ML20147F630

Discusses INPO Accreditation Board 870429 Meeting & Observation of INPO Evaluation of Util Training Programs During Wk of 870601.Author Favorably Impressed W/Both Board & Accreditation Team

ML20147F630
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper, Fort Calhoun, 05000000
Issue date:	07/26/1987
From:	Gagliardo J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Persensky J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20147E666	List: ML20147E662 ML20147E681 ML20147E767 ML20147E897 ML20147E945 ML20147F032 ML20147F144 ML20147F390 ML20147F504 ML20147F630
References
FOIA-87-787 NUDOCS 8801210371
Download: ML20147F630 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _

~

..* - -.*.-.~... .x.- - . " a s.- * . -- vs-.

. . . . a....--...--.-..~. - .. . . ...

L ,

! p# 1 op UNITED STATES gp '4

• N'JCLEAR REGULATORY COMM SSION

.y " )

I 3- .. E REGION IV k, $11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. suite 1000 ARUNGTrN, TEXAS 79011

, JUL E L 1:37 k

i J. J. Persen.eky, Section t.eader MEMORANDUM FOR:

! Pre.edures and Training i

j FROM: J. E. Gagliardo, Chief Reactor Projects Branch, RIV

SUBJECT:

INP0 ACCREDITATION VISITS i

On April 29, 1987, I attended the INPO Accreditation Board Meeting in Atlanta as the NRC observer. I also observed the activities of the INP0 Accreditation

. Teams that were evaluating the training programs and activities at the Cooper i

Nuclear Station and the Fort Calhoun Statiori during the week of June 1, 1987.

I have purposefully refrained from providing a description of the Board or Accreditation Team activities because these activities have been well documented a by other observers, and would serve no purpose in this report. I shall also

> refrain from listing the Board or Team members because their identity is.not germaine to my observations.

I was very favorably irrpressed with the performance, professionalism, and thoroughness of both the Board and the Teams. I came away from the experience both encouraged and saddened. I am encouraged by the fact that through INP0's j

efforts, both Cooper and Ft. Calhoun have made step improvements in their

training efforts. I am saddened by the fact that we as a regulatory agency have been unable to affect these changes in the nuclear power industry. We j have known for years that the training at our reactor plants was weak, but we j were unable, or unwilling, to affect the changes needed.

,! The INDG people were very gracious hosts, and they were very open to me and allowed me to observe everything except the Board's closed deliberations on

, the accreditation deciiions. Both the Board and the accred!tation teams

,l solicited my cocinents and reconinendations, and I appreciated the positive way lt . . .

in which they received the reconinendations.

'} I was so impressed with the INPO offorts and their results in improving the

- training at our sites that I jokingly told them that we had other programs

- which I would like to see them address. As I further reflect on this, I no longer look on this as a joking matter. If INP0 can successfully convince li'I licensee management that it was to their advantage to expend the resources to i develop and implement effective training programs, we should seriously consider i having them undertake similar improvements in other programs such as corrective action and preventive maintenance. I strongl" recommend that you pursue such l l- possibilities with your management.

pou 81-727 PDR g G[B01210M EO 07

.....~........ . - . - . . . . . . .

I L: ,

l - ..,%

Li ii J. J. Persensky - 2-

- Thank you for asking me to be the NRC observer on these visits. I would appreciate an opportunity to be an observer in an INP0 evaluation and assistance visit and on one of your post-accrediation audits.

A--. C-(J. E. ' gliardo, Chief Reacto Project Branch cc:

R. Martin, RIV E. Johnson, RIV J. Partlow, NRR W. Coakley, INP0 W. Popp, INP0 t

l e'

l l

I i

I i

1

.i i

i i

4

-"' '"*** ==* 2.= e we , . . , . . ,e , . ..m ,, ,,