Accreditation Probation Recovery Update

1. Accreditation Probation Recovery Update Gerry Hildebrandt April 11, 2013

2. Accreditation Team Report Summary The March 20, 2013 Accrediting Board placed the six operator training programs and engineering personnel program on probation for failure to meet some aspects of Objective 6.  A probationary period of 180 days was established.  The Accrediting Board acknowledged the planned corrective actions for the Objective 6 station-identified finding, but was not confident of sustainable results based on the short amount of time these actions had been in place.  In addition, the board cited the following specific training program concerns:

3. Accreditation Team Report Summary (con’t) • Weakness in performing training effectiveness reviews • Need for broader external perspective in finding other training program gaps that may exist • Need for corrective actions that address behavioral or cultural changes required to improve the evaluation of training effectiveness

4. Thoughts? • Do we have strong training programs? • Did the board get it right? • What observations do you have to support your opinion? • Did we earn the results we were given? • Are you in denial?

5. Seven Training programs placed on probation due to failure to meet some aspects of Objective 6. Problem Weakness in performing training effectiveness reviews Need for broader external perspective in finding other training program gaps that may exist Need for corrective actions that address behavioral or cultural changes required to improve the evaluation of training effectiveness. Concerns To be determined by the Root Cause Evaluation (Obj 1) Effectiveness review did not address all Corrective Action’s (12-31605) (Obj 2) Four Simulator DR’s generated during ATV week (Obj 2) Simulator PI’s not complete (12-31621) Examples - Team Report Negative Comments (Obj 6) Effectiveness review expanded to include PIs and ATV results (12-31605) (Obj 2) Config control of touch interface simulators (12-31574) (Obj 3) RO task list not reviewed comprehensively in 8 years (12-31480) (Obj 3) Shift Mentors not assigned for LOT class (13-1484) (Obj 4) Line mgt inconsistent approval of training material (12-31603) (Obj 4) JITT doesn’t evaluate mastery of objectives or training effectiveness (12-31570) (Obj 4) Power Point lesson plans not complete (12-31606) Additional Examples Exams <80% allowed evaluation without removal from duty (12-31430) (Obj 5) NLO exams w/60-70% overlap (12-31433) (Obj 5) High # of low cognitive level questions on exams (12-31433) Extensive use of Self Study for OJT (12-31482)

6. Accreditation Team ReportSummary • Weakness in performing training effectiveness reviews • Need for broader external perspective in finding other training program gaps that may exist • Need for corrective actions that address behavioral or cultural changes required to improve the evaluation of training effectiveness

7. What is at stake? • Probation recovery has got to be one of the highest, if not the highest station priority. • Probation is included in INPO Policy Note 14.

8. INPO Team Members4/15/13 – 4/18/13 • Thom Lekas – Probation Team Manager • Scott Hunnewell – Browns Ferry • Henry Curry – Robinson • Jeff Morris - SONGS

9. What to Expect Review Visit purpose • Review our initial actions to ensure we are setting the proper tone and direction for probation recovery • Provide feedback that supports effective use of the probation recovery period

10. What to expect con’t Activities the team will be performing: • Review status of root cause investigation. • Determine if the station probation recovery plan, schedule, communication plan and resources are adequate. • Determine if the understanding of the causes for probation is continuing to penetrate the station organization. • Observe on-going implementation of training.

11. 9/11/2013 3/20-4/19 2013 4/20-5/19 2013 5/20-6/19 2013 6/20-7/19 2013 7/20-8/19 2013 8/20-9/11 2013 Probation ATV INPO Review Visit 7/29-8/2 2013 6/24-27/2013 INPO Probation ATM Visit 3/27-28/2013 INPO Review Visit INPO Review Visit 4/15-18/2013 5/13-16/2013

12. Important Dates • 4/15-18 INPO Review Team Visit • 4/22-25 Industry Standard Self-Assessment • 5/13-16 INPO Review Team Visit • 6/24-27 INPO Review Team Visit • TBD Interim Recovery Effectiveness Review • TBD Final Objective 6 Effectiveness Review • 7/29-8/2 Probation ATV Visit • 9/11Accreditation Renewal Board

13. Gerry HildebrandtProbation Recovery Manager Root Cause TeamRobert Barr Team Leader Recovery TeamJon Pierce Recovery Team Mgr. Communications TeamBuddy Eller Team Leader Cathy WestmorelandInstructional Technologist Larry ArcherRoot Cause Evaluator Justin Daily Corp Communications Roger DementMaintenance Charles LunsfordTraining Support Supv Levi HoldenEngineering Francis ComeauxEngineering Brenda VerbeckLeadership Development Robert O’NeillMaintenance Gary Kemberling Tech Training Supv Arden Aldridge Engineering Russ HubenakOperations Training George Gaytko Ops Training Instructor Ricky Busha Maintenance Supervisor Ruby Owen Engineering Support/Technical Services Mgr. Tim Bryant Ops Shift Mgr Up-relief Ed Hudson Procedures Scott Ledford Accreditation ConsultantAccelerant Ron Gibbs Operations Robert Barr Org. Effectiveness Joe Haynes Diablo CanyonIndustry Peer Anna Coffman Admin Support

14. Key Take Away’s…. • Next week we have our 1st of 4 INPO Review visits. The conclusions from this review visit will be in the ATV report that goes to the Accreditation Renewal Board (green pages) • We have got to be able to summarize why we are on probation- weak training effectiveness reviews, need for broader external perspectives in finding other training program gaps that may exist and corrective actions that address behavioral or cultural changes required to improve the evaluation of training effectiveness • Remember next week is an evaluation of our station and how were are responding to being on probation.