ML20209H083
| ML20209H083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Indian Point, Haddam Neck, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1986 |
| From: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209H059 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-204 NUDOCS 8705010140 | |
| Download: ML20209H083 (2) | |
Text
C
'd L:: 21 18/GI/r0 311-3BN5n Wohe i
h, -Qt flo UNITED STATES va
$'g NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
.. +
.J,"
P... u 6h 40h h...4.'
DEC 2 21986
}
MEHORANDUM FOR: William T. Russell, Director, Division of Human Factors Technology, NRR FROM:
Carl J. Paperiello, Director, Division of Reactor Safety, RIII
SUBJECT:
INP0 ACCREDITATION BOARD MEETING DECEMBER 10, 1986 On December 10 and 11, I attended an INPO Accreditation Board Meeting in Atlanta.
The Board was chaired by Russell O'Neil, UCLA.
The other Board members were Don Snell, Union Electric; Ed Jones, McDanald Douglas; C. O. Woody, Flordia Power; and Frank Fogarty, EG&G.
The meeting followed the format noted by other NRC representatives.
Four plants presented prograns for accreditation.
Indian Point 2 and Connecticut Yankee presented programs for non-licersed operators, reactor operators, senior reactor operators and shift-technical advisors. Three Mile Island present programs for I&C technicians, electrical maintenance, mechanical maintenance, chemistry technicians and technical maragers.
Davis-Besse presented programs for non-licensed operators, reactor operators, senior reactor operators, I&C technicians, electrical and mechanical ruintenance.
Since I was not permitted to attend the board deliberations, I dc not know which program received board accreditation.
The board apparently bases its decistor. on the utility Self Evaluation Reports, the accreditation teani report, follow-up reports and the presentation at the meeting. From discussions at break periods, I learned that no program is pre-sented to the board if the team leader does not believe the utility is ready.
The team leader takes the board thru the report. The report present the positive and negative findings. Weaknesses and utility responses to these weaknesses are presented. Since trany weakness require cormitments that cannot be completed until some time in the future, the board places great emphasis on comitments from senior utility executives at the meeting.
The board places a strong emphasis on the use of plant specific simulators (Perhaps in anticipation of the new 10 CFR 55). THI and Northeast Utilities had plant specific simulators.
Consolidated Edison had an apparently obsolete plant specific simulator.
It was originally acquired in 1973 and its computer was being replaced. Davis-Besse was planning to install a plant spet.ific simulator by 1988.
Craft training was an interesting area of discussion. Geographical location influences recruiting and training practices. Northeast Utilities benefits frcn the presence of Groton, Connecticut within 40 miles of all its plants. I got the impression that a significant number of 2 year college graduates from local community colleges are now available for I&C, chemical technician, electrical maintenance, and non-licensed operator areas. Union rules and bargaining agreements also influence these training programs. The Board probed union influence on management's ability to conduct and grade training.
I think this is one area where flexibility in accepting programs is important.
l 8705010140 870429 PDR FOIA BOSSONG87-204 PDR
y amervi y
a e :,laut > sm ist o
,11 mnsi,te_ie-l 1
William T. Russell 2
DEC 2 21986 From my discussions with INP0 staff, observations of the INPO Accreditation Board, observations by Region III staff of INP0 Accreditation team visits and participation by Region III staff in NRR post-accreditation visits I belive the process is improving the overall state cf training in the industry.
I would estimate the INPO on-site accreditation effort alone is about equivalent to 50 FTE of NRC inspection effort.
However, there appears to be a large variability in accredited programs.
Programs are accredited with open items for which cicsure is based on commitments made to INF0. Moral suasion will ensure most utilities meet these commitments.
I am concerned that some commitments may not be tret and some programs although accredited nay prove to be either ineffective or inadequately implemented.
I believe the NRC needs to be ready to identify these plants whose staff perfontance is ir. adequate due to training. NRC resources are best utilized by concentrating our efforts on these facilities and allowing INPO and the industry to work improvements in the remainder.
A
{
V Carl J. Pape tello, Director Division of Reactor Safety cc:
W. S. Kane, RI A. Gibson, RII E. Johnson, RIV D. F. Kirsh, RV f
g. Raglin, TTC J.-7. Persensky HFMT
3,0) 492 7921 04 g3 W 09:56 NPC-l C f H INEB t10.008 004 PUBLIC CITIZEN Buyers Up C Congress Wotch a Critical Mass a Haslth Ressorch Group C Litigation Group C Tax Creup April 5, 1987 Don Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Uuclear Regulatory Commission IAEEDOM 0F INFORMATION MNDB 4210 ACT REQUEST h'ashington, D.C.
20555 OM$bDf
'd 4 "9"[ )
Attn:
Freedom of Information Act Request Dear Sirs Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. g 552, Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project hereby requests copies of any and all records that provides (1) Information on worker training programs at all commercial nuclear power reactors which have been certified by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) as meeting all its criteria for satisfactory worker training programs.
Also requested are records on the status of worker training programs at all commercial reactors which have not been certified in one or more of the ten areas being certified by INPO.
(2) Information on any reviews, evaluations, or analyses of the INPO program conducted to date by the NRC. INPO, NRC contractors, or any other party or future plans to conduct a review of the INPO's worker training program.
~~
(3) Information describing any reservations, shortcomings, or other problems encountered by either INFO, the affected utilities, other agencies, or the NRC in the development, implementation or evaluation of this program.
This.would include, but is not limited to, any documents which note slippage in INPO's or NRC'- timetables for this program, any documents which comment on the sufficiency of information provided by INPO to the NRC about this program, or any documents which comment on the quality of the program, the effectiveness of the training, and/or any other criteria NRC or INPC have used.
(4) Any other correspondence between the NRC and INPO regarding the development, implementation, or evaluation of this program.
This request pertains to all records in the possession of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, its contractors or licensees.
In this request, " record" includes, but is not limited to, databases which contain the requested information or any other memoranda, reports, studies, reviews, letters, computer memories and printouts, audio and video tapes, movies and other forms of communication, in the Y & E Y Y h ts9;amt wbtxa l
,301 492 7921 04/27 $7 09:57 iFC-f12!1-!RIEB t10.003 005 i
possession of any individual or office in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whether generated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, its contractors, or any other source.
Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project is a nationally known non-profit public interest organization founded in*1974.
We will use these documents in a study we are presently researching and
-plan to. issue on the adequacy of training programs presently in place for nuclear power plant workers.
We plan to broadly disseminate the information contained therein to the press and the general public.
i our past publications have attracted attention in the local, national and trade media.
Thousands of copies of the reports have-been sold or distributed to members of the public, industry, and citizen groups.
Since furnishing these documents "can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public " we request a complete waiver of any processing or duplicating costs you might incur in providing these records to us.
If you rule otherwise, please notify us before filling the request.
Nothing in this request should be considered a request for the private records of any specific individual.
Hence, no provisions of the Privacy Act should be deemed applicable.
If all or any parts of this request are denied, please cite the i
specific exemptions on which you rely in refusing to release the documents.
Further, since the Freedom of Information Act provides that the remainder of a file must be released if only portions are exenpt from disclosure, we request that we be provided with all non-exempt portions which are reasonably segregable.
Of course, we reserve our 4
right to appeal the withholding or deletion of any information.
As orovided in the Freedom of Information Act, we will expect to receive 'the reouested records or a final determination within ten j
workino days. 'If your office is unable to fully respond to this request in that time, please send us a written estimate of when the i
request will be completed.
If you have any questions about this request, please telephone me at 202-546-4996.
1 i
Thank you for your attention to this request.
i 3
sincerely,
\\
]AA l
l Ken Bosson irector Critical as Energy Project of Publi tizen i
I
_