ML19252A291
| ML19252A291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/13/1979 |
| From: | Case E, Engelhardt T, Gilinsky V NRC COMMISSION (OCM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19209A091 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-79-330E, SECY-79-330F, NUDOCS 7910020241 | |
| Download: ML19252A291 (66) | |
Text
'ef.
Q\\
W c
n NUCLE AR REGUL ATO RY COMMIS510N
(
l i
IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON SECY-79-330E - REPORT ON CURRENT NRC REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE TO LICENSEES FOR QUALIFICATION OF REACTOR OPERATORS (See also SECY-79-330F)
(._
~
t Place -Washington, D. C.
Date Thursday, 13 September 1979 Pages 1-65
,A\\
t I
,u O.
,(
rs. eden.:
(202)347-3700
./
ACI-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
N.-
OfficialReponen 444 Nenh Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 l f.)/ 5 fJ 35 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. D ALLY
1
- R7035
? 0 0 ?1 0 0 M DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thursday, 13 Sectember 1979 in th Commissions 's of fices at 1717 E S treet, N.W.,
Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attencanu. and Jsscrvation.
This transcrip has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
(
inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressio ns of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any sta ement er argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorire.
1075 036
CR7035*
2 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3l 4l PUBLIC MEETING i
I i
S BRIEFING ON SECY-79-330E - REPORT ON CURRENT NRC REQUIREMENTS 6i AND GUIDANCE TO LICENSEES FOR QUALIFICATION OF REACTOR OPERATORS 7'
(See also SECY-79-330F) l 8
l 9 i Room 1130 10 !
1717 H Street, N.W.
I Washington, D.
C.
11 i l
Thursday, 13 September 1979 i
ll 12 1 The Commission met, pursuant to noti
, at 2:10 p.m.
BEFORE:
I 14 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner l
!S PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner 16 l
JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 17 PRESENT:
l 18 Messrs. En3alhardt, Case, Snyder, Bickwit, Chilk, Gossick, I
19 l
and Malsch.
20 21 22 1
23 l
1075 037 24 AwFMmt Recmn, lm 25
5 335 Ol 01 3
M.1 mte 1
00MMISS IOJER GILI.1SXY:
The Chairman will ce 4
delayed rc r a li tti a 71 i and asked me to start ths 3
mee ti ng.
Mr. Bradford will ce in very soon.
4 So '
sucject is,ualification of reactor 5
operators.
So Mr. Jase, let's proc eed.
Yes, Dr. Gilinsky.
d
.h are he. e today to discuss the staff 3
recommendations in SECY 79-330(E) and the implementation 9
schedule related to those recommendations in 33G(F).
As you IJ know, as background inf ormation we prepared a number of 11 Commission papers on the suoject and they are covered in the 12 other SECY series on this same numoer.
13 The first point I would like to make today is, 14 what we are recommending here are the first steps in
(
la long-te rm grogra mming.
We do not represent that these are 16 the only things that ought to be done to upgrade reactor ie training and cualifications, but we do represent that these IS are reasonaole first steps, and we hope that you will agree 19 witn us that they ought to be approved and implemented 20 p romp tly.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEAR"Es In other words, to use a 22 phrase made f amous, you believe these are not nocessary and 23 sufficient.
24 (Laughter.)
25 MR. PASE:
We believe they're necessary, out not P00RDIGM 10~/5 038
=,
4
)35 01 02 MM mte i
necessarily sufficient.
2 Further studies in this area are expected to os 3
conducted.
As Commissioner Ahearne knows, we are working 4
wita his staff on the scope of some studies on Navy 5
comparisons.
6 We have other recommendations in this area that 7
nave been received and are under consideration oy tne sta f f 3
now.
For example, the Director of Standards provided us a 9
memoranda, I believe yesterday or the day be fore, with some IJ f urtner recommendations.
I do have and recently received a 11 recommendation from a reactor inspector at Region II, which la I personally think nis recommendations have consideraole i
13 oearing.
Those are under consideration.
14 Other recommendations are expected in this areE.
15 The lessons learned long-term studies will have something in 16 this area.
14 CO MM ISS IONER GILINS KY:
'Mhatever happened to the 18 suggestion that the representative of the Navy program tell 19 us --
My understanding of that, Commissioner 21 Gilinsky, was that Admiral Rickover was awaiting a call from 22 some Commissioner on the subject if there was that much 23 interest.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Mell, we'll give nim a 25 call.
l 3
10/5 039
335 01 03 5
VM mte i
CO MMISS IOJER AHEARNE:
I t h i n'<
it was a specific 2
Commissioner he was interested in.
3 MR. CASE:
Obviously, I tnink the Presidential 4
Commission may have some recommendations here on the special 5
inquiry.
Also, there are some possiole Congressional 6
studies that may have to be conducted.
In the Hart Committee's version of the appropriation bill, there is a s
8 requi re ment for a six-month study on operator training, 9
retraining and licensing.
10 All this to point out tnat this is the first step.
11 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic, we did get a paper.
12 MR. CASE:
Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
On the Navy system.
14 MR. CASE:
With tnat background, I'll turn it over i
15 to Paul, who will go over the recommendations one by one and 16 the implementation schedule f or your benefit.
Any 1/
questions, he will ce glad to answer.
la MR. COLLINS:
In the SECY 79-330(E), we discuss 23 19 options, and of the 23 options we recommended, we made 16 20 recommendations.
21 May I have the first slide, please ?
22 (S lide. )
23 In my discussion with you on April 20, we talked 24 about requirements to sit for the examination and we 25 reviewed these, and we think that for the reactor k
h liJ75 040
)35 01 04 6
AM mte i
operator there need oe no changes, ou t for the senior 4
reactor operator we thought that we had to inv ease the 3
requirements to four years of operating experience, two 4
years of which snould oe nuclear, and six months of this 5
experience should be gained at the site that seeks the 5
Lic3nsing.
/
,ia define " operating experience" as a nuclear 3
plant staff engineer or control room operator, and we'll 9
give two years of credit for academic work.
10 (At 2:12 p.m., Commissioner Bradford entered tne 11 r oom. )
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you comment on how 13 you celieve that contrasts with the Navy's requ.caments for 14 its selection of people?
(
10 MR. COLLINS:
If you would indicate -- if you 16 would equate the senior operator --
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The basic operator.
IS MR. COLLINS:
The basic ope rator, I would have to 19 refer to tne paper on it.
I'm not sure, since we are 20 talking about a cenior operator and we lef t the other 21 opera tor cut --
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I know, but you reached a 23 conclusion chat you wouldn' t make any changes in the 24 qualifications of the operators.
So I am asking you, 25 becau se I want to ask you what --- for what reasons you P00R ORIGINAL ion m
7 335 01 35 Ky mte I
c hos e not to provide more qualifications for the ossic 2
operator?
3
~MR. COLLIa5:
In the Navy program, the operators 4
would go tnrough a pre-nuclear training program and then 5
they would go through academic instruction and operational 6
train ing on the DOE Army-Navy reactor pro totypes.
I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How would they be chosen 3
originally?
9 MR. COLLINS:
The/ take the top ten percent, I 10 believe, out of the craf t schools or the rating schools tnat 11 these people attend.
I think the ' asic requirement is high 12 MR. CASE:
c 13 school or equivalent.
14 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
They do have a screening i
15 where they.take a certain selected subset, and I wondered, 16 in our. review, what were the arguments that convinced us le that we shouldn't place some similar type of quality 18 s cr ee ning.
19 MR. COLLINS:
W e didn' t -- we didn' t e ve n c on sider 20 getting into the screening of people to enter into training 21 p rogr ams.
22 CD MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why?
23 MR. COLLINS :
We f elt this was the responsibility 24 of the utilities, to select and hire people and bring them 25 along in the selection procedures.
P00R JRIGINAL iuzs m
8
)35 01 06
.%4 mte i
CO.'JMISS IONER AHEARME:
So we concluded tnere was 2
no re ason for us to plece any kind of recuirement as to who 3
mignt be eligiole for the training?
4 MR. COLLINS:
No -
yes.
We felt that there was 3
no need to get that deeply involved in the selection of 6
people.
7 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I see.
3 TVA, 'when they were here, mentioned and their 9
report mentioned that they were considering placing on some 10 additional screening requirements, for example, using an IQ 11
-t e s t.
And I don't know '_ f they also were going to go into 12 any other kind of skill test.
13 Did we consider doing anything like that?
14 MR COLLINS:
No, we didn't.
\\
la COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Any particular reason?
16 MR. COLLINS:
The main reason is our regulativc.s Is at present address the final product, rather than go bac'<
IS into the selection of the initial people.
Many utilities do 19 use selection procedures right now.
They do give IQ tests, 23 mechanical aptitude tests, and I'm not sure whether they 21 give psychological tests or personality testing or not, but 22 they do have selection.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But we concluded it was not 24 something that we thought necessary?
23 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, sir.
kn% h W
1075 043
9 335 01 01 itM mt3 i
ColiMI E IGNER AHEARNE:
Now, we ar_ also coing to 2
contrast the se senior operator requirements?
3 4R. COLLINS :
Yes.
All right, the senior ope rator v rsus the o fficers f rom accard ship.
The o f fic ers aooard 4
e 5
snip are normally college graduates, and tnen they proceed 5
through training programs that are similar in scope to the training programs that the senior ope rators have to have.
s 3
I think that we are different in that we hav3 four 9
years of operating experience, whereas the o f ficers or tne 10 junior officers, at least, they come out of the Academy 11 rignt into the training program, and then accard nuclear 12 suos.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And your arguments as to 14 why our approach is cetter?
15 MR. COLLINS:
We ll, in our recommendetions in SECY 16 330( E ), we were not attempting to cenchmark that paper 17 against the 330(E), the Navy paper.
la COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I recognize that.
But in 19 some sense, I think you were saying that you have evaluated 20 the requirements we placed on op3ratcrs.
21 MR. COLLINS :
But not from the focus of how doe s 22 the Navy do it.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that.
But 24 there is an organization that has had at least some 25 reasonable amount of success with its system.
And I'm no t hd 1
u L4 d
10/5_ 044 i
10 235 01 38 14 mte 1
3 aying it saould oe used as a benchmark, out it certainly is 2
a s/ stem that ought to be examined to see whether or not 3
there are fac'ts of it whica we ought to be following.
I'm 4
not saying we should be following in this particular one.
3 I'm iust merely raising th? question:
Have you considered 5
it?
/
MR. COLLINS:
No, we did not.
When we went 3
through our recommendations in 330(E), we took a look at 9
present practices and saw wnere we thought there were 10 weaknesses and said, here are the are as where we can improve the practices.
Me did not cenchmark it to any degree 12 against any other government agency or any other plans and 13 programs.
14 C01MISS IONER AHEARNE:
When you say you looked at
\\
la and f ound we aknesses, against what were you determining you 16 have weaknesses?
Mben you mentioned the Navy program as a Ie benchmark, was it then a suojective evaluation?
la MR. COLLINS:
We took a look at the applicants 19 being put up for senior operator and we took a look at the 20 requirements for senior operator, and we felt that some of 21 the applicants just were not measuring up to these 22 responsioilities, and that in a good many cases utilities 23 were putting up people for senior lic enses as a matter of 24 c onve nience, so they could meet certain portions of the 25 regulation.
But they really weren't going to use them in a 1075 04b
1M mte i
full senior capacity.
4 So we decided that, since the senior operator was 3
going to take on and should indeed have this command 4
responsioiliny, and since sur examination should be geared 3
in that direction, then we f elt that inde ed the requirements 3
that would allow these other people to sit for an
/
examination were too weak.
And so we decided that requiring 3
four years of operating experience, two nuclear, as this 9
indicates, that this would give us this a ssurance that 10 people that were put up for senior operator would oe the li command-type person we're looking for.
12 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did you give any thought to 13 changing the current requirement that has high school 14 graduate or equivalent?
13
~
MR. COLLINS :
No, we didn't.
Me have no evidence 16 tha t indicates that these people, based on their education, Is were not able to assume this command responsibility.
IS COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was really focused more 1) upon the equivalent.
20 MR. COLLINS:
We have changed the equivalent to 21 require the state certification in lieu of or th Army-Navy 22 certifications in lieu of the high school education, but 23 notning else.
One or the other.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The Army-Navy, about three 25 years ago, three and a half years ago, dropped the
/
10/5 0
6
)35 01 10 12 M.4 mta 1
equivalent o f high school.
2 MR. COLLINS:
I was unaware of tha t.
For enlistees or --
4 CO'4MISSIONER AHEARNE:
.ve ll, wne re they used to nave a requirement of high school diploma or equivalent f or a
5 their better program, they shif ted to high school diploma.
/
It wa s just past evidence indica *'ng that -- i t wa sn' t i f 3
you don't ge t a diploma it means there's something wrong.
9 It more means that the discipline r? quired to get the 10 diploma was another added attricute to the screening.
11 And I just wondered whether we had --
12 MR. COLLINS:
About 70 percent of the senior 13 opera tors do have some college.
35 or 40 percent are 14 colla ge graduates.
15 l
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1075 047
)35.02.1 13 gsh MR. COLLINS: Next slide, please.
..u d 2
(311de.)
3 Now the secona recommendation also involves the 4
senior operators. With the exception of tnose applicants that 3
make initial application for the cold examinations, the 5
initial c rew, we f elt it would be best if in addition to pre -Lous experience we showed that oefore they applied fo.
e 3
a senior operator license, they have six months as an 2
o pera tor.
10 So, in eff ect, af ter a plant becomes operational, 11 we will no longer administer instant senior examinations.
12 COMMISSIONSR GILINSKY: I don't understand how that 13 reletes to the first recommendation, where you're talking 14 about two years' nuclear experience.
15 That would not have to be as an operator.
Is that 16 the idea?
Is MR. COLLINS: That's co rrec t.
de indicate that that la could be gained solely as a nuclear plant sta ff engineer.
19 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY: I see.
Is it a good id e a 20 f or someone to go cold into a position of senior. operator?
a.1 MR. CGLLINS: Ye s, i t's an absolute essential.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why is it e ssential?
23 MR. COLLINS: There's no way you can load fuel at 24 a new pcwer plant unless you have senior operators present.
23 So it's nece ssary for them when they sit at tha t plan t ---
YM 10/5 048
235.02.2 14 ash I
CO T4 ISS IOJER GILINS KY: A se nior operator for that aM 2
plent.
Sut you could have a senior operator who is --
3 CD'4MISS IONER AHEARNE: Had operating experience.
4 C0 7.tMISSIONER GILINSKY Has had operating experience, a
has had senior operating experience.
3 MR. COLLINS: ae f eel the cold training program
/
the/ go through are designed to give them this type of 3
experience -- the simulator, the three-months simulator
/
training program, the basics, design lec ture s, the simulator 13 program.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is it possible to go to the 12 senior operator status without ever having operated a plant 13 cefore?
14 MR. COLLINS: The cold status?
(
15 GOMMISS IONER GILINSKY: Yes.
16 MR. COLLINS : A person could go through our training 1/
program and now he's going -- he's still going to have to TS meet the four years of operating experience, one year nuclear 19 experience, will be given credit for this particular training 20 that he goes through, and the other year nuclear power plant 21 experience can come during the first year of power plant --
22 during the last year of power plant construction when he's 23 checking out the. equipment.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What would be the problem if 25 we also required 12 months of actual holding operator h
10/S Of9
335.C2.3 15 gsh I
licensing?
.4 2
'Ad. COLLINS: Numoar one, you would have to get the 3
sista r utili tie s that ars operating these power plants to
?
agree to ts!ce on all these trainees.
That was one of the prime reasons why we developed 5
the cold training programs used in the simulator, was that I
ther? were no -- that the utilities did not want to use the 3
powar plants as training facilities.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But you can't go to -- you 10 can't become a captain of a 747 without ever having flown an 11 a irpl ane.
It sounds to ne like there's some thina wrong with 12 this approach, to tell you the truth.
13 CO MMISS IONER AHEARNE: Is that the principal reason 14 that the other utilities were --
\\
15 MR. COLLINS: Ye s, I'd say it is, that a one thousand 15 megawatt plant is designed to be base-loaded, produce a 1/
thousand megawatts of electricity, and to put trainees into 18 that atmosphere.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 'dhy is it necessarily a 20 trainee? If a person is an operator and if the requirement is 21 to be a senior operator, you must have been an operator f or 22 a year.
I would think --
23 MR. COLLINS: Then you would be encouraging pirating 24 from other utilities, wouldn' t you?
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Or promotion.
l 0/b Ob[J
235.02.4 16
- sn 1
Ca1MISSIONER GILINSKY:
'-lh a t you ar e saying is the 4
2 way the utilities are organized has made it difficult to 3
train operators in a way that we might otherwise have trained them.
4 5
Md. SNYDER: Paul, I just wonder, have you taken 5
into account the recent EPRI organizational moves?
4
- 12. COLLINS: No.
3 MR'. SNYDER: There is a proposal before their 9
organization now to establish a training orgarization which 10 would be across-the-board for utilities and could very we ll 11 solve the --
12 MR. COLLINS : We have curriculum and items of that.
13 I have not heard anything that would lead me to believe that 14 they're going to establish a school.
\\
15
%R. SNYD ER : I wasn't saying that.
I was saying that 15 it seems to me from what I have seen on the subject, at il least a more cooperative atmosphere, and Pm not sure that 13 we're taking advantage of that.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think the question we have 20 to ask ourselves is whether or not this would be the 21 appropriate thing to do.
And that should'be independent of 22 whether or not the utilities f eel cooperative about it.
23 MR. COLLINS: Well, we used to at the very first of 24 our certification programs, we used to use Saxton f acilities, 25 which was a small SWR facility.
Mestinghouse used it for their Ph 0
1075 051
335.02.5 17 gsh I
treining program, and then tney went into the simulator
- .(
2 training pro gram for the same accomplishment.
3 The thing you run into when a man goes into an 4
opera ting plant to do all of his training is that they are 5
sitting there base-loaded in a steady state and a man jus t 3
doesn't learn as much.
We still, in our cold training program, require e
3 a person to participate and be an ooserver at a nuclear power
/
plant for t'vo months.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I gue ss I'm going to have to 11 think more aoout it, but I tend to oe.lieve that having the 12 person actually ce an operator for something like a year 13 seems to be a reasonable requirement.
14 CO MMISS I0 DER GILINSKY: It seems like that ti me.
I s
15 have to say it.
13 MR. C AS E: Before he becomes a senior?
Ii COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
la CO MMISS IONER GILINSKY: We'll have to get our 19 chairman back if we're going to get him qualified under 20 a simulator.
21 MR. CASE: This wculd not be in lieu of or a change 22 to one of tne other requirements.
23 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE: Oh, no, it would be in 24 a cdition to.
25 MR. COLLINS: Chart 3, please.
%DikO 1075 052
235.02.6 18 asn I
(Slide.)
d4 2
The third recommendation tnat involves tha training 3
programs is to be more specific on training requirements for 4
the hot licanse applicants.
5 For the operator presently under our regulations --
5 CO'4MISSI0 DER GILINSKY: A not license applicant is --
I
.4R. COLL INS : Af ter the plant is operational.
S o rry.
3 Three months on shif t as an extra man in the control room learnirg how to be an operator.
10 This is for the -- this is to prevent a m an be ing 11 an auxiliary operator on shif t doing his normal job and then 12 on a catch-as-catch-can basis,. trying to get the requirements 13 to be an operator.
14 CO'4MISS IONER GILL'4 SKY: Let me just take you back to 15 Recommendat-ion 2.
16 You seem to think that a senior operator ought to it have some operator experience.
IS MR. COLLINS: Yes.
19 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY: Secause for those other t'in, 20 what is the right terminology?
21 MR. COLLINS : The cold or pre-critical operator.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The ones who ge t training 23 before the plant comes into operation.
For those other than 24 that first group, you would require holding an operator license 25 for six months.
10/S. 053
233.02.7 19 gsn i
Now could you go over again the difference
.4 2
oetween the training that this person receives as opposed to 3
t he training that is receiv3d oy the group which is trained 4
cefore the reactor goes critical?
3 MR. COLLINS: The previous group receives two years.
it goes through a training arogram of approximately two years.
a
/
The post-critical, or the hot applicants, go through a 3
training program that lasts somewhere s oetween 6 and 9 months.
9 So it's an aboreviated training program.
And this 10 is cased on the man more than likely having worked at that 11 particular plant as an auxiliary ooerator or in some capacity 12 to wnere he is ge tting f amiliar with the plant.
And he 13 doesn't come in as a neophyte, if you would, as some of the 14 people do in the cold training programs as f ar as nuclear
(
15 power goes..
15 So it's a shorter training program.
14 MR. C AS S: Are your prerequisites any higher for 13 the cold operators in terms of needed experience and 19 educa tion ?
20 MR. COLLINS: No. Normally, most of the people that 21 go through the cold programs are senior operators, shif t 22 supervisors, the watch foremen and so forth.
23 So we are saying on the training program for the 24 operators af ter the plant becomes operational, three months 25 on shif t as an extra man so that we are assured that he is s\\)h 1075 054
)35.02.8 20 gsh I
going to be trained in the control room in a formalized
.4 2
manner.
3 Based on recommendation 2, where we required tne t
senior operator to hold an operator's licens e, he would get 5
three months of training on shif t as an extra man.
And his 5
principal job at that time would be to accompany the present s
shift supe rvisor on his rounds and find out now that shif t 3
should oe run.
9 This is af ter he has his operator's license and now 10 he is in training for a senior operator's license.
11 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY: You know wnat concerns me a 12 little bit just listening to you?
I get the feeling that 13 you have taken the present requirements and sort of cranked 14 them up a few turns in the various categories ratner than
(
15 saying, wha.t is it that a man ought to know and what sort 16 of experience ought he to have before he gets control of II one of these plants?
18 MR. COLLINS We have already pretty much estaolished 19 that the training programs -- the training program is going 23 to have to be alt 1 red, but we're not recreating the training 21 p rograms.
When we see trese areas where the training is 22 not formalized, people are being put up without the necessary 23 experience and we are trying to make the corrections in those 24 areas on tha se first three recommendations ---
25 CO MMISS IONER AHEARNE: Let me ask a question which 10~/S 055
235.02.9 21 gsh I
relates som3Nhat tc that.
.4 2
If you were to be asked, would you expect 10 percent 3
of the applicants wno try to go through this to make it.
4 20 percent, 50 percent, 80 pe rcent, what would your answer a
be?
Have you looked at it f rom tnat point of view?
5 MR. COLLINS: I would expect once the requirements are known, once the new tra',ing is p!. aced in effect, that e
3 when we see the individual, we should get aoout the same pass / f ail rate as we had in the past.
10 CO'4MISSIONER AHEARNE: Do you think it's appropriate?
11 MR. COLLINS : There may ce some recycling of people 12 cefore they take our examination.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Do yo u think tha t's a n 14 appropriate pass / tail rate?
15
%R. COLLINS: Yes, I do.
16 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE: Why?
Il MR. COLLINS: Before the facility management must, 18 as part of the application, certify to the competence of
!)
this individual.
And if he certifies and we go to his 20 f acility and f ail a good number of applicants, we go af ter 21 him and question the means used to certif y these people.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Mayce I asked the wrong 23 q ues t ion.
Of the number of people that start in the 24 11cansee's program, what percentage would you expect to 25 actually make it all the way through?
%h 10/5 Ob6
335.02.10 22 gsh t
.G.
COLLIN5 : That s tart in the program?
I would m..i 2
say a bout 30 percent.
3 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNEs Do you think that that's 4
a ppro pria te ?
5 MR. COLLINS: Yes.
5 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE: It seems pre tty high for a e
demanding program. If you are constructing a program to end 8
up with someone that you would expect to be placed in a y
very responsible position over something that you f eel 1]
requires a reasonably close amount of supervision. I woulo 11 think 80 percent would be a high percentage.
12 MR. COLLINS: I have no statistics on other training 13 programs to cenchmark this against.
14 MR. CASE: Jo hn, isn't the answer to your question i
15 more how stacle are the requirements?
16 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE: No.
What I was thinking, in 1e another location I spent a f air amount of time looking at la training programs and screening out individuals and raising 19 and lowering the thresholds to try to get certain categories, 20 and in some cases, to try to fill blocks of people. In other 21 cases, to try to squeeze down to make sure that you had 22 individuals who could pass a fairly significant skill 23 requirement.
24 And it always -- at least the people there that I 25 was working with -- always started out with estimate of I?tfu iozs 057
335.02.11 23 gsh i
now approximately what perc3ntage were they going to be 2
satisfied with getting through?
3 That was their way of bancamarking whether they 4
would be tough enough or too tough.
And on this kind of an 3
operatien, I guess offhand I would guess somewhere around 5
50 percent would ce the numoer that you would expect.
7 MR. CAS E: Where they comparable type things in 3
length of training and things like that?
9 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE: Some of them were two-to 10 three year long programs and that was even with a threshold 11 filter at the beginning.
12 I would have expected without a threshold filter 13 at the ceginning, which we don't have -- in othe r words, we 14 don't really have tnat tight a cuto ff at the beginning -- I 15 would have axpected a much higher percentage.
15 MR. CASE: Were the qualifications objective versus 1i s ubje ctive ?
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: A combina tion.
Variety of 19 progr ams --
20 MR. COLLINS: Any more scecific questions on this 21 particular slide?
22 (No response.)
23 MR. COLLINS: These recommendations 1, 2 and 3, we 24 would expect to be implemented for applicants who file their 25 application six months from the decision date to adopt them P00RORIGNll e
335.02.I2 24 gsn i
30 changes can De made in tne training programs.
I 2
. Jay I have the next slid?, please?
3 I
a b
i 3
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 12 20 21 22 23 24 1075 059
1035 03 01 25
- i a t e 1
(Slice.)
2 CO:4MISSIONER GILINSKY :
Let's see.
Why would you 3
insert the six-montn perico there?
4 MR. CO LLINS :
Well, there are people right now in 5
the mill training, in various stages of the trainino program, and we f eel that we should allow them to comple te o
7 the training program, administer our examinations to them, 8
because later on you will be seeing the new criteria on the v
examination, which we are going to make immtdiate, which we 10 are recommending be made immediately.
.11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So when you say file 12 a pplications for a license, tha t comes at the end of the 13 training program?
14 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, it does.
We feel now the 15 utilities 'we know are hearing new requirements, they can go lo out anc select diff erent people and start them out in a 17 different training program.
le MR. SNYDER:
Paul, would there be any a ttem ot to 19 look back at those people who already have been qualified 20 under some of these new requirements?
21 MR. COLLINS:
In our recommendations, we are 22 recommending that we administer some of the requalification 23 examinations.
24 MR. SNYDER:
Periodic requalifications?
25 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
They requalify every year now.
?003 BR3 maluns m
7035 03 02 2o MM ate 1
i.id. Sd Y uER :
I uncerstano.
2 MR. COLLINS:
But facility management acministers 3
the examination.
4 COMMISSIONER GILIN5KY:
Every year or every other 5
year?
o MR. COLLINS:
Every year.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For all operators?
c MR. COLLINS:
Yes, sir.
There are annual v
requalification examinations.
10 MR. SNYDER:
At t ha t po in t, would you pick up any 11 more stringent requirements?
Would that be the point a t 12 which you would do this?
13 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
14 MR. CASE:
I'm not sure you two are 15 co mmunica ting.
16 MR. CO LLINS :
Grade requirements.
We wouldn't go 17 back and say, you don't have four years of experience, you 18 only had three, and therefore you can't be a shift 19 supervisor.
20 MR. SNYDER:
There are some of these 21 requirements -- maybe there are later on recommenda tions --
22 that lend themselves more logically to be backfitted, if you 23 want to use that term, as I recall.
Is there any intent tc 24 do that with a whole batch of opera tors out there?
25 MR. COLLINS:
No, I don't know --
10/5 06l l
i
1035 03 03 27
'4M m te i
COMMISS IONER GILINSKY:
Let's take the.a one at a 2
time, as we take up the individual recommencations.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEAR:iE:
Bernie, why aon't you raise 4
them when we get to the specifics?
5 MR. SNYDER:
Okay.
o MR. COLLINS:
On the next three recommendations, 7
4, 7, and 11, they all involve the same subjec t, and that is e
required use of simulators.
We're going to require the use Y
of simulators in the ho t training programs.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
To what extent?
11 MR. COLLINS:
To at least a week program, one-week 12 program.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
What would be the training 14 t ha t persons who are getting trained before the reactor goes 15 critical 16 MR. COLLINS:
They go to the simulator training 17 program for a tnree-month period, two to three months on the 18 simulator and one to two months at an actual operating IV plant.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYr And you regard one week in 21 t he hot training program a satisfactory?
22 MR. COLLINS:
These people have six months at 23 their plant, three months in the control room as a trainee 24 as a minimum, and then they go to simulator for a week.
25 While they are at their plant, they're doing whatever
7035 03 04 2S MM mte I
manipulations Enat are taking place at the pl an t.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What would they be doing 3
curing that week?
4 MR. CO L;. i c.'S At the simulator?
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
6 MR. COLLINS:
de addre ss that later on.
We are 7
going to oevelop specific criteria and training programs 6
fore those simula tor se ssions.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And you regard a week as 10 sufficient?
11 MR. COLLINS:
I'm not going to lock in on a week.
12 We are thinking of a week.
When we get through looking a t 13 all the exercises and the items we want to do, then we will 14 come down on a time.
15 94R. CASE:
It might be a week or two.
16 MR. COLLINS:
Something of that nature, yes.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You mention in your paper le t ha t there are a f ew of the older plants for which IY simulators wouldn't be available.
How many are there?
20 MR. COLLINS :
About four, I would says Big Rock, 21 Lacrosse, Humboldt Bay, Yankee.
These are -- I don't know 22 if we'.ll ever see Humboldt Bay again, but it's one of the 23 older plants.
These are the type of thing.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
A very small number.
25 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, a very small number, extremely 075 063 1
7035 03 05 29 "M m v. e I
small.
Rignt now about 90 percent of the utilities are 2
senaing these ho t a pplicants to training programs, so we're 3
not really imposing too much --
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are you constrained by 5
resistance to go to simulator sites on the part of 6
employees?
7 MR. COLLINS:
No.
We have a program now that sort 8
or fosters and encourages the use of simulators, and most of Y
the utilities have opted to use that program.
10 MR. CASE:
Basically, we're changing into a 11 requirement.
This is the step that's being taken.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How would you use the 13 simulators in requalification programs?
14 MR. COLLINS:
Once again, we would make them 15 mandatory." We would do the same thing on the 16 requalification program, de are developing a list of 17 exercises.
We are going to insist that each licensee 18 perform them while he's at the simulator.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So every year, an opera tor 20 would return to the simulator for some pe riod ?
21 MR. COLLINS:
For some period of training, yes.
22 Once again, I have got to go down the list of 23 exercises and work it out with my staf f as to what is a 24 reasonable time for a man to perform these, not only to 25 perf orm, bu t to learn what's happening, too.
10/b 064 t.
036 03 00 30 MM mte i
Co.dr.ilSSIONER GILIN5KY :
Presumably, there would be 2
new exercises each year, as we learn new things.
3 MR. COLLINS :
de're looking at a combination of a 4
certain standara number that we want them to be able to cope 5
witn, plus, as you say, each year there would be some 6
different ones, also.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
How would y u use these e
simulators for administering NRC examinations?
This is f or 9
the initial examina tion?
10 MR. COLLINS:
This is for the initial 11 examination.
12 Yes, we would probably go to the simulator.
And 13 we haven't thought out all the de tails on this, but we would 14 probably go to the simulator, administer that part of the 15 exam that we could, and then that would be a se para te exam, 16 and then the balance of the exam would be aaministered at 17 the man's f acilitf probaoly two to three weeks later.
le COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do we currently certify 19 that a simulator is an adequate --
20 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, without any specific criteria 21 and without any specific mandate in the regulations to do 22 so.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do we review the particular 24 sof tware programs that are written for the simula tor?
25 MR. COLLINS:
No, we do not review the programs.
10/5 06b
035 03 07 31 lN m te i
We do, as a final check on the simulator, have Ine sta r tu p 2
test cata from the plan t after which the simulator is 3
modelec, and we reproauce t he startup tests on the simulator 4
to verify the accuracy.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do we ao a test run of o
accident f requencies ;o see whe ther the simulator responds 7
in a way -- the sof tware responds in some way tha t we f eel e
is satisf actory?
9 MR. CO LLINS :
Yes, we do.
We observe that.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So we do have some test 11 runs.
12 MR. CO LLINS :
We do get involved with 13 simulators with the original specifications.
Then, as the 14 simu? ator is being constructed, we visit the f acilities 15 being constructed and participate in acceptance tests.
We lo participate in the acce ptance test at the site, and then we 17 make a final check on the simulator against the startup 18 tests of the plant af ter which it is modeled.
19 All of the se recommendations are going to require 20 rulemaking to implement.
21 MR. ENGELHARDT:
I think that statement may be 22 slightly overly broad.
But where there are requirements, 23 specific requirements mandating that an individual must meet 24 a standard or a standri is set that must be a required 25 q ualif ic a tion, those would be necessary to include in I
'035 03 00 32
'"1 mte i
R-50, so tha t the rules would be set in place.
2 The re are some of these procedures, however, tha t 3
have been mentioned in the pa pe r, in 330(F), which will not 4
require a rulemaking and can be established as a ma tter of 5
procedure and policy.
o We, of course, as a ttorneys would pref er that, to 7
the maximum exten t, the requirements and the standards be 8
set forth in regulations, because that is always the v
conservative, saf e a pproach.
There are, however, a number 10 of things that can be done without the nece ssity of 11 rulemaking.
But rulemaking is essential where requirements 12 are levied on wha t a person must do in order to establish 13 qualifications for a license, and tha t is what we're doing.
14 Part 55 says what is required now.
Some of the 15 current or' proposed requirements were, if anything, 16 improved.
And a licensing program must, of course, also be 17 reflected in these regulations.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You were talking about 19 just 4, 7 and ll, Paul?
20 MR. COLLINS :
Y e s, so f ar.
I have these 21 recommencations grouped, or I had them grouped at one time, 22 based on the implementation, recommended implementation.
23 Some has changed since talking --
24 MR. CASE:
But there are others that require 25 rulemaking?
l~
~035 03 09 33
- Ei mte i
MR. COLLItiS:
(es, there are others that require 2
rulemaking oe sice s the se tnree.
3 COMMISSIONER BRAJFORD:
I and 2, thougn, in your 4
view co not?
5 MR. COLLINS:
No, they cia not.
o MR. CASE:
I a ssume OELO agrees?
7 MR. ENG ELHARJT:
Ye s.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Could the se be pu t in to 9
pl'ce before you are in a rulemaking?
10 MR. COLLINS:
Well, I indicated that the use of 11 the training programs, simulators in tne hot training i ?.
program, about 90 percent of the utilities are doing it 13 now.
About 85 percent of the utilities are usin' 14 requalification programs.
So i t's no t too rrr.ou s a 15 situation in saying that they are not going, because they lo are going to the simula tor.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
W ha t I would like to lo understand, though, is what the time scale f or pu tting chese 19 recommendations into ef fect here is.
How long will it ta ke ?
20 MR. COLLINS:
I will have to def er.
.21 MR. CASE:
I have heard this many times, and I 22 think you have.
Normal ru.' amaking is two years.
23 24 25 h
NIE b0
'03b 04 Ol 34
-r
.M i
COMMI5S IONER 32ADFORU:
Uo we consider tnese 2
requirements can ce pu t into place before the rulemaking?
I 3
know yoy find a hign perccntage are doing them anyway.
4 MR. COLLINS:
What I have f rom ELD right now is a
t ha t rulemaking will be requirec.
o COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
We cannot make these 7
requirements immeciately ef f ec tive?
o MR. COLLINS:
No, I can't say.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Would you like to make 10 them immeaiately effective, if you could?
11 MR. COLLINS:
I would like to be able to start 12 acministering the NRC examination on the simulator.
This is 13 going to take time also, because it's going to require a 14 larger staff.
That's one area.
~
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do we have some other legal 16 opinion?
17 (Laughter.)
le MR. ENGELHARDT:
The problem here is the 19 requirements f or health and saf ety.
I mean, that's the core 20 of this whole thing.
If these requirements are considered 21 e ssential to health and saf ety and they must be mandated now 22 to be done now so we are sure health and saf ety is 23 protected, we can do that.
We can find the mechanism for 24 doing that.
25 We're saying rulemaking is.the pref erred course of L
'036 04 02 35 c v x4 1
action to a ssure that we con't run into tne procadural 2
complications.
If you don't have rules established that you 3
can meet.
But there is always a decision to be made by the 4
acministration as to wnetner or not there is a heal th anu 5
saf e ty prevailing and prevalent, an overwhelming requirement o
in the interest of health and safety that has got to be done 7
now, in which case it can be ordered to be dore now and e
could be done in the sense that is being done.
9 Apparently, a number of operators are already in 10 the process, and the others could be encourmged to follow II t ha t process while we go through a formal rulemaking.
If 12 t hat isn't good enough, then we just order it and have it 13 cone in the sense of -- in the intere st or public health and 14 satety.
15
'MR. COLLINS:
We also have the problem of how many 16 simulators are available.
We have made some very 17 preliminary estimates of their availability, and we see some 16 problems, if we extend our programs more than what the lY programs are now.
And I really believe the programs are 20 going to be extended.
So, we're going to run up against the 21 construction of new simulators in full implementation of 22 using the simulators for everybody.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's 24-hour operation?
24 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
We know we are definitely 25 having problems on SWRs.
We think - we think we look 1075 070
'035 Os 33 36
, nv..i.t I
fairly good on tne WlR simulators, but we haven't T.a c e a 2
total analys.is having callec in the people wno can the 3
simulators to s ee wna t they woulc make it available fer.
4 So, even if we come right out with an immedite Ly o
eff ec tive rule, we are still going to be po ssibly sto pped by o
the haroware.
I checked wi th people --
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wai t a minu te.
Sto pped in o
w ha t sense?
v M3. COLLINS:
In that there isnet the 10 availability, tne time available --
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It may just take longer to 12 qualify some of the operators.
13 MR. COLLINS :
Well, they have their programs --
14 well, I would think prooably the requalification programs s
15 would be the one s that suff er.
You have got to k ee p a lo supply of operators going.
We have technical specifications 17 that require people, a certain number of licensed people, at 16 every plant.
We can't stop the proce ss.
19 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
You don't have timely 20 renewal f or operators?
21 MR. CASE:
I suppose tha t a pplie s, timely renawal.
22 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
But they leave the job, and 23 they have to get replacement of people.
24 COMMISSIONEh GILINSKY:
In the extreme, if we 25 believe there are not qualified operators, sufficiently
}O/b O[}
/035 04 04 37
'v u.t i
trainec operators, then the plant just can't operate.
2 MR. COLLINS:
We woula have to make that finding, 3
yes.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think that's what Tom 6
meant w hen he talked about health and safety.
o MR. CASE:
W ha t is the finding you have to make to 7
make a rule immeaiately ef f ec tive?
o MR. MALSCH:
Public health, safety requirements y
are required.
It's a fairly strong finding.
You really 10 have to finc the advan tage of ge tting f ull participation 11 outweighed by tne need to have the regulation re placed right 12 away.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Semebody will probably ask 14 if we believe it's absolutely essential for simulators.
15 W hy, it ma'y be.
Io MR. MALSCH:
The problem that agencies frequently 17 run across in putting out regulations in effect immediately, le there's been a debate for a year and they pJt it ou t right 19 a way, suddenly, a ssuming the problem is recogr.ized and there 20 is prcmpt action, I think there wouldn't be any problem 21 with immediately effective regulation.
22 MR. COLLINS:
The next slide, please.
23 (Slide.)
24 Recommendations 5 and 9 at one time I thought 25 could be im plemen ted immediately.
It turns out t ha t audit ggh lit /S 0/2
i035 C4 ]5 3e
'v
. oi i
or tne training programs can ce immediately implenentec --
2 Co.d..ildS IO iER GILIW5KY :
This is NRC audit?
3 Md. CO LLIJS :
NRC aucit of training programs, 4
particularly the cola training programs, including 5
acministration of certification programs, some of the o
certification exams.
7 CO:.(MISS IONER G1 LIN5kY :
Certification exams are 6
which enes?
9 MR. COLLINS:
They are the examinations given to t 10 cola applicants a t the comple tion of their off-site training 11 programs.
That certifies they have extensive actual 12 opera ting experience.
At the conclusion of the off-site 13 training program, they then go on site wnere they go through 14 the on-site training program, construction check-out, 15 wri ting of" procedures, technical cpecifications; and about a lo year to two years af ter they receive this certification 17 exam, we give tnem an NRC exam.
18 Now, we are recommending that we do some of the 19 certification examination as a benchmark against the 20 training programs that are going on.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why shouldn' t we do all of 22 them ?
23 MR. COLLINS:
We f eel if we make our presence 24 known and we have a good auditing program, we can accomplish 25 just as much, pick up yeaknesses in the training program in n
3 1075 073
035 d4 Jo 3~
. u.-.
I a s gooc a manner or almost as good a faanner as a huncrea 2
percent of the stucents.
3 The purpose of us going there is to aucit the 4
training programs, not to certif y the indiviaual.
5 MR. CASE:
I woula more put it I would star t ou t o
this way and if it turned out that we're doing 10 percent 7
cetermines you can do a lot ce tter by doing 15 or 20, I e
would progress that way, rather than start out at 100.
In 9
c ther woros, I'm not sure that 10 percent is the best 10 direction, but I think it would be worthwhile to start out that way, rather than starting at 100 percent.
Me do have 12 manpower proolems, too.
13 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
Oh, yes, it would 14 definitely be a switch.
It wouldn't be audit.
It would be 15 certification.
My question really is why shouldn't we be lo the ones doing certification?
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You're talking about NRC 18 administrator requalification exams?
19 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, we are, NRC administra tion of 20 some of the requalifica tion exams.
21 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
And I am really saying why 22 don' t we.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have the same que stion.
24 I want to ask you another que stion.
Let me take you back to 25 the B&W examinations that we gave -- we did not give -- we g hd$bL 1U/b 0/4
7035 04 07 40 nv MM i
requirea be given to the operators at tne Edil pl ants.
2 I am informec -- in fact, auring my de position by 3
the President's Commi ssion -- that you recommended that the 4
NRC administer all the se examinations.
But, were ove rruled, 5
and the result was we simply audit the process.
Is that o
correct?
7 MR. COLLINS:
I don ' t wan t to use as harsh a word 8
as we were " overruled."
I did make the recommendation that 9
we administer the examinations.
It was felt that we would 10 accomplish just as much by conducting this audit program on 11 them.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What made that diff erent 12 than the question I just asked?
14 MR. COLLINS :
Because the certification 15 examinatioh -- well, mainly, because the man's training 10 program on the certification programs is not comple te, and 17 he's not ready f or an NRC examination.
The diff erence here le on the Oconee exams at B&W i s tha t their training program 19 was complete, but this man, he's only about halfway through 20 his training program.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How about when he's 22 finished with his training program, should we then do a 23 hundred percent at them ?
24 MR. COLLINS:
We do.
We give the NRC examination, 25 and the man gets his license.
1035 04 06 41 av AW l
CO:fMISSIOJER AHEARNE:
Inde penden t of any 2
licen sing --
3 MR. COLLINS:
Inaepencent of how many initial 4
examinations.
5 CO'4MISSIONER AHEARNE:
How about the o
requalification examinations?
7 MR. COLLINS :
On requalification, the programs c
were and are in the regulations se t up to be Y
f acility-accinisterea.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
'Mhy shouldn' t we ?
I mean, 11 wasn't the S&W' a f orm of requalifica tion?
12 MR. COLLINS:
No.
I think it was learning 13 new materials.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And therefore requalifying 15 somebody w'no was already qualified, there were new things lo
- learned, you wan ted to make sure.
I'sn ' t that, to some 17 extent, w ha t a requalifica tion does, is to make sure not le only that you knew what you used to know, but anything new --
19 MR. COLLINS:
That you've ke pt your knowledge up 20 to da te with new exchanges.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
So, why shouldn't 22 we do everybody's requalification?
9 23 MR. COLLINS:
Once again, we were looking at it 24 f rom the standpoint of auditing the program, rather than 25 icoking at ea.h individual.
g 10/S 0/6
'035 04 Jv 42
.i t I
Co.';(ISS IOuds AHEARNE:
/!ha t I am really asking,
(
'r 2
Paul, it it.vas appropriate in that recent SC.1 case, why 3
isn't it then appropria te in the requalification?
4
.,i R. COLLIdS:
I can't correlate the two.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
I was going to make a s
o different point, which is, A,
I am surprised we were no t 7
infornec of t ha t recommenca tion; and I am also curious as to e
what lec to the cecision not to have NRC administer all of 9
the examina tion s.
Is there an explanation for that?
10 MR. CASE:
I have tried to recall my involvement, 11 if any, in the situation that Paul described, before the 12 presidential commission.
I talked to Denny Ro ss about it, 13 too.
14 First, wi th regard to your question, and your 15 surprise that the Commission wasn't informed.
I don't think lo it was of tha t character or caliber of dif ference of opinion 17 between the recommender and the resolver, if you will.
It 18 was one of the hundreds of decisions that are made in the 19 course of something like that returning part of the B&W 20 reactors.
In any event, as I remember the situation -- and 21 Paul can correc t me if I am wrong -- he was in the midst of 22 a discussion with Dr. Ross in Dr. Ro ss' office, and I 23 believe that representatives of I&E were there, and we were 24 contrasting the situation then with the previous situation 25 on B&W plants, when, you will recall, we issued a number of g\\h 1075 0/7
035 u-IC 43 I
instructions via bulletin, and the I&E resicent inspector
.v
...i i
2
.oerformed the function of cetermining wnether tne people 3
were acequately traineu in their new procedures.
4 COM..tISt 'O.iER GI LINSKY :
You're talking about early 5
April?
o
.!H. CASE:
Early April.
Ne felt at Unis stage we 7
would ra t c he t, if you will, those requirements a bit to do e
better verification by having the operator licensing branch 9
audit, as distinguishec f rom having the on-site inspe c tor do 10 i t, because they were more qualified in this area.
Having 11 the reactor inspec tor check the rest of the people.
So, it 12 was a ratchet over what we previously had done.
13 Ine question was how f ar should you go in such an 14 a ud i t.
And I think the answer, our f eeling at the time, was 15 let's try 10 percent or whatever, the few that we audited to were to see how the thing came out to de termine whe ther 100 17 percent audit was nece ssary.
And if I remember, ther e le wasn't a strong disagreement or strong recommendation.
It 19 was just one of those things that you consider and make a 20 decision on.
I believe I was called on the tel e phone, and 21 in the midst of the discu ssion, said, "'Mhat do you think?"
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I raise this, not because 23 the Commission should be informed of every diff erence 24 between a branch chief and assistant directc..
Obviously, 25 the answer is not.
But this ha ppened to be a particularly gg 1075 0/8
335 C4 11 44 7r I
crucial eleaant in our program of a ssuring the saf ety of 2
cnose plants.
Anc therefore, i f l.;r. Co llin s t hough t ne nad 3
the resource s anc thougnt it was appropriate to have NRC 4
acninister these examinations, I think that's of sufficient 5
importance tnat the Commissioners ought to know about.
o MR. CASE:
'll e ll, a large part of tha, 7
Comaissioner Gilinsky, de pends on the f eeling of the e
recommender af ter he has made such a recommendation and it 9
doesn't carry.
And I can only ga ther that Paul didn't feel 10 tco strongly about i t, because in time I didn't hear any 11 strong outcry or reverberations, anc if there were we 12 certainly would have orought it to the Commi ssion's 13 a tten tion.
I think Paul was here and we discussed it.
14 MR. CO LLINS :
I will agree.
I made the 15 recommendations, but the audit was a very comprehensive lo audit, and it fit in.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So, you were satisfied 16 with that kind of a pproach, the alternative approach?
19 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I will have to say t ha t 21 that was the conclusion, certainly I reached when the same 22 gentleman raised the same poin t to me, that I felt that Paul 23 wa s here, and if he really felt strongly he would have 24 raised it at tha t point and the issue would have been 25 raised, it seemed to me.
10/5 0/9
'025 2, i2 45 1
It seemaa to be a very consistent appro acn, very
-v o.
2 frantly, witn tne previous way.
2 4
5 o
7 o
9 10 11 12 r
13 o<
14 is 16 17 lo is 20 21 22 23 24 qggygh 25 1075 080
!O36 05 01 46 N m.te 1
- ' d. CO LLI iS :
on the recualification examination, 2
some or all, anc we are recommending we administer some.
3 Once again, rulemaking has been recommended.
It's my 4
understanding that the regulation presently does no t 5
interject NRC into the requalifica tion examinations without o
cause, anc therefore rulemaking would be needed to put us 7
into the qualification programs.
c COM1.IISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did you enc up choosing y
your option 12 instead of option 11 ?
10 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you explain why?
12 MR. COLLINS :
The main reason is, we look at the 13 requalification program, although indeed it is an individual 14 certification, we want to lcok to see that the program m
15 itself is 'being administered properly, rather than honing in 16 on each individual.
Once again, I think you can detect 17 weaknesses in programs, and in this case, since there are so 16 many plants being operated and so many audits to be 19 concuctec, probably come up with problem areas a lot f aster 20 by concucting audits than you would if you had to schedule 21 in 100 percent of the examinations.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But in the arguments you 23 give in your paper on the for and against, the arguments for 24 s.eem to be that the NRC's concern -- you would a ssure NRC's 25 concerns were adcre ssad, this would serve as a measure of
}O/b Obl
/033 05 32 47 ate i
the tra inin g progra:a s' effactivaness as well as individual 2
competency, i
3 And tne only argument against it is it woulo 4
require some additional Licensing Branch personnel.
T ha t's 5
page 26.
o MR. COLLINS :
Tnans you.
7 Not necessarily.
Me find in our audit c
requalification programs right now that individuals that have a grade 80 or aoove, when we grade those exams we find v
10 t ha t we come down fairly close to the f acili ty's grading.
When we get ' elow 80 and we are heading towards the present 11 o
12 cutoff point of 70, where a man would have to go into 13 accelerated training, we find a tendency for the grader to 14 be a little more 7erous than he should, than we are when 15 we grace tIhe examinations.
16 So if we go to a f ac ili ty --
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All the more reason to do 18 it.
19 MR. CO LLINS:
So if we go to a f acility and select 20 for our sampling the lower grade, I think we are 21 a ccom plisning just as much as had we gone in and done 100 22 percent.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or if you audit every lower 24 grade.
25 MR. COLLINS:
In any audit procecure you start
?$
nus m
035 05.03 4e
' t ate i
orf.
Ir you're satisfiec witn the aucit you sto p.
If 2
you're not, you continue on.
You can always continue on.
3 CO..U.tI SS IONEii AH E Ad.JE :
Could I ask you, Paul, 4
about a que stion which I admit I completely missed the o
previous time you discussed the licensing examinations?
On 6
page 29 you say:
7 "The examination is designed so the average o
applicant can comple te the examination in eight hours.
v However, no time limit i s im po sed. "
10 Is that really correct?
There's no time limit on 11 how long it takes the individual to take the exam?
12 MR. COLLINS:
With one exception.
If you have 13 couple of people sitting there for a considerably long time 14 past the class average, then it's common practice for the x
15 e xaminer to say, all right, you have one more hour to 16 complete the examination.
17 But we f eel that -- we have f elt in the part th !
lo imposing c time limit really doesn't accomplish that m'1ch.
I guess some people 19 And most people get throt'gh in eight 20 take ten.
There was no time -- there is no time limit.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And then, similarly, on the 22 next page, where you talk about the e xam, it is designed to 23 be completed in five hours, but no time limit is imposed.
24 Is that right?
25 MR. COLLINS:
This is correct.
We do not say, you pg (Y 10/S 085
/035 05 J4 4Y
- .6
.r. t e I
hava five hours T or this examir.ation.
2 Co.r.aI 5510iiER AM EARd E :
That somewhat recuces tne 3
signiricance of the grade, I gue ss.
4 COT.IISSIONER BR ACFORD:
The se also go to o
rulemaking?
o MR. COLLINS:
T he second one, for NRC to 7
administer the requalification exam.
The auditing of tne e
training program, including the administration of v
certification examina tions, we have always had that right to 10 go in anc audit the programs, and then co aominister the 11 certifica tion exam.
'4e have done it with the first few 12 groups of a pplicants at all these training centers, but we 13 have not cone it on a continuous basis such as this 14 suggests.
15
'COMMISS IONER BRADFORD:
But on the one.s tha t go to 16 rulemaking, then, f ull implementation would be two years 17 plus with rulemaking, as the normal course?
le MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
I must say, I'm really speaking for Bob 20 Minogue, but I have heard him answer that question e cugn 21 times that war that I think he would give tha t an swer.
22 MR. COLLINS:
Next slide, please.
23 (Slide.)
24 Recommendation 6, require instructors to hold 25 senior operator licenses as a first step in establishing IU/S 084
035 C5 05 50 mte i
instruc tor qualtrications.
2 C0:.f..il 5S IO:lE2 GI LIN5KY :
?Ibich instructors are you 3
speaking of?
4 MR. COLLINS:
We presently are a ttempting to zero 5
in on which ones we want.
Certainly, the training o
cooroinator Lt the site, who is responsible f or all of the 7
training.
We con't envision, f or example, requiring the o
chemists and health physics supervisor who might give v
lectures on that sub j ec t to also hold a senior operator 10 license.
11 Sut we are trying to select which one s, as a first 12 step to establish technical competence.
We are going to 13 work, also, closely with ads-3 and the Institute of Nuclear 14 Power Operation on the developmen t of comprehensive 15 requirements.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But again, this first step 17 is two years, though?
le MR. COLLINS:
Yes, to f ully implement it and to IV make it a requirement -- many of these instructors do own 20 senior licenses.
To make it a requirement would be 21 rulemaking, because it's not addre ssed at all in the 22 regulations.
23 Next slide, ple a se.
24 (Slide.)
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Paul, you did raise a 10/5 085
51 7035 05 J6
.f g.
c te i
question abou t wnether or not you s houldn' t have more tnan a f
2 yearly re-e xamina tion, anc you conclucea that you did not 3
nesa to do that?
4 MR. COLLINS:
More frequent.
5 CO'.fMISS IONER AHEARNE:
More frequent.
o T he r e, I ga ther, is a balancing at some point.
7 You reel there isn't enough new information, a person has e
not become stale enougni but on the o ther hand, when you v
stretch it out f urther, you could actually have more NRC 10 giving the exam rather than the licensee.
11 Nhat ends up having you conclude that a year, with 12 an audit, is the best?
Is this more subjective feel?
13 MR. CO LLINS :
Yes, it is a subjective f eel.
14 Indivicuals that don't do too well in a articular area of 15 the examination go to lecture series during the yearly lo period.
In order to get cut of the lecture series classes, 17 they have to exhibit that the y ha ve picked up the knowledge 16 in those areas.
A year is a a reasonably short period of 19 time.
20 The recommendations 8 and 15 involve simulators.
21 I ref er to the establishment of the explicit exercises 22 earlier.
We plan to start on these exercises immediately 23 and to be complete within three months.
No rulemaking is 24 required.
25 I might add that ANS-3 is also working on a gg% $
10/5 086
/035 05 07 52 MM
.te i
similar listing of exercises.
We also want to review anu
(
2 revise the A.lSI/A.25 S tanderc 3.5 that accresses nuclear 3
power plant simulators anc develop a regulatory guice along 4
the same lines.
5 Once again, we can start this review immediately.
o If the AUS review is going slowly, we will just come out 7
with our own regulatory guide on the ma tter.
Neither of o
tho se require any. rulemaking.
9 Next slide, pl e as e.
10 (Slide.)
11 R e co mmendations 10, 12, 13 and 14 all involve the 12 examinations, the NRC examinations.
None of these require 13 rulemaking to implement.
The notification of results does 14 require a change to Part 9 of our regulations, simply 15 publishiny in the Federal Register that one of the routine lo uses of exam results will be to notify the f acility 17 managemen t of the re sul ts.
le COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:
Would you make those IV results public?
20 MR. COLLINS:
I don' t s ee any --
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wi t hou t the names?
22 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, we can, without the name s.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You have done it in the 24 past?
25 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, we have.
On the April 20th 1075 087 DWbh m
7035 05 Je 53
' k.1 m te I
mee ting we aic.
2 T he recommendations include increasing the scope a
of examination.
Pre sently -- on this seconc option, 4
presently an operator who a pplies f or a senior operator license requests waiver of the operator wri tten portion and a
o waiver of the oral examination.
And to date, unless we have 7
seen cause in tne man's docke t, we granted the waiver of 8
bo th the written examination and the oral examination.
9 We f eel we have been too generous with the waiver 10 provisions and,are recommending that the senior operator 11 applicants also take an oral examination.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I notice in your 13 description of the discussion of the material question, how 14 much material should be provided, whe ther or not this isn't 15 going to be an overemphasis -- I was a little disturbed, I lo gue ss, by part of the flavor.
It seemed to me at least 17 there might be some concern perhaps the technical material 18 might be a little bit more than wha t the operator would ever 19 n eed to know.
And it would seem to me that you wan t to make 20 sure the operator does have more technical information than 21 he will ever need to know, because you want to make sure 22 t ha t it isn't stretched beyond his knowledge, I would think.
23 MR. COLLINS:
There are certain divisions between 24 the operator and the senior operator.
The requirements of 25 the senior are more demanding.
gD 1075 088
'035 05 09 54
" l..
,ta l
C0%;I5SIO:lER AHEAR:iE Yes.
I 2
'tR. CO LLIilS :
Also, we're recommending increasing 3
tne passing grade on the written examination to 60 percent 4
overall ana 70 percent the first time, establishing a S
minimum grade in each category in the exam of 70 percent.
o COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Only one other line down 7
there, anc that is fixed time of the exam.
6 MR. CO LLINS :
I think tha t's the only one.
9 MR. CASE:
Paul, how much -- if we made this 10 change, how many people in the past wo u ld --
11 MR. COLLINS:
If-this criteria had been in effect 12 over the last three years, 49 percent of the operators would 13 not have received licenses on the first examination, and 40 14 percent of the senior operators would not have received 15 licenses. -
lo I can't give you a breakdown on whe ther that was 17 because their overall grade was under 80 or because they had le f ailed a particular category or had received less than 70 in 19 a ca tegory.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There was also an 21 interesting comment in your paper.
You say if you had 22 required a grade of 70 percent in every category, 32 would 23 have passed the senior portion of the examination, but would 24 have f ailed the o pera tor portion.
25 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
There were categories in that
%DS 1075 Or,
l.035 05 10 55
..Li m t a I
group.
2 And, of course, the notif ication of resul ts.
'3 Md. StiY uER :
Paul, the question I nad earlier was, 4
whicn of these requirements would be backfit.
I don't know 5
if that's quite the right term in tnis contex t.
o MR. COLLINS:
W e wo uld -
7 MR. SNYDER:
It looks to me possibly the first and 6
the third on that list are candida te s f or that.
Y MR. COLLINS:
We have the requalification program 10 going, and it would ce our intention that when a pa ssing 11 grade was approved, a new pa ssing grade on the NRC 12 examination, we woulc make this the new passing grade on 13 requalifica tion examination.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Let me ask your What 15 opportunity does an opera tor have to take another exam if he lo fails a requalification exam?
17 MR. CO LLINS:
The programs call for putting him 18 into an accelerated training program on the areao that he 19 has exhibited weaknesses, and administering another exam to 20 him.
We didn't delve into the length of these training 21 programs because of the various combinations that would 22 result in a man getting less than 70 percent on the 23 examination.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How many operators have 25 ever been dropped out through f ailure to meet the iU/S 090
'035 05 11 56
- (l.1 a te 1
requalirication requirements?
(
2
..f d. COLLINS:
I tnink eney're cased on tour-year 3
s ta ti st ic s.
There are 25 coperators and 28 senior 4
operators, ou t of a' ou t 2, CCO total, 14C0 seniors and.llCO c
5 o pe ra to r s.
o 7
6 V
10 11 12 13 14 k
15 t) l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 1075 091 23 24 25
~)35. 0 6.1 57 gsn 1
COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE: Aoout 2 percent.
4 z
COMMISS IO;iER GILINSKY: Now you said berora that 3
acout half the applicants would have failed the examination 4
if tnese requirements were in force?
5 MR. COLLINS: Yes.
6 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY: What opportunity do they then have to take another examinaLion, the initial examination?
8 MR. COLLINS: The initial examination, they may 9
make an application f or second examination two months af ter 10 they failed the first exam.
If they fail tne re-examination, l'
then they must -- there's a six-months waiting period.
If 12 they f ail that examination, there's a two year waiting 13 p e rio d.
14 CO MMISS IONER GILINSKY Now are we going to pay 15 special att,ention to the requalification exams that are going 16 tobe -- it seems to me the initial group of requalification 17 exams is the most important because you have operators out 13 there with present requirements but have not made it.
19 MR. COLLINS: We would intend to do the same thing 20 t..at we did when we initiated the requalification program.
21 We did go to every plant within the first year and audit 22 the requalification exam to make sure that the program was 23 being implemented, as it was our intention that they be 24 i mple me n ted.
25 We would do the same thing with this new passing
}{}/b 092
- 35.06.2 58 gsn i
grade, a much closer audit than normally.
i 2
COMMISSIO:iER GILINSKY: It s eems to me you've re ally 3
got to ce very firm oecause while tne utilities, on the one 4
nand, want to have qualified operators, on tne other hand, 5
don't want to lose their operators.
3 MR. COLLINS: As I indicated, we do notice them get 7
more generous as the grades start ge tting between 80 and S
10 pe rcent.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And when you come out with this 10 new, tougher requirement, they may even get more generous.
11 MR. COLLINS: Possible, very possicle.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You have to really watch them.
13 MR. COLLINS : The next slide, please.
14 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY: Well, in fact, it raises the 15 question whether the entire requalification program ought not 16 to oe NRC-administered.
1/
MR. CASE: At least until you ge t i t rolling.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's right.
19 MR. COLLINS: In wha t --
20 MR. CASE: Until you're assured that everycody could 21 pass this new standard.
Your opportunity to find that is in 22 the requalification.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Not necessarily administered 24 by NRC employees, but certainly NRC-run.
25 MR. COLLINS: The examination?
1075 093
235.06.3s 59 gsh 1
00 JMI55 IO.iER GILIN5 KY: Yes, and not run by the f'
.4 2
utili ties tnemselves.
3 MR. COLLINS: When you say NRC-run --
4 CO MMISSIONER GI'_INSKY: Jell, we may be using 3
part-time persons for various other locations.
But it seems 5
to me that to leave it entirely to the utility even with an I
audit is questionaole.
8 MR. COLLINS: But if you audit -- when we audit, we 9
audit each and every plant. I'm not talking about selecting 10 half a dozen utilities.
We're going to go to each and every 11 f acility and se.',ect certain tests to review.
12 Now we will review the scope of the examination to 13 make sure it is up to our new standards.
And we will review 14 the answers to the examination to make sure that they ara 15 expec ting de cent answers from the lic ense es.
15 Then we will select half a dozen or so examinations li and actually grade them ourselves.
And we intend to do this 18 in a rapid manner at the conclusion of the administration of 19 their next annual exam af ter the new criteria is in 20 e ff ec t.
21 MR. CAS E: If you're not satisfied with half a 22 dozen --
23 MR. COLLINS: If we're not satisfied with what we 24 see on the half dozen based on what we see, we could take 25 any action we wanted at that time.
And I'm trying to indicate
\\
1075 094
235.06.4 60 gsh I
that if we use the audit approach, if we run into a proolem I
A 2
area, I can concentrate the manpower onto that proolem areat 3
whereas, if you say, do it 100 percent, I'm spread thin 4
already and t"ere is no way to really zero in on a problem 3
area.
a (S lide. )
/
The final recommendation we made was to develop 3
training programs for the present part-time NRC examiners 9
and also to explore the use of utility personnel as part-time 10 examiners or similar to the manner that the F AA users, 11 commercial airline pilots, to assist them on making their 12 pilot check-out program.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Will you be setting specific 14 retquirements for NRC examiners?
15 M,R. COLLINS: Yes, we would. Ne would be saying tha t 16 they would have to give us X-amount of tima for training and, il of course, if we are going to go to that length to train them, 18 then we would expect X-more amount of time f or examining.
19 C) MMISSIONER GILINSKY: Would you expect tnem to 23 pass the examination?
21 MR. COLLINS: We weren't contemplating an examination.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would you expect them?
23 MR, COLLINS: I think they could.
I would expect 24 a part-time examination --
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why not have them --
)/5 f)9's
235.06.5 61 gsh I
'(R.
COLLINS: We hadn't thought out the total training
.i 2
p rogr am. I nave no f ears aoout them passing the examination.
3 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY: Don' t le t them maka up the 4
q ue s t ions.
5 (Laughter.)
MR COLLINS: We'd be satisfied with an audit.
I (Laughter.)
3 MR. COLLINS: I believe you raised the point last 9
Thursday, Commissione r Ahearne, that in this. study we will lO addre ss no part-time examiners.
Il This recommendation really is to conduct f easicility 12 studies to see, numoer one, can the part-time examiners we 13 have now give us the time. we need from them; and two, wha t are 14 the problems, particularly conflict of interest, in using 15 utility personnel.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: In your cons ideration of II using utility personnel, even there, that would be on a 13 diff e rent utility.
11 MR. COLLINS: Oh, yes.
They wouldn't be examining 20 their own people.
And that concludes my prepared remarks.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you say a few words 22 a bou t the subject you brought up at the end of the papert 23 namely, the question of placing requirements on more than 24 Just the ope rator?
For example, the maintenance personnel, 25 the f acility operator?
10/S 096
235.06.6 62 gsh 1
Ma. COLLINS: This is being studied right now cy 1
.4 2
the lessons Learned group. I talked with a couple of memoers 3
on the team.
And what they are proposing ac this time is 4
that each utilitv furnish NRC with the tasks list for each 5
auxiliary operator and support personnel at the f acility.
6 And then after this task list is developed, to indica te to NRC what training is done to assure themselves that task is 3
going to be accomplished.
The Congre ss, in our appropriation legislation, I 10 belie ve, is going to ask for a study or report f rom the 11 commi ssion on the feasibility of licensing other people in 12 nucle ar power plants.
13 So this is where we stand right now on that area.
14 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE: Have you read the report on 15 Three Mile, Island?
16 MR. COLLINS : The NUREG 600?
I read through it one Is time as rapidly as I could.
I haven't had a chance to really 18 get to it.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I thought Vic Stello, when 20 he was introducing it, indicated that to a large extent, 21 there was significant operator error.
22 MR. COLLINS: Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Now given that, what 24 conclusions would you in charge of the licensing branch, 25 opera tor licensing branch, conclude?
gg g%\\@wk-10/S 09/
335.06.7 63 gsh I
?.tR. COLLINS : Based on the i tems that I read, soma
.i 2
of the more important areas that we should ce covering are 3
areas that really are not associated with knowledge of the 4
reactor as nuch as knowledge of how you conduct yourself a
around the reactor; namely, how do you take shif t turnover?
5 How do you use your logs?
How do you reccgnize if something
/
is of f-normal when you walk into the control room on shif t?
3 I think there are an awful lot of precursors to this 9
accident that maybe any one of them could have prevented 10 performing -- well, the shif t supervisor.oerforming maintenance 11 or having trouble on the f eedwater system and not working up 12 some sort of a job plan on how to attack it.
13 And certainly, not even to the extent of checking 14 that the auxiliary f eedwater would come on if you lost main 15 f eedwater,. areas of this as well as technical knowledge.
16 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE: Given those kinds of things, le do you believe that these revisions that you recommended 18 addre ss those issues?
19 MR. COLLINS: Yes, to some extent, and perhaps in 20 the categories and not addressed here specifically.
But we 21 do have these types of questions readily available to usa in 22 the existing categories of the exam and in the make-up of the 23 examination.
24 I'm thinking of normal emergency operating procedure 25 section, the administrative controls during the conduct of ggQ((10/S098
)35.06.3 64 gsh I
the operating tests. de have a section on our chec'< list for i
.i 2
responsioilities.
3 So all of these areas can ce covered to more of 4
a degree than we have been covering.
5 CO M'4ISSIONER AHEARNE: But you would - I don't want 5
to put words into your mouth, dould you say that this paper,
/
330(e), represents from your standpoint the lessons to be 3
learned as f ar as changes in operator licensing?
'4 S : Not all of the lessons to be learned.
10 This is our first cut to you and there will probably be 11 others.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: As far as you know at the 13 present time?
14 MR. COLLINS: Yes.
I think this addresses several 15 weaknesses that were in our program.
I think we are going 16 to have a much better program with these recommenda tions put 17 into e ffect.
!8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: To the extent that you have 19 had to. study NUREG 0600, were you comfortable with the 20 allusions regarding operator error?
21 MR. COLLINS: That the operators played a substantial 22 role, yes?
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And with the individual 24 designations of operator error?
25 MR. COLLINS: I can't go down each and every one of 99 ion m
)35.06.9 65 gsh I
them, but, /es, the operators contriouted t3 the eccident.
.I 2
No doubt acout that.
+
3 COT.(ISS TONER GILINSXY: nell, the c ommi ssion will 4
review this paper and get back to you on this.
5 MR. COLLINS: Thank you.
6 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE: I will provide a number of I
questions to you. On one set there, Admiral Rickover has 8
recantly gone through some recommendations as to whet he j
9 thinks might be possibly appropriate.
And I'd oe interested 10 in hearing your comments on it.
11 MR. COLLIN3 : Yes, sir.
12 (Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m.,
the hearing on the 13 matter was concluded.)
b d
14 v
is 16 17 iDb 21 22 22 24 5
10/5 100