ML20044D841
| ML20044D841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/02/1993 |
| From: | Remick NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-59FR5934 AE39-2-018, AE39-2-18, AE39-2-19, NUDOCS 9305210005 | |
| Download: ML20044D841 (6) | |
Text
.
N0TATI0N V0Tf RELEASED TO THE PDR ch/9 5 ep RESPONSE SHEET
,ge;,,,,,,,;wp,,,,
ir T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-430 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 55 ON RENEWAL OF LICENSES AND REQUALIFICATION REQUIREkENTS FOR LICENSED OPERATORS z., p +
r,,p n /-
APPROVED X DISAPPROVED X ABSTAIN NoT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
a pjs / commm N-f/orje see 1
l
(///'
SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/ X/
2-
/-
f_3 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES No n
9aos22ooos 9
~
[
58:aesR=oe=302o2 tQ c
e goa
j Commissioner Remick's Comments on SECY-92-430:
I approve in part and disapprove in part the staffs recommendation to publish for comment the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.
I favor returning the conduct of requalification operating tests and written examinations to j
facility licensees (as was the case before 1983), with the staff auditing the test and examination process through its inspection program and, where there is cause, the staff using i
the flexible authority in 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(iii) to conduct all or portions of the tests and examinations.
The existing Memorandum of Agreement between INPO and the NRC assures that the NRC will be aware of any modifications or updates to the industry's accreditation program I
objectives and criteria documents which would warrant any modification in the NRC position expressed in the FRN. In addition to verifying licensee programs through the NRC I
inspection process, the staff will continue to monitor the acceptability of the industn>
I accreditation process by (a)
Nonunating individuals who are not on the NRC staff to serve as members of the l
National Nuclear Accrediting Board with full voting privileges; (b)
Having an NRC staff member attend and observe selected National Nuclear Accrediting Board meetings; f
i (c)
Having NRC employees observe INPO accreditation team site visits; and (d)
Receiving periodic briefings and reviewing any modifications in the program objectives and criteria.
I agree with the staff"that it could ensure and improve operational safety at each facility by directing its resources to inspect and oversee facility renualification programs rather than conducting requalification examinations." Such an approach is consistent with the NRC Principles of Good Regulation, which state in part that " Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction that they achieve. Where several effective alternati/es are available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be adopted."
However, I disapprove the staffs proposal to periodically conduct selected portiors of requalification operating tests and written examinations at each facility for other than cause or as the Commission specifically approves. Existing Section 55.59(a)(2)(iii) provides that the NRC may administer requalification tests and examinations in lieu of the facility j
licensee. The staff indicates that the NRC will utilize this existing option not only to conduct the exams for cause, but also to periodically ("at each facility at least every 6 years")
i conduct selected portions of requalification examinations (presumably this means operating tests and written examinations). I strongly support the NRC conduct of requalification exams where there are indications that the requalification program is faltering, in other i
2 words,if such action is warranted for cause. However,I do not support the staffs proposal _!
to periodically conduct portions of exams at all facility licensees. Apparently, the staffs sole j
justification for this proposal is that "these periodic examinations will allow the staff to maintain the skills required to conduct requalification examinations....". If this is deemed to be essential, alternatives other than the conduct of approximately twenty partial
~,...
requalification exams per ve.: are available.
st.e, : % W '12-e n - ;
^
I approve the publication for comment in the Federal Register of the proposed d
to 10 CFR Part 55 subject to the modifications (attached) which delete reference to the staffs intention to periodically conduct selected portions of requalification tests and examinations at each facility at least every 6 years. Further, I provide one editorial suggestion, as indicated, to clarify the staffs intent that the proposed amendments apply to research and test reactor licensees. No changes are needed in the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 themselves; however, conforming changes may be needed in other I
documents (e.g., the Draft Regulatory Analysis).
In addition,I have two concerns which I would like the staff to consider during the comment period and the preparation of the final rule. Both concerns have to do with the proposed amendment to s 55.59, which would require that facility licensees submit to the NRC each i
annual operating test or comprehensa written examination at least thirty days prior to r
conducting such test or exam. First. I question the efficacy of this in light of the fact that the staff could audit these tests and exams on site as part ofits inspection or initial licensing process, as done in the past. I doubt that the mere submission of these tests and exams, in and of itself, will represent an undue burden on licensees, but I believe that the receipt i
of an average of several test or exam packages every working day of the year *, year in and year out,is a questionable drain on NRC resources, including storage facilities. Second, I am concerned that the requirement to submit tests and exams thirty days in advance will prove unduly burdensome to licensees. They need to develop separate tests and exams for multiple shift and administrative crews, and it will be difficult for them to do this and still meet the 30-day requirement.
As a separate matter,I willbe providing comments on SECY-92-432," Status of the Licensed Operator Requalification Program - Response to Staff Requirements Memorandum (M920602)."
SECY-92 432 outlines the staffs proposed inspection process for requalification programs.
I am assuming: (1) that there are 75 power reactor and 42 research and test reactor requalification programs, (2) that each power reactor facility has six operating or
" administrative" crews, (3) that power reactor licensees submit an operating test for each crew annually and written examinations for each crew bl. annually, and (4) that research and test reactor licensees annually submit a combined operating test and written exam. On these assumptions, there will be (75 x 6 x 1.5) + (42 x 1) = 717 i
packages each year. At 250 working days per year, that's 2.9 packages each working day, or one every 2 3/4 hours each working day.
O
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
10 CFR Part 55 RIN-AE 39 Operators' Licenses l
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule,
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its f
e f p o weV, fes f a d H s u w 4 ;-e*.e k M regulations to delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a 1
prerequisite for license renewal. The proposed amendment will require facility licensees to submit copies of each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used for operator requalification for review by the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or the test.
In addition, the proposed rule will amend the " Scope" provisions of the regulations pertaining to operators' iicenses to include facility licensees.
DATES: The comment period expires Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
_. _ _.... _ _.. ~.. _.. _,, _
t O
to giving the test or examination.
The NRC would review these examinations on an audit basis for conformance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(i&ii). The NRC would also review other information already available to the staff to determine the scope of an on-site inspection of the facility requalification program. %e-
" ". Wo 'ntend te wodud aclcded gui uuns vi s equeiiiicebua emin; tion:
at x:h fuilit., at lesat. c cu 0 se es.
The NRC would continue to expect each facility to meet all of the conditions required for conducting a requalification program in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c).
Licensed operators would not have to take any additional actions.
Each operator would continue to meet all the conditions of his or her license described in 10 CFR 55.53, which includes passing the facility-conducted requalification examinations for license renewal.
Each licensed operator would be expected to continue to meet the requirements of the facility requalification training program. However, the licensed opera. tor would no longer be required to pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the term of his or her license as a condition of license renewal.
The " Scope" of Part 55, f 55.2, will be revised to include facility licensees.
This is an addition to the regulation.
It eliminates currer.tly existing ambiguities between the regulations of Parts 50 and 55.
Part 50, in 5 50.54(i) through (m), already imposes Part 55 requirements on facility licensees, and Part 55 already specifies requirements for facility licensees.
The proposed amendments would meet the requirements of Section 306 of the NWPA without the requirement that each licensed individual pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the 6-year term of the individual's license. The requirements of the NWPA would be met as follows:
- 1) the regulations would continue to require facilities to have 7
requalification programs and conduct requalification examinations; 2) the NRC i
would provide oversight (i.e., administration) for these programs and l
examinations through inspections; and 3) 9 55.59(a)(2)(iii) provides that the l
l NRC may conduct requalification examinations in lieu of accepting the facility licensee's certification that a licensad individual has passed the facility i
requalification examination.
The NRC will use this ' option if warranted after an on-site inspection of the facility's requalification program u.d 2: t:
l
- -icdit
- lly crduct clected portice: ef requ:l"ic: tier =rS: tion.
The proposed amendments would not affect the regulatory or other appropriate j
i guidance required by Section 306 of the NWPA and established in 5 55.59(a)(2)(iii) for the NRC to conduct requalification examinations in lieu j
of an examination given by the facility.
4 i
Invitation To Comment
~
Comments concerning the scope, content, and implementation of the proposed amendments are encouraged.
Comments on the applicability of the proposed amendments to research and test reactor facilities are especially solicited, as are suggestions for alternatives to those rulemaking methods described in this notice.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability l
The NRC has determined that the proposed amendments, if adopted, are the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR SI.22(c)(1).
l l
8
.