ML20207M139
| ML20207M139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8810180124 | |
| Download: ML20207M139 (59) | |
Text
-
>IC l
l s ! '_
1
(
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Title:
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF REACTOR OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM Location:
ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND l
Date:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1988 Pages:
1-44 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20000 (202) 293 3950 fjffj001007 R
PT9.7 PNV I
m-DISCLAIMER This is an unof ficial transcript of 'a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 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 rev'iewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
e-G t
e
,s a
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NbCLEA'R REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 4
BRIEFING ON STATUS OF REACTOR OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM 5
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 mot in open session, pursuant to 16 l
notico, at 10:00 a.m.,
the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman l
17 l
of the Commission, presiding.
I 18 l
l 19 t
i N
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 22 LANDO W.
Z ECli, Chairman of the Commission 23 KENNETl! M.
CARR, Member of the Commission 24 KENNETl! C.
ROGERS, Member of the Commission 25 5
E s.
2 1
STAFP AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT TiiE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3
S.
CilILK 4
W.
PARLER 5
J.
TAYLOR 6
T.
MURLEY 7
L. WIENS 8
K.
PERKINS 9
J.
ROE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a~
o 3
1 PRQQEpQ1NgS 2
(10:00 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN ZECII:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Today the Staff will brief the Commission concerning 5
actions they have taken and results they have achieved in 6
improving the administration of the NRC requalification 7
examinations for licensed reactor operators.
8 Af ter the September 10th, 1987 public meeting 9
between the NRC Staff and the industry representatives, the 10 Staff decided to suspend further NRC involvement in the 11 administration of requalification examinations for NRC 12 licensed reactor operators.
This decision was made to assure 13 that there was no adverse impact on the safety of licensed 14 power reactors as a result of the NRC requalificat'.on 15 examination process.
16 Since that date, the Staff has been working to 17 improve the requalification examination process and to 18 demonstrate its effectiveness by conducting pilot 19 requalification programs at five utilities.
These pilot N
programs have now been completed and the Staf f will discuss 21 the experiences gained from the pilot programs *.his morning.
22 I unrierstand copies of the slides are available as 23
~you enter the room.
24 Do any of my follow Commissioners have any comment.
25 to make before we begin?
l
4 1
(No response.)
2 CIIAIRMAN ZECH:
If not, Mr. Taylor, you may 3
proceed.
4 MR. TAYLOR:
Good morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 With me at the table are Doctor Murley and Jack Roe to my 6
right, and to my left are Ken Perkins, who is the Branch 7
Chief responsible for this area, and Lynn Wiens, who is the 8
section Chief responsible for the requalification program 9
area.
10 I will now ask Doctor Murley to expand on the topic.
11 Cl! AIRMAN ZECll:
All right.
Thank you very much.
12 You may proceed.
13
- MR. MURLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are here l
14 to give the Commission a status briefing on our program for 15 administering requalification exams to currently licensed 16 operators.
17 Last May, you recall, we described the background 18 of our revised requalification program.
As you noted in your 19 opening remarks, we stopped examining a year ago in order to M
revamp the entire program.
We made it more operationally 21 oriented, more closely aimed at the operator's training and, 22 incidentally, less disruptive to the operators.
23 We now have five pilot examinations under our belt 24 at the Robinson plant, Fort Calhoun plant, Perry plant, Salem 25 plant and San Onofre.
The feedback we are rocciving is very 4
r 5
1 positive.
That is that the exams are better exama and the 2
operators themselves view them more-positively.
3 Ken Perkins and Lynn Wiens will review the new 4
program, highlight the results of the pilot exams, and the 5
plans for exams at each. site.
Thank you.
6 CIIAIRMAN ZECll:
Thank you very much.
You may 7
proceed.
8 MR. PERYINS:
Thank you.
Good morning.
After the 9
period that we took out some time to look at the exam process, 10 we began to develop and to test a new methodology fcr 11 assessing the er foetiveness of f acility requalification and 12 training programo and the proficiency of their operators, 13 while minimizing.that potential impact on rho plant safety.
14 (Slide.)
15 MR. PERKINS:
We developed a prototype 16 requalification program which was tested at five facilities.
17 These were Salem, Robinson, Perry, Fort Calhoun and San 18 Onofre.
There was one por each region and that was conducted 19 from the timeframe December, 1987 to June, 1988.
We used
%)
existing industry training program standards to develop and 21 administer the e>:aminations.
22 By adniaistering the requalifications examinations 23 that are consistent with the existing facility developed 24 continuing training program, the NRC reduced that impact on 25 the f acilities and upon their operators, while improving the e
o 6
I reliability, validity and credibility of our program 2
assessments.
No longer are we criticized for disrupting the 3
facility's systematic approach to training in order for 4
them to conduct training on what they expect,the NRC to b9 5
asking in our examinations.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. PERKINS:
To be compatible with our new 8
assessment methodology, the facility's roqualifications 9
programs under evaluation had to be both systematically 10 developed and performance-based.
The content of the 11 facility's continuing training program was derived from an 12 analysis of the performance requirements of the operator's 13 job.
That is a job task analysis was performed to determine 14 the frequency, difficulty, and importance of various tasks 15 performed by tae licensed personnel.
16 The job task analysis identified the knowledge, 17 skills and abilities -- I may slip into calling that KSA's 18 later -- required to perform the operator's job.
The 19 training staff utilized ~those job task analyses and 20 appropriate management feedback on operator's performance 21 in developing the continuing training program.
The topics 22 selected for training emphasized infrequently performed job M
related tasks and asnociated knowledge skills and abilitios 24 important to reactor safety.
It also emphasized new or M
modified equipment and procedures and safety-significant
o 7
1 nuclear industry events.
l Each NRC requalification examination under the 2
3 new methodology included an operating test and a written 4
exam, each of which was comprised of two distinct parts.
5 (Slide.)
6 MR. PERKINS:
The first part of the operating test 7
was conducted in a simulation facility which allowed the 8
examiners to observe selected control room crews during 9
simulated transient and accident scenarios.
The focus during 10 this portion of the examination was on the crew, rather than 11 on the individual, with emphasis on the evaluation of time 12 critical and team-dependent behavior.
13 (Slide.)
14 MR. PCRKINS:
Each scenario was developed to 15 f acilitate evaluation of all crew members at their appropriate 16 licensed level by exercising their abilities in the use of 17 cmcrgency operating procedures, the emergency response plan, 18 and the facility's technical specif.4 cations.
The scenarios 19 were verified against the facility's requalification program 20 learning objectives prior to administration and were reviewed 21 to ensure all required tasks met minimum importance rating 22 criteria, as id'entified in the NRC's Generic Knowledge and I
23 l Abilities Catalog or the equivalent document of the facility.
24 The NRC examiners and facility representatives 25 worked in concert to identify critical tasks that were 4
o 8
i crucial to plant safety in each scenario.
The success of a 2
crew or individual to correctly perform these tasks 3
established a basis for satisfactory evaluation on this 4
portion of the examination.
5 CllAIRMAN ZECH:
During that simulator exam when you 6
are examining crews, how does that crew performance af fect 7
your evaluation of the individual operator?
8 MR. PERKINS:
In evaluating an individual on a 9
crew, you look at their interaction with the team, their --
10 depending on the respective position that they are in --
11 their ability to carry out that responsibility and to 12 communicate it witn the other team members on the crew.
13 Cl! AIRMAN ZECli:
So, you are trying to evaluate both 14 the crew and the individuals.
15 MR. PERKINS:
And the individuals.
But the 16 emphasis, as I mentioned before, is on looking at the crew 17 interaction.
18 CHAIRNAN ZECll:
All right.
Yes, I understand.
But 19 also one individual I presume who really didn't do his part 20 of the team effort, you ovaluate that.
21 MR. PERKINS:
Yes.
22 Cil A IRMAN Z E CII:
Then, of course, during the other l
23 parts of the exam, I presume that you would expect him to not 24 be the last one on the totem pole overy time.
25 MR. PERKINS:
You would look for a balance.
1
9 r
1 Cl! AIRMAN ZECll:
Is that what you are looking for 2
really?
3 MR. PERKINS:
Yes, sir.
4 CilAIRMAN ZECil:
The team and the individuals, you 5
are trying to do both when you are looking at those team 6
performances on the simulator.
7 MR. PERKINS:
That is correct.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECil:
Oxay.
9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just the obverse of that, p) could the team fail but an individual member of the team pass?
11 MR. PERKINS:
Yes, sir.
12 COf01ISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
13 MR. PERKINS:
Okay.
Next, I would like to speak 14 to the walk-through portion of the examination.
15 (Slide.)
93 MR. PERKINS:
During the plant walk-through, 17 individual operators were evaluated on their ability to 18 correctly perform plant taks that are important to safety.
19 The emphasis of this mode of testing was to ensure that the 20 operators had maintained their understanding of and their' 21 proficiency in performing selected system tasks.
22 The facility trainers in concert with the NRC 23 identified a number of plant systems which play an important 24 role in protecting public nealth and safety.
Systems which 25 were covered during the requalification cycle -- new or
10 1
recently modified systems, probable identified risk dominant 2
systems and components, and systems which were the subject of 3
recent licensee event reports or NRC generic communications --
4 were those emphasized in the selection process for the walk-5 through.
6 The facility's job task analysis and the learning 7
objectives, as well as the NRC's Knowledge and Abilities 8
Catalog, were then reviewed to identify the salient tasks 9
to each of the selected systems.
to Each of the identified tasks were then developed 11 into a job performance measure which was used in evaluating 12 the operator's adherence to specifics, performance, elements 13 and standards.
The initial conditions, the initiating cues, 14 the references, the performance elements, the knowledge areas, 15 the output statements and critical steps were de fined for 16 each of the job performance measures to facilitate evaluation l
l 17 of the operator's abilities and underlyina knowledae.
l l
18 Cach operator's walk-through evaluation tested his 19 or her ability to perform a selection of ten job performance i
M measures covering activities both in the control room and at 21 other locations throughout the plant.
Some common job 22 pe rformance measures were administered to each operator being 23 examined in an effort to assess the requalification program's 24 effectiveness, in addition to the individual operator's 25 proficiency.
6 A
11 1
Each walk-through examination was reviewed and 2
approved by the NRC prior to its administration.
NRC 3
examiners monitored the examination process, t.sked questions 4
of the operators as necessary to er sure adequate system 5
knowledge and job performance measure coverage, and made 6
independent as issments of the operator's performance and 7
the evaluator's examination.
8 Next, I would like to speak to the written exam.
9 (Slide.)
10 MR. PERKINS:
The written exam was a two-part open 11 reference examination administered to assess the operator's 12 knowledge of plant systems procedures and operating limits.
13 The plant opera tions section war administered on a static or 14 frozen simulation facility and was designed to evaluate the 15 operator's knowledge of the plant systems, integrated plant 16 operations, arJ instruments and controls.
17 This section has also been used to evaluate the 18 operator's ability to diagnose postulated events and to 19 recognize technical specifications limiting conditions of M
operations.
During this portion of the examination, the 21 simulation facility was frozen with the reactor either at 22 power but with some equipment in an abnormal status, or M
sh'utdown as a result of a major transient.
The operators 24 then used. the simulator and any otber material normally M
available to them in the control room as reference tools in'
l 12
~
1 answering written examination questions.
2 A minimum of two different frozen conditions were 3
evaluated.
One of these involved a major transient with an 4
engineered safety features actuation system initiation.
The 5
plant procedures section of the written examination was also 6
1.1 open reference format but was administered in a classroom 7
setting.
It-was designed to evaluate' the operator's ability 8
to analyze a given set of conditions and to determine the 9
proper procedural steps and administrative practices to 10 follow.
11 The operators were given access to the same abnormal 12 emergency and administrative procedures that would be 13 available to them in dealing with similar real world situations 14 in the control room.
Normal procedures were de-emphasized in 15 the requalifications examination administration by the NRC.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. PERKINS:
The written examinations sections 18 were constructed primarily from proposed items provided in a 19 question bank by the facility.
The NRC reviewed anti modified Kl the' proposed items as necessary to ensure accuracy, clarity, 21 importance to safety, and appropriateness for an open reference 22 format.
Each item was tied to the facility's job task N
analysis and satisfied the minimum importance rating in the 24 NRC's Knowledge and Abilities Catalog or an equiva lent plant
.M specific document.
9 9
O p-
o 13 1
Both the facility and the NRC developed a plan 2
for drawing from the question bank of. approved items and 3
constructing an examination.
These test specifications were 4
used to determine the percentage of the examination to be 5
derived from various topic, ureas.
The 11RC examiner had the 6
opportunity to choose substituto NRC-developed questions to 7
round out the questions drawn from the question bank as a 8
check on examination security or to cover a topical area not 9
addressed by the facility.
In fact, in the prototypes, the 10 NRC Staff participated actively with the facilities in the 11 development of the examination question bank.
12 The NRC examiners constructed the final examination la using their plan and the facility's best estimate of the time 14 required to respond to each test item to ensure that a 15 competent operator is able to complete the examination within 16 the allotted time.
Prior to its administration, the completed 17 examination with proper security was subjected to a final 18 review by the f acilities' training and operations l
l 19 representatives to ensure clarity, technical accuracy, and i
l m
operational and safety significance.
l t
21 (Slide.)
l 22 MR. PERKINS:
The implementation of the new 23 requalifications methodology involved a'significant 24 cooperative effo11 between the NRC examiners and the 25 facilities' training and operations staff.
The NRC and the 9
4 e
n_n-
14 1
facility licenscos shared responsibility for every phase of 2
the examination process from development and administration 3
to grading.
4 The written examination items, the walk-through 5
job performance measures, and the simulator scenarios were 6
co-developed and agreed to by both parties prior to 7
administration.
To the extent practical, objective criteria 8
were developed for evaluating the results of the operating 9
tests.
Individual and crew performance during the operating to examination were monitored by the NRC and the facility 11 examiner, with both parties developing independent pass / fail 12 decisions.
Similarly,
'x amine rs for both tha NRC and the 13 facility utilized a pre-approved answnr key to independently 14 grade each operator's written examination.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECll:
Who were the examiners for the 16 facility?
17 MR. PERKINS:
They would be individuals out of the 18 facility's training department and I believe, Lynn, they were
~
19 also people from the operations.
20 MR. WIENS:
In one instance, they also utilized as 21 part of their normal program senior reactor operators from 22 (Se operations and the assistant operstions supervisar.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECll But the senior reactor operators 24 themselves participated in developing the examination; is 25 that correct?
3
15 1
MR. PERKINS:
They participated in the quality 2
check on the examination for validity and accuracy.
3 COM!!ISSIONER CARR:
Not all of them but some of them.
4 n
5 MR. PERKINS:
Some.of them, yes, sir.
6 MR. WIENS:
We had one senior reactor operator from 7
the operations department that was assigned as an advisor to 3
our team.
9 MR. PERKINS:
Right.
t to MR. WIENS:
And, who did not take the exam for the 11 purposes of requal, but he was our advisor.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, fine.
Thank you.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Were any of the evaluators 14 outside contractors?
15 MR. PERKINS:
NRC ovaluators 16 MR. WIENS:
There was no contractors.
17 MR. PERKINS:
No contractor involvement.
I'm sorry.
18 MR. WIENS:
There were none.
19 MR. PERKINS:
The re is none.
x)
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay.
21 MR. PERKINS:
All differences in opinion between l
22 the NRC and the licensee regarding an operator's pass _ng or 23 failing any portion of the examination were evaluated and 24 resolved.
The licensee's ability to satisfactorily evaluate 25 the pro,ficiency of its operatorn was the NRC's primary
+
16 1
criterion for evaluating the adegi-acy of its requalification 2
training program.
3 Although the NRC and facility licensee shared 4
responsibility for constructing, administering and grading 5
the examination, the NRC retained final authority for the 6
results.
7 I would like next to move to the summary.
8 (Slide.)
9 MR. PERKINS:
Whereas the NRC's initial efforts to 10 ovaluate facility requalification training programs were based 11 solely on individual operator performance, the new methodology 12 assessed both operator proficiency and program effectiveness.
13 It was founded on a performance-based systematic approach to l
14 training techniques which minimized impact on the operators 15 and facilitics,while improving the overall assessment l
16 reliability through the use of passive evaluation techniques l
17 and objective grading criteria.
l 18 Since it was based on industry-developed job task f
l I
19 analysis and tests the operators in their work-related l
N environment, the new process resulted in a more realistic 21 and operatior. ally-oriented assessment than ever before.
- This, 22 coupled with the facility and NRC's shared construction, 23 administration and grading of the exams, has effectively 24 deft. sed the criticism regarding the credibility of URC-25 administered exams and examiners.
17 1
CHAIRMAN ZECil:
Well, what effect did the pilot l
2 program hav on the examination itself?
In other words, did 3
you make modifications to your examination as a result of 4
lessons you may have learned during the pilot prog _..m, and 6
were they incorporated in what I would determine now you would 6
call the final examination?
7 MR. PERKINS:
Yes.
8 Cl{ AIRMAN ZECll:
Can you give us some examples 9
perhaps of what you learned from the pilot program?
10
'MR. PERKINS:
Yes.
11 CI! AIRMAN ZECll:
And modifications that were made.
12 MR. PERKINS:
In just a minute, I am going to ask 13 Lynn Wiens to give you some specific examples.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECil:
All right, fine.
16 MR. PERKINS:
But one of the points I want to make 16 is that as we proceeded through the prototype exams, lessons 17 learned from one were factored into the subsequent exams.
18 CII AIRMAN ZECll:
I would like to hear about that a 19 little bit.
3)
MP. PERKINS:
Okay.
21 Cl! AIRMAN ZEC11:
Thank you.
22 MR. PERKINS:
The new methodology has been very 23 tavorably received by both the nuclear power industry and l
24 their operatcra.
By implementing a perfoimance-based and l
systematically derived evaluation methodology, the NRC has 25
18 1
provided impetus to the utilities to adopt compatible 2
training principles.
3 Nuclear Management and Resources Council --
4 nub 1 ARC -- the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations -- INPO 5
-- and the Regional Utility Training Associations have 6
sponsored a series.of workshops to assist the utilities in 7
making the transition to the new program, a
Trials of the new examination program have been 9
highly successful.
Each of the five pilot examinations 10 administered between December, '87 and June, '88 provided 11 valuable insights which were fed back into the program 12 during subsequent examinations.
Facility and individual 13 operator performances on the pilot examinations worn for the 14 most part satisfactory.
The individual pass / fail decisions 15 made by the facilities and the NRC examiners were highly 16 consistent.
17 Now, to provide you with some specific examples 18 of the lessons learned during the prototype examinations, 1 19 would like to introduce Mr. Lynn Wiens, who is the Section 20 Chief in the operator licensing branch, and who was present 21 at two ot' the prototype examinations.
I 22 '
C11 AIRM AN Z ECil:
All right, thank you.
You may 23 proceed.
24 MR. WIENS:
All right.
As Ken stated, I was the 25 Project Manager for tho' development of this revised 9
-r 19 1
requalification program, and I did attend two of the pilot i
2
! programs at San Onofre and at Robinson.
I am also a 3
certified examinor.
4 The feedback,that I will be providing you is based c
5 on my own interviews of operators and observations of the 6
exams that I attended, feedback that we have received --
7 written feedback -- f rom both the industry and from 8
individual operators concerning our procram.
In all areas, 9
and without exception, this program has been very well i
10 received by all the operators.
I think probably most of us 11 are all aware of that.
It has also been well received by 12 the inductry as I am sure you are aware of.
13 They felt that it was a fair exam and that it 14 evaluated them ir, those areas for which they are responsible 15 for operating the plant safely.
One of the first feedbacks 16 which I will cover in the area of the simulator exam directly 17 relates to the question you had earlier, Mr. C:. airman, on 18 the tasks which are necessary to be successfully performed 19 by an individual to be found successful on the simulator M
po,rtion of our examination.
21 The feedback recommended that we have a better 22 definition of what constituted those tasks for successful 23 performance.
What we did is we have incorporated into our 24 quidance a definition for that, and we have included sorre M
ficxibility for our evaluators to make the decision on the I
9
,4 A
20 1
successful performance of those operators.
So, we have 2
responded to the feedback in our current guidance.
3 In the effectivenees.of the simulator exam, I have 4
several examples also that we found during our pilot program.
5 In two of the pilots there was identified weaknesses or there 6
was identified needs for training, additional training, for 7
the operators in the area of emergency operating procedure 8
usage.
Also, we have identified a need for additional training in 'the area of communications in one of the pilot 9
f 10 programs.
This was all based on the simulator exam.
11 (Slide.)
12 MR. WIENS:
All right.
In the walk-through 13 examinations / again, this was well roccived by the operators 14 based on my interviews with operators, and they felt that is the method more closely followed the duties and the job that 16 they actually do in the manner in which we administered job 17 performance measures.
They did have some recommendations for 18 improvements in this area also.
19 They felt that the followup questions that we asked 20 during the walk-through examination were many times 21 unnecessary and they didn't quite see the point for this.
22 These are the questions that would be asked based on the l
examiner's observations during the walk-through.
And, our l
23 i 24 own examiners felt that they had. dif ficulty determining the M
grading and how it affected our grading.
Certain operators e
o
~
21 I
could receive varying numbers of questions based on their 2
own performance.
We have as a result of that incorporated 3
into our guidance a method or clarification as to when these 4
questions should be asked, what they should relate to, and 5
how they would be factored into the individual's performance 6
criteria.
7 Secondly, in the area of the plant walk-throughs, 8
the feedback we received both from the instructors, the 9
training instructors at the facility, and from our own 10 examiners is that it is difficult to properly provide cues 11 to che operators of what the plant would respond based on 12 the operator's actions during the job performance measures.
13 What we have done in response to that is whenever pos.Sible 14 the walk-through, the job performance measure walk-through, 15 will be done in the plant simulator so that the simulator 16 will actually provide the cues to the operators.
17 Program effectiveness in this area, we have 18 identified operator weaknesses in various. areas.
For example, 19 in re-setting trip mechanisms on turbines, using plant 20 couriers for determining estimated critical positions, 21 verifying operability of vent stack monitors, these arc.arcas 22 that we have determined that operators have weakness on.
The 23 plants agreed and they are instituting acN11tional training 24 for operators in those areas.
25 In the area of the written examination, the I
?---..
-r
22 1
operators, as I pointed out initially, they also were well 2
received, particularly on the f act that we have gone and are 3
using the open reference examination mode.
They feel that g
that is much more similar to the waf they actually use the 5
references in their day-to-day opera tions.
6 (Slide.)
7 MR. WIENS:.
The feedback we have received from the 8
operators on that, almost unanimously they felt that they 9
were rushed for time to complete the examination.
Our 10 evaluation in thit arec indicated several causes.
One area 11 that we are recommending changes untilmately be incorporated 12 into our guidance is that the exam will be time-validated by 13 operators who were not involved in the preparation of the 14 exam because those who were involved in the preparation were 15 too knowledgeable of the q-esti 1s and it didn't give a truo 16 validation of their time.
They were not the operators who 17 were taking the exam of course.
That wouldn't make any sense.
18 Also, the second feedback was that there was some 19 concern on the operators tha't they had difficulty getting to 20 the procedures to answer the question leecause there were 21 numerous operators taking the test at the same time who might
- 22 Want to get to the same procedure.
What we did to respond to 23 that concern is the questions in the examinatien are not in 24.
the same order, so that the operators would not normally be 25 trying to answer the same question it the same time so that
23 1
the references would be spread around.
2 Also, we have identified areas that need 3
additional training as a result of the grading of our written.
4 cxaminations also.
5 Now, overall program feedback, one area in 6
particular that we got an extremely positive feedback from 7
the utilities is in the use of the utility SRO as part of 8
the NRC temn aa an advisor to our team.
The feedback, both 9
from the industry and from our own examination teams, they 10 felt like this was a particularly effective addition to our 11 oxamination process and ensured that the exami.,ations were 12 Operationally oriented and that the exams refl<.:ted the 13 I current on-shif t practice for tt.at particular utility.
It 4
I l
really helped both the NRC peoplc in preparing for the exam 14 i
15 !
and we found that even the utility training department, that 16 it really assisted them because sometimes they weren't quite 17 as up-to-d'.to as they might have been.
18 The reliability and validity of the examinations 19 improved through involvement of the facility, as Ken N
indicated in his presentation.
The operators indicated that 21 the examination reflected their plant and the training that 22 they received durin4 their program.
The examiner i
l credibility improved through this program based on the on-site 23 24 preparation, the additional un-site preparation that we 25 included,in this program.
I intervie,,ed a number of operators 4
~
24 1
and training department people and, withou t exception, they 2
indicated to me that the NRC examiners that they observed 3
during thesc requalification programs were very highly 4
professional and very well prepared and knowledgeable of the 5
plant and the material in which they were examining the 6
operators.
7 So, those are some of the examples of the feedback 8
I received and the improvements and enhancements we made to 9
our program based on that feedback.
10 CHAIRMN ZECll:
All right.
Thank you very much.
11 MR. PERKINS:
Okay.
Since the completi.on of the 12 pilot test program last June, we have developed an examiner 13 standard to guide the administration of the new 14 requalification methodology.
15 Next, let's take a look to the future.
16 (Slide.)
17 MR. PERKINS:
The program I have just described to 18 l you is resource-intensive.
We are implementing this program 19 this fiscal year.
Over the next few months, howeve r, we a re 20 going to be evaluating some alternative approaches to 21 administering this program without changing it.
The 22 alternative that sie recommend, will be consistent with the i
23 existing rule.
24 On this slide of options for the future, the first 25 alternative that we have presented is one which essentially I
s 25 1
is the prototy.pe which we have tested at the five sites and 2
described to you today.
That is one where the NRC evaluates 3
the facility's program and conducts the examinations.
4 The second alternative which we will be evaluating 5
is one in which the NRC determines the acceptability of the 6
facility's requalification program.
The facility conducts 7
the examination with NRC monitoring the conducting of that 8
examination.
This would mean that the NRC would have an 9
individual present to observe the crews being tested and to examined in the simulator, and would be present for observing 11 the written examination of all of the members being examined, 12 and would monitor at least a portion of each of the 13 candidatos as they were being taken through the walk-through.
14 The third alternative is an alternative in which 15 the NRC again determines the acceptability of the f acility's 16 program and INPO/NUMARC would manage a team that conducts 17 the examinations with NRC again monitoring the conducting of l
18 that examination.
The Staff will continue evaluating these l
l 19 alternatives over the next few months.
We will continue to l
l M
meet with the office of General Counsel and with IMPO and 21 NUMARC to discuss these alternatives.
l 22 The Staff plans to complete its evaluation of 23 alternatives and report back to the Commission with a 24 recommendation by the end of this calendar year.
2S At this point, I have concluded my prepared remarks.
4 n
0 o
r 36 t
If there are any questions which you have, I would be pleased 2
to respond.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECil Let me 'nst understand.
What did 4
you say by the end of this calendar year?
Are you recommending any of these options at the present time?
6 MR. PERKINS:
At the present time we are not.
We 7
are just identifying to you the options or alternatives that g
we will be evaluating, and we will come back to you with a g
recommendation of one of these options.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
So, you don't have a recommendation 11 at this time.
12 MR. PERKINS:
That is cor'Joct.
13 Cl! AIRMAN Z ECli t All right.
14 MR. PERKINS:
We just wanted to make you awarc of 15 the options we are considering.
16 CilAIRMAN ZECli:
All right, fine.
17 MR. MURLEY:
I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that 18 we are moving ahead in the interim though doing exams or 19 planning exams at other sites.
I don't have the details but 20 we haven't stopped Staff activity.
21 Cl! AIRMAN ZECilt But, in the meantime, are we 22 examining?
Is the requalification program still operative?
23 MF. MURLEY:
Yes.
i 24 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir.
25 C ll A I FliA N Z E C il:
Is it in e..tet?
4
s 27 1
MR. MURLEY:
Yes, sir, we are following the same 2
methodology.
3 CilAIRMAN ZECil This pilot program or the one we 4
had before?
5 MR. PERKINS:
No.
6 MR. MURLEY:
No.
7 MR. PERKINS:
We are implementing the pilot program 8
in this fiscal year.
9 C11 AIRMAN ZECll:
For all utilities.
10 MR. PERRINS:
For all utilities who are ready for 11 us to implement it with.
L 12 Cl! AIRMAN ZECil:
I see.
So, you are really going i
l 13 ahead with the pilot program --
14 MR. PERKINS:
Yes, sir.
15 CilAIRMAN ZECil:
-- you have got going with other 16 facilities now.
17 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes.
t 18 MR. PERKINS:
Yes, sir.
19 MR. TAYLOR:
We think it is a considerable s
20 improvement over the original program that we started.
21 CliAIRMAN ;'ECll:
Uh-huh.
But then by the end of I
22
] the year you will come back to us with a recerinendation --
23 M R,. TAYLOR:
Yes, s f. r.
for whether you should continue l
24 CIIAIRMAN ZEC11:
25 to go with -- I think you talked about option one --
1 j
g 28 1
MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir.
2 Cl! AIRMAN ZECil:
-- or whether you should go with 3
one of the other two options.
4 MR. PERKINS:
Yes, sir.
5 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir.
6 MR. MURLEY:
Yes, sir.
7 Cl! AIRMAN ZEClit I sec.
All right.
Does that 8
complete your briefing?
9 MR. TAYLOR:
That concludes our briefing, yes, sir.
10 Cl! AIRMAN ZECil:
All right.
Questions from my 11 follow Commissioners.
Commissioner Carr.
12 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Well, I think this is a much 13 improved progra'm ove r the one we started with.
One of the 14 best parts about it I think is you evaluate the trainees as 15 well as the trainers.
At the same time, I think the more we 16 do this the better we will get at it.
It is one of the most 17 importent things I think we do for safety, the examination 18 and requalification of the people.
I think it is a most 19 valuable use of resources and I would be supportive of all XI the resources it would take for us to do this ourselves.
21 I think also it ought to be a learning experience 22 for both the guys being requalified as well as for our i
23 examiners.
It has been my experience that every time you 24 give an examination you learn something, and you should be 25 able, as you go around and get better at it, to pass those 4
g 4
m
r 29 1
tips along to the people you are examining.
2 I would encourage you to ensure that there is a good 3
sample of actual problems that have been experienced at plants 4
in your examinations to make sure that the lessons are being 5
learned that should be learned from each other.
I woulo hope
[
6 that we have adequate personnel to take care of all those 7
alternatives, whichever one you come up with.
8 That's all I have.
9 CHAIRMAN ZECll You have just heard from a top notch 10 examiner.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I have some experience in --
12 CllAIRMAN ZECil:
I hope you took notes.
Commissioner 13 Rogers.
i 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS :
Yes, I have got a couple of 4
15 questions and some remarks.
First, on the remarks, I think 16 that your work on the development of this whole examination 17 process, how you have gone at it and the construction of the 18 exams, Commissioner Carr has already complimented you on it 19 but I think that it really is a first-rate job,. everything
[
r 3) that I have seen about it.
I really want to commend the 21 Staff for really moving in on this and taking a totally 22 fresh look at it and coming up with a much superior system 23 to what was there before from a professional examiner's point 24 of view.
I 25 I have a couple of questions.
In your pilot I
g
30 1
programs, did you find that you could meet the goal that had 2
been set of agreement between NRC and the facility examiners 3
of a five percent agreement on examinations scores on 80 4
percent of the written exmns?
i 5
Did you have a chance to test that?
6 MR. PI:RKINS :
Iynn, do you want to handle that?
7 MR. WIENS:
Right.
We consistently met that 8
requirement.
As a matter of fact, it was so consistent --
9 our grades were normally I believe within about one percent 10 of the grading results -- that we do not even include that in 11 our current requirement.
We didn't find any value to that 12 comparison.
13 COMMISSIONER ROGEPS:
Very good.
Well, that was a 14 good test and I think it is very reassuring to hear that.
15 flow about regional variations?
The five pilot plants were 16 in all five regions, were they?
i 17 MR. l'UPl; INS:
Yes, sir.
(
18 COMMISSIONER ROCERS:
One for each region.
So, did 19 you see any regional variations in grading or scores?
X)
MR. PERKINS:
Again, I am going to ask Lynn, with 21 hit e x pe r ienc e, to comment on that.
l WI'NS:
Not significant.
There. we re sometimes 27 l MR.
d i
33 !
problems of clarification required in our 91 idance that was t
I l
24 l
difficult for possibly one Of the regions.
iiowever, when 4
25 those problems were identified, we incorporated the l
I i
m
31 1
clarifications necessary -- at least we hope that was 2
necessary -- into our guidance so that each region could 3
implement this program the same.
4 Now, as Ken pointed out, during the requalification 5
program itself or the pilot program, as we finished one pilot, 6
lessons learned from that we would 3 'orporate into the next 7
pilot.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
So, it was dynamic in 9
that sense.
10 MR. WIENS:
Right.
So, in that regard, there would 11 be differences --
12 l
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
13 MR. WIENS:
f or example, between the Robinann i
14 pilot and the Salem pilot.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
16 MR. WIENS:
But in the nearer timeframe or where 17 processes didn't change, we didn't see significant differences 18 in the results that we considered substantial.
19 MR. PERKINS:
I think one thing that I hope will N
promote consistency f rom this point forwcrd is we do have 21 the examincr standard out now for guidance and, also, we have i
22 held the four workshops in order to get the informatien out l
M to everyone about simultaneously.
l 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I think it is important 25 to keep tha.t in mind, that we try to eliminate this five h
L_
s l
l 32 1
different NRC's problem that we have had in the past in some 2
areas and make sure that -- this is a particularly important 3
one -- that standacds are exactly the same on the east coast, 4
the west coast, north and south, and that there is no 6
regional difference.
6 MR. PERKINS:
Yes.
7 MR. ROE Commissioner Rogers, I might add that we 8
are very much interested in that.
So, we have taken 9
additional steps, other than what we nave learned in the 10 requal, to attempt to standardize our practice ar much as 11 possible.
Ken has a weekly conference call, I think it is, 12 with his regional representatives 13 MR. PERKINS:
Conference.
14 MR. ROE in the operator licensing program to 15 discuss how we are actually carrying it out.
We have 16 tightened up in some of the areas.
Our guidance limited the 1
17 flexibility with still retaining an adequate amount for the 18 regions.
Additionally, our headquarters certified examiners i
19 upon occasions conduct exams with the regional people to et N
firsthand experience and understand what actually is going on 21 out there.
I i
22 CO?B11SSIONER CARR:
Well, you can also mix the l
M teams up from the region so you don't have a region team and l
24 take people frem all regions to put together a team, I would 25 think.
s 33
~
1 MR. ROE:
We have taken that approach specificall~y 6
2 in our EOP inspections that are somewhat analogous to 3
licensing inspections or looking at actual practices of the 4
utilities where the teams are comprised cf individuals from 5
various regions and go from region to region instead of just 6
their own facilities.
7 MR. WIENS:
In the pilot program, we did have 8
examiners from various regions participate in at least 9
several of the pilots so that there was cross-information 10 between regional examiners.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Piggyback one more on you.
12 There is one thing I would caution you against and that is 13 to think that it is goina to get easier to examine af ter the 14 pilot program is over than it was during the pilot program.
15 You are going to find that it takes just as much preparation 16 to do an exam anywhere, anytime, as it did for those pilots.
17 Preparation in the critique are as important as the exam 18 itself.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
You see, the fact that some N
plants do not have plant specific simulators, being a big 21 problem in the completion of this first cycle by 1989, for l
M i instance, how many plants will not have plant specifie l
23 simulators by say January 1st, 1989?
How serious is that 24 going to be in how you proceed with this program?
25 MR. WIENS:
Do you want me to answer that?
4
i 34 1
MR. PERKINS:
Yes, if you would.
2 MR. WIENS:
Well, I don't see it as a problem.
We 3
did one pilot at Fort Calhoun that did not have a plant 4
specific simulator.
We were able to compensate for that on 5
the written exam where we do use a simulator by using a mock-6 up.
We have contingency plans for those plants -- a static 7
mock-up -- for those plants that don' t even have that, such 8
as using control board panel photographs of the panels and 9
construct our examination towards those devices, to For the crew evaluation, the simulator portion, 11 since on the team evaluation we are looking for team 12 interaction, time-dependent actions, we have determined on 13 our one pilot at Fort Calhoun where we used the Windsor Lock-14 CE simulator, non-reference simulator, that for that type of 15 competencies that we are looking at, that we could adequately 16 ovaluate tco team performance on the non-reference simulator.
i 17 So, we wou'.d use the same approach on any other facility that 18 did not have one.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
So, you don't see that as a g) big impediment.
21 MR. WIENS:
I do not. -
i 22 COMMISSIONER CiskR:
That's the one they nomally 1
I 23 train on cnyway.
24 MR. WIENS:
That i's correct.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERE:
Just with respect to your
f
=
35 1
options for the future, I agree with Commissioner Carr that r
2 I would really like to cee us do this ourselves all-the way, 3
but I know that there is a resource problem and that is why 4
you are looking at options,.
5 It seems to me that there is another option that 6
you might look into -- a fourth one -- that would be a little 7
different in terms of its dif ficulty with respect to getting 8
agreements, if we might have any problems with INPO, and 9
that would be to look at yet another organization to 10 participate in this such ac the National Institute for 11 Certification of Engineering Technologists.
I 12 I don't know that that is the right one bat I would i
13 suggest thet thore might be another possibility besides having 14 INPO supply the person power to have another contractor that 15 might be able to do this that has an excellent reputation, 16 professional reputation.
I am not making a judgment on that 17 particular organization but it does seem to me that if there 18 is a reluctance by INPO to take this on, then there might be i
19 another alternative such as comething of this type.
l 20 MR. PERKINS:
Okay.
i 21 COMMISSIONER ROC ERS :
I would ask you to look at 22 that as well, j
23 MR.,PERKINS:
Wo will add that to the list.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It looks to me like the r
25 program is vastly improved and that everyone associated with
(
I i
I
l l
l 8
36 1
it is to be commended.
Thank you.
2 CilAIRMAN ZECil:
First of all, I would like to also 3
support Commissioner Carr's first comment regarding the high 4
priority that this program should be assigned.
I'm not sure 5
that there are many things we do more important than 6
examining our operators to ensure that they have the 7
competence to protect the public health and' safety.
8 I would be inclined at this time anyway to support 9
your first option that would have NRC conducting the 10 e::aminat ion, and by whatever resources are necessary.
That 11 is my inclination.
I certainly understand the other options 12 and I will wait to hear the Staff's recommendation.
I 13 appreciate the f a'e t that you are looking for -- perhaps not 14 using quite as many of our own resources -- but my 15 inclination would be this ia such an important program that 16 it should have the priority and perhaps we shoold continue 17 to support it ourself.
18 Let me say, too, I think you have done a very 19 excellent job -- certainly a job well done -- and a necessary 20 job too.
7ss I recall, when I first came to the Commission l
21 and started visiting the nuclear power plants, almost every 22 one, after talkinq with the operators and askinq them about 1
23 what we could do to do a better job, that question would 24 usually come around to some kind of criticism of the i
' 25 requalification program.
l l
t
.37 1
We have talked about it at various times and you 2
have heard my suggestions that you make it more systematic, 3
more integrated, more operationally oriented, and all those 4
things that it would appear to me you have done.
So, I think 5
you have done an excellent job and I think it has benefitted 6
us to work with the utilities, with the industry, have them 7
participate in the program.
With our strong oversight but 8
with their participation, I think it is certainly something 9
that we can look upon with a considerable amount of 10 satisfaction.
11 Also, I think you have taken a logical approach to 12 the program in that you have started with job task analysis, 13 what is necessary, and you have gone from there to describe 14 and feel confident I believe that you have described what 15 operators need to kncw, and then have it performance-based I
16 tco so that you watch them perform, and also integrated 17 because it is a team effort in these power plants and it is 18 important that not only each individual perform well but they 13 perform well as a team.
20 Now, to put together an exam that will allow us to 21 review all those different circumstances is not easy.
I M
think you have done an excellent job in considering both the i
23 individual and the team efforts necessary for safety.
I 24 really do think you have donc an excellent job.
It's a 25 significant improvement.
As far as I can tell, it's an order l
I a
e
38 q
1 of magnitude improvement from what we were doing in the past.
i 2
That's why I do think it should have the priority and the 3'
resources necessary to follow through.
4 I really do think doing it ourself is the right 5
thing to do.
I don't know that we do too many things that 6
are more important than reviewing the qualifications of our 7
operators.
8 I believe making it operationally oriented and 9
truly relevaat is so important and I think you have done that.
10 By that, I mean that you have made it realistic and practical.
11 At least, as : understand it, you have made it oriented 12 towards those situations that the operator may not see every 13 day.
In other wordc, the emergencice that ec.uld ccme up but 14 the operator in his normal routine operational duty status 15 doesn't see those kinds of things.
We hope he never sees 16 them.
But at least if he is thinking about them and he knows 17 how to respond to them, not only individually but as a team, 18 that is very important and it does, indeed, contribute to 19 safety in my judgment.
N So, focusing on those potential emergency situations 21 I think is extremely important.
Also, I know from my own 22 [ experience that operators, when ycu get them in this frame of 23 mind, it stimulates their imagination and their own intereats 24 in their plant.
It stimulates them to ask the questions M
"what if", you know, what if this would happen and what if
39 1
that would happen, what would I do, and they kind of end of 2
quizzing each other from time to time during the routino 3
watches and shift work that they stand.
That is also 4
intellectual stimulation for operators that I think is good.
5 If your exam can stimulate those kind of questions and that 6
kind of thinking and that kind of alertness on the part of 7
operators, I think that has a side benefit that is rather 8
significant.
9 So, you stimulate the operators themselves to 10 think of what they would do if kinds of things and that 11 allows them to think of the plant in a more realistic way in 12 my judgment than looking at the boards and the instruments 13 I and the switches and knobs and so forth because what it dona, 14 in my judgment, it makes them think about when I threw that 15 switch what happens all the way through the system and they 16 think of the control system that may be working and how does 17 that interphase with the hydraulic system and the reactor 18 itself and the heat, the steam and so forth, and it. puts 19 them in a differer* frame of mind than just kind of K) performing at the board and throwing switches.
It stimulates 21 their thinking as to what really they are doing, what happens i
22 Tt 1.. ant.
M !
I think t. hat kind of encouraaement or that kind of 24 stimulation is very healthy for our operators who, as we all l
25 know, under mpst circumstances are in the control room in
40 1
quite a routine and normal situation.
But to stimulate their 2
thinking about their plant, to me, is a very important benefit 3
from this whole requalification program.
4 Those are my general comments.
I do want to commend 5
you again for what I think is one of the finest programs the 6
Staf f has undertaken since I have been here.
You have taken 7
a program that did have problems and you have turned it into 8
what could be potentially I think a very valuabic significant 9
contribution to reactor safety.
I commend the Staf f for that to effort and those of you -- I commend the industry and the 11 utilities who have participated with you in order to achieve 12 what I think could be a very significant improvement.
13 Commissioner Rogers.
14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just one question that 15 occurred to me while you were making your prescrtation.
16 That is what are you doing about the possible career paths 17 and prospects for the future for the examiners, the NRC 18 examiners?
My impression, 4,n looking into this program 19 during the summer, was that that was a serious issue within 20 the agency as to how the people who were involved with 21 playing the role of examiners viewed themselves and viewed 22 their career prospects within the agency, if we see this as 23 a really important activity and I think we all do.
24 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir.
M COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Then we must take particular
+
41 g
pains to see that.the best people and the most qualified 2
people are interested in doing this and that it is not a 3
desdend for them but at least a reasonabic alternative on a 4
career path within NRC to other things that they might do t
5 such as being a resident inspector.
t 6
I wonder what your thinking on that is.
If you 7
haven't done a lot or haven't come to any conclusions on it, a
it seeias to me that 1 ~ is very important that you think about 9
that in connection with aption one.
If we are going to do d
this ourselves, that that be a key element in it.
It is just 11 not the number of people but the quality of peopic, their i
12 dedication and commitment to this, that will have to be 13 sustained by our doing the right thing by them.
14 MR. TAYLOR:
We know that is happening, so, I will l
I 15 let Jack and Tom give you the specifics.
i 16 MR. MURLEY:
First, let me say that we agree i
17 totally with you that we have to make the examiner positions I
18 not only attractive but give them the stature commensurate 19 with the safety importance of what they are doing.
That 3) probably hasn't been the case in the past and we have seen 21 fairly high attrition among the examinors.
We find that there I
22 is a general flow of examiners toward the resident inspector l
f l
23 ranks because we have placed a lot of emphasis on resident l
24 inspectors -
properly so -- but now we have got' to pay l
25 attenti.on to the examiners as well.
l l
I
)
42 i
1 We have a number of options that we ar? looking at.
2 We are not prepared caday to tell you exactly how we are going l
3 to go but perhaps Jack can elaborate on that.
4 MR. ROE:
Yes, sir.
As Doctor Murley indicated, we 8
have a range of options.
We have developed those options and l
6 made proposals to the Executive Director.
I know that they 7
are under active evaluation now and I expect after the first 8
of the year that we will be able to report back to you what l
l 9
actions we are going to take.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just one parting word and l
11 that is that it seems to me that this whole process that has 12 been invoked here is one that can teach us all a lesson as i
13 to what we can do in the future.
Nanely, we had a program j
14 that was functioning but had problems with it and, instead 15 of just patching it up cnd bandaiding in, we stopped it and 16 took a fresh look at it and started almost all over again, i
17 I think that is a very salutory thinig for us to connider
' 18 doing at any time in any aspect of our work at the Commission l
i 19 where it seems to be called for, i
20 MR. TAYLOR:
Commissioner Rogers, thank you.
We l
L 21 will include some in f o rmation abou't the examiner career path l
22 when we come back with yo; in the next couple of months tu U
give you our final position on the program.
By tnat time, 24 I think we will have our thoughts pretty well in order.
i 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Comhissioner Carr, anything else?
i l
I t
i 43 1
COMMISSIONFR CARR:
Yes, one more comment.
I would 2
encourage you to continue to get feedback.
You may want to 3
generate yourself some kind of a cot:mont sheet.
And, I would i
4 suggest that the headquarter.s get those comments in addition 8
to the regions so that we at least get some look across the L
6 whole examining system.
It doesn't have to be a big thinq 7
but you do need continuing feedback.
l l
l 8
MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, sir, i
l 9
L.' AIRMAN ZECil:
That has been my experience too, in i
i 10 this program you should consider it kind of a living progrcm l
11 because feedback really will continue to improve your program 12 as you go along.
It is very important to do that.
l 13 I
I would just like to support Commissioner Rngers' l
14 point -- I'm glad he brought that out -- too about examiners 15 and their tremendous importance to us.
I have had the 16 opportunity to talk to them on occasion ar.d I nave been 17 impressed, f rankly, by the c::aminers we have.
It 6s not an l
18 casy job because they are on the road so much, as I understand 19 it.
Many of them are, anyway.
N I really have been impressed by the motivation and 21 the dedication of many of the examiners we have had because 22 tney seem to havn, at least in my judgment, a very keen
[
t 23 l
connitment tc sa:ety an' an obligation that they feel they j
l 24 have to pass that.alony.
I think that is commendable.
- And, i
l 1
I 2
I do agree, as Doctor.turley points out, that we can do 1
1 l
l i
e
.---,7-.v..-7--,
l 44 1
bottor by our examiners and I agree with Commissioner Rogers 2
that we should indeed focus on this as a career path that 3
perhaps we can make some great improvements in.
They have a 4
valuable contribution to make in my judgment and I hope we 8
can emphasize and perhaps give bottor support to that valuable 6
program because it does indeed contribute to safety in a very 7
direct sort of way.
Examiners are very important people.
I 8
hope that this whole program can stimulate our support for 9
the examiners.
10 If there are no other comments --
11 (No responso.)
12 CllAITU4AN ZECil:
-- thank you for an excellent 13 presentation and a ' job very well done.
We stand adjourned.
14 (Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m.,
the Commission meeting 15 was adjourned.)
l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23.
l
}
24 t
25 i E
t a
L i
CERTIFICATE 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 Reactor Operator Requalification Program TITLE OF MEETING:
Public Meeting PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
DATE OF MEETING:
October 7, 1988 l
i
(
were transcribed by me.
I further certify that said j
i transcription is accuratt and complete, to the best l
i.
of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
(
l i,l'
[
i
(
i'.,
. ill c,,,
%,,, l < ' :P Ij JOHN TROWBRIDGEi CVR l
i I
I l
1 Ann Ritey. Associates, ted.
1 l
l I
i I
1 I
[
i i
f
l INTRODUCTION o RULE REQU'.REUENTS OPERATOR PARTiC;PADON IN CONENUING TRA:N'NG PROGRAVS FAC:UTY CVESTERED RiNUAL OPEPJLNG TEST AND B ENN'.AL WRITTEN EXAM l
NRC ADUNSTERED WRITTEN AND CPERARNO TEST DUR.NG SJX YEAR UCENSE TERW l
l l
1 6
~2.
EA%Y DTORTS i
o SAME FORMAT / TECHN:0UE AS INITIAL UCENSiNG DAMXATION o INDUSTRY CONCERN REGARDING SATETY lWPACT o NRC IMPRESSED WiTH SATETY SIGN:DCANCE o REQUAL DAW PROGRAM TEuPORAR!LY SUSPENDED WHILE NEW WETH000LO(T( DPLORED L
[
3 I
NE# WETHODS o ASSESS EFTECThTNESS Of TRA'N;NG PROGRAM o EVALUA'E OPERATOR PRdRC1ENCY T
o CONSISTENT 'MTH SYSTEWATIC VPROACH TO TRAXNG AND INPO ACCREDITATION o REDUCE IUPACT ON FAC!UTIES/0PERATORS o IWPROVE NRC EXAW REUGUTY AND VAU0iff l
i i
f I
l
i SWIMATlC APPROACH T3 TRW.NG o CONTENT DEMID FROW JOS/ TASK ANAl.WS o PEPIORVANOE BASED o FOCUS ON KN0ntEDG!!$xuS/6UEES o DWWC APPROACH e
e a
I j
~
OPERAENG TESTS o TKO PARTS S W JTOR WALK THROUGH o OPDONS FOR P!WUS n*THOUT SlWJt0RS 9
e m
D i
i
['
l l
i t
i l
r t
1 l
1 L
i S vJt.ATOR EXAW l
1 l
o FOCUS ON CREW PERFORMANCE r
o SCENAA0 CONSRUCTION 1
o L'OMDUAL wT)XNESSES 1
l
\\
\\
1 I
t i
i i
l l
1
\\
I l
s j
i 1 ALK THROUGH i
k o PERTORM TASVS RPORTANT to SAFET(
f o FAC:UTY ASS!STS NRC IN TASK I
DEN'inCAfiCN / DE\\n0FVENT o JPM's DE\\ ROPED ;"au TASK UST I
f o CONDUCTED Ef FAC:UTt WTH MC 0.!RS CHT t
e
[
l l
l i
l l
I i
1 l
[
l 9
i
\\
5 4
)
n?JTTEN EXMJ o TA0 PARTS PtANT OPEREONS PLANT Pr$CEDURES o OPEN REFERENCE t
9 e
9 4
g
8 I
QUESDON BANK o '#R:TTEN EXAU CONSTRUCTED FROM FAC'UTY QUESTION BAE o NRC MAY SUBSTITUTE QUEST 10NS o NRC CONSTRUCTS EXAU o FAClUiY REEAS FlNA!. EXAM 6
m
[
Is O
(#
0 NRC UCENSEE COOPERATION o COOPERATIVE EFFORT IN EXAM DE'ELOPMENT o INDEPENDENT PXSS / Fall DECISIONS o BASIS FOR REQUAL PROGRAM EVALUATION o NRC RETA!NS RNAL AUTHORITY
gl s
REQUAUFICAT10N PROGRAM SUuMATt o PROGRAM IS ON TRACK o POSITNE TEED 8ACK ON PILOT EXAMS O
f
- a., -
p lg<>.
i
,il l
i lN..,
i I-l l
l l
OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE l
o NRC EVALUATES FACIUTY PROGRAMS AND l
CONDUCTS EXAMS l
t o NRC DETERWINES ACCEPTABluTY Of FAC!UTY t
PROGRAMS AND FACluTY CONOUCTS EXAMS WITH NRC WONITORiNG j
o NRC DETERWINES ACCEPTAB'UTY OF FACIU1Y PROGRAMS AND INP0/NUMARC CONDUCTS EXAWS l
WITH NRC WOffiORING l
l t
l t
l I
4
MWWdd%%%W6WW $%%%%%WWfWWWA%WWWWWWgygy4gggg TPAH5MITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips fi ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Rocm
/0[//[
DATE:
FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch 1
3:
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting i;
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and i
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or j'
required.
Meeting
Title:
dLu); 1.% ns jfrA o A Ah i
L' a?w k, M _ J
/0/7 [p7 Ope Closed Meeting Date:
l
'l Item Description *:
Copies l
Advanced DCS l
8 fj to POR
- Qgy, I!
l!
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 Ii' w / U E,. m li o
- 1 ii.
2.
3.
4.
3 :":
3
] !
5.
a :"
3 3 :
33:
6.
3:
a:i F&
3 3 )
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
OI g
] j C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY 1
3:
papers.
3 5 a.b A JM b
l Y Y lhbY Y hi lhlbh hlh Y J