ML20136E753

Trip Rept of 840116-18 Site Visit Re Acceptability of INPO Process as Means of Meeting Intent of Proposed Training Rule (10CFR50.200-50.250) & to Determine How to Thoroughly Evaluate INPO Accredidation Program in Future

ML20136E753
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	02/06/1984
From:	Blumer A, Persensky J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Booher H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8402140564
Download: ML20136E753 (6)

Text

-

r ..- -- -

w .,.0,4 .;g ,

gs d -y - -p TDE-

g. sic?IG # # FEB 0 61984

- 50*370 carunc4 W MEh0RANDU!i FOR: Harold R. Booher, Chief, Licensee Qualifications Branch, DHFS FROM: Julius J. Persensky, Section Leader Licensee Qualifications Branch, DHFS Alice H. Blumer Licensee Qualifications Branch, DHFS

SUBJECT:

TRIP REPORT - OBSERVATION OF INP0 ACCREDITATION ,

TEA!i VISIT AT HCGUIRE NUCLEAR POWER STATION J. Persensky and A. Bluner observed the first three days of an INP0 Accreditation Team visit at 11cGuire Nuclear Power Station on January 16-18, 1984 (Blumer attended January 17 and 18). The purposes of the visit were to detemine, on a preliminary basis, the acceptability of the INP0 process as a means of meeting the intent of the proposed Training Rule (10 CFR 50.200 - '

50.250) and to detemine how we will more thoroughly evaluate the INP0 Accreditation Program in the future.. .

The team visit process is described in a trip report dated December 1, 1983, from Bender to Booher. The process used at McGuire paralleled the process described in the Decenber 1 memo.

During our visit we observed the Accreditation Tean in its opening meeting, and in two afternoon progress meetings. We also nbserved a meeting in which the Accreditation Team Leader briefed the utility on its findings. In addition, we observed several interviews by tean nembers of training center

. personnel, McGuire training staff, and trainees. He reviewed lesson plans along with the team and were able to read the Self Evaluation Report subnitted by licGuire prior to the team's visit. We interviewed, on our own, the peer evaluators and utility personnel to solicit their views on the Accreditation process.

He found the process and the team to be very thorough and professional. It is clear that the NRC could not duplicate this resource-intensive process without a large increase in staff or a substantial expense. We noted that the utility views the Accreditation process as a positive activity, which provides valued feedback on training quality and areas in need of inprovement. We were told that the utility would want to partipipate in the Accreditation process even if the NRC never published a new rule.

We are concerned that the team composition was clearly weighted toward INPO staff. The peer reviewers indicated that they felt that they had to establish their credibility at the outset of the Accreditation visit to i i  :

OFFICE k:  ; l l mr> . . . .$.%). A.h. . kb. . . . [A . . . . . . . .............g.. .. .. ..

... . l... .. . ..

San >f....................... . .........i........... ... . .,.... ............. .I,.. ..... ..

4: <cew mo eoccu cue OFFICIAL RECORD COPY .r W "" - * ' ?

ng;p j. *

• 6.y +QW n,hi -

,:, s ..

liarold R. Booher .

assure that their comments would be seriously considered. They also indicated that the training for participation on the tean could have been more thorough and could have included a site-specific briefing.

We noted that the peer reviewers will now be able to request that portions of the report be read to them over the phone prior to issuance. However, they will not see the report in print and will not have a clear indication of the impact of their participation before the report has been issued. This causes some concern since it leaves the final report and reconmendations to INP0 staff.

Based on this preliminary review, it appears that the Accreditation process '

could represent an alternative means of meeting the intent of the proposed Training P.ule. This impression has been gained without the benefit of our review of the Accreditation report for McGuire or follow-up discussions with the peer reviewers and others. We expect to conduct a continuing observation of the McGuire Accreditation process. In additien, it is clear that a final

, judgment can be made only after a thorough, planned evaluation of the Accreditation process over a substantial period of time.

Original signed byr J. J. Persensky, Section Leader Licensee Qualifications Branch, DHFS pisinal signed bye ,

A. H. Blumer Licensee Qualifications Branch, DHFS DISTRIBUTION: -

Central Files -

LQB Reading DHFS Reading (2)

LQB Members t

I

("'c' > . .WB/D,1,1,@,f,,LQB /,'D/l,(S,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,

~* . .AB!.umer/,br g,ers,4ns,ky ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

2/(p/84

m. ) .................. . 2/

. . . . .G./. 84

.ec ro:u sie no soiocu ord OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• u 5. cao ins-4oos