMAN FACTORS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Burp osp,:
The ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors met on June 20, 1985 at 1/17 H Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20555 in Room 1046.
The purpose of the meeting was to identify problems, if any, with the operator requalification process, and outline additional Subcommittee meetings as may be required in order to recommend an appropriate action plan for the ACRS to propose to the Commission.
At this meeting a) the NRC Staff again described the-reactor operator requalification process, with emphasis on recent changes, presented an overview of requalification examina-tion results, and discussed a representative sample of r equ al i f i cat i on examinations; b) a representative from the National Board of Medical Enaminers, Dr. B. J. Andrew, briefed the Subcommittee on relicensing procedures in the medical industry; c) a group of nuclear power plant training managerc, members of " Qualification of Reactor Operators Utility Group", presented an industry view of the status of requalification; and d) representatives from Regions I through IV discussed their experiences with requalification.
Notice of the meeting, published in the Federal Register on Friday, May .31, 1985, is reproduced and shown as Attachment A. The schedule for the meeting is Attachment B. Sign-in sheets of meeting attendees are contained in Attachment C.
Attachment D contains a list of meeting handouts kept with the office copy of these minutes. The entire meeting was open to the public. Mr. John Schiffgens was the assigned ACRS Staff member for the meeting.
Attendees:
ACRS NRC Staff D. A. Ward, Chairman D. H. Beckham, DHFS C. J. Wylie, Member B. A. Boger, OLB G. A. Reed, Member T. L. S:ymanski, OLB K. L. Gimmy, Consultant S. F. Shankman, OLB R. A. Cushman, Fellow H. B. Kister, REG-I
'.l Q " V'1 ' f'"3 " Q Q Liitua v.nqu;fL
'o ; -. ;j 1
v i Cortified I?y_ [gh J +& 8510220023 PDR ACRS 851009 / -"
L _" _ t, -
2330 ppg
i-
' HUMAN FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20, 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES ACRS. NRC Staff M. M. De, Fellow R. M. Keller, REG-I J. FJack, F el l ow J. I. McMillen, REG-III J. O. Schiffgens, Staff R. A. Cooley, REG-IV R. Eaton, DHFS Other B. Wilson, REG-II T. C. Houghton, KMC R. E. Schaffer, PSE&G Other D. Roth, GP J. J. Wambold, So. Cal.E.
F. B. Stanasrak, Wis. Pub.S. J. A. Gonyeau, No.St.P.
R. B. Helmsath, Con.P. P. Richardson, N.H. Yankee
- 1. Sandner, NPPD R. Brungardt, NPPD M. D. Shepherd, F.P.&L. J. Nurmi, EMP C. Bafy, Bechtel R. T. Allen, Lom-Tech H. M. Fontecilla, Va.P. H. Specten, NYPA B. J. Andrew, NBME Meetina Hiohlichts. Aareements, and Requests:
Opening Statement -
D. Ward Mr. Ward discussed the meeting schedule briefly and emphasi:ed the need for the Subcommittee to take a comprehensive look at requalification and what a requalification program should do. Given that the NRC requalification process is in transition, he urged the Subcommittee to attempt to decide whether it is evolv-ing the way it should.
Reactor Operator Requalification Process -
B. Boger Mr. Boger indicated that some of his presentation would be a repeat of what was presented at the April Human Factors Subcommittee meeting on requalification. He said he would talk about NRC regulations concerning renewal of RO and SRO licenses, NRC involvement in requalification - past and present, and the changes in requalification programs that have cccurred over the last ten years.
When an individual applies for license renewal,'he must present his experience under the existing license, including the approximate number of hours during which he has operated the facility, a statement that he has satisfactorily concluded a requalification program, and the results of a medical examination. The NRC will renew the license a) if the physical condition of the applicant is satisfactory to safely operate the plant, b)- if the applicant has been actively and extensively engaged in competently and saf ely operating the plant as an RO or an SRO during the license period, and is o
considered capable of continuing to do so, and c) if
. J
' HUMAN FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20, 1995 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES the applicant has completed or is enrolled in a requalification program. If b) and c) are not met, the
...& ..as always had the option of requiring a written
. examination or an operating test or both.
Mr. Ward asked why the license period is two years.
Mr. Beckham replied that they felt that two years was required for a requalification program to cover all the procedural changes, regular text material and theory, etc., that an operator should know. Mr. Boger pointed out that it is required that a requalification program
~
be scheduled for a continuous period not to exceed two years, and that it contain lectures that are pre-planned, typically based on the results of an annual written' examination. The annual written examination was intended to identif y not only individual weakness-es, but program weaknesses as well.
According to 10 CFR'Part 55.21, the operator written examination, to the extent applicable to the facility, is to include questions on: a) fundamentals of reactor tDeory; b) general design features of the core; c) mechanical design features of the primary system;'d) auxiliary systems which affect the facility; e) general operating characteristics; f) reactivity control mechanisms and instrumentation; g) safe,ty systems; h) reserve and emergency systems; i) shieYding, isolation and ccntainment design features; j) standard and emergency operating procedures for the facility and the plant; k) purpose and operation of radiation monitoring systems and 1) radiological safety principles and procedures.
In addition to the lecture series, Mr. Boger pointed out'that on-the-job training is required. Each appli-cant is required to manipulate the controls in the facility for ten reactivity changes. The applicant is required to be cognizant of f acili ty procedure, li-conse, and design changes.
A annual facility's requalification program is to include a) written examinations for applicant and program evaluation, b) systematic observation and evaluation of ,
the performance and competency of licensed ROs and SROs during actual or simulated abnormal and emergency conditions (a facility specific simulator may be used),
and c) provisions for an accelerated retraining program for those ROs and SROs who need it, based on the results test.
of the written examination or the operating 3 The NRC is required to approve all requalification programs and changes in them. In the past, the NRC o
- _ . _ _ . _ _ __ __ ~-
' -HUMAN FAC TORS MEETING JUNE 20, 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES inspector looked at program records to verify that a)the lectures had taken place, b) appropriate atten-
. dance records were kept, and c) the people who had scored poorly in tests were placed in accelerated retraining and scored satisfactorily on retesting.
' Samples of f acility examinations were reviewed by NRC enaminers, and to gain an across the board awareness of how people were performing, at least parts of them were regraded. Mr. Ward asked who in a licensce's organization typically gives the examina-tions. Nr. Boger said that, while the operations staff sometimes reviews the examination, the training staff is responsible for conducting it. He thought the
-better programs were those more closely linked with operations.
~
Currently, the NRC still conducts verification inspec-tions and licensees still give examinations. Now the NRC has examiner standards, in particular ES 601, which provide rules f or conducting examinations. Reviews of written the NRC.
facility examinations are still conducted by Furthermore, the NRC actually oives written eneminations to about 20 percent of the applicants at half the facilities annually. The licensee's perfor-mance record (i . e. , LER. history, SALP rating - system-atic assessment licensing performance rating, requalification exam results, and inspection results) determines how often the NRC conducts examinations at a facility; the better the record, the less frequent the examinations.
~
T he requali fication enemination f ormat is similar to the initial licensing enamination, but reduend in scope, and about 60 percent as long. A requalification program is considered satisfactory if more that 80 percent of the individuals taking the examination perform satisfactorily. If less than 60 percent perform satisfactorily, the program is deemed unsatis-factory. It is left to the Regions to decide what should be done with regard to those that have between 60 and 80 percent succeed.
Requalification program requirements first went into effect in September 1973. The first major change happened in 1980, after the TMI-2 accident. For example, a) training in the areas of heat transfer, fluid flow, and thermodynamics was required, and b) the passing grade for an individual was increased from 70 to 80 percent over the entire examination, with an additional passing grade requirement of 70 percent in each category. There are four categories at the present time on the RO exams and the SRO exams:
. ,g.- --.
.w-n.
HUMAN FACTORS' MEETING JUNE 20,.1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES
- i REACTOR OPERATOR SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR
\
i.rrinciples of Nuclear 5. Theory of Nuclear Power Power Plant Operation, Plant Operation, Thermodynamics, Heat Fluids, and Thermo-i Transfer and Fluid Flow dynamics
- 2. Plant Design including 6. Plant Systems Design, l
Safety and Emergency Control, and Instru- [
Systems mentation l
L l
- 3. Instrument and Controls 7. Procedures: Normal, Abnormal, Emergency, '
- 4. Procedures: Normal, and Radiological i Abnormal, Emergency, and Control Radiological Control
- 8. Administrative Proced- (
ures, Conditions, and 1 Limitations He noted.that items 5 through 7 in the SRO examination covered the same subject areas as 1 through 6 in the RO-examination, but in greater depth. Mr. Ward mentioned that some utilities train and examine all their opera-tors to the SRO level.. ;
In 1982, the Commission directed the Staff to conduct ;
written and oral examinations and shortly aftarwards .
the operator licensing function was regionali:ed. Mr. '
Ward asked how much time a typical operator spend in a r equalif ication program. Mr. Boger responded that now l utilities have a five- or six-shift rotation, where one ,
I of the shifts is dedicated to training.
Medical Relicensing Process and Examinations -
B. Andrew i
Ms. Andrew, from the National Board of Medical Examin- I ers (NBME), said that she would present a brief over-view of the requalification process in medicine, and talk about competence.
a major trend in the evaluation of physician i The NBME is a private, non-profit organ-iration that is responsible for developing' licensing ,
and certifying examination programs in. medicine and in ,
related health fields. They develop the licensing examinations which are accepted by all State Medical
. Boards for licensure.in the United States.
Mr. Reed asked if the people who prepare and certify the examinations are .nostly MDs. Ms. Andrew replied ,
that every examination is prepared by one or more committees of experts, and that the experts are chosen on the~ basis of the nature of the examination they are being asked to prepare. In most cases, the examination t
_5_
9- ,, . , - . ~ - , , . - . , , - g-~ , , - . . . - - - - ,-y, ,--
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20, 1905 -
PROPOSED Sut1MARi/ MINUTES committees are composed of l i cenced physi ci ans , but in some cases, when a significant portion of the examina-
- tion content focuses on the basic medical sciences, PhD scientists in the biomedical sciences are included.
Ms. Andrew pointed out that there are two basic medical qualifications: a) the license to practice medicine, which is required by all_ states to practice medicine legally, and b) a special ty certi fi cation , which is a compl etel v vol unt ar y process. There are 23 specialty boards that are recognized in the United Gtutes today (e.g., internal medicine, family practice, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics, etc.), and about Su percent of the licensed phyuicians bcre are certi fied by a spe-claity board. At this time, approx 1.natel y 90 percent of all medical school graduates successfully complete resi denc y training in a spccialty area.
There are 18 states that currently requi re physicians to rcregister their license. The moct commen time interval for that in two to three vears. All these states require that the physician provide evidence of having buccessfu]Iv completed a required number of continuinq medical education credits er tources. Seven of the I t) stater will accept recent specialty certification or recertification in lieu of the re-quirement for continuing medical educatien.
There is only one specialty board that requires their diplomates to be recertif.ted. and that is the. A neri can Board of Family Practice. f louever , in 19/3, the American Board of Medical Lpecial ties adopted a policy positten uraing all specialty boards'to accept and endorse the concept of periaat c recertl i1ca ti on of clinical competence. At this tine. 11 on the 23 specialty boards nave active recertiilcation programs (10 of which are voluntary). Gomo o t- these s p e c t ..< l t y boards also require. that the physician submit a sample at medical records from his or her prmctice for review by a panel of exper ts to determine whether or not they meet acceptable standards. Seven of these 11 boards grant time-limited' certificates, i.e., the, e:,pire after a certain number of years (typically, 6 to 10 years).
Before the 1970s, each state medical board devel oped its own examination and the standords for practicina medicine varied greatly f roro one state to another. By accepting the NBMC enaminations and st5ndards for passing, the states have introduced conciderable uniformitv into the licensing and relicensing process-eu.
HUMAN FACTORS NEETING -
JUNE 20, 1905 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES Mr. Ward asked about the qualifications of the people who actually administer the examinations. Ms. Andrew
, said that the examinations are mostly standardized wri t ten exainimations rather than oral, hence, it is usuall y a staf f member who is responsible for the logistics of examination administration. For those states that have oral e:: amination requirements, the oral examination is administered by a physician. At least in some cases, examiners are given training on how to conduct an oral examination and then are provid-ed a fee for each candidate they e:: ami ne.
In an effort to improve the correlati on between test performance and actual clinical per f ormanc.e, in 1968 the NBi1E began to explore t.he use of computer technolo-gy in assessing the complex aspects of phycician c omp e t en c.y . Mr. Ward asked how the flOME made judgments about performance in clinical situations tor the purposes of correlation. Ms. Andrew replied that they use a) peer -- colleague and supervi sor - evaluation (which is not very good since it t enci s to be all very posttive, very favorable), b) aucits of medical records (for ccmparison egainst some board chocen ntandard of performance), and c) observers (who follow the physt-clan as he treats pati ents and makes hi s rounds) .
By the m i d -- 70s the NOME had a simulation model which benan to show promise. They then perfected the r.odel to the point where they are now planning to incorporate it into tht' licensing e; -mi nati on pr ocess < tar ti ng in l 'iG 8. This computer-ba ed exan,ination (Cbx) is an
" interactive simulation of medical pr actice". 'l h e interactive simulation begins with a brief de:cription of a patient and then allous the physician to order wh.ste/ar teuts or diagnostic procedures or undertake whatever kind of history or physical e< amin-tion ha or she would choose in an actual clinical prac t i ce set --
ting, it faced with a patient wi th these chief com-plaints. Ms. Andrew said t h a t. they anticipate exten-sive use of CBX in the near future.
Ms. Andrew sairJ that the fact that there is no cueing in the sio. lation makes it a much different and much better Lind of simulation. The physician.m>y send the patinnt to the hospital and order tests, electrocardiogram, x-rays, etc. and actually see ihe test renults. He can then implement treatment and follow the patient's respance over simulated time. If he does not make the right decisions in a timely fashion he can see the pati ent 's heal th deter iorate.
They can also present several problems simultaneoualy to see how a physician is likely to manage several problems concurrently and whether cr not he iu 44 y_.
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20 0 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES 4
effective in being able to set appropriate priorities.
The simulation model never provides the physician with incorrect information.
I The NEME field studies over the last several. years have shown that the decisions physicians make on the comput-er si mul ati on correl ate signi ficantly with the deci-sions they make-in actual clinical practice when they treat patients with the same kinds of medical problems.
Ms. Andrew said that they can distinguish physicians with different level s of training and e:' peri ence on the t computer simulation (e.g., more experies eced ph /sicians do a better job).
An examination wi11 probably constst of about etght or E nine case studies plus other test item formats. They intend to retatn some written testing.
The NbME plons to hvild mvera) computer based evalua-t2cn and learnino centers. Each center is to have a i reception areo, testing areas, and a relaration 3rea.
The testing areas, each of wh i ch c.on tai ns a mi cr ocompu-ter, and a random access video dim player and color TV monitor (so that it can display the pictorial and craphic materials off the video disk), will be made as comfortable as posnible. The ersminations will be proctored via video cameras placed in the ceilin.g above I each testing area. They h c .p e to ha<e int tiall / the '
capacity to test about 300 people per day nationally and within the first ii se veer s to .i ncr as;,e that to about 900 or 1000 people notionally. '
Mr. Gimmy asked if medical uni ver sities are interested I in using CBX as a di at.;nostic trainino tool. Ms. Andrew !
said that mcny medical schools woulo 11Fe to une their sof tware right r.ow.
Practicing physicians have been rarenqly opposed to the idea of taking a traditional paper and pencti multiple choice test for specialty recertification. IFey may be mcre receptive to CBX.
4 Ms. Andrew said that untraincd c::ami ners tend to give flawed questions becauce they are not aware of some of the techniques that should be employed in wr i ting examination quantions and some of the cueing problems that should be avotded.
Review of Requalification Examinations and E:.: ami n a t i on ,
Results -
B. Doger -
Mr. Doger said the NRC Staff is concerned with evaluat- -
ing programs rather than i nd i vi du a l a, . The Staff m Aes l
_g
' HUMAN FACf0RS MEETING JUNE 20 0 1995 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES a considerable effort to reduce the anxiety of opera-tors over the possibility of losing their license
,umuou.e of poor performance on an NRC examination. The NRC does not revoke licenses based on the results of the requalification examination. Examinations are returned to the facility and they implement the re-quirements of their own requalification program. The NRC does not keep a record of test scores, it does keep a record of who took the examination, the overall pass rate, and who had deficiencies which require accelerat-ed retraining.
Mr. Reed asked how uniform the examination standards are among the Regions. Mr. Beckham responded that the NRC maintains a high level of consistency as a result of a) the issuance of Examiner Standards, b) headquar-ters esoluations of the examination programs of the Regions, c) frequent interactions among headquarters staff and Region staff, d) frequent interactions between Regions through counterpart meetings, and e) the exchange of examiners among Regions. Mr. Reed u6ndered if regionali:ation resulted in ~an increase in personality conflicts.
Mr. Beckham said that the increase of administrative and managerial oversight due to regionall:ation probably makes personality conflict problems less likely.
The Staff provi ded the Subcommittee with some " typical" RO and SRO requalification examinations which were recently given at Point Beach (Region III - received a satisfactory rating),'D.C. Cook-(Region III - received an unsatisfactory rating), Shoreham (Region I - re-ceived I a satisfactory rating), and Haddam Neck (Region
- recei ved an unsatisf actory rating) .
Mr. Reed pointed to the following question from the Point Beach RO examination that he felt was very poor question, just a " memory" questioni "There are seven interlocked bypass switches located at the bottom of the control consolo on the manipulator crane. Identify and describe the purpose of.these seven switches." Mr.
Boger acknowledged that the question could have been worded better, but defended the purpose of the ques-tion, which.is to determine whether the operator realizes in bypass.
what he is bypassing when he places a swi tch Mr. Reed wondered why Haddam Neck, which supposedly has an excellent performance reputation, received an unsatisfactory rating for its requalification program based on the examination the Staff presented to the Subcommittee. Mr. Boger replied that if the perfor-mance reputation is based on maintaining steady and
-9_
b
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20 9 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/MINUlLS t
even 100 percent power output on a day to day casis, then it does not say much about the ability to perform '
some of the abnormal or unusual, low treguency items ;
that operators.are expected to perform. In fact, he ;
thought trouble free operation.could make management Iax in the area of requalification. l r
Mr. Doger said they like to direct their questions [
toward items that are important to the safe and compe- $
tent operation of the plant. in particular, the high !
importance items that occur at a high frequency ( typi -
cally, the most important icb items). Mr. Ward sug- !
gested that the Staff might better emphasize the very important, low frequency items that operators do not i experience and, hence, practice on a regular basics for those the training pr agram is really the only source of ;
operator expertise.
5 With regard to the issue of relevance to the _i ob , Mr.
Reed quoted another examination question: " Dry satu- !
rated steam at 1000 psia enters a turbine which is 40 percent officient. Condenser prensure is 1 psia. How much werk is done assuming a mass flow rate of G.7 x 10^6 pounds per h our'? Give your final answer in DTU ,
per hour and show alI work." He asked the Gtafi to describe the relevance of 4.hu question to licensed operator work ac ti vi t i es, in response, Mr. Cecxham pointed out that the Staff has a po>t-f;6i requirement, aimed at upgrading contr ol room engineering 6 pertice, to examine operators on the theory or pr;nciples of ther modynami c s. He said ihat there ,ro man / Items, io the nu mination categories that are rcc ired to be co wred, en which it is very difficult t o wri te an "epeFallons orLented quCst1Qn". [n sCmQ t d9es, the importance to operation of t he i nowl edge required to answer the question can not be readily shcun. He noted that while the uubjecl^ naterial is probably mpropri-ate, particular questions may not be.
Mr. Boger said that they are working cn a training program for examiners that would go into offact this Fall which usca simulators. It will give the e.<aminer considerable time en the simulator, i n cont.rol situa-tions where the examiner would not on1y learn how the simulator works and develop simuiator scenarios. but also be viewed by his peers in conducting examinationu.
Mr. Reed asked about how manv examiners are ex-SFiOs.
Mr. UcIler said that there are 4 out of 10 in Region 1.
Mr. McMillen said that there are 3 out of 7 in Region III. Mr. Cooley said that there in 1 out of 5 in Region IV. Mr. Bcckham pointed out that about half of the examinors used by the Regions are contract
~
10 -
' HurinN FACTURS MEETING JUtjE 20, 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES personnel supplied by headquarters; the ratios quoted here refer to full time NRC examiners. None of the
.-w. b act examiners hold power reactor licenses.
Mr. Boger pointed to the following questions from the Point Beach SRO examination as being representative of requalification examination questions and indicated why they are on the examination:
6.13 How does an automatic reactor trip differ from a manual reactor trip in regards to opening the trip breakers? (high importance - low frequency item) 7.10 EOP 1A, 2A, and 3A all contain criteria f or reestablishing Safety Injection following initial termination. Name the four criteria common to all three procedures. (high importance - low frequen- !
cy item)
B.8 Name the six methods for discovering or evaluating {
' reactor coolant system leakage into the contain- ;
ment per procedure 4.11, RCS Icakage determina-tion. (common occurrence - important Tech. Spec. t item) 6 8.14 What does the term " valve stroke time reference limit" mean? (low frequency - low.importance item)
S.S A startup is being performed 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> after a trip \
using a calculated estimated rod position for the time the startup commenced. How would each of the following events or conditions affect the actual critical rod position compared to the estimated critical position? I.' your answer, state whether i
the actual position would be higher than estimat-ed, lower than estimated, o. no significant }
1 difference.
, a. A steam generator's level is increased significantly. ,
b.
c.
A reactor coolant pump is stopped.
The startup is delayed for approximately two hours. .
1 d.
A new baron sample is ten ppm lower than the previous sample.
- e. ,
Condenser vacuum decreases by two inches Hg. !
2 (routine condition - question written at a higher level) 8.13 You are in the process of heating up Unit 2 after refueling. The AO reports that a valve on the RTD Bypass loop is leaking. He states that the "B" ;
packing is at the maximum tightness and recommends ,
11 -
, - . - , . c-,- - + - - n ,-- -- .e .v.,-. - - .v.- - , ~ - - .
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20, 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES backseating tha valve. Does this action meet your approval? Explain. (deals with a standard order
- something an SRO must routinely deal with) '
7 5.6 Explain how the Moderator and Fuel Temperature Coefficients would be affected if a Point Beach Reactor woro loaded with a higher enriched fuel and no change in poison loading. (not an t t
on-the-job requirement - intended to reflect s understanding) L i
- 5. 3 Your control rods are made of a Silver-Indium-Cadmium Alloy. }
Discuss why each element is used i and the overall benefit achieved from this partic-ular alloy. Discuss nuclear properties only. ;
(not an on-the-job requirement recall of back- '
ground information) 5.11 Assume it becomes necessary to confirm initial calibration of a newly installed flow transmitter (
for the letdown flow indicator. Briefly describe -
a method where letdown flow could be thermodynami- !
cally calculated to ensure a proper indication on I the letdown flow meter. (not an on-the-job :
requirement - to reflect understanding of princi-ples) ;
6.5 State those areas of the plant protected by the Halon fire suppression system. (f rom f acility material) p i
t' 6 .' 6 e.
Where is the Unit 1 primary sample valve ;
control panel located? ,
- b. Why was it relocated?
al) (f rom f acility materi , '
6.8 List five automatic rod withdrawal stops excluding i rods fully withdrawn and the bank selector switch. -l (f rom f acility material)
An Industry View of the Requalification Process Houghton T.
i y
{
Mr. Houghton, Director of the Qualifications of Reactor !
Operators Utility Group (ORO), introduced the utility training managers who would assist him with the presen- ;
' tation and said that NUMAPC was in agreement with the ;
recommendations the ORO representatives would be making to the Subcommittee. NUMARC will prepare the indus-try's final recommendations and present them to the NRC.
He mentioned the big role of INPO in improving training and accreditation based on what an operator "
needs to know to operate the plant safely. i l
t .
._ . I
HUMAN FACTORS' MEETING JUNE 20 9 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES Mr. Houghton said that a major problem with the current administration of the requalification programs is that
.it has raised operator stress, lowered morale among the operators, and turned training programs which were moving towards performance-based and invalidated training back to training for examinations. A second problem is that NRC and contractor examiners do not know the details of the plants they give examinations on and are not involved in the details of the training programs and what needs to be emphasized to reinforce that training.
Mr. Richardson, training center manager at Seabrook, responsible for all operator training, discussed improvements in operator training since the TMI acci-dent. All utilities are in the process of getting their training programs accredited by INPO, the result of which is a general shift towards performance based training programs, i . e. , programs that focus on well defined learning objectives which are derived from a careful analysis that the utility makes looking at skills and knowledge that the operator requires to perf orm hi s job saf el y and skillf ull y.
i Mr. Richardson said that he thought performance based.
training is successful largely because it allows flexibility in determining training needs and presenta-tion techniques.
He stated that the ultimate goal of requalification training is to maintain a high level of knowledge and skill on the part of the licensed operator.
Accepting that there is direct correlation between operator performance and plant performance, there are three. key elements in the operator's perfor-mance that they strive to improve on Safety, Produc-tivity, and Efficiency. He said that the operator who is most proficient in carrying out emergency procedures may not be the safest operator. The safest operator is the one who can keep the plant running productively, efficiently and safely on a day to day basis so emer-gencies do not arise.
Mr. Stanas ak, Director of Operator Training at Kewaunee, presented a brief history of the requalification program. An NRC survey was conducted in the early-1970s which showed that there were no formal programs to maintain operator proficiency and that there was a need to establish a requalification rule.
As a result of the rule, promulgated in 1973, utilities developed requalification programs and annual examinations were initiated to evaluate not only the effectiveness of the programs, but also to develop information as to generic weaknesses that all operators as a whole had so they could plan future training. The 13 - 'r
HUMAM FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20, 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES programs also had to identif y individual weaknesses and determine if the operators were co.npetent to saf ely vgw. u t e their reactors, and, if not, provide accelerat-
'ed training.
The utilities were made aware of the NRC's intentions to get actively involved in utility programs by way of generic letter 82-18; this notice indicated that the NRC intended to conduct annual requalification examina-tions at various facilities.
Mr. Schaffer, Assistant Manager for Operations Training at PSEtG, expressed the concern that a) NRC adminis-tered examinations are not in harmony with the objec-tives of the training programs, b) the examiners are not intimately familiar with the plant, the training program, and current plant practices and procedures, things that affect the operator on his day-to-day job, and c) there is over-emphasis on the grading of the individuals compared to evaluating programs.
Mr. Stanassak said that utilities feel they.must formalate~their examinations to be like NRC examina-tions so that operators will-be trained to pass NRC examinations. They feel there is inappropriate empha-sis on minor topics in these examinations. He also said that operator pride and peer pressure cause just as much stress over utility administered examinations as over NRC examinations.
Mr. Wambold, Training Manager at the San Onofre Plant, emphasized that operators and training personnel object to being examined by the NRC Staf f and its contractors on detailed plant specific matters that they, the NRC examiners, are not familiar with (i . e. , not as knowl-edgeable of as the operators and training personnel).
j This the NRCtends to result examiner in controversial over discussions with question interpretation.
i Mr. Gonyeau, 1 raining Manager for Northern States Power Fossil and Nuclear Plants, talked about the exam review process.
The current NRC practice is that the examina-tion questions and answers may not be reviewed with the utility until after the examinations have been given.
- This is a particular problem for requalification examinations of since they are only 60 percent the length the regular replacement examinations, causing examiners to be very reluctant to withdraw questions.
Mr. Reed suggested that this apparent lack of trust is f urther evidence of the adversarial environment in
! which the NRC and the licensee interact. Mr. Ward asked if all the questions used came from the examina-tion question bank (which contains over 10,000 I
L
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20 0 1985 -
PROPOSED SUMMAR // MINUTES questions). Mr. Beckham said that not all questions come from the bank; some new questions are prepared for
, each examination.
Mr. Gonycau also cited scheduling problems. He said that, due to the constraints of examiner availability, for example, the NRC frequently schedules exams at times which do not coincide with the utility training program schedule ( i . e. , the normal utility examination schedule). Mr. Gimmy asked, if the requalitication examination is testing the operator on what he is expected to know all the time, why should-it make any difference where he is in his training cycle when he takes the exam. He said it sounded like the training cycle was just a cram session. He wondered if the eyaminations were too difficult. Mr. Ward wondered if they were on the wrong mater i al .
Mr. Reed asked how training managers utJy coupled to the "real safe operating scene". Mr. Wambold replied that they have an active rotatton program where they go out into the plant and the operation people come iteto training as part of the normal path.
Mr. Ward asked fnr an estimate of the f r ac.t i nn of training time :ip e n t training to pass the examination compored to that spent on training to just run the plant proper 1v. Mr. Schaffer suggested that 60 percent of their time was spent on areac required by the NRC, e.g., the G examination categories, and the rest on areas identitied by the plant nanager and industry experience.
Last November a proposed rulemaking was published which encompassed all of Part 55. With reaard to this proposed change to Part 55, Mr. Sr.hM f er made essen-tially two comments: 1) The wording in Part 55.b9(a) shifts the emphacis f rom utility administered requalification examinations to NhC admini7terad exams
, in uhich a utility certi fi cation ma ,' be accc pted. lhe utilities feel that this shifts the emphauls from evaluating the program to evaluating the individual.
- 2) Part 55.59(c) appears to acknowledge the f act that a systematic approach to training is the accepted al ter-native, and is the ideal, and cnce it ie in place, the examination process has t6 be an int egratrid part of it.
The uti1ities censiaer it a postt1ve step to recoc.nize this interactive procass of program development.
However, they think further clarification on the point is in order.
Mr. Ganyeau, on behalf of ORD. made three recommenda-tions: 1) that the utilitieu rather than tha NRC giva HUMAM FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20, 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES s
a the written examinations; 2) that the utilities rather than the NRC give the oral simulator examinations; and
, 3) that the NRC conduct the quali:y check of all phases of the requalification. program.
With regard to recommendation 1), the following steps could be f ollowed: a) the_ utility would prepare the exam, b) the NRC would retain the option to review the exam questions and answers, c) the utility would provide the NRC with a schedule of operators taking the enam, d) the utility would administer and grade the exams, e) the NRC could review any of the exams to cross check grading, and f) the NRC resident inspector could monitor any step of the process.
With regard to recommendation 2), either of the follow-ing procedures could be followed: a) the resident inspector or OLB representati ve could observe th". oral and simulator enams being gi ven, or b) a person quali-fied GMams.
as a check operator by the NRC could give the The ORO Utility Group is recommending to NUMARC that a pilot check operator program be attempted along f ollowing lines:
the a) the utili ty would nominate li-consed individuals, b) the NRC would approve individu-als and provide training, c) the check operators would conduct the oral and simulator roqualification enams at their own plants, d) the NRC could audit. records or observe check operators giving enams, and e) the NRC would not conduct requalification examinations at the facility during the program test period.
For the good of the nuclear industry, they believe that the adversarial relationship between the NRC and utilities must end.
In response to Mr. Wards question about a desirable frequency for written and oral examinations,'Mr.
Gonyenu said that, since the purpose of the exams is to provide feed back tc operators, it may even be desir-able to give them more frequently than once a year.
Mr. Ganyeau said he thinks enams are necessary for the utility to monitor i ndi vi dual s.
I Views Boger-from the Regions on the Requalification Process -
B.
Mr. Boger introduced the Regional Staff who would be presenting their perspectives on the subject.
Mr. Keller, Section Chief responsible for requalification examinations in Region I, reviewed
HUMAN FACTORC MEETING
, JUNE 20 0 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES I experiences in Region I ever the past year and a half.
He said that they had conducted eight site visits at
. ewen sites. They use a standard NRC inspection module to evaluate the requalification program as it is before they conduct a requalification examination. The level of their participation at the site depends on the results of this inspection. With regard to the Haddam Neck examination, the inspection showed that the roqualification program consisted of two weeks a year in the classroom immediately prior to the annual exam, and there appeared to be little management involvement.
With regard to the Shoreham e.tamination, which was a pre-startup enamination, the inspection showed a good, continuous program conducted throughout the year, they- '
had good knowledge of procedures, and auxiliary opera-tors, the STA's, the shift supervisors, and the RO*s all trained together.
A semi-open book concept was used when administering the Haddam Neck and Shoreham examinations (both of which were supplied to the Subcommittee). The candi-dates were provided with copies of the tech. specs. for use in anal yz i ng and evaluation certain plant condi-tions.
In the case of Haddam Neck they concluded that the requalification of program was marginal, and the quality their exam process was weak. Since that time, management involvement has turned the program around.
At Shoreham, they concluded that the program was very good, the quality of-their enam process good, opera-tionall y ori ented, and innovative. .Mr. Keller said that in order to evaluate the program you need to evaluate in it.
the product of the program, the people trained Mr. Wilson, Section Chief responsible for
^
i roqualification eneminations in Region II, said that he thinks that the requalification examinations they administer are high quality and do guarantee the qualifications of operators. Like Region I, they do both inspection and examination of requalification programs.
findings:
He listed some of their negative inspection a) There has been inadequate scope in '
requalification training programs, b) There have been poor quality lesson plans and reference material. 'c)
Exam questions prepared by the licensee have been too easy.
d) There has been repetitive use of the same ,
examinations by utilities.
dependence on non-structured e)self-study.
There has been excessive f) There have '
been inadequate procedural controls over administration of training programs, and inaccurate and incomplete training records. g) Backup licensees and instructors 17 -
-r,._ _ - , , , . . _ , _ . . , . , , .-_- -
HUMAN-FACTORS. MEETING JUNE 20 9 1985 -
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES have not been given control room experience. h)
Training program changes have not been submitted to the ,
.mL f or' approval prior to implementation. i)'Instruc-
- toro have been exempted f rom training and examination.
The perf ormance on simulators has been generally good.
The written examinations given by Region II have ;
revealed significant weaknesses at several tacilities, however. While knowledge deficiencies have been ,
identified in all exam categories, deficiencies are t identified most frequently in the areas of theory and procedures. i Examination performance has tended to be inversely proportional to the length of time that the '
' operator has been licensed (i.e., more recently li-censed operators perform better). Mr. Wilson thought that the more experienced people in many instances let their important knowledges and skills lapse, particu-larly in the area of emergency procedures. Sometimes it is a matter of training. For example, in one case they found that five years after it was required to include thermodynamico, heat transfer and fluid flow as part of requalification training, most enperienced licensed peoplc at the facility had not received more than one week of training in those subjects. Sometimes the license training program is good and the requali f ication program is not , as, for enample, at Crystal River. i Nr. Ward asked if they review program content when they audit a requalification program. Mr.
Wilson said that they-did not, he said that program content was part of an inspection module for the resident inspector.
I Mr. Wilcon said that of six facility programs evaluat-ed, three were found to be satisfactory and three [
unsatisfactory. All three of the programs that were '
rated satisfactory were INPO accredited, the other three wer e not. Mr. Ward asked if the forINPD accredita-tion program had something separate !
requalitication. Mr. Schaffer said that requalification has been incorporated as a continuing ;
training module in the basic program for ROs and SROs. ;
Mr. McMillen, Section Chief responsible for i requalification examinations in Region III, outlined i their experiences with requalification. From December l 1981 to May 1984 they audited the quality and grading of
! written examinations administered by facility personnel.
l Between May 1983 and May 1984 they also ,
administered partial examinations, written and oral, at !
thrte utilities. Since May 1984 they have administered i written and oral examinations continued to audit programs. at three utilities and '
They' f ound utili ty grading to be more lenient than NRC grading and a I'
18 -
,_,--m w - - , - - , ,--. . ,, -. - -- . ,-, --
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING JUNE 20 0 1985 -
PROFOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES r
tendency for utilities to repeat questions from one exam to another.
Mr. Cooley, Section Chief responsible for requalification examinations in Region IV, said that in ,
an audit of an Arkansas examination, six out of 40 '
operators failed the regrade and all the scores on the exems were less than what the facility had given. Mr.
Reed wondered if NRC regrading always results in lower grades. Mr. Cooley said that he did not'think uo, and l
Mr. hister mentioned an example, Haddam Neck, where an NRC regrade resulted in a higher score. Mr. Cooley considered himself more objective than the uti1ity !
e: aminers.
He said that he'had failed an individual with a 79.5 (where 80 is required to pass) when there was no place in the exam where he ceuld objectively give more credit. i Mr. Reed said that he thini:s the NRL tends to make the written examinations hard and not necessarily properly ;
oriented. He said that written examinations may not be j the best way to determine whether en individual is i qualifled to eperate a riuclear oower plant safely. ;
Mr. Wylie asked the represertatives from the_ Regions what might be done to improve the protest. They recommended better progran audit proceduren, incroaced ;
use of simulators, de-eophosis of written c:: ami n at i on s , '
and. possibly, third party examination audits.
l t
L Fqiture Heetinos:
No future meet 1rnis of the Human Factors Eu:n.emmi t t et arn '
scheduled at this time. The hLRS is wneduloc to hear a subcommittee report on Operator Requotitication ouring the 395th ACR3 meet 17g, September 1614, 1983.
t
- nn*n.no f
NOFE: A complete transcript of the meeting is on file in the NRC Public Docummit ficom at 1717 H St.. N.W., Woshington, D.C., or can be obtained from ANN RILEY & ARSOCIAlLS, Court Reporters, 162S I St., N.W.. Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006. LTelephone (202s 293-3950]
T
ATTACHMENT A Feder..I Registir / Val 50. No.105 / FHday, biay 31, toes ( Nations W distnbuted prior to the expiration of the Associated enth Inflant Pressurized operWor segumKucatnes process. daalde thirty-day period. Cas Storage and Distributwn Systems ta on an appropriate action pime to semelee i
cart: All comments must be received by Nuclear Power Plants." thema, and make the seemenary .
the Legal Services Corporation within 30 Oral statements may be presented by - recommendations to the Committee, days from the date of publication of this members of the pubhc with concurrence os l .antementa may be e. - ~ ' by notice. of &e Subemnanun Chairman; written membersof the ' erith ebe re mu eswarim corre statements will be accepted and made concumence of bha === h== .
I Beverly Bunn, Legal Services .8 dae *** Gbmisman, wntsen statemets d be Corporation. Office of Field Services' will be permitled only dunng those accepted and anade available toshe -
y33 Fifteenth Street. NW., Washmgton* Portions of the meeting when a Commithe. Racerdiase will be paragioned D.C* 20005- (202) 272-4351' tran8CnM Pt.end W m.ns only during Goes portacas of es N may be asked only by members of the meeting when a tressaipt is being beyt.
suertautNTany inFonmaisow Grants cre awarded pursuant to the Legal Subcommittee.its consultants and Staff, and uestions many be asked sely by I persons desiring to make oral membs of the Mw==ittoa. Its i Services Corporation availability s announcement of funds. Announcement of ofmembers statements should notify the ACRS sta!! canadtants.and SanfL Perosas destring i' as far in advance as to make ord statements aboidd motify funding svailability was made at the practicable so that appropriate following times:(1) For the the ACRS ataff member named below as * :
arrangements can be made. far la advance as is practicab&e ao akat j implementstion of law school cidl During the initialportion of the cimical programs to impros e the quahty appeopriate arrassementa can be made.
meeting. the Subcommittee, along with of legal semces to elderly persons any of its consultents who maty be Dartag es imdal panion j g, .
(Federal Register, p.11469. March 21.
1985). (2) for the development of source present. may exchange prehminary any O',,g
, ,,,, \ !
views regarding matters to be ,
materials on laws affecung elder!y considered during the balance of the Present. may =A=nfme prelemenary ;
persons) Federal Register, p 12665. meetmg E*'d*8 ""*"
March 29.1985) and (3) for the ne Schminmittee will than bear considered Anrtng the balamos of the development of plans to encourage the presentations by and hold discussions muting.
private bar to prodde higher quahty with representatives of the NRC Staff. The Subasaunatee will then bear ,
paid services and to expand pro bono its consultants. and other interested Presentations by and hold diocessions i programs (Federal Register. p.13431. persons regarding this review. with representatives of the NRC 9taff l Apnl 4.1965). Further information regarding 1opics its comeultants. end ether kiteressed j The Legal Services Corporation to be dracussed. whether the meeting Persons egesding this review.
intends these grants to increase and has been concelled or rescheduled. the Parther information regarding topics i
improve the quehty of legal services to Chairman's ruling on requests for the to be discussed wheths. the meeting l elderly poor persons presently unserved opportunity to present oral statements has been cancelled or rescheduled, the cr underservei Additionally, funded {
and the time allotted therefor can be Chefrman's ruhng on requests for the ;
programs should sensitize and educate obtained by a prepaid telephone call to opportunity to present oral statements l the present bar and future lawyers to the cognizant ACRS staff member Mr. and the time allotted therefor can be thz legal needs of the elderly. John Schiffgens (telephone 202/834- obtained by a prepaid telephone call to John.C.Mepr. f 1414) between 815 aJn. and 1.00 p.m.. the cognizant ACRS staff member. Mr. !
Associate Dm ctor. O'fiw of Ac/d Servic,, EDT. Persons planning to = Mandt his John Schiffgens (telephone 202/534- l (FR Doc. 85-13194 Filed 5-30-45. e 45 arr]
meeting are urged to contact the above 1414) between 8:25 aJn. and M10 p.m '
. . go,, ,,, ,,g, named individual one or two days EDT. Persons planrdng to attend this before the scheduled meeting to be meeting are urged to contact the above !
advised of any changes in ochedule, etc named individual one or two days NUCLEAR REGULATORY which may have occatrred- before the scheduled meeting to be l COMMLSSION Deed May n 1ses. advised of any dienges in schedule, etc i Monon w.uberun, which may have occurred. ;
A
- l ** [ **
Syst'**; Moeti"9 A stant betwtiveDrectorforProject JneaanL Msg 3R.18as.
M*d** W- i
{nt Doc. as-tstea nled two-as. a as am) g ,j, ,,3 , ,.,,gj,,c q g ;
The ACRS Subcommittee on Air - come rumme g,yf,,, .- !
Systems will hold a meeting on June 17 1985. Room 1046.1717 H Street. NW.
/
V Advlaory Committee on Reactor pm Doc. as-Isoes nled 5.as at eies am)
Washington. DC. sauna esos rummews Safegueron, Subcommittee on Human The entire meeting will be open to >
public attendance. Factors; Meeting . !
He agenda for subject meeting shall The ACRS Subcommittee on Human Advloory Committee on Meectot 1 be as follows: Factors will hold a meeting on June 20. Befoguarde Subcommittees on Human Afonday. June 27.1985-8 x o m. until 1985. Room 1046.1717 H Street. NW. Factors and Maintenance Praettoes l the conclusion ofbusiness Weshington. DC. and Procedurse; Meeting ;
The Subcommittee will review the The entire meeting will be open to ;
NRC Staffs Supplement to the Control Public attendance. He ACRS Subcommaittees em Humann l Room Habitabihty Worki Grou The agenda for the subject meeting Factors and Maintenance Practices and - !
Report-June 1964 his S pplement is shall be as followr Procedures will hold a combined i l to discuss the Staffs survey of NTOL Thursday. June 20, 2ss5-em o.m. until meeting on June 18.1gs5. Room 1046. ,
I and OR control rooms. Also, the the conclusion of business 1717 H Street. NW. Washington, DC. '
(
Subcommittee will review the Staffs ne Subcommittee will identify real The entire meetin and/or perceived problems with the Public attendance. g will be open to l final report on " Safety Implications ,
l 6
. ATTACHMENT B June 4, 1985 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE JUNE 20, 1985 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON , [
HUMAN FACTORS 8:30 a.m. Opening Statements D. Ward 10 Min.
8:40 a.m. Reactor Operator Requal- B. Boger 90 Min.
-ification Process 10:10 a.m. Medical Relicensing Process B. Andrew 60 Min.
and Examinations 11:10 a.m. BREAK i
11:30 a.m. Commercial Airline Pilot T. Penland 60 Min.
Relicensing Process and Examinations 12:30 LUNCH 1:30 p.m. Statistical Overview of B. Boger 40 Min.
Requalification Examinations f
2:10 p.m. Review of a Representative B. Boger 65 Min, Sample of Requalification Examinations 1
3:15 p.m. BREAK ;
3:30 p.m. Evaluation of Requalification l Process and Recent Changes !
- An Industry View P. Collins 60 Min.
- Region I H. Kister 30 Min.
- Region II A. Gibson 30 Min. !
- Region III J. McMillen 30 Min.
- Region IV R. Cooley 30 Min.
6:30 p.m. Closing Statements D. Ward 10 Min. i l 6:40 p.m. ADJOURN l
l
ATTACHMENT C <
ACRS SUBCOMMITTCE MEETING ON HUMAN FACT 0RS LOCATION R00M 1046 DATE - JUNE 20, 1985 !
~
ATTENDANCE LIST >
PLEASE PRINT:NAME '
AFFILI ATION k 6kmno N$
il W ' o -c k c i=r s J. nc L' ik t'z'
- l. T -
KB 01 s> L 'A J
% i / ,,1 .
Av:[./di1~3/'LA
- llA. Ws7z:L WAC- k.L & $
R #1 X YL-l/ E R m kT sol Se L 0 4 A p fLm,
/ .i V
D 4F5 V h & Renon 4 Mkc J oLR
,k . C . 0 00n ,A l,f- r
/ \
$ f1kl
, - nl % kl~
- 0N'y/ $U i 6 b HPbldLR '
i TL /-/ov9 h& Nhc 2.E.[cunfrC2 SS64 C-Dave Rom G u m % cs.
3 T (LlAA1/Bnt D S3 CAc i F. 201 Sod l Vs 0. ACA S'219 K lLlS . ablob et%!Ks 0 A0' T R .6~ t&h sa Ls '
Alai ~,3L Cn-m A- & ;
hh d_dm %.W.% b. 78ck ce4 i
~
> -, sau adan I h a r 0 , w a c. u v r su pp n M.DShuhJ (L,b. % > L<M e
9
c
, ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE. MEETING ON H U M A N FACT 0RS LOCATION R00M 1046 DATE ' JUNE 20, 1985 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:NAME '
AFFILIATION be/ AbxMY ! //ll. b e_
~CW/c1V h 4b?T/_
60 6 m 's. a n Anu nunJ,x-,+
%6. L Jn , ~ m, ' vae ,e, as 4
e a
ACR5 SUBCOM.MITTEE MEETING ON hh/)A/ f(((([(
'LOCATIO:1: koom /O [
,DATE: xj u Alf )O /h#
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE ii0. AFFILIATION A \. D 8 k e .- L < , i- 090ft F/lL
_h Ah* If T & l' C ft c $r lf V nlJ550n b i a ,. i6.W EQ M ldd)&sd$PL&A W S Bnvin R bm e o9sy G m f.m ics o w.
rhfhk Y S/ Y L AMv,w, tc 9s3 Epin IA $il'ji v 2a% $ t% O N O -SkO ,
'/T ( M; c k LA 6-crtc / ( ,ct c 1 7 7 L/ &.1,% < 0 Eo9Lt SCT I' E. SinorFTC C~c M f %f+G
! F & $ 7 & o 6 7 a k Ec W 1 lo k .
f f NT. $od+u E o<in ^> P P D k% L v..- Ec s , <, Nsc kkMvbnN s EC.TM }f%h w L ,& c- 0wr crc, Ihd;ed 'T k\\c,a if - 0%\ Lp-Ttc4 Le '
l // A9 G m r u t /] G- 09 29 4 VnaR l d 4, h, e - o cM FWM l
e
7_.
ATTACHMENT D HANDOUTS FOR HUMAN FACTOR JUNE 20, 1985 MEETING
- 1. Reactor Operator Requalification Process 2.
Relicensure and Recertification in Medicine and Advances in Testing Methods
- 3. QR0 Presentation on Operator Requalification to ACRS Human Factors Subcommittee, June 20, 1985
- 3. QR0 Working Group - Requalification Program
~4 Recommendations
- 5. U. S. NRC, Region I, Reqor'.fication Training Program Audits and Examinations
.