ML20207D227
| ML20207D227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1999 |
| From: | Boger B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Kane W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906030269 | |
| Download: ML20207D227 (7) | |
Text
f May 5,1999 ph MEMORANDUM TO:
William F. Kane, Associate Director Inspection and Programs, NRR FROM:
Bruce A. Boger, Director Original signed by:
Division of Inspection Program Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 25,1999 COORDINATION MEETING l
l WITH THE INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS ON TRAINING-RELATED ISSUES PUBLIC 00CL' MENT ROOM Attached is the summary of the February 25,1999 coordination meeting with the
'99 MAY 10 A8:28 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations on training-related issues.
1
Attachment:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
IOHB R/F i
PDR-l Document Name: G:\\PELTON\\CORDMTGK.299 l
"C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE IOHB/DIPM l IOHB/DIPM l IOHB/DIPM l DI@ ?
l NAME RPelton DTrimble RGallo ESBbjfef' l
DATE 4/16/99*
4/17/99*
5/03/99*
IM4 /99 l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
4 l
l
\\
\\~
3 p1 a + S 2-l p o qr,-c M Cw-c33052 99060302A9 99050S PDR ORG EPSINPO PDR
I go otcoq y"
.4 UNITED STATES y
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
'+9 l
- *, +,o May 5, 1999 l
MEMORANDUM TO:
William F. Kane, Associate Director d,
inspection and Programs, NRR fj %/
'r-FROM:
. ruce A. Boger, Director 3
s,
(/
Division of Inspection Progra Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 25,1999 COORDINATION MEETING WITH THE INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS ON TRAINING-RELATED ISSUES Attached is the summary of the February 25,1999 coordination meeting with the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations on training-related issues.
Attachment:
As s'ated e
x
SUMMARY
OF THE FEBRUARY 251999 NRC/lNPO COORDINATION MEETING ON TRAINING-RELATED ISSUES On February 25,1999, a periodic NRC/ institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) coordination meeting on training-related issues was held at the Sheraton Suites,2844 Cobb Parkway, Atlanta, GA. Such meetings are conducted in accordance with the NRC/INPO Memorandum of Understanding dated December 24,1996. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss items of mutual interest concerning INPO's training program accreditation process.
Participants included representatives of the NRC's Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factois and INPO's Accreditation Division. The list of meeting attendees is provided as. The meeting agenda is provided as Attachment 2. A summary of the discussions related to each agenda topic covered during the meeting follows.
Openino Remarks /Oraanizational Chances introductions of the NRC/INPO personnel present were conducted. Both NRC and INPO stressed the importance of the meetings. After the introductions were completed, organizational changes since the last coordination meeting, at both the NRC and INPO, were discussed.
Summary of Chanaes in the Accreditation Process INPO described the manner in which the accreditation review process will be incorporated into j
the plant evaluation process. This will permit the effectiveness of training to be used as an indicator of performance while plant performance information may provide insights into training issues. The two processes are being combined to reduce the burden on facilities, to allow a I
broader look at the issues, and to better team synergy leading to improved insights. The plant evaluation process will continue to be two weeks in length, however, personnel from INPO's Accreditation Division will evaluate the accredited training programs. Accreditation review efforts, while looking at all 12 accredited programs, will focus on either the Operations or j
Technical programs. The modified accreditation review process has been piloted at several 1
facilities. The training programs reviewed during the modified accreditation process will be I
i evaluated for accreditation renewal by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board during calendar 1999.
I Memorandum of Aareement The NRC discussion focused on how the changes to the accreditation review process would I
impat I the ability for NRC observers to continue to observe, firsthand, the accreditation process. INPO stated that Memorandum of Agreement did not need to be changed as, in i
l accord with the Agreement, the NRC can observe either accreditation reviews or plant evaluations. Therefore, the NRC will still be able to observe the accreditation process as part of i
the determination of the effectiveness of nuclear power facility training programs.
Interoretation and Enforcem_enlof the Denton Letter
)
i The INPO discussion raised two iscues on how NRC inspectors, examiners, and managers interpret and enforce the continuing training requirements of 10 CFR 55.59.10 CFR 55.59 i
l m
)
(c)(3) incorporates the manipulations detailed in the Deriton letter of March 1980.10 CFR 55.59 (c) allows training programs developed using a systems approach to training (SAT) to be used in lieu of the program required by 55.59 (c)(2)(3)(4). INPO reported that some NRC personnel expect facility personnel to perform the manipulations required by either 55.59 (c)(3) or the Denton letter rather than the site-specific equivalent manipulations determined using SAT methodology. The NRC agreed to prepare guidance to examiners and inspectors on the relationship between the SAT process and the manipulations of 55.59 (c)(3).
Second,10 CFR 55.59 (c)(5) requires the facility to retain records documenting the participation of licensed operators in the continuing training program. Examiners and inspectors expect records of manipulations performed by licensed operators to be tracked on an individual basis.
INPO suggested that it could be possible to track manipulations on a crew basis. Then, if crew performan:e was tracked, individual performance would be reviewed only if a problem was identified. NRC agreed to discuss this suggestion internally and to continue the discussion with INPO.
The NRC and INPO agreed to continue discussions of these topics in the future.
Lessons Learned and insichts From the initini Licensed Operator Pilot Examination Process The NRC led the discussion on lessons learned (uiing the pilot examination process. Lessons learned include: (1) the number of staff members required to sign security agreements are underestimated, (2) the number of licensed personnel with exam related restrictions are underestimated, and (3) in order to have sufficient questions for the exam, additional questions are required. The number of additional questions may be as many as 50%. INPO also stated that guidance was needed for examiners on what to do if license candidates have not completed the exam in four hours. (The examination time has been since increased to five hours.) Another topic of discussion was what actions should be taken if the facility does not volunteer to develop the exam. INPO stated that they had distributed a document that contains a checklist for examination writers.
Operator Exoerience and License Eliaibility INPO provided the results of discussions held recently on the requirements for operator experience and license eligibility. Suggestions to clarify the requirements included broadening the definition of activities that are acceptable as responsible power plant experience (RPPE) end accept, as RPPE, up to two years of instructional experience by ron-degreed, certified SRO instructors. The NRC agreed to investigate this issue further.
Licensed Qoerator Make Up Trainina The NRC led the discussion with a synopsis of licensed operator make up training problems identified during requalfication examinations. The meaning of " timely makeup training," as found in ACAD 90-025, " Maintaining Accreditation," was discussed. INPO agreed to look at training attendance during accreditation reviews in more detail.
i
p 3
Instructor Trainino and Qualification
. The NRC provided information from NRC National Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB) observers related to problems associated with instructor training and qualification. INPO was aware of the NRC concern and stated that instructor training and qualification is looked at hard by both the NNAB and the accreditation teams. Instructor training and qualification was identified as one of the reasons a facility training program could go on accreditation probation. Instructor training and qualification is discussed in every INPO sponsored Senior Nuclear Plant Management Course.
Trainina and Accreditation initiatives INPO described proposed improvements to the INPO simulator evaluation process. Proposed improvements to the INPO process include: (1) reducing the number of observers on the simulator floor, (2) observing more than one crew and evaluating more than one scenario, (3) checking operator knowledge, if necessary, after the simulator observation, and (4) linking i
the observed actions of individual operators in the simulator to overall crew performance.
Generic Fundamentals Examination The NRC stated that they were considering making changes to the Generic Fundamentals Examination (GFE). An area where improvements can be made to the GFE program is in the l
area of scheduling. One method for improving GFE scheduling being investigated is placing the GFE on the web.
l l
No other agenda items were discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM.
l l
l i
n t
^
NRC/INPO TRAINING COORDINATION MEETING SHERATON SUITES ATLANTA,GA FEBRUARY 25,1999 PARTICIPANTS L
NAME ORGANIZATION l
NRC Bruce Boger NRR/DIPM Robert Gallo NRR/DIPM/lOHB Richard Eckenrode NRR/DlPM/lOHB Richard Pelton NRR/DIPM/lOHB Bruce Mallet Rll/DRS l
Harold Christenson Rll/DRS/OLHPB Jocelyn Mitchell OEDO INPO Gary Leidich Executive Vice President - Events Analysis and l
Information Exchange l
l Fred Tollison Executive Vice President - Training and Executive Director of the National Academy for Nuclear Training Bill Subalusky Vice President - Government and Industry Relations Mat Peifer Vice President - Accreditation Division Bill Fitzpatrick Manager-Training Evaluation Department Sandy Hastie Director-Training Activities Jeff Reinhart Evaluation Team Manager Brian O'Donnell Accreditation Team Manager ATTACHMENT 1
)
A' l
L 4
AGENDA NRC/INPO TRAINING COORDINATION MEETING SHERATON SUITES l
2844 COBB PARKWAY ATLANTA, GA FEBRUARY 25,1999 I
l.
i 10:00 Opening remarks and discussion of recent organizational INPO - Tollison l
changes at INPO and NRC.
NRC - Boger l
10:50 Summary of changes with the accreditation evaluation process INPO - Peifer and lessons learned from recent evaluations.
11:15 Discussion about the current Memorandum of Agreement.
NRC - Boger INPO - Reinhart 11:20 Discussion about current NRC interpretation and enforcement INPO - Fitzpatrick of required continuing training topics in the 1980 H. Denton l
letter-Are regional offices interpreting the requirements differently?
_ 11:45 Break / Lunch 12:30 Discussion of lessons learned and insights from initial licensed NRC - Gallo operator examination program.
]
1:00 Operator experience and license eligibility - status and INPO - Fitzpatrick planned actions i
1:20 Discussion on make-up training for licensed operators who NRC - Gallo miss portions of requalification training, such as during temporary assignments.
j-1:45 Discussion of some training and accreditation initiatives for INPO - Fitzpatrick j
l 1999 such as simulator evaluations, training management j
l assist visits, and National Academy document revisions.
l Problems or trends with instructor training and qualification -
NRC - Gallo I
17 of 30 NRC observer reports have mentioned problems with INPO - Fitzpatrick instructor training.
Web-based Generic Fundamentals Examination.
NRC - Gallo Status update on professional development seminars INPO - Tollison ATTACHMENT 2