ML20148K074
| ML20148K074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/21/1986 |
| From: | Cox T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Bernero R, Cunningham R, Jordan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148K054 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-714 NUDOCS 8803310004 | |
| Download: ML20148K074 (28) | |
Text
-
f **iogo UNITED STATES g
,6
- a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y 5 l W ASHING TON, D. C. 20656
\,...../ FEB 211986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert Bernero, NRR Edward Jordan, IE Richard Cunningham, NMSS Denwood Ross, RES Clemens Heltemes, AEOD Joseph Scinto, ELD THRU: Q,')-
Walter S. Schwink, Acting Director Regional Operations and Generic Requirements Staff FROPl: Thomas H. Cox, Senior Program Manager Regional Operations and Generic Requirements Staff
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION FOR CRGR MEETING NO. 85 Enclosed for your infonnation and use is the ROGR staff suninary associated with the Final Rulemaking for Operator Licensing, which includes changes to 10 CFR Part 55, conforming amendments, and three associated regulatory guides.
This matter is scheduled for CRGR review at Meeting No. 85 on Wednesday, February 26, 1986 in Room 6507 MNBB, Thomas H. Cox ROGR Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc: J. Sniezek i
8803310004 880324 PDR FOI A.
. FEB 211986 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert Bernero, NRR Edward Jordan, IE Richard Cunningham, NMSS Denwood Ross, RES Clemens Heltemes, AE00 Joseph Scinto, ELO THRU: Walter S. Schwink, Acting Director Regional Operations and Generic Requirements Staff FROM: Thomas H. Cox, Senior Program Manager Regional Operations and Generic Requirements Staff
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
AND ISSVE IDENTIFICATION FOR CRGR MEETING N0. 85 Enclosed for your infonnation and use is the R0GR staff sununary associated
. with the Final Rulemaking for Operator Licensing, which includes changes to 10 CFR Part 55, conforming amendments, and three associated regulatory guides.
This matter is scheduled for CRGR review at Meeting No. 85 on Wednesday, February 26, 1986 in Room 6507 MNBB.
Is/
Thomas H. Cox ROGR Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc: J. Sniezek Distribution ROGR Staff DEDROGR cf
)FC :ROGR :ROGR : : : : :
1AME :THCox lWSchw nk : : : : :
JATE :2/18/86 :2/$/86 : : : : : __
t
l l
l 1
1 SU MARY AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION FOR CRGR REVIEW ITEM CRGR MEETING NO. 85 IDENTIFICATION :
Proposed final rulemaking package to revise the regulations for operator licensing: 10CFR55, confonning amendments, and three associated regulatory guides.
OBJECTIVE CRGR is requested to review and reconinend in favor of issuing final rules and three regulatory guides that would achieve the following objectives:
- 1. Improve the safety of nuclear power plant operations by improving the operator licensing process and examination content,
- 2. Provide the NRC with an improved basis for administering operator licensing examinations and conducting operating tests, and
- 3. Respond to the specific direction given by Congress in Section 306, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Pub.L.97-425, to promulgate regulations and guidance in the area of examination.
BACKGROUND
- 1. The documents submitted by the sponsoring office, NRR, for CRGR review in this matter were identified in an undated memo, H. R. Denton to J. H. Sniezek, delivered approximately January 31, 1986. The NRR document package for this review includes the following:
- a. Draf t Comission paper, undated, "Final Rulemaking fcr Revisions to Operator Licensing - 10 CFR 55 and Confonning Arendments," and enclosures as follows:
- 1. Enclosure A - Proposed Federal Register Notice - Final Rule and Confonning Amendments,10 CFR Parts 50 and 55,
- 2. Enclosure B - Resolution of Public Coments on Proposed Rule ;
Changes to 10 CFR 55. l
- 3. Enclosure C - Resolution of Public Coments on Regulatory Guides 1.134,1.149, and 1.8. :
i l
l Contacts:
W. Russell, NRR, x24803 '
T. Cox, ROGR Staff, x24350 l i
4 Enclosure 0 - Regulatory Guide 1.134 "Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants."
- 5. Enclosure E - Regulatory Guide 1.149 "Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations."
- 6. Enclosure F - Regulatory Guide 1.8 "Qualifications and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants."
- 7. Enclosure G - Regulatory Analysis of Proposed Changes to 10 CFR 55 (Contractor Report by Analysis and Technology, Inc.).
- 8. Enclosure H - Draft Public Announcement "NRC Revises Requirements for Operator's Licenses."
- 9. Enclosure I - Letters to Congress
- 10. Enclosure J - ACRS Letters -
- ACRS Comnents on Rulemaking for Revisions to Operator Licensing Requirements, December 12, 1985.
- ACRS Comnents on Requalification Programs for Licensed Power Reactor Operators, December 12, 1985.
- 2. Related References
- 1. NUREG-0094 "Guide for the Licensing of Facility Operators, including ,
Senior Operators." i
- 2. NUREG-1021 "Operator Licensing Examiner Standards."
- 3. ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981 - Selection, Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants.
- 4. ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 - Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.
- 5. ANSI /ANS 3.5-1985 - Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training.
- 6. ANSI N18.1-1971 - Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel. I
- 7. NRC Form 396 - Certificate of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee.
- 8. NRC Form 398 - Personnel Qualifications Statement - Licensee.
- 9. Cost Analysis Review of 10 CFR 55 and Conforming Amendments
l DISCUSSION i This proposed action is the culmination of a several-year effort to improve and codify operator licensing requirements. The CRGR has received presentations on this tcpic on two previous occasions. A chronological sumary of major events i in the development of this proposal is provided in Enclosure 1. The Enclosure i also sumarizes the staff's response to major categories of public comment 1 received. The staff has, in Enclosures B and C to the NRC package, responded to every coment written by 135 comenters on both the proposed rule (88 connenters) and the accompanying three Regulatory Guides (47 comenters). An extensive regulatory analysis has also been prepared by a contractor, Analysis and Technology, Inc. NRR proposes an industry wide averted public dose of 13,000 person-rem , and a net cost savings of $29 million over the remaining lifetime of 125 plants.
The proposed rule covers the several aspects of operator licensing reviewed ,
with the CRGR at meeting No. 80 on September 9,1985 (See Minutes, Enclosure 1 to this document). Related national standards and NRC forms referenced by the Regulatory Guides are included with this package. The proposed rule subparts will be discussed here to review certain specific regulatory requirements that would be codified, and to indicate issues the CRGR may wish to discuss at the meeting. The following discussion is based on the proposed package submitted and as indicated by paragraph headings.
GENERAL The proposed rule, in the Part I Background Section of the Supplementary Information, states that the issuance of the rule will not relax current requirements on licensees who may have more stringent requirements in their current licensing basis. Such licensees are directed that a request for license amendment will be necessary to obtain relaxation, and that such requests will be reviewed on an individual basis. However, the same paragraph also states that the new requirements supersede all current regulations for operator licenses, which seems to raise an interesting paradox. The CRGR may ,
wish to explore the potential for conflict when a current licensee or facility licensee applies for additional new licenses or certifications, or for recertification or renewals of current licenses or approvals.
Another potential conflict is revealed in the last lines of the Background section on page 3, "... apply to all facilities required by 10 CFR 50 to have operators licensed by the Comission." On page 12, in item (7) Test and Research Reactors, it states that "The rule does not change the status quo for this category of reactors," an apparent inconsistency with the Background l Section. A similar statement on status quo is also included at item (3) page 7 I on the sumary of public coments on medical requirements.
The CRGR may wish to inquire about the intended status of NUREG 1021 and 0094 given that the proposed final rule is approved.
Subpart A - General Provisions
-4 l
l 1
Section 55.4 Definitions is important because it codifies several terms about l which there has been some misunderstanding, such as "actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator," plant referenced simulator, reference plant, simulation facility, and "systems approach to training." The CRGR may wish to discuss why the Section 55.4 definition of "actively performing the functions..." does not contain the explicit standard of standing a minimum three shifts per quarter. In Section 55.53(e) (p.44) and in the Supplementary Information (SI) (p.14) it is clear that NRR intends the three shifts per quarter standard will be used as the measure of "actively performing the functions. . . ."
Subpart B - Exemptions This short section on p.26 is clear that facility students may, under licensed operator direction, operate the controls of a research or training reactor; and unlicensed individuals in NRC approved training programs at Part 50 facilities may also operate under the direction of licensed operators. Similar facility control manipulations are permitted by unlicensed personnel in the course of fuel handling operations with the reactor vessel open.
1 Subpart C - Medical Requirements 1 Medical examinations by licensed medical practitioners are required for applicants for an operators license. The facility licensee must certify to the NRC that the applicant was properly examined and that the applicants medical condition and general health are such that operational safety will not be adversely affected by applicant's condition. Part 55.21 states that a licensee shall have a medical examination every 2 years. Parts 55.21, 23 and 27 collectively imply that the licensee biennial medical examinations subsequent to initial licensing are not certified to the NRC but the medical results are simply documented and maintained. Part 55.23 Certification does not address licensees at all, only applicants, and might be improved by a clear statement that periodic medical certification of licer. sees is not required.
Part 55.21 requires that applicant shall have "...a medical examination by(alicensed medical practitioner that meets the requirements of While it is not clear from this whether the examination or the practitioner, or both shall meet 55.33(a)(1), a more important point is that the positive requirements written in 55.33(a)(1) are very general. The only specifics are negative, covering what medical conditions are cause for denial of approval and what certification is necessary to the NRC in the event of such a medical condition. The CRGR may wish to discuss the staff's basis for specifying the particular medical conditions listed in 55.33(a)(1). Regulatory Guide 1.134 specifically invokes ANSI /ANS-3.4-1983 as the medical requirements basis, with only three brief additional connents on the standard but neither the Reg. Guide or the national standard are mentioned in the proposed rule. The listing of potentially disqualifying conditions in the proposed rule does not include some that are listed in the ANSI /ANS 3.4 - respiratory aliments like asthma for instance. This may cause confusion in application of the pertinent documents later. The CRGR may also wish to discuss whether a more specific minimum rnedical requirements basis ought to be codified in Part 55, or whether any
j l
1 l
I listing should be eliminated. Thr. Regulatory Guide 1.134 essentially covers I two points: (1) it invokes the ANS standard with three connents, and (2) states that a facility licensee must provide "the documentation" to support I an operator's resuming their duties after a disability lasting longer than 30 days. On this latter point, Part 55.25 and 55.33(a)(1)(ii) are more prescriptive than the Reg. Guide because (a)(1)(ii) states that "... facility licensee shall provide medical evidence and certify to the Comission that...".
Therefore, it seems that position C.4 in the R.G. is not needed to interpret l the rule. I 1
The Regulatory Guide implementation section should be augmented to describe when the guide would become effective.
Subpart D - Applications This subpart includes 55.31, How to Apply, 55.33 Disposition of an Initial Application, and 55.35 Reapplications. The application must include certain material from the facility licensee which will employ the applicant. This now may include, in lieu of details on courses of instruction given, certification by the facility licensee that the applicant has successfully completed a i Comission-approved training program that uses a simulation facility acceptable '
to the Ccmission.
Section 55.33 Disposition of an Initial Application (a) covers the requirements for approval of an initial application, and (b) discusses Comission actions in j the event of an application for a license to be conditioned to accomodate a l medical defect. Under (a)(2) the proposed rule requires passing a "... written I examination and operating test in accordance with 55.41 or 55.43 and 55.45." I I believe that what the staff means by this should be expressed as ".. 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45." Under 55.35 Reapplications, the requirements for subsequent applications after failures and the required waiting periods are listed. Each reapplication must state in detail the extent of the applicant's l additional training and must certify that the applicant is ready for l reexamination.
Applicants may request to be excused from reexamination on parts of the '
examination or operattag test which they passed in prior testing. The Comission may at its discretion grant such requests.
Subpart E - Written Examinations and Operating Tests This large section of the rule contains requirements for the written examinations for the operators (55.41) and senior operators (55.43), and for the o>: rating tests (55.45) for both levels of operator. The first two sections, on the written examinations, contain only a subsection (a) titled "Content" - no requirements are included on administration of the examination.
By contrast Section 55.45 Operating Tests contains a 6-page subsection (b) titled "Implementation." This subsection (b) contains one short paragraph on administration of the operating test - that it will be done with a plant walk through and a test in an approved simulation facility. The CRGR may wish to consider that in this section, 55.45(b)(1), the requirement is that the
l simulation facility which has been certified to the Comission must also have l been accepted by the Commission. At other locations in the proposed rule, this l acceptance is apparently automatic, without review. The question may arise as ;
to whether fonnal acceptance by NRC should be necessary if, as a matter of regulation, the mere suturittal of certification by the facility licensee guarantees acceptance. See p.37 item (3)(11), p.38 item (3)(iv), and the ;
draf t Comission paper, page 2, fl0 lines from bottom of page). l l
Essentially all of the 55.45(b) Implementation concerns the schedule for putting simulation facilities in place, certification and acceptance of plant-referenced simulators, and the application for, and review and approval of, simulation facilities which are not simply certified to the Comission.
The (3)(11)CRGR may(wish and 3)(iv) on pp.to 37ask andfor38 an expandedwhich respectively, description cf "The state that what is meant by item Comission will, without prior approval, accept this ... certification...".
Section (3)(i) on p.37 states that a facility licensee wishing to use a plant-referenced simlator shall provide an initial certification to the Comission that "...the simulation facility meets the Comission's regulations." Neither section (3) on plant-referenced simulators nor section (4) on simulation facilities in general provide explicitly nor reference any specific requirements for simulation facilities which, if met, would provide a basis for acceptance or approval of the simulation facility.
The CRGR may wish to discuss how an applicant can knowledgeably certify, with respect to NRC regulations, that their simulation facility "meets the regulations."
Plant referenced simulators will be recertified by the licensee annually, again with automatic acceptance. Partial performance testing will be conducted annually such that an overall performance test will be corpleted every 4 years.
The NRC may inspect the simulation facility and associated records associated with certification, perfonnance, operation and maintenance. The NRC may withdraw its acceptance of certification for good cause. The facility licensee i ray apply for recertification, and the NRC will accept the recertification if it finds that the sim;1ation facility meets the regulations.
Section 55.45(a) addresses the required content of operating tests administered to either operator or senior operator applicant. A list is included from which a "comprehansive sasple" of operator actions will be selected for the test. l The list appears to focus well on those procedures that should be required to l desnonstrate the ability to safely operate a reactor plant. The CRGR may wish I to explore the intent and meaning of item 12 (p. 36) which is rather generally l worded and nonspecific.
Section 55.45(b)(4) applies to facility licensees which would apply for approval for use of a simlation facility [ note that a simulation facility could be a plant-referenced simulator which a facility licensee does not choose to certify to the Commission in accordance with 55.45(b)(3)). In this case, the facility licensee's submittal would contain information similar to that ,
which would be submitted for certification of a plant-referenced simulator. I Af ter approval of the simulation facility by the NRC, the facility licensee west report annually to the NRC as described in 55.45(b)(4)(v). This report i I
, would include any changes made to the simulation facility, changes to the reference plant, descriptions of performance testing accomplished since the last report, and a description of any changes identified as necessary to the simulation facility as a result of testing.
Section 55.45(b)(4)(iv) states that if a facility licensee fails to gain initial approval for its simulation facility, the Commission will continue to conduct operating tests for the reference plant in the same manner as the tests were conducted before submittal of its application. Section55.45(b)(3)(viii) and (4)(ix), however, state that if the Commission withdraws its certification or approval, the Comission will cease to conduct operating tests for that reference plant. Item 55.45(b)(4)(x) says that the facility licensee may again apply for approval "...in accordance with this section." But the section does not specifically address requirements for reapproval, as Section 55.45(b)(3)(ix) addresses recertification after NRC withdrawal of certification. The CRGR may wish to discuss the rationale for. (1) ceasing to conduct operating tests altogether after withdrawal of simulation facility approval, and for (2) the nonparallel requirements of the rule between certified plant-referenced simulators [55.45(b)(3)3 and approved simulation facilities (55.45(b)(4)).
Section 55.47 describes the conditions under which an applicant may be exempted from the requirement for a written examination and operating test.
Subpart F - Licenses, 55.51, Through 55.59 This major section describes the conditions under which licenses will be issued, the conditions attendant to issuance, when and how licenses expire, the requirements for renewal of licenses, and the requirements for licensee requalification and a facility licensee requalification program. Most of this subpart deals with the facility licensee's requalification program. Of interest under 55.53, Conditions of Licenses, is the condition (e) which states that to maintain active status, the licensee must operate a mininum of three shifts per calendar quarter. It would seem appropriate then to include this specific requirement in the definition of "actively perfoming the functions...' in Section 55.4 Section 55.53(g) lists several conditions or events concerning which the licensee shall notify the Comission within 30 days unless the facility licensee has made such notification..." The CRGR may wish to clarify if "any other condition" would include a failure to maintain active status as in Section 55.53(e). Item 55.53(1) requires that the licensee shall have a biennial medical examination. The CRGR should note that the NRC does not require that the biennial medical exam result be recertified to the NRC, but only that the exam results are kept on file by the facility licensee (55.27).
Section 55.57, Renewal of Licenses - This section generally specifies the requirements for an applicant to complete to apply for renewal. These requirements include written evidence of successful past experience, of cogletion of a requal program, and certification by the facility licensee of medical condition and general health. The CRGR may wish to explore the plain
language meaning of 55.57(a)(5) which requires evidence that the applicant has discharged responsibilities competently and safely. Acceptable evidence is stated as "...a certificate of an authorized representative of the facility licensee or holder of an authorization by which the licensee has been espl oyed. "
Section 55.59, Requalification Requirements of the Licensee - This section includes (a) requalification requirements for the licensee, (b) additional training in lieu of the requirements in (a), and (c) requalification program requi rements . The last item contains prescriptive requirements under seven headings. Part (a) of this Section generally requires that a licensee shall complete an approved program, and shall pass comprehensive requalification biennial written and annual operating tests administered either by the NRC or by the facility licensee. Notwithstanding the word shall, however, Part (b) innediately following (a) states that if (a) is not acconclished then the Comission may require the licensee to complete additional training and to submit evidence of completion of that training "...before returning to licensed duties." Thus, Part (b) seems inconsistent with the uncompromising language of Part (a).
Part (c; of 55.59 specifies the required facility requal program in considerable detail. The program must be reviewed and approved by the Corrni ssion. There are seven items describing program requirements: schedule, lectures, on-the-job training, evaluation, records, alternative training programs, and applicability to research and test reactors and nonreactor facilities. The lectures, on-the-job training, and evaluations are cited as parts that may be approved in a "... program developed by using a system approach to training.' This line in 55.59(c) is intended to pennit approval of a program on the basis that it has been accredited by INPO.
The list of lecture topics in 55.59(c)(2) is given with the requirement that i the lecture topics are to be emphasized as need is indicated by the results of ,
biennial written examinations and facility operating experience. The CRGR may wish to consider whether annual operating tests should also be included here as part of the experience base to be considered. The list of control manipulations given for on-the-job training in Section 55.59(c)(3)(1) is prefaced by a para-graph that includes the direction that (A) through (l.) shall be performed annually, and all ethers shall be performed on a 2-year cycle. The next sentence states, however, that the programs shall contain a comitment that !
each individual shall perfonn or participate in a combination of reactivity ;
control manipulations (emphasis added) based on the availability of plant equipment and systems. The CRGR may wish to discuss the meaning and intent of that statement, particulary with respect to whether an implied exemption is ;
intended to the prior stated precise requirement to accomplish all of the listed manipulations.
Regarding items E and F in the list of manipulations on page 49, Coc9 may wish to examine the necessity of the word "Any" at the beginning of the. statements
-- the phrases could imply that those items are required only if there happen to be "any," wherees the prefacing paragraph seems to require them. Regarding item (v) at the bottom of page 51, the word "simulator" in the first line
apparently should be "simulator or simulation device," based on the last sentence on that page. Section 55.59(c)(4), Evaluation, appears to require certain facility licensee actions to evaluate the results of the facility requal program. Items (i) and (ii) seem very closely related with (1) being a subset of (ii), such that it is not clear what is accomplished by calling for "written examinations" in addition to "biennial written examinations."
Item (iv) in this Section seems to describe that the program must include "simulation of emergency or abnornal conditions." Since the paragraph does not address specific evaluations of these tests, but rather simply directs that the tests be done, this ites seems not to be an item of evaluation of the program, but rather a redundant restatement of required control manipulations that are already in the on-the-job training list in Part (3) preceding.
Conforming Amendments - 10 CFR Part 50 - The proposed rule package includes a revision to Part 50.34(b), which addresses the contents of final safety analysis reports. Part (b)(8) is a brief paragraph requiring the facility licensee to address the requal program in Part 55. A minor editorial change is proposed, (see p. 56) but appears to be in error. "l55 of Part 55" does not provide a useful reference since all sections in Part 55 start with 955. I suggest that the reference be only to "Part 55 of this Chapter." A more significant matter for CRGR consideration, however, is the current absence in 10 CFR 50.34(b) "Final Safety Analysis Report" of any requirement for a facility licensee to address an operator training program. Since it is proposed to change the rule at 50.34(b)(8), it would be opportune to modify (b)(8) very simply to require a description and plan for both an operator initial training program and an operator requalification program. There is now i only a requirement at 50.34(a)(6) that the PSAR contain a preliminary plan for the training of personnel. The proposed Part 55 contains several references to l the facility licensee's training program or a Comission-approved training program, and also references to training information in the Final Safety Analysis Report (see 55.41(a), Written Examination Content, p. 32, for eenple) .
Secticn 5 0. 54 (1 -1) is also proposed to be revised. Operating reactors would be i required to submit a program to meet this rule on the first facility operating lir.ense anniversary occurring 30 days after the effective date of the rule.
T?se CRGR may wish to consider whether 30 days is an adequate allowance by NRC for submittal of the major program described in proposed 55.59(c). I B3ckfit Analysis, Enclosure K The backfit analysis submitted with this package, Enclosure X, is based on the Regulatory Analysis, Enclosure G. It is a discussion of considerations made with respect to the nine factors listed in 50.109(c). However, the concluding determination required by 50.109(a) (that there will be substantial increase in protection and that direct and indirect costs are justified) and its corresponding basis is not articulated in this analysis and should be added.
In addition, the opening paragraph states that the nine factors of 50.109(c) were considered to deteneine a recomended priority and schedule for Part 55 changes. But ther+. is no recomended priority and schedule described in or referenced by the backfit analysis, a defect that should be remedied.
l 1
)
l 1
Regulatory Analysis, Enclosure G l
The regulatory analysis is well organized and comprehensive. A few critical -
factors lead to the prediction of a net averted public exposure of 13,000 l person-rem total for 125 plants over an average remaining lifetime of 24 years. 1 The CRGR may want to hear about and discuss one of these, the estimated l reduction in operator error attributed to the rulenaking. Pa following discuss these values and lead to estimated values (gesof20 and
- p. 27) ,
1 percent error reduction due to improvements in written examinations and a 1 2 percent error reduction due to improvements in operating tests. Another very l important quantity established was the value for averted person rem per year '
per plant due to the 1 or 2 percent reduction in operator error. These values are obtained separately for written examination and operating tests as well as for PWRs and BWRs. For example, the 2.3 person-rem per year expected decrease in offsite exposure for a PWR due to changes in written examinations (p. 27) is a critical value to the benefit analysis, and might warrant some discussion. .
The Cost Analysis Group reviewed the Regulatory Analysis and generally gave the work high marks relative to other cost analyses they have reviewed. A recent CAG surinary memorandum is attached. A cost savings of about $46 million are l predicted from increased plant availability due to reduced errors. These I savings would occur at all 125 facilities due to improved written examinations I and at about 35 facilities due to improved operating tests. Other cost savings l of about $14 million are estimated from initial licensing examination changes. l extending the license validity period of 6 years, and requal exam changes. But I against these savings NRR includes the costs of only two new simulation facilities and modifications at eleven other existing simulation facilities.
The CRGR may wish to discuss why the costs are attributed to so few facilities but the savings are said to come from the new facilities and those already in place or comitted to. The overall implication seems to be that essentially all the cost savings and safety benefit from facilities already in place are not yet realized but would be realized in the future as a result of issuing the proposed rule changes.
The proposed Federal Recister Notice, under Addresses (p.1) offers the regulatory analysis, anc other documents discussed in the Notice, for public examination at the NRC Public Documents Room.
Regulatory Guide 1.149, Simulation Facilities ,
l This guide in its discussion states that experience with current ,
plant-referenced simulators has been favorable, raising the question of how '
much additional reduction in operating error can be attributed to two new and eleven modified simulators in the new Part 55 proposal, considerating a population of 125 plants.
On page 4 regulatory position C.4 appears to have an open-ended directive to refer to the latest revision of Regulatory Guide 1.8. It has been CRGR policy not to recomend such directions since they could result in future unreviewed backfits.
Under Section D, Implementation, the guide refers in the second paragraph to a certified and accepted facility. If NRC acceptance is to be automatic, such acceptance may be inherent in the certification to the NRC by the facility as discussed earlier in this paper. If that is the case, then this guide could recommend simply an approved or certified facility.
Regulatory Guide 1.8, Qualification and Training of Personnel '
This guide relies on endorsement of ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981 with exceptions, for licensed operators. For positions other than licensed operators, the guide refers to the Commission's recent policy issuance on Engineering Expertise on Shif t, and ANSI N18.1-1971. The only positions other than licensed operators directly addressed by the guide are the S7A, the Radiation Protection Manager, and contractor personnel acting in positions covered by the guide. 1 l
l
([
Enclosure 2 to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 82 CRGR Review of the Proposed Final Version l of the "Insider Rules" i
l R. Burnett and G. McCorkle (NMSS) presented for CRGR review, the proposed final version of the "Insider Safeguards Rules." The attachment (briefing slides) was given to the CRGR during the meeting. l The staff proposal is for rulemaking in three areas (rules) to provide increased assurance that nuclear power plants (NPPs) are adequately protected against the malevolent insider threat to NPP safety. In addition to the rulemaking, the proposal ackrowledges and discusses an industry (NVMARC) proposed alternative to the staff preferred rule concerning access authorization, Guidance (a Regulatory Guide) for the perfonnance oriented rules is under development. The "Insider Rules" concern the following three areas: j
- 1. Access Authorization Program requirements (final rule): Establish unifonn minimum criteria for granting individuals unescorted access to protected '
areas and vital areas at NPPs. The emphasis is on trustworthiness of persons having access to NPP controlled areas.
- 2. Search Requirements (final rule): Clarify requirements for searches of individuals entering NPP controlled areas. The emphasis is on deference and detection of those persons who might attempt a malevolent act to degrade NPP safety by the introduction of fireanns, explosives, or incendiary devices.
- 3. Miscellaneous Amendments (final rule): Provide a more operational safety-conscious safeguards (NPP protection) system while maintaining adequate levels of protection against the malevolent insider threat to NPP safety. The emphasis is on balancing NPP protection and operational safety considerations to optimize net NPP safety.
The rule concerning access authorization requires that NPP licensees conduct a background investigation, psychological assessment, and a continual behavioral observation program for persons who need unescorted access to protected areas and vital areas of a NPP. ("Protected areas" are areas that have controlled access and are enclosed by physical barriers such as fences or walls. "Vital areas" are areas containing equipment or systems whose degradation / failure could endanger NPP safety.) The background investigation inquires into a person's employment, credit, educational, military, character, and criminal history for the past 5 years. The psychological assessment consists of written personality tests and clinical interviews for persons whose personality tests were invalid or indicate abnonnal personality traits. (The clinical interviews must be conducted by qualified and, if applicable, state-licens ed psychologists orpsychiatrists.) Continual behavioral observation is to dett et changes in behavior that could threaten NPP safety. Any person who is employed at a NPP on the effective date of the rule concerning access authorization and who has l
Eh
2-been screened in accordance with an industry standard will not be required to have a background investigation or psychological assessment. However, the person will be subject to behavioral observation requirements. Licensees are required to submit for Comission approval an access authorization plan describing how they will meet the new regulations.
The rule concerning search, clarifies requirements for searches of individuals seeking entry to protected areas at a NPP. The rule requires equipment search (for contraband - explosives and firearms) of all individuals seeking protected area access, except on-duty police officers. This differs from the NRC existing search requirement by allowing visitors to be subject to equipment search rather than "pat-down" search. However, "pat-down" searches will be required of all personnel when detection equipment fails or any person is suspected of carrying contraband.
Jhe miscellaneous amendments concern:
- 1. Refinement of NRC existing requirements for access to vital areas to ensure adequate access for operational safety purposes as well as necessary physical security protection. For example, the amendments to NRC existing requirements for vital area access controls during emergency conditions include a requirement that licensees periodically review NPP physical protection and contingency plans to ensure that they do not conflict with safe operation of the NPP bothduring normal and other than normal operations. The amendments also allows licensees to suspend safeguards (protection) measures if necessary to facilitate responses to a NPP emergency condition.
- 2. Protection of specified physical security equipment that could impact significantly the protection of the plant if cuch equipment were degraded or inoperative.
- 3. A requirement that keys, locks and combinations be changed or rotated once each year and whenever a person's access authorization is revoked for cause or compromise of the locks is suspected. This relaxes NRC existing requirements which require such change when any employee with access to a key, lock or combination changes employment.
The CRGR reviewed an earlier version of the proposed "Insider Rules" at CRGR Meeting NO. 40 (June 1,1983). As reported in the meeting minutes, the CRGR supported the purpose of the proposed "Insider Rules" and recomended that the proposal go fonvard after CRGR comments were addressed. A significant CRGR recomendation concerned including in the proposed "Insider Rules," a clearance program. Af ter CRGR recomendations were addressed, the then current version of the proposed "Insider Rules" was considered and approved by the EDO and then the Comission for public coment. Except for elimination of the clearance program from the proposal, the Comission decided to publish the proposed "Insider Rules" for public coment after relatively minor modification. The current final version of the "Insider Rules" reflects changes made as a result of public and staff coments. The changes concern:
- 1. Elimination of the Vital Island concept / requirements from the rules, and
3-e i
- 2. Acknowledgement and discussion of the industry (NUMARC) proposed alternative to the access authorization program requirement in the staff preferred "Insider Rules."
The staff anticipates the following benefits from implementation ar.d compliance with the "Insider Rules":
- 1. Improved human trustworthiness to reduce the malevolent insider threat to NPP safety;
- 2. Reduced (if not eliminated) conflict (balancing of competing risks) between NPP operation and NPP protection during both nomal and other than nomal NPP operation; and
- 3. Reduced burden associated with adequately safeguarding (protecting) a NPP.
The benefits along with the rulemaking need/ background are discussed in the staf f's proposal. The nature of the discussion is detemir.istic rather than probabilistic since the malevolent insider threat is not amenable to quantitative risk analysis due to the unpredictability of a malevolent insider's intent, ability, means, opportunity and target system (s)/ equipment which may perfom preventive or mitigative functions.
Improved human reliability (trustworthiness) is the focus of the "Insider Rules." The staff believes that the increased emphasis on human reliability (trustworthiness) rather than access restrictions will result in substantial additional protection against the insider threat to NPP safety. Experience indicates that while access restrictions do not eliminate "insider" malevolent acts, they do conflict with normal and other than normal plant operations to the extent that NPP and personnel safety could be adversely affected. In this regard, overall NPP and personnel safet on human reliability (trustworthiness) yrather couldthan be improved with on access more emphasis restrictions.
The most important benefit expected by the staff from implementation and continuing compliance with the "Insider Rules" is associated with the access authorization rule which requires that NPP licensees establish an access authorization program. The staff believes that such a program will materially assist in assuring that a satisfactory, unifom approach meeting minimum criteria will be applied in detemining an individual's eligibility for unescorted access to NPP protected and vital areas. The rule increases the ability of licensees, within the framework of NRC's regulations, to detect an individual at a NPP whose current behavior, behavioral history or emotional makeup could be a precursor to the comission of acts detrimental to NPP safety and, potentially to public health and safety. The program would permit reciprocity in granting an access authorization to a contractor, manufacturer, or vendor based upon screening conducted by another licensee, and provides a method of accomodating temporary workers during major outages for refueling.
Each element of the proposed program (background investigation, psychological assessment and continual observation) is intended to provide increased l
assurance of trustworthiness. The background investigation elements and their associated benefits are:
i
1 l
l
- 1. True identity - Assures that the individual seeking unescorted access is '
not assuming the identity of another.
- 2. Employment history - Verifies the individual's claimed experience and !
I qualifications and identifies possible past behavioral actions which might be predictive of future actions that could be detrimental to NPP safety.
1
- 3. Educational history - Verifies the individual's training, credentials, and I true identity. j
- 4. Credit history - Establishes financial responsibility and relates to the possibility that the individual may be subject to coercion, influence,. or pressure to act in a manner contrary to NPP safety.
- 5. Criminal history - Determines if the individual:
- a. Has been involved in any malevolent act; 1
- b. Has been convicted of any felony or a series of lesser offenses indicating a pattern of criminal behavior; or
- c. Is a habitual abuser of a controlled substance or alcohol.
Both the psychological tests and clinical interview are for the purpose of .
detecting behavior attributes which indicate a high potential for comitting l acts detrimental to NPP safety or, personality attributes which, when combined i with the expected work environment, could develop into a potential for '
comitting acts detrimental to NPP safety. The continual observation program l is to detect changes in an individual's behavior or emotional condition which l might be precursors to the comission of acts detrimental to NPP safety. The l program requires that individuals exhibiting such behavioral changes be referred to the person responsible for administration of the licensee's access authorization program. This person would determine if further referral of the individual to competent medical authorities and/or suspension or revocation of the individual's access authorization is appropriate. The rule provides a licensee with a previously unavailable opportunity to provide unescorted access to unscreened temporary workers under certain plant conditions, waives the background investigation and psychological assessment requirements for persons employed prior to the effective date of the rule, and provides for licensee acceptance of an access authorization granted under an approved plan by another NPP licensee. It should be noted that nach of the NPP industry currently l utilizes such a three component program in varying degrees. Furthermore, background investigations have long been recognized as a valid screening tool in both civil and government sectors. Psychological assessment and behavioral observation programs have been used extensively as adjuncts to background investigations in screening out individuals showing tendencies toward aberrant i behavior. As an example, psychological assessment tests have long been in use l by the FAA in identification of individuals unsuitable for high stress l positions such as air traffic controllers. The utility of psychological I assessment has withstood scrutiny by the U.S. Civil Service Comission. The ,
increased assurance (against malevolent insider acts) derived from these i
. _ _~_,_
1 5-l programs is considered by the staff to far outweigh the regulatory burden imposed by this action. The need for rulemaking has been confimed by both the General Accounting Office and Congressional Comittee; the NRC has comitted to both parties that progress in this area is forthcoming. In this regard, in 1977, the Comission directed the staff to undertake rulemaking to address this matter, i The cost for NRC/ industry to implement and have continuing compliance with the "Insider Rules" is estimated by the staff to be as follows:
"Insider Rules" Implementation Compliance Total NRC $822.7K $ 0 $822.7K Industry $18M $134M $152M The average site cost (assuming 76 sites) is estimated to be about $2 million.
The staff noted that most of the cost is attributable to implementation and continuing compliance with the access authorization program rule.
The CRGR agreed with the staff's conclusion that the proposed final version of the "Insider Rules" will contribute to resolution of the nalevolent "Insider Threat" to NPP safety in a manner that promises easier, more efficient and safer NPP operation. The Comittee recomended that the following modifications be made to the proposal:
- 1. In the context of the NRC's recently enacted backfit rule, the proposal should include a thorough discussion of how implementation of the "Insider Rules" at a cost of roughly $2 million/ plant ($152 million backfit) will provide substantial increased protection of NPPs against the malevolent insider threat to NPP safety.
- 2. The proposal should include a legal discussion of whether or not there is a need and precedent for an appeal process concerning denial of access to NPP protected and vital areas. The discussion should address past, i current and proposed appeal process practices and requirements in the !
context of both the industry and staff proposed access authorization '
programs. This matter should be highlighted for the Comission, j 1
- 3. The proposal discussion of whether the industry supports the staff )
preferred access authorization program rule or an alternative industry i access authorization program without a rule needs clarification.
Specifically, it was not clear who was speaking for the industry. The staff should attempt to clarify this matter and appropriately modify the discussion. If the matter cannot be resolved, it should be highlighted for the Comission.
- 4. The proposal should both highlight and discuss thoroughly the OMB view
...that the psychological assessment and behavioral observation aspects l
l
I l
l of this proposed system do not meet criteria for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act." (Extracted from OMB letter dated September 27, 1984, Goad to Norry.) The word system refers to the access authorization rule requirements concerning psychological assessment and behavioral observation. The OMB letter enclosed U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) letters which include comments that do not endorse the proposed psychological assessment and behavioral observation aspects of l the "Insider Rules."
The CRGR recommends that the proposed final version of the "Insider Rules" be approved af ter the aforementioned recorrendations have been addressed.
I i
i
A u d 4. A m invko 4irr c m m % "et E .
1 e
(kYt Ac.h wd }o Ew:.(esurt. 2 en & cnea. m..e.r, %z.
i CRGR BRIEFING INSIDERSAFEGUARDSRULks l OCTOBER 23, 1985 5
i e
l t
)
_ _ _ __.________m_ _. _.- __._____ --__ - - - - __ _ _ - - - - __ _ w __. -_ _ _ m - _____ __- - __
t l
4 TE INSIffR RJE O MCESS AJTHORIZATION ( 3 COMP 0fENTS) c PAT-IJOHN SEARCH ISSUE -
o MISCEUANEOUS AMEf0MENTS
(
l
! (VA ACESS, FEY APO LOCK CONTROL, ETC.)
I I
1 1
e
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ ~_ _ __ -_ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _
PUBLIC COMMEf!T o 180 DAY PusLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 142 COMMENTERS O CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMENTS
- MoST PERTAINED To ACCESS AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM -
REVISIONS CLARIFYING IN NATURE
- SEARCH RULE - I!O CHANGE
- MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS - VITAL ISLAND CONCEPT DELETED
~
MAJOR COTIENTS ON ACCESS AUTHORIZATION RULE O PHOTO IDENTIFICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION IRANSFER ( M rsgsirM )
O APPEAL PROCEDURES (" *'M Y "" )
O BACKGROUND INV ESTIGATIONS
- EDUCATIONAL / EMPLOYMENT DATA -- INTERVIEW YH CORRESPONDENCE
- ASSURANCE Y1 OBJECTIVE O GRANDFATHERING - SCREENING UNDER INDUSTRY STANDARD 0 NON-LICENSEE EMPLOYEES: CONTRACTOR / SUPPLIER PROGRAMS AND AUDITS O BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
- INDUSTRY STANDARD
- ONE Y1 IWO TESTS -- CLINICAL INTERVIEWS O TEMPORARY WORKER ACCESS DURING COLD SHUTDOWN O
INTERIM CLEARANCE PENDING COMPLETION OF FULL SCREENING - 6 MONTHS O INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION - IHE NUMARC INITIATIVE i
i
THE NUMARC INITIATIVE e
o GUIDELINES FOR ACCESS AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM, TO BE ENDORSED BY NRC POLICY STATEMENT O THREE COMPONENT SCREENING BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 1
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION O NUMARC SP,0NSORED GUIDELINES o CONSIDERED As ALTERNATE APPROACH TO RULEMAKING l
i i
l 1
MAJOR DIFFERENCES: GUIDELINES VS RULE Mo ra nnt- N RC.
ISSUES. GUIDELINES RULE APPEAL PROCEDURES NO YES TEMPORARY / INTERIM PSYCH ASSESS & FULL SCREENING PENDING CLEARANCES FOR CREDIT CHECK & 1 RECEIPT OF CRIMINAL &
PA/VA ACCESS REFERENCE (180 DAYS) MILITARY HISTORY (180 DAYS)
"GRANDFATHERING" INDIVIDUALS GRANTED '
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN UNESCORTED ACCESS SCREENED UNDER A PUBLISHED AUTHORIZATION ON OR INDUSTRY STANDARD COMMITTED BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE TO IN AN NRC-LICENSED
, OF GUIDELINES SECURITY PLAN.
INSPECTION / ENFORCEMENT NO DATA A'VAILABLE NRC REGIONAL INSPECTION TO ASSESS PROGRAM AND ENFORCEMENT.
EFFECTIVENESS i
PERMANENT EMPLOYEE APPLIES TO ALL GRANTED APPLIES TO ALL GRANTED RECIPROCITY UNESCORTED ACCESS UNESCORTED ACCESS TRANSIENT EMPLOYEE NONE UNDER IEMPORARY YES FOR ALL CLEARED RECIPROCITY CLEARANCE INDIVIDUALS
_ _ _ . = _ _ _ . - _ .
WHY NUMARC GUIDELINES l
o SELF IMPOSED BURDEN - NOT REGULATORY 3 o MoST UTILITIES ALREADY CONDUCT SCREENING UNDER ANSI STANDARDS TO VARYING DEGREES O PRECEDENT (Eba*8 * % )
o OPTION OF RULEMAKING ALWAYS EXISTS
~
WHY A RULE 2 0 BASIS FOR CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF STANDARDIZED PROGRAM o REGULATION BY FEDERAL AGENCY PROVIDES IMPARTIAL PROTECTION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS FOR BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND LICENSEE MANAGEMENT 0 PROVIDES FOR APPEAL PROCEDURES O NRC OVERSIGHT PR9VIDES MECHANISM FOR PROMPT, EFFECTIVE REMEDIAL ACTION AS NECESSARY O CONSISTENCY: ALL OTHER ELEMENTS OF NRC SECURITY PROGRAMS REGULATED BY RULEMAKING 0 $UPPORTED BY 6A0 (JULY 1933 REPORT) 0 RULE CONSISTENT WITH COMMISSSION RESPONSE TO CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES o CAPTURES SENSE OF UNIONS' VIEWS (12/1/83) COMMISSION . MEETING) 0 INSPECTABLE DATA TO JUDGE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM I
C0fftISSION PAPER RECOMMENDATIONS o
Two OPrioNS FOR ACCESS AUTHORIZATION PROGRAM
- NUMARC Paoc-RAM
- RULE, SUPPORTED BY STAFF o r.
PUBLISH FINAL RULES y
- SEARCH REQUIREMENTS ",
S
- MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS i
I' e
l t
i:
{l i
?
s
- I D
4
=
-