ML20147E891

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of 860721-25 Visit to Plant to Observe INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation of Six Training Programs, Including Instrumentation & Control Technician,Mechanical Maint & Electrical Maint.List of Team Members Encl
ML20147E891
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Farley
Issue date: 08/20/1986
From: Falconer D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To: Gibson A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML082310270 List:
References
FOIA-87-787 NUDOCS 8801210236
Download: ML20147E891 (4)
v • d • e


Text

,

~

.....d..a-...~...-

.L.,

A '.

c. ~.; s i.
. 2.

-....=

i f.

c.

a ate UNITED STATES

[m NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

d R$0loN ll j

101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.

e ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323 k*..../

August 20, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Albert F. Gibson, Director Division of Reactor Safety THRU:

Caudie A. Julian, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety FROM:

Dolan P. Falconer, Reactor Engineer Operational Programs Section Division of Reactor Safety i

SUBJECT:

OBSERVATION OF INPO ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT FARLEY l

During the week of July 21-25, I was an NRC observer during INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation of six training programs at Farley.

The training programs l

evaluated were:

l Instrumentation and Control Technician Mechanical Maintenance Electrical Maintenance Health Physics Technician Chemistry Technician Management and Technical Staff j

The fornal entry meeting was held on Monday morning.. The team leader introduced the me%ers of his team and outlined the qualifications of each. He emphasized the role of the NRC observers and reviewed the roles of the evaluation team, the i

Accreditation Board, and the prucess for tracking open items.

The training and orientation session for Peer Evaluators was conducted on Monday morning. The list of Accreditation Team personnel, including Peer Evaluators, is enclosed.

The program content and process groups met with their respective leaders each afternoon; the combined groups met after these meetings. Open items and concerns were discussed and then communicated to utility personnel each morning by team i

and group leaders and a schedule of interviews was posted on the board in the IMPO work room to prevent as much duplication of effort as possible.

I attended debrief meetings and observed interviews and documentation rev:r.

l

      • '"4

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. - -

. ~ " ~ ~ ~ " " -

1

.................................... ~.

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

.---~~~.-~~

l

'==c t=usieno. omacue2*o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l

.i

..:.-...~._...u...:...~.

.. ~ ~... -

J

$ %s

~. :,

S:

A r_- w :

U - 4 :. :. g Q

i i

t t

4 The Accreditation Process The process was the same as that described in previous trip reports. The process and program content groups met with their respective leaders each afternoon prior to the combined group meeting. Open items, questions, and concerns discussed at these meetings were comunicated to utility personnel each morning by team and group leaders. Posting of the interview and class observation schedule in the INPO workroom has now become a standard part of the procedure. During the first afternoon meeting of the week, team members realized that many of them needed a better understanding of the job analysis process as Maine Yankee conducted it. To obviate the need for numerous interviews, the team leader arranged for the lead personnel involved in the Maine Yankee job analysis to make a presentation and answer questions for all team members concerned. A unique feature of this evaluation was the method used by the process group leader to present open items at the team meetings each afternoon. He wrote the problem statements for each program on blank transparencies and displayed them with an overhead projector. This made these items easier to follow during the meeting.

Interviews I observed both individual and group interviews. The group interview on the job analysis was very thorough and saved a great deal ot time for training personnel.

In addition to regular interviews to review the sveluation process, several members of the team observed a meeting of the Training and Qualifications Review Board. This board reviews the progress of all current trainees and also makes decisions about marginal students in the various training programs. To ensure that this board meeting was not atypical, minutes of the meetings for several years were reviewed by team members.

I observed an individual interview on lesson plan development for the nonliceqsed program. The evaluator was extremely thorough and knowledgeable in this area. As with all the other team evaluations I have observed, the evaluators conducted thorough reviews and persisted in tracking down open items until they felt satisfied that every available piece of information had been supplied by the utility.

Class Observation I observed a class in the use of Germanium / Lithium Detectors with the evaluator for content of the Radiation Protection program. The evaluator followed the lesson plan throughout the class. He asked if I would compare notes with him at the end of the class. Our ot,ervations were nearly identical on both positive and negative points. Although there were not too many opportunities for me to observe classes during this week, I am satisfied that they were thoroughly evaluated. Most of the classes available for observation were attended by two observers. The limited number of available seats woulo have made my attendance an obstruction to the evaluators' attending. However, the candid observations and the thoroughness with which findings were articulated indicates adequate review.

.......................... ~............

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

. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..

. ~. - -.. -

............... m......................

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

- ~ ~ -. - - -

~~~~~~-

we >

....~.- ~ ~ ~

...- ~ ~ ~ ~

ce renu ve no..o wacu o 4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

.i

.: :.2:

.:.u....'. a.

a. w... -.u.. w.>..a.

.c..w. a.a

.O.:..~..x.~.

1

\\; n. r.-

g.~.

y,4 e,.

p g.

ser..

r

,3, y

ase I

Results The following are concerns and open items that the INPO evaluation team cocsnunicated to the utility with respect to the Maine Yankee training programs being evaluated:

Initial and continuing training programs for instructors need to be formalized and implemented in order to ensure that instructors maintain technical. skills.

i Some of the enabling learning objectives in operator programs are

l written as action items; however, test questions appear to test the knowledge associated with these actions.

It needs to be made clear i

whether the trainee will be tested on the action, the knowledge, or both.

In-plant training for nonlicensed operators is not effectively

~ presented.

Performance on OJT items is not consistently evaluated.

4 There are not enough items on the nonlicensed operator qual cards to indicate good performance.

4 There is no assurance that qual card items will be perfonned i'1 a sequence related to prerequisite knowledge. This applies to both the nonlicensed program and the Radiation Protection program.

Qual card items not associated with procedures do not all have standards for performance.

Setter guidance is needed for those who conduct oral examinations to ensure consistency with respect to number of questions and topic areas.

In-plant training for RO/SRO trainees is not defined well enough to ensure repeatability or consistency.

In the Radiation Protection program, approximately 30 tasks nor% ally associated with this position were not selected for training. N he i

personnel who perform these tasks are therefore not trained under the Maine Yankee Systems Approach to Training (MYSAT). Since these tasks are assigned at Maine Yankee, they should be trained appropriately and be included in a program that is subject to INPO evaluation.

(MainI Yankee objected to having learned this too late, i.e., at the time of the team visit.)

Several topics should be added to training for Radiation Protection personnel, i.e., industrial operating experience, ALARA, plant operations and maintenance.

(Maine Yankee stated that these topics 6" '" >

............... ~. "

....... " ~. ~ " -

m.... - ~. - -

~~~~--.

.......................................................m."............. ". " "

cru u m no,so. ncuo 4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

. -. " - ~ ~ ~ ~ *.

- L;m L

.n... m

.u.< w.c,.,.ca.._...

u <....

__u 1._; 2 u_

i 4 6 [-

5.'

5 d.

~

4 don't fit into perfomance-based training because they have nothing to do with the Radiation Protection position. The INP0 subject matter expert for this program explained that these were relevant areas in which RP personnal might play a support role.)

3' The INP0 team noted the following strengths in the programs evaluated:

Technical reference materials for operators and trainers are readily available.

Evaluation procedures are good although the cycle has not been completed to allow implementation.

The Training and Qualifications Review Board is extremely thorough and takes a serious look at each trainee and his potential.

Conclusions The INPO Evaluation Team and Peer Evaluators all had appropriate qualifications for the program areas they were evaluating.

All. document reviews, interviews, and class observations were comprehensive.

The Team Manager and Team Manager-in-Training did an especially good job of dealing with several tense situations that arose because of Maine Yankee disagreement with some of the INPO findings.

The major inadequacies of the sole Radiation Protection instructor were not comunicated as well as they might have been.

I believe this was due to the fact that he was present at the exit meeting.

OJ gbal signed by i

Dolores S. Morisseau, Training and Assessment Specialist Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

W. Russell P. McKee, IE H. Kister, RI C. Julian. RII i

M. Phillips, RI!!

fr DW/DSM1/ ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT-MY R

., p g,.m o u

..J.$,f. D FT....

MT omes p..................PT..S...S..t.a..f. f.........

.M..T..B./. 0..

. ~ ~^ '>

D.W.d.s.

OE.. 8 / h....e9.k.y...

.....l.(. 2 8 6/......... /86 8/

ears) 4ac ronw aia no,somnew o 4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

  • u 5 * " "-* C ' " '

g

_2_.

ic.:.

l ; m /.m. a :.;cc.,

.._e._ s s.e..

..a.i c ;..w::uac:.,~..;;u.

l.Nq.

2b tj INFORMATION SHEET INPO ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT MONDAY, JULY 28 THROUGH FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 1986 July 27,1986 TEAM HEMBERS s

i 1l TEAM MANAGER:

WALTER POPP TEAM MANAGER (TRAINEE):

LARRY DURHAM TEAM MANAGER ASSISTANT (SYSTEMS REVIEW):

GEOFF EDELMAN TEAM MANAGER ASSISTANT (PROGRAMS):

JERRY OLSEN MEMBERS:

TONY HINSON, INPO, Licensed Operator Process JIM CANTRELL, INPO, NLO Program Content FRANK SWIHEL, Omaha Public Power, Ft. Calhoun, RO Content 1

ERIC PUGH, TVA, Browns Ferry, RP Content ED O'NEIL, FP&L, St. Lucie, Objectives 1&3 AL RIVERS, INPO, Objectives 2 &l2, Team Lunch Coordinator LEE CATALFOMO, PSE&G, NJ, NLO Process LARRY DOOLEY, Boston Edison, Pilgrim, RP Process OBSERVERS BOARD MEMBER:

LINCOLN CLARKE-MIT Professor, Tuesday PM to Thursday 1900.

BOARD MEMBER:

JOHN PALMS-Academic Vice President, Emery University, All Week.

/'

t /'

NRC OBSERVER:

DOLORES MORISSEAU-J. Per,1sensk%'s Offices, All Week.

SENIOR MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE:

WALTER COAKLEY, INPO Accreditation Division Director, Thursday Noon to 1030 Friday.

MOTEL HOLIDAY INN, BATH, MAINE.

._.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20147E891&oldid=4179269"