ML20149B865

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of INPO Accreditation Board 851023-24 Meetings in Atlanta,Ga Re Training Programs for Listed Facilities, Performance Indicators,Nrc Exam Failure Rate & Instructor Qualifications
ML20149B865
Person / Time
Site: North Anna, Callaway, LaSalle, 05000000
Issue date: 11/04/1985
From: Ziemann D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Russell W
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML082310270 List:
References
FOIA-87-787 NUDOCS 8511070480
Download: ML20149B865 (4)
v • d • e


Text

1

L;&., a'i..k.L..

L

^

n-

.a-.

.r

a -

a

}o UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

{y i

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 November 4, 1985 t

MEMORANDUM FOR: William T. Russell, Acting Director Division of Human Factors Safety FROM:

Dennis L. Ziemann, Acting Deputy Director Division of Human Factors Safety

SUBJECT:

INP0 ACCREDITATION BOARD MEETING On October 23 and 24, 1985, I attended the INP0 Accreditation Board meeting in Atlanta as the NRC observer. The plant training programs being presented to the Board were for the NLO, R0 and SR0 for Callaway, North Anna Power Station and LaSalle County Nuclear Station. This report describes my observations and some of the speciffc questions raised by the Board members.

The voting Board members were Cordell Reed (Chainnan), Ceco.; C. O. Woody, FP&L; William Kimel, University of Missouri; Forrest Remick, Penn-State University; and Chsries J. Sener, Bell Comunications Research, Inc.

F. Remick replaced C. Reed as Board Chairman for review of the LaSalle training programs and Wayne Jens of Detroit Edison became the fifth voting 1,

member of.the Board._ Observing Board members were Robert Seale, University

?

of Arizona; Edward Jones, McDonnell Douglas and George Moore, Westinghouse, retired.

In addition, various INPO and utility personnel were present.

Typically, the utility would be represented by the Vice President Nuclear, Site Manager, Plant Superintendent, Training Manager and Training Supervisors.

The conduct and protocol of the meeting was as-described in J. J. Persenky and H. R. Bocher's trip reports dated June 10, 1985 and October 10, 1985 q

respectively.

The Board generally discussed the following issues with each utility:

1.

Impact of accreditation program on training program and its cost.

2.

What is the utility doing in the area of performance indicators?

Are there any performance measurement techniques and what are the

~i results?

l l

3.

The Board had very strong feelings about meeting schedules for I

implementing recommendations; INP0 staff to track implementation progress and advise lhe utilities and the Board of progress. The 4

Board obtained comitments from each utility to meet the schedule indicated in the INPO Report.

1 FuTn - 27 187

& 511@7@yff f YA 'tgp,

E g o c..._.;. 2 c..._.._ u -..... _

,.. s m.u

...m.. _.

1

".l,

i

'l William T. Russell November 4, 1985 4.

What is the frequency of granting waivers from scheduled training; what is attendance at scheduled requalification training (nothing less than 100% is fully acceptable)?

5.

How is Trainee's performance fed back to Training Department from the perspective of evaluating effectiveness of training and improving the Training Program?

6.

What measures are taken to ensure no cheating by the trainees?

?

7.

Is plant management duly concerned with the performance of the Training Department? Training cannot be viewed as an obligation and responsibility of the Training Department only.

8.

NRC exam failure rate - Is the principal objective of your Training Program to prepare the operator for and passing of the NRC licensing examination?

9.

General interest in screening tests usage and results.

10.

Instructor qualifications and participation in the training -

Do the instructors hold NRC operator licenses?

j 11.

Is there a formal program for interchange of personnel between i ;

training and operating organizations?

l' i

12. Purpose of accreditation is not just to determine success of l

program to date. Perhaps more important is, to ensure continuation of a good Training Program.

The following are plant specific issues raised by the Board or plant unique features of the plant Training Program as described by the INP0 Team Leader l

or the utility staff.

I.

Callaway a.

All training is performed by utility personnel, none is l

contracted. The training staff has been increased from 30 to 39.

b.

Utility boasts very few failures of NRC exams as evidence of good Training Program, i.

c.

Board indicated initial concern regarding readiness of Training Program in view of large number of recomendations by the review team. However, after noting the progress made

'b l

l a

-n.

p.: w..:::.u.:.:

....,..n

~.

-. ~..

.s..,...-

i

]

g a

[

William T. Russell November 4, 1985 in the past three months and the large number of recommen-dations resolved during a follow-up site visit by team members y

as reported in Supplemental Team Report, this is no longer a concern.

q l

d.

Combined R0/SR0 training questioned because NRC has required separation of R0/SR0 training at one facility.

e.

Board questioned if it was appropriate for INP0 staff to question the ability of utility personnel to conduct OJT 4

since no such requirements exist. The staff agreed that there were no requirements.

i II.

North Anna a.

Plan to maintain STA position and eventually all STAS will be SR0 licensed.

l b.

0JT performance is measurcd and recorded.

t t

j c.

The Board expressed concern with protracted schedule for i

updating training material (May 1986).

In the interim, i

instructors will update material during lecture, INP0 j

staff considered this adequate for short term.

d.

The Board questioned acceptability of 70% pass criterion for in-house training. Licensee indicated this was only applied to l

I i development training of non-licensed personnel and it was fixed i a by Union centract which is quite comon.

In the long tem l;

they want to raise the passing requirement to 80%.

1 e.

The Board questioned the effectiveness of self-study l :

programs. Licensee indicated the self-study programs l]

were guided training with instructors always available and exams were given in conjunction with the self-study.

l i III.

LaSalle I

The review team only made one recorrrnendation relative to the LaSalle program. As I recall, the recommendation did not reflect a significant shortcoming in the program.

1

~

In general, I was very favorably impressed by the accreditation process based on observing this Board meeting. The INPO Team seemed to have performed a I e very comprehensive review, the Accreditation Board had certainly done their homework in preparation for the meeting, the Board members asked very pene-trating questions and the utilities have invested a great deal in their Training Programs, recognize its importance, and presented their programs exceptionally well.

i..= -

.2 a.c u.a..r.............-..: <.

,..i.w m.;.s.2,.

.s.v.c... a _

....a,,,.

l

't William T. Russell November 4, 1985 b

The INP0 staff had a copy of the Accreditation Self-Evaluation Report and INPO Accreditation Review Report for each of the three facilities delivered to my motel prior to my arrival.

These reports were very useful in preparing for the meeting. The documents were all returned to INP0 at the conclusion j-of the meeting.

.M%wk N

Dennis L. Ziemann,e ing Deputy Director Division of Human Factors Safety I

cc:

J. Sniezek I

1 i

i a

I k

e I

i i

i f

1

~$

t i

. _.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20149B865&oldid=4169933"