ML20217C863
| ML20217C863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/20/1998 |
| From: | Spessard R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Tollison A INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR POWER OPERATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804240085 | |
| Download: ML20217C863 (7) | |
Text
.
/ April 20,1998 Mr. Alfred C. Tollison, Executive Vice President Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 700 Galleria Parkway, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30329-5957
Dear Mr. Tol*ison:
Enclosed in this letter is the summary of the February 25,1998, coordination meeting between the NRC and INPO. I believe that the meeting was effective and beneficial to the NRC and INPO, and that the discussions that took place at the meeting are appropriately characterized.
Note that the section containing the discussion on licensed operator eligibility mentions that we will continue to " explore various ways" to ensure that the industry knows what guidance to use.
In our telephone conversation on April 3,1998, we discussed licensed operator eligibility and clarified our understandi .g of the issues. We understand that, at the time the ACAD 91-012 guidance was revised, INFO considered its detailed experience guidance consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, and therefore, duplicative of the regulatory guidance. Also, we understand that, in removing the detailed experience guidance from the guideline, your expectation was that no change would occur in the levels of experience since the industry would follow the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2.
We agreed that this issue can be more effectively resolved through a change in the ACAD guidance than through generic NRC correspondence. In this regard, we understand that INPO intends to change ACAD guidance, regarding licensed operator eligibility, to restore equivalence with the guidelines in Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, and that INPO intends to incorporate this change in guidance into its plant review and evaluation processes.
We appreciate this effort by INPO and will continue to cooperate in accomplishing a successful and timely resolution to this issue.
Sincerely R. L Spes ard, Director Division of Reactor Controls and Human Performance Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated i
Distribution:
HHFB RF l
b controi oeek L D - > 5 I l y r' o Document Name: G:\ARILDSEN\lNPO-XMT.298
- See orevious concurrence To receive a copy of this doeurnent Indaele in the bon "C" e Copy udhout enachrnent/ enclosure "E* = copy wth enachmerd/ enclosure "N' = No copy OFFICE HHFB/DRCH l HOLB/DRCH l HHFB/DRCH I DRCH/NRR O l NAME JArildsen RGallo REckenrode RSpessard IJ l DATE 4/15/98* 4/16 /98* 4/16/98* 4 / k /98 l 1- OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 9804240085 980420 PDR ORG EPSINPO PDR b MM
f 7
SUMMARY
OF THE FEBRUARY 251998 NRC/INPO COORDINATION MEETING l ON TRAINING-RELATED ISSUES I
On February 25,1998, a periodic NRC/ institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) l I coordination meeting on training-related issues was held in the NRC's White Flint office complex in Rockville, Maryland. Such meetings are conducted in accordance with the NRC/INPO Memorandum of Understanding dated December 24,1996. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss items of mutualinterest concerning INPO's training program accreditation process. Participants included representatives of the NRC's Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors, the Office of the Executive Director for Operations, and the Office of the General Counsel, and INPO's Accreditation Division. The list of meeting attendees is provided as Attachment 1. The meeting agenda is provided as Attachment 2. A summary of the discussions related to each agenda topic covered during the meeting follows.
Ooenina Remarks /Oroanizational Changes Introductions of the NRC/lNPO personnel present were conducted. Both NRC and INPO stressed the importance of the meetings. After the introductions were completed, organizational changes since the last coordination meeting, at both the NRC and INPO, were discussed.
Exoerience and Eligibility Reouirements for Licensed Ooerators NRC opened the discussion with a statement of our concern and the background of the issue.
The NRC staff asserted its belief that the qualifications and experience oflicensed operators is related to safety, included in the discussion was the NRC's regulatory basis for providing the option permitted by 55.31(a)(4) of either providing to the NRC evidence of an applicant's qualifications which includes detailed information, or certifying that evidence. The NRC added that the existence and implementation of INPO guidance on operator qualifications (experience) was a necessary component of the training program accreditation process accepted by the NRC. As stated in NUREG 1262, the NRC was willing to forgo reference to Reg. Guide 1.8 on form NRC-398 because the qualification guidance contained in that guidance and the INPO qualification guideline were considered equivalent in 1987.
INPO responded by agreeing that operator eligibility is related to safety and stating that they continue to believe that operators need experience to be fully successful in performing their job.
INPO stated that since a discussion with Bob Gallo in November 1997, INPO has been attempting to determine why INPO guidance was changed in 1991. INPO concluded that it had changed its guidelines in the accredited training program because the NRC had already set out this guidance in Reg. Guide 1.8; therefore, regulatory guidance already existed and the guidance in the accreditation standard was duplicative and could become conflicting. INPO stated that INPO expected that accredited operator licensing training programs would use the eligibility guidance found in Reg. Guide 1.8 and the intent of the change was not to lower the eligibility standards.
The NRC and INPO agreed to continue to explore various ways to ensure that the industry is aware of the problem and knows what eligibility guidance to use, and to come to some resolution of this issue.
a 2
Fundamental Knowledoe Weaknesses Obsented by_NRC and INPO INPO reported that instances of licensed operator fundamental knowledge weaknesses ar being observed. As a result, INPO stated that Plant Evaluation Teams and the Accreditation Teams will be cross-trained on this issue, using computer-based training or traditional i instructor-led training, on what attributes to look for and how to evaluate operators to fundamental knowledge weaknesses. INPO stated that a potential cause of the licensed
' operator fundamental knowledge weaknesses could be the multiple choice format of the and requalification examinations. NRC and INPO both stated they will continue to monitor this issue. During the discussion for this session, NRC provided INPO with a copy of the 1996 Annual Training Report.
NRC initial Ooerator licensino Examinations Pilot Prooram Lessons Learned The NRC discussion focused primarily on the quality of licensed operator examination l questions with ancillary discussions on examination questions for the remaining accredited training program!.
! Discussions between INPO and the NRC covered the contribution of instructor training to the overall exam process. The NRC also noted that the average ex grade appears to be lowering. INPO then shared a licensee's perception about the exams -
that the NRC has an expected pass rate far each exam. NRC committed to issue clarif guidance to the Regional offices on average examination grade, that the NRC does not have expected pass rate, and that it is the expectation of the NRC that the examination not be too easy.
WANO Peer Reviews at Domestic Nuclear Power Plantf INPO discussed the differences between WANO Peer Reviews and normal IN Evaluations. The primary differences are the origin of the peers, foreign reactors versus U.S.
reactors, and the peer's familiarity with U. S. requirements. The training and preparation the teams undergo are the same. The report and follow-up requirements are the same. INPO stressed that there is no lowering of standards to accommodate the foreign peers and the foreign peers add a new and different perspective to the evaluation.
Pilot Accreditation Team Visits and imolementation I-
' INPO stated that the goals of the Pilot Accreditation Team visit (ATV) program was to look at the accredited programs more often than once every four years. During the 1997 pilot, INPO used accreditation visits with smaller teams for longer periods of on-site time. Advantages of the pilot program included the team developing a deeper understanding of the programs b
( evaluated, the team was afforded the opportunity to take a more in-depth look in areas of concern, and the team could better evaluate corrective actions proposed and taken.
Disadvantages included a loss of team synergy as a result of the changing peers, the visits required a greater expenditure of resources, and difficulties covering corrective actions and problems without becoming part of the solution, l
As a result of the pilot, INPO does not plan to conduct regularly scheduled smaller team visits in the future. However, if conditions warrant, smaller teams will be used as appropriate.
(
l -
l 3
INPO stated that selected ATVs, about 2 - 3 per quarter, will be supplemented with a revi team that will focus on the programs in the area not being considered for renewal. The ATV selected will be those where plant performance suggests problems. These Reviews could result Board. in an early review of the supplemental programs by the National Nuclear Accre For Cause Trainino insoections NRC invited INPO to exercise the option of participating, as observers, in NRC for-cause training inspections.
Accreditation of Decommissionino Plants l
INPO discussed how they handle the plants that enter the decommissioning phase.
l accreditation is withdrawn when the plant notifies INPO of the intent not to operate.
Licensed Ooerator Conhn_uino Trainino insoections NRC discussed a summary of findings from the Operator Requalification inspections. The primary finding remediation discussed problem. was related to repetitive individual failures and an indicated lon
{
ltems Related to National Nuclear Accrediting Board Observations I
l l
! INPO provided to NRC a listing of the departing and newly appointed members of the National Nuclear Accrediting Board. The NRC and INPO also agreed that due to personnel and scheduling difficulties, it was not necessary for NRC observers to observe every meeting of th National Nuclear Accrediting Board.
No other agenda items were discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm.
l l l
\
Attachment 1 1
1 1998 NRC-INPO TRAINING COORDINATION MEETING Participants February 25.1998 NRC Offices, Room O 4806 i NAME ORGANIZATION MARIA SCHWARTZ NRC/OGC RICHARD PELTON NRC/NRR/DRCH/HHFB MARY ANN BIAMONTE l NRC/NRR/DRCH/HHFB RICHARD ECKENRODE NRC/NRR/DRCH/HHFB ROBERT GALLO NRC/NRR/DRCH/HOLB JESSE ARlLDSEN NRC/NRR/DRCH/HHFB LEE SPESSARD NRC/NRR/DRCH MIKE TSCHILTZ NRC/OEDO l i
FRED TOLLISON INPO
! MARK PElFER l
l INPO/ ACCREDITATION DIVISION STEVE WEISE INPO/ ACCREDITATION EVALUATION BILL FITZPATRICK INPO/ OPERATIONS TRAINING JEFF REINHART INPO/ GOVERNMENT RELATIONS .
Attachment 2 AGENDA NRC/INPO TRAINING COORDINATION MEETING NRC HEADQUARTERS ROCKVILLE, MD FEBRUARY 25,1998 04806 10:00 A.M. 00 P.M.
TIME DISCUSSION TOPIC LEAD 10.00 A M. Opening Remarks Spessard (NRC)
Tollison (INPO) 10:10 A.M.
Recent Organizational Changes at NRC and INPO Spessard (NRC)
Tollison (INPO) 0.20 A.M.
Experience and Eligioility Requirements for Licensed Operators Gallo (NRC)
Fitzpatrick (INPO) 11:00 A.M.
Fundamental Knowledge Weaknesses Observed by NRC NRC and lNPO INPO 11:30 A M.
NRC Initial Operator Licensing Examinations Pilot Program Lessons Learned Gallo (NRC) a Instructor training, quahfications, and experience
- b. Examination Security l
- c. NRC examination standards (NUREG-1021) 12:15 P.M.
Lunch 12:45 P.M.
tNANO Peer Reviews at Domestic Nuclear Power Plants Tollison (INPO) 1:00 P.M.
i 1997 Pilot Accreditation Team Visits 1S98 Implementation Weise (INPO) 1:20 P.M. For Cause Training Inspections
- a. Criteria Eckenrode (NRC)
- b. Results
- c. Lessons Learned 1:35 P.M. Accreditation of Decommissioning Plants Tollison (INPO)
Eckenrode (NRC) 1:50 P.M. Training Management Assistance Visits Remus (INPO) 2:10 P.M. Licensed Operator Continuing Training inspections Gallo (NRC) 2:30 P.M.
Items Related to National Nuclear Accrediting Board Observations Weise (INPO)
r 2 Attachment 2 TIME DISCUSSION TOPIC LEAD 2:40 P.M. To be discussed as time permits:
- a. Recently Distributed INPO/ Academy Documents and Remus (INPO)
Materials
Spessard (NRC) 3:00 P.M. Adjourn Meeting l
l l
l l