ML20195B909

Discusses Observations Made During INPO Accreditation Team Visit to Plant.Team Evaluation Rept Should Be Released by 860401.Morisseau Trip Rept Encl

ML20195B909
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, 05000000
Issue date:	03/24/1986
From:	Brockman K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Julian C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20155G578	List: ML20155G575 ML20195B870 ML20195B909 ML20195B932
References
NUDOCS 8605290581
Download: ML20195B909 (2)

Text

r e s UNITED STATES l

' [km me! #

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON

1. ~ REGION la h 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.

• -4 ATLANTA, GEORGI A 30323

% . .../ MAR 2 41986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Caudie A. Julian, Chief, Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety THRU: Bruce A. Wilson, Chief, Operator Licensing Sect Operations Branch, . Division of Reactor Safety %p FROM: Kenneth E. Brockman, Reactor Engineer Operator Licensing Section

SUBJECT:

OBSERVATION OF INP0 ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT PLANT HATCH (GEORGIAPOWER) ,

Introduction During the week of January 27-31, 1986, Dolores Morisseau, Division of Human Factors Technology, and I observed the INP0 Accreditation Team Evaluation for four Plant Hatch training programs. These programs were:

Non-Licensed Operator LicensedOperator(RO)

Senior Licensed Operator (SRO)

Shift Technical Advisor (STA)

Inclusive to each of these programs were the necessary plant wide generic

- -- training requirements (operational feedback, instructor qualifications,_ systems

- based training, etc.) and the appropriate requalification training necessary for a continuing training program.

Discussion of the accreditation process, as well as results and conclusions on the trip have been documented in the trip report of Ms. Morisseau (copy attached).

Specifics concerning personal observations are highlighted below.

Interviews I observed four interviews conducted by evaluation team members - one conducted by a Process Evaluator and three by Subject Matter Evaluators. In all instances the team members showed themselves to be both thorough and competent. It was obvious that they had "done their homework" and entered the interview knowledge-able of the specifics concerning the particular Hatch program. Additionally, the evaluators did not go into the interview with preconceived opinions of acceptability. They dug into each program to identify areas of weakness and followed up on them to ensure program adequacy.

Class Observation I attended two of the lectures obserud by team evaluators. In both cases the utility's Instructor Evaluation Form was used. The quality of the instruction was very good. Each instructor appeared prepared and technically competent.

Platfonn skills were adequate and promoted a " learning atmosphere". Lesson Plans 8605290581 860429 PDR ORG EPSINPO PDR

r

~

q 44 j.

Caudie A. Julian 2 ggg 2 4 1986 and Learning Objectives were utilized by both the instructors and students as learning aids.

The team evaluation report should be released by April 1,1986. At that time I plan on reviewing it (at INP0 Headquarters) to ensure that the concerns of the Evaluation Team are adequately reflected and followed up upon.

Af' -

Kennet [Brociman

Enclosure:

Memo to Booher from Persensky dtd 2/12/86 cc w/ enc 1:

D. Morisseau, DHFT, NRR J. Persensky, DHFT, NRR W. Russell, DHFT, NRR s

t l

I l

l

. . _ .-