ML20149B916

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Re 850812 Trip Rept on Observations Made During Incident Followup of 850221 High Startup Rate & Subsequent Power Range Trip.Accreditation Team Observation Visit Protocol for Use by NRC Encl
ML20149B916
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Summer
Issue date: 01/17/1986
From: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Dixon O
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
Shared Package
ML082310270 List:
References
FOIA-87-787 NUDOCS 8601240367
Download: ML20149B916 (19)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:* .. u. : a....-. -. ' :.. :.. ;:.. :::. := i i. ['

  1. j....g%

j UNITED STATES j 7. NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i i I WASHING TON, D. C. 20666 k *****/ JAN 17 M 2 9 i Mr. Osmund W. Dixon, Jr., PE i Senior Vice President South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Post Office Box 764 Columbia, South Carolina 29218

Dear Mr. Dixon:

I have been requested to respond to your letter of November 19, 1985, to Mr. Dircks in which you expressed concern about the trip report on Virgil C. Sumer dated August 12, 1985. That report was a summary of observations made during an incident follow-up of the February 21, 1985, high start-up rate and subsequent power range trip. t We note that you consider the on-the-job training (0JT) program a cooperative effort between Operations and Training. At the time of the review, the administration of practical factors which involve control manipulations did i not appear to be a well controlled part of the training program. In fact, if i it had been, there probably would not have been a situation in which a trainee without the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities would have been allowed to participate in the plant manipulation involved in the incident. Your suggestion that "much could be gained by" including your plant-specific simulator in a "more positive role than presently permitted by the regulations" is consistent with current staff proposals. A final rulemaking on 10 CFR 55, which addresses this issue, will soon be considered by the Comission. We understand your concern about the NRC's interpretation of the plant's inability to access the INPO generic task lists for the STA during the NRC's review. However, our concerns related to INPO Accreditation. As you know. the NRC is reviewing the INPO Accreditation Program to determine how well it conforms with the NRC criteria for performance-based training. We noted the apparent breakdown of communication between INPO and the utilities. Since access to the INPO data base on the STA position is essential to the process of making plant-specific task lists, it is a problem that an already accredited program still did not have a plant-specific task list and was not able to access the data base to achieve this important step. During our visit to Summer, we were advised that the STA task list was not yet plant-specific. p f ? -78 7 F4 8' % L M J},h3 b ~7 y l'),f, i

.-,..--..,..-....,.:........ a..:. :.

.+

..;;. =..... :.... n 1 u.,',,:,, s.c .n - u... y ~ a g, 1-g: h. v-w e.- ,.,a Mr. Osmund W. Dixon, Jr. We are pleased to note that you have been providing additional training to personnel conducting OJT. This should do much to ensure consistent control of performance in the critical area of OJT. Sincerely, Orf3!aal 57d gy 7 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l i l 4 f

  1. ND4

% qq % 9c,qa. \\ p 7Athw nb%\\W f/@/86 v DW/AHB3/ LETTER TO DIXON CL

  1. ?

o r, 9 ,, g, /,QH ET.........P.0/.0h ET......dRE......... 0 g.......... D /h Ph..... h MT

  • "'a t.5.8/.DHF

,,,,J,,/,.,g,,,,, , s e,n,s,y,,,,y,B g,g,h e,r,,,,,,,,,,92,1r,,g,,,, ,,,,y,%,y p,U,,,,, ,,,p,( S M y t,,,,,,H8RMgn,,,

  • =="4.SBlu,7,er,,,r,,

""> } /.')../.8,6,,,,,,, ,,,,g,/,83,....,,,,1/f,(,ag,,,,,,,,,,,1/,,(,sA.........1/. A./.8k........1/.$./.e.6...... ..1/. 49/.95..... OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

  • u.s.a m u n -4eo.a.

w}cruumno,soiwncue:4o

, r- - J..s,

>. u.,. o;.- _'...

i, / ,-4 -f.. l- ] e. } t/, b.i ' 1 'c I l.t 1 ACCREDITATION TEAM 08 VATION VISIT PROTOCOL rt l l-l.,

y i-i.$ '

~ 1 PURPOSE: This document is intended for use only during an NRC observation of an INPO Accreditation Team visit at a bj l J utility involved in the accreditation process. The checklist provides a consistent means of observing and i,'; j commenting on the way in which the INPO Accraditation team conducts its pre-accreditation review of applicable i. i., ) plant training programs. The checklists are consistent with the five essential elements of training as presented

t.. ].

in the "Comunission Policy Statement on Trsinig and Qualification of Nuclear Plant Personnel." FR 11147, USNRC, (!.,- March 20, 1985. It should be noted that the checklist is not intended for review of training programs. The document to be used for that purpose is "fraining Review Criteria and Procedures." prepared under USNRC Contract [;] ' RS-NRR-84-078. 21 June 1985. Data collected from these completed checklists will be used as the basis for c-nicating any concerns to INPO about the accreditation process and to examine aggregated data for a 1987 report to the Comunission on the status of training in the industry. (,' ~ h [' ' CONTENTS: Sections contained in the checklist are: i

j. -

4 , P PAGE 2 l~t 1. ANALYSIS.................................. 1 .' ? g4 j 2. LEARNING 08JECTIVES....................... 4 ri y.-l' ! 5,5 3. DESIGN / IMPLEMENTATION..................... 5 t,Y 4. TRAINEE EVALUATION........................ 9

  • id '

j ( 5. PROGRAM EVALUATION....................... 11 M 6. INP0 TEAM QUALIFICATIONS................. 14

)

a .s [.,l' ,? 7. FORM TO COMPLETED FOR EACH OBSERVATION VISIT................. 16 s. .s .,( e gy;- 2 7' Ib1 .-{ F/.2 6 +, n. _.._.m ~_,

2. ,,7,l.~, Vo ! ' i. l.4 s. I 6 1 f EVAtUATION J ACCREDITATION EVALUATION PROTOC0t. TES NO C0pmENT 't 1

2.0 ANALYSIS

p.' '? ., s, 1.1 Does the revleu obtain/ examine these types of E documentation? ,i 'F I Instructions / procedures describing facility's analysis 7 methods? q. o Task list / inventories for the jobs of interest?

2:

Documentation of development / validation of task lists? i-Documentation of how tasks are selected for training? a h'% )4 .f Documentation of analysis showing how conditions and t-standards of perfonnance, enabling skills and knowledge are derived? m l 1 Documentation of analysis of on-the-job performance

?

problems and industry events? Q'i

17..

N Documentation related to selection of instructional [(( f.. ' methods and media? ls* 1. 1.2 Does the review verify existence of systematic task analysis process? t.. is i.; k .I

  • e

-=' .c. ...', ;~.. a... i p. i': _z. l, l EVALUATION YES NO COMMENT '.? r, 1.3 Does the review verify use of task analysis information ,[ to make training decisions? tasks **for formal training .,I [ cues, conditions and standard of performance for training c t g skills and knowledge underlying task performance gy 4. y on the job performance problems leading to decision to train + .6' y 1.4 Does the review ensure that industry events are analyzed to j' decide training needs? ,) .A ., i c ,4,.

j 4

'[f ' 1.5 Does the review verify the qualifications of persons doing task analysis? For example: i Those 'ersons 7.J - Instructional Technologists (ITs): p 7 particularly skilled / experienced in all phases of the .i Systems Approach to Training (SAT). These persons. ( frequently are not experts in the technological areas h; .g to be trained, but are expert in such processes as task '-L d analysis, instructional design and development and performance-based evaluatiosi. n Subject Matter Experts (SMEs): Those persons skilled ~ in specific subject matter areas but not necessarily e, skilled in use of the SAT p:ocess. For instance, utility instructors are normally specialists in the subjects they teach but need assistance or training in use of SAT. i 9 ) el lb

d 11.. .b. '. ; M..., ~....~_;.. s- .n .'.s. w ,4 = ': s . -i ' . J-f; EVAtt1ATI0ff C YES 10 0 E0PEEffT ?.. ,n: I' l.6 Doe-the review verify the presence of a systs for , j.h . l, keeping task analysis information current? rp w s.. [ :. Y

.V 1.7 Does the review verify that task analysis informeilen is tj used to determine the qualifications of plant personnel?

t g= .'s. .9 I 1' t,e, 5' ) g,. i . v !- .Y,' ] ,.v..- Ih

.V.' '

ty!. ,,t

O.

~ . r-f. +.. 7,.,,

t

-C. s e e a. M' 5 b lb? q .(. .I ,-[ I . E.. m. ..,I. ,-)' i.. : .e. g. c, .0 l e e A ,9.' ..h, ~- e s i 3

..:. ) 5.'.' ..{...,, -,i i i~t \\, f*~ ? - l} -4, ..u. l EVAt ilATTfMI '~ YES NO C0pmENT '..e .,1 1., -; . 't 2.0 LEARNING OBJECTIVES: [,;.

e. i

',v + p.:- }, r .' {}. 2.1 Does the review obtain/ examine these types of }. documentation: c Learning objectives associated with tasks selected for 1.7 review?

c.

.L

i. iQ v

f.; Information linking learning objectives to job fj performance requirements? g s E Procedures / instructions with respect to keeping learning s' objectives up-to-date?

i!'

f Documentation showing plant aodifications or procedural $l.$ /. changes reflected in revised training? a z . ~. i i ..t I 2.2 Does the review verify existence of a learnthg objective 4.y'y p for each task in sample to be reviewed? L:;e.. ~ 3 X ,.. i ' r; . sj 2.3 Does the review verify presence of enabling objectives for .It -1 each learning objective under review?

. n, 7

1.' f. 2.4 Does the review verify presence of 3 parts in each 2, r objective? i Action Condition l. f. i; Stedard e' L'

.... n. w t,=,.

2-
.
s. ;.

i l.' 1 p.*

  • s z -

s. I +* EVALHATION YES NO CONTENT ! i.,. 5 1 : ' 2.5 Does the review verify that learning objectives are lC, specific and measurable including standards ba ed on job perfonnance requirements? l' L,.c ?

L

.Y ,+.: f 2.6 Does the review verify that there is a system 7A I Y (e.g. procedures) for keeping the learning objectives current as job performance requirements involve? N .h_ T 2.7 Does the review verify that qualified personnel are RJ G h-involved in development of learning objectives? Ls s h i; i l ITs y g [ s

  • *i g og L

-.s 3 ,.i i ~ . i l I i l4 .e ! < h i lt v. e W l e . i; .i t . b f Ad i i i'! e

_;t _.s +. ~ _. u. ' * ?'. 1 ? r v ..]' .,l { ,L: ( EVAIflATION YES NO C0petENT L 4 i M. lf 3.0 DESIGN / IMPLEMENTATION: ,,j. 1 u h R s.6 1 s 3.1 Did the review process obtain/ examine these types of 4 1 inforination and documentation? l .g Instructions / procedures describing the training } 'C organization's: y; t.A ' ! f

  • goals j
  • objectives i

i

  • work plans (schedules and planned accomplishments)

,, l: -

  • relationship with other parts of organization 7.;

l Documentation for updating / revising goals and objectives [h.L tj and evaluation of training program against these

..)

1 t.f objectives ?... 7k Procedures defining the responsibility of training hC

j. if department personnel

't.7 a., Organization chart for the training organization 'Q l 1 .:~ ~ j Procedures defining the responsibility of training .L department personnel y 2 Procedures for sequencing of learning objectives for Q initial and continuing training "? ...i I'l lesson plans Procedures for evaluating existing instructional I 'C materials based on job performance requirements t i-T and learning objectives 57 '5 Procedures for keeping training programs up-to-date ,d., Procedures for maintaining training records ,.g S A-

f,:

c ~ 1' -~. - ? = = y [' '; ) t Ii i f ~; j EVALUATION t' VES NO C0petENT l 'j, 3.2 Does the review verify that the training organization j'4: , pi. ' f goals, objectives, plans, and relationships with other h*i

t organizational units are clearly stated?

?+, - + l ( di

?,

li-9; ' 1 i 3.3 Does the review verify that responsibilities of l. y!; h training department personnel are clearly stated in writing? g h-A R s. 3.4 Does the review verify that the sequencing of ,,i. y training program content is based on-the re?ationships dj among learning objectives? f/i .A m: .rj ,J. .i 4 3.5 Does the review ensure that lesson plans for all ' -E[ courses include instructional materials for L3 program implementation? .fI e. i .q i 3.6 Does the review verify that use of existing

ik instructional material is based upon an audit

'j evaluation of appropriateness for job grformance . l-requirements and learning objectives? ] .a ' ~.: 3.7 Does the review ensure that a mechanism exists l for keeping the initial and continuing training programs up-to-date as job performance requirements t. evolve? t

  • f

[*

.\\

r-
j.. e

, ~ i- - I EVALUATION I YES NO 00000ENT ,'. s. ; i.,... L9 r- +' 3.8 Does the review ensure that training materials i; are technically accurate? t,f 1e [g' : 7 m '3,.-, (, 3.9 Does the utility's method of ensuring the technical .k'i accuracy of training materials include: j'{p g q e j. Vendor-Supplied? kg s [F. Plant-Developed? C '; t.p "~ i i , - s,. 4 .T '.- S

  • i s!

i -it ...)., ? ,. f", Th

t 4[

,I 6 6, . % _t e S 9, a ' D '. 6 '.5 ..e 4, .F.,-

  • 7 b

4 .I 9 t 9 'c... J l ( i-

. S.. ....~.. h..... ....'.u ~1 U x.'..'.:

)

fj. ' W -t A l EVALUATION a'd YES NO CO M NT -[ .l; :' - 7 4.0 TRAINEE EYALUATIch: J g., g. ..t7 i

4

{ v W ' 7:p. w 4.1 Did the review process obtain/ examine these ty;.es of L . q i information and documentation? r e1 E Procedures for selection of candidates for training ,, J 4 and granting exemptions from training

G..

',j Trainee selection / exemption records s1 .-] Trainee test results for most recent initial or

1. '-l j'

continuing training . ',5 l. 4.2 Does the review verify that trainee entry level i skills are objectively evaluated as the basis for d- ~. training placement or exemption? i 'il } 4 3' 4.3 Does the review ensure that trainee evaluations are based on jou performance requirements and i learning objectives? 1 ] ? y 4.4 Does the review ensure that trainees are reguiarly .T and objectively evaluated throughout each .n training program? !q ? g r I a

.... p - x,. :. - ,c ,,,.J,,,.. .....w. sw =. u.. .-Y .t; aa... ; \\..e .-.m..>- .o f,.' _q., G "20-pStr. i' p (fa EVAL tlATIDil - t6i YES NO COPMENT 4.* y ^ .I 4.5 Does the review ensure that methods exist for ).; providing performance feedback to trainees? l, ;.' i.. 1.. a s [,, ' 1. T' 4.6 Does the review evaluate the methods used to ensure the entry level skills, knowledges, and I?). abilities of c:ndidates for training?

.4

+' ~. .~. s, - .n i N.,. I k .,f. 4.'- 3 E ..F t y b n s h q .v . :s. D.' i

  • f{l i *,l;

. e, f, - 1. .t-O .t. i6 ' i.. 7 I. ".4 M

- ~- .w.., :,

q. L.-las.-*n..-.:.

- es..w '. .-.. t.. ;. '. s...s -s..... - .as... .t-~. ....c ...e- ... : a .'.4 .x 4 . f.: ',) (; t EVALUATION N YES NO Co MENT

bri,
r...t.

a S.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION: l

t..

~ i 5.1 Did the review process obtain/ examine the following types of information and documentation? ! \\l] ?rocedures for evaluating training programs

e. ':

1 'E Recent trainee performance records

5t Instructor critiques y

r-S. Trainee critiques of training 5 i p1 Graduate trainee on-the-job experience critiques .'i Results of internal and external training program ~. I ' evaluation . s. Results of personnel performance evaluations - ..) Procedures for ensuring the quality of training staff: I,

  • training

, 5

  • qualifications
  • performance evaluation
  • certification I

i, P 5.2 Does the review verify that a documented program fl ' is used to continually evaluate training program effectiveness? .? !. I 4 M.

l ' '.: ... u.: u... n. 'N '2. _ _ v =. : ' %=l. L.:.. _.- , g, l '.-:i j EVALUATION i, YES NO CO M NT ' /, 5.3 Does the review verify that the conduct and content ' f,' 'i, of the training program are continually monitored 'f : and evaluated for: 'j,

f, Plant developed training?

T.E 4 Vendor-supplied training? e .r [ 5.4 Does the review verify that feedback'from on-the-job ..I ,E performance is used to modify the training program 'y as necessary? l '. ;j 5.5 Does the review verify that operating experience -J and other external factors are reviewed for evidence ,.,N of training effectiveness in on-the-job performance? F !- jsd' t.;. 5.6 Does the review verify that plant modifications. - /*, training procedural and administrative changes are reviewed for training impilcations? ?~ t z .w-5.7 Does the review process evaluate whether the ' ~ training program compiles with licensee '.i;. regulatory conniteents? y .O ! ;i; . j' .t .l . 't r.,- e S. E

  • y

,r ...... L ::i;. s.) c a ; : s :a... ..,.<; g r, - ~- aat .a. l s.

~,

}. s I-EVALUATION VES NO C0fetENT .i-a 5.8 Does the review verify evaluation of training ,,9 i Program i, ;,- i tr i (; Management? ri g i. p Staff Stre? ~t Workload? ~ r 4[ w I ! {i Personnel @alifications? .E, , x., - plant staff ., r,. t - vendor personnel J.- l',. -{. d 1. $a 4 .7 v r-4 ?

6

.t I ), I > l 't ' r ", 4 $e 7r. .c r' o .. t. e .4

.1

.[ r

  • 6 o-I e

/' t .,g 89 r

..f. ... 7,_ w.i_t. .L. 4 4 ,- }. 't. l

L EVALUATION

'k YES NO CopmENT ~'. 6,0 INPO TEAM QUALIFICATIONS: I j.d j. q y w I.. 6.1 Was team balanced with representation by IT n types and nuclear SME types? l 5 b 9 .c 6.2 Were all team members prepared for their l(:f participation through some consistent .? process? a at a minimum: 9 l ~ i; Overview of process; y j - i Objectives of process; Description of various roles of team members; ' 3J. Discussion of examples; j: Sample of product (report by an INPO team on G another accreditation visit); ^ -i t: Schedule of week's activities; Practice for interviewing skills. .t . e; ' 4 };' e % .' i. ~ 1 -1, .'.y g t -. t' s is e.' d.

m. ~_ g a.... ....-1.- Q '. _.i y 3 f EVALUATION 1 YES 'NO ComENT =' f !.c f 6.3 Did team leader ensure thoroughness? I e ,'k: All points in guide covered;

  • All unresolved issues discussed, then pursued to completion;

,3 c. Where necessary, new ways of establishing k audit trail discussed and assignments T,( 5

nade,

'. ?- f, All concerns of team members listened to; i team assignments revised as appropriate; , #3-open items followed up by discussion; iF group resolution used for problems; '4i t, Consideration for ind;;;;;&nce of team members (no railroading); .- g,i : a } All programs undergoing accreditation reviewed on sample basis. '.y b t-6.4 Do the review team members effectively use " 1' interviewing skills to: Identify problems? ' '{ n. I,.'I Identify causes bnd effects of problems in terms of ,.,{ training program design and implementation? Follow up on previously identified areas of concern? r-a .P . 0, - i :V '.Y ..? ' k. .F h ? t s-I' I i

j

,r

.,si,.-., ', .,-.j,.')), q...,,;..,..,. ;, .g..,. i.. ;. ' v_.3. :.s.4,': v7 (.,1 ,. A.V,.. g4 = k d - ~ .a.[. p, -1 1 e l .e. .,(' 1 f.

  • I I

e 3 .i >'= w W 9' 1 I o. l .5 l ~ L I 8 I e s e I >=.e l e. M m.> g. >= og ee A eg E >= J g.. .J

e. e C

' i. .M >= Ow z -4 ee eC ar * .s=. J r >= C W eC O E E M i w >= W K E 8 C T h c W 2" 85 E R w O= >= M = 6 E 3 M M c E E >= es w w w fJ5 W e=e 2 eg W Q G2 E w I aC E

  • =* g E E

M w w w WCC w E d E sh w a J e.=c

e. I

>= W P w E M E M Q EC 4 W 6 M e4; E w >= 2 C >= "C u O E aC w l..j ' at w >= >= - eg W 'E M a. >= 3 w j y g w E W >= W Q"

  • C ks.

W G. M W O. 4 _a eg E E C>W

  • e.

N E a 3 m m & W aC E . 8 e,. t. 5 8 e 1 l '..(, A ~ i '4 ' \\

  • i s-a zs.

it<iU;i:n.- ~ -- - s.. ...-v.,..~,.. %? %;.:....s.

  • ~. '

.'*:..<.>'.'s- _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20149B916&oldid=4169931"