ML20149C100
| ML20149C100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island, Columbia, Surry, North Anna, Turkey Point, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1986 |
| From: | Boger B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082310270 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-787 NUDOCS 8607090559 | |
| Download: ML20149C100 (7) | |
Text
_.
f.I.,L.a
- a a
u. a-.;
.:-. -....... a,:1
- n
- w. '. :
w... a.. :-.. = - - ~ ~ A...
}
'ja pag
[
Do UNITED STATES i
-8
',7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 20, 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: William T. Russell, Director Division of Human Factors Technology FROM:
Bruce A. Boger, Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Human Factors Technology
SUBJECT:
INP0 ACCREDITATION BOARD MEETING t
On May 28 and 29, 1986, I attended the INP0 Accreditation Board Meeting in l
Atlanta as the NRC observer. The utility training programs presented to the Board were for the NLO, R0, and SR0 for WNP-2, NLO, R0, SRO, EM, and MM for Prairie Island, NLO and RAD TECH for Turkey Point, and EM, MM, and RAD TECH for North Anna and Surry. For your information, all of these programs were found acceptable. This report describes my observations of the meeting and the accreditation process.
The Board members present were: Cordell Reed (Chainnan), Lincoln Clark, John Palms, Charles Sener and Lee Oxsen. Lists of utility personnel present l
are found in the enclosed agendas for the meet.ing.
The conduct and protocol of the Board meeting was similar to the meeting I attended last December.
I continue to be favorably impressed by the accreditation process based upon the Board's questioning and the INPO team manager's knowledge of the programs being evaluated.
In particular, one individual was the team manager for four of the fise facilities.
I could not detect a difference in quality across the reviews conducted by this manager.
This is encouraging in light of the increased workload that INP0 will see later this year. However, several new team managers are "in training," thus indicating that the NRC should remain alert to changes in the quality of INP0 l
team manager presentations and evaluations.
l The following are some of the major facility-specific issues raised by the l
Board along with the utility response.
I.
Turkey Point (Initial visit 9/85, Follow-up visit 3/86) 4 a.
The R0 and SR0 programs were withdrawn from Board consideration about a week befora the meeting.
(Due to the recent concerns over the requalification program, the utility preferred to identify and correct problems before bringing the R0 and SRO programs to the w
~
Botrd.)
l f C T.H b 'I' I U F/W
% fMkSS9 Gl fg L
[ -_ r -.:. o _. :. M _.: a.--_..... _.... :
a w.u
+L"u m
,j -
2
{.
i i
William T. Russell June 20, 1986 b.
Several program weaknesses and backlogs were due to 6 lack of resources.
(Backlogs have been eliminated through increased contractor support, although the utility acknowledged its desire to reduce reliance upon outside resources.)
II. WNP-2 (Initial visit 12/85, No follow-up visit)
!1 The WNP-2 simulator has over 700 outstanding simulator change requests.
Considerable discussion was held on the WNP-2 comitment to fix the simulator and to ensure that operators receive adequate training in light of known simulator deficiencies.
(The utility has hired hardware / software personnel and has instituted procedures that alert instructors and trainees to simulator / plant differences.)
j III. ' Prairie Island (Initial visit 7/85, Follow-up visit 4/86) a.
There were many open items (over 25) from the initial visit with respect to implementation of program aspects such as: evaluation and feedback loop, 0JT methcds and standards, and continui.1g training.
(All open items were closed out during the follov-up visit. The additional contractor assistance used to accomplish this will be decreased.)
l b.
The operator requalification program received an unsatisfactory
{
evaluation by the NRC.
(Discussions in-house and with Region III resulted in concerns on NRC exam quality and upgrades in the number and intensity of facility requalification program quizzes.)
IV. North Anna and Surry (Initial visits 2/86)
Virginia Power does not include training of walders and machinists in the MM program.
(Only "qualified" candidates are hired, e.g., ASME qualified welders.
In addition, all candidates must pass a job sample performance test, e.g., machine a part given a blueprint.)
1 During a break, I discussed some issues of current interest with the Board.
In particular, I emphasized the key role that the accreditation process plays in our proposed changes to 10 CFR 55.
In addition, our examinatiin development efforts and their relationship with the INP0 JTA were explainea.
Finally, I advised the Board that Harold Denton and you would likt to address 1
them during the plenary session scheduled in July.
a In sumary, the Board continues to assess training programs by placing heavy reliance upon INPO evaluations. Consistency across programs is attained via "standard" questioning, although I noticed that the INP0 team menagers now anticipate some of these questions and present the information before the Board asks. Overall, the Board evaluation method appears to be effective; 8
y J
.s. w u..
.: -. a.....
... o -. - c..
. s;a. aa..:
-x
=..
- c 4'
. j, -
1 I
William T. Russell June 20,1986 4
l however, with the projected INPO workload increase as more facilities seek accreditation, the NRC should maintain.(or even increase) its involvement in Board reviews, INP0 team visits, and post-accreditation audits.
i l
Bruce A. 8 ger, Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Human Factors Technology t
j
Enclosure:
j Agendas 1
cc:
J. Sniezek l
- f i
ii 1
'i a
i l
'l
'i
.i
'l i
6 4
s
u ;:. r.:=:.. ii.-.m u -..: ~. w a..c a s
..u..a : a z w & : u..,.=:.. ~.,
j' NATIONAL NUCLEAR ACCREDITING BOARD May 28, 1986 3:00 a.m.
Co ffee, juice, and doughnuts INP0 Board Room (1505) 8:15 a.m.-
Opening remarks by Chairman Cordell Reed Introduction of INP0 sta ff Walt Coakley 8:30 a.m.
Sta ff discussion Dale Spoerry l
8:45 a.m.
Board review of Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant's training programs:
Cordell Reed
- non-licensed opera tor
- radiological protection i
technician l}
o INPO Team Manager presentation Dale Spoerry o Florida Power & Light Company's presentation
- Joe Dickey, Vice President Nuclear Operations
- Bill Waylett, Manager, Nuclear Training
- Chris Baker, Plant Manager, Nuclear. Turkey Point l
- Bill Miller, Training Superintendent
- Don Grandage, Operations Superintendent 10:00 a.m.
Board deliberations 10:30 a.m.
Staff Discussion Ron Fritchley 10:45 a.m.
Board review of North Anna and Surry Power Stations' training programs:
Cordell Reed
- electrical maintenance
- radiological protection personnel technician
- mechanical maintenance personnel o INPO Team Manager presentation Ron Fritchley o Virginia Power's presentation
- Bill Stewart, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
- Dave Cruden, Manager, Maintenance and Performance Services
- Terry Williams, Manager, Power Training Services
- Bryce Shriver, Dires: tor, Nuclear Training j
- Wayne Harrell, Station Manager, North Anna
- Bob Saunders, Station Manager, Surry
- Larry Edmonds, Superintendent, Nuclear Training North Anna
- Jack Bailey, Superintendent, Nuclear Training, Surry
- Jerry Pederson, Suoervisor, Training Power Station Support, North Anna
- Bob Miller, Supervisor, Training Power Station Support, Surry 4
1
n ;.:._ a.:..
,. r
- ..'a -.
...... a......-.....:........
.....a.a..
... ' c.
- r
.'1 2:00 p.m.
Board Deliberations 3:00 p.m.
Be.nrd Business 4 :00 p.m.
Adjou rnmen t -
4 :15 p.m.
Van leaves for Waverly Hotel 4
5:30 p.m.
Meet in lobby of Waverly to walk to dinner in Galleria Mall, f
B i
4 i
1
.I t
t t
e 4
?
I 1
4 I
e
'4
f a m _-.. m s_ _ a _, A _;.. w
- a. ; _
..,._. w
...,,,.u, ri j-
,i, MATIONAL NUCLEAR ACCREDITING BOARD 2
May 29, 1986 o
8:00 a.m.
Co ffee, juice, and doughnuts INPO Board Room (1505)
.t 8:15 a.m.
Opening remarks by Chairman Cordell Reed Introduction of INP0 staff Wal t Coakl ey i
j 8:30 a.m.
Sta ff discussion Ron Fritchley 8:45 a.m.
Board review of WNP-2 Nuclear Generating Plant's training programs:
Cordell Reed f
- non-licensed operator
- senior reactor operator /
- reactor operator shift supervisor f:.
o INP0 Team Manager presentation Ron Fritchley o Washington Public Power Supply System's presentation
- l
- Jack Shannon, Deputy Managing Director j
- Jerry Martin, Assistant Managing Director, Operations j
- Rich Stickney, Manager, Technical Training
- Chris Powers, WNP-2 Plant Manager
- John Wyrick, Manager, Nuclear License Training 1;i 10:45 a.m.
Board deliberations 11:30 a.m.
Lunch 12:30 p.m.
Sta ff Discussion Ron Fritchley l
12:45 p.m.
Board review of Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant's training programs:
Cordell Reed
- non-liccnsed opera tor
- electrical maintenance 3
- reactor operator personnel l
1 1
- senior reactor operator / - mechanical maintenance sh'ft supervisor personnel j
I o
INPO Team Manager presentation Ron Fritcaley
, o l -j o Saa'hern Si.ates Power Company's presentation 4k Larson, Vice President, Nuclear Generation Net?s, General Manager, HQ Nuclear Group i
+r Eliasun, General Manager, Nuclear Plants y
- M Jonyeau, Manager, Production Training
- Ed Watzl, Plant Manager
- Ted Amundson, Training Superintendent, Prairie Island Training 4
Center
- Clem Yares, Training Superintendent, Riverside Training Center
- Dick Lindsey, Plant Superintendent, Operations and Maintenance
- George tenertz, Superintendent of Maintenance i
I
,..r.. u.
..r:.._,__. -.... _..
4 I1 i
.i f.
2:45 p.m.
Board Deliberations t
3:30 p.m.
Adjou rnment 3:45 p.m.
Van leaves for Atlanta Airport i
E 4
t c
I t
l i
i 4
4 i
..e.u.;__ _ _ _ __..._._.......
u
.a
. ~ -..
)
-)
.&gs '
DISTRIDUTION:
9' f
Central Files
.cf JUL 1 886 09drisseau i
ME.v0RANDUM FOR: Harold R. Booher, Chief l
Haintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology i
ThRU:
Julius J. Persensky, Section Leader Personnel Training Section Maintenance and Training Branch, CHFT FR0M:
Dolores S. Morisseau, Training and Assessment Specialist Personnel Training Section Maintenance and Training Branch, DHFT I
SUBJECT:
OBSERVATION OF INPO ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT DAVIS-BESSE (TOLEDO EDISON)
Introduction During the week of June 16 - June 20. Pat Eng (RIII) and I were NRC obsarvers during the INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation of six training programs at Davis-Besse. The programs that were evaluated against Revision 1 of IhP0 Criteria 85-002 are:
Nonlicensed Operator Licensed R0 Licensed SR0 Instrument and Control Technician Electrical Maintenance Mechanical Maintenance i
The training and orientation session for Peer Evaluators was conducted on Moncay morning.
(The list of Accreditation Team personnel, including Peer Evaluators, is enclosed.) The team wa.e also given an overview of the Davis-Besse organization, the Training Systcm Development (TSD) Model, job analysis methods, and the training materials matrix.
Ms. Eng attended the morning portiva of this meeting.
We both participated in a tour of the training facility.
l The formal entry meeting was held oi Monday afternoon.
The team leader l
introduced the members of his team and owtlined the qualifications of each.
l He emphasizec the role of the NkC observers, i.e., "they're here to watch us, I
not Davis-Besse." He also reviewed the roles of the evaluation team, the I
Accreditatiori Board, and the process for tracking open items.
p? 2M > h 70 l
A b &R hf>T V'T ^
%g, F/3(,
i
,e Y
I A" k
==croawaiano,so ~. cwa:4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY d " " 2 " '" * '
pd
__:.a.........................~......,_....,_..i;....._ i, -
,f 4
1.-
=:-
t,'
w s
y "i
t 2
The Accreditation process 5
The process was the same as that described in previous trip reports. The i
program content and process groups met with their respective leaders each af ternoon; the combined groups met af ter these meetings. Open itens and
'l concerns were discussed and then comunicated to utility perscnnel each i
morning by team and group leaders. A schedule of interviews was pnsteo on the board in the INP0 workroom to prevent as much duplication of effort as possible.
Interviews I observed interviews that covered the analysis, development, implementaticn and evaluation phases of Training Systems Development. The interview on task analysis was extremely thorough and established what methods were used to select ano validate tasks. The interviewers asked many questions designed to provide understanding of how the Training Information Management System (TIMS) was developed and maintaineo.
It was particularly interesting that a lesson plan package was prepared to explain the TSD process and the validation process to the subject matter experts, job incumbents, and operations support personnel who participated in the validation. Other interviews covered the development of the training material and the evaluation of both trainees and program. No interviewer was satisfied until he or she had covered every pussible phase of that aspect of the process being examined, if the team leaders had additional questions, the interviewers generally went back to find answers.
1 Class Observation Opportunities to observe training were severely limited by the strike at Davis-Besse. A smaller team of thPO personnel will return, possibly in July, to observe simulator training and operator training classes. There was a mechanical maintenance class and a lab on packing valves. The class was conducted for the management level personnel required to cover maintenance during the strike. Two observers evoluated this class -- one before and one after the break.
I attended the entire class. The lab was evaluated by a l
peer evaluator who was part of the content evaluation group.
I also attenced the lab.
In both classroom and lab, the INP0 team observers used the training department's evaluation form which covered both content and l
instructor skills. These observers also followed the lessco plans during the ins truc tion.
j Results 4
The following are concerns and open items that the lhP0 evaluation team 4
communicated to the utility with respect to the Davis-Besse training programs being evaluated:
i l
l
- T'>
I em) i
~ eromu m no.soi~newe n o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
~
.....-... :.... :. n a. L..
.2 :
V.
- 5;:W..%
. n a..
..w....
1,..
}
.~ %.
v.
~...
r c
.I T
,j !
l The process for analyzing new task information needs to be procedurally formalized to ensure repeatability.
Revision of system study guides needs to be completed.
1 Lesson plan development for the NLO program needs to be completed.
1 There is no core of performance items on the NLO qualification cards, s
The "instant SR0" program needs to formalized.
y Lesson plans for the three maintenance programs need to be completed.
Classroom, lab, and 007 for maintenance pro', rams are not consistently sequenced, i.e., classroom first, lab and/or OJT second.
I The I&C prograa does not presently include splicing and termination.
The course materials on Process Control do not have all objectives Covered.
The Mechanical Maintenance program does not include a ceurse on f-j properties of metals.
The INPO team noted the following strengths in the six programs evaluated:
There was extensive involvement of plant personnel in the anclysis 1
j process. 947, of Davis-Besse job incumbents participated in task i
validation.
The training department has a TSD course module on the PLATO system for
~
dIl members of the training department and other interested personnel.
I There is extensive training for 0JT evaluators.
The training facilities are excellent.
There are a number of feedback mechanisms to determine training 1,
effectiveness.
Interviews and document review ascertained that these i
mechanisms are used and are thorough, i
The NLO program includes a proficienoy manual with refresher knowledge components.
This applies even to senior level NL0s and necessitates them going back to review lower level tasks.
t The use of shop training councils and training foremen on shift prcvido inveluable advisory review and coordinatf or.,
t
.......................... " " " " " " ~~".""."""".
- " "'k enn >
""""~""".".
j i
e ro=w a e o so acu o 4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- "",""]*
yk.u L =.. 'a.......... a....
.~...,a.
.<......:..~.. na,. h. c.w.. a
- x.. ;.,.
r
'I G.7
~
L 1
e-gl.
's 1 i J
1 I
At the conclusion of the exit briefing, the team leader noted that the final report to the Board may be delayed because of the strike since several team
~!
members will have to return to observe operator training.
- l Conclusions
(
1 The INPO Evaluation Team and Peer Evaluators all had appropriate j
qualifications for the program areas they were evaluating.
' All document reviews and interviews were thorough.
I The team reviewed continuing training as an integral element of TSD.
(Davis-Bosse identified tasks for continuing training in the analysis phase of program development.)
The analysis data is very thorough and appears to be well rr.aintained.
f The Davis-Besse Training Division has made a great deal of progress in all phases of TSD since the NRC review last October.
3
'Ortinei ew %.
Dolores S. Morisseau, Trair ing 1
and Assessment Specialist Personnel Training Section Maintenance and Training Branch, DHFT
!j
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
W. Russell P. Eng, RIII s
4 P. Mc Kt:e, I E l
H. Kister, RI C. Julian, RII M. Phillips, RIII R. Cooley, RIV 4
1 J. Craws, RV
.j A. DeAgazio NRR PDR PTS Staff l
i i
DW/DSM1/ DAVIS-BESSE TEAM VISIT hN
{
~'a k..S.B/.M....E.bf.....
bnsky Du i T /t Jp wa= = > 4. c.r....s.s...a..u...
r.........,.........
ms >.U.... l../. 8 6.......
...".T'/../. 8. 6.......
~ c renw aia no soi~=cu o *o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- """"-*8' I
.pu>
. u.,. :... w. nu...-..- -.....-... ~
... a. w...
.c.. n. w. +..... a ~...
I 4
Team Assignments Davis-Besse Accreditation Team Visit
]i June 16-20, 1986 i
Ron Fritchley Team Manager i
Larry Durham Team Manager in Training I
Dan Garner Team Manager Assistant for Systems Review
)
Bob Simons Organization and Management / Resources IPeer Evaluator-Arizona and Facilities j
Public Service Comoany)
[
David Stump Training Sta ff a'.d Training Effectiveness Evaluation t
Henry Wiedrich Non-licensed Operator Training Process, IPeer Evaluator-Public Service Company of Coloradol i
Barbara Henton Licensed Operator Training Process (Peer Evaluator-Consumers Power Company) i !
Sill Nevins Maintenance Training Process Pete Steele Team Manager Assistant for Programs Review Len Cloutier Non-licensed Operator Program Content Steve Allen Reactor Operator Program Content IPeer Evaluator-Carolina Power % Light Company) l Ed Force Senior Reactor Operator Program Content (Peer Evaluator-Arkansas Power & Light Comoany) l 1 John Cowan Instrument & Control Technician Program Content Bob Rothermel Electrical Maintenance Personnel i
l ?
(Peer Evaluator-Comonwealth Program Content Edison Companyi j
Mechanical Maintenance Personnel Richard Baum IPeer Evaluator-Sacramento Program Content Municipal Utility District 1 i
2.:. : n
...,.:....r
".~...:;...u. w
-.ca..
'rI
- e.
- .w.
d.
o
'j Davis-Besse Team Assignments 4t j
Page 2 i
Harold Ray National Nuclear Accrediting Board (VP and Site Manager, San Observer Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Southern California Edison Company)
Pat Eng Observer, NRC Region !!!
4 Dolores Morisseau Observer, NRC Division of Human Factors Technology
?
9 o
a 1
e t
4 4
1 i
o
)
I i
.,1 9
l
_