ML20205K981
| ML20205K981 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/23/1999 |
| From: | Zwolinski J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Bird P NRC OFFICE OF PERSONNEL (OP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205K986 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904140082 | |
| Download: ML20205K981 (6) | |
Text
-
i l ,
p '4 UNITED STATES l
I j j j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 0001 o
QCfR/**
Merch 23, 1P99 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul E. Bird, Director Office of Human Resources ,
~
FROM: John A. Zwoiinski, Director - -
Division of Licensing Project Man ement Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulati n !
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF TRAINING NEEDS FOR REACTOR PROJECTS STAFF I am responding to your memorandum of February 12,1999, in which you rec;uested comments on an integrated assessment of training needs for reactor projecir, staffs in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the regional offices. I would like to commend your staff fcr doing an excellent job of considering the insights from the job task and functional analyses (JTA) performed for the projects organizations in NRR and the regions. However, the programs and associated expectations for the two functions (NRR projects and regional resident' inspectors) j are changing such that integration of the training prograrfs for the positions are not advisable at !
this time. NRR will continue, wherever possible, to use courses frorn the inspection training i program la its training program for NRR projer;t managers. In addition, the projects )
organizations and inspection program organizations within NRR remain very interested in working with your office to enhance the technical and professional training of the projects personnelin NRR and the regions.
Comments pertaining to your recommendations for each of the projects positions are provided below:
TRAINING FOR NRR PROJECT MANAGERS
- 1. As a general note, process oriented training (how to do various licensing actions) is considered a supplement to improving the guidance documents for those tasks.
Although not emphasized in the Job Task Analysis (JTA) report, the subject matter experts participating in the su:veys stressed the importance of updating and controlling procedures and guidance documents as much as or more than conducting classroom training. Given that the expertise for such processes lies in our own organization, the approach being taken is to provide periodic training (in a seminar format) on major processes and whenever significant changes are made to important guidance documents.
CONTACTS: Bill Reckley (415-1323)
Geraid Klinger (415-3077) l l Y9- 6 7 I
~
hb -8 PDR ,
e-
l *
,'. Paul E. Bird 2. The current makeup of the projects organization in NRR (in terms of experience and knowledge), limits the usefulness of training at the fundamentals level. Given the likely time frames involved, the benefits of a major training program oriented to processes would be at best marginal even for the most recently assigned project managers.
- 3. In terms of training given outside our division, we see more potential benefit in encouraging or requiring our staff to take courses in order to improve basic skills. Such courses include existing or potentially new courses in communications, conflict resolution, basic project management, information systems, and work scheduling.
- 4. A training program, including development of a recommended list of courses, self-study, etc., will be developed in the Division of Licensing Project Management (DLPM), during the next year (we are currently working under ad-hoc and interim expectations regarding project manager training requirements). A management analyst position has been created for the division and will serve as a training coordinator. The management analyst and enhanced information management systems will enable the division to l improve its performance in terms of managing its training p'rogram. I do not, however, currently envision a formal cualification program being implemented for NRR project managers.
- 5. Project Managers from NRR will continue to enroll in technical training courses offered by your office whenever such training might help us meet our objectives. It is likely that some NRR project managers will require reactor technology full courses as well as occasional reactor technology refresher courses. The need for courses in areas such as probabilistic risk assessment will also continue.
- 6. Some of the courses mentioned, such as Fundamentals of Regulation, could be developed and if kept current could be used to ensure personnel (including but not limited to projects organizations) are aware of the overall direction of the agency. This course could inclur's some background on licensing processes for personne! (outside projcets) that are routinely lavolved in only one of two types of licensing actions. These courses could likewise include discussionr, of 10 CFR Parts 52 and 54 to ensure all personnel are at least aware of these areas. NRT4 is interested in working with you to develop such a course.
TRA!NING FOR REGIONAL _ PROJECTS STAFF
- 1. Coriditions that existed during the JTA have changed. Risk will play a major role in planning inspections and evaluating the results of inspections in the future. The new baseline inspection program being developed by the Transitional Task Force will necessitate major changes from the present training program for inspectors. For example, although the JTA found the current technology training continues to have value, consideration should be given to integrating technology, risk, and inspection skills courses. Any rewrite of the training program for inspectors needs to account for these planned changes in the inspection program.
l
r l4 l . Paul E. Bird 2. This report perpetuates isolated training modules organized around systems, simulator, On-the-Job Training (OJT), and Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) training instead of combining the various aspects of each into integrated courses. The current technology training should be ecaluated to incorporate risk, the risk assessment of as-found conditions, and significance determination of results. Since the experience level of newly hired personnel has changed from those of years ago, the training program review should evaluate areas such as why we inspect, how we inspect, understanding performance based inspections that utilize risk, and a broad technical understanding of the facilities that are being inspected that would include, health physics, safeguards, and emergency planning in addition to the technical aspects.
{
- 3. Training needs to be re-evaluated from the standpoint of the amount of time required to get an inspector qualified, the type of training needed, and refresher training requirements. While the concept of structured OJT has merit, the organizational structure of the regions needs to support this change. We anticipate that there will be a loss of flexibility in how resident inspectors can allocate their time on-site in the future.
Inspection Program Branch (PIPB) has drafted a Commission paper on N+1 Resident staffing that may have a significant impact on the availability of resident inspectors to oversee trainees. As presented,56 percent of the training time for inspectors in tHa integrated assessment is spent in performing self-study or OJT. If post-qualification. l refresher, continuing, and inspector update training are separate training concepts, then I the time assumed for these activities in this assessment appear excessive. l l
Please address any questions regarding the NRR Project Manager training recommendations l to Bill Reckley at 415-1323 and any questions regarding the regional training program to Gerald Klinger at 415-3077.
i l
I l
1 i
l
i t
O Paul E. Bird 2. This report perpetuates isolated training modules organized around systems, simulator, OJT, and PRA training instead of combining the various aspects of each into integrated courses. The current technology training should be evaluated to incorporate risk, the risk assess;nent of as-found conditions, and significance determination of results. Since the experience level of newly hired personnel has changed from those of years ago, the training program review should evaluate areas such as why we inspect, how we inspect, understanding performance based inspections that utilize risk, and a broad technical understanding of the facilities that are being inspected that wculd include, health physic, safeguards, and emergency planning in addition to the technical aspects.
- 3. Training needs to be re-cvaluated from the standpoint of the amount of time required to get an inspector qualified, the type of training needed, and refresher training requirements. WNie the concept of structured OJT has merit, the organizational structure of the regions needs to support this change. We anticipate that there will be a loss of flexibility in how resident inspectors can allocate their time on-site in the future.
PIPB has drafted a Commission paper on N+1 Resident staffing that may have a significant impact on the availability of resident inspectors to oversee trainees. As presented,56 percent of the training time for inspectors in this integrated assessment is spent in performing self-study or OJT. If post qualification, refresher, continuing, and inspector update training are separate training concepts, then the time assumed for these activities in this assessment appear excessive.
Please address any questions regarding the NRR Project Manager training recommendations to Bill Reckley at 415-1323 and any qt.ustions regarding the regional training program to Gerald Klinger at 415-3077.
DISTRIBUTION:
Central File (w/ originalincoming)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
DLPM R/F S. Collins /R. Zimmerman W. Kane B. Sheron B. Boger J. Zwolinski/S. Black C. Grimes B. Dean W. Reckley G. Klinger NRR Mailroom (YT019990051 w/ incoming)(OS/E/7)
R. Norsworthy Document Name:YT99051.WPD /
OFC DLPM:TA DISP DLPM:D /
NAME WReckley input Rec'd by emeil YZwolinski ,
@ of 3/22/99 from JKlinger DATE j /M/99 03/22/99 3 /23/99 COPY 8E3)JO kES)NO YES/NO OFITCIAL RECORD COPY
Lg4 , l
) Paul E. Bird 2. This report perpetuates isolated training modules organized around systems, simulator, OJT, and PRA training instead of combining the various aspects of each into integrated '
courses. The current technology training should be evaluated to incorporate risk, the risk assessment of as-found conditions, and significance determination of results. Since the experience level of newly hired personnel has changed from those of years ago, the training program review should evaluate areas such as why we inspect, how we inspect, understanding performance based inspections that utilize risk, and a broad technical understanding of the facilities that are being inspected that would include, health physic, safeguards, and emergency planning in addition to the technical aspects.
- 3. Training needs to be re-evaluated from the standpoint of the amount of time required to get an inspector qualified, the type of training needed, and refresher training requirements. While the concept of structured OJT has merit, the organizational I structure of the regions needs to support this change. We anticipate that there will be a l
loss of flexibility in how resident inspectors can allocate their time on-site in the future.
PlPB has drafted a Commission paper on N+1 Resident staffing that may have a significant impact on the availability of resident inspectors to oversee trainees. As .
presented,56 percent of the training time for inspectors in this integrated assessment is I spent in performing self-study or OJT. If post-qualification, refresher, continuing, and inspector update training are separate training concepts, then the time assumed for these activities in this assessment appear excessive.
Please address any questions regarding the NRR Project Manager training recommendations to Bill Reckley at 415-1323 and any questions regarding the regional training program to i Gerald Klinger at 415-3077.
l DISTRIBUTION:
Central File (w/ originalincoming)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
DLPM R/F i S. Collins /R. Zimmerman W. Kane B. Sheron j i B. Boger J. Zwolinski/S. Black C. Grimes j W. Reckley B. Dean G. Klinger ;
NRR Mailroom (YT019990051 w/ incoming)(OS/E/7)
R. Norsworthy Document Name:YT99051.WPD /
OFC DLPM:TA DISP DLPM:D /
NAME WReckley input Rec'd by emai! kwolinsih of 3/22/99 from JKlinger ,
DATE ) /M/99 03/22/99 3 /d/99 COPY hO-kEhO YES/NO OFFFCIAL RECORD COPY l
- - - .J
r_~;
/
j)f,Ldl Qlfb
'/
}llT FROM: ORIGINAL DUE DT: 03/26/99 TICKET NO: 019990051 DOC DT: 02/12/99 l NRR RCVD DATE: 02/17/99 TO:
l Sam Collins l
l FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** YEL **
i DESC: ROUTING:
Request for Comments on Integrated Assessment of Collins /Zimmermn Training Needs for Reactor Projects Staff Kane Sheron NRR Mailroom ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:
DRPE Zwolinski l SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
1 DLPM lead. Coordinate with Inspection Program Branch, as a minimum, for comments on inspector training. Contact other divisions (e.g. DRIP for PM) as necessary.
l l
,pni,. i~,y h ; -. ,
l r t : r- r n - -
b O C h b A ;ii; A 6 e *Tr
. e.. s s.
BY ud r2 3 b/
l t oc_1 :-