Comment (4) of David P. Helker on Behalf of Exelon Generation and Amergen Supporting Draft Regulatory Guide DG-5015, Training and Qualification of Security Personnel at Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities.ML080860489 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
Dresden, Peach Bottom, Oyster Creek, Byron, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Limerick, Clinton, Quad Cities, Zion, LaSalle |
---|
Issue date: |
03/13/2008 |
---|
From: |
David Helker AmerGen Energy Co, Exelon Corp, Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
---|
To: |
Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch |
---|
References |
---|
73FR2435 00004, DG-5015 |
Download: ML080860489 (4) |
|
Similar Documents at Dresden, Peach Bottom, Oyster Creek, Byron, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Limerick, Clinton, Quad Cities, Zion, LaSalle |
---|
Category:General FR Notice Comment Letter
MONTHYEARML23033A4602023-01-12012 January 2023 Comment (471) of Marguerite Winkel on Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement; Vistra Operations Company LLC; Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ML20119A5392020-04-27027 April 2020 Comment from Anonymous Individual on the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment 1 ML20119A5372020-04-26026 April 2020 Comment from Anonymous Individual on the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment ML19004A0752019-01-0303 January 2019 Comment of Janet Tauro on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment ML19003A2422018-12-28028 December 2018 Comment of Donald Weigl on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment ML18362A0952018-12-23023 December 2018 Comment of Gary Defranco of Trans Tech Industries on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment ML18324A7762018-11-18018 November 2018 Comment (2) of Alfred Decker on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment ML18302A2232018-10-29029 October 2018 Comment (1) of Brain Kube on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment ML18283B5972018-10-10010 October 2018 Comment (4) of Todd D. Eaby on Behalf of Susquehanna River Basin Commission Regarding the Subsequent License Renewal Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 ML18282A1692018-10-0909 October 2018 Comment (3) of Richard Mccorkle on Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 ML18277A2352018-10-0303 October 2018 Comment (2) of Patricia Borchmann on Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 ML18299A2112018-10-0101 October 2018 Comment (6) of Douglas C. Mclearen on the Environmental Review of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3 Subsequent License Renewal Application Peach Bottom Twp., York Co ML18269A0402018-09-24024 September 2018 Comment (1) of Eric Joseph Epstein on Behalf of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., on Environmental Impact for the Subsequent License Renewal of Operating License for Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3 ML18255A0422018-09-12012 September 2018 Comment (3) of Ron Martyn on Behalf of Community Civic Affairs Group on Decommissioning Creek Nuclear of Exelon'S Oyster Generating Station ML16098A3302016-04-0404 April 2016 Comment (4) of Kenneth Westlake on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 55 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 ML16082A2742016-03-0909 March 2016 Comment (1) of Rachel Leibowitz on Behalf of Illinois Historic Preservation Agency No Objection on License Renewal of LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 ML15275A1572015-08-27027 August 2015 Comment (11) of Kenneth A. Westlake on Final Plant-Specific Supplement 54 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 ML15154A5092015-05-15015 May 2015 Comment (7) of Nancy L. Ranek on Behalf of Exelon Generation, LLC, on Draft NUREG-1437 Supplement 55 for the Braidwood Station License Renewal ML15138A0812015-05-12012 May 2015 Comment (2) of Nathan Grider on NRC-2013-0169-0014, Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement ML15138A0822015-05-12012 May 2015 Comment (3) of Michael P. Gallagher on Behalf of Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2; on Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal ML15154A5082015-05-12012 May 2015 Comment (6) of Kenneth A. Westlake on Behalf of Us EPA on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 55 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Braidwood, Units 1 & 2 ML15154A5102015-05-0808 May 2015 Comment (8) of Lindy Nelson on Behalf Us Dept of the Interior on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 55 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 ML15124A0252015-04-21021 April 2015 Comment (34) of Daniel A. Kavanaugh Opposing NUREG-2176, Renewal of Facilities at Turkey Point ML15124A0232015-04-20020 April 2015 Comment (1) of Lewis Cuthbert on Behalf of Alliance for Clean Environment on Draft Guidance Regarding the Alternative Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule - Docket Id NRC-2014-0137 ML15124A0262015-04-15015 April 2015 Comment (1) of Rachel Leibowitz on Behalf of Illinois Historic Preservation Agency on NRC-2013-0169 with No Objection to the Undertaking Proceeding as Planned ML15089A3532015-03-12012 March 2015 Comment (1) of Nelson Dewey on LaSalle License Renewal Application Environmental Review ML15058A3882015-02-18018 February 2015 Comment (5) of Kay and Frederick Turk on License Renewal Application for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 ML15061A1102015-02-13013 February 2015 Comment (9) of Nancy L. Ranekon Behalf of Exelon Generation, LLC on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 54 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 ML15058A1972015-02-12012 February 2015 Comment (4) of Kenneth A. Westlake on Behalf of Us Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 54 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 ML15104A3172015-02-0303 February 2015 Comment (2) of Adam Kinzinger on License Renewal Application of LaSalle County Generating Station ML15061A1092015-02-0303 February 2015 Comment (8) of Steven & Karen Herklotz on Behalf of Hoo Haven, Inc. on Draft Plant-Specific Supplement 54 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 ML15061A1082015-02-0202 February 2015 Comment (7) of Unknown Individual on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Information Service on the Possible Closure of Byron ML15027A3352015-01-21021 January 2015 Comment (00002) of David Lochbaum on Behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists on License Renewal Application for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 ML15016A1112015-01-0808 January 2015 Comment (1) by Cynthia Stacy, on Behalf of Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Supporting Proposed License Renewal for Byron Station, Units 1 & 2 ML13339A8072013-11-22022 November 2013 Comment (1) of Kevin Borton on Behalf of Exelon Generation Co. LLC, on Proposed License Amendment to Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level ML13277A3052013-09-27027 September 2013 Comment (00007) of David Kraft on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Information Service on Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal Application for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 ML13277A3062013-09-27027 September 2013 Comment (2) of David Kraft on Behalf of Neis Re Supplement to Nrc'S Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal for the Byron Nuclear Power Station ML13269A3732013-09-24024 September 2013 Comment (00005) of Shawn Cirton, on Behalf of Us Fish and Wildlife Service, on Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Exelon Generation Company, LLC, License Renewal Application for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and ML13274A2392013-09-16016 September 2013 Comment (6) of Kent Collier on Behalf of Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Supporting the Renewal Application of Braidwood Station, Units 1 & 2 License ML13263A2212013-09-16016 September 2013 Comment (1) of Kim P. Gouker on Behalf of Ogle County, Illinois Supporting the License Renewal Application of the Byron Power Generating Station ML13269A3692013-09-0404 September 2013 Comment (00004) of Anne E. Haaker, on Behalf of Il, Historic Preservation Agency, on License Renewal for Braidwood Station ML13263A2192013-08-28028 August 2013 Comment (2) of Tom Zimmer Opposing Braidwood Nuclear Plant License Extension for 20 Years Due to Environmental and Health Issue Hazardous ML13247A0102013-08-27027 August 2013 Comment (2) of Kim P. Gouker on Behalf of Ogle County, Illinois, Supporting License Renewal Application of the Byron Power Generating Station ML13247A0092013-08-27027 August 2013 Comment (1) of Nancy Schultz Voots & Lawrence M. Walsh on Behalf of the County Board Will County, Illinois Supporting of the Renewal of the Operating License of the Exelon Generation Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station ML13248A2712013-08-21021 August 2013 Comment (3) by Sue Rezin Supporting Extension of Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station License ML13190A3072013-07-0303 July 2013 Comment (11) of Charlie and Betty Shank Opposing Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2 ML13190A0052013-06-27027 June 2013 Comment (9) of Lindy Nelson on Behalf of Us Department of the Interior, on License Renewal of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Supplement 49 ML13190A3082013-06-27027 June 2013 Comment (12) of Tina Daly Opposing Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2 ML13182A0112013-06-26026 June 2013 Comment (8) of Charlie and Betty Shank Requesting That NRC to Reconsider Environmental Impacts of Its Decision to Re-License Limerick Units 1 & 2 ML13182A0102013-06-25025 June 2013 Comment (7) of E. Christopher Abruzzo on Behalf of State of PA, Dept of Environmental Protection on Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Limerick Units 1 and 2 2023-01-12
[Table view] |
Text
AmerGem, An Exelon Company www.exeloncorp.com Exel1n. v AmerGen Energy Company, LLC Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Exelon Generation Warrenville, IL 6o555 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 C-March 13, 2008 Fl Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch 'T, rn Office of Administration C2' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 U, rn,
Subject:
Response to Request for Comments Concerning Draft Regulatory Guide DG-5015, "Trainingand Qualificationof Security Personnelat Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities,"dated January 2008 Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) and AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen) are submitting this letter in response to a request from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for comments concerning Draft Regulatory Guide DG-5015, "Trainingand Qualificationof Security Personnelat Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities,"dated January 2008.
Exelon/AmerGen appreciate the opportunity to comment on DG-5015, and offer the following comments for consideration by the NRC. In addition, Exelon/AmerGen participated in the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) review of DG-5015, and therefore, endorse the comments submitted by NEI on behalf of the industry.
Specific Comments Section 2.1 - Suitability The language in the first sentence of the second paragraph is not consistent with the NRC draft final rule language stipulated in 10 CFR 73, Appendix B, paragraph B.1 .a.(3). Specifically, the word "unarmed"is included in the draft RG language but not in the draft rule. Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the word "unarmed"be removed from the draft RG.
Section 2.2 - General Physical Qualifications
- The draft rule (i.e., 10 CFR 73, Appendix B, Section VI, paragraph B.2.a) stipulates an individual may not have any physical conditions that would adversely affect their performance of assigned security duties and responsibilities. The RG regarding physical and cardiovascular health and strength suggests a more rigorous assessment of cardiovascular stamina such as a stress test. Also, a physical examination of an individual does not document strength capability.
Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider revising the sentence to read as follows: "Personnelmay not have any identifiedphysical conditions that would adversely affect their ability to perform their assignedsecurity duties."
3
(~~~(~/V 7z,,,,ýo A-c -e;>13
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Draft RG DG-5015 March 13, 2008 Page 2 Section 2.3 - Physical Examinations The first sentence, in the first paragraph, discusses the need of physical examinations for personnel. Exelon/AmerGen consider that the requirement for physical examinations should only apply to armed and unarmed security personnel.
Expanding the scope of this area to cover non-security personnel is not consistent with NRC Security Order. Exelon/AmerGen do not consider physicals necessary for non-security personnel performing security duties that present minimal physical challenge and stress, such as material searches and vehicle and personnel escort.
Licensees should have the discretion to make the determination of whether to administer the physical before or after employment. The appropriate requirement is to perform the physical before the individual performs a physical fitness test and is assigned security duties.
Section 2.4 - Vision and Hearing
° See comments provided in Section 2.3 above regarding armed and unarmed individuals. The NRC Security Order only places vision and hearing requirements on armed security personnel.
Section 2.5 - Existing Medical Conditions See comments provided in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 above regarding armed and unarmed individuals.
Section 2.6 - Addiction
- See comments provided in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 above regarding armed and unarmed individuals.
Section 2.7 - Other Physical Requirements
- See comments provided in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 above regarding armed and unarmed individuals. In addition, Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider revising the first sentence to only apply to armed security officers.
Section 4. - On-the-Job Training Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider removing all references to a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of training, since there is no basis for this number.
Licensees should have the discretion to make this determination using a systematic approach to training methodology. In addition Exelon/AmerGen suggest that the duty position "securitysupervisor"be eliminated. This position is not mentioned or discussed in any of the current security critical task matrices in NEI 03-09, "SecurityOfficer Training Program,"or NEI 03-12, "Template for the Security Plan, Trainingand QualificationPlan, Safeguards Contingency Plan, [and Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationSecurity Program]."
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Draft RG DG-5015 March 13, 2008 Page 3 There are no tasks delineated that are security supervisor specific. This comment applies to Section 4.1 as well.
Exelon/AmerGen also recommend that the NRC consider removing the minimum 40-hour training requirement from the draft rule 10 CFR 73, Appendix B, Section VI, paragraph C.2.b.
Section 6.1.4 - Subiect Matter Expert Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider deleting the second paragraph.
This paragraph discusses an expectation that the Subject Matter Expert (SME) will receive initial instructor training. This appears to contradict the first'sentence, in the first paragraph, which states the SME may or may not be a qualified security instructor. The requisite skills to perform as an SME are delineated in the first paragraph.
Section 6.1.6 - Armorer The draft rule proposes new requirements in 10 CFR 73, Appendix B, Section VI, paragraph G.3.a. for armorer training and qualification. Exelon/AmerGen consider that the proposed requirement for armorer certification is not discussed in the current NRC Security Order requirements. The proposed requirement limits licensee flexibility to use experienced personnel. Licensees should have the discretion to determine the appropriate manner for armorer training and qualification.
Manufacturer certification is one method that may be used by the licensee.
Therefore, Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider deleting all of the sentences after the first sentence.
Section 7.6.4 - Semiautomatic Rifle The second paragraph states that security officers should qualify separately on each sighting system. Exelon/AmerGen consider this an unnecessary requirement and inconsistent with other RG guidance. Specifically, section 7.6.7.2 of the RG, discusses that sighting systems will be included in the familiarization and marksmanship qualification courses. Exelon/AmerGen believe that these are the appropriate courses to address the various sighting systems. Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider rewording the paragraph in section 7.6.7.2 as follows:
"Forlicensees that use multiple sighting systems, all armed members of the security organizationshould qualify through the familiarizationand marksmanship qualification courses on each primary, backup, and alternate sighting system (i.e., optics, thermal scope, iron sights) requiredto implement the site's protective strategy."
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Draft RG DG-5015 March 13, 2008 Page 4 Section 7.6.7.2 - Course of First Stages for the Tactical Qualifications Course This section discusses aspects of reloading firearms with the support-dominant hand. This is a new expectation and Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider eliminating this objective from this section of the RG. Attempting to load with one hand only is a safety issue that requires critical instructor oversight. This technique could be trained in the advanced course of instruction, and therefore, should not be included in a qualification course of fire.
Section 8.3.1 .d - Accountability (Weapons and Ammunition)
The first paragraph discusses that: "Licenseesshould account for all in-service and out-of-service firearms once each shift." Exelon/AmerGen consider the once-per-shift accounting for out-of-service firearms to be a new requirement that will impose an additional, unnecessary, burden on the licensee. Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider revising the third sentence as follows in an effort to reduce the burden:
"Licenseesshould account for all in-service firearms and duty ammunition daily and periodically account for out-of-service firearms and additionalammunition."
Licensees should have the discretion to determine the appropriate frequency, through their site procedures, for out-of-service firearms and additional ammunition.
The last paragraph discusses that: 'The licensee should account for additional ammunition (i.e., trainingammunition and blank ammunition) once every 6 months."
Exelon/AmerGen consider the 6-month frequency and accounting for blank ammunition as new requirements. Exelon/AmerGen recommend that the NRC consider revising the first sentence in the last paragraph to read: "The licensee should periodically account for additionalammunition (i.e., trainingammunition)."
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Richard Gropp at 610-765-5557.
Respectfully, David P. Helker Manager - Licensing