ML20207L681
| ML20207L681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8810170401 | |
| Download: ML20207L681 (44) | |
Text
_
Omenui s i v ; t,.3 :_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
BRIEFING ON S T A'l U S OF POLICY STATEMENT ON TRAINING AND QUALIF! CATION Location:
ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Date:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1988 PageS:
1-31 4
i t
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 l Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (20') 293 3050 4
R8k 18e?? " "'
y e' a L PT9.7 pop OfI
7 ;,.
e s
2+
DISCLAIMER, This'is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held c., October 7, 1988 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been rediewed, co.rected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, i t is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily.'eflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in'any proceeding as 4he result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission'may authorize.
e e
4 9
e o
k a
e.
4
~
e 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON STATUS OF POLICY STATEMENT ON TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION 5
- c=
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 9
10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland 12 Friday, October 7, 1988 13 14 15 The Commission met in open sessior., pursuant to 16 notice, at 2:00 p.m., the lionorable LANDO W.
ZECll, Chairman 17 of the Commission, presiding.
18 19 20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 22 LANDO W.
ZECil, Chairman of the Commission 23 KENNETil M. CARR, Member of the Corroission 24 KENNETil C.
ROGERS, Member of the Commission 25 e
t
.c 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
A.
DATES 4
W.
PARLER 5
J. TAYLOR 6
S. S!!ANKMAN 7
T.
MURLEY 8
J.
ROE 9
B.
REGAN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 1
P R O C E E D I tj G S 2
(2:00 p.m.)
i 3
CllAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
This is an information briefing this af ternoon 5
in which the Staf f will brief the Commission on the status 6
of implementation of the Commission's policy statement on 7
training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel.
8 The Staf f has provided the Comnd ssion with a policy 9
paper, SECY-88-281, for consideration of an amendment to the 10 policy statement on training and qualification which will 11 also be discussed today.
12 I understand that copies of the slide presentation 13 '
are available as you enter the room.
14 Do my fellow Commissioners have any opening 15 comments before we begin?
16 (No response.)
17 CIIAIRMAN ZECil:
If not, Mr. Taylor, you may proceed.
18 MR. TAYLOR:
Good afternoon, sir.
With me at the 19 table are Doctor Murley and Jack Roe, sponsibic for this 20 area, to my right, and to my left ate Doctor Susan Shankman 21 and Bill Regan.
Bill Regan is the Branch Chief and Doetor 22 Shankman is the Section Chief for this area.
23 The briefinq f rom t he Staf f will be given 24.
principally by Doctor Shankman.
25 CilAIRMAN ZECll:
Thank you very much.
You may G
.m
6 l
4 0
1 proceed.
2 MS. SHANKMAN:
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, 3
Commissioncrs, we are here to brief you on the Commission 4
policy statement on training of nuclear power plant 5
personnel.
6 (Slide.)
7 MS. SII ANKMAN:
As you may recall, the policy 8
statement that was issued in 1985 was a clear endorsement of 9
the INPO accreditation process.
10 CIIAIRMAN ZECil:
Excuse me a moment.
Can the 11 reporter hear all right?
12 COURT Rs. PORTER:
Yes, sir.
13 Cil AI RMAN Z ECli:
Thank you very much.
You may 14 proceed.
15 MS. SliANKMAN:
I'm sorry.
16 CII AI RMAN ZECil:
You have a soft voice.
I ju.=t want 17 to make sure that you are heard properly.
18 MS. SHANKMAN:
Thank you.
19 CilAIRMAN ZECll:
You may proceed.
20 MS. S!! ANKMAN :
Thank you, sir.
At that time, the 21 Commission deferred rulemaking to allow the INPO program to I
22 l become established and the statomont -- the policy statement 23
-- when it was issued did say that the NRC would continue its 24 responsibility in the training area and that the Staff would 25 monit the INPO progress.
5 The next slide, please.
1 2
(Slide.)
3 MS. SHANKMAN:
As you know, and I guess you heard 4
a great deal about this morning in relation to the requal 5
program, the INPO program is based on the systematic approach 6
to training, the so-called SAT.
The SAT is the system that 7.
is used throughout the military and throughout most industries a
for technical training.
At the heart of the system are the 9
analysis of job requirements, a f rontend analysis, and then the 10 feedback from job performance to the training program.
11 The next slide, please.
12 (Slide.)
13 MS. SHANKMAN:
Since 1985, the Staff has in fact 14 monitored INPO's progress and the industry's progress in 15 implementing the accreditation program.
We have observed 16 22 INPO team visits.
That is the visit when INPO goes out 17 to gather data to determine whether the f acility is ready 18 for accreditation.
19 We'have also observed every national nuclear 3) accrediting board until recently and now we are going to 21 about one in three.
The regions have inspected training 22 but mostly operator requalification programs.
lleadquarters M
staff reviews LERs, sal?n, operator evaluations, operator l
24 examination reports and other inspection reports for trends i
25 in training data.
We have also conducted ten post-L 1
l l
L
6 1
accreditation visits, heedquarters led but with region-based 2
experts in various areas.
In training of maintenance workcrs,
~
3 we use a maintenance. person from the region, and things like 4
that.
And, in that way, we have been keeping tabs on INPO's 5
progress.
6 The post-accreditation audits are conducted usina 7
This NUREG really parallels the five elements of 8
time SAT.
We look for detail evidence of implementation of 9
the elements within the SAT.
For example, in the learning 10 objectives, we look for learning objectives that are there, 11 first of all, and then we look to see ths.t they have the 12 cor.d i tion s, actions and standards statements.
13 (Slide.)
14 MS. Sil ANKMAN :
The standard of performance -- the 15 standard statement of the learning claective is very important 16 because it is used by URC examiners to develop examinations.
17 I would like to read an example of a learning objective that 18 we would find acceptable.
19 It would go like this.
Given the disassembic6 20 parts of a service oJder pump -- that would be the cor.ditions proper tools also part of the conditions, and the approved 21 22 procedure the third part of the condit. ions -- reassemble the 23 pump in accordance with the steps of the approved procedure.
24 That would be the action statement and the standard of I
25 performance.
We looked that all three parts were there in S
4
7 1
the learning objectives.
That is how we have been looking 2
at the post-accreditation process.
3 (Slide.)
4 MS. SilANKMAN:
We also look at trainee evaluation
, hen we go out.
We have found that all the programs have 6
w 6
criteria for passing the trainee programs.
We also have found 7
that most of the trainee evaluations though are paper and 8
pencil and a good many of them also have pass / fail performance 9
evaluations such as assemble the pump.
10 i The program evaluation level though has been the 11 weakest area.
That is because it is the feedback loop from 12 performance on the job back to the training program.
- And, 13 at those plants where OPS and the trainina department have 14 a very good relationship, that feedback loop works exceedingly 15 well.
At those plants where that relationship breaks down, 16 then the feedback loop sometimes breaks down.
17 Slide six, please.
!?
(Slide.)
19 MS. SII ANKM AN :
In SECY-87-121, we gave a two-year 20 status report to the Commission about INPO accreditation.
At 21 that time, we recommended that the Conmission continue to 22 cndorse accreditation.
We also recommended at that time that i
23 accrecitation should be extended to QA/QC programs and 21 omorgency response functions.
I 25 We also raised a concern about the upfront analysis j
l
8 1
of job task s, the development of knowledge, skill and ability 2
statements or KSAs, the shorthand.
We thought that perhaps 3
they should be donc in greater detail.
4 We were also concerned in 8 i-121 about contractor 5
training and contractor qualifications and that perhaps they 6
were not being held to the same standard as utility-produced 7
programs.
8 The next slide.
9 (Slide.)
10 MS. SHANKMAN:
We have had continuing discussions 11 with INPO about our recommendations in 87-121.
Based on 12 those discussions, there is an actachment to the SECY paper, 13 88-281, that recalls that in OA/QC and emergency response 14 functions, both NRC and INPO feel that those areas are 15 undergoing their own changes right now and have deferred the 16 issue of extending accreditation to those areas.
17 In terms of contractor training, INPO will on the 18 second round of accreditation look to see that procedures are 19 in place at utilities for contractor training.
In regard to 20 the development of KSAs, INPO also has said that they will 21 emph:inine the need for KSA development in sufficient detail 22 for any new tasks that are added to jobs that are currently 23 under the accreditation program, l
24 slide eight, please.
2 (Slide.)
e
l l
9 1
MS. S!!ANKMAN:
That brings us to today and SECY-2 88-281.
We believe the industry has had sufficient time.to 3 1 astablish the accreditation program.
Therefore, we have l
4 proposed amendments to the policy statement that will do the 5
following:
continue to endorse INPO accreditation with the 6
five, SAT elements; recogrtize that INPO has added an eleventh 7
program, continuing training for licensed operators or a
requalification.
I think you heard a great deal about that 9
this morning.
10 We expect all remaining programs to be accredited 11 in a timely fashion.
INPO has met Til their previous 12 timetables, so we believe that thcf will continue to 13 vigorously pursue that.
14 (Slide.)
15 MS. S!!ANKMAN :
We will continue to use Part 55 to 16 evaluate applications for operators' licenses.
We will 17 continue to monitor both the process of accreditation and 18 the results.
And, because we believe that the program is 19 established, we have proposed an amendment to the enforcement N
policy that would allow enforcement actions to be made through 21 the normal routine processes.
22 So, in summary, the Staff believes that the 23 amended policy statement will continue the Commission's 24 endorsement of INPO accreditation and at the same time will 25 normalize the NRC inspection and enforcement in the training
=
+
10' I
area.
2 That concludes my presentation.
Questions.
3 CilAIRMAN ZECH:
Thank you very ach.
Any questions?
4 Commissioner Carr.
5 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Yes.
In 87-121, there was a 6
couple of comments that accreditation may have had a negative 7
impact on non-licensed training, and it doesn't appear or it 8
hasn' t had a positive impact on inspection training.
Ilave you 9
all looked at that?
10 MS. S!!ANKMAN:
I think overall there has been an 11 influx of money and attention to the training area because of 12 INPO accreditation and I don't think that that conclusion 13 would hold at this point.
14 [
COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, there was one other 15-comment that said the Staff questioned INPO's mechanism for 16 following up on those items that gave them a promissory note 17 on their accreditation programs.
18 MS. Sil ANKMAN :
Yes, sir.
19 COMMISSIONER CARR:
And, you didn't like their 20 tracking system.
11 ave you cleared that up?
21 MS, SilANEMANt I don't know that we have cicared it 23 up.
It's problematic always when you have such a complicated i
23 program.
As you know, INPO has a four-year accreditation 24 cycle and thef are now in the second round of accreditation.
25 I believe tha.t most of the open items, they received a two-
11 year status report from every facility, and in the second 2
round of accreditation ray understanding is that they will pay 3
particular attention to any open items.
4 Is four years timely?
I think with such a 5
complicated program --
6 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Have we audited any other 7
second thae around accreditations?
8 MS. SHANKMAN:
No, we have not to this date but 9
they have just begun their second round of accreditation.
10 So, we plan on attending -- just as we did with the first 11 round, we will be on team visits and we will go to the 12 Accreditation Board and we will do post-accreditation audits 13
'and we intend to do inspections.
14 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Okay.
15 CliA!RMAN ZECil:
Commissioner Rogers.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, the area that continues 17 to give me a little discomforu, maybe because I don't knov 18 encugh about it, is what the checks are on the ongoing 19 quality of the instructors themselves and how they assign N
grades that would affect that function, just what the 21 monitoring of that is.
22 Programs are accredited as programs and presumably 23 with certain peoole in place to produce th se programs, but 24 then the next ao-around, the next time they are offered, maybe 25 that person or some of those people aren't available right
I 12 1
then to do it, and so there is somebody clso who is put in a
2 there to do'it.
Now, maybe they are very qualified and maybe 3
they are not qualified.
Maybe their standards are the same 4
and maybe they are not the same.
And, there is always the 5
possibility of gradual drift away from what was the initial 6
judgment or conditions for judgment of approval.
7 I haven't heard enough to give me or make me really 8
comfortable about how INPO follows up on the delivery system 0
of the programs.
The programs are there, *he basic structure 10 facilities and of course content, but that is only half of i
l 11 the job.
The other half is what actually happens between 12 the instructor and the students.
13 I haven't heard enough about what the quality 14 assurance is on an ongoing basis of any of these programs, l
15 particularly INPO-accredited ones, because I haven't heard l
l l
16 something that really tells me that there is a QA function l
17 or a QC function on the instructors that has made me feel 18 entirely comfortable.
19 Obviously if they are of fered, they have to be 20 offered with someone who knows something about it, but how 21 do we know that quality is being maintained and it is not 22 drifting away in some fashion, the quality of the instruction 23 itself and the standards that are being used to judge that 24 a student has done adequately well?
25 MR. ROE:
I think the promine of your comment is
u 13 1
the fact the focus of the INPO progTam so far has been to 2
set up an accreditation program and put the process into 3
being and then allow that to be implemented, and that is true.
4 We have also in the recent past focused our attention on the 5
process to assure that it has been set up.
6 As Doctor Shankman has commented, we are now going 7
to evolve f rom our review of the INPO process to one more of 8
the implementation of the process.
And, when we go from a 9
post-accreditation review to an inspection program, there we 10 will be looking not so much at the program but to see that 11 it is fully implemented.
We also have a desire to work with 12 INPO to see if we can develop a measure of effectiveness of l
the training.
13 That is something we have on our schedule.
We l
14 haven't yet addressed it but we plan to.
We think that is 15 very important but it is a very complex matter, one that is 16 going to be difficult to deal with.
17 MR. TAYLOR:
Our next round is really to get into 18 that effectiveness area in the next series; is that not right?
19 MR. ' ROE:
Correct.
20 MR. TAYLOR:
Tha t's our plan,
Then perhaps we will 21 be able to better address by looking at that on training 22 effectiveness your specific concerns.
23 cot @lISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, the only problem,I have 24 with that that is important to do that but that is after 25 the fact in a certain sense.
If, for example, yov go through
-m
~
14 f
I a cycle of poor instruction and then you will find that it t
2 wasn't effective, but.it would be nice to know that there is 3
some check that could be applied at any time to see that the 4
instruction that is being delivered is being delivered by 5
adequately competent, capable and effective teachers without 6
waiting until the final outcome.
7 In other words, you want to find out whether it is 8
necessary to change the instructor after the first semester, 9
rather than to wait until June comes around and the students to all fail.
So, I would like to know that there is so:ne 11 mechanism for a tegular review of that that isn't just by the 12 people, by the licensees themselves.
13 MR. ROE:
We plan that as a part of our program 14 o f c40als that we inspect, i
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The inspection program should 16 take care of that.
17 MR. ROC:
We shouldn't give you the impression 18 that that will be comprehensive across the utilities.
It will 19 be like many of our other inspection programs.
We will take N
an audit of particular activities at selected facilities and 21 see that post-accreditation.
Audits have looked at some of 22 those things and have found that, for example, some of the 23 evaluation' techniques that are being used are really not 24 appropriate, and we have fod that back to the procoscing and 25 also to the utilities that we did those reviews.
We plan to U
e
15 1
continue that.
2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, you know, One 3
possibility might be -- I don't know how difficult this is 4
or how complex it will be that you are in form (:d whenever 5
there is a change in instructors.
So, you know, you may 6
have a list of instructors that are all qualified and so on 7
and so forth and in a particular program they are all right, 8
but if that list gets changed in some way and someone else 9
gets added to it, that then you are informed about that so 10 that then you have an opportunity to be alert to the 11 possibility that this might be a makeshift arrangement that 12 isn't really satisfactory or one that is perfectly all right.
13 MR. ROE:
We can look into the feasibility of that, i
14 MS. Sil ANKMAN :
Right.
15 MR. TAYLOR:
That gives us a selective sample then 16 to look at too.
17 MR. ROE:
Uh-huh.
l j
18 MS. Sil AN KMAM :
INPO does have a whole process i
19 instructor certification c.nd they have delineation of the M
qualifications of inctructorn in different areas and that is 21 part of their program and part of their nood practices.
As 22 you know, we did do instructor certifications of their i
23 '
technical competency many years ago as an agency.
We stopped 24 doing that becaurc INPO did have this elaborately laid out 25 instructor certification process.
ND'
F 16 9
]
1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I have a question on your first 3
amendment to the policy statement.
I just wonder why you 4
need to have the eleventh program for continuing training of 5
licensed personnel?
Is that really a program?
Does it have 6
the same connotation as the other ten?
What does it mean?
7 MR. ROE:
That is an interesting point that we have 8
had some controversy with INPO.
We believe in the classical 0
fashion that the eleventh program really is part of the 10 program for the licensed operators.
Continuing training is 11 part of a SAT-based program.
12 INPO has brought up some points that are debatable 13 but we have agreed to allow them to take their approach whiph 14 says they want to put an enhancement or: requalification.
In 15 the past, there was a requalification program that was 16 regulatory-driven specifically in Part 55, and there has been 17 an evolution away from that Part 55 to one that is truly SAT-18 based and they want to focus on that.
19 So, we have agrood that that was a reasonable 20 approach.
We may have taken the approach to call it an 21 enhancement of a previous program.
22 CHAIRMAN 7.ECH:
But it is their initintive that 23 they want this amendment.
Is that what I would understand 24 from what you have told me?
25 MR. ROM:
No, I think this amendment just states 9
9
17 1
the facts --
2 MS. SIIANKMAN:
Recognizes.
that they have established cicven 3
MR. ROE:
4 programs.
5 MS. SHANKMAN:
Right.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
But they do have an e.'eventh 7
Program.
8 MR. ROE:
Yes, sir.
9 MS. SHANKMAN:
Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Is it going to be accredited too?
11 MR. ROE:
Yes.
12 MS. S!{ ANKMAN :
Yes.
13 CllAIFLNUU1 ZECH :
It has substance to it then.
14 MR. ROE:
Oh, yes,'it does.
It parallels the 15 efforts we have in the requal program, se we can understand 16 the rationale.
17 Cl{ AIRMAN ZECll:
I sec.
All right.
Well, a good 18 training program of course begins with good in'structors that 19 have a good solid foundation on not only what they are N
supposed to teach but how to teach it and how to get it 21 across, and a good curricula.
22 Could you tell me just a little bit about how the a
curricula is designed for just any program?
24 MS. SIIANKMAN:
It is based on job performance.
25 That's the difference between the SAT program and perhaps 9-
--7
,e 18
~
1 one that is content-driven, subject-driven.
2
.Cl! AIRMAN ZECil:
Okay.
On job task analysis, just 3
what is the job?
Will you describe the steps for me just 4
quickly if you could?
6 kl. S!!ANKMAN:
Okay.
You say what is the job?
What 6
are the tasks that need to be done?
In those tasks, what
)
7 kind of knowledgu?
That would be content knowledge, theory, 8
any kind of beckground information that you need.
9 CllAIRMAN ZECll:
Who decidos on what knowledge is 10 necessary?
11 MS. SilANKMAN:
Usually you use several people who 12 do the analysis.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECII:
Who are those people?
14 RS. S!!ANKMAN:
Job incumbents are the primary 15 people, then perhaps supervisors and trainers and people who 16 deal with the job on a daily basis.
17 C11AIRMlU ZECll:
Somebody who has done the job.
18 MS. Sil ANKMAN:
Yes.
19 CilAIRMAN ZECil:
That's what you mean by job M
incumbent.
21 MR. ROE:
Yes.
22 MS. SilANKMAN:
Yes.
23 MR. ROE:
Subject matter experts.
24 Cil AIRMAN ZECll:
Pine.
M MR. ROE:
Which means if we are talking about a
19 o
[
1 reactor operator position, we wo11d ask the reactor operator.
.b 2
CIIAIRhAN ZECil:
Yes.
3 MS. S!!ANKMAN:
Right.
4 CllAIRMAN ZECil:
Fine.
And, it is also then looked 5
at by educators and others who --
6 MS. S!!ANKMAN :
Yes.
7 CHAIRW.N ZECII:
-- might look at it from that 8
standpoint..
9 MR. ROE:
Yes, sir.
10 CilAIRMAN ZECll:
But yu do involve the subject 11 matter experts.
12 MR. ROE:
It's essential.
13 Cli AIRMa der I:
And, the SRO --
14 MR. ROE:
It's essential.
15 MS. SHANKMAN:
Right.
16 CH AIlotAN ZECil.
And, the SRO looks at it.
17 MR. ROE:
Yes.
18 MS. Sil ANKMAN :
In fact, if you had to pick onn 19 group of people, job incumbents would be the mcjor.
20 CilAI!U1AN ZECll Yes, fine, but
- k togsther 21 as a team.
22 MS. SilANKMAN; Yes.
23 Cl{ AIRMAN ZECll:
So, they work together and they 24 establish what the curricula should have -- the course should 25 have.
e
o o
20 1
MS. S!!ANKMAN :
Yes.
2 CHAINMAN ZECII:
Then what?
3 MS. S!! ANKMAN :,Then the trainers or educational 4
instructional technologists --
6 CiiAIPJiAN ZECll:
Uh-huh.
6 MS. S!!ANKMAN:
-- will decide the best forum in 7
which to teach them.
They use sub]ect matter exports.
8 Cl{ AIRMAN ZECII:
llow do you decide whether to make 9
it a theory course or a hands-on or practiccl course or lab 10 cource ?
11 MS. SHANKMAN:
I think you use job requirements.
12 If you use hands-on on the job, then you try to make it as 13
.uch a hands-on process.
If it is something that you need 14 as background information, you can teach it as a knowledge 15 base.
That's why they call them knowledge, skills and 16 abilities.
I'll have to be trank, I have never understood 17 the difference between abilities and skills.
Yt's a 18 distinction made by several instruction 01 technologists.
19 nu'
'Jea is th9t the knowledge is very diatinct from 2C ski; abilities and tha t it is information as opoosed 21 to practical ability.
22 Cil AIRM AN ZECll Okay.
'Ihen after you get the 23 course designed and the curric;ila designed, then what happenn?
24 MS. SilAtlMMAN:
Once you have set u ), thhn you r:eed 25 to derive the learning objectives.
Those, learning objecti'res I
I
21 I
are usually two-kind, one.that will talk about training 2
objectives, in-term objectives, things that will tel,1 you 3
that you are at the end of this part of the training, and 4
then the jargon is terminal objectives.
5 CilAIRMAN ZECf.'
Rignt.
6 MS. SilANKMAN:
The job performance icvel, j ust as 7
I read.
8 Cl! AIRMAN ZECll:
Fine.
9 MS. Sil ANKMAN:
It is very important that the 10 instructional materic.ls and the mode of instruction be 11 appropria'cc to the learning objective.
Then, once the 12 learner has done whatever process is considered the training, 13 thay are tested against the learning objective.
That's the 14 trainee evaluation.
If they are supposed to be able to I
15 1 disassemble something, they should be given it and disassemble 16 it.
Tf they are supposed to be able to recall something, 17 t hc '1 they should be able to recall it without any prcmpting.
18 CilAIRMAN ZECil:
And, they are tested on that.
19 MS. SilhNKMAN 4 Yes.
If they on the job use the 20 procedure as the basis of their information, they should be 21 qiven the procedure and then told to do the task.
22 CilAIRMAN Z ECil:
liow do you decid on the length of 23 the course-?
24 MS. SlaNRM \\N :
I think that has to be done with
%5 instructional technologists who are used to passing, learning s
^
v i
o l
22
[
t out iato a process, a stepwise process.
Some things are 2
casily learned.
Some things are not easily learned.
The 3
difficulty in learning them isn't nacessarily the difficulty 4
of the task itself.
5 CllAIRMAN ZECH:
The length of the rourses that we 6
have vary.
7 MS. S!!ANKMAN :
I would hope so, yes.
8 CliAIRMAN ZECil:
Do they?
Do we know?
9 MS. SHANKMAN:
Yes.
10 CilAIRMAN OECll:
They are not ell ten weeks.
11 MS. SHANKMAN:
Ch, no, str.
12 CilAIRMAN ZECll:
Some of them have different lengths 13 to them.
l 14 MS. Sli ANKMAN:
Exactly.
15 CIIAIRM,$N ZECll:
Chay.
When the student graduates 16 from the course and he goes en his position in the 17 organization, what kind of feedback do you get from how he 18 performs and whether his supervisors are satisfied with his 19 per fo rmance ?
20
.MS, SII ANKMAN :
In some plants, they have a very 21 elaborate training feedback process from both the Icarners 22 and the supervisors.
In some plants, it is not as elaborr.*e.
l 23 But it can either.be done both through tl.e paper process and 3
24 also in meetings and looking at trends across job types.
If M
the maintenance department is having a problem with a 9
0 4
23 1
particular kind of valve, then that would be fed into the 2
training and that would be included in the maintena'nce 3
continuous training.
4 CilAIRMAN ZECil:
Do you have any kind of a formal 5
feed,back system?
Do you require any kind of feedback?
6 MS. SilANKMAN:
INPO requires it.
7 MR. ROE Yes, if it i s --
8 CllAIRMAN ZECll:
INPO does require it.
9 MS. Sf!ANIO1AN:
Yes.
10 MR. POE If it is accredited or SAT-based, it wi_1 11 have a feedback process.
That is a requirement, one of the 12 five steps.
13 MS. Sil ANKMAN :
Yes.
14 CllAIRMAN ZECil:
Okay, good, because that is 15 important for several reasons.
Of course it keeps your 16 course updated but also it gives you confidence that what 17
.you are teaching is the right thing.
Also, another valuable 18 part of a good feedback system, it has been my experience, i
19 it forces those who are the receiver of the product -- in 20 other words, the senior supervising of ficials -- to not just 21 say that training isn't any good.
It forces them to say what n
is wrong with it and what specifically are the weak ;;oints M
in the individual that they see, and it forces them to 24 participate in the whole process.
That is important.
So, a 25 good feedback system is important.
i e
L
~-,-
o 24
[
1 I would hope you look at the INPO feedback system.
2 I would kind of be interested in parhaps at some time being 3
informed as to exactly how that does work because, as I say, 4
there are very valuable parts to a feedback system but one 5
of the most valuable is to force the supervisor to give us, 6
you know, his views or her views on what kind of a product 7
is being put out from the training system.
It is very 8
important and very useful.
Also, it is much rore useful than 1
having them give those general ec: aments that are not useful.
10 But put the onus on them to say, okay, what should we do 11 better.
12 It gives your training program, in my experience, 13 kind of a participatory arrangement so that everybody is 14 training.
Everybcdy ought to be part of training, you know, 15 at leant in my view, and those people who are receiving the 16 product of the training organizations should feel some i
17 responsibility to try to make the training better, rather 18 than just complain about it if it isn't as good as they think 19 it is.
L 20 Do you have a system of updating the training or 21 doca INPO, as you know, have any kind of a system of updating l
22 training with new equipment or new procedures?
In other 23 words, how is the training updated?
24 MS. SilANKMAN:
As part of the continuous training M
for all the ten training programs, there is an analysis that e
e I
1 25 1
should he done on a periodic basis.
That is part of the SAT 2
system, that you continuously feed into your training program 3
modifications to the plant, new equipment, new procedures, any 4
new information that should be disseminated.
It is the 5
vehicle for getting new information out to everybody over 6
time.
7 CilAIRMAN ZECll It is a system that works.
8 MS. S!! ANKMTN :
(Nodding head up and down.)
9 CIIAIRMAN ZECll Is that right, do you think?
10 MS. S!! ANKMAN :
Yes.
L 11 CilAIRMAN ZECll:
All right.
The accreditation 12 program -- once a course at a utility say or all the courses 13 are accreditated, what happens?
Is there any further i
14 accreditation action?
IS MS. S!! ANKMAN :
- Yes, j
16 CllAIRMAN ZECil:
Could you claborate on that a I
t 17 little bit?
[
18 MS. Sil.TNKMAN:
Yes, sir.
At the two-year mark --
l 19 it's a four-year accreditation, so you are blessed for four 20 years -- at the two-year mark you are required,to send in a I
21 status report deta'iling any open items, how they have been
(
22 completed, what has been done with them.
That's a paper i
23 re po r t.
Then.four years later, you are up for re-24 accreditation.
25 CllAIRMAN ZECH:
Can you tell us about that process?
(
l e
i.
. v
e 26 I,
1 I think it is very interesting.
2 MS. SilANKMAN:
Okay.
3 CIIAIRMAN ZECII:
Because, as I understand it, the 4
utility executives themselves appear before the Accreditation 8
Doard.
6 61 S. SHANKMAN:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Could you elaborate on that just a 8
little bit?
9 MS. SHANKMAN:
Yes.
INpO in the first round of 10 accrcditation and partially in the second round has been very 11 forthcoming in giving assistance visits to the facility.
They 12 have gone out and worked with the facilities in getting ready 1
13 f or accreditat ion.
The facility has to do a self-14 evaluation for each of the programs that it wants to have 15 accredited and look at where they are and what they need to l
16 do.
Then they develop their job task analysis and proceed 17 with developirg the training.
They put that in place and la they como out with a team visit which is an extensive visit 19 in which the team looks at training that is going on, the job 20 task analysis, how it was developed.
They look at the 21 qualifications of the instructors.
It is a comprehensive i
22 team visit and it goes on fbr several weeks.
Zl T'
becomes the basis of a report.
That report 24 from the INFv e'aluators -- and they use evaluators from 25 other plants, people who have e>>perience doing the same
27 I
thing -- that report becomes the basis for the Accreditation 1
2 Board in which the plant is then presented to the 3
Accreditacion Board by ~ the term chair and the utility 4
executives participate.
The Accreditation Board then decidos 5
whether to give the specific program at the specific plant 6
accreditation.
7 Cl! AIRMAN ZECil:
What role do the utility executives 8
play in that accreditation process?
9 MR. ROE:
I think that from what I have seen by 10 attending those particular meetings and having a good 11 understanding of the process is they are pretty much 12 thoroughly involved all the way through.
Many of them are t
13 quito knowledgeabic about the programs and about the 14 development of the programs and about the plans for full 15 implementation of the programs.
So, they look like they are 16 fully onboard with that particular approach.
l 17 Cl! AIRMAN 2ECll All right, good.
18 COMM7.SSIONER CARR It is my ur.derstanding, Mr.
19 Chairman,. some of them haven't been accredited because their 4
20 senior management wasn't involved.
21 C11 AIRMAN ZECil:
Well, that's a good healthy siga 22 as far as I'm concerned.
Senior manauement should be t
23 involved.
This was part of my question, that I think they 24 should be involved.
I hope that they will continue that 25 policy of not accreditating unless the management is
4 20
'o 1
involved.
We have seen that the accreditation 3
process by the Board is not a ministorial function, that there 4
are semo very probing analyses of it and that there is not 6
a 100 percent accreditation rato on the first time.
6 cdAIRMAN ZECll Well, I have understood and I 4
7 believe you are tel2ing me that you believe the accreditation 8
program is very effectivo.
9 MR. ROC:
Yes, sir.
10 CilAIRMAN ZECil:
I think, frankly, it provides the 11 real professionalism to the training program.
The 12 accreditation process I think is an excellent one and I 13 commend INPO for their initiative in that regard.
14 Well, let me just commend the Staff for the l
15 exec 11ent initiatives that you have taken, that you have 1
(
16 undergone and taken aboard in the whole training world.
I i
17 think you really have done an excellent job in this regard.
few years ago when we initially discussed whether 18 You know, a 19 we should permit INPO to take on this train.ing responsibility El under a policy rather than a rule as I recall, and they made 21 a commitment to do it and to do it right, I think they should 22 indeed get a lot of credit for a very fine program.
21 It has been my observation, having visited so many 24 plants in our country, that I really do believe the recent 25 visits that I have made tr nur plants show a, considerable e
o 0
29 1
improvement in training than.my earlier visits some years ago, 2
So, I think this has been a very effective program and I think 3
it is something that we can be proud of and we certainly can 4
be proud of the way that INPO has fulfilled their commitment 6
in this regard.
6 Also, with the accreditation progran; that they have 7
brought into the whole training process, I think it really has e
mu it a professional program.
Training, as we all know, is 9
about as important as you can get to the operation of the plant to itself.
If you are not well-trained, you can't operate it l
11 very well.
And, as I say, I think the efforts we have made 12 not only in the requalification program that we discused 13 this mnrnin.J but in the overall training program that we l
discussed here this afternoon are really contributing directly 14 15 to the improvements that we do see in the operations of our 16 nuclear power plants.
17 That doesn't mean that there isn't room for more l
18 improvement because I think there is but there cicarly is 19 improvement that has been made and I do think that our 20 emphasis on training and the people part of the training --
21 the instractors, the examiners, al'. of those who participate i
22 in tbo training program
- should be looked on as a very 23 important part of our responsibilities for safe operations.
24 So, I commend the Staff for the efforts you have t
25 taken.
I commend INPO for the ex ellent way they followed i
i
9 30 I
through on their commitment.
At least it has been my 2
obsevatton crawling around-as many plants as I have in our 3
country that we have indeed increased the training of our 4
people and I do think that has m,ade a direct contribution to 6
the improvements that we have seen and to safety.
6 MR. TAYLOR:
May I 7
CllAIRFAN ZECll Mr. Taylor.
8 MR. TAYLOR:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that l
9 I have observed INPO functioning since its early days and 10 since this program got started I have sensed and I have 11 continued to sense a very strong commitment to this whole 12 program by the INPO staff and by the responsible officials 13 at TNPO.
I think I echa what yoit said in how strongly they 14 feel about the importance of this program and their dedication 15 to do it.
16 Cl! AIRMAN ZECll Good.
Well, I certainly agree, 17 however, I would also charge the Staff with continued 18 monitoring of the program because that is one way we can be 19 confident that it is continuing to improve and continuing to 20 be carried out effectively.
21 So, I think it is awfully important that we 22 continue our involvement in the training proqram to the 23 extent that th'e LLa(f can keep assuring the Commission that 24 the training is effective and it is getting better.
25 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir.
e 9
e G
m
o 31 1
CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Because that is important I believe.
2 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECll:
All right.
Anything else from my 4
fellow Commissioners?
5 (No response.)
6 CilAIRMAN ZECH:
If not, thank you very much again 7
for an exec 11ent briefing.
We stand adjourned.
I 8
(Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m.,
the Commission meeting 9
was adjourned.)
10 11 4
12 13 i4 i
15 16 17 i
18 19 i
N 21 1
22 l
23 !
I 24 25 '
l l
- )
C3RTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
Briefing on Status of Policy Statement on Training and Qualification TITLF. OF MEETING:
Public Meeting PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING:
October 7, 1989 were tranneribed by me.
I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
h}lil p
(
,1l L
l[, t s'
O t
yJOHN TROWBRIDGE,,CVR j
t
'l I
r Ann Riley & Associater, Ltd.
0 t
t e
e 9
9 9
9
O 4
C0FMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON TRAIMING 8 OUALIFICATIONS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERSONNEL [50 FR 1347, MARCH 20, 1985)
- ENDORSED INPO ACCPEDITAT!Of1
'DEFEPRED RblEMAKING (2 YRS)
- INP0 ACCPEDITAT10fl INCLUDES ELEMEt'TS OF PEPFORMANCE-BASED TRAIN!flG (SAT)
- EMPHASIZED HRC'S CONT! flu!f1G PESP0t'!!BILITY FOR TRAINING 9
e e
4 9
O SYSTEMATIC APPPCACH TO TRAINING (SAT)
- A!!ALYSIS DETERMINES JOB PERFORMANCE REQUIREMEFTS AND TRAINING NEEDS
- TRAINING OBJECTIVES DESCRIEE DESIRED PERFORMANCE AFTER TRAINING
'TPAINING DESIGNED TO MEET OBJECTIVES
- MASTERY OF OPJECTIVES EVALUATED IN TPAINING
' TRAINING REVISED /UPGPADED BASED ON JOB PERFORMANCE 9
l
O STAFF EVALVATION OF INPO ACCREDITATION
- 0BSERVE INP0 TtAM v! SITS
- 0BSEPVE NAT10f1AL f!UCLEAR AccF. EDIT!flG BOAPD
' T R A l f! !!!O l t S P E C T I O N S
- TRA! PING PERF0Pf4ANCE DATA (SALP, LERS, EXAM PEPORTS)
' POST-ACCREDITATION AUDITS (NUREG-1220.)
e e
l l
l
e
?
- o POST-ACCREDITATION AUDITS (NUREG-1220)
' Af:ALYSIS
-lDEf4T!FICAT10f! 0F TASKS FOR CONTINUlf!G TRAlf11f)G
'LEAPN!flG OBJECTIVES
-AVAILABILITY FOR TASKS REVIEWED
-C0f4DIT10NS, ACTI0f!S, STANDARDS
'DESIGl /lMPLEMENTAT10ft
-EVALUAT!0ft OF If>STRUCT10f!AL SETTillGS
-ORGANIZATIOf! AND SEQUEf!CIflG OF INSTRUCT 10fAL MATERIAL
-APPROPPIATEf;ESS OF EXISTit!G MATERIAL O
e e
bb-
s f
t.
- o Al'DITS (C0tn 'D)
' TRAINEE EVALUATION
-APPROPRIATENESS FCP JOB PERFORMANCE REQUIREMEt!TS AND OBJECTIVES
-CONSEQUENCES OF INADEQUATE PERFORMANCE
- PPOGFAM EVALUATION.
-EVALUATION OF EXAMINATION RESULTS
-TRAINEE AND INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK
-SUPEPVISORS' ON-THE-JOB EVALUATION
-lNTERNAL 8 EXTERNAL EVALUATICN OF TRAINING PROGRAFS L
I i
I r
~
s 5
SECY 87-121 TWO YEAR STATUS REPORT Off ACCREDITATION
- RECOMMENDATIONS:
-C0t1 Tit!UED Ef4DORSEMEf1T OF ACCREDITATIOf!
-Ei! HANCE EXIST!hG ACCREDITAT!0t:
- PROGRAM, l.E.,
TECHNICAL STAFF E MAf!AGEPS, CONTRACTOR TRA!!'!NG, CFVELOPMEllT OF KSAS
-EXTEl'D ACCPEDl!ATION To CA/0C AND EMERC,ENCY RESPONSE PEPS 0ftf1EL
-GPEATER EMPHASIS Oil TRAlt'!!1G AND OUALIFICATtor'! 0F C0f1TRACTOP PERSONt:FL 6
4 G
G e
e te
e o,.
9 RESPONSE TO RECOMMEf;DATIONS
-ACCPEDITING OA/0C 8 EMEPGENCY RESP 0f!?E FUNCTIONS DEFERRED WHILE POSITIONS APE REDEFINED BY NRC 8 If;PO
-lNPO.TO ENSURE THAT STANDAPDS APPLY TO CONTRACTCP TR.\\!NING
-DEVELOPMENT OF KSAS TO BE EMPHAS!ZFD FOR NEW TASKS k
c.
I
=$
AMENDED PCLICY STATEPENT - 1988
' C0f!T!f!UES TO Ef!DORSE INPC AccPEDITAT!CN WITH 5 SAT ELEMENTS
' RECOGrilZES THAT ACCPEDITATION NOW If?CLUDES ELEVEil TRAlf'If:G PPOGRAlis
- E)"PECTS ALL PEMAlf'If>G. PROGRAMS TO BE ACCPEDITED !?! TIMELY FASH!Of' i
9 9
e 4
G T
Q d a AMENDED f'0LICY STATEMENT (CONT'D)
- NRC C0f!TINUES TO CLOSELY M0ft! TOR PROCESS Af!D RESULTS
- ENFORCEMENT ACTIOf!S THROUGH ROUT!f!E PROCESSES.
l
\\
l l
l O
)
,! M %%%%%Wd%%%%%WdWhd%%%%Wkd%%Nd%%%%%%% M ENNN M,
3 TPAHSMITTA1. TO:
Document Control Desk 016 Phillips j
r ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room l1
/0///[W f
DATE:
l FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch i
?>
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting i ;
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession t.ist and placeme9t in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or j
l-required.
]
Meeting
Title:
A La. m M >n mD 4%MC4 f-f, '..,, a J
,L_'ifa',fym k,
f Meeting Date:
to/ r /W Open K Closed llj jl j
ltem Description *:
Cocies Advanced DCS l
- 8 l !
to POR g
3 j i
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1
'u)LLu L nu l l l
/
J I
i !
I' i
l l 2.
1 :
j :
,l
.3 :
m l
} l a
s
{<
aa :
F l i 4.
l 3.
3 !
h, YI' ll 5-2 :
l 5 !
k I, '
3 !
6.
a 3 l 3
l
- l a
a m l
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
4 l
3 l
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY f04 ch i t ma h
h h
hW h
h h
L
,