ML20195B932

Repts Observation Made During 860127-31 INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation at Plant.Good Progress Noted

ML20195B932
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, 05000000
Issue date:	02/12/1986
From:	Morisseau D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Booher H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20155G578	List: ML20155G575 ML20195B870 ML20195B909 ML20195B932
References
NUDOCS 8605290589
Download: ML20195B932 (8)

Text

, - . . - .

/

DISTRIBUTION: 'v s

FEB 121986 P MTB R/F JPersensky DMorisseau i JBuzy

. JKoontz MRoe KBrockman, RII MEMORANDUK FOR: Harold R. Booher, Chief '

Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology THRU: Julius J. Persensky, Section Leader Personnel Training Section Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology FRON: Dolores S. Morisseau, Training i and Assessment Specialist

, Personnel Training Section Maintenance and Training Branch

- Division of Human Factors Technology

• 4 .

SUBJECT:

OBSERVATION OF INPO ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT PLANT HATCH (GEORGIA POWER) i Introduction During the week of January 27-January 31. Ken Brockman, Region II, and I were L NRC observers during the INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation of the following Plant Hatch Training Programs which were evaluated against INP0 criteria 85-002:

Non-licensed Operator Program Licensed R0 and SRO Program STA Program Licensed Operator Requalification Program The ent.ry meeting comprised introduction of the INP0 Evaluation Team members, key personnel of Georgia Power and Plant Hatch, and a comprehensive overview of.the accreditation effort. Contractor personnel, who developed large

! portions of the programs under review, provided details of how the job task

, analysis was conducted for each program and how the tasks were selected for training. When the formal presentations were completed, the team was given a tour of the training facility.

There was a training and orientation session for Peer Evaluators in the afternoon. (The list of Accreditation Team personnel, including Peer Evaluators,isenclosed.) Emphasis was placed on minimizing duplication in .

< interviews and ensuring that all pieces of the systematic approach to 1

training are used.  ;

The Accreditation Process The process was essentially the same as that described in previous trip reports. ine program a nd process gr oups met sepa rately each e vening; a omes, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... ...................... ...................... ................

sunaame, . . . . . . ...... . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . .................. .....-............

gag'i g .................... ........................ ...................... ......................

n a m nnne o m - OFFICIAL._ RECORD COPY _ _ _ _ _ , _usano: mi-=,=

r'

. 2_

meeting of the entire team followed. On the following morning, open itens and concerns identified at the previous team meetirg were expressed to utility personnel. One feature of this team's activity that I h_ ave not previously observed was a particularly good one with respect to avoiding duplication. Team members drew a large matrix or, t'e n board in the INP0 work room to indicate the date, time, and location of interviews. The matrix also included the names of the interviewee and the interviewer. This enabled team members to interview personnel together whenever possible, which was also a great help to the NRC observers.

Interviews i  ! observed a number of interviews conducted by evaluation team members. I accompanied one Process Evaluator during his interview with contractor personnel who had done the job / task analysis, validation of task selection,

- and program development. This-evaluator was particularly thorough in

• determining the qualifications of the specific contractor personnel who .

. carried out this work. He also asked questions concerning the task selection process, as well as the frequency of updating tasks list, establishment of entry level skills, derivation of learning objectives, and establishment of a test bank. He also included a question concerning the consequences to the training department when the contractor leaves. This interview was extremely thorough and designed to determine the quality of contractor input to Hatch's training program. All other interviews that I observed were equally comprehensive.

Class Observation Team members attended both lectures and simulator classes and reported that instructcrs had good platfonn skills and followed the lesson plans and student handouts adequately. I observed one team member who attended a requalification training class. He used the utility's evaluation form for

- instructors as well as following the lesson guides and student handout while the class was being taught.

Results T'he following are the concerns and open items that INPO connunicated to the I

utility with respect to the Plant Hatch Training Program:

• The training materials that are still in the development l stage should meet the goal of completion by the end of March because the Accreditation Board wants to see

, finished programs.

l t l

• The initial training program for non-licensed operators s does not include fundamentals training adequate to support the job, e.g. no basic mathematics, electrical safety, or pump theory.

......a...a...... ...a..a...a-....... .................aa. ..........a..a....aa .-aaaaa~~~ ~""~~~~~aaa*

OFFICE) a " . .. . a .a . . "- a a

.............a ........................ ..................~.... anaaaaaa-a=

aMR8eAass) ........a...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . - ~ ~ ~

onep . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ .................... ........................ ........................ ..............~...- .-~~~~~~~

MsiacDemonssees OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usomesi-m see

,y . , , . . - . -- - _ . . -

+

f 9

• Some tasks in the initial non-licensed program are only taught in the classroom rather than having an OJT. component.

• Infrequently performed, critical tasks need to be included-in the non-licensed operator continuing training program.

• " Instant" SR0s are not presently trained on complex tasks that are done by non-licensed operators in the field.

• The simulator exercise guides for both initial and requalification training do not include learning objectives that are specific to the STA position.

• The program evaluation mechanisms have not yet been

- implemented although they have been proceduralized for

. both internal and external evaluation. *

• Although the utility has provided plant specific learning objectives to the G.E. course that is taken by the Plant Hatch STAS, there is no mechanism in place that ensures that the objectives are met or that ev'aluates how well they are met.

• There is no policy or procedure that ensures that instructors have in-plant time although this occurs on an informal basis.

The utility agreed that it would be best to include formal in-plant time in instructors' goals and accountabilities, i.e, i performance standards.

The INPO team complimented the utility on the completeness of the Health

Physics and Chemistry 1. abs, both of which exceed accreditation criteria, the good communication between the training department and plant operations, the

-technical and platform skills of the instructors, and the strong corporate l support for training.

Conclusions r

l

• The INPO Evaluation Team and Peer Evaluators were thorough in L reviewing the Plant Hatch Operator and STA training programs.

1 I

• The team was very attentive to the qualifications of contractors and the quality of the materials they developed.

l

• The team looked at requalification training beyond the dimensions j required by regulation. .

l

' The method used for analyzing job positions and selecting tasks for training was very systematic.

• The Accreditation Team visits still seem to occur prematurely in that many new programs only exist on pa per; they hm e orrece > ...................w. M t M tt r % the mpitte cyc1+ ! uch that evk1 uationse -

• sw=4ase > .. .. . . ... . .. . .. . . het..Qqqur.r.Rd.... ........................ ........................ ........................ ...................... ........................

DATs )

m c romu n e o meos m e u opo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usomm m.x

i , *

• -  :. :a P

• Plant Hatch has made a great deal of progress in the analy' sis and development stages of a systematic approach to training.

'OrI8nal **d bv:

Dolores S. Morisseau, Training and Assessment Specialist Personnel Training Section Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology

Enclosure:

. As stated  :

cc: W. Russell I

i s ACCREDITAT(0NTEAMVISIT/DSM4/kb 1

...DH , . .T.B ....................

orFtct) .DHFT. : p.gE1 . ...................... ........................ .................... ......................

$URNAME) .........

.V..../.

ai

...27,5, f788. ...

DATE)

{ NRc ronu sis 90-80) NRCM 0240 0FFiClAL RECORD COPY uso m taia m

jy E

./

? -

)!$TRIBUTION: 'O IRB WF JPersensky ENCLOSURE I'0U J8uzy JKoontz Mtoe 7-4SrocialetG

~~ RII MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Booher Chief Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology c

THRU: Julius J. Persensky, Section Leader "

~

Personnel Training Section r-i Maintenance and Training Branch w Division of Human Factors Technology  ;;;

FROM: Dolores 5. Morisseau. Training ?_.

and Assessment Specialist

• Personnel Training Section Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology "I -

SUBJECT:

OBSERVATION OF INPO ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT PLANT HATCH (GEORGIA POWER)

Introduction During the week of January 27-January 31. Ken Brockman, Region II, and I were NRC observers during the INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation of the following Plant Hatch Training Programs which were evaluated against INPO criteria 85-002:

Non-licensed Operator Program Licensed R0 and SR0 Program

' STA Program Licensed Operator Requa11f,1 cation Program The entry meeting comprised introduction of the INPO Evaluation Team members, key personnel of Georgia Power and Plant Hatch, and a comprehensive overview of the accre'ditation effort. Contractor personnel, who developed large portions of the programs under review, provided details of how the job task analysis was conducted for each program and how the tasks were selected for training. When the formal presentations were completed, the team was given a tour of the training facility.

There was a training and orientation session for Peer Evaluators in the afternoon. (The list of Accreditation Team personnel, including Peer Evaluators,isenclosed.) Emphasis was placed on minimizing duplication in interviews and ensuring that all pieces of the systematic approach to training are used, s The Accreditation Process Oficia: Copy The process was essentially the same as that described in previous trip reports. Ine program a nd process groups met sepa rately each a nning; a onicep ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ....................... ......................

euwaut > ....................... ...................... ........................ ....................... ........................ ........................

onn ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

me ronu m no-soi mcu ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uwo.

-aw o l

s g-

- t

. I

! .. i' 2- f meeting of the entire team followed. On the following morning open items and concerns identified at the previous team meeting were expressed to utility personnel. One feature of this team's activity that I have not i

previously observed was a particularly good one with respect to avoiding duplication. Team members drew a large matrix on the board in the INP0 work room to indicate the date, time, and 'ocation of interviews. The matrix also included the names of the interviewee and the interviewer. This enabled team members to interview personnel together whenever possible, which was also a great help to the NRC observers.

Interviews f l'

I observed a number of interviews conducted by evaluation team inenbers. I {

accompanied one Process Evaluator during his interview with contractor

. personnel who had done the job / task ana 'ysis, validation of task selection.

! . and program development. This evaluator was particularly thorough in -

determining the qualifications of the specific contractor personnel who .

carried out this work. He also asked questions concerning the task. selection l process, as well as the frequency of updating tasks list. establishment of entry level skills, derivation of learning objectives, and establishment of a test bank. He also included a question concerning the consequences to the training department when the contractor leaves. This interview was extremely i thorough and designed to determine the quality of contractor input to Hatch's

training program. All other interviews that I observed were equally comprehensive.

Class Observation Team members attended both lectures and simulator classes and reported that instructcrs had good platfo m skills and followed the lesson plans and '

student handouts adequately. I observed one team member who attended a

, requalification training class. He used the utility's evaluation fom for i instructors as well as following the lesson guides and student handout while l

the class was being taught.

b Results The following are the concerns and open items that INPO conmunicated to the utility with respect to the Plant Hatch Training Program:

• The training materials that are still in the development stage should meet the goal of completion by the end of March because the Accreditation Board wants to see finished programs.

• The initial training program for non-licensed operators i

! does not include fundamentals training adequate to support the job, e.g. no basic mathematics, electrical safety, or pump t

theory.

l l ,

"a"""""""""" " " " " " " " " * " " " " " " . " " " " . " " " " " . " " " " " * " " " " "

OFFICE) . " . " . " " . . . " " " . " . . " " . " . " . " " . " " * " " . " " " " " " " " " . . .

SunNAME h " . " " " . " " . " " " " .

eusy ........................ ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . " - - - . . . . . . """.. . " . " - .

m ponu m posopencu see OFFiClAL RECORD COPY usom --me o

i f . k t

4

.. j '

• Some tasks in the initial non-licensed program are only taught in the classroom rather than having an 0JT component.

• Infrequently performed, critical tasks need to be included in the non-licensed operator continuing training program.

• " Instant" SR0s are not presently trained on complex tasks that are done by non-licensed operators in the field.

• The simulator exercise guides for both initial and requalification training do not include learning objectives that are specific to the STA position.  ;

!

• The program evaluation mechanisms have not yet been j'. implemented although they have been procedura11 red for both internal and external evaluation. -

^

• Although the utility has provided plant specific 1 earning objectives to the G.E. course that is taken .

by the Plant Hatch STAS, there is no mechanism in place  !

that ensures that the objectives are met or that evaluates how well they are met.

• There is no policy or procedure that ensures that instructors have in-plant time although this occurs on an informal basis.

The utility agreed that it would be best to include formal in-plant time in instructors' goals and accountabilities, i.e.

,, performance standards.

I The INPO team complimented the utility on the completeness of the Health

Physics and Chemistry Labs, both of which exceed accreditation criteria, the good communication between the training department and plant operations, the technical and platform skills of the instructors, and the strong corporate support for training.

Conclusions

• The INPO Evaluation Team and Peer Evaluators were thorough in reviewing the Plant Hatch Operator and STA training programs.

• The team was very attentive to the qualifications of contractors and the quality of the materials they developed.

• The team looked at requalification training beyond the dimensions required by regulation. .

• The method used for analyzing job positions and selecting tasks for training was very systematic.

• The Accreditation Team visits still seem to occur prematurely in that many new programs only exist on pa per; they hai e omer) ..................h. M t been.ti r$ the. con plete cycle.! uch that. eval pationse ~~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

summae> .. . . .. . . .. AO R . 0.C.C.U ttf.d .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... .......................

om) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . ....m. . . . ..

'feRC FORM 318 (10 h8CM 024o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY owo i.ei-mm

?

y.. .

,,5 g i

~$

• Plant Hatch has made a great deal of progress in the analysis and development stages of a systematic approach to training.

" Original stened tm Dolores S. Morisseau, Training and Assessment Specialist Personnel Training Section Maintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology

Enclosure:

l'

. As stated $

cc: W. Russell  ?

l f'

~.

?

s.

ACCREDITATj0NTEAMVISIT/DSM4/kb

'DHFT: kl DHF1.4TB '"""""""""""' '"""""""""""'

.uaure >

DM5FT ffF FM unny' """""""""""" """""""""""" """"""""""""

om,

.p7...

,, 7.g . .. .

'". . .; .g.g.d".

[ wnc ronu ais po.aos uncu caa OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usce mi-maa