ML20147E897
| ML20147E897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1985 |
| From: | Crews J, Morisseau D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Booher H, Faulkenberry B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147E666 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-787 NUDOCS 8801210237 | |
| Download: ML20147E897 (4) | |
Text
'
3 p
y.
p..
V Ry W
W V
W~
( M DISTRIBUTION:
[
Central Files MTB R/F JAN 0 61985 DMorisseau JCrews NEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Bocher, Chief Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology Bobby H. Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator Region Y FROM:
Dolores S. Morisseau Training and Assessment Specialist Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology Jesse L. Crews, Senior Reactor Engineer Region Y
SUBJECT:
OBSERVATION OF INPO ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT DIABLO CANYON Introduction During the week of November 18-November 22, 1985. Dolores Morir,seau of the Division of Human Factors Technology, and Jesse Crews, Region V, were NRC observers during the INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation of the following Diablo Canyon Power Plant training programs:
Licensed R0 and SRO Training Program Nonlicensed Operator Training Program STA Training Program This evaluation was conducted according to INPO 85-002, "Criteria for the Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry," dated January 1985.
The Accreditation Process The accreditation process was essentially the same as in prior team visits as observed by NRC staff members (see memorandum dated August 7, 1985, from Morisseau to Booher).
The accreditation team members for this evaluation are listed in Enclosure 1.
Observations Ms. Morisseau and Mr. Crews used the Accreditation Teas Observation Protocol 87 during this INP0 team visit.
As is noted in the protocol, the checklists are 00".;';lentw'th-th;lf'V: 0;; nt'f Ok :nt; cf traktag 4; tFQ 0;;;;r h th; ome s >
sm.as) 2[I237080119
]
PDR FOl pDR 2.9.v.q9.?..7S7
- 44........
---.-.c.
n.a--
ta-Vi t
t *.
g.
C F'
Y V'
4=
F M
2 JAN 0 6 585 "Comission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel." The answer to all the questions in the checklist for the Diablo Car. yon visit has to be "yes."
The team sought every kind of verification and documentation called for in the protocol.
If there were apparent gaps in the infomation, the team members persisted until they were satisfied or carried the unresolved concern forward to each day's briefing with utility training personnel.
While all team members were conscientious in this regard, it should be noted that the Peer Evaluators were especially so.
Both NRC observers noted that Peer Evaluators seem to be one of the great strengths o' this part of the process.
The two NRC observers attended the morning briefings with the utility training staff and several different operations personnel.
Concerns were clearly stated each day; utility personnel would respond and provide infomation and documentation to help resolve concerns.
Particular attention was paid to ensuring that feedback loops were completed or that the nachanisms were in place to complete them. One feature of this utility's training program was that several contractors were involved in the development process.
The team members were particularly careful to intarview the cognizant contractor personnel and determine how each of the programs was developed.
By Friday, there were 'few concerns remaining.
The Plant Manager asked Mr. McCullough how he would characterize the findings at Diablo Canyon compared to other utilities. Mr. McCullough did not really draw any a
comparisons, but did state that the findings of concern were fairly insignificant, except for the issue of nonlicensed operators standing watch prior to qual cards being completed.
Nt.Os do not begin watch standing duties until they are finished with the classroom portion of their training.
They work on the OJT portien of their training with an experienced qualified operator. There are times when they stand watch, however, before their qual cards have been signed off. This is partly because there are new qual cards designed to go with the TSD prograni snd this creates a backfit situation.
Both INPO and the utility recognite the problem and a solution is being worked out.
Conclusions Once again it is clear that the INPO evaluation team members are clearly qualified to evaluate their specific area of concern.
The wrap-up meetings at the end of each day are an effective mechanism for nulling together the results of the day's efforts. The process and content evaluators do a good job of dividing labor to avoid duplication of effort.
Peer Evaluators are one of the best features of the team evaluation.
.....u..n...n.n
.......n n..........
....nnnunnon.
......n.n.nnn."
nunununnnen n o n n n o n.n n.
mennunna.n
....n............
.................n..
n...unnu..nn.
u n u n n.n n e.
N '~ N 'G oo**c" 08 8 8 OFFICloL RECORD COPY fr v.s. opo tesa-<oo.:
4
^
C t'.
l* '.
e L_
[
W
+==
W
'=w W *
.. JAN 0 6 $85 Concerns If the NRC has determined that it is acceptable to evaluate and accredit training programs that are in varying stages of development, then there are no specific concerns with this particular stage of the process.
The teams that do these evaluations clearly state concerns to the utility.
At this stage of the process, the intent appears to be that the open concerns will be carried forward to the evaluation reports. At this point, we have probably expended enough headquarters resources observing these teams.
Regional personnel who will be potential support for post-accreditation evaluations l
should observe at least one such visit so that they understand the INPO process.
Dolores S. Morisseau, Training and Assessment Specialist Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology Jesse L. Crews, Senior Reactor Engineer Region y
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
D. F. Kirsch R. J. Pate i
DW/DSM4/EMO TO 900HER ACCRED TEAM MEMBERS
.mc., MTB/DH
{T,,,,,, RV g WexAu
. 9.t.. m b....4.r.ewC......
"> !.h!.8,s,,,,,,,,1,2/a,/,81,,,,,,w,,,,,,@,t,8, s,,,,,,
-- a - o m m m _ m o a mm -- --
m..e - -. _
Enc:osure 1 Team Manager Ashley Erwin Lead Content Lead Prices Evaluator Evaluator and and SR0/STA Process SR0/STA Content Evaluator Evaluator Charlie Felton Dan Garner
'larkMorgan(Peer-UNCNuclear)
MattJones(Peer-UNCNuclear)
SRO/STA Content SRO/STA Process John Richmond Jim Guay (Peer-Kewaunee)
NLO Content NLO Process Paul Baum (Peer-Turkey Point)
Bob Gillespie (Peer-D.C. Cook)
R0 Content R0 Process Pam McNulty (Peer-Catawba)
Organization and Facilities
- Mike Gittle Staff and Program Observers were: Dolores Morisseau - NRC/DHFT Jesse Crews - NRC/ Region V Charles Sever - INPO Accreditation Board Phil McCollough - INP0 l
i