ML20197C329
| ML20197C329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8611060067 | |
| Download: ML20197C329 (48) | |
Text
-
I4
~' ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Briefing on Status of INPO Accreditation of Utility Training Programs (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
9 Location: Washington, D..C.
Date: Thursday, October 30, 1986 Pages: i - 42 8611060067 PDR 861030 10CFR PT9.7 PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters
(~ 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
S O
1 D l SCLg i MER 2
3 4
, 5 6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on i
i S 10/30/86 . In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, i
1.
9 N . tJ . , Washington, D.C. The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain I
(g, 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 Informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.100, it is i 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the l
l 16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in J
19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22 j _
23 24 25
4 l 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ---
4 BRIEFING ON STATUS OF INPO ACCREDITATION 5 OF UTILITY TRAINING PROGRAMS 6 ---
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 ---
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Room 1130 ,
l 11 1717 "H" Street, N.W.
12 Washington, D.C.
13 14 Thursday, October 30, 1986
- 15 1
16 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to i
i 17 notice, at 1:32 o' clock p.m. , LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the i 18 Commission, presiding. -
19 i
20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: .
21 LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the Commission l
l 22 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 23 JAMES X. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission r
1 24 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission f
25 KENNETH M. CARR, Member of the Commission i
1
0
\
o . 't 2
q 1
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT C.' MMIS.; ION TABLE:
2 J. Hoyle 3 W. Parler 4 Z. Pate 5 K. Strahm 6 B. Boger 7 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
I 8 J. Sniezek '
9 10 11 i l
n .
13 14 .
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25
~ - - . . - - - . - -- - _
(
0 3
l 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good afternoon, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Today the commission will be briefed by the
, 4 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations known as INPO on two i
5 separate issues. The first issue we will discuss will be 1
6 focusing on the updated status of the utility accreditation 7 effort, training accreditation, and the last period will be 8 devoted to a discussion of the INPO plant manager training 9 course initiative, the pilot program that is underway now.
10 In February of 1985, the Commission decided to adopt i
11 the policy statement on training and qualification making the j 12 INPO training accreditation program the focus of training l
13 improvement in the industry.
1 14 This action was taken in lieu of rulemaking and was 15 responsive to Congressional direction in Section 308 of the i
l
. 16 Waste Policy Act. Within the policy statement, all utilities
, 17 committed to have ten programs ready for accreditation by the 18 and of 1986, that is, all utilities that were operational as I i 19 recall and those that were ccming on line were given some
)
additional time, of course, to get their programs in place.
20 21 In a recent letter dated the 23rd of September, 1986
]
22 to tae Commission INPO indicated that it appears that all
- 23 utilities will meet this goal. Today I would like to l
4 1
l 24 congratulate those utilities who have exceeded this goal and '
i 25 have actually obtained accreditation to become provisional
}
s 4
1 members of the newly formed National Academy for Nuclear 2 Training.
3 In addition, I feel it is important to recognize 4 those plants that have completed their ten accreditation 5 programs. It is my understanding that Susquehanna, Salem, 6 Callaway, Brunswick and Robinson have become full members of 7 the National Academy by so completing all accreditation 8 courses and they are to be congratulated.
9 In the same light, I am sure the Commission would 10 want to know when INPO expects all utilities to become 11 accredited and not just ready for accreditation.
12 Furthermore, I think we would like to hear a few 13 words perhaps from the staff today concerning their comments 14 and views on the accreditation process that the staff has 15 observed so far through the post-accreditation reviews and the 16 performance observations following those reviews.
17 Unless my fellow Commissioners have any opening 18 comments, we will turn the meeting over to Mr. Zack Pate for 19 the first presentation.
20 (No response.]
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: No comments, all right, Mr. Pate, 4
22 please.
23 MR. PATE: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we 24 appreciate the opportunity to meet with and brief the 25 Commissioners this afternoon. As the Chairman indicated, we
o 5
1 will give you an update on accreditation and the activities of 2 the National Academy for Nuclear Training and we will describe 3 a new initiative, the senior plant management course.
4 I have with me this afternoon Ken Strahm who is our 5 group vice president in training and education and Ken is the 6 executive director of the National Academy.
7 We have with us Joe Colvin, Joe, if you will raise 8 your hand, who is the director of our government relations 9 activities and Kent Hamlin who is our lead manager for this 10 new course and I am particularly pleased that we have with us 11 the eight members who are attending the first, actually a 12 pilot, course and we will introduce each individual attendee 13 in the course as we finish the presentation on that and just 14 before we bring them up to the table.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. Thank you.
16 MR. PATE: I would like to cover one item of 17 personal logistics first. I do have a scheduled INPO exit 18 meeting following an INPO evaluation and after my presentation 19 if the Chairman will so permit, I would like to turn the lead 20 INPO role over to Mr. Strahm and excuse myself. '
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. Certainly.
22 MR. PATE: I will just go right to the bottom line 23 first. As the Chairman has already indicated, the industry 24 did commit to itself, to INPO and to the NRC to have ten 25 programs at each of 61 operating nuclear stations fully ready
9 4
6 1 for accreditation by the end of 1986.
. 2 A key measure of success in meeting that objective 3 is for the utility to get its completed self-evaluation report 4 into INPO and have INPO accept that as a satisfactory I
5 self-evaluation report.
6 of the 610 that are due by the end of this year, we l
7 have 602 in hand. A few are still under review and I expect 8 that we will have the others and be able to bring those that 1 ;
9 don't measure up up to a satisfactory level by the end of this 10 year. Based on review of those SER's as well as many visits i
11 in the field, I am fully confident that we will meet the 4
. 12 commitment made to ourselves and to you by the end of 1986.
! 13 We would like to show the Commission graphs that
?
14 reflect that success but also answer the Chairman's question 15 as to when we expect to have team visits completed to every 16 place that has a program ready and when we expect to get all j
17 those programs through the formal process of accreditation by
\
18 the independent accrediting board. l l
19 So if I may, I will pass around and Ken will help 20 me, let me ask you to pass those around, so I can look at 21 mine, a set a bar graphs that shows the schedule of 22 self-evaluation reports.
23 (Documents distributed to commissioners.]
I e 24 MR. PATE: At this point it is pretty bland but I am
! 25 sure the commission shares my memory of the history. We had i
l
9 7
1 some cross-sledding in getting to this point. Looking at the 2 left part of those bar graphs, we were due to have 301 by the 3 end of 1985. We, of course, didn't have those by the end of 4 1985 but we have them now and as you look across the page, we 5 are up to date in every quarter except for the fourth quarter l l
6 of this~ year.
l 7 That, of course, does not mean that all of these ;
8 were submitted on their scheduled date but it does mean that l 9 they will all be in by the end of the time frame for hich we
) 10 made the commitment. '
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before you go on, do you any '
~
12 additionalslideswecouldpbssoutoryoudon'thavea -
1 13 viewgraph that we could use?
i j 14 Y MR. PATE: You can pass those around to the i 15 audience.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I hope there is enough. You don't j
e 17 have a viewgraph? +
18 MR. PATE:
No , sir.- We didn't bring a viewgraph.
19 We will take a lesson learned from that for.the next meeting.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I appreciate that.
l John, you might j, 21 give some to the press table.
i 22 . - .
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HOYLE: All right, sir.
U
- 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH
- Thank you. Lessons learned for next l 24 /.
) time, right?
( ,
25 MR. PATE: Yes, sir. .
p e
t J w
---_.,--,-..--.---,------,-.------.,e'. ---e-- ,.~m ...---,,--.--.n
- - - - . - . - . .--r-.-.-.,w., ,,,.----,--e, - - , - - , - -w e - - , - - -
I
, 8' 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you.
I 2 MR. PATE: As we look at this second graph, we show 3 the 602 programs that are in now and the 610 represented by a 4 star on the top graph that are due in by the end of this year 5 and the second curve in the middle, the dashed line, shows the I
6 schedule of team visits. That, of course, is resource ,
il 7 limited.
8 If we had the teams, if we had the personnel, we ,
i I 9 would field those. teams more rapidly but we don't want to 10 short change quality, so we are taking each program in a 11 systematic way and with about 74 people working for Ken and j 12 aven counting 400 people in the industry that Ken calls on as 13 peer evaluators, that is the schedule that we think meets the 14 right balance between timeliness and quality.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Zack, what is the backlog 16 running now from when the self-evaluation report is submitted 17 to when tNe team goes out to the site?
18 MR. PATE: I will answer that in part by saying that 19 we give first priority to the operator programs so the backlog 20 in that is small-but the backlog for things like say chemistry i
21 technician which we have given a lower priority than the 22 operator programs is quite large. Within that framework, let 23 me ask Ken to be more specific.
24 MR. STRAHM: It is about 11 months for maintenance 25 programs which is the longest. Operators are as soon as the
i 9
1 plant is ready, we fit them in and go on the operator 2 programs.
3 MR. PATE: Then the third curve down is taking the 4 programs to the accrediting board and you can see that that 5 curve is not far behind the visits by the INPO team so it is 6 really INPO resources and the limit on the resources in the 7 industry that we can call on that limits our progress between 8 the time the utility has a program ready and we actually get 9 it formally accredited by the board.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How many accreditation 11 boards are you running now?
12 MR. PATE: We have a board in progress just as I 13 left Atlanta and they are reviewing programs from five 14 utilities over a period of a day and a half. I think that is 15 the 24th board meeting but in many of their visits to Atlanta, 16 they meet with two or more utilities.
17 Tell us how many we have right now, Ken.
18 MR. STRAHM: We are having about two meetings a 19 month right- now.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And you are running, what, 21 two or three different boards?
22 MR. STRAHM: We have 20 people on the Board and as 23 you will remember, then you have to have two utility and then 24 one of the other three categories there for a board meeting so 25 it is like a kaleidoscope. You can have any combination.
10 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
2 MR. PATE: We have enough people on the board to 3 form four decision making boards. j 4 MR. STRAHM: But we don't have them set as four S boards. ,
1 G COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Right. All right.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If I understand this chart, the top 8 curve, the dotted line called self-evaluation' reports, that is 9 the one that the utility itself considers satisfactory?
10 MR. PATE: That is when the utility submits a report 11 to us that we determine to be satisfactory.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That you have determined, so those 13 have gone back and forth in some cases.
14 MR. PATE: Many cases back and forth.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Then the next line is 16 when your accreditation team actually reviews the program.
17 What is the difference between the second line and the first 18 line?
19 MR. STRAHM: The second line is team visits. We 20 have actually completed the team visits.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The first line then is receiving--
22 MR. STRAHM: The self-evaluation reports. l l
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: At INPO headquarters. I 24 MR. STRAHM: Yes, sir.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The second line means you have gone
11 4 1 out to the plant and looked at the program, is that right?
2 MR. STRAHM: Yes, sir.
3 MR. PATE: Let me elaborate on that though, 4 Mr. Chairman. We have made many assistance visits and those !
5 assistance visits help us determine when the self-evaluation 6 report is ready in many cases but the formal team visit with 7 the full team of about six or eight people --
8 MR. STRAHM: About 12 to 14.
9 MR. PATE: I was wrong, 12 to 14 people, is the 10 final test in the field of readiness for accreditation and .
11 that is the point at which we say we will take it to the Board 12 and defend the program and describe the program to the Board.
13 So we have quite a bit of input from the field from 14 field work before we make that final formal team visit.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I see. Then after you make the 16 final team visit on the second dotted line, then you drop down 17 to the last line. That means you present it to the Board and 18 the difference between those numbers then is the number that 19 do not pass apparently the first accrediting board review, is 20 that correct?
21 MR. PATE: No, sir. That is just the time delay 22 between completing the team visit, writing the report, getting i 23 it to the accrediting board.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I see, just the time it takes from 25 the team review in the field to the board review.
12 1 MR. PATE: Yes, sir.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I see. Thank you.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: How many team reviews have 4 had to be repeated because of deficiencies, what percentage?
5 MR. STRAHM: I would say about 60 percent. What 6 that means is that we did a team review and found 7 recommendations and it meant that we had to send -- as 8 they sent responses in and said that we have completed the 9 recommendations, then we sent another team back to see that 10 those recommendations were completed prior to taking.it to the
\
11 Board. That is about 60 percent of the time.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Sixty percent.
13 MR. STRAHM: In the other 40 percent, it meant that 14 we could either receive the stuff in the mail and check it or 15 it was a minor problem but 60 percent of the times, they were 16 cases where we had to go back to the utility to check out what 17 they had done after our team visit before we were raady to 18 take them to the Board.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Did you have to go back a 20 third time to anybody?
21 MR. STRAHM: Not yet, no, sir.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, proceed.
23 MR. PATE: I have a clarification of a point. I 24 think the difference in our numbers is the peer evaluators and 25 I was talking about INPO staff.
13 ,
1 MR. STRAHM: Yes, sir. You are right. INPO staff 2 was six to eight. The team is 12 to 14 if you count the peer 3 evaluators.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you. j 5 MR. PATE: Half the people, we borrow. l 6 Talking about the National Academy for Nuclear l
7 Training for a few minutes, all the INPO training and 8 education division activities are now under the aegis of the 9 National Academy.
10 The Commission will recall there are three parts to 11 the Academy, the utility training programs and facilities, the 12 National Nuclear Accrediting Board and the INPO activities.
13 We see many benefits from the Academy and among the most 14 important are standardization of training, the motivation of 15 personnel involved, both at the utilities and at INPO, and the 16 developing pride and professionalism that comes from this kind 17 of national enterprise.
18 We are establishing branches of the National Academy 19 at a high rate. There are a total of 54 branches at sites 20 around the country to date that cover 273 accredited training 21 programs. So far, in 1986, for example, Ken and Walt Coakley l 22 who manages our accreditation department have made visits to 23 sites and awarded plaques that establish the site as a branch 24 to 30 different places.
25 I think it is fair to say that Ken and Walt are
14 1 under a very demanding travel schedule to attend these l 2 ceremonies. Each ceremony is of a different type. Some are ,
3 elaborate but al1 recognize the quality training staff and the -
4 efforts that go into making the course worthwhile and 5 meaningful for the graduates.
6 I think as the Commission visits sites around the :
7 country, you will see more and more branch plaques that 8 represent establishment of the site as a branch of the 9 National Academy.
10 NRC involvement in the process continues to be 11 strong. As again I am sure the Commissioners will remember, 12 the NRC nominates a member to their accrediting board. There 13 are four members nominated by the NRC and every board that 14 meets for the decision making process, we require by the )
15 char r that one of the five members be one of those nominated 16 by the NRC. I 17 The charter also requires that three of the five 1 18 members that meet to make a decision are from outside the 19 utility industry. NRC has observed all but two of the 24 20 accrediting board sessions in Atlanta since the program began 21 and NRC staff members have acconpanied INPO teams in 17 field 22 visits.
23 So I think in an overall sense, both INPO and the 24 NRC are living up to the memorandum agreement covering 25 accreditation.
i
15 1 Further training activities that come under the 2 National Academy are the simulator evaluations that are done 3 in a joint effort between the training and education division 4 and the INPO evaluation division.
5 Over 100 of those have been done to date and in 6 those evaluations we stressed team work, communications, 7 diagnostic skills and use of emergency procedures.
8 We have just recently completed updating revising 9 two important guidelines, one on simulator training and one on 10 licensed operator requalification training, that give the 11 industry the benefit of our experience in observing simulator 12 training and it gives explicit guidance on the kinds of things 13 that ought to be covered in the way of drills and casualties 14 in the simulator training.
15 Here is one example of the results of the Academy's 16 efforts. In 1982, there were 350 graduates of mechanical 17 maintenance initial training courses. In 1985, there were i 18 1380, a four-fold increase and in 1986 we expect another sharp 19 increase.
20 Perhaps of more importance, mechanics out in the l
l 21 industry are now attending recurring training courses that l 22 cover their specific areas of work. I would like to shift now 23 a little bit and introduce a new aspect that again comes under 24 the aegis of the National Academy and that is the senior plant 25 manager course.
16 1 The target audience for this course is the young 2 managers who will soon be plant managers in the industry.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Are you starting the second part 4 now of your presentation?
5 MR. PATE: Mr. Chairman, my intent was to describe 6 that course in general and then based on guidance we received 7 from your staff take a break and let the course attendees join '
8 us at the table.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That's fine but I just wanted to 10 make sure that we don't have any more questions for you on i
11 accreditation before you proceed.
12 MR. PATE: I would be pleased to break now if you 13 would like.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Why don't we see if there are any 15 questions my fellow Commissioners may have on accreditation?
16 Commissioner Roberts?
17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No questions, Mr. Chairman.
18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Asselstine. -
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just a couple. Which are 20 the eight courses that have not yet been submitted out of the
- 21 6107 22 MR. PATE
- We will be glad to furnish you that 23 information, commissioner, but our past practice has been not 24 to name specific plants of that nature in these meetings and 25 we would prefer to furnish you that.
t 17 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. If you 2 wouldn't mind, that would be helpful. Also, and the same may 3 apply to this one, I am interested, well, you can give me then 4 number perhaps now, how many plants have yet to receive i 5 accreditation for a single program? l 6 I know I have been to two-of them within the past i 7 week and I was just curious how many there were.
8 MR. PATE: That is of the same nature and we would 9 prefer to discuss that in private. j l
10 MR. STRAHM: You can give him the numbers. I 11 MR. PATE: The numbers, sure.
12 MR. STRAHM: Of the 61, 50 have some programs 13 accredited and in addition, there were four other NTOL's that 14 have programs accredited.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
16 MR. STRAHM: That are sort of ahead of schedule.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: If you could give me the 18 list, that would be helpful.
19 MR. STRAHM: YEs, sir.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is it of concern to you 21 that you have ten that have not yet gotten a single program i 22 through? The impression I had was that was sort of a major 23 milestone because at that point then the utility understood 24 well, now we fully understand what it takes to get our program 25 through the whole process and that was sort of a helpful
18 1 guidance in terms of the balance of the programs.
2 MR. PATE: I think that is right and I think that 3 because of the process all of those ten have to have their 4 operator programs ready by the end of this year. So it is a 5 matter of a short time interval before we get those programs 6 up to the Board.
7 Can you give us a projection on that, Ken? ,
l 8 MR. STRAHM: I would say by the end of February 9 that all 61 would have some programs accredited.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Have one, at least one 11 through the process. f 12 MR. STRAHM: At least three.
5 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But you are telling us they will 14 meet the commitment by the end of the year to have all the 15 courses in. That is what you are telling us today.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
17 MR. PATE: What Ken is telling you further is that 18 we expect by the end of February that every operating plant 19 will have the three licensed operator programs fully 20 accredited.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, I understand.
22 MR. PATE: But then it will take us quite a bit 23 longer to get all the others done.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess my next question
l l
l 19 1 would be the one that the Chairman raised at the outset of the j 2 meeting and that is, do you have a time frame by which you i
3 think you will have all of the submitted programs entirely 4 through the process, all 610 done?
i i 5 MR. PATE: Yes, sir and it is the far star on 6 that graph and that falls out in May of 1988.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The second quarter of l
)
8 1988. i 9 MR. PATE: Yes, sir.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: By then, you will have 11 them all done.
12 MR. PATE: All the operator programs, I would say, 13 we could comfortably say we will have done by the end of the 14 first quarter in 1987 and for all programs by May of 1988.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. To what extend 16 does the accreditation program look at operator 17 requalification and is that something that is sort of an 18 evolving thing or is that already covered by the existing 19 programs?
20 MR. PATE: I would say that it is covered and we put i 21 a great deal of emphasis on that and I would ask Ken to expand 22 on that.
23 MR. STRAHM: In every one of the ten programs then, 24 you can't get accredited without a continuing training 25 program. It happens to be called operator qualification in l
20 1 the operator areas and that has been covered since the 2 beginning. When we first started, we covered it as a separate 3 program and quickly shifted. We used to have RO/SRO was one 4 program and requal was another.
I 5 We shifted to make SRO shift supervisor one and 6 then RO one and the non-licensed one but the requal was 7 covered inside of each program and we expanded into 8 maintenance and technician, the continuing churning of i
9 everyone is covered.
10 In fact, in the maintenance area, one of the harder 11 nuts to crack is the continuing training in the maintenance 12 area.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. On the 14 operator side, the impression I get from looking at the l
15 results of our own requal exams is that the results are very l l
16 mixed with some places doing quite well and with some not 17 doing well at all.
18 Do you see that kind of diversity as you look at the 19 accreditation of these operator requalification programs, and 20 if so, why do you think that kind of diversity is occurring 21 particularly as more and more plants get their programs 22 accredited?
23 MR. STRAHM: We have several things and I am really 24 just giving you a personal opinion. One thing is there still 25 is a difference between the exam, it is getting better, and we
21 1 are working, the NRC and us are working together to make 2 that better and the industry, but there is still a difference.
3 Another problem is if we look at the ones where 4 people are having problems, then a lot of times those are 5 people that did not go through the initial training program 6 that is accredited. What you find is then they would go in 7 the requal program that is based on the accredited program and 8 they found a glitch. So they never got that initial theory 9 that comes up that they and up having problems with. That 10 is not the whole problem. That just gives some of the kind of ;
i
- 11 problems that they are having.
12 We and the NRC are trying to let them know that.
13 You can't take people that went through your old operator 14 program and put them in the new requal program and expect i
15 them to bridge that gap without some help from you. That is i 1
16 one of the problems that they are having.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You said the deficiency 19 tends to be what again?
20 MR. STRAHM: I was giving an example of one of the 21 problems. There is still a difference between what is 22 required in the written exam for the NRC requalification and 23 what is required to be able to get qualified in a plant, to 24 run the plant, and that difference is getting --
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You say that is primary 1
- - - - - +- - -
22
, 1 theory, is that the comment you made?
2 MR. STRAHM: I used the theory as an example. I was 3 not giving you the whole picture. You would have to get the 4 picture really from your own people and from all five regions i
5 in order to get what the actually picture is. l 6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: There were a couple of 7 areas where NRC reports over the past year er year and a half 8 or so have identified some training weaknesses. AEOD did a 9 report of how well the utilities are learning lessons of 10 operating experience not only at their own plant but at other 11 plants as well.
12 One of the comments they had was that training 13 programs were not making very effective use of operating 14 experienca, particularly experience at other plants as opposed 15 to in their own plant and the second one had to-do with l
16 emergency operating procedures and the extent to which the I
17 training programs for operators were effectively using the 18 EOP's.
19 Are those aspects of the accreditation process and 20 would you share those kinds of concerns that I guess the NRC 21 staff reports had identified and do you think we are making ,
l 22 progress in the right direction on both of those points? l l
23 MR. PATE: I will answer that because it overlaps 24 two INPO programs. For the first part of that, the use of j 25 operating experience and training programs, I think that I
23 1 would have to say that we agree with AEOD's conclusion.
2 What we found is that in many cases the plant put 3 something in the training program that reflects the lesson 4
learned experience, for example, something in the training 5
program, something in the curriculum addresses the subject 6 that is covered by an I&E bulletin from the NRC or that is 7
covered by a significant operating experience report from 8 INPO.
9 But they don't put in the real case study. They lo don't put in the details of what happened at the other place.
11 So, for example, if we talked about the Davis-Besse feedwater 12 event as a result of getting information on the Davis-Besse 13 event, either the NRC study of that event or the INPO SOER, 14 the plant would put something in their training about 15 feedwater systems, but their operators wouldn't really discuss 16 and study that Davis-Besse event in detail.
17 I think we think and AEOD thinks that there is a lot 18 of benefit to having that kind of case study material 19 selectively. You can't do them all but selectively in the 20 -training programs.
21 So we are working on that and I am sure AEOD is, too 22 and we are making that a joint effort between our event 23 analysis program and Ken's activities, training. For example, 24 I think the gents sitting behind me who are in our course for 25 prospective plant management positions would tell you that
24 1 they have had good size exposure to case studies of that 2 nature.
3 So we agree. The EOP's, as the Commission knows the 4 industry has gone through a long period of writing EOP's that 5 are symptom based and getting those in place and there are 6 some rough edges in getting those into use in the simulators 7 and fine tuning the procedures. I think that what we see 8 probably corroborates what AEOD sees. We are also pushing 9 hard on that.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You mentioned the ongoing 11 effort. It strikes me that one of the most important parts of 12 the accreditation program, apart from having met your first 13 milestone which I agree with the Chairman is commendable, is 14 where you go from here, that is, continuing to build on the 15 program, identify areas where there are some need for further 16 improvement and insuring that we are making continuous 17 progress with these programs as time goes on.
18 How are you building that into the process and are 19 you beginning to shift focus now from having made this first j 20 milestone, getting all the programs in, to insuring that the 21 programs stay vital and effective programs and, in fact, 22 become more effective as time goes on?
23 MR. STRAEM: You hit on two things that are really 24 our primary objectives and goals. We just had our training
~
25 managers workshop last week with 173 training managers from
25 1 around the world, most from the United States.
2 A key focus on those things were one, not to let 3 your accredited programs erode and that was hit a lot and by a 4 a lot of different people and how to make them pay off. I 5 only spent a minute on it but that is a big problem.
6 One of the ways that we do it is that we are going 7 to end up with accreditation every four years and then you 8 have to put in a report in two years and that is continual. ,
9 But we go on plant evaluations, too.
10 We are highlighting, a highlight to myself, whenever
)
11 a training evaluator or an evaluator on an evaluation progran l l
12 writes a finding against a program that is already accredited l l
13 and that gets highlighted and special attention taken of why !
14 has that taken place, what has happened at that utility and we 15 may send an assist visit and call the right people and look 16 into why we are having that problem at that utility.
17 That is part of the not having erosion to go on in 18 that area. In that way, if you are getting accredited every 1
19 four years, we are going to try to coordinate so you would get l 20 accredited and evaluated on day one and within the next 16 21 months or about 16 months, you would get evaluated again and 22 in 16 months, you would get evaluated and then you would have 23 to re-accredit the whole thing again in the following time at 24 about the same time you are getting evaluated.
25 When we look at accreditation in the future, we are
26 1 looking more at performance of the system, how they take 2 things that happened at their plant or in industry and fed 3 them into their own plant and how they take the feedback from 4 their workers and the supervisors and feed them back to make 5 their training programs better. So that is erosion.
6 The second half of it is that there is a big 7 recognition that training is only part of the problem and the 8 training managers have to realize this, too, that management, 9 procedures and day-to-day management because a person spends a 10 certain amount of time in the training department but he
)
11 spands all of the time with his direct supervisor which you 12 have told us, too. You have to get at that problem of the 13 supervisors and the management.
14 That is an area that we will also be moving in on.
15 Training managers, we were making them aware of it and they 16 were making each other aware of it but that is the second half 17 of where do we go now that we have solid training program, 18 how do we go on from there to make things better.
19 So we agree with you and that is where we are 20 heading.
21 MR. PATE: That is a fertile field and if the 22 Commission agrees, the next time we brief the Commission on 23 training and accreditation, we will talk some more about that.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think that would be 25 useful.
27 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think it would be very important.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: One last question. Has 3 enough been done now in putting the training programs in 4 place, in fact conducting training programs for plant staffs 5 for a period now of up a few years to be able to say that as 6 we look at plant operating performance and particularly the 7 personnel performance at the plant that that ought to give us 8 a pretty accurate measure on how effective these training 9 efforts are, in fact, how effective the whole accreditation 10 program has been.
11 Should we begin to see a fairly dramatic improvement 12 in terms of personnel performance at the plants as an i 13 indicator of the effectiveness of the training programs?
14 MR. PATE: We would certainly hope to see 15 improvements but I think the most candid answer to that is 16 there is quite a built-in time delay from the time that you 17 give that R&C technician initial training through an 18 accredited program until the time that he is qualified as a 19 technician and, more importantly maybe, until he becomes a 20 supervisor you don't realize the benefits of that training.
21 So I think we inevitably are in for a considerable 22 time delay. I wish it weren't so but I believe that has to be 23 the right answer.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
1 25 MR. STRAHM: May I comment on that? At the workshop
28 1 we had, the vice president of Beaver Valley talked and he was 2 talking to training managers and he was trying to get them to 3 be innovative and gave five examples of where the thinking 4 where five years ago or two years ago, he would not have even 5 thought of using training as a method to improve things and he 6 gave five examples of where things were better and much money 7 was saved by thinking.
8 One of them had to even do with bringing workers on 9 site for outages. They reduced the time from 45 days to nine 10 days which is an enormous amount of money to bring people and 11 another was in --
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Reduced it from 45 to 907 13 MR. STRAHM: Nine days.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Nine, zero-nine?
15 MR. STRAHM: Yes, sir, of being able to get the 16 people on and just by using the training department, the 17 things they had used, the better training methods to train 18 these people quicker instead of the old methods they had been 19 using for years but he gave five different examples like that 20 where they had saved a lot of money and made things a lot more 21 efficient and safe by using training.
22 That is the kind of thing that should be taking 23 place all around the industry but it is going to take some 24 time.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. That is all my
29 l- questions.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Bernthal.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Just one item that ran 4 through my mind a minute ago with one of Jim's questions. In 5 one or two plants that I visited recently, I have noticed in 6 their training facilities broadly speaking and I have to say 7 in some cases these facilities as you know probably better 8 than I are beginning to be very impressive. They looked 9 almost like a junior college or a technical college training 4
10 facility.
11 In one or two of those and Hope Creek comes to mind 12 and I believe Braidwood as well, they really had quite an 13 abundance of impressive hardware for training of plant 14 personnel and technicians.
15 To what extent do your accreditation programs and
, 16 generally accreditation of plant training, to what extent if 17 at all at this point have you considered the requirements for j 18 appropriate hardware in the teaching and training process?
i 19 Have you really thought much about that yet?
20 MR. STRAHM: Yes, sir. We have 12 objectives in the 21 training program. One of them are facilities so if we go in 22 and look and you can accomplish this by several methods. If 23 you are at Peach Bottom, they have a ccal fired plant where 24 they can really take turbines out and do all kinds of things.
25 An awful lot of plants are getting facilities.
, . _ , , . _ , , , . _ - . , , . . , - _ . . _ . - ,. , _ __ c-_,,_, - , . - . .
30 1 So we just make sure at some place along that line 2 that have the methodology to properly train the people in i 3 these methods. Tc may be that one plant does better on 4 on-the-job training and takes the guy along on actual 5 equipment and another plant does that up front. But that is 6 one of the 12 objectives in the program.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: ire they all doing it? They 8 can't all let their people piddle around in the plant while it i 9 is running.
10 MR. STRAHM: Most of them are going to labs like you ;
11 said, yes, sir.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Some of those are very 13 impressive. I agree with you, Fred.
14 MR. PATE: Some of the later plants that are more 15 complex need those more than an earlier simple plant might, 16 for example, the Lacross BWR is much more straight forward 17 insofar as maintenance work.
18 We have probably put our primary emphasis on the 19 facilities on simulators but we are seeing a growing use of 20 many other kinds of hardware in the training process. !
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is all I had.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Carr. ,
23 COMMISSIONER CARR: No questions, Mr. Chairman.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Next time we come and give us a 25 status report, I do think it would be important and useful to
I 31 1 emphasize as you have briefly here today the continuum of 2 training and accreditation, in other words, how is your 3 accreditation team and your accreditation board going to l
4 continue to function in the future and you have talked about 5 every four years and so forth. j 6 Perhaps next time you could emphasize the continuum 7 of training.
8 MR. PATE: We would be pleased to do so.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I would agree with my colleagues 10 that certainly the emphasis on training that INPO has provided {
11 through this accreditation program has been very successful 12 and it is certainly my conclusion so far'that I have seen much 13 more emphasis on training in my recent plant visits than I did 14 when I first came on the Commission a little over two years 15 ago.
16 Every time I go to a plant now, they make a point of j 17 talking about training. They make a point of talking about 18 accreditation. They seem to be much more knowledgeable and 19 appreciative of the fact that training has a direct
'0 contribution to not only reliable operation of the plant but plant safety and professionalism.
2 '. So that is encouraging and I certainly commend INPO 23 and your accreditation program for what you are doing. I 24 think you are making a direct contribution to safer operations 25 and, of course, that is what we are interested in. I do think
32 1 that it will be important though to once you have started the 2 program to keep up the momentum and not let it slide back.
3 It is much more important that the program be 4 executed properly and I think that is going to require 5 continuing effort not on your part but on the part of the 6 utilities.
7 So that is why I think it will be important next 8 time if you can tell us what your specific initiatives are 9 maybe in a little more detail to make sure that this 10 enthusiasm in the utilities and this initiative effort, the 11 resources, the rest of it stay committed to training which 12 again in my view has a direct bearing on operational safety.
13 I would just like to ask the staff perhaps if they 14 have anything they would like to comment on accreditation 15 before we move into the next area. Mr. Sniezek, do you have 16 anything?
17 MR. SNIEZEK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have 18 Bruce Boger from the Division of Human Factors who is 19 responsible for the division say a few words.
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. Would you join us at the 21 table, please, and just give us if you would a brit
- summary 22 of your view of accreditation as you see it from the staff's 23 position.
24 MR. BOGER: Yes, sir. We provided information to 25 the commission last April, about six months ago, on the status
33 1 of accreditation from our standpoint. I think that we can say I
2 that in the time frame since then, we still have the same 3 opinions.
4 Basically we continue to see a continuing increase I 5 in training at facilities and we see an implementation of the 6 Commissioner's policy statement on training and qualification.
7 I think it is fair to say that we have established 8 lines of communication with INPO. I think Mr. Pate gave 9 examples of that in our participation in the team visits and 10 the accreditation board. We also send an extra member to 11 those board meetings as observers, different people, regional 12 people, people from headquarters in I&E and NRR as well.
13 We are also performing the post-accreditation 14 follow-up visits and in those areas where we have found 15 concerns or where we have had concerns, we have been able to 16 express them and I think that we have been able to be 17 satisfied that action is being taken on those concerns.
18 A good example of that is the operator continuing 19 training which was the initial concern that we had. I think 20 on INPO's part, they reacted to that and have produced a 21 document that will hopefully help in that area.
22 On our part, we have also responded by the change to 23 Part 55 in the area of requalification and trying to get that 24 area of the regulation less prescriptive and more performance 25 based and I think that is in line with what INPO is trying to l
i i
l 34 l l
1 do.
- 2 We do owe you another report in another six months, 3 April of 1987, and we will give you a status at that time.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But you are essentially satisfied 5 right now that the program is effective and is moving in the !
6 right direction?
7 MR. BOGER: Yes, sir.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
9 Any comments from my fellow Commissioners?
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just maybe one quick ;
11 question to the staff, are you satisfied based upon the 12 reviews not only of the program but looking at the individual 13 plants that everybody is making satisfactory progress, that 14 there aren't any plants that are lagging behind?
15 MR. BOGER: It is hard for me to address the second l l
16 part of that question which are the ones that are lagging 17 behind. The ones that we have seen that have come before the 18 board for accreditation and the ones that we have seen as a 19 result of examinations, for instance, we have seen a marked J
20 improvement in the attention that is being paid to the
! 21 programs, the facilities that are available, the training 22 materials.
23 I can't address the ones that haven't come before i
24 the Board. We haven't had a lot of experience with those.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. I thought the
._~ __ _ - - - - - - __ __ _ _ - -
35'
~
1 staff was also going to be doing some' individual plant reviews l l
2 as part of the normal inspection process to identify the ' l 3 progress that was being made on a plant-by-plant basis as 4' well. -
l 1
5- MR. BOGER: We hava tailored our reviews on the 6 plants that hav received accreditation.
7' COMMISS1dNER ASSELSTINT: All right, so just those 8 which-are obviously the ones probably o'f less concern.
9 MR. BOGER: We are conducting the regular 10 inspections but that was changed about a year ago'with a 11 different inspection module that was again more performance 12 , bssed and less prescriptive.
13 CCMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. What do you
~
14 think about the use of plant performance as an indicator of 15 the effectiveness of the training program, for example, things 16 like I&C, surveillance testing errors, maintenance 17 'parformance, human performance and maintenance and operations 18 errors, do you think those are useful indicators of how 13 effective the training programs are?
20 MR. BOGEkE My opinion is yes. I think that the 21 people that are well trained are less prone to make some of -
22 the mistakes that we have sean and I look for improvement in 22 that area. ,
2'4 COMNISSIONER ASSELSTINE: all right. Do you think 25 we have seen substantial improvement over the past_two years
, - , . . _ .-.1 --
36 1 in terms of the reviews that we have been doing of those 2 areas?
3 MR. BOGER: I don't think that the data supports 4 that right now to any statistical significance. We have a 5 feeling that it is going to take place --
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Ongoing thing.
7 MR. BOGER: -- but it is going to take a while to 8 see it.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. Great. Thank i
10 you.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Bernthal.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You just reminded me of 13 another point I intended to raise earlier. Yousguys have gone 14 through with accrediting board review now, team reviews I 15 guess is more to the point here, of something in the 16 neighborhood of 377 -- it is not the neighborhood, that is the 17 number, 18 If you looked at the bottom cut of that number, the 19 377, and I asked you, you have seen a lot by now, the bottom 20 ten, the ten plants that you would cast in the bottom of that 21 category, are there any common threads that emerge from that?
22 They can't all be equal. Have you noticed where people have 23 i trouble, when they have trouble in the bottom ten or 207 24 MR. STRAHM: I really would like to address the 25 question relative at the time of the team visit because once l
- . . _ . _ ,b y .
37 i
1 they pass that, then they have met the minimum of what you 2 might call standard criteria.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is my point, yes.
4 MR. STRAHM: At the time of the board, the problem 5 areas are in as I mentioned earlier, maintenance continuing 6 training and also at the time of the team visit is getting 7 them to not assign people to do maintenance jobs unless they 8 are qualified to do the jobs.
9 One utility was scheduled for the board and we had 10 an avaluation there and found out that they had regressed 11 between the time of the team visit and the board meeting. So 12 they didn't come to the board the next day. They pulled out 13 of the board meeting but that really has been problem because 1
14 for years it had not been done that way.
15 So by the time they are accredited, they are doing 16 it and then we go back on a plant evaluation to make sure 17 that they continue to do it. That hts been one of the problem ;
I 18 areas. I 19 i Another problem has been the simulator evaluations. !
I 20 In other words, like you pointed out, it is really in the area 21 of the first instructors being able to recognize and properly l l
22 critique the people and then second is the emergency 23 procedures and a lot of that is just because they are new.
24 They are new and it is hard to get used to that thinking 25 especially the older guys. The new guys don't have a problem l
o 38 1 but~the older guys that have been doing it by the old method 2 have a problem. That would probably be two areas.
I 3 MR. PATE: I think also in the early days we say a -
4 lot of examples of where there just was a considerable under 5 estimate of the work needed to get a program up and running 6 and ready for accreditation.
I 7 I guess we saw some examples of a long period of 8 time between the first time we visited and the time we were 9 ready to take that program to the board. What is the record 10 time on that?
11 MR. STRAHM: Long?
12 MR. PATE: Yes.
13 MR. STRAHM: About 14 months.
14 MR. PATE: So that is a case where a utility just I
15 underestimated and that would certainly be one of your bottom 16 ten when the team first visited but as Ken said, then 14 17 months later and many, many interactions and visits, then they 18 come up to speed and they are presented to the board.
l 19 MR. STRAHM: You asked me a question earlier, how )
20 many did we have to go back to and.I said two and that would 21 be official team visits but we may have had four or five 22 assist visits in the middle.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Has the frequency of those 24 gone down dramatically as the program has progressed?
For 25 . example, did you have to do lots of repeat visits early on but
39 1 as people began to get the word of what was expected, did 2 those drop dramatically or has it been fairly constant?
3 MR. STRAHM: It has been constant. They real change 4 has been in what you brought up earlier is once they have some 5 programs accredited --
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: They get one through and 7 then they know what is expected.
8 MR. STRAHM: -- then they know how. But each plant 9 has had to learn that on their own. The best area really has 10 been the Mid-Atlantic Training Region. They have shared j 11 information very well and another one is commonwealth Edison.
12 An example is when we went around on operator 13 programs and we went to so many plants in a row and as we went 14 at different times, they went from like 30 recommendations on l
15 a team visit for three operator programs to when we went to 16 Byron the other day. So they learned. There was a case where 17 they actually learned. They had people from the other plants 18 there so they went back and fixed it at their plants before we 19 got there. So there have been cases. j 20 The Middle Atlantic Training Region sort of did that 21 amongst themselves. Other plants just wait until we get 22 there.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: One final comment, Lando, 24 picking up on your earlier comments. I think what you have 25 done is commendable.
l 40 1 You have accomplished what you have committed to 2 accomplish to us and I think this has been one of the most 3 effective industry improvement programs there is but I think 4 it is real important to treat accreditation for what it is and 5 that is a means to an end rather than an objective in and of 6 itself and to treat the whole training effort as basically a 7 living effort, something that has to evolve and grow as we go 8 on and I think this is a good area where you can be thinking 9 and we ought to be thinking about some indicators of what will 10 give us the assurance that these training programs are doing 11 what we really want them to do.
12 I think the lessons from the plants, what the plants 13 are telling us is a good indication of how effective they are l 14 and the need to think about perhaps some other areas that may 15 need some additional emphasis beyond what we have already 16 given them.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. I had the same thought. I 18 think next time when you talk to us about how the program is 19 going to proceed in the future and keep the momentum up, I 20 agree that it would be appropriate to recognize that training '
21 as Commissioner Asselstine said is not the end result so much 22 but perhaps next time you could show us examples where at 23 least you see where the training and the accreditation program 24 has helped plant performance.
25 That would be most helpful, too, because that would
41 1 be a. direct relationship and show a direct correlation between 2 improved training. I recognize that it is just getting 3 started but perhaps that would be very helpful and point out 4 very specifically how this program is helping training improve 5 operational performance.
6 COMMISSIONER'ASSELSTINE: Yes, I agree. In fact, I 7 think from the standpoint of your own constituents, that is a 8 very useful thing to do and as I think the Chairman mentioned 9 earlier, these are not inexpensive programs and when a utility 10 board of directors spends five or ten million dollars on a l 11 simulator and another $15 or $20 million dollars on a nica new i 12 training facility that is as Fred says represents a junior 13 college, it would be very good to be able to go back and show 14 those people how that investment is paying off not only in l 15 terms of real safety for the plants but also in terms of 16 operational reliability and efficiency.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It is a little bit like, you 18 can have an accredited college in business administration but
'19 it doesn't do you much good until you find out how many of 20 them have succeeded in business after they got out. l l
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
! 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any other questions?
23 (No response.]
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Shall we shift to the 25 next subject then?
-,an.,,- ,- ,. -- - -, ,., - - , -- - - , . v .---,,.,,,---,---,.-.----~..-,--.------e--
r.
f 42 1 MR. PATE: Sure.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
3 (Whereupon, at 2:20 o' clock p.m., the Commission 4 meeting was adjourned, to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i
18 19 20 ,
l 21 1
22 l I
23 24 25 I
e S
1 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a 5 meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7 TITLE OF MEETING: Briefing on Status of INPO Accreditation of Utility Training Programs (Public Meeting) 8 PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, October 30, 1986 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
(' 13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by J.4 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 18 M' 7 ' '- je2- '. Yb I '
CQ Marilynn M. Nations 19 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23
~
24 25
Programs AccreditationSelf-EvoluotionReportsforTraining/84' ProjectedbyQuarter{Plantsfueledasof12/31 ;
lllllll Present comilment Received 350 301 301 300 5250 n .
E200 150 133 133 n
=
E 100 82 a2 46 46 II '
40 s 0 i i i i i i i i i i 1913/I5Telsi ist Olr. 2nd Otr. 3rd Otr. 4th Otr.
1986---------------
Revision date: 10/30/86 s
e S
i Cumulative Accreditation Activities 800 700 - * = 610 602
) 600 /
' 9.I!
500 p/p Y .*** -
400 s'0 377 #
/'p l ,. " " O ,a self-evaluation reports ----
- 300 ( )
.n** h *"" g Accred. team reviews --
200 # ,,,, o 258 Accrediting board review
- ( 1 O 100 ( )
.t 0 , , , , , , ,
O1 02 03 04 Q1 02 03 04 Q1 02 1986 1987 1988 l
i .
M NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNg%I'NWSgVg%VgVWg%Vgbygygygy g g gygggg g ; g g X Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips g TRANSMITTAL T0:
ADVANCED COPY T0: The Public Document Room DATE:
// '
ib i
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch k
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting $
F document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and '
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or l
required. ,
Meeting
Title:
Of1 n cy b (\ Shkas 09 1NPD ct f o tY& ov, cb f htl .TC a t tch Mf ost(cn C, F Meeting Date: I obokR to Open [ Closed h
Item Description *: Copies * '
Advanced DCS
- 8 to PDR Cg nS 1 1
- 1. TRANSCRIPT:
l u uA 6
3 4
1 2.
3.
=
?
\
i:
i.
5.
I
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY papers.
_a}BS h Y h $l I l b bYl lYb$lklha
_