ML20037D244
| ML20037D244 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1981 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037D243 | List: |
| References | |
| REGGD-01.149, REGGD-1.149, NUDOCS 8105220403 | |
| Download: ML20037D244 (2) | |
Text
,..--_
}
gg
(
s~
VALUE/ IMPACT STATEMENT Plant Personnel" uses the adjectises " suitable" (Paragraph
- 1. ACTION
- 5. 2.1 ) or " appropriate" ( Paragraphs 5.2.4 and 5.5. l.2.2 i when describing reactor simulators used foi trainine ptrwn-(
l.1 Description nel. The salue of this action to the NRCis the asaipbiht)
C
" suit a ble" or "appro;)riate" Prior to issumg an operatori!icense to an applicant. the of guidance on what is a Commission regulations require that evidence be shown that reactor simulator against which to review heensee traming the a;>phcant has learned to operate the controls in a compe-programs for adequacy. T he impact of this action on the tent and sate manner. ln accordance with ANSl/ANS 3.1-1978, NRC will be that of the time ' pent in deselormg the "Quahfication and Iraming of Personnel for Nuclear Power guidance. reviewing the licensees
- proposals to comply with Plants." and Regulatory Guide 1.8." Personnel Selection and the guide, and seril'ymg impkmentation of the proposals.
I raining,"' reactor simulators may be used to partially fulfill this requirement. In addition, Appendix A to 10 CF R l.3.2 oth< r 6'mcrnment igencics Par. 55 describes the use of simulators for requalification programs. and NU RI G-0094 "N RC Operator Licensing T his actian shoald not onpact wher gosernment agenciet
(;mde."'
- desenbes the use of simulators for initial licensing.
unless the gosernment 29eno is an gphtant. <uch e f VA.
T his action provides guidance on the acceptable character-i istics of reactor simulators used for operator traming as 1.3.3 /nduury described in the above references The result of this action is expected to be the additmn 1.2 Need for Action of required functions to siinulators that may now be -
me for specific nuclear power plants. The impact on mhtry The need for impros enrr,ts in operator traming m the areas will likely be that of increased cost as more complex of response to abnormal and emergency situations was high-simulators are required. An alternative to simulators is the hghted as a result of the operator errors noted in NURI G-0585, use of the actual power plant for trahing. This use results "T Ml 2 Lessons Learned T ask I orce Final Report." Use of m lost resenue because the power plant is not available to the actual plant for training operators to respond to accidents produce electrical power and also results in additienal would result in additional challenges to the plant's protective challenges to the plant protection systems. The value of the
'catures and is therefore undesirable. Thus, additional train-a; tion to industry should be (1) more efficient operation of ing required to improse operator performance should be the power plant by better tramed operators that would
[
1 performed on simulators. A recommendation to require result in a cost sasings when the power plant is put on hne
-s simulator traming for initial and requalification traming was in an expeditious manner and (2) a reduction m operator made to the Commission and accepted. The simulators used errors that might cause plant downtime or equipment for current trainmg and proposed future training shoulu damage. The value is based on using simulators that more have characteristics that allow the objective of training the accurately reflect the power plant they represent and that operator to operate the controls in a competent and safe simulate additional accidents. trans:ents, and evolutions in a manner to be met. The action discussed in this value/ impact more complete manner than can safel) be performed on an statement is expected to ensure that the oblective stated actual plant.
above will be met.
1.3.4 l'ublic 1.3 Value/ Impact of Action lhe value to the public will be that better trained 1.3.1 NRC operators shou;d reduce the possibility of improper operation of nuclear power plant equipment or sy stems that could Section 5 of ANSI /ANS 31 1978 (endorsed by Regula-endanger public health and safety. The impact will be that I
)
tory Guide 1.8) " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power of slightly higher electrical rates caused by higher costs as
)
explained in item 1.3.3.
)
1.4 Decision on Action This guide is bemp issued to provide recommendations f
Semnd roposed Reuuon 2 to Hegulatory Guide I.fi entitled
" Personnel duahrication and Trainmg" was issued for comment acceptable to the NRC staff on acceptable charactenstics of i" S' I" * ** ' ' "
nuclear power plant simulators for use in operator traimng.
.. Copies are available for pubhc inspe. tion or copying for a fee at the N RC Pubin Doc ument Kuom,17 i 7 H 5treet NW.,Washmgton.
- 2. TECilNIC AL APPRO ACll D.C., or copies may be purchased for 54 00 directly from NRC b) i sendmg check or rnone) orJer pay able to the Superintendent of f
Docu nen ts to the Director Dniuon of Techmcal information and T he decision to use simulators for trainmg of operators Document Control. t.S. Nuclear Regulator) Com mission W ash mg-has been made by the Commission.
n ion. D C. 20s s s.
I I
1.149-3
- 810522 040 % '
h e
}
- 3. PRDCEDUR AL APPROACH
- 4. STATUTORY CONSIDERATI!NS D}
3.1 Procedural Alternatives 4.1 NRC Authority
- 1. Regulation Authority for this guide is derived from the safety
- 2. Regulatory guide requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
- 3. National standard, endorsed by a regulatory guide and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 through the Commission's regulations; in particular,10 CFR Part 55 3.2 Value/ Impact of Procedural Alternatives applies.
The value of alternative 1, a regulation, is that it would have the full force and authority of a law. The impact of 4.2 Need for NEPA Assessment alternative 1 is that it would lack flexibility in implementa-tion. The value of alternative 2. a regulatory guide,is that it An environmentalimpact statement is not required since would achieve the desired result with suitable flexibility for this guide is not a major action that may significantly affect innovation by licensees. The impact of alternative 2 is that the quality of the human environment.
e may not take full advantage of the work performed by industry in the area the guide addresses, which may result in a longer development period prior to issuing the guide.
- 5. REL ATIONSlitP TO OTHER EXISTING OR PROPOSED The value of alternative 3. a standard endorsed by a regu-REGULATIONS OR POLICIES latory guide. is that it would achieve the desired result while taking advantage of the work performed by mdustry Regulatory Guide 1.8 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 55 in its development of ANSI /ANS 3.5-1981, " Nuclear Power make reference to simulators used in the training program Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Traming." The impact for operators. In these documents, only general statements of alternative 3 is that effort would have to be expended by are made concerning the characteristics of acceptable simu-the NRC in preparing, reviewing, and issuing the regulatory lators. This guide is consistent with existing and proposed guide, it is estimated, however, that the effort spent on the requirements and guidelines for simulators.
action would be greater if alternatives I or 2 were chosen.
3.3 Decision on Procedural Approach
- 6.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION Ihe action has been accomplished by publishing a Regulatory Guide 1.149," Nuclear Power Plant Simulators regulatory guide endorsing ANSI /ANS 3.5-1981, " Nuclear for Use in Operator Training," has been prepared. it endorses, Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training."
with certain exceptions. ANSI /ANS 3.5-1981.
UNITE D STATES NUCLE AR R(GULAToRV COYV'55f oN v% A SwsNG T ON O. C 20555 O
1.149-4