ML20132C738

Summary of 841210-14 Site Visit 5 to Observe INPO Accreditation Team Evaluation of Adequacy of INPO Accreditation Process in Meeting Intent of Policy Statement on Training & Qualifications for Power Plants

ML20132C738
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	02/21/1985
From:	Shum D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Booher H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8502280663
Download: ML20132C738 (4)

Text

.

c h:

Q 4 g --

voi2_.

E0Ic::An3 OP;cDTAE '

DISTRIBUTI0ll:

Central Files LQB Reading C:rtift l .P.- _._ _

DHFS Reading - 2 )

" ^

FEB 211985 -

m aanraansky %.. .

T. Shum MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Booher, Chiaf Licensee Qualifications Branch -

Division of Human Factors Safety D g , 3.g THRU: J. J. Persensky, Section Leader Personnel Qualifications Section Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factors Safety FROM.: D. H. Shum s Personnel Qualifications Section Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factors Safety

SUBJECT:

~

OBSERVATION OF INPO ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT AT BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION On December 10-14, 1984, I observed members of the INPO Accreditation Team et Beaver Valley Power Station BVPS to evaluate tha adecuacy of the INPO Accreditation process as a me(ans o)f meeting the intent of the Polic Statement on Training and Qualifications in tha coninercial nucleer power industry. The objective of my trip was to observe the INP0 Accreditation Team's field activities during their evaluation of BVPS's training programs for nonlicensed operators and licensed operators, and licensed operator raqualification training program.

Team Composition The INPO Accreditation Team at BVPS which consisted of peer evaluators from INPO member utilities and personnel from INPO's Accreditation and Training Assistance Departments possessed a high degree of professionalism, experience

- and deoication. The team was organized into two subgroups to review the Training Program and Training Process with each team member responsible for a specific topical area. The team members and assignments are as follows:

Walter Popp Team Manager Ralph Reed Team Manager in Training Group 1 o.%F0%3 Mike Sakmar Kg Lead Process Evaluator #

Frar.k Cabanillas Process Evaluator for Licensed Operatons Larry Durham Process Evaluator for Staff Mike Gettle Process Evaluator for Organization and Administration CATE) 4:c ro:= m no.so,s cu es.o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY t u.s. opo ass- co rr.

T R& 5 D

~

[ T I

Harold R. Booher FEB 211985 Wayne Rodehorst Prncess Evaluator for Nonlicensed Operators (PeerEvaluator)

Randy Lewis Process Evaluator for Raoualification Training (PeerEvaluator)

Group 2 John Hanson Lead Program Evaluator Bob Stallman Program Evaluator for Licensed Operators Jim Morris Program Evaluator for Requalification Training Mike Panovich Program Evaluator for Nonlicensed Operators (PeerEvaluator)

Method Used to Facilitate Evaluation of Training Programs The purpose of the Accreditation Team visit was to gather facts related to -

verification of information contained in the BVPS's Self-Evaluation Report (SER) and to compere the abnve cited training programs to INP0's accreditation criteria as described in INPO 82-011. "The Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry " dated May 1982. To facilitate evaluation, interviews were used to gather information and to obtain answers to questions for each topical area. The team members prepared for their

. interviews by reviewing the BVPS's procedures, files and other pertinent information for each functional area to be reviewed.

, The variation in INPO interview technique was most in evidence during tha question and answer period of the interviaw process. Some interviewers prepared a detailed list of specific questions for each individual to be .

interviewed prior to the interview. Some used a generic list of questions or information to prompt conversation in their assigned functional area during tha interview. Others used no prepared list of quastions or information, but

. relied on memory to cover material relevant to their functional areas.

Most of INPO interviewers closed the interview by asking the interviewae to identify strengths and weaknesses of the BVPS's training programs. Also, during the closing period, some interviewers askad the interviewee if they had any Questions they wanted to ask of the Accreditation Team.

Regardless of interview technique, all team mambers were able to maintain a clear-focus on gathering inforriation pertinent to their functional area of review. In somo cases, questior.s on other functional areas were asked to gather information nn behalf of another team member who had insufficient need to conduct a full interview with the individual, Team Maetinas Shnrt formal tea'r. reetings, attended by all team membars, were held each morning prior to enmmancement of the team's daily activitias. These meetinns r ..W ; f:,. e fc r mMar ;f S'nd r. ht=-- th: ;t er. t5d r-

'""' "'I .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .... ... ...... ..... ................ .

DATEk .................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ....... ...........

l oc ronu sia no,soi wacu ond OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• u 5 om m-*m

r y o g- g-Harold 2. Booher FEB 211S85 functional areas and for the team leader to provide additional guidanco, administrative instructions, or feedback to the team from the previous day's meeting with the plant manager to all the membars simultaneously. Followieg the short fomal team meetings, principal member of tha team would meet with the BVPS staff and inform them of the team's progress and any concerns identified during the previous day. The utility would provida additional information to individual team members based on these comments.

It was also usual for team mambers to hold small informal meetings during the day to exchange newly uncovered information on each others review area.

These exchanges seemed to increase the efficiency of team activities.

Prior to leaving the BVPS training center each evening, another formal taain meeting was held to allow each team member to report on their day's activities, share information, sumarize concerns, identify follow-up itams and discuss problems. The team leader used this infomation to then brief _

the plant manager of BVPS on the team's activities each day.

Exit Briefinq The exit briefing, attended by all team members and BVPS' staff, was held the last day of the Accreditation Tean visit. Each group leader prasented a suwiary of findings which were classified into categories (such as strengths, weaknesses and noncompliance of INPO criteria) for their designated area of review.

At the end of the formal presentations by tha group laaders, brief statements were made by tha team manager in training and team managar. This brought tha INP0 Accreditation Team visit at BVPS to an end. The peer evaluators returned to their utilities and the INPO team members returned to their hnme office to begin development of the final report documenting their findings.

The following were soma of INP0's concerns expressed at the Exit Briefing:

20% of job-analysis had not been conducted for nonlicensed operators.

With regard to lesson plans for nonlicensed operators, objectives and task analysis should be emphasized.

With regard to training instructors for nonlicensed personnel, no specific retraining was required to maintain the instructor's technical proficiency.

BVPS did not have a formel or syst*matic procedure for recelving.feodback from nperators or students to establish lesson plans. $

On-the-job training should ba based on .ieb analysis.

T jd ted =!y W = m  : 71-tM.

sm) .. ............... .................... ..................... .................... ..................... .................... .................

ce row mno, omcw ca o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• u.s.apo un-4oo :

g WW, -

p AF (p us. ..

y Harold R. Booher FE.8 211985 4 l With regard to tha oparator requalification training program, the oral examinations should have the objectives established. The simulator training program was nna of the best INPO had ever seen.

The instructo'r training program being developed should have a schedule layout.

A new training manual was being developed, however, no firm date had been set when it would be implemented.

Conclusion I was impressed with the INP0 Accreditation Team visit. The accreditation procass was good. It was a thorough and highly professional process which provided valuable input into the accreditation dacision.

Each day, the team members reviewed documentation relevant to training, interviewed various plant personnel, reviewed the findings during group and/or team meetings, and followed up any concerns the next day. At the end of the process. INP0 would have an extremely clear picture of the utility's training organization, training facilities, and training programs.

The staff of BVPS indicated that all INP0's concerns would be resolved in the new training manual which was in tha final stage of davelopment. Even though INP0 had numerous concerns with respect to BVPS's training programs, thesa concerns were not related to any NRC requiremants. Based on INP0's thorough and in-dapth review of BVPS's training organization, training programs, etc.,

and providing that BVPS would resolve INP0's concerns. I conclude that BVPS should have a very effective training program for plant personnal.

0.riginal Slaned by David H. Shum Personnel Qualifications Section Licensee Qualifications Branch Division of Human Factnrs Safety t .

DW/DHS2/ MEMO FOR B00HER

===> .. lab /D.tiU i

...L9.BI. .H f,'

...> ..DShum/..b rS.

JPerf .ky

.te ..................... ..................... .................. .. ............. ......

a'" > . 2.eM85

.. 2/ 2.t.!8........

ceroaw m oo,.o ac=o2' OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

• u.s. am au- 4=w