ML20155G575

Summarizes Observation of INPO Accreditation Team Visit at Site During Wk of 860224.Reviews of Training Documents, Including Licensed Operators Job Survey,Task Analysis & cross-ref Matrix Observed.List of Team Members Encl

ML20155G575
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick, 05000000
Issue date:	04/30/1986
From:	Buzy J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Booher H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20155G578	List: ML20155G575 ML20195B870 ML20195B909 ML20195B932
References
NUDOCS 8605060590
Download: ML20155G575 (5)

Text

L-. , - - - . . - - . . . -- . ._- -

9 o -

i - _

b a b.~.' ,

h j

+' DISTRIBUTION:

Central Files MTB R/F APR 3 0 W :JPersersky]

RGallo JBuzy MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Booher, Chief Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology Samuel J. Collins, Chief Projects Branch #2, RI FROM: Joseph J. Buzy Maintenance and Training Branct.

Division of Human Factors Technology Robert M. Gallo, Chief Reactor Projects Section 2A Division of Reactor Projects

SUBJECT:

OBSERVATION OF THE INP0 ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT THE PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIHERICK GENERATING STATION Introduction During the week of February 24, 1986, through February 28, 1986, Joseph Buzy, DHFT, and Robert Gallo, RI were NRC observers during the INP0 Accreditation Team Evaluation at the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO), Limerick Generating Station for the following training programs:

Nonlicensed Operators

• Control Room (Licensed) Operators

• Senior Reactor Operator Shift Technical Advisor

• Technical Staff and Managers The Limerick accreditation evaluation continued during the period of March 3, 1986, through March 7,1986, in the following technician training programs:

Chemistry Radiation Protection I

Instrumentation and Control / I Electrical Maintenance Mechanical Maintenance i

( h h b h h O (F[sp, b )( F There were no NRC observers assigned to the March 3-7 evaluation.

The INPO accreditation visit was conducted in accordance with " Criteria for the Accreditation of Training in Nuclear Power Industry," INPO 85-002. The NRC observers utilized the " Accreditation Team Observation Visit Protocol" which is based on the Comission Policy Statement on Training and nual f ficatinn nf Nuelpar Plant poiennnn1, FD 111 fl7 Il01DC, March 9A, 1onc one) .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ...................

• u.s.ono ass-4ao.34

__ ==c ronu m no,eomacu o 4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY -

The accreditation team members for the Limerick review are contained in Enclosure 1.

The Accreditation Process The accreditation process of PEC0's Limerick Generating Station is the same as described in previous NRC staff reports which have included sumaries of the accreditation team visits. A sumary of significant milestones toward the accreditation of training programs at PECO nuclear plants included PEC0 participation in developing the INPO job and task analysis for BWR plants during the 1982-83 period, an INPO accreditation assist visit at Peach Bottun in March 1983 which led to the Self Evaluation Report (SER) in August of 1984 and subsequent accr'editation in May 1985. Limerick submitted SERs for the 10 programs during the period of August through December 1985. In addition, Limerick also provided an update to the SERS shortly before the INP0 site visit. Since PEC0 had one station with accredited programs, INP0 policy did not include an INP0 assist visit at the Limerick Station. INPO evaluation criteria for the Peach Bottom programs was based on INP0 82-011 while the Limerick programs were evaluated using criteria contained in INP0 85-002.

The programs evaluated during the accreditation review were developed using the Training System Development (TSD) model from existing programs contained in the FSAR. The STA program, which was in progress during the review, is the first Limerick program presented using the TSD model. Shortly after the accreditation review, Limerick began the first nonlicensed program using the TSD model.

Observations We attended the entrance meeting during which members of the Limerick and PECO training and operations organization were introduced as well as the INPO team members. At the end of each day, meetings between the INP0 team members were divided into content and process groups. Later, the groups met in a combined meeting. At this time, there was open exchange of information as well as identifying open items which were pursued with the training staff on the following day. The meeting with PECO staff on the following day was conducted by the INP0 team leader with active discussions by the process and content group leaders. Feedback to the team members was made during the lunch breaks allowing the individual team member to resolve the open items during the af ternoon or on the following morning.

The INP0 team members received General Employee Training (GET) to allow access to the restricted area. GET was required to conduct reviews of training records, and interviews of training personnel as well as job incumbents. INP0 had provided peer members with information on the conduct and method of data collection prior to the site unit. Peer evaluators were given additional training by individual INPO group leaders following the entrance meeting. We were informed thac additional training on the details e' the et:: rrees:t"iHzth =rhg.

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

-.~~~.~..

~ ~ ' " > ................... ..................... ..................... .................. ~ ....... - ... ~ . ~ . .......... - ~ . ~ .

• * * > .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..............-- - . ~ . . . ~ . . . -

• u.s. as.o m soa.m.

wac ronu m nossoi wncu an' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

- ~ _ _ _

Q . [;

We witnessed reviews of training documents which included the licensed operators job survey, task analysis and cross-reference matrix. The team members also evaluated: classroom instruction; lesson plans; on the job training; written examinations and answer keys and also conducted sample grading of written examinations. Interviews were conducted with: training department personnel; PECO and contract instructors; job incumbents and trainees. All activities were conducted with preplanned evaluation and data collection forms. The evaluations conducted by INPO personnel and peer advisors was thorough and either confirmed the coments in the SER or revealed missing or incomplete elements in the program. With the exception of two items which we were unable to confinn, we conclude that the INP0 evaluation included,the criteria contained in the Observation Visit Protocol.

During the team visit, we were aware that requalification simulator, written and oral examinations for licensed personnel were in progress. The INPO team did not witness or evaluate the administration or content of these examinations; however, an INPO team was scheduled to evaluate simulator training the week of March 31 - April 4,1986. The evaluation of simulator training (Objective 10 of INP0 85-002) will be factored into the draft accreditation report. We were informed that the simulator training evaluators consists of a number of INP0 personnel plus a peer evaluator. The INP0 simulator team members have experience as simulator instructors and have conducted numerous simulator training evaluations. We expect that the simulator training evaluation will be conducted as well as the other portions of the evaluation process.

INPO Exit Meeting During the exit meeting, the following unresolved items were among those discussed with the PEC0 staff: .

TheTrainingSystemDevelopment(TSD)modeliswelldefined;however.

more participation from the operating organizations is necessary.

Some of the lesson plan content or material is not identified in the lesson plan objectives. The material is often included in written examinations.

" Oral examinations need more structure so results may be fed back into training program evaluations.

Examination keys for written examinations should be retained.

Instructor qualifications should include equipment in the plant. In addition, instructors should have periodic assignments in the control room.

For nonlicensed operator programs: Job descriptions are incomplete; mtf rf t; tr:f ' ; :::t te b ::r: ';r=;7 t h : ; r g fr:d re:di,y

'" 4 .................!. 5.t,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

'"^"*> ................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ...................

DATEk .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................

==c ronu m noisomacu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• u.s.ono im-4oo.n

.y..-..,--

. T""" W g2

.y.  :  ?

c s

. Any 5 sig 4

• For licensed personnel and STAS: OJT tasks needs to be better defined for trainees and evaluators; simulator exercise guides need to be completed and should include specific objectives and evaluation criteria for SR0s and STAS; team training should be an objective in each simulator exercise.

• For the technical staff and management training: initial training should review basics of instrumentation and plant chemistry; continuing training needs to be more formal than an optional reading list; remedial training and reexaminations are missing in this program.

We also attended art exit interview with the INPO Team Manager and each of the peer evaluators. The peer evaluators were asked to complete a questionnaire and comment on the preparations for the evaluation team visit, the training presented by the evaluation team, and if INP0 team members had unduly influenced their findings. Most peer evaluators gave constructive coments on the preparation for the visit and were positive on the training provided.

The peer evaluators felt the INPO staff had adequately addressed any

. questions and had not influenced their evaluations.

We were informed that the Accreditation Team Draft Report will be reviewed with PECO management about May 1, 1986. We have informally requested that one of the NRC observers (Robert Gallo) be present during the review of the draft report. The INPO Team Manager (Ralph Reed) and PECO Training Manager (John Stankiewicz) do not have any objecticn to NRC attendance at this time.

Conclusions

• The INP0 and PEER evaluators were well prepared and performed a thorough review of each of the Limerick programs as they exist today.

• The accreditation process requires a biennial status report on the l

~

progress of ongoing actions comitted to and in response to the Accreditation Board. We recommend utilities develop a plan to resolve open items and be able to track completion or resolution of open items on an annual schedule, D@uf alped by:

j DWnnistened byf I Joseph J. Bury Robert M. Gallo, Chief Maintenance and Training Branch Reactor Projects Section 2A Olvision of Human Factors Technology Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

As stated

~> p..T......

== ...................

..tmgj...... .. g?.a' H........... ....... ..................... ..................... .....................

.9..uLbr . ...... . .'.V . . i . .".s M. . .R. . . ..................... ..................... .....................

cm) 4.. /.le/.86.

.... . . .../ .8 6. . . . . .4.

. . . . .4.. ./. . . .f. . . t.8. 6. .....................

unc r=a m no,soinacu o 4o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY * " " "'".."*.

e' Enclosure 1 INP0 EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS LIMERICK GENERATING STATION FEBRUARY 24-28, 1986 Team Manager Ralph Reed Lead Content Evaluator Lead Process Evaluator Robert Barmettlor Charles Fenton Robert Mullican (In training) SamNewton(Intraining)

Content Evaluators Process Evaluators J. D. Cantrell - NLO Roy Goodman - NLO (TVA)

Dan McMillan - R0/SR0 content Ken Rothlamp - R0/SRO GPU - Oyster Creek LILC0 - Shoreman Mike Lyon - STA Dave Gardner STA Illinois Power - Clinton Station Niagara Mohawk - Nine Mile Point Robert Barmettlor - Tech Staff Mike Gittle - Tech Staff Joe Coppolino - Objectives 183 N.Y. Power Authority Observers Dr. Wayne Jenz - Detroit Edison - Accreditation Board Member Robert Gallo - NRC/ Region I Joseph Buzy - NRC/DHFT

' Phil McCollough - INP0

,