July 11, 2001

MEMORANDUM TO: R. William Borchardt, Associate Director

 for Inspection and Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

FROM: Bruce A. Boger, Director /RA/

Division of Inspection Program Management

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL NRC/INPO COORDINATION 

MEETING ON TRAINING-RELATED ISSUES

On April 11, 2001, a periodic NRC/Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) coordination

meeting on training-related issues was held at the INPO Headquarters, Marietta, Georgia. 

Such meetings are conducted in accordance with the NRC/INPO Memorandum of

Agreement dated December 24, 1996. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss items 

of mutual interest concerning INPO's training program accreditation process. Participants

included representatives of the NRCís Division of Inspection Program Management and INPOís

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 key agenda

topics covered during the meeting follows.

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Introductions of the NRC/INPO personnel present were conducted. After the introductions were

completed, organizational changes since the last coordination meeting, at both the NRC and

INPO, were discussed.

Results of the Training Improvement Task Force

INPO presented and discussed a chronological overview of the outcomes of their accreditation

visits. Technical programs at six (6) nuclear power plants were placed on INPO probation in

calendar year (CY) 2000 by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board for training program

deficiencies. This number of program probations was sufficiently high that INPO organized a

Training Improvement Task Force to determine the underlying causes. The following common

themes were identified: 

1. Training was not a part of core business.

2. Training was conducted for trainingís sake and not seen as a tool to improve performance.

3. Weaknesses applied to technical and operator training programs.

4. Senior management was not engaged.

CONTACT: George M.Usova, NRR/DIPM

 415-1064
-2-

Moreover, the following findings were contributors to these common themes:

1. Self-assessment was not rigorous.

2. Corrective action programs were weak.

3. Training performance indicators were not useful.

4. Accreditation visit preparation was viewed as a cyclical effort vice an ongoing effort.

Continuation of Training Improvement Initiatives

INPO has developed a conceptual model for Performance Improvement. This model integrates

training, within the Systems Approach to Training (SAT), as only one element toward

Performance Improvement. Where gaps exist in skills and abilities, training may likely be the

solution; however, training is not the solution to all performance problems. 

Discussion of On-line Training and Professional Development Seminars

INPO and the industry anticipate a large turnover of personnel in the next few years to

accommodate an aging workforce. Additionally INPO indicated that experience levels of

personnel entering the nuclear industry are dropping due to fewer nuclear Navy trained

personnel entering the applicant pool for new operators. To address the training challenges

this will present, subject to industry acceptance, INPO is considering piloting --- as a voluntary

plant effort --- a new approach toward professional development. In this approach, INPO would

plan to develop ìcommon trainingî unique to all plants to gain greater efficiency of training. This

effort would focus upon initial training. Using a blended approach of combined on-line training

with centralized small group training would achieve greater quality and efficiency. INPO also

would plan to use generic fundamentals training for operators (GFES) as one of its early

centralized training projects. INPO agreed to work with the NRC regarding interface issues with

the GFES.

MOA - A Discussion of its Effectiveness

A discussion ensued on the effectiveness of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), effective

1996. INPO agreed that the MOA was working well.

Operator Licensing and Requalification Issues

The NRC highlighted the availability of Supplement 1 to the "Examination Standards" NUREG

1021, Rev. 8 and described the major changes that it contains. These changes eliminate

unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees without adversely affecting the integrity of

examinations. These changes are discussed in FRN 66 FR 20841 dated April 25, 2001.

With regard to the issue of eligibility for an operator's license, the INPO representatives

indicated that they are receiving more questions since the NRC issued RIS 2001-01, "Eligibility

of Operator License Applicants," dated January 18, 2001, and suggested that the NRC

Regional Offices use their discretion in answering questions before referring facility licensees to

INPO. On a related subject, the NRC noted that Supplement 1 to Revision 8 of NUREG-1021

has incorporated provisions that will allow applicants to defer portions of their experience and
-3-

training prerequisites until after they take their licensing examination, with the understanding

that their license will be withheld until all of the applicable criteria are complete.

Regarding the pending Part 55 rule change that will allow applicants for operator and senior

operator licenses to fulfill a portion of the required experience prerequisites by manipulating a

plant-referenced simulator as an alternative to manipulation of the controls of the actual nuclear

power plant, the NRC stated that the rule will not change the requirement for each applicant to

complete an on-the-job-training (OJT) program which includes reactivity control manipulations.

INPO had expressed that they have had some difficulties surrounding the input of NRC license

examinations into the format of its INPO examination bank. In some cases, data, such as

knowledge and ability statements (KAs), did not appear during electronic transmissions of those

exams from the NRC regions. NRC agreed to assist INPO as necessary to make any missing

data complete.

INPO discussed the Generic Fundamentals Examination (GFE) and relayed some industry

concern expressed over a perceived rise in examination difficulty levels. The NRC stated that

the examination results have been constant over the past ten years with BWR and PWR mean

scores hovering in the 89-91 range, indicative of a consistently moderate difficulty level. 

The NRC noted that, while its staff has not identified any significant problems in licensed

operator requalification programs, instances have been identified where there was excessive

test item overlap among crews being tested in the same requalification cycle. INPO agreed

that too much overlap might threaten examination integrity, but INPO has no evidence that this

has occurred. INPO stated that leaks of examination content among crews was unlikely since

crews are competitive and would not want any other crew to surpass their performance. 

INPO/Exelon Accreditation Working Group

INPO is working with Exelon to review the accreditation objectives and criteria to determine if

some aspects of accreditation can be accomplished at the corporate level. Notwithstanding 

the development of corporate-wide training, INPO indicated that they will still go to each site

and accreditation will still be awarded on a plant-by-plant basis.

Academy Partnerships

INPO stated that it was venturing into a professional relationship with Ohio State University to

provide training for managers in SAT and other training issues. In addition, INPO was

conducting a Training Managers Workshop in 2001. 

No other items were discussed. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:30 P.M.

Attachment: As stated
-3-

training prerequisites until after they take their licensing examination, with the understanding

that their license will be withheld until all of the applicable criteria are complete.

Regarding the pending Part 55 rule change that will allow applicants for operator and senior

operator licenses to fulfill a portion of the required experience prerequisites by manipulating a

plant-referenced simulator as an alternative to manipulation of the controls of the actual nuclear

power plant. The NRC stated that the rule will not change the requirement for energy applicant

to complete an on-the-job-training (OJT) program which includes reactivity control

manipulations.

INPO had expressed that they have had some difficulties surrounding the input of NRC license

examinations into the format of its INPO examination bank. In some cases, data, such as

knowledge and ability statements (KAs), did not appear during electronic transmissions of those

exams from the NRC regions. NRC agreed to assist INPO as necessary to make any missing

data complete.

INPO discussed the Generic Fundamentals Examination (GFE) and relayed some industry

concern expressed over a perceived rise in examination difficulty levels. The NRC stated that

the examination results have been steadily constant over the past ten years with BWR and

PWR mean scores hovering in the 89-91 range, indicative of a consistently moderate difficulty

level. 

The NRC noted that, while its staff has not identified any significant problems in licensed

operator requalification programs, instances have been identified where there was excessive

test item overlap among crews being tested in the same requalification cycle. INPO agreed

that too much overlap might threaten examination integrity, but INPO has no evidence that this

has occurred. INPO stated that leaks of examination content among crews was unlikely since

crews are competitive and would not want any other crew to surpass their performance. 

INPO/Exelon Accreditation Working Group

INPO is working with Exelon to review the accreditation objectives and criteria to determine if

some aspects of accreditation can be accomplished at the corporate level. Notwithstanding the

development of corporate-wide training, INPO indicated that they will still go to each site and

accreditation will still be awarded on a plant-by-plant basis.

Academy Partnerships

INPO stated that it was venturing into a professional relationship with Ohio State University to

provide training for managers in SAT and other training issues. In addition, INPO was

conducting a Training Managers Workshop in 2001. 

No other items were discussed. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:30 P.M.

Attachment: As stated

ACCESSION #: ML011090268

*See previous concurrence

OFC IOHS/IOLB/DIPM IOHS/IOLB/DIPM IOLB/DIPM/NRR DIR/DIPM/NRR

NAME GUsova DTrimble GTracy BBoger

DATE 05/30/01 07/06/01 07/06/01 07/11/01

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Attendees

April 11, 2001 NRC/INPO Coordination Meeting On Training-related Issues

INPO

Sig Berg, Executive Director, National Academy for Nuclear Training

Bill Fitzpatrick, Manager, Accreditation and Training Department

Phil McCullough, Vice President, Accreditation Division

Mark Peifer, Vice President, Industry and Government Relations Division

George Mortensen, Senior Evaluator, Operations Department

Mike Levitan, Assistant Manager, Accreditation and Training Department

Charlie Brooks, Staff Assistant, Industry and Government Relations Division

Dave Linnen, Manager, Training Activities Department

Rick LaRhette, Accreditation Team Manager

Sandy Hastie, Division Director, Training Division

NRC

Bruce Boger, Director, Division of Inspection Program Management

Dave Trimble, Chief, Operator Licensing and Human Performance Section

Fred Guenther, Senior Reactor Engineer

George Usova, Training and Assessment Specialist

ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2

AGENDA

INPO-NRC Coordination Meeting, April 11, 2001

0730 Welcome and Opening Remarks.

Discussion on INPO and NRC Organizational Changes

INPO

NRC

0800 Results of training improvement task force INPO

0830 Continuation of training improvement initiatives:

Performance improvement and SAT

Conduct of accreditation evaluations

INPO

9:00 Break

0915 Discussion on eTraining and professional development seminars INPO

0945 Update on regulatory changes affecting training

Simulator manipulations/certification

RIS01-001, Eligibility of Operator Licensees 

(ACAD 00-003)

NRC

10:15 MOU- a discussion of its effectiveness

10:45 Break

11:00 Operator Licensing Exam Issues

Trends and Feedback

Exam Bank/Web-based GFES exams

Training/ Exam Security

Supplement 1

Requal issues 

NRC

1200 Lunch and open discussion

 1230 Continuation of Operator Licensing Exam Issues NRC

1330 INPO/Exelon Accreditation Working Group INPO
2

1345 Academy partnerships with Universities, 2001 training managersí

workshop

INPO

1400 Closing Remarks INPO

NRC