ML20091J858

Emergency Operating Procedure Validation Procedure

ML20091J858
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	05/23/1984
From:	Falk R, Hann R WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20091J821	List: ML20091J818 ML20091J828 ML20091J837 ML20091J844 ML20091J849 ML20091J856 ML20091J858
References
PROC-840523, TAC-43669, TAC-56311, TAC-56312, TAC-56602, TAC-56603, NUDOCS 8406060228
Download: ML20091J858 (31)

Text

i 5/23/84 I

i ATTACHMENT 3.2 l

i EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURE VALIDATION PROCEDURE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Written By A T. C //.

Reviewed By / [ [bww #/3c[d7 Approved By [/l hd I/fo[fY F

YN O! 6 PDR

~

• 5/23/84 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION 1

1.0 OBJECTIVE

2.0 REFERENCES

2 2.1 General 2 2.2 E0P Validation Source Documents 3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3

3.1 Manager - PBNP 3

3.2 Manager's Supervisory Staff 3 3.3 Superintendent - Operations 3' 3.4 General Superintendent 3

'3.5 E0P Writer 3 3.6 E0P Validation Team 4.0 E0P VALIDATION PROCESS 4

4.1 Preparation Phase 4

4.1.1 Designate Personnel 4

> 4.1.2 Documentation 4

4.2 Assessment Phase 6

4.3 Resolution Phase 7 4.4 Documentation 8

E0P Validation Forms 11 Table 1 - Evaluation Criteria l

i

,, a , - - - - - - --

5/23/84 1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of the Emergency Operating Procedure (EOP) validation procedure is to determine if the control room operators can manage emergency conditions in the plant using the E0Ps. This determination can be made by evaluating the E0Ps with regard to usability and operational correctness.

- Usability - The E0Ps provide sufficient information that is 4

understandable to the operator.

- Operational Correctness - The E0Ps are compatible with plant responses, plant hardware, and the shift manpower.

This validation guideline is interdependent with an E0P verification program. The verification program encompasses the efforts necessary to evaluate the written correctness and technical accuracy of E0Ps and will be covered in a separate procedure.

Westinghouse Owners Group has completed a comprehensivt validation test of the Revision 1 Emergency Response Guidelines (ERGS). This generic test provides some assurance that the control room operators at PBNP can manage emergency conditions in the plant using the upgraded E0Ps because the ERGS were a major source document used in the development of the E0Ps. The test took place at the Public Service of New Hampshire Seabrook training simulator. As such, this validation procedure will not include instructions for the simulator method of validation but Page 1 of 13

5/23/84

. will use the table-top and walk-through methods for the plant specific validation of E0Ps.

2.0 REFERENCES

2.1 General

- WOG Emergency Response Guidelines Revision i Validation Program Flan, October 1983.

- Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) Guideline, " Emergency Operating Procedures Validation Guidelines",83-006, July 1983.

- Emergency Operating Procedure Writer's Guide, PBNP,1983.

t

- INP0 Guideline Component Verification and System Validation Guideline,83-047, December 1983.

2.2 E0P Validation Source Documents

- Westinghouse Owners Group " Emergency Response Guideline", Revision 1, September 1, 1983.

- FSAR, Units 1 and 2, PBNP l

i -

- PBNP LER's t

- Latest revision of E0Ps after the E0P verification is completed.

Page 2 of 13

5/23/84

. 3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Manager-PBNP - The Plant Manager shall approve all E0P's and revisions.

3.2 Manager's Supervisory Staff - Manager's Supervisory Staff, or a subcommittee thereof, shall have the responsibility of reviewing the E0P's after the validation discrepancy resolutions have been incorporated, and making a recommendation to the Plant Manager.

3.3 Superintendent-0perations (PBNP) - The Operations Superintendent shall approve the validation discrepancy resolutions.

3.4 General Superintendent-(NSE&AS) - The General Superintendent shall have overall responsibility for the E0P validation process. He shall appoint an observer / review team.

3.5 E0P Writer - The E0P Writer shall review and comment on the validation discrepancy resolutions before they are forwarded to the Operations Superintendent for approval. He shall incorporate approved resolutions into the E0P's.

3.6 E0P Validation Team - The validation team shall specify the method of validation to be used for each scenario. The validation team shall act as reviewers / observers when operators are performing the walk-through and table-top validation methods. They shall recommend valida-i tion discrepancy resolutions for the Operations Superintendent's ap-r i proval.

Page 3 of 13

. 5/23/84 4.0 E0P VALIDATION PROCESS 4.1 Preparation Phase 4.1.1 Designate Personnel

- The validation team is to be selected by the General Super-intendent of NSE&AS. Each member shall be assigned a set of scenarios to develop including the validation method to be used.

- Operators that are representative of the training level expected of all the operators, are to be selected by the Operations Superintendent.

4.1.2 Obtain and Review the Source Documents

- Complete the preparation section of the E0P Validation Form (Form No. 1)

- Develop a scenario and complete the Scenario Form (Form No. 2).

- Review the Evaluation Criteria, Table 1.

4.2 Assessment Phase l

In the assessment phase, the review team shall:

Page 4 of 13

5/23/84

- Brief the operator on the scope of validation and how the assessment will be conducted.

1

- Follow the developed or modified scenario by first giving the initial plant conditions and then give the changing plant parameters as talking or walking through the procedure.

- Review / observe the operator performing the E0P by using the evaluation criteria (Table 1) applicable to the validation method chosen.

- Stop the talk-through or walk-through assessment for discussion of any identified discrepancies.

- Conduct a briefing with the operators as soon as possible after each walk-through assessment using the following sequence:

brief the participants on the purpose and objectives

.for debriefing

- have operators present problems and discrepancies which they have identified during assessment

- have operators provide possible reasons for problems

- present other problems, and discrepancies identified during assessment

- have operators describe possible reasons for the other problems

- summarize the findings of the debriefing for_ the operators Page 5 of 13

5/23/84

- Complete the E0P Validation form (Form No. 1).

- Complete the Scenario form (Form No. 2).

- Indicate on a discrepancy sheet (Form No. 3) each discrepancy observed during the assessment phase.

4.3 Resolution Phase In the resolution phase, the validation team shall initiate the following steps:

- The team is to determine a solution for each discrepancy and indicate this as the resolution on the discrepancy sheet (Form No. 3).

- The procedure writer will then review and comment on the proposed resolutions.

- After review and comment by the procedure writer, the discrepancy sheet with the E0P and any applicable source l

documents are sent to the Superintendent of Operations for l

approval of the resolution.

- If the resolution is not approved, the team is to determine a revised solution. A new discrepancy sheet is to be initiated and the full review and approval process completed.

Page 6 of'13

)

5/23/84 l 4

- The procedure writer updates the E0P with all approved resolutions and returns the modified procedure to the team.

,P 4.4 Documentation Documentation will exist for the following:

- scope of the validation validation method (s) used participants

- scenario description evaluation criteria observer worksheet

- identified discrepancies

- discrepancy resolutions

- review and approval of resolutions E0P Validation Forms (Forms 1 and 2) and Discrepancy Sheets (Form 3) shall be maintained per the Administration Procedure, PBNP 2.2.1, " Records Administration and Storage."

The revised E0Ps are then submitted for approval per Administration Procedure PBNP 2.1.1, " Classification, Review, and Approval of Procedures." '

Page 7 of 13

r-5/23/84 l Form No. 1 E0P VALIDATION FORM E0P TITLE:

E0P NUMBER: REVISION:

SCOPE OF VALIDATION:

VALIDATION METHOD OR METHODS TO BE USED:

Designated Observer / Reviewer (s) d i

Preparation Completed on By:

Assessment Completed on By:

Operator (s) Involved: Qualification: (SRO,R0,Other) i i

Resolution Completed on By:

Documentation Packaged Forwarded on By:

.1 l

Page 8 of 13 l

5/23/84 t FORM #2 TABLE-TOP / WALK-THROUGH SCENARIO FORM SCENARI0'NO.: DATE:

TITLE:

SCOPE:

SCENARIO DESCRIPTION AND SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

INITIAL PLANT C' PROCEDURE NO., STEP PLANT PARAMETER / TRANSITION TO NO., & DESCRIPTION SYMPTOM (PROCEDURE NO.)

l l

l Page 9 of 13

.s ,

m_.-.. -r, _ __

5/23/84 FORM #3 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER SCENARIO E0P: REV.:

PAGE NUMBER: STEP NUMBER:

DISCREPANCY:

RESOLUTION:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW: DATE:

E0P' WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: 'DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circle one)

OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT: DATE:

RESCLtlTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

Page 10 of 13

5/23/84 9

TABLE 1 l

EVALUATION CRITERIA Applicable to: I USABILITY T-T W-T A. LEVEL OF DETAIL x x 1. Is there sufficient information to perform the specified actions at each step?

x x 2. Are the alternatives adequately described at each decision point?

x x 3. Are the labeling, abbreviations, and location information as provided in the E0P sufficient to enable the operator to find the needed equipment?

x x 4. Is the E0P missing information needed to manage the emergency condition?

x' x 5. Are the contingency actions sufficient to address the symptoms?

x x 6. Are the titles and numbers sufficiently descriptive to enable the operator to find referenced and branched procedures?

B. UNDERSTANDABILITY x x 1. Is the E0P easy to read?

x x 2. Are the figures and tables easy and accurately read?

x x 3. Is interpolation of values on figures and charts difficult?

x x 4. Are caution and note statements readily understandable?

x x F. Are the E0P steps readily understandable?

x x 6. Are the emphasized items noticed?

Legend:

x - applicable to the validation method o - not applicable to the validation method T-T - Table-Too validation method W-T - Walk-Through validation method Page 11 of 13-

• , w ,.,- ,

l

. l l

5/23/84 T-T W-T II. OPERATIONAL CORRECTNESS A. PLANT COMPATIBILITY o x 1. Can the actions specified in the procedure be performed in the designated sequence?

x x 2. Are there alternative success paths that are not included in the F0P?

o x 3. Can the information frem the plant instrumen-tation be obtained, as specified by the E0P?

x x 4. Are the plant symptoms specified by the E0P adequate to enable the operator to select the applicable E0P?

x x 5. Is information or equipment not specified in the E0P required to accomplish the task?

o x 6. Are the instrument readings and tolerances stated in the E0P consistent with the instru-ment values displayed on the instruments?

o x 7. Is the E0P physically compatible with the work situation (too bulky to hold, binding would not allow them to lay flat in work space, no place to lay the E0Ps down to use)?

o x 8. Are the instrument readings and tolerances specified by the E0P for remotely located instruments accurate?

B. OPERATOR COMPATIBILITY o x 1. If time intervals are specified, can the pro-cedure action steps be performed on the plant within or at the designated time intervals?

x x' 2. Can the procedure action steps be performed by the operating shift?

x x 3. If specific actions are assigned to individual l shift personnel, does the E0P adequately aid in the coordination of actions among shift i personnel where necessary?

x x- 4. Can the~ operating shift follow the designated action step sequences?

Page 12 of 13

i 5/23/84 T-T W-T x x 5. Can the particular steps or sets of steps be readily located when required?

o x 6. Can'the procedure exit point be returned to without omitting steps when required?

x x 7. Can the-branched procedure be entered at the correct point?

x x 8. Are E0P exit points specified adequately?

4 t

4 t

Page 13 of 13 kb

"9 21= 1984

. s ATTACHMENT 3.3

~

E0P VERIFICATION FORM #1 E0P TITLE: / /* M b [f / er bdb 5>ed v1 E0P NUMBER: [ REVIS N: [rs f-M-/ /j {l[

E0P SOURCE DOCUMENTS USED:

Ed/-O fa/t #/ 'I-l- ff D'd f"* hant u gg,. 5-s W-lev / sptJ,n19  !

sg gro w ha, ffM/' V/1 A*O, b+M EoP-/J, &se, /w 2s, 6-*~N#

EVALUATOR: cr/ 2 hhh d*,#//J DATE

/~M

'/ f PROCEDURE-GENERAL VERIFICATION A. WRITTEN CORRECTNESS AREAS ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY SHEET #(s)

LEGIBILITY 7 E0P FORMAT CONSISTENCY /

IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION ,2 yftifen [4rrect'aesf l -

B. Technical Accuracy AREA ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY SHEET #(s) l Entry Conditions or Symptoms 3,4,[

I E l

I 8

February 21, 1984 E0P VERIFICATION FORM 42 E0P O Rev. 8 /

Page / of STEP, CAUTION, NOTE-SPECIFIC VERIFICATION STEP NUMBER, WRITTEN CORRECTNESS TECHNICAL ACCURACY CAUTION, 0,R NOTE ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY ACCEPTABLE DISCREPANCY SHEET # SHEET t Norn 67, 8

WoTE 4 9 M re Are

/

2 6

t% +io n la /0 27 h

v 3e ll } 2 , is l

1 l 9

i February 21, 1984 Form #3 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER /

E0P: A REV.: /re/f @/ ~ // /s//

PAGE NUMBER: M// her5 STEP NUMBER: ////

DISCREPANCY: be /- U n n) Is Esm insrosbr di e J7sf fr> ne re em of IM) p LrfIbers

,a is / A RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circle one)

SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

l

RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY

DATE:

10

February 21, 1984 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER h E0P: [ REV.: /2r M/ F, PAGE NUMBER: / STEP NUMBER: [

DISCREPANCY: [p 'is f j9 yr byr ,,A s s p e- S ef f JM/~ / sb e P/ /w? b Y disn. h40 e bf/ /A N Y -

Aan14 s A s/ 2 anse - db-bi, Ya eles s/ $e, ,ep.

RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

! BY: DATE:

l l RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circleone) l

-SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

. _ RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: __ DATE:

10

l February 21, 1984 1 l

t DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER 3 i

l E0P: D REV.: DA.A/,j / Y[ / f'/

PAGE NUMBER: l STEP NUMBER: Mh DISCREPANCY: bM 'mb Ms a ) A-eb4' U

WWif: MJ o ,

AJ l

i h[J ou vM MmMw u u C -M 6 O Ch M

/tA-[e % ( b

~

RESOLUTION: 4 w. .

_" U E A & LA "d & ,

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circleone)

SUPERINTENDENT CPERATIONS: DATE:

!. RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: Dt.TE:

l l

10

~

February 21, 1984

- 1 l

Form #3 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER Y E0P: O REV.: OM/ / Y- / - 8 '/

PAGE NUMBER: / STEP NUMBER: dMs kc%C l

w

• tl t8v DISCREPANCY: M Wf hdA h 'a OMtv W -o h wM N QAJ MS /W S. l a A

%e"8.a.E. A h v

m v wwus v Y , Wk bw& - v v J RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

l BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circle one)

DATE:

! SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS:

. RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

10

February 21, 1984 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER b E0P: O REV.: M #/ Y- / ~ 8 Y PAGE NUMBER: [ STEP NUMBER: O% kN;t DISCREPANCY: N ep; M / ' S_Cl,b, 4

% /J){vs6-<A c/ $ MY v -

lL u % W lWW .Pd&y4 uv YWW v Es-v

{k h CSe RESOLUTION:

i EVALUATOR: DATE: ,

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

B(: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COWENTS:

l DATE:

l BY:

I RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circleone)

SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

. RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

i 6

10

February 21, 1984 l

Form #3 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER E0P: () REV.: il"I d Y PAGE NUMBER: 2-7 STEP NUMBER: /422 DISCREPANCY: ds, M _M A -> WY Y d O-S "Ch 0m G CLNb RESOLUTION:

l EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

l l

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circleone) f SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

, RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

i 10

February 21, 1984 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER N E0P: O REV.: O j Y~ l- Y[

PAGE NUMBER: 2- STEP NUMBER: FM MrTo % t /

DISCREPANCY:  % _ , fuM A fA /2A.unh 02 Mf kYk M) l N

~ -

vu b bM MY M W ad x .

RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMPENTS:

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circleone)

SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

, RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

10

q February 21, 1984 1

DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER T

E0P: D REV.: hW,) # l T- / ' E PAGE NUMBER:

% STEP NUM  % d Mt M b h/

DISCREPANCY: N M el N 4 1_ d W M 'W M Ad U N N[ hl A c c ca 1

RESOLUTION:

DATE:

EVALUATOR:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circleone)

DATE:

SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS:

RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

10

February 21, 1984 I

j a Form #3 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER I E0P: f9 REV.: wl Ml Y-l-8 Y PAGE NUMBER: _ _

% STEP NUMBER: NJCt. OlsY sb /

DISCREPANCY: rad . A M M/d' 0,/ -

AJA 1A a+JL o,4 AC

%?' d %"O w L A N htc , TJ 2e sasss Aa &~c W Vw. M & le W R b -

RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR:

DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circleone)

SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY

DATE:

10

+

i February 21, 1984 l l

DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER /O E0P: O REV.: MM / Y-l-8V PAGf NUMBER: STEP NUMBER:M [r2/-cu 87 Mw dmf DISCREPANCY: h&A 4 m

$ WA CA.M -

dwit , TA Le <ss A A TL cwd4 4~

A f> VU n 9 h k

&%d tebCL 4 01, tA 644-RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circle one)

SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

. RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

10

February 21, 1984 l

l 1

Form #3 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER ll E0P: C REV.: hA.e_/j *I ,

, C( ' ( - 9 V PAGE NUMBER: ll STEP NUMBER: %

DISCREPANCY: 34 M bJ U M ne w we L 4A k v A .

RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circle one)

SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

l 10

• February 21, 1984

. i

~

Form #3 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER /2 E0P: O REV.: b/f #/ Y /

'l "I - 8 Y PAGE NUMBER: [/ STEP NUMBER: 36 DISCREPANCY: YO WY A M f d d l l~f

'b> M uW4 M a Af '

ik Mc h AMMA M2 %

u B< eMi o (

< ,w RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR: DATE:

VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

BY: DATE:

l E0P WRITER REVIEW AND COWENTS:

BY: DATE:

l RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circleune) i SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS: DATE:

, RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

10

February 21, 1984 DISCREPANCY SHEET NUMBER

/3 E0P: O REV.: b[, / / 9'- / - % Y PAGE NUMBER: (( STEP NUMBER: b DISCREPANCY: M M M [ ~Cs

--,~ z ~ w 4 %,

LR h4 M

UU

' vv v v i Y $A.Lm yu -

bbK WC CLl&7~Y~ Wf-v V

Md V h,

RESOLUTION:

EVALUATOR: DATE:

l VERIFICATION TEAM REVIEW AND COMMENTS:

j BY: DATE:

E0P WRITER REVIEW AND C0FFEKTS:

(

BY: DATE:

RESOLUTION APPROVED: YES NO (circle one)

L SUPERINTENDENT OPERATIONS:

DATE:

i RESOLUTION INCORPORATED BY: DATE:

10

r ,

ATTACHMENT 4 E0P TRAINING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Current plans for E0P training are being developed and include the following:

1. Approximately 8 days training in a classroom environment covering background information, organization and networking of procedures, for-mat and use of procedures, specific procedures, and critical safety functions. Specific procedures to be covered include:

- Reactor Trip or Safety Injection

- Loss of Reactor or Secondary Coolant

- Faulted Steam Generator Isolation Steam Generator Tube Rupture

- Loss of All AC Power

- Loss of Recirculation Cooling

- Loss of Reactor Coolant Outside Containment

- Uncontrolled depressurization of all Steam Generators

- Loss of Reactor Coolant - Subcooled Recovery

- Loss of Reactor Coolant - Saturated Recovery

- Steam Generator Tube Rupture without Pressurizer Pressure Control

- Critical Safety Procedures

2. Approximately 5 days of simulator training demonstrating use of procedures in a simulated accident.

The training is being developed in the PBNP Course Format and will con-tain specific units of instruction and detailed lesson plans for both classroom and simulator instruction. Objectives will be written to define knowledge and skills required of attending personnel. Evaluation of operator knowledge and skills will be accomplished by written tests and simulator exams.

The training is planned to begin during the week of July 9,1984, and continue through the week of November 12, 1984. All licensed R0 and SR0's are scheduled to attend, as are 20 trainees. Duty Technical Advisors will attend selected portions of this scheduled training.

_. - . . . . - . -